SBC pulling plug on BWA

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by rsr, Apr 2, 2003.

  1. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the BWA is considering the CBF's application for membership.

    [ April 02, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
     
  2. Jonathan

    Jonathan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the BWA is considering the CBF's application for membership. </font>[/QUOTE]It surely does. Of course, BWA's consideration of an organization that came from the SBC and is actively competing with the SBC for funding from SBC churches surely doesn't constitute a loyalty problem by the BWA towards the SBC.
     
  3. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jonathan, regardless of how you portray the changes in the SBC, everyone recognizes that it is a different entity from what it was 30 years ago. What's wrong with the BWA recognizing the organization that speaks for those churches which are no longer well-represented by the SBC? Don't those churches deserve a voice too?

    Joshua
     
  4. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    The CBF has made its position clear. It deserves representation. Whether the BWA can afford to lose financial support from the SBC is another question.

    You wouldn't suggest that the SBC is so mercenary as to make this an issue about money, would you? I don't think it is; the SBC cannot stand representation from a group that has split from it. A matter of power, not money.
     
  5. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    The BWA is to the SBC as the UN is to the USA. :rolleyes:
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the CBF wants to be recognized, it should go through the established proper channels that all other "denominations" have to go through. The back-door shenanigans at the BWA over the CBF is a little too shady for me.

    Besides, the SBC is pulling money from a bureacracy and putting it into ministry. How is this a bad thing, exactly? [​IMG]
     
  7. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the BWA is considering the CBF's application for membership. </font>[/QUOTE]The BWA is still getting $300,000.00 too much.
     
  8. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose (since you're an SBC pastor) that to you this is a word of judgment on the BWA and the UN. To me it is a word of judgment on the SBC and the USA. The SBC conceit that it is the point of reference, the benchmark, for judging the legitimacy of Baptist faith and practice, when in fact it is not even a majority among USA Baptists, is reminiscent of the United States' willingness to act cooperatively in the UN and other international forums only when its own rather narrowly defined partisan position is reflected in the position of the body in question. If JBC and JBU can both be in BWA, so should CBF be able to enter alongside SBC. BWA does not and should not be the partisan tool of any subgroup of Baptists, not even the Mike Tyson of the bunch. ;)

    Haruo
     
  9. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no problem with the CBF being in the BWA if it leaves the SBC and forms their own denomination.

    The SBC is a conservative evangelical Baptist denomination but the CBF and so called Mainstrean crowd are a minority. If they want a voice...then leave and form their own Baptist denomination.
     
  10. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    The CBF has already affirmed that it is separate from the SBC. It will never, IMO, declare itself a convention or denomination (no matter how much the old-school SBCers among them would like it) because so many have been hurt or dismayed by conventional politics.

    Over the next few years, I think, dual-alignment will become a thing of the past and, even as a fellowship, the CBF will qualify.

    I don't think it's fair to lump the CBF and the Mainstreamers together. The Mainstreamers are, for now, committed to trying to regain a voice within the SBC. While some of them undoubtedly have feet in both camps, that will decline over time and the Mainstreamers will decide whether they will land with the SBC, the CBF or the BGCT — or even elsewhere, such as the ABC-USA or the UCC.
     
  11. Jonathan

    Jonathan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    And regardless of how one would portray the SBC as it was in 1979, everyone recognizes that, in 1979, it was a different entity than it had been in 1949. Same goes for 1919, 1889, and 1859.

    Nothing is wrong the BWA wanting to recognize the CBF. But there is nothing wrong in the SBC in seeing a clear conflict of interest within the BWA when the BWA seeks to recognize the CBF while complaining about reduced funds by the SBC.

    If the BWA wanted to take the high ground on this one, they should have demanded that the CBF completely separate itself from the SBC as a prerequisite to being recognized.
     
  12. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,655
    Likes Received:
    189
    The CBF is separate.

    If you don't happen believe it, what would it take to "separate" CBF from the SBC?
     
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Joshua,

    Those Churches do have a voice. It is called the CBF. It is clear to me anyway that the SBC is different, so isn't it time for the CBF to move on. I agree that some of the ways the takeover was handled was wrong, but I also think that the long run is showing it to be a good thing. Of course, only time will tell. Isn't it time to move on?

    Joseph Botwinick [​IMG]
     
  14. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose (since you're an SBC pastor) that to you this is a word of judgment on the BWA and the UN. To me it is a word of judgment on the SBC and the USA. The SBC conceit that it is the point of reference, the benchmark, for judging the legitimacy of Baptist faith and practice, when in fact it is not even a majority among USA Baptists, is reminiscent of the United States' willingness to act cooperatively in the UN and other international forums only when its own rather narrowly defined partisan position is reflected in the position of the body in question. If JBC and JBU can both be in BWA, so should CBF be able to enter alongside SBC. BWA does not and should not be the partisan tool of any subgroup of Baptists, not even the Mike Tyson of the bunch. ;)

    Haruo
    </font>[/QUOTE]How can you speak so confidently about the SBC when you're obviously not one?

    The SBC was getting pretty fed up with the BWA before the CBF deal ever came up. You cannot take people who have opposing doctrinal stances and walk arm in arm without generating friction. The CBF scenario is the latest friction and the one that provided the combustion.

    And check your statistics about the SBC numbers in America. I think you'll find that we are still the largest Baptist group/denomination in American and still growing.
     
  15. Jonathan

    Jonathan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CBF is separate.

    If you don't happen believe it, what would it take to "separate" CBF from the SBC?
    </font>[/QUOTE]For starters, CBF folk could stop trying to solicit funds from SBC churches.
     
  16. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,655
    Likes Received:
    189
    1.) Churches are autonomous, so the CBF has every right to ask for funds (like any other group) from individual churches.

    2.) Can you give me an example of this?
     
  17. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    The BWA is an inclusive group which embraces churches which hold to anti-Christian doctrine. If the SBC really wants to get back to the Bible it would immediately sever all ties with the BWA. As it is written,

    "Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  18. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,655
    Likes Received:
    189
    What “anti-Christian” doctrine and groups are you referring to? Please be very specific. Furthermore, what is the harm in working together for common goals if indeed certain BWA member organizations hold to “anti-Christian” doctrine? :confused:

    Since you are using this verse as a command from God to disassociate from religious groups that hold to differing interpretations of scripture, how do you justify regularly posting on BaptistBoard when there are obviously so many different points of view (some of them blatantly heretical like those posters who reject the doctrine of the Triune nature of God)? If you can participate in this association without committing sin, why can’t church groups associate together for common goals even if they do not agree on all doctrine? :confused:
     
  19. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baptist Believer,

    I am not playing your games. You and I both know what modernism is and that it is fully entrenched within the Baptist World Alliance. As a Landmark and fundamental Baptist, I hold modernism in absolute abhorence as a corrupt, infidel, and anti-Christian theology.

    When I contend with infidels in this forum I am not having fellowship with them, I am fighting against them. By contrast, the Baptist World Alliance embraces all kinds into one fellowship to work together for common goals. God commanded His children to come out from among all such affiliations.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  20. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    I have found it interesting and curious the number of people on the Baptist Board that associate entering into dialogue, discussion and debate on a publicly accessible internet forum with being equivalent to entering into cooperation, labor and fellowship with others through a medium such as the Baptist World Alliance. Why the connection?
     

Share This Page

Loading...