Controversy in the SBC State Conventions

...not exactly in context are we, even according to H. K. Neely himself? My impression is that most of the administrative support, as well as keynote speakers for seminars/conferences, etc. are coming from the BGCTexas.

As pastor of an SBC church, I have gotten solicitation from the BGCM, even though they state in their charter that they are not trying to draw churches from MBC fellowship. The last one I got was for a conference booked at Windemere (one of the breakaway entities) where all of the scheduled keynote speakers are from out-of-state.

I'm in an association currently of thirteen churches, (we're actually about to add one to our fellowship) and none of them have jumped from the MBC. Maybe it's just not affecting my area. How about you, Hardsheller? How are things up your way?

To be sure, if churches feel the need to break ties with the SBC, then so be it. It's just not happening though at the rate you're suggesting.

 

...not exactly in context are we, even according to H. K. Neely himself? My impression is that most of the administrative support, as well as keynote speakers for seminars/conferences, etc. are coming from the BGCTexas.

As pastor of an SBC church, I have gotten solicitation from the BGCM, even though they state in their charter that they are not trying to draw churches from MBC fellowship. The last one I got was for a conference booked at Windemere (one of the breakaway entities) where all of the scheduled keynote speakers are from out-of-state.

I'm in an association currently of thirteen churches, (we're actually about to add one to our fellowship) and none of them have jumped from the MBC. Maybe it's just not affecting my area. How about you, Hardsheller? How are things up your way?

To be sure, if churches feel the need to break ties with the SBC, then so be it. It's just not happening though at the rate you're suggesting. </font>[/QUOTE]We have a few pastors who are swayed by the arguments against the SBC and MBC. But a few disgruntled pastors does not a new convention make.

Even those few who would seek fellowship within the BGCM cannot convince their churches to break ties completely with the MBC.

The more aggressive the BGCM becomes in their recruiting efforts directed toward the local churches the more resistance I'm seeing at the grassroots level at least in my area.

 

Both "Hardsheller" and "USN2Pulpit" make the same error in their posts. They seem to think that the Baptist General Convention of Missouri and churches that give through it are not SBC. However, the vast majority of these churches give to the SBC, just not to the MBC. The BGCM is not affiliated with CBF.
And yes, the main speakers at the upcoming Hispanic Evangelism Clinic are from Texas (after all they are the experts in this area), but the BGCM staff (not speakers) in the office has doubled this year. And as more information gets out, more churches and individuals give through the BGCM.

 

The "truth" is that many of the "Churches" that are sending money to the BGCM are sending it because individual members of those churches have designated their offerings to go to the BGCM because they are upset with the direction of the MBC not because their church has voted to singly align with the BGCM.

I repeat my question. How many churches have voted to singly align with the BGCM in the State of Missouri? Surely the number is available to a staff member of the BGCM.

 

I'm sure this is not a topic that will be resolved upon at this time. Kaylor, not everything is as it seems. I am more aware of the facts than you suppose me to be. My perception is that even though the general philosophy of BGCM is "inclusive" of all types of Baptist churches, the SBC (i.e. BF&M 2000, and "Pathway") is not welcome. It's pretty clear where philosophies line up, regardless of the rhetoric. The BGCM seems to be closely allied to the MBC break-away entities. Appearance may not be everything, but it counts for something.

I would like to note that this is a sad situation, and I would dearly love to see reconciliation. But it would be a mistake to suppose that all the pride, self-righteousness, and arrogance appears only on one side of the issue. I'm sure there's enough of that to go around. I know I've seen enough "showboats" and "grand-standing" at conventions!

As for me in my little church in Crawford county, I'll let all the "Doctors" fight this one out. They can argue amongst themselves all they want. My vote is still worth as much as theirs in the MBC, and I already know where I stand! See you all in St Louis!

Hardsheller, are you going?

 

Oh yes. As much as I dislike St. Louis, I will go and endure.

 

"Hardsheller," you are correct in noting that sometimes a group will claim any church that has at least one person sending money to them as a member. CBF has used this strategy, and I agree with you that it is deceptive, which is why the Baptist General Convention of Missouri does not practice this. The BGCM counts actual church donations separately from individual ones. I do not know the actual number but there are a few dozen churches that, as a church, give money through the BGCM. Additionally, there are a few hundred individuals that cooperate with the BGCM. And these numbers are growing each month!

 

"USN2Pulpit," you assert that the Baptist General Convention of Missouri is not really "inclusive." But consider the following. It is the MBC that has defunded the institutions that it disagrees with, while the BGCM continues to support all nine and does not seek to control any of them. It is the MBC that has kicked out churches, while the BGCM continues to accept them. It is the MBC that attempts to tell churches where they can or cannot send their money and what they must believe, while the BGCM actually cherishes the historic Baptist principle of the autonomy of the local church. Quite clearly when stacked up next to the MBC, the BGCM is inclusive, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

What would be the BGCM's position on the following case?

CONCORD, N.C. (BP)--The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina has severed ties with McGill Baptist Church in Concord, N.C., after the congregation accepted two homosexual men as members and baptized them.

"Basically we're not allowed to receive funds from any church that takes any public actions that seem to approve or endorse or bless homosexuality," James Royston, executive director and treasurer of the state convention, told Baptist Press.

The action follows a similar one taken by the Carbarrus Baptist Association, which voted 250-11 in April to cut ties between itself and the church.

 

Kaylor, as far as the question you pose, if the five break-away entities had not surreptitiously (and quite intentionally underhandedly) made their changes...which were at best "bad form" and at worst illegal, the MBC wouldn't have had trouble with them. The way it was done reminds me of the way some power-brokers in individual churches act when they don't get their way, calling their allies on the phone and having little discussions without inviting the pastor - very childish. (Incidentally, the BGCM may want to consider these new alliances - people that have history of things like this tend to repeat their actions from time to time. Of course with the inclusive nature of BGCM, there would be little incentive to rebel, seeing the absence of absolutes.)

As I've said before, I'd love to see reconciliation. I just don't hold out hope that it will happen. As for the BGCM, may God have the glory in all they do.

But like I said before, the "high road" position you're speaking from is just as "replete with stinkiosity" as the established convention. There are no "innocent parties" in this statewide debate, and we'd do well to remember it. As for this thread, I believe a debate where neither side will be moved is a waste of time, so I'm going to bow out of this one.

As for the state, I know that in time, we'll be back at it. leaving this mess in the past. And honestly, I'm spending to much of my time thinking about evangelism, ministry, prayer, discipleship, worship, etc., to worry about it. Like I said before, I already know what I think.

[ October 06, 2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: USN2Pulpit ]

 

"USN2Pulpit," God bless you and your ministry. You are right that hopefully we will move beyond this, and perhaps someday even work together to win the state for Jesus. After all, since the Baptist General Convention of Missouri is inclusive, it would be open to that.
"Hardsheller," I cannot give you a guaranteed answer, since I would not make that decision. But I can assure you that the BGCM has consistently said that it is against all Biblical sins, including homosexuality.