Question for my SBC Brothers

A Convention should look after its own first, then it is more able to help others. Taking the building and assets from one of your own churches to support missions is not a christian act. IMO These are hard times for small churches, membership is down, wages of the members is down till they have to work two jobs in some cases and expenses are up just to keep your own building open and running. A Convention should first make a way to take care of these churches, instead of letting one over here go under and sending a mission. They should give them a "free" time to recover and get back on their own feet. IMO,,

BBob,

 

Brother Bob, you don't know what your talking about with regards to "taking the building and assets from one of your own churches to support missions" No one has done such a thing!

Your understanding of the SBC is sadly in great error. The Convention DOES take care of its own first, however like anything with men in positions certain things in some places can downgrade to a point. This isn't something convention wide since you have local, state Conventions as well as a national convention of all the states together. It is for this reason our leaders are elected every year or couple of years depending on the position. The Convention is set up to not only give them 'free time' finacial resourses, other resourses, and even man power if necessary but they need to be told there is an issue.

 

I was simply responding to what had already been posted on here in post #6.

On the other hand, we were approached several years ago to join SBC, of which we did not. The best I remember is that you had to be willing to sign over your property to them in some fashion. I may have it wrong but that is my recollection on the matter.

Can you truthfully say that it has never happened that the Convention never had taken anyone's property??

BBob,

 

BBob,

I've been SBC all my life and all my ministry. I've never heard of a church having to sign over it's property to the SBC to become an SBC church. Each church owns its own property.

Now, it may be an issue if the SBC (or the State Convention or even the Association) funds a new church start-up - that property may be owned by the starting group, but that's the only circumstance that I can think of where the SBC may won the church's property.

 

Again, I was responding to post 6 and what I could remember about the time many years ago that it came up in our association a request to join SBC. There was something about the Incorporation part of it that did not sit well with us. I just can not remember all the details.

I probably should not of entered this discussion. Bro Allan is right, I do not know that much about SBC, therefore I should not be making statements about them. It drew my attention when I saw the post about the taking of the building, so I entered the thread. That was my first mistake, forgive me for you all know more about your convention than I will ever know.


BBob,

 

Conflict Between Church, Association May Be Part of Motion
Jun 12, 2006
by Staff
GREENSBORO, N.C. (BP)--

". . . -- [Central Coast (Calif.) Baptist Association Director of Missions Mike] Stewart points to a March 2004 FBC Las Lomas business meeting, in which he says a majority of church members gladly signed a legal document dissolving the church and giving the association the property. But several church members say they felt misled into signing the document, which they say they thought would have allowed Las Lomas to keep its property. They say their attorney wasn't present at the business meeting and that they subsequently signed a document rescinding their earlier action. Stewart denies the charge that he pressured the members -- he says it was purely voluntary -- and he also says the church had no attorney at the time.

-- Several FBC Las Lomas members say they believe that the association's interest in the property is strictly financial. The property -- located in a high-priced area of northern-central California -- is worth more than $3 million and has two rental properties (both homes) on site. Stewart denies that and says the property would be used to start a Spanish-speaking church.

-- In the lawsuit, Stewart and the CCBA argued that FBC Las Lomas had ceased to be a Southern Baptist church, thereby triggering a clause in the church's constitution reverting the property back to the association. But the church members say they never ceased to be Southern Baptist and had no intention to do so. . . ."

 

The SBC gave them the property with the stipulation that as long as it remains SBC it is their to with as they pleased as based upon the clause in question. Once it ceased to be an SBC church (as the article states) it reverted back to the association who gave it. It was merging itself into a nondemoninational church who was going to take over or lead it.

Yet some members stated they were not going cease to be SBC when they merging with a nondemoninal church?? Yeah right! Even the judge didn't buy it:

The whole thing came down to the clause in the contract they signed with the SBC when they aquired the property which originally was the SBC's to begin with.

