messengers to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC) annual session pulled out their ballots and approved a new budget structure that eliminates any option for contributing to CBF.The action came Nov. 12, during discussion of a proposal to scrap the four cooperative giving plans the BSCNC has offered for more than a decade.
The initial proposal, from the Cooperative Program Giving Committee, would have retained an option by which churches could designate 10 percent of their gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).
Matt Williamson (right), pastor of Oak Forest Baptist in Fletcher, offered an amendment to eliminate the CBF option, saying the BSCNC should not partner with an organization that might send new converts to a church that does not teach inerrancy. “I will die on the hill of inerrancy,” he said.Eric Page, of Victory Baptist in Columbus, said keeping the option would imply that the BSCNC tolerates CBF. Like the cartoon character Popeye, he said, the convention should “pull out a can of spinach and put an end to it.”
The proposal also called for funding for theological education at North Carolina Baptist divinity schools, budgeted at 10.9 percent of the current Plans B and C, to become a sharply reduced two percent option. The proposal was approved with that option intact. The BSCNC is currently in the middle of a two-year budget cycle, so the new structure will not take effect until 2010.
On the previous day, messengers approved the first part of a two-year overhaul of the convention’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. It reduced the length of the amended sections by about one-third, reportedly to increase clarity and decrease redundancy. Amendments also removed Woman’s Missionary Union of North Carolina (WMU-NC) from its position on the BSCNC executive committee, relegating it to observer status with an ex-officio seat on the convention’s board of directors, and finalized a change in relationship between the BSCNC and five Baptist colleges, which will now be known as "affiliated institutions." In the new relationship, the schools will give up direct funding from the BSCNC and take full control of appointing their trustees.
Having largely expunged WMU-NC from participation in Baptist life, convention leaders announced a new women’s ministry called “Embrace.” Allan Blume, president of the BSCNC board of directors, made no mention of WMU-NC as he introduced Phyllis Foy (left), who chaired a task force appointed to develop the new program.Foy expressed thanks for the “joy” and “privilege” of leading the task force. Foy said the program will lead women to live in intimacy with Christ, to serve Christ through the local church, and to promote discipleship and missions.
Embrace will seek to educate women to “study and apply God’s word” and to establish family Bible study in their homes, while also equipping women for “kingdom work” both locally and globally, she said. Despite the obvious overlap with WMU-NC’s mission tasks, officials insist that Embrace will not seek to duplicate the work of WMU-NC.
Messengers were also introduced to “North Carolina Baptist Aging Ministries” (NCBAM), a new ministry of Baptist Children’s Homes that was initiated after the departure of Baptist Retirement Homes from the BSCNC fold. Michael Blackwell, president of BCH, said the new ministry will be “nonresidential” and “noncompetitive” with the ministries of the Retirement Homes.
Blackwell said the program will be a practical and personal ministry that will work through churches and associations to offer educational services, quality information, and practical assistance for senior adults.Neither Embrace nor NCBAM required approval from messengers. Messengers did vote, however, to transfer about $870,000 in escrowed funds to the new NCBAM program. The funds were originally budgeted for BRH, but messengers had voted the previous year to hold them in escrow while negotiations with BRH continued.
Rick Speas, pastor of Old Town Baptist in Winston-Salem, was re-elected as BSCNC president. First vice-president Leland Kerr and second vice-president Phil Ortego declined to run for second terms.
Ed Yount, pastor of Woodlawn Baptist in Conover, was elected as first vice-president. Yount was chair of the Giving Plans Study Committee that recommended the return to a single plan. Mark Harris, pastor of First Baptist in Charlotte, was elected as second vice-president. Harris is a member of the Biblical Recorder board of directors, and a former president of the board of trustees for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. There was no opposition for any of the positions.
The meeting opened with an appointment service of the International Mission Board Nov. 10. Thirty-eight missionaries were appointed, including 15 from North Carolina.
Mark Dever, pastor of Capital Hill Baptist Church and one of the SBC’s most outspoken proponents of Calvinism, preached the convention sermon Nov. 11.
