Baptists must use specifics in talking autonomy

On Nov. 14 at the N.C. Baptist State Convention, I spoke in opposition to Paul Pridgen's amendment to the resolution dealing with Article 3 of the Convention's constitution and challenged him to cite person, place and date regarding violations of the autonomy of our state's Convention, associations or local churches. The chair did not recognize him nor did I witness any effort on his part to approach a microphone to be recognized. His article is the only form of a response that I have received. My opposition to the amendment was targeted toward the motive of the amendment and, as suspected, this article has spoken volumes toward that end. It came as no surprise to me that such conspiratorial rhetoric as "emerging hierarchical and connectional views" and "subvert the freedom of individual priests" was utilized to hype the disgruntled moderate mantra of innuendo of a "conservative takeover."

I believe the fallacy being committed in this article is that of a disgruntled moderate avoiding specifics and choosing to hide behind a bunch of "isms" and innuendo. It concerns me when any Baptist seems to forget that the democratic process serves as the safeguard of autonomy. My challenge to Rev. Pridgen is now extended to all Baptists of this state. Get specific or else this question will be left standing - "Where's the beef?" Baptists of this state are best served when presented with the facts and not innuendo coupled with a primer on church polity.

Paul Berry
Columbia, N.C.

Low-Graphics & Printer Friendly Version of this story

Write a Tar Heel Voices letter

The Biblical Recorder

biblical@biblicalrecorder.org

Copyright (c) Biblical Recorder Inc.