If they had purchased the property for themselves and not aquired with contract through the SBC it would be their to with whatever they wanted and it is only right the SBC do it. However let us remember that the church did in fact sign a contract with specific stipulations they were to abide by, namely and simply remain a SB Church and when they decide to no longer remain such that property which was initially given would revert back to the orginal owner.

 

Even I know this isn't true. The SBC does not own our property, and has nothing to do with it.

 

Both churches are SBC.
FBC Las Lomas on the SBC website.
New Life Community Church on the SBC website.

Wow. The scenario you describe certainly sounds like the "signing your property over to them in some fashion" that Brother Bob described.
FBC Las Lomas, however, purchased their property themselves, there was no contract with the SBC whatsoever.

 

You need to re-read your own article my friend.
They did not even request to be SBC till the middle of 2005 and this began in 2004. The request was made only after it had gone to court . Kinda funny timing to request it then rather than earlier, except that the nondemoninational group was about to loose their new building unless they were considered SBC.

First of all this is nothing like what Brother Bob described but you would know that if you read the article.

Secondly, it is apparent that you are not familar with the term "revert" which is refered to in Churches Constitution:

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Apparently according to the churches own Constitution the church property (if the church ever ceased to be SBC) would 'revert' or return back to the accosiation from which it came. How can it revert or return 'back' if as you say it was never theirs??

And according to the evidence presented the Judge he agrees they most certainly were no longer considered to be SBC:

The funny thing is the pastor was supposedly let go because they had no finances to pay him anymore, even though they still had $25,000 just at the time they let him go and 'needed' a new pastor. And it was the wrongfully fired pastor who brought this incident to the attention of the association.

And what exactly are you basing them purchasing the property themselves on??
The contract aspect is assumed based upon the the Churches Constitution making the statement about the property 'reverting back to the assocaition'.
I will concede the assumption but that does not discount the fact the Churches own Constitution makes the accertion the property at one time belonged to the SBC and goes 'back' to the association when it decides to no longer remain SBC.

 

We need to remember this: many NM churches are tiny and remote. You may have under 20 members, a volunteer (unpaid) pastor, and a building to maintain. You may be the only church of any kind in a 25 mile radius. (I became SBC this way.) Only SS teachers may get quarterlies, and then they may pay for them themselves.

One winter we did without propane because we could not afford to heat the building, but we still sent 1% of our offerings to the children's home. When you are ag workers, most of your "pay" may be in free housing and utilities, and beef. You have very little cash, so even if everyone tithes there just may not be $250 to send to Alb.

If you cannot pay your prop. taxes, or hail hits your roof and you need to borrow the deductible amount from the state assoc., you might sign a paper saying if you ever cease to be SBC you give them the building. You would assume that means if you bolt the convention or if you cease to abide by the BF&M.

Now you find they can declare you not SBC because you cannot send them $250??

This last year the Baptist NM had an article by Bro. Joe Bunce (director) praising the tiny church. Maybe the state association should find a way to support, rather than kill off, these tiny churches. Maybe the state assoc. should pay the travel fees so these delegates can go to Alb. and to the national convention.

Or maybe they want them to be out of the state assoc. so the stats of the NM convention show only growing churches to feather their own caps.

Who knows? All I can say is that the state convention in NM is not nearly as evangelistic as it was from 1950-2001.

 

Was the word "revert" a quote from the constitution, or was it the word of the staff writer? That would make a difference.

The quote seems to be "shall be given," which would not imply that the property had ever been owned by the association.

 

Editted ...

Agreed .. and it is both a good and proper point to which I will concede since I can find nothing that specifically quotes it as such other than the statements of 'reverting back' or calling the clause a 'reversionary clause". However whether or not the association actually owned the specific property at one time or if the gave any monies to help the church purchase the property (whether in gift or loan) are seen as the same thing - as being from the SBC though aquired by another and so owned by the aquirer. Thus it is quite reasonable to presume such an event transpired (since this is done quite often) that church would give said property to the association should it ever cease to an SB Chruch and not just disolve it's assets and do with it what the church desires.