In his executive director’s address, Milton Hollifield pledged that the BSCNC will be a “Christ centered, gospel focused ministry that is grounded in the local church,” while declaring a desire “to re-work, streamline, and refocus the energies of this Convention to the needs of the churches.”Attendance at the meeting continued a multi-year trend of sharp decline. About 2,125 messengers registered, compared with 2,547 in 2007, 2,662 in 2006, and 3,200 in 2005. The trend has been downward since 1990, when 6,400 messengers attended.
In a lively exchange during budget discussions Nov. 12, Vic Ramsey of Moyock Baptist made a motion that he said he would vote against. Ramsey moved to amend a motion to set the North Carolina Missions Offering (NCMO) goal at $2.1 million, asking that the portion designated for associational partnerships be deleted. Ramsey said he supports associations and would not want to see them lose funding. But, he said, the associations are not "directly related" to the BSCNC, and their staff hires are not subject to BSCNC review. That was the argument officials used in 2007 to oust WMU-NC from the NCMO, he said. Ramsey said he hoped his motion would fail, and in doing so "repudiate the policy" used to justify removing WMU-NC from the offering. Steve Hardy, chair of the budget committee, said the associations should be treated differently because the BSCNC's governing documents call for it to work through the associations.
The motion was overwhelmingly defeated, after which Ramsey moved that WMU-NC be reinstated in the NCMO, since the messengers had failed to uphold the policy that had been used to eliminate WMU-NC from the offering. That motion received a scattering of support, but also failed by a wide margin.
27 comments:
I tend to be somewhat "live and let live." I have very little problem letting people enjoy their right to be wrong. But I have to admit, the topic of "inerrancy" is one that usually irks me to no end if I let it.
If inerrancy is someone's "hill on which to die," I can't help but wonder what they really have to live for.
I sincerely hope that CBF supporting churches will band together and provide an influx of support for CBF and its ministries. Whether that results in less resources for BSCNC or not is inconsequential. Now is the time we find out just how meaningful the ministries of the CBF are to those affiliated with CBF.
Finally, I now understand what inerrant means. A fictitious character named Popeye whose father is Poopdeck Pappy!
"inerrancy"-the belief that God's word is completely without error...You're right, who would die for that?
Wait, didn't God say He'd react if someone added to or took away from His word (thus showing they believed it was incomplete and/or in error in some way)?
"I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book." Rev 22:18-19
"You must not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, so that you may keep the commands of the Lord your God I am giving you." Deut 4:2
Sounds like something worth dying for to me.
At this point, use of the word "inerrancy" is nothing but a smokescreen, a red herring, used to divert from the main issue. The young men who pushed the amendment on an unsuspecting and unprepared Convention brought into question the integrity of the study committee (composed of conservatives and moderates) as well as the convention's leadership. I simply ask others who feel the need to comment not to get caught up on the 'hill to die on' debate. I have a Savior who already "died on a hill" so that we might all be saved. What these lads did on Nov. 12 was do deep damage to the underpinnings of our Convention, and, hear me on this, North Carolina Baptists do NOT like their faith to be questioned, and that is exactly what happened on the floor of the Convention today. The question is not--IS NOT--a matter of inerrancy, it is a matter of being inclusive and trust, and allowing ALL N. C. Baptist churches to have a place at the table of Christ's goodness. We failed that test today, and Convention causes will suffer greatly as a result.
I thank God that I no longer work for the BSCNC. Every November that thankfulness becomes exceptionally acute.
anon 3.51...you hit the nail on the head, my friend.
chris, I certainly hope that a) if you preach, you don't exegete like you did here because you have wrenched two passages so far out of context and used them as mere prooftexts that I think defining "inerrancy" is the least of your worries, and b) if you don't preach, you don't base your beliefs on preachers who prooftext passages like that. (Besides the fact that your definition of "inerrancy" is a bit incomplete.)
I am very concerned how this will affect churches at the local level who support both BSCNC and CBFNC. Are both BSCNC and CBFNC oblivious to the fact that we have many "conservative" churches who ordain men and women ministers and deacons that support both? What about WMU?
