If you think the Southern Bap Convention controls local churches...

[agedman]

Sorry for two items.

First, Please pardon the delay in responding. I was called out of town on business and wasn't near the forum to respond to the questions or statements to my first post on this thread.

However, I was nevertheless accurate in my statements. In my haste, I posted an SBC sight that is related to a church in which Lindsey Terry is the music director and not the church I originally intended and which is not far from St. Augustine - in Crescent City, Florida.

Here is the correct link.

And please note they are OWNED by the SBC.

"First Baptist Church was established in 1907 and has been a vital part of the Crescent City community for over 100 years. The church belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention, the Florida Baptist Convention and the St. John's River Baptist Association."
​

http://www.ccfirstbaptist.org/

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sorry for two items.

First, Please pardon the delay in responding. I was called out of town on business and wasn't near the forum to respond to the questions or statements to my first post on this thread.

However, I was nevertheless accurate in my statements. In my haste, I posted an SBC sight that is related to a church in which Lindsey Terry is the music director and not the church I originally intended and which is not far from St. Augustine - in Crescent City, Florida.

Here is the correct link.

And please note they are OWNED by the SBC.

"First Baptist Church was established in 1907 and has been a vital part of the Crescent City community for over 100 years. The church belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention, the Florida Baptist Convention and the St. John's River Baptist Association."
​

http://www.ccfirstbaptist.org/

UMM... I am not seeing how they are OWNED at all... I think you are misreading this the SBC simply does not control local churches, all they can do is disassociate with them. (I do not belong to an SBC church either).

 

[Salty]

First, Please pardon the delay in responding. I was called out of town on business and wasn't near the forum to respond to the questions or statements to my first post on this thread.

Sometimes on BB we can get a bit impatient, not realizing the schedule of others.

Here is the correct link.

And please note they are OWNED by the SBC.

"First Baptist Church was established in 1907 and has been a vital part of the Crescent City community for over 100 years. The church belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention, the Florida Baptist Convention and the St. John's River Baptist Association."
​

http://www.ccfirstbaptist.org/

Check this link of the Pepsi-Cola company. They own or did own many different companies, such as Ruffles, Gatorade, ect. Pepsi owns them. They could sell, change policy, or any other action they so deemed necessary.


Have you ever owned a franchise? You could purchase one from Sears. It belongs to you, but you are still under virtual control of Sears.

But a SBC church is strictly locally "owned" and controlled. The church or SBC may end affiliation any time they desire.

Let me give you a perfect example: A few years ago, a rep from the Bap Convention of NY came to our church. He said we should move our location - so we could be more successful.
Well, our church decided we wanted to stay where we were, which we did.
Why do suppose the SBC could NOT make us move?

And please pray tell me, in your link of post # 21 where does it tells us that First Baptist Church of Crescent City is owned by the SBC. Yes, it does say they are a member of the SBC. But aren't you a member of a local Baptist church? Are you free to withdraw your membership at any time? Likewise a SBC affiliated church may leave at anytime they desire. In fact, hundreds did leave in the late 60's and early 70's due to the liberal takeover - until the conservatives retook leadership. Now days, many liberal - pro-homosexual churches are leaving the SBC.

As I said before, show me where a local church is "owned" by the SBC and I will admit it.
(Note: a business agreement based on loaning money is not "owning" the church)

 

[agedman]

As I said before, show me where a local church is "owned" by the SBC and I will admit it.
(Note: a business agreement based on loaning money is not "owning" the church)

As I quoted from the site. The church "belongs to the SBC."

It doesn't use such words of agreement or voluntary friendship with the SBC such as: "associated with the SBC," or "In cooperation with the SBC"
Rather, the site pointedly states "belongs to the SBC."

If something "belongs" - it is owned - it has ownership that is not only expressed but actual authoritarian control.

The word "belongs" is far more reaching than the laissez-faire statement that the SBC site would tout as existing between the local assemblies and the convention.

The SBC desires folk to think no further than their site statement says of the relationship. That a mutual (or confederate) relationship exists between the SBC and the local church ("be in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work)".

However, this is not what the world "belongs to the SBC" means.

 

[nodak]

Salty, I think maybe I wasn't clear.

Suppose you belong to a little country town church--let's call it 17th Baptist Church. Say it was built with the blood sweat and tears of the locals 100 years ago. Say it is growing and wants a new fellowship hall.

It can go to the local bank and borrow the money it needs. Or it can go to its state association and borrow it for half the interest, and decides to do so.

