SBC vs. BWA again

The SBC needs to take care of their own playing field first. When they have churches that have deacons for many years allowing the Mormon Bishop to come and teach declaring him a Christian something is seriously wrong.

When they let a man go who tells SWBTS that they are not up to the standard academically something is wrong.

When they mount bronze frames around pictures of people who give large sums of money something is seriously wrong.

When they tell you just a few months ago they have lots of money coming in and then now declare they are running out something is wrong.

When they build a large addition for a library on the presidents home for a large sum of money and then tell everyone they need to start taking up a giving program for the seminaries something is wrong.

When they tell us they may need to let some teachers go because they are low on money and then build an addition on a large home called the president's home to house his books something is wrong.

I always thought what Jesus taught that the last shall be first and that the leader must be the servant.

With such news like that, who do you trust?

 

GB, can't say I'm surprised to see that you're still on your anti-SBC soapbox. Maybe you could try and speak a little more to the issue of the BWA for a change. In this case, the SBC was well within biblical parameters when it chose to break fellowship with an organization that allows Baptist associations that welcome churches who condone homosexual behavior to become members of those associations (see the examples cited by Dr. P. last summer). Also, take the time to listen to what conservative Baptist scholars from Europe have to say about the BWA. Time and again they have said that it is eaten up with those who deny the resurrection of Christ and the authority of God's Word. You can quote Bylaws and Constitution all day long, but that and 50 cents will only get you a Coke down at the local gas station. What has actually happened is that the BWA has become increasing tolerant of several debased lifestyles and moral pitfalls. The acceptance of the CBF, which is not even recognized as a denomination or a convention, as a member body was the last straw. Aside from the fact that the BWA violated it's own tradition of extending membership only to recognized Baptist denominations or conventions, it granted membership to a group that is filled with pro-choice, pro-homosexual, anti-inerrancy liberals who have been feeding off the SBC for years. What kind of integrity does the CBF have when its leadership constantly bashes the SBC, but then doesn't encourage CBF churches to pull their money out of the SBC's Annuity Board? We all know that's the only reason that most CBF churches are dually aligned: they have no Annuity Board, and until they do CBFers are going to stay in the SBC just so they'll have a place to send their retirement checks. That's ungodly, but it is typical of a group of liberals like those who comprise the CBF. And as our SBC leadership clearly stated, it's high time that we start sending our money to groups or emphases that will advance the kingdom of God within a biblical worldview, and not one that constantly cries "autonomy" and "sole freedom" as a front to godless theology. The SBC should be applauded for their actions - doctrine does matter! If you don't think so, go and read what John and Jude had to say about the matter in their letters to the churches. Seems that I remember Jude saying something about "contending for the faith that was once delivered to the apostles..." (Jude 3). I'm sorry, but you can't do that in a group that condones homosexuality (whether they admit to it or not) and accepts others that do.

 

It amazes me how many people throw stones at the CBF and the BWA without any proof.

The CBF are not in any way pro Homosexual. That is an outright lie. Go over to the CBF website and see for yourself, they took a resolution "Condemning" Homosexuality as Sin and stated that it is not permitted within their church as with any other sin.

I would doubt very much however that anyone who is so keen to sledge the CBF will be as keen to apologise for it though. Much easier to throw stones at people we consider a threat than to take any responsabilty for our own actions. .

 

There are alot of issues here. I think we would all agree that neither the BWA nor the CBF constitute EVIL organizations. And I personally think the SBC leadership is far from perfect.

But it seems the main issue here is how the affiliation benefits the SBC. Many of the BWA churches are more liberal than the SBC would like - or than I would like for that matter. That doesn't mean we should shun them or refuse to consider them our brothers and sisters - that would be hypocritical indeed. But is a potential liberal influence in the best interests of the SBC? Does that affiliation benefit their ministry? I think a good argument can be made that the answer to this is no.

 

The issue of what is conservative and liberal will always be around, because man is sinful. Jesus never called us to be conservative. He called us to be radical.

The fact is in many ways everyone of us are conservative and liberal. But all of us must be radical Christians.