That said I acknowledge that I went off on something that is not on topic so my appoliges for that. The article in question can in no way be ascribed to the view Brother Bob of the SBC requiring churches to sign over the property to become a member of the SBC.

 

The so-called reversionary clause was inserted many years after the church bought its own land. Such clauses are encouraged among SBC churches, and not just those who get property or loans/gifts from the association or convention.

SBC churches are encouraged to give local associations and/or state conventions a future interest in their property, should they ever dissolve or try to leave the SBC.

From the Kansas Nebraska convention website:

"It is suggested that a church consider including a “reversionary clause” in its constitution in order to protect the future usage of its property to make sure that such property remains in the hands of Southern Baptists.
Such a reversionary clause should read something like this:
Should this property ever cease to be used as an active and cooperating Southern Baptist Church in the (name of association to which the church is a member), a non-profit religious corporation, or the Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists, a non-profit religious corporation, then and in that event title and interest in this property shall revert to the (name of association to which the church is a member) or its successor in interest."

From the Arkansas convention website:

Sample church constitution
"VI. Non-profit Status and Liquidation
This church is not organized for profit. In the event of liquidation or dissolution of the church, all of its assets and property of every nature and description whatsoever shall be paid over and transferred at the direction of the trustees to the _________________Baptist Association, the Arkansas Baptist State Convention or both."

 

Actually the revisionary clause was originally there in the costitution but the words 'SBC' was added because and they once hired an Independant Baptist to pastor and he tried to get make it so all assets would be transfered to the Indendent and not SBC. THAT is why they added the "SBC' to their constitution - for clarification as to who they were and where they desire the assets and property to go back to 'specifically' and not 'just' any baptist organization. Give all the information, it helps in understanding the situation.

Apparently you are not listening.

Brother Bob stated "..that you had to be willing to sign over .." according to what he remembered. That is not true in ANY fashion.

Secondly you are taking things like 'encouraged' and "sample constitutions' (something that can be used to help design church constitutions) as though it is something that is done across the board and consistently in and to each and every church. Get over it!

Each local and state convetion can request whatever they like based upon the desires and or ideas of that group of churches for those areas. It is a good idea, I believe so but it is a voluntary practice not a mandated one in any local nor state levels which Brother 'thought' it was. Thus my statement regarding his comment:

 

At least quote what I actually did say!

Something must of been mentioned about our property and SBC, for me to remember it. I just did not pull it out of thin air.

Most of the Older brethren are dead now, who took part in that discussion, but I might be able to find out something about it.

BBob,

 

I did - exactly. See :

The above is my quote from you.

and below is your specific words:

I bolded what I quoted of your own words I just didn't finish the quote because that aspect was not apart of the actaul argument.

You stated they HAD to .. in some fasion.

The point you were making wasn't about 'in some fashion' but that to the be SBC you "had to sign over " your property or assets (regardless of some form). That is what you said that is irronious and patently not true.

 

So, if I had of used the words "encouraged to sign over" instead of "had to sign over", I would of been correct???

Something had to of been said about the property, or I would not of remembered, that is why we would not even consider, becoming a part of SBC. Now maybe the ones who said it, did not know what they were talking about, not sure about that. I seem to remember it had something to do with a clause in the "incorporation document".

BBob,

 

No. You don't have to sign anything over to be a member of the SBC, period.

Just because something about property was mentioned does not mean it was mentioned in the context you are giving it, especially based upon the fact you don't remember specifically what it was about. Was it said by the SBC person or one from your group maybe asking or possibly even making some type of the same statement?

The point I'm making here is 1) you don't remember (that is no fault of yours) what was said and if it was said the way you remember; and 2) your statement directly makes the alligation that this is part of the SBC's criteria to be apart of them.