Complaint filed against BSC

By Tony W. Cartledge

BR Editor

RALEIGH - A Rocky Mount pastor has filed a formal complaint against the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSC). In a filing dated Feb. 9, Gene Scarborough, pastor of North Rocky Mount Baptist Church, asked the consumer protection department of the state Attorney General's office to render an opinion as to whether the BSC acted in violation of its constitution by calling on a subsidiary financial policy to exclude McGill Baptist Church in Concord from its membership.

BSC Executive director Jim Royston ordered the church removed from convention rolls last spring after the Cabarrus Association formally withdrew fellowship from the church, which came under fire for baptizing two men who appeared to be gay.

Pastor Steve Ayers said at the time that he does not customarily ask new believers to specify their gender orientation before baptizing them, and insisted that the decision was a local church issue.

The matter became public when a local pastor learned of it and asked the association to intervene.

Royston said he sought legal counsel before making the decision to suspend BSC relations with the McGill church by refusing to accept further financial contributions.

The decision was based on a policy adopted by the BSC's General Board in April 1992. That policy was designed to allow the exclusion of the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, which had performed a union ceremony for a homosexual couple, and Binkley Memorial Baptist Church in Chapel Hill, which had licensed a gay man to the ministry.

The actions had sparked a firestorm of conflict, with some calling for the churches to be dismissed, and others defending the churches' autonomy.

After a lengthy debate over the best way to deal with the matter, the General Board voted to adopt a policy refusing to accept financial contributions "from any church which knowingly takes, or has taken, any official action which manifests public approval, promotion or blessing of homosexuality. Any such church shall not therefore qualify as a "cooperating church" as defined in Article IV, A, 3 of the Constitution of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina."

Discussion of the motion, as recorded in minutes from the meeting, indicate that the General Board was searching for a way to settle the matter without changing the BSC constitution or waiting for the annual meeting in November.

The motion to adopt the policy, which was approved by a vote of 59 to 28 with one abstention, was based on the premise that both the convention and its cooperating churches are autonomous, and either can choose whether to have fellowship with the other without violating the other's autonomy.

The motion concluded: "This in no way negates the importance of local church autonomy or the biblical mandate for all Christians to minister to the needs of all people in keeping with the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Scarborough insists that the policy not only violates local church autonomy, but stands in conflict with Article IV of the BSC's constitution, which says "While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, this Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, association, or Convention." He argues that the choice of participating in convention life lies with the churches alone.

Scarborough made a motion during the 2003 annual meeting, asking the convention to "reexamine its position on churches regarding acceptance of Cooperative Program gifts." Messengers quickly voted the motion down, but Scarborough says they misunderstood his motives and turned it into a referendum on whether to approve homosexuality, which was not his intent. Scarborough said then that he personally disapproves of homosexuality.

Scarborough raised the issue again on January 24, as Royston answered questions about Baptist polity during a meeting hosted by moderate leaders. Royston promised that he would ask the convention's Constitution and Bylaws committee to review the matter.

Scarborough said the purpose of his formal complaint is to ask the Attorney General's office to render an opinion that would be helpful to that committee, and hold its members to "a higher level of accountability." The current system leaves the convention vulnerable to lawsuits, he said.

The BSC's use of the financial policy to exclude McGill Baptist Church deprived the church "of its autonomy and representation at the annual meeting," Scarborough wrote in his complaint.

Scarborough's complaint also alleges that the General Board's establishment of the policy goes beyond the bounds of the constitution and thus exceeds its authority.

As supporting documents, Scarborough attached copies of the BSC constitution, excerpts from the minutes of the April 19-20, 1992 General Board meeting, copies of the BSC's documents of incorporation filed with the state, and an essay explaining his reasons for the complaint.

Scarborough's essay includes excerpts from testimony in a 1953 lawsuit filed after the pastor of North Rocky Mount Baptist Church led a small majority to vote to withdraw from its historic relationships and become independent. The minority sued to retain ownership of the church property and remain in fellowship with the local association, the BSC, and the Southern Baptist Convention.

When called to testify regarding his understanding of Baptist autonomy and polity, Douglas Branch, then pastor of Rocky Mount First Baptist Church and later executive director of the BSC, said he knew of instances in which churches had voted to leave the convention, but none in which the convention had dismissed a church. "I would say that no association or convention can exercise any authority over a local church except in those areas in which the churches in cooperation have delegated it to the larger group," he said. "This makes for some embarrassing moments," he said, "but that is the price for autonomy."

The court ruled in favor of the group that wanted to retain the church's historic ties.

Scarborough argues that the court's decision provides legal precedent for the view that churches alone have the right to determine whether they will participate in and cooperate with the larger body.

Royston said the BSC has not been contacted by the Attorney General's office with regard to the complaint.

"I am disappointed that Rev. Scarborough filed this complaint," Royston told the Recorder. "I believe we have acted in accordance with our constitution and policies as directed by the General Board earlier (1992) and reaffirmed by the General Board September 2003."

Royston noted that the Executive Committee heard from leaders of the McGill congregation at its November meeting, and reaffirmed the action to remove the church.

"I do not understand the need to continue discussion of the issue," Royston said, "and believe the Attorney General will not find any reason to question the actions or governance of the BSC. I have a high regard for Rev. Scarborough and his concern, but believe it is time to move on."