I think that North Carolina Baptists are unaware of what their policies are doing to local churches. Splitting organizations are one thing, splitting local churches are a different animal. We pastors or the local congregations are left to clean up the mess. No wonder the amount of people called to "pastor" are dropping.
We really do need to pray about John 17.
Tim Marsh
I have a really ignorant question: If the CBF churches were going to check a box and send their check to BSCNC for processing and then BSCNC would forward to CBF, why not just bypass the middle man (BSCNC) and send directly to CBF? If that giving doesn't count toward CP giving then what difference does it make anyway? Question for Mr. Cartledge of curiosity, do you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Why or why not? Thanks.
First of all, Tim, I must agree with your plea for John 17.
Second of all, and I hate to say this, but there is a reason why my generation (up and coming clergy/divinity students) is becoming more and more fed up with this denominational pride and side picking. For me, and many that I know, it is getting to the point that while I may call myself a Baptist I am ashamed to be affiliated with the constant quibbling going on between Baptist organizations and leaders. The constant in-fighting, political ousting moves masked by theological "debate," and narrow-mindedness (often on both sides) is frustrating and frankly quite silly.
It's bad enough that there are so many different denominations that each claim to believe things the right way. But, that Baptists in North Carolina are arguing and dividing over the smallest of issues is embarrassing. "You don't describe biblical authority using the same words that I do, so I'm going to boot you out of my club!" Never mind we both assign authority to the Bible and worship the same risen Christ. Never mind Jesus' prayer that all those who believe in him would be one (John 17:20-21), because I think your preacher has the 'wrong' genitalia. Are you really serious? No wonder my generation cares less and less for your conventions and fellowships.
I know this comment isn't going to stop any of the silliness, but we need to know that while groups continue to become ever more exclusive, they are setting a poor poor example for their youth whom will likely turn our backs on the whole thing.
My generation wants to be a part of and support something good and worthwhile, something more concerned with what we're doing than who is doing it with us.
To "preacherman,"
No, I do not "believe in the inerrancy of Scripture." I believe in Christ. The phrasing of your question betrays the main problem: a full-fledged doctrine of inerrancy ascribes a status to the Bible that belongs only to God. This, in my opinion, amounts to idolatry. I reserve worship for God alone.
Tony Cartledge
Mr. Cartledge,
I also worship Christ only. I would never worship the Word of God. So then, you believe the Bible to be "with error?" Just so you know I believe the Bible to be totally "without error." I believe this is the great divide among NC Baptists. If you heard the young man speak against the amendment to remove the "CBF box" from the remittance plans, He plainly stated, "I believe the Bible, in Jesus, etc." There is a HUGE difference in believing the Bible and believing it to be error free and totally reliable as well as trustworthy. I believe James said "even the demons believe and they tremble." If NC Baptists could unite under the banner of Jesus Christ and a totally inerrant, reliable Bible, we could lock arms and move on for the Glory of God. But if we can't agree on something as basic as the Word of God, where else is there to go to unite? Thanks for the discussion
Some of us are labeled as heretics or sub-par Christians because we do not use words like inerrancy. I dispute those kinds of accusations on the grounds most of the accused love the Bible, and we thank God for it. We believe God inspired its writing. We believe God, through the Holy Spirit, illumines the reader. The Bible gives us a wonderful account of God’s continual movement to bring his people into a loving and saving relationship with himself. The ultimate revelation of the word of God come not in book though, but through the Word, Christ Jesus. Salvation comes not through the Bible, but through Christ Jesus.
Nathan,
I don't know if I am too far removed from your generation - 31 years old, but I do think that you hit the nail on the head about theological debate masking the obvious - positioning, power and control.
I know that there is more to it than what we are both saying, that the issues are more complex. However, I attended national CBF and BSCNC this year. What moved me about both of these conferences was the Missions presentations. I thought that is what we are to be about.
Too, being someone who identifies more with "moderates" how Romans 14plays in the picture. Paul called the ones who felt at liberty to participate in certain practices to remember the "weak," those who have scruples about such practices.
I recommend Fisher Humphreys and Philip Wise's book titled Fundamentalism for not only understanding fundamentalist Baptists, but also for ways to reach out to them.
