Trouble in North Carolina

It appears that this years annual meeting in North Carolina will likely be a contentious affair. A headline on the web-page for Baptist Press highlights the proposal by Ted Stone to “strengthen the cooperative program”. I interpret this phrase to be a euphamism for the successful extirpation of all efforts to provide an alternate giving option for moderates in the state convention. Currently the state convention has brokered a modest proposal for keeping the convention unified. They currently offer a number of ways to support cooperative giving. churches are able to select from four plans. For those of you not familiar with Baptist polity, let me give a brief overview of how we give our money. For churches like mine that are Southern Baptist or “historically” Southern Baptist one of the hallmarks is the practice of giving money to “cooperative” mission efforts. Local churches give a portion of their tithes and offerings (a portion completely decided on by the local church) to entities consisting of churches that have joined together to further missions. Typically there are three such connections for each local church. The first is the local association. Our association consists of forty churches from three counties. The second partner for each church is the state convention. We give our money to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC). The state conventions typically provide youth camps, state wide conferences, disaster relief, and other resources. A church will also support national and international ministries by giving to a third entity. Thirty years ago everyone would give to the Southern Baptist Convention; however, for the last twenty-five years the national convention has been in turmoil. Financial support of certain national entities became a battle ground for the conflicted parties. Until recently most of the controversy has remained at the national level. The BSCNC attempted to mend the divide between the fundamentalists and moderates in the state by allowing churches to choose where they sent their money nationally. Mr. Stone wants to end this practice in North Carolina. In a self-described effort to “strengthen” the cooperative program, he would like to see all churches that choose to give to the State Convention to forward the same percentage to the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only does this eliminate a church’s perrogative with regard to the percentage they want forwarded to national and international work, it also completely eliminates the option to support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in place of the Southern Baptist Convention. One could still give a percentage to the CBF, but it would have to be direct, and not a part of the state giving plan. Even if the motion does not pass, a vocal group does not seem likely to ever be content with any partnerships that continues to allow support for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Of course, the distinguised senator from Wisconsin was for a time feeling invincible. Those who chare the CBF with being a liberal group are wrong. Some of these detractors are simply opportunists seeking to bolster their standing by tearing down others. But I think many detractors are simply motivated by a genuine sense of concern to battle against heresy. Unfortunately while acting with pure motives, they are nonetheless misguided. False teaching is certainly a problem, but it is a problem no less among moderates than it is among conservatives. Allowing the presence and view points of moderates does not threaten the work of the convention. Truth will win the day. But it may come at the cost of a weakened cooperative network. One thought brings me great comfort and hope....My power is made perfect in weakness.