Was anyone else taken aback by the comments of the Convention's attorney during the debate on the WMU amendment at Wednesday morning's session?I find Ramsey's point about the supposed "direct relationship" requirement particularly pertinent (to make one correction, I believe the number of associations is about 80 rather than 100: some cross county lines).
To begin with, he was given the floor while other messengers were waiting to speak, and when no messenger in debate had asked a legal question which required clarification.
Then, in his remarks, he cited the potential bankruptcies of some Roman Catholic dioceses as a reason to vote against the amendment.
Here are my questions:
1. Isn't it true that those dioceses are in that predicament due to their cover-up of sexual misconduct of priests?
2. Isn't it true that Roman Catholic priests are predominantly male?
3. Would it be fair to say that, if a messenger hearing the attorney's statement drew the conclusion that voting for the budget amendment was also a vote to endanger our children and bankrupt our convention, that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding of his intent?
The BSC leadership advanced its proposal and its opposition to the inclusion of WMU in the NCMO on the basis of the principle that no entity not directly connected to the convention should receive NCMO funds, because there would be no accountability regarding the use of those funds.
I have four questions:
1. Does the Executive Committee and Board of Directors consider the 100 Baptist associations to be "directly connected" to the convention?
2. In what sense are the associations "accountable" to the convention?
3. Will an association have to submit its hiring decisions to the Executive Director/Treasurer for approval before receiving its share of the NCMO?
4. If the answers to the above questions are "no", then it appears to me that the principle advanced by the BSC leadership is violated 100 times by their own proposal. So, what is so wrong about violating that same principle the 101st time?
I look forward to responses from other readers.
I am aware that the associations sign specific partnership agreements with the Convention for each budget cycle, outlining how much money they hope to receive from the Convention and what projects they plan to fund with it. To my knowledge, except for a cooperative sharing of reports, that is the extent of any formal arrangements that would make associations "accountable" to the BSC.
Is there any good reason that WMU-NC could not also sign an agreement regarding specific funds to be received and how the organization plans to use them?
Another question comes to mind: the president of the state's Baptist Associational Missions Conference has a seat on the BSCNC's executive committee, as does the president of WMU-NC and the president of North Carolina Baptist Men. It's all spelled out in the BSC-NC bylaws (which can be downloaded here). Members of the Baptist Associational Missions Conference are employees of the individual associations they serve, not of the convention.
Does inclusion as a partnering organization in the BSCNC bylaws not constitute a "direct connection"? Obviously, employment by the Convention is not required in the case of the associations: why should it be different for WMU-NC?
Vic has raised an excellent question.
What think ye?
13 comments:
Having been at the same convention with you Vic and knowing you for many years and where you stand, I do not find your comments alarming. What I do want to remind you of is this simple fact, the associations and others who receive NCMO money have not asked to leave, they have not resigned, they have not wanted to disassociate with the BSCNC, but I remind you they still want their fleet cars, and they still want their retirement, and they still wnat their insurance paid, and they still want an offering taken, and they still want to be in the budget. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to the WMU. I have a new slogan for the letters W M U...it means..We Messed UP!
Dr. Cartledge,
While I am not one that usually takes stock in anonymous comments--if you are not willing to sign your name then I suspect your comments are not completely truthful, I must say that there are some points to ponder.
NCMO is designed to further ministry, which I understand the associations do perform. As to Brother Ramsey's comments it does seem that some by-law changes are in order. As to our anonymous' comments he/she does present a point. The Associations are not asking for the state convention to place them on payroll and receive the fleet car benefits along with insurance benefits.
Blessings,
Tim
A point of clarification, since there appears to be some misunderstanding:
WMU-NC staffers understand that they're giving up BSC-paid benefits and fleet cars by leaving the building and setting up a totally separate payroll system. Those had been paid from the general BSC budget, not the NCMO.
NCMO funds were used (as they have been and continue to be for NC Baptist Men) to provide funds for salaries and programs, not for benefits or fleet cars.
Another point of clarification.
