SBC ends relationship with DC convention

[Revmitchell]

NASHVILLE (BP) -- After nearly a year and a half of discussions concerning a Washington church with lesbian co-pastors, the Southern Baptist Convention has notified the District of Columbia Baptist Convention that "the formal relationship between the SBC and the DCBC has come to an end," according to a statement by interim Executive Committee president D. August Boto.



At its Feb. 19-20 meeting in Nashville, the EC adopted a recommendation granting the DCBC 90 days to "secure" the "removal of any churches from its fellowship that have demonstrated a faith or practice affirming, approving or endorsing homosexual behavior." If such churches remained in friendly cooperation with the DCBC after May 20, the EC stated, the DCBC would lose its authorization "to receive and disburse Cooperative Program and other SBC contributions."



At issue was Calvary Baptist Church in Washington, which cooperates with the DCBC and voted in January 2017 to call a legally-married lesbian couple as co-pastors. Calvary voted in 2012 to cease cooperation with the SBC.



Boto told Baptist Press he received a letter May 21 from DCBC executive director Robert Cochran "indicating that the DCBC has not taken action the Executive Committee hoped it would when it issued its Feb. 20 decision. In his letter, Cochran divulged that he anticipated an end to our relationship."

http://bpnews.net/50939/sbc-ends-relationship-with-dc-convention

 

[Reynolds]

NASHVILLE (BP) -- After nearly a year and a half of discussions concerning a Washington church with lesbian co-pastors, the Southern Baptist Convention has notified the District of Columbia Baptist Convention that "the formal relationship between the SBC and the DCBC has come to an end," according to a statement by interim Executive Committee president D. August Boto.



At its Feb. 19-20 meeting in Nashville, the EC adopted a recommendation granting the DCBC 90 days to "secure" the "removal of any churches from its fellowship that have demonstrated a faith or practice affirming, approving or endorsing homosexual behavior." If such churches remained in friendly cooperation with the DCBC after May 20, the EC stated, the DCBC would lose its authorization "to receive and disburse Cooperative Program and other SBC contributions."



At issue was Calvary Baptist Church in Washington, which cooperates with the DCBC and voted in January 2017 to call a legally-married lesbian couple as co-pastors. Calvary voted in 2012 to cease cooperation with the SBC.



Boto told Baptist Press he received a letter May 21 from DCBC executive director Robert Cochran "indicating that the DCBC has not taken action the Executive Committee hoped it would when it issued its Feb. 20 decision. In his letter, Cochran divulged that he anticipated an end to our relationship."

http://bpnews.net/50939/sbc-ends-relationship-with-dc-convention

Well, SBC finally got something right again. Now they can go back to their racial apology tour and cater to the race pinks some more.

 

[Bro. James]

This is another good example of a convention exercising authority which they have usurped from the New Testament Churches.

"Repent and recant or we will shut off your funding."

Would this be considered deeds of the Nicolaitans?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Salty]

This is another good example of a convention exercising authority which they have usurped from the New Testament Churches.

"Repent and recant or we will shut off your funding."

Would this be considered deeds of the Nicolaitans?

The SBC has / had NO authority over the DCBC. Affiliation with the SBC (as well as any other Baptist group- ie GARBC, ABA,CBA, ect ) is on a strictly volunteer basis - for those churches of like faith and order.

In this case, the SBC wants to see its mission funds spent to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ within Biblical guidelines. I for one am glad the SBC has decided to end this affiliation.

So what happens now ? The conservative churches of the DCBC could start a new association ..

 

[Revmitchell]

This is another good example of a convention exercising authority which they have usurped from the New Testament Churches.

"Repent and recant or we will shut off your funding."

Would this be considered deeds of the Nicolaitans?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Nothing about this post is correct. In fact it is quite evident that it was made out of complete ignorance.

 

[Bro. James]

I am still trying to figure how a convention gets control of the purse strings regarding missions or anything else which is part of the sovereignty of a New Testament Church. There is no scriptural basis for a convention. Who authorized these changes?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Salty]

I am sti trying to figure how a convention gets control of the purse strings regarding missions or anything else which is part of the sovereignty of a New Testament Church. There is no scriptural basis for a convention. Who authorized these changes?

Local independent Southern Baptist churches contribute to the cooperative program. These churches are NOT required to send anything (and some dont). The SBC allots money to the Home Mission Board and to the Foreign Board to send out missionaries.
Non-Southern Baptist churches will partially support missionaries on an individual basis.
Such a missionary, may have to be on deputation 1, 2 even 3 years to raise enough support to go to the field - especially overseas. - In addition, many mission boards require the missionary to support the mission board with 10% of his support. Also, a missionary has to be concerned that a church may decrease their support of if the church disbands - all support is gone.

Once a SBC missionary has been fully approved - He goes right to the field and can begin his ministry.
He does not have to worry about his monthly support. When he comes home on deputation, and visits local churches - he doesn't have to burden them with a plea for additional funds.

Bottom line -the sovereignty of a local church is Not compromised.

 

[Bro. James]

A Convention and a Mission Board are required to get a precarious stipend. No wonder it takes years of deputation to get enough support. Somebody else got the money--in the administration. Will this be excusable at the BEMA seat?

The fields are still white for the harvest--and the laborers are few.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Salty]

A Convention and a Mission Board are required to get a precarious stipend. No wonder it takes years of deputation to get enough support. Somebody else got the money--in the administration. Will this be excusable at the BEMA seat? ...

Several years ago we were starting a church in Copperas Cove, Tx. The missionary pastor was under Galilean Baptist Missions (which later merged with FBHM).

I like the way that GBM operated - The missionary retained 100% of his support.
The church was asked to send 10% of its undesignated offering to the mission board.

 

[Rob_BW]

This is another good example of a convention exercising authority which they have usurped from the New Testament Churches.

"Repent and recant or we will shut off your funding."

Would this be considered deeds of the Nicolaitans?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

So what funds, from the SBC to the DCBC, were cut off by this action?

It looks to me like the SBC took an action that would keep it from receiving any funds from the DCBC. Which is quite the opposite of your complaint.