I also recommend Daniel Wallace's understanding of Inductive Inerrancy - if you are in a context where you must use the "I" word. I think that it basically is Wallace's way to confess a more moderate biblical hermeneutic while still serving at a school that forces you to use inerrancy.
Finally, I do agree with Dr. Cartledge about his position on why he will not use the "I" word. No one has commented on the VBS song put out by LifeWay this summer about identifying the Bible with the "word" in John 1:1, except Wayne Stacy at Gardner Webb? Why has there not been more attention to this story? There was an editorial in the Biblical Recorder and an article by Stacy. Though not all inerrantists elevate the Bible to the position of God, ascribing to some bibliolatry, those who do need to rethink their theology, period.
Tim
i never knew that inerrancy had its own hill...
i also love the fact that a red line just appeared underneath it, as spellchecker doesn't recognize it, haha.
"Inerrancy" = "Shibboleth"
(See Judges 12)
The problem is not inerrancy, per se. The problem is that there is no one specific, universally accepted definition of the word "inerrancy." (See here )
So while all you fundamentalists keep adding to, taking away from, and qualifying your definition of the word "inerrancy," I'll stick with "inspired," "authoritative," and "infallible."
I fail to understand why anyone would truly prefer to die on the hill of inerrancy rather than to live where there is freedom.
I suspect that in addition to the doctrine's origin rooted in debate/power struggle, inerrantists have such a blinding fear of God that doesn't allow them to be comfortable with the paradox of freedom in salvation. To an inerrantist, God is sovereign, and thus "God's word" is treated as such. Whether the original autographs were "without error" (whatever that means) or not, that isn't what we have today, and I don't feel comfortable with anyone telling me how I must interpret an ancient text. Even if we had the original texts preserved, God's "truth" as recorded by man is such a subjective matter that is hardly worth arguing over.
Somebody please send that guy some food, water, and shelter down by inerrancy hill. He has chosen an ignorant/blissful way to go out.
So, which version is inerrant?
*The original Old Testament stories handed down through oral tradition? If so, which person's telling of which particular stories?
*The written accounts of Scripture used in Jesus's day?
*The King James Version? If so, does that include the parts the good king and his advisors opted not to incorporate into their canon?
*More modern translations, based upon better understandings of the earlier languages?
Nothing is literally inerrant that has been shaped by human minds and hands.
As a former NC Baptist that now stands in Hershel Hobbs' old pulpit I grieve the direction the state convention has gone. What united us in a previous era was a common belief in Jesus and a shared heart to share the story of Jesus with the state and the world. The quest for doctrinal purity has proven to be a destructive force in Baptist life. Our reality is that now the vast majority of Baptist churches are declining and have few if any professions of faith or baptisms to report. While the new leadership finds ways to exclude those who support WMU and CBF from their ranks, it seems to do little to remember or reclaim NC Baptists' missionary heart.
I am glad that the only death on a hill that I have to claim is the one my Savior claimed on my behalf. I am glad that I have been given the great opportunity to tell others the Good News. I am sorry that others have forgotten that these are our central truths.
Tom Ogburn
I have one degree from a NC-CBF affiliated school (Go Chowan!) and earning my MDiv from another. I'm not worried about the decision by the BSCNC, but it does show the sad truth of today's Baptist life. The BSCNC is mirroring the SBC more and more each year and each year it is losing what makes us Baptists in the first place. There are many churches in NC, and prominent ones at that, that don't want to decide if they are CBF or SBC but want joint identification. The SBC and BSCNC is making that harder each year. As a CBFer, that's great news because I'm sure those churches will decide CBF is the true spirit of Baptist faith. But as a Christian, it's sad to see some driven by ultimatums on which they'd die for as opposed to the grace we all live by.