 

The SBC chose to cut off the BWA, that was their right. I dont agree with the stance, but the SBC doesnt listen to me anyway. Now the BWA is soliciting funds from SBC churches, which they now have the right to do as any parachurch organization has the right to do, and SBC churches can make a choice. The SBC no longer has any influence over what the BWA does, they lost that right when they divorced themselves from the BWA.

Individual churches can look at the BWA, and thier bylaws, and thier own finances to decide if they want to promote the cause of Christ worldwide through the BWA. Praise the Lord, my church is!

 

Jimmy C, your church is not the only one to continue support of the BWA. It was reported earlier this summer that Rick Warren himself cut a $20,000 check to the BWA, and we all know how beneficial the whole purpose-driven, seeker-friendly movement has been to our Baptist churches. So beneficial in fact that our churches have stopped trying to consult the Word of God in order to grow the church. Rather, they have look for the next latest and greatest program, book, etc. to grow their churches. I guess my point is that the seeker-friendly crowd seems to love the BWA...just something to think about.

As for my comments about the CBF and the BWA being an "outright lie," I'm afraid that some of you don't remember the way that the CBF was started. Did the CBF come right out when it organized itself and take a stand against homosexual behavior? Not even close. It was several years after their formation that they made that distinction. And why did they wait for several years to do that? #1 - They didn't want to risk alienating any churches that might be considering membership within the CBF. #2 - Several of the original founders of the CBF were affliated with pro-homosexual groups. You may say that's ancient history, but how about this: Glendale Baptist Church in Nashville, TN recently ordained a lesbian and put her on the full-time staff of the church. And who is Glendale Baptist Church associated with? You guessed it, your neighborhood CBF of Tennessee. Have they taken any action against the church? Of course not. Do you think they will? Of course not. But why not? Because CBF has historically marched under the banner of "autonomy" and "sole freedom" in an attempt to brush godless theology under the rug. Are my statements about the CBF still false?

As for the BWA, what about the association in the Pacific Northwest that permits gays into their churches? Has this allegation voiced by Dr. P. about that particular American Baptist Association ever been disproven? Has the BWA taken any action against the association on account of their convictions that plainly condemn homosexual behavior? Of course not. Will they? Of course not.

My point is simple. Many of you guys want to hurl your accusations at the SBC and its leadership for making some tough decisions, but you never want to admit the truth about the organizations which you are so adamantly trying to defend. Either deal with these issues that I've raised, or simply admit that the SBC was well within biblical parameters to defund the BWA when they allowed membership to be granted to the CBF.

 

Well if Pope Paige and Cardinal Chapman said it must be true!

CBF does offer other retirement/ insurance annuity type services through the Church Benefits Board, Inc., so your Annuity Board comment is flat wrong. It also reveals a total lack of understanding on how a retirement plan works, but that is another thread all together. (Note: You might want to see a financial planner)

And that is not the reason why there are churches that have both SBC and CBF missions giving. Most CBF type churches have agreed to allow members to designate to whom they will send their missions money too, either SBC or CBF.

 

Go2Church, you make my point. You completely dodged the specific examples I gave in my last post. Should the SBC not stand in opposition to a group of Baptists who won't even take a stand against open homosexuality? I'm not just taking about an amendment or a comment on a website - I'm talking about the CBF dealing with a church that welcomes homosexuals. I understand that the CBF can't usurp the authority of the local church, but they can choose to disfellowship a local church that will not abide by the so-called "standards" that you mentioned earlier.

Further, you act as though the decision to defund the BWA was one that was made almost solely by Morris Chapman and Dr. P. Did it slip you mind that messengers to the 2004 annual meeting voted OVERWHELMINGLY to cut off funds that were earmarked for the BWA? Southern Baptists clearly stated that they didn't want to be involved with any groups that undermine the authority of God's Word by accepting homosexuality (or choosing not to deal with it, which is one in the same) or any other debased lifestyles or practices. If you think that the acceptance of homosexuality is OK, then I can see why you would argue so vehemently for the causes of the CBF and BWA. I pray that such is not the case for you.

 

Every Chrtistian ought to stand up against homesexuality saying it is wrong and offer to help those gripped in it hands.

Where were you when I needed someone from the SBC to help me? When I found out that a church I had just started pastoring had a regular practice of over twenty years (that was not told to me) of regularly inviting the Mormon bishop to come and teach while the state and local association knew about it I was shocked. When I took a stance the local association told me there was nothing they could do. Then later I found out from another person at the state level that he knew about it for years. What kind of SBC conservatism is that.Sounds more like atheism to me. I even wrote to a former SBC president and he told me that most SBC churches are good and move on. I guess people that like money wil do little to take a stance. BTW in that same church was one person who volunteered at the state level and another at the state and national level. Is that what the SBC promotes? It's a let's just stand up and say we believe the Bible and then act like atheists when it comes time to do something and be counted. That was my experinece with some laaders in the SBC. My how they have all the answers and call themselves conservative and say they believe the Bible, but when it comes time to do something they hide and tell you there is nothing they can do all in the name of autonomous churches. But scripture says the demons believe too and shudder.

Just a few months ago it came out that the SBC Annuity Board was investing in pagans things that support things that are wrong and in opposition to Christian values and you support the SBC? How doews it feel to have your convention supporting such unbiblical things in the business world?

 

1. Without proof? Are you serious? Nice way to expose your ignorance over this issue.

2. Was that a unanimous resolution? I didn't think so.

3. The CBF is pond scum. You should really consider a little research before you pop off.

GB, how many times is your tired story going to be posted before you realize we don't care? The SBC has a statement of faith that is recognized as the official position for Southern Baptists. If a church wishes to be called by that name, and be involved in some aberrant theology, that is up to them. That doesn't mean their name is anything but just that.

 

I dont have to prove innocence my friend, if people want to throw stones at the CBF, back them up with proof, the Proof text is quite simple, the CBF took a resolution condemning Homosexuality.

As for the "Pond Scum" remark, are people that finance Gambling and Homosexual Cruises also Pond Scum? How about the selling of Alcohol and Ciggarettes?

Doesnt the SBC financially profit from Carnival Cruise Lines? Why do that as a church and then attempt to throw stones at others?

Would what Jesus said about not being able to see past the log in your own eye apply here?

 

No, I don't support homosexuality, the BWA or the CBF and neither does the church I pastor.

 

It's so obvious you don't care!

The church I mentioned was an SBC church that had a perfect statement of faith, the BF&M just like you said was the official position.

The Jews said the same as you. Just read the book of James and you will see how James compares the official statement of faith of the Jews and what a genuine saving faith really is. There is a difference.

A friend of mine from Europe who knows what real liberalism is like once told me, "The fundamentalists and liberals lie in the same bed just at opposite ends.

 

Todd,

I am not much of a CBF fan myself, our church is strictly BGCT/SBC. The CBF issue was strictly a smokescreen and excuse for the SBC to cut off the BWA.

Unfortunately since the moderates stopped attending the convention, the SBC is simply a rubber stamp for whatever the executive committee proposes. Patterson wanted the BWA gone - it is done. Just dont be upset that the BWA is soliciting funds from SBC churches

 

One of the very first issues if not the very first one in the SBC-CBF split was over the inerrancy of God's word as revealed in the bible. The CBF churches even before there was a CBF were willing to say the bible was not inerrant. Thats a rather dangereous doctrine. If the bible contains errors then what part of it can actually be depended on. This is the beginning point of undercutting our faith. Thats the error of liberal churches and the reason they can accept some of the things they do.

 

Ben, I gave you a specific example right here in my state of Tennessee of a church that is aligned with the CBF of Tennessee that called an ordained lesbian to their full-time ministerial staff. Thus far (in about one year's time), the CBF has taken no action to disfellowship the church. Maybe you think the CBF is fixin' to do something about it since they've got a statement regarding homosexuality posted on their website. My friend, those are only words...the proof's in the pudding.

Bottom line: The CBF was founded by those who were in favor of homosexual/gender diversity causes and to this day will not take a stand against a church that is obviously not acting in harmony with the Constitutional ammendment that you have referenced. By accepting the CBF as a member body, coupled with the fact that they have their own homosexual friendly groups, the BWA is just as guilty as the CBF. I thank God that the messangers to the SBC annual meeting overwhelmingly stated that they no longer wanted to have any part of either group.

 

Approximatley how many Homosexuals are taking communion in SBC churches? Is it 0?