1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Explanation of the "Cooperative Program"

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 3, 2001.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
    Ellis,

    This just goes to show that the SBC is no longer Baptist. This is not upholding the autonomy of the local church; this is no different than the United Methodist Church which owns all local UMC churches by means of the trust clause.

    This policy of the SBC toward this local church that you have described is non-Baptistic, and it is blackmail and extortion.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Then since you are obviously not Southern Baptist, why don't you quit gripping about it and worry about your own church or group?

    It is obvious that most of you don't understand the SBC AT ALL. The remark about asking for names is a SBC trick is false because although I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church I do NOT know anybody in the SBC. I'm simply trying to help someone out who obviously had abusive power and if they can't answer that simple question then it is obvious that it is probably a rumour. And, don't call me a liar on this because I have been in churches all my life that have been members of the SBC. Sure there are abuses in every organization. I bet, though, that you have a perfect church where everybody is perfect and can walk on water.
     
  2. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip,

    You must have meant to address this post to Ellis, or someone else. I AM a member of a Southern Baptist church, and I have never called you a liar.
     
  3. Jonathan

    Jonathan Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
    The practice of asking for specific names and incidents is nothing more than a way for those of a particular political persuasion within the SBC to find out where their work needs to be done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sorry Ellis, the practice of asking for specifics when broad charges are being made is nothing more than calling the hand of those who tend to make allegations without providing proof.

    All of us have agendas and our agendas shape how we tell these stories. Providing the pertinent checking facts goes a long way towards gaining credibility. In this regard, I understand why folks rarely include the facts.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not aware of any buildings of churches that have been taken away by the SBC, though I have a close friend who pastors a church started and supported by the North American Mission Board of the SBC. The board holds the deed to the property until the church has a chance to get on its feet financially. Originally, he received what they call "church pastoral assistance" to pay his salary until the church was able to do that themselves. He was one of eight people, including his wife, to originally start this church. Now, it has an attendance of over 200. Their congregation becomes the owner of the building in January, after paying $100,000 to the mission board. Conditioned upon receiving the property, they must agree to remain as a "cooperating" Southern Baptist church. If at any time in the future they cease to become that, the building reverts back to the mission board and they are evicted.

    There has been pressure on the congregation to adopt the 2000 BFM as their official statement of faith. They adopted the 63 version, but so far are not willing to go by the 2000 version because, in their interpretation, it is not theologically consistent with what they believe and teach. They are concerned that the building might be used as a lever to force their cooperation, even though the board originally did not require them to accept the 2000 version.

    If the convention decides that the 2000 BFM is necessary for a church to be considered as "cooperating Southern Baptist" then this congregation could stand to lose its facility. Obviously, there are good reasons for not naming them.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The problem with this story, of course, is that if the congregation actually receives the deed to the property, they are the actual owners of the property and have full ownership rights.

    [ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jonathan ]
     
Loading...