Associations enter into the kind of cooperative agreements Tony described when they request funds for specific projects. The money comes from whatever funds the BSC chooses to use.
But the NCMO distribution (10% of gifts given by the churches within a particular association, the last line of the NCMO distribution plan) comes to associations with no strings attached, and no requirement to report how the money has been spent.
It's an agreement between autonomous organizations: the associations help promote the offering, and, for their help, receive a portion of the proceeds.
I understand the the BSC leadership may not want to treat WMU-NC the same way it treats associations. What I'm getting at is that there is no overriding legal principle which prevents them from doing so if they desired.
Excluding WMU-NC from the NCMO was a choice, not a legal necessity.
Sorry about the factual error with regard to the number of associations.
Blessings to all.
In answer to Ramsey's first question, I too was taken aback by the comments of the BSCNC attorney during the discussion of Roy Smith's proposed amendment designed to add the WMU-NC back to the NCMO allocations. I assume he was responding to earlier discussion from WMU-NC supporters who spoke of the need of the WMU to hire their own staff. However, he didn't specifically state this as the reason for his comments. As they stood, his words had nothing to do with the proposed amendment and left the impression that passage of Smith's proposal could lead to scandal and bankruptcy similar to recent developments in the Roman Catholic Church.
Ramsey is also correct that the stated rationale from BSCNC leadership for removing the WMU-NC from the NCMO allocations does not hold water when one remembers that Baptist associations in NC are funded through the NCMO. It was said that the NCMO allocations only went to entities "directly connected" to the BSCNC. However, associations are autonomous bodies and the state convention does not hire and fire their staff. So the repeated rationale for yanking the WMU-NC from NCMO allocations is simply not true.
Despite what "anonymous" says, it was not WMU that "messed up" in connection with Ramsey's concerns. Rather it was BSCNC leadership that repeatedly made misleading statements from the stage to messengers during the discussion of Roy Smith's proposed amendment.
Regarding the comments made by the attorney during the convention, I have to admit didn't make a lot of sense in the context. To be honest, if I had not been in the listening session the night before and knew the background about the hiring and firing policies, I wouldn't have known what he was talking about. And I really think we are discussing two different issues. The removing of the WMU-NC from the NCMO was not (I believe) a legal necessity. But I do believe it was the right move since they decided they no longer wanted the close accountability with the BSC that had been there historically. In my opinion, all 3 major issues really aren't that much different when you boil them all down. The BRH, The Baptist Colleges, and the WMU just don't want the close connection to the BSCNC. The first two don't even want the money... they just want out. The WMU-NC want both... they want out and to be independent, but they still want to be supported financially. In my opinion, the WMU-NC executive board have really made a bad move, and I don't believe this decision represents the thoughts and feelings of the thousands of dedicated women across the convention.
According to one of the convention leaders, the articles of incorporation of the NC Baptist convention specifically states that the work of the convention will be done WITH THE ASSOCIATIONS. That's a pretty direct connection in my book! I don't think it says anything like that about WMU.
Travis makes a couple of interesting points, and I really appreciate the tone and spirit of his comments.
I do think there are at least two differences between the WMU situation and that of the colleges and BRH.
First, the colleges and BRH receive a tiny fraction of their budgets from CP gifts (not NCMO) and uses it to help individuals. WMU receives the bulk of its budget from the NCMO, and uses it to work with churches. The latter is much more closely related to the core mission of the convention than the former.
Second, more importantly, the colleges and BRH traded financial support for a degree of independence which they had not previously possessed.
WMU, on the other hand, thought it was defending an independence it had always possessed. It had never submitted its staff selections for review on the merits, and understandably objected to doing so in the future.
I do think the whole matter happened too fast, and I have a feeling that a lot of folks are not happy with either leadership group.
And I foresee that this issue will force some choices upon local churches which previously have been insulated from denominational politics.
I am curious about one thing, though. Does anyone know what kind of assistance the convention is planning to offer to WMU in promoting its new offering? I'm thinking about things like mailing lists, graphic arts, video production, and the like.
