Friday, June 13, 2003

Plan C report needs to be rejected

By Tim Rogers

As the person who made the motion to form the Plan C Study Committee, here are some reasons, I believe, the committee's report is not accurate.

I contacted the committee chairman by e-mail and asked to attend the meeting in order to clearly present the concerns that led to the motion. The chairman said he felt the free flow of conversation and ideas would be impeded by my presence, but assured me that he would keep me informed. He later e-mailed to say that once the meeting began, the committee agreed to keep the outcome secret until presented to the Executive Committee and General Board. Therefore, I feel the committee avoided the content of the motion.

The motion asked if Plan C is "consistent" with the constitution of the Baptist State Convention (BSC). I did not use the term "violation" in the motion because I personally did not know if it violated the constitution, but I believed then, as now, that it is inconsistent with the constitution's clearly defined objectives.

The committee's avoidance of the complete constitution and bylaws is another issue. The committee cited only Article III of the constitution in its report. It apparently avoided Article IV, which states that messengers are elected by churches that support the Cooperative Program. "Cooperative Program" (CP) is a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) term used to define monies given to the SBC through various state conventions. This is confirmed by a 1928 agreement reached after Oklahoma tried to withhold funds from Southern Seminary. CP is an SBC program. To send monies to any other entity and call it CP giving screams inconsistency. The BSC Budget Committee changed the term from "Cooperative Program Giving" to "Cooperative Missions Giving" in recent years, apparently due to this trademark legal term.

The chairman told the BSC Executive Committee that "not every thing deals with every thing." It appears the committee avoided Article IV of the bylaws, which states in paragraph 6 that the General Board shall be responsible for the "budget allocation of Cooperative Program undesignated gifts for each objective of this convention, and Cooperative Program funds to be allocated to Southern Baptist Convention causes". Our constitution and bylaws state specifically that CP funds received through the BSC are to be channeled either to North Carolina causes or SBC causes. The objectives of the BSC are documented in Article II.

The basis for making this motion has to do with the consistency of churches giving to Plan C and seating messengers. How can churches that do not give to the CP seat messengers based on their financial giving?

Any church giving to Plan C is not giving to the CP because the General Board determines the portions only between BSC and the SBC for undesignated CP monies received from churches (bylaws Article IV, Paragraph 6).

There are some questions, I believe, that need to be answered for North Carolina Baptists. As a convention, do North Carolina Baptists support the CBF? When the term "legally" was used in the Committee's report, is that a legal opinion rendered by the lawyers serving on the Committee? If it is not a legal opinion, then why did that word enter into the report?

Space does not permit the numerous other reasons this report needs to be rejected. Until these avoided areas can be explained and these questions answered, I believe this report needs to be rejected.

(EDITOR'S NOTE - Rogers is pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Seagrove. He made the original motion leading to the establishment of the Plan C Study Committee.)

Low-Graphics & Printer Friendly Version of this story   Write a Tar Heel Voices letter

biblical@biblicalrecorder.org

Your name: Your Email: Friend's Name: Friend's Email: