Question for my SBC Brothers

Are you an attorney Allan, if not it is you who has not idea what is in the contract, the incorportation or any other agreement that would be made to become a part of SBC. I said I did not remember the details, but I do remember the property was brought up for a reason. If you say you do not have to or are not encouraged to sign a property agreement, and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that to be so after reading all the papers envolved, then I guess its so.

You never even responded to post #6, the reason I posted to start with, but you chose my later post on the same subject, that caused me to post to start with. Why is that you did not respond to post #6?

BBob,

BBob,

 

Actaully, I have previously worked in litigation for 5 years, would that work?
Bob, I don't discount something about the property came up and you will notice this in my previous post. I merely reiterated your own words that you don't remember what it pertained to. BTW - having to and encouraging them to - are not the same things.

Post #6 is what that person presumes not that it is fact. They aren't even the ones involved but are getting their information 3rd party. I can contact the NM covention (or better yet you can) and ask them if they require any churches to assign to them assets and property in order to be part of the convention. I don't have to however becuase the answer is what it has been for all state conventions and local associations - a voluntary action on the part of the church if they so desire. Alos if you look at the post #6 you will see it is more venting her own opinions (and states such repeatedly) than giving any real facts.

 

Thats ok Allan, we have not intentions of ever being a part of SBC anyway. I don't even know if SBC would have us or not, for you and I sure differ on a lot of doctrine.

BBob,

 

The only thing that I can think of 'doctrinally' that we differ on is eschatology and in a subgroup of this is - is the church Israel or not.

There are other small aspects we differ on like - can a christian commit certian sins and not others; but for the most part we have typically agreed on many things.

 

Agreed.....

 

I did contact the BCNM when this came out in the Baptist New Mexican that they wanted to add in a mandatory reversion clause as "most denominations do this".

The answer I received was clear as muddy water, telling me it was purely optional and churches do not have to do it but all that seek funding and association will have to do so, and churches with existing reversion clauses will lose their buildings if no longer BCNM in good standing. Good standing was defined as adhering to BFM2000 and able to seat delegates, which requires the $250.

The part worrying people is that if the BCNM can change the definition of "in good standing" mid contract or not.

 

Yes, your church was likely "encouraged to sign over their property in some fashion"(in some fashion being not an outright property transfer but the assignment of a future interest in its property to the local SBC association) and was understandably wary of giving away any rights to their property.



from an Arizona local association website:
"Churches petitioning the Association for membership are required to have their own constitution, by laws, and articles of incorporation. It is also strongly suggested the petitioning church include in its constitution and bylaws a dissolution or reversal clause insuring that if at any time the church ceases to be a Southern Baptist Church, all assets will revert back to the Association and/ or State Convention."

 

FTR, I agree with the idea that one should question the being able to change the definitions at will. I'll also add that this is somewhat different from that of the practice in the KBC, as well.

It is one thing when a small church would "seek funding", from the SBC. I think. It is another when the church is seeking no funding, but contributing to the group.

Were my church seeking funding from the local, state or national conventions, for her purposes, then the bodies donating would and should have the 'right' (and responsibility) to determine if these monies were being used properly, IMO.

And in our case, where we are the ones who through our contributions, are able to help fund the local, state and national conventions and their causes, then we likewise have the 'right' (and responsibility) to see that the monies are being used responsibly, IMO.

FTR, I have had some association with churches at both ends of the spectrum here, in the past, as mission recipients and mission supporters. I likewise will assure you, that were a local, state, or national group to show up in our assembly and even suggest that they had some 'claim' to our church's property, about the only property claim they would be able to 'make stick', would be the rail on which they were 'ridden out of town', after being tarred and feathered. They would be stuck to that piece of property.

The Forks of Dix River Baptist Church is a completely independent entity of believers, folks, and has been for over 225 years. We associate with other levels, as in other churches, local, state and national associations, and financially support them by our choice, not as any sort of requirement, in any way. They have not one dime of claim on us, nor would we allow such, IMO.

And as Brother Bob mentioned in an earlier post, by voluntary contributions. In fact, our own Constitution and By-laws say that the church willl be funded entirely by the voluntary contributions of the body.

FTR, we managed to somehow get by as Southern Baptist affiliated for 122 years, and get by overall for 185 years without even having any constitution and by-laws, merely the idea that we affiliated with churches and groups of "like faith and order".

Ed

 

From someone who spent 2 years pastoring in New Mexico....The Baptist Convention of New Mexico has become a joke! They have sold their collective souls to the SBC for a pile of money and a bit of prestige. First they sold off Glorieta, then they forced the 2000 BFM issue after it was initially voted that agreeing to any of the three BFM would do. They have jammed church planting down the throats of every small church and town (even if they don't need it) and have actively talked of doing church work without the cooperation of the local churches. That being said.....

I would see if the church is still considered a church or is in mission status. It is not unusal for hispanic work to remain in mission status because they have not "offically" declared themselves a church with incorporation even though they consider themselves to be a church and not a mission

Giving to the NM Children's Home does not count as Co-op giving because they do not receive their funding from the BCNM. They work together, but are separate organizations with seperate boards.

There are now minimums for voting privledges, which I can't say is entirely a bad thing.

 

We live as Paul. Not by choice, necessarily, but God provides more than any budget ever could. Miraculously. Well, back to making tents...

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :BangHead:

 

Perhaps some of this is true in New Mexico, and I cannot say about that. It is not true, for the SBC on a national basis, however, as I posted all the way back in post #14, directly from the SBC Constitution and By-laws. There is no requirement there for "Co-op giving", as you put it, I presume referring to the Co-operative Program, only to "the work of the Convention".

Big Difference.

Ed