If the BSC is planning to work with WMU in the promotion of its new offering, then the motion to sanction the offering is meaningful and genuine, and a partnership between the WMU and the BSC may still be possible.
But, if not, then the motion to "allow" WMU to take up its own offering is just political cover, and just a bit disingenuous.
I'll also add that BRH not even deigning to send a representative to speak to the convention was reprehensible.
Thoughts?
Vic,
You make a good point in distinguishing the differences, and I agree there is a difference. However, I still don't understand the position of the WMU.
The WMU whether they believed they were completely independent or not, the WMU staff have always been considered BSCNC employees; the IRS can verify this. Therefore, they have to come under the same personnel policies as all the others. As the attorneys mentioned at the convention, for the BSCNC to continue to be responsible for their staff, but yet allow them to work under a different set of personnel policies, would open up the convention to the possibility of a litigation nightmare. (which the attorney was trying to say on the convention floor.) So, my question is... when it's never happened before (the BSC failing to sign off on someone the WMU wanted to hire), then why would you make such a huge and costly decision on a future hypothetical "What if?"
I still think it was a bad move by the WMU and I wish they would change their minds & come back.
Travis,
You make a good point. It's true that WMU employees have been BSC employees, if not forever, at least for the last several decades. Their selection, however, has evidently been a matter determined by the WMU leadership alone. (Though I've not been in the room, so I don't really know.)
And it's true that having employees who are not subject to convention personnel policies is untenable. But the WMU settled that dilemma by having their employees resign from BSC employment. Why does that act call for exclusion from the NCMO? It certainly doesn't work that way for the associations.
The BSC action regarding employment and personnel policies, and even the use of the space and equipment in the Baptist Building has a certain logic to it.
But the motion to exclude WMU from the NCMO just feels punitive to me. (I hope I'm wrong, but there it is.)
As to why the WMU board felt compelled to act as they did, two answers come to mind:
First, to wait until a candidate had been rejected would have added a personal element to the argument. In addition to the argument on principle, each side would be defending its stand on the candidate's qualifications and fitness. That could have been a much uglier debate. I can appreciate how the WMU board might want to have the debate on principle alone.
Second, the question can be turned around: if the Executive Director has not rejected a candidate in the past, and has no plans to second-guess WMU hires in the future, why does the Executive Committee consider the issue so important?
It's almost a "tunnel of mirrors", each question can be turned on its head and asked, with equal force, of the other side.
I'm guessing that underneath it all is the question of trust. My guess is that the WMU is not as comfortable with the current BSC leadership as it was with those who served in years gone by.
And, I'm guessing that the current BSC leadership has a somewhat different vision for women's missions ministries than that which WMU espouses.
I, too, wish the convention and the WMU could reach some sort of rapproachment. There's just too much to do in Jesus' name to be spinning wheels like this.
It is a very confusing issue, and with all the politically correct double talk, it seems like no one really says what they mean... but rather it seems like everyone is trying to be kind on the surface without really uncovering the real issue. Sometimes, I wish we would stop being so politically correct and just say like it really is so everyone can understand what's the heart of the issue. But I don't see that happening.
Travis . . .
Sorry to be so long in replying to your last post, but I made myself take some time off at Thanksgiving.
My guess (and it's only a guess, as I've not talked to the principals) is that WMU, nationally and in North Carolina, is not thrilled with the trend to restrict the role of women in leadership and ministry, along the lines of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.
Conversely, I'm guessing that some in convention leadership are uncomfortable with a female-led organization that demonstrates by example the vitality and effectiveness of female leadership.
Not sure I know how to bridge that gap.
Well, Vic...
If you're right, I would have to say that, that would make a lot more sense than anything else I've heard.
And just from me personally, as far as bridging the gap, I don't know how you argue with the Bible. I mean you either believe it or not. I don't have a problem with women in leadership, but the Scriptures are clear that role of elder or pastor in a church is restricted to men.
Post a Comment