-Josh Brown, Campbell Div School
Preacherman: If the Bible doesn't claim to be without error, why should we claim it is? Anyone who clings to inerrancy has apparently not read Genesis because there is a problem in the very beginning. Do this and see what I mean: take a paper and pencil and sit down with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Write down the order of events in Genesis 1 and then in a separate column write the order of events in Genesis 2 and look at the difference. Which one of these order of events is correct and which one is incorrect? Maybe then you'll realize why inerrancy is NOT a hill worth dying on because it simply doesn't matter. Biblical truth is not based in science or history; it is truth of the heart, of God acting with humanity as told by humans in the idiom of their time and culture. Whether they got the details right all the time is immaterial to the message.
Joshua,
That's interesting. So if we can't trust Genesis 1 or 2 as reliable then from your argument, logically neither can we trust the Gospels flawed recollection and recording of Jesus' sinless life, substitutionary death and resurrection. You see, call it what you will but if you start be doubting Genesis 1 then you'll have to doubt Matthew 1, John 1, Revelation 1, etc. I'm sorry my brother, but I'm just not willing to do that. Why would God have to claim His Word was without error, He's God, right? I believe His Word says that "my Word is settled in Heaven." If it's already been settled in Heaven, then why should we debate it on earth?
Preacherman: Did I say we can't trust Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Absolutely not; of course they are trustworthy but not in the sense we would like them to be. The Hebrew creation story is artful telling of the idea that YHWH creates - it doesn't matter what the method is. I would suggest that both accounts were included in the canon to let us know the true point of the story: God begins his interaction with humanity from the beginning of time and that seeking of humanity carries forward through the Exodus, the Exile and the return to Zion. Christianity takes that story even further to Christ, then Pentecost and hopefully the fulfillment of the world with the Advent of Christ the king. The Bible is truth but it's the truth about the character of God as told through people's interaction with and contemplation of the divine.
It's not doubting the stories; it's admitting that the Bible is a very human document which makes me embrace the scriptures even more. It just takes faith to believe these people actually did embrace and interact with the divine and their writings honestly reflect that experience. I can empathize with the desire to maintain a theology of an inerrant Bible but in my opinion that does not allow for an open and honest conversation with the texts.
It's sad that some people feel they are fighting a war, ready to "die on the hill of inerrancy" for their cause. Their passionate battleground rhetoric is disheartening for several reasons.
First, against whom are these warriors of infallibility fighting? Evidently, their enemies are their brothers and sisters. It would seem that all the common bonds we share are worth nothing if Christians do not gather under the banner of Biblical inerrancy. Forget that the moderate Baptists are, like their more conservative pursuers, humbled by the grace of God expressed through Christ. Forget that they have had experiences with the Holy that are equally as real and influential as the biblical inerrantists. Forget that they also make sacrifices daily, picking up their cross to follow the example of their Lord. And forget that beyond these "villainous" Baptists there lies a vast landscape of Christian denominations--from Methodists to Presbyterians, Episcopalians to (dare I say?) Catholics--who love their Lord just as much and have offered much to the development of our rich Christian faith and tradition (despite the fact that many of them probably do not maintain an inerrant view of scripture). To me, that sounds like a lot to forget.
A second reason for the saddening effect of the zealous, war-like language heard from microphone three on Wednesday morning is this: many of the targets of the inerrantist's verbal cannonballs have no desire to be at war. Not this war, at least. Indeed, there is a war going on, and it has been raging since the time of our Christ. It is a war against hopelessness, against human heartache and broken lives. It is a war against sickness, poverty, hunger, and nakedness. It is a war against the pride of humanity and apathy toward our holy and loving creator. It is a war worth fighting. Would we not be better equipped to fight it together? Is the ultimate issue in this world whether or not every single word of the Bible is literally true, or is whether or not God, out of a desire to bring us back to him, sent his son Jesus to die on a cross. Whatever else the Bible says, certainly we can agree that God's love through Christ's life, death, and resurrection is an inerrant truth of Scripture.
Therefore, let us rally around this infallible bond of Christ's blood, holding true to our God-given convictions, but also realizing that we all see and know only in part. If we seek uniformity and are willing to die before the rest of the Christian world believes exactly like we do, then we might as well just climb our hill, isolated from the hurting world it overlooks, and await death.
Had I been present in the convention hall I might have gone away angry, hearing this inerrancy talk, but reading about it here, I like how Chad Reed wrote this:
"Somebody please send that guy some food, water, and shelter down by inerrancy hill. He has chosen an ignorant/blissful way to go out."
Send him the bread of the unsettling questions of education; the milk of humility; the traveler's tent of welcome in a strange land.
--NC
Maybe I'm too late to the party for my voice to be heard. But, here's my request of any inerrantist interested:
Please show me the original biblical manuscripts you examined to be certain that they do not contain any errors.
Then please show me the materials against which you examined them to document that they are error free.
When you've done this, I shall gladly join your inerrantist group.
In His grip,
Brother Deaux
Dr Cartledge
You choose to believe in Christ. So do I. But How do we know who He is? That is the real question inerrancy addresses. The answer = either an objective revelation or a subjective personal impression. If you reject the objective revelation of Scripture (It is nearly nonsensical to say that it has error while concurrently stating that it is infallible and a final authority in any real sense. That position in practical application is merely man / “scholar” sitting in judgment over what he/she “feels” is reliable and what is not. i.e. a subjective position. ) then you are left with personal subjectivity to determine Who Christ is and what He is like. Some say “but I know Him in my heart.” Fine, but the Bible says that the heart of man is desperately wicked and is unknowable by humanity. So how could anyone ever comfortably accept the “Jesus they feel in their heart” without an objective source to corroborate their impressions? The answer is, apart from objective revelation they cannot. Thus, the Scriptures provide that objective source. If, however, that source is believed to have error, then its entirety has to be, at best, questionable, and ,at worst, irrelevant. Others reply, “but what about the work of the Holy Spirit? We have His testimony.” Again I concur. But what precisely does He do? According to Scripture His primary roles are to 1. Convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. and 2. Work in through the believer to bring glory to Christ by empowering him/her to love, grow in sanctification, and fulfill the great commission. In essence the two are inseparable because the truth of point one is the means by which point 2 is accomplished. How exactly does He convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment? Scripture makes it clear, it is the law that God uses as a tutor to bring the knowledge of sin and to lead us to the cross. Even Paul said he would not have known sin without the Law. What is the law? In strictest definition it could be considered to be the Decalogue, but it is not really a stretch to see the meaning as an appeal to the Biblical writings in general.
( i.e. Anything the Lawgiver giver says is Law because it is backed by the ultimate Authority, Himself, and is not merely arbitrary regulation or empty declaration, but a reflection of His very person and nature). Again, one is led back to an objective source of revelation. Is our relationship with God purely objective? Of course not. Faith is a function of both. But it’s foundation must lie, not at the feet of human culture and “scholarship,” but rather be derived from a truly trustworthy source. That is the Bible. (Again, if it is said to be in error at any point then in every practical sense the reader is at the mercy of the scholar or subjective impression neither of which I, for one, am willing to bank my eternity on). Additionally, everyone on either side knows that the “Biblolatry” argument is a straw man. No one worships the Bible. To say that it is God’s chosen means by which to describe for us, objectively, the reality and meaning of the Incarnation and our life in relation to God is not to worship it, but merely to trust that God has given us the means by which to be certain that we are worshiping Him as He desires to be worshiped. That, in opposition to worshiping an “idolatrous” version of Him that we have constructed through personal subjective impression and/or human “scholarship.” We all know that this is the heart of it. Inerrancy is not primarily about homosexuality, women’s roles, or even denominational politics. It is a choice about how do I know Who Jesus is? Do I believe in the Jesus I feel? Do I construct Him out of the parts of Scripture that I, or some human authority who espouses a version with which I am comfortable, says can be trusted? Do I worship the Jesus of a religious tradition that suits my culture, upbringing, or personal tastes. Or do I submit to the Christ revealed in the whole counsel of the Word? Is it really hard to believe that if God is indeed able to save and preserve my eternal soul (the greatest miracle of all) then surely He has the power save and preserve a divinely errorless text. (Again, because it bears repeating, to say one believes the text has error yet is a reliable source of knowledge about God, is merely a way to give a wink to the authority of the Text while allowing human subjectivity to remain truly on the throne).
Post a Comment