If this is not rejected at the convention, if we do not remove these churches, I am going to reccommend to my church that we remove ourselves from the convention.
It makes sense on one level. They shouldn't kick a church out of the Convention based on whether or not the Alliance claims the church as a member. They should make that decision based on whether or not the church affirms the goals of the Alliance.
I'm no fan of the Executive Committee, but this seems to be a reasonable position.
?? It is completely unreasonable to allow a church that is a member of a pro-homosexual association, to be a member of the SBC. If they are willing to participate in an association that marries homosexual couples, what on EARTH are we doing in cooperation with them?
What fellowship does light have with darkness? If they associate, that is enough. They should get the boot.
I think the distinction the Executive Committee is making. Is that they are not going to go with the word of the Alliance of Baptists, but they are going to go with the word of the individual churches. Sometimes groups claim to have more members/support than they really do*.
* some examples include the CBF, Texas Baptists Committed, Mainstream Baptists and the SBC (they claim 16 million+ members, but don't have current contact information on many of them) - all of them happen to claim me as a supporter, but I don't support any of them.
And, where exaclty does it invest it's money? Please include legitimate documentation. After all, we wouldn't want one of our resident SBC bashers to misrepresent the truth now would we?
About ten years ago or more it was in one of the Baptist newspapers about some of the things people objected to. I am sure if you would really like to know you could ask them.
It may be off-topic here, but it certainly should be a topic for discussion. I guess I need to do a little research if the claim is that our annuity board is investing the money in areas that run contrary to our values.
First, let me preface this with saying that I tend to agree with your position.
Allowing openly homosexual activity within the scope of any given church, association, convention, or denomination is an aberration to God.
But, there is another issue with which to deal on this issue, and that is the very simple fact that the SBC is not a "top down" organization.
There is no ability to send orders down from the Executive Committee to individuals or churches and ask them to comply with some edict of the EC.
Just doesn't work that way in the SBC, or in most an Baptist organization.
We are bottom up, and autonomous, and while we can "recommend" dis-fellowshipping" due to mitigating circumstances, we can't "act" on that recommendation in any tangible way, save to return any Cooperative giving checks sent forward to the SBC.
I prefer we keep this thread focused on a the issue of churches related to both the SBC and the Alliance of Baptists.
This is a serious issue for those who are concerned about autonomy and issues related to homosexuality in our society. This would seem to be related to other issues in the SBC regarding, for instance, Southwestern Seminary's relationship with the Tarrant Baptist Association (TBA) because of Broadway Baptist Church's relationship to the TBA.
I, for one, believe the Executive Committee has acted wisely in this regard, but I'm interested in hearing more.
About ten years ago or more it was in one of the Baptist newspapers about some of the things people objected to. I am sure if you would really like to know you could ask them.
In other words you are posting malicious slander. Back it up if you are going to make accusations.
Indeed...
We've seen on this board that there are "some things that people object to..."
Even when we post those "things" directly from Scripture.
How much more so when we get to everyone's favorite subject -- someone else's use of money.
:tongue3: