SBC vs. BWA again

What should happen Todd to SBC churches that are dualy aligned between the SBC and the CBF? Should they be removed from the SBC?

 

I previously posted that I would not vote against such a motion were it to come to the floor of the Annual Meeting. The reason is found in Amos 3:3 - "Can two walk together unless they are agreed?" Churches that are dually aligned are divided houses, and most likely they have leadership that will not take a stand on those issues that are perceived as "controversial." The hard part about such an at attempt at disfellowshiping though would be trying to find out which churches are actually aligned with the CBF and the SBC.

For example, when I was in South Carolina, FBC-Loris was a conservative church that was fully-aligned with the SBC. Yet, because one or two of their members chose to give to the CBF, the CBF of South Carolina listed FBC-Loris as a CBF church in their monthly newsletter. It doesn't get much more deceptive than that. Their pastor was furious and he asked that their church's name be taken out immediately. Such was the consistent practice of the CBF in South Carolina.

To answer your question, I would be in favor of disfellowshiping any SBC church that is aligned with some other apostate group, no matter if it is the CBF, BWA, etc. I believe we are in the last days, and this is no time to shrink back in our committment to God and His Word.

 

Todd,

Since NC Baptists rejected a motion to only give through the SBC and dump all other giving options (CBF, BWA) should the SBC not accept money from the NC Baptists? Or from the BGCT for that matter, a huge funder of moderate causes, and also of the SBC.

 

Jimmy, you raise a good point and I think there is certainly coming a day and time when that question and some like it will have to be seriously considered. Personally, I wouldn't want to take any money from a church that is dually aligned. I know that would mean a sizeable loss in income, but I believe the Bible-believing churches and state conventions could help "stand in the gap" if they were fully aware of the need.

The problem behind all this is that the majority of Pastors who enter churches and don't agree with the whole dual alignment concept are often not willing to take a stand against it. I know some of them reason that "it's there money, they should be able to give as they see fit." I don't disagree with that statement, but what I do disagree with is church's being the vehicle through which funds are distributed to apostate groups. That is wrong, and Pastors/churches that accept gifts to such groups are just as guilty as those who give the gifts in the first place (cf. - end of Rm. 1).

 

Perhaps you should read the original topic from which you have diverted.

"The SBC is criticizing the BWA (from which it withdrew) for sending fund-raising letters to SBC and other Baptist churches."

So I just added a little bit about how great the SBC is really and compared it to how it thinks it is. The SBC is so busy patting each other's backs that their backs are sore.

 

Todd

I also reject your statment that either the CBF or the BWA are apostate groups or that they are gay friendly based on a couple of churches in oregon. Any more than I think the SBC itself is a gay friendly organization because they invest in organizations such as Carnival Cruise Lines or other comapanies that give benefits to gay partners.

While not CBF myself - nor do I have any desire to be in a CBF church, I have many friends that are - to a man they belive in salvation only through Christ. If you were to actually have a conversation with them you would find them to be fine, conservative, Bible believing Christian men and women. The CBF folks that I know are very evangelistic with great hearts for their neighbors and community.

As far as I know, there are no "Gay" churches in the BWA. from what I read African and Asian churches are more conservative than their US counterparts.

Harvest Baptist Church in Watauga, TX had a philandering pastor who was one of the strongest fundamentilist trustees on the SWBTS board, Prestonworld Baptist (one of the largest in the convention) also had a philandering pastor - neither of them were "disciplined" by the SBC - but of course thier politics were "right" - and no one ever accused them of being apostate.

As long as there are organizations run by men, there are going to be failures - the CBF should dump the Evergreen Assn, SEBTS should not have given a car to one of Patterson's flunkys, Patterson should not have tried to hire an ethically challenged man as SWBTS first chaplin, pastors should not have affairs.

In my opinion, we spend too much time fighting about peripheral issues when we need to be winning the world for Christ. And that is why I am glad (getting back to the origional issue of this tread) that the BWA is soliciting funds from SBC churches - the BWA is working to win the world for Christ

 

Jimmy, you allow your theology to cloud your judgment I'm afraid. You actually think that the BWA is doing a better job of reaching the lost and making disciples than the SBC? The BWA is an alliance that conservative Europeon pastors will tell you that they want no part of because it is stocked full of liberal theology and ideologies. If that's the horse you want to run with, go for it. I'll take my IMB missionaries who have vowed not only to reach the world for Christ, but to do so with the genuine Gospel, and not some liberal, watered-down version.

As for the Evergreen Association, it is actually the BWA that needs to dump them - get your facts straight. The CBF needs to dump Glendale Baptist Church in Nashville which is currently the home church of a full-time lesbian staff member. I'm not quite sure how these are "peripheral" issues. If they are simply cumbersome issues in your opinion that bear no real weight on missions and evangelism, then I'm not quite sure you understand that our missions and evangelism must be grounded in the Word of God.

It's obvious to me that several folks who post in here have an axe to grind with the SBC. Consequently, those same folks will defend any organization that has had any type of confrontation with the SBC. That is deplorable, especially when some of those groups have proven themselves to be "gay-friendly." You may not want to believe that, but it is the truth.

 

Both are doing a lousy job. The whole thing is just a straight line of gossip straight from hell feeding the flames of death. The people who are involved in those things who think their denomination is so important just need to step outside and ask non-believers what they think about the conduct of the Christians involved in such evil.

 

How can you discipline anyone or any church if you make the claim that all the churches are autonomous and refuse to act. Doesn't quite seem biblical to me.

 

Todd,

My apologies for not looking at your previous posts. The SBC needs you as their spokesman on this issue rather than Dr. Patterson in that you have been consistent in your arguments against the BWA and I must say, you have won me over to your side.

FBC-Seattle, Glendale in TN (which is affiliated with thje ultra liberal Alliance of Baptists) as well as TN CBF all speak for themselves from their websites and are all arguments why Bible believing Christians should steer clear of such associations.

The SBC still has a problem. The SBC has no power to remove a Church. They can reject their CP funds but that is all and is one of the glaring problems of the SBC.