California Southern Baptist, Vol. 14 No. 44 - November 24, 1955

              - -:=ch Calif
.Vs
THE CALIFORNIA
;%
i/ISr(
"PREACH THE WORD-CONTEND FOR THE FAITH'
VOLUME  14
FRESNO,  CALIFORNIA,  NOVEMBER  24,   1955
NUMBER 44
CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE
By DUKE K. McCALL
President, Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary
I have been deeply concerned about the North Carolina Supreme
Court decision and the apparent- precedent set in the North Rocky
Mount (N.C.) Baptist Church case. As editor-in-chief of the Review
and Expositor, quarterly theological publication of the faculty of the
seminary, I participated in the decision to attempt to publish the
varying points of view of this case.
My reasons for special concern in this case were as follows:
First, the G.A.R.B. preacher who wormed his way into the pastorate of the church with the careless connivance of those who affirmed
that he was a true Southern Baptist issued many false accusations
and charges against the seminary as well as other Baptist agencies.
These misrepresentations were specifically designed to pry the
church loose from its affiliation with the North Carolina and Southern Baptist conventions. His wild charges, which continue to be
echoed by equally vicious enemies of Southern Baptist life included,
according to the Associated Press, the ridiculous assertion that a
professor of the seminary believed that Jesus was not conceived of
the Holy Spirit but was the son of a German soldier garrisoned
near Nazareth.
I frankly wondered whether truth and justice would overtake such
a man before he stood at the bar of divine judgment.
Second, I wondered on what basis a secular court could intervene
in the life of a Baptist church which at a regular business meeting
voted 241 in favor, 141 against (200 abstaining), a resolution withdrawing from the Southern Baptist Convention and the North Carolina State Baptist Convention.
Assuming that the meeting was in technical order, I rather hoped
that its validity would be nullified by the fact that this meeting had
been preceded by trickery and misrepresentation. In other words,
I hoped that, despite the technical regularity of Act No. 2, it would
be invalid because it was the direct result of Act No. 1, the calling
of a pastor who, in order to secure the pastorate of the church, resorted to untruths about his beliefs and practices. The court decision
indicates that the court took note of fact No. 1, but there is no evidence that the decision was directly related thereto.
In the third place, despite my vigorous opposition to the pastor
and the majority action, I was concerned lest the legal precedent
be established that a state convention or the Southern Baptist Convention had some vested interest in one of its independent churches.
The fact that denominational leaders testified at the trial bothered
me until I learned that they were witnesses called to testify as to
Baptist usages, customs, doctrine, practices, and organization of missionary Baptist churches and not as representatives of the state or
Southern Baptist Convention. I do not think that I am in agreement with all the testimony given but I have not had access to a
full transcript of the trial. In addition, allowance must be made for
the difficulty of phrasing a technical theological answer to the hammering questions of a hostile lawyer.
The court decision carefully avoids implying that the state or
Southern Baptist Convention have any control over the local church.
In fact, the specific statement is made: "The North Rocky Mount Missionary Baptist Church is congregational in its church polity, is a
self-governing unit, and a majority of its membership, nothing else
appearing, is entitled to control its church property." Later this
statement is modified by a quote which says in part, "... is entitled
to/control its church property only so long as the majority remains
true to the fundamental faith, usages, customs, and practices of this
particular church as accepted by both factions before the dispute
arose."
The Supreme Court stated the question before it as follows:
"Have the defendents (the majority) and those united with them
as against a faithful minority diverted the property of the North
Rocky Mount Missionary Baptist Church to the support of usages,
customs, doctrines, and practices radically and fundamentally opposed to the characteristic usages, customs, doctrines, and practices
recognized and accepted by both factions of the congregation of this
particular church before the dissension between them arose?"
It was this question which the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.
It was to this point that various Southern Baptist leaders testified.
The court cited a number of cases as precedent for holding that the
minority is the true church entitled to ownership of the property if
it is the majority which has attempted to alter the fundamental faith,
usages, customs, and practices of the church.
That the majority had so done was partially evidenced by their
ceasing to participate in the general programs and activities of the
district association, state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, the majority had switched to the use of the Sunday
school literature characterized by doctrinal positions not previously
held by the church. Further, the board of deacons had given the
pastor exclusive control of the pulpit, contrary to the custom of the
church before the dissension began. They also discharged several
of the teachers and officers because they opposed the resolution;
whereas, before it had not been customary to purge the minority in
a vote.
On the contrary, the court found that the minority had continued
the beliefs and practices of the church as held by all prior to the
dissension. Thus, the minority was held to be the true church which
owned the property.
I am still not satisfied that a civil court has jurisdiction to hear
and determine which is the true congregation in a church dissension
even though property rights are involved. The North Rocky Mount
case, however, established no precedents at this point but followed
many precedents already established. ,
Perhaps the best conclusion to be reached is that it behooves Baptist churches to keep out of the courts by admitting to their membership only those redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ who firmly
hold to the faith of the church. Further, it would be wise to check
carefully on any prospective pastor who is not well known as to
whether he is one of the sheep or a wolf in sheep's clothing. Still
further, it would be wise to investigate the accuracy of charges made
even by the pastor against Baptist institutions and agencies.
Finally, we all need to repent of our sins, including anger against
our fellow Christians, for we read, "We know that we have passed
from death unto life because we love the brethren."