A simple question?

When our church needed funding to build a new section on to the existing church, it was our denomination that gave the loan. After approximately 10 years the loan will soon be paid back into the denomination. In this way money loaned out comes from all the churches, not a private bank. This keeps the interest rate down and helps grow the denomination.

 

The money goes to missions there is no reason to expect something back. It is an absurd idea.

 

There are actually two Texas conventions: The Baptist General Convention of Texas and Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Southern Baptist churches are members of one or the other, and sometimes both.

When an individual or a person truly gives money to the work of the Kingdom, they are not looking for a financial payout. Much of the money given to the state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention goes to the mission field. Sometimes the mission field is in under-evangelized portions of the United States, but most often it goes to other countries. The payoff for that investment comes from the Lord at the end of the age.

However there are ways that individual churches receive back a return on their investment is that they support Baptist schools, undergraduate schools, seminaries, and missionary training centers. SBC churches often receive the benefit of a better educated ministers that they might otherwise have.

But fundamentally, your question doesn't really understand the spirit of giving in the SBC world.

 

I believe the interest goes to adding more into the fund as inflation rises and building costs go up. I think the interest rate is something like 2% or perhaps a bit lower so it still beats going to bank.

 

Yeah, I understand. If we were under the Mosaic Law the argument would hold more water.

 

I did not do either thing you suggested.

The Kingdom of God is greater and broader than a church, a convention, a denomination, or all of Christendom.

The Kingdom of God exists where God’s will is being accomplished. When I wrote that when a person or church gives money to the work of the Kingdom, I literally meant that the funds are going to support things that God desires, whether it is evangelism, humanitarian aid, training of Christian leaders, supporting widows and orphans, or some other worthy activity.

It is telling that you have assumed that Southern Baptists think their little man-made organization is the Kingdom of God. You really don’t understand the SBC at all.

Full disclosure: I don’t consider myself a Southern Baptist anymore, but I grew up within that world and understand it intimately. I have also heard a lot of untruthful things about the SBC structure and institutions from so-called independent Baptists over the years.

I don’t know what you mean by “support” and “the public school” — do you have a particular school in mind?

As for my church, yes, we support the work of public schools in our area, buying school supplies for needy children for each school year, ministering to public school teachers with special lunches on school property as well as events conducted on our campus where the teachers experience the grace of God and see and hear the gospel lived out in word and deed. We also have persons in our congregation who work with school principals to provide translation assistance during parent-teacher events and new school orientation — one woman in my Sunday School class is fluent in Arabic and served last week on a parent-teacher night, translating for parents whose English skills are still rudimentary.

Yet you seem to expect a “no” answer from me when you asked “why not?” Why did you assume that my congregation would not want to be salt and light to the world?

And my taxes go to the government for all kinds of things that I don’t like.

But what, in your mind, is the connection between giving financial gifts to the SBC and professors at PUBLIC universities not being Baptist? I don’t follow that at all.

It hasn’t come up. Frankly, I don’t know much about the Shriners. If they are doing good work, the we might work alongside of them on some project of common interest, but we would not equate the purpose and ministry of our congregation as being the same as merely a fraternal organization or charity. We serve others because that is the example and teaching of Jesus, but we are not a secular charitable organization.

Good for them. Southern Baptists, both as individual churches and as state and national conventions support and operate health services and hospitals.

Your logic escapes me since I haven’t heard a single coherent example of the SBC supporting something that is ungodly.

However, I think it is perfectly fine for time and money to be expended to minister to ungodly people. Jesus died for the ungodly. We would be right to do the same, if necessary. In light of that, giving of time and money in helpful ways is appropriate.

Unless Mormons are teaching theology or some other distinctively Christian element of the curriculum, I have a hard time getting worked up about it. The same goes for any other non-Christians who might be employed by a Baptist school. There are certainly areas where they should not be employed, but a Mormon professor who teaches a language or literature can be perfectly competence to teach Baptist students unless they try to promote their distinctive doctrines during class time.

You are concerned that someone, somewhere, might do something you don’t like with your gift? That can happen with any organization, even your own congregation.

It kind of sounds like you are. You are not really giving money if you don’t trust the people who are going to make decisions about how it is spend.

There can be a valid criticism of the SBC that often there is something of a disconnect between the missionaries and the local churches. However, the fault is largely on the side of the churches. In the SBC model, missionaries are not constantly returning to the US to make reports and raise funding. Instead, they can more effectively put down roots in a culture and among people groups without having to constantly spend their time justifying everything they do and beg for money. At the same time, the SBC has done a much better job of sending reports back to the churches of what is being done (although they can’t mention some sensitive placements of missionaries) in the last 30 years. My own congregation (which is nominally SBC), hears from missionaries all the time. We support some through the SBC Mission Boards, we support some directly, and we support teams that have gone out of our church to foreign fields, some permanently, some for several weeks at a time. We also have a house near our church facilities that serves as housing for missionaries when on furlough or for emergency trips back to the US.

Our church is mission-oriented, so we focus on keeping ourselves informed, not waiting on the missionaries to handle all of the communication.

You asked the question without enough context for anyone to know what you were talking about.

I understand what you are driving at now, but you fundamentally misunderstand the SBC. You also seem to assume that missionaries have are primarily obligated to you and your congregation as employees — instead of co-laborers — to give an account of everything they do to your specific congregation. If you can’t trust others to administrate missionaries efforts, then you should probably not involve yourself with the SBC efforts. But you also shouldn’t be critical of the good work that other groups do. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone on BaptistBoard criticize “independent” Baptists for directly supporting missionaries. It would be nice if that were true from the other side.