But suppose half way through paying it back the national convention again changes the BFM. Say they amend it to firmly reject TULIP, and 17th Baptist holds to TULIP. If 17th took the loan with the common reversionary clause (and if the state assoc. was wise it has one) then if the church decides to leave rather than affirm the new BFM, they lose their building.

Or suppose that part of remaining supportive and in full faith with the SBC required 17th Baptist to contribute at least $250 a year to the state assoc. or the CP. No problem. But suppose that half way through the loan the state votes to change that to $2500, hard times have hit, and 17th Baptist cannot pay it. They are disassociated by the state and lose their building.

I understand and support any agency or association that puts in a reversionary clause when loaning money. Absolutely wise thing to do.

BUT--as a church member I would never vote to borrow money from any agency or association that insists on a reversionary clause. I believe in maintaining the autonomy of the local church.

 

[gb93433]

When I took Baptist history Dr. McBeth made us aware of court cases which involved a church wanting to leave the SBC and change it to another denomination and it remained SBC.

 

[Tom Butler]

Maybe it depends on where you are. Here in Kentucky and in my native West Tennessee it is common to ask someone, "What church do you belong to?"

All one is asking is "of what church are you a member?"

In the OP case, it would be quite inconsistent to conclude that the SBC, or the Association, or the Florida BC "owns" the church, given several hundred years of a totally opposite practice.

 

[TCGreek]

We are either looking at a genuine question or not.

 

[preachinjesus]

As I quoted from the site. The church "belongs to the SBC."

It doesn't use such words of agreement or voluntary friendship with the SBC such as: "associated with the SBC," or "In cooperation with the SBC"
Rather, the site pointedly states "belongs to the SBC."

You misunderstand the term "belongs."

I know how many churches in the SBC use the term "belong." They don't mean belong as in owned by, or controlled by, or any form of outside influence.

In this church, they use the term belong in a sense of "be part of" or "associate with" or "affiliated with." They don't mean they are owned or controlled by the SBC.

If something "belongs" - it is owned - it has ownership that is not only expressed but actual authoritarian control.

The word "belongs" is far more reaching than the laissez-faire statement that the SBC site would tout as existing between the local assemblies and the convention.

You're overestimating the use of one word. The medium sized SBC church I grew up in as a child would use similar language in describing our relationship with the SBC. "We belong to the SBC and enjoy voting privileges at the annual convention..." is part of the bylaws statement (until revised for clarity.) They meant that they were affiliated with the SBC and part of the denomination. They didn't mean they were owned by the SBC.

The SBC desires folk to think no further than their site statement says of the relationship. That a mutual (or confederate) relationship exists between the SBC and the local church ("be in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work)".

However, this is not what the world "belongs to the SBC" means.

I think you've got a beef with the SBC and are allowing that problem to corrupt your understanding of the term.

As a lifelong Southern Baptist, and having led several SBC churches at this point, I know that all SBC churches have historically used the term "belong" to mean affiliation or partnering. They do not mean they are owned or controlled by the convention.

 

[Jerome]

The SBC party line, straight from a handbook attempting to explain the denominational leviathan:

p. 17, A Southern Baptist Primer: The Organization of the Southern Baptist Convention and How it Functions [North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 2003]:

HOW LOCAL CHURCHES RELATE TTHER SOUTHERN BAPTIST ORGANIZATIONS
Association, State Convention, and National Convention

Cooperation: Churches Relate through a Spirit of Cooperation
Local churches choose to cooperate with Southern Baptist denominational organizations; they do not belong to the Southern Baptist Convention. Churches belong to Jesus Christ. . . .

 

[Jerome]

Usually the denominational bureaucrats will at least pay lip service to such shibboleths, but occasionally they let something slip.

I remember pointing out to Tom Butler an article on the SBC denominational website that referred to the 'Southern Baptist Church' in the aggregate. He was able to get that gaffe pulled from the interwebs pronto.

 

[12strings]

If the phrase "belongs to the southern baptist convention" is all we have to go on, there is ZERO reason to think that the SBC owns this church. They have simply used a common phrase to describe their associational relationship.

If I say I "belong" to a local assotiation of volunteer firemen...they don't own me, and I can stop being a fireman if I determine that my life no fits that time commitment.

The fact remains that the VAST MAJORITY of SBC churches are not controlled or owned by the SBC, other than some very minimal requirements to remain associated.

It is true that many people don't understand this, and many who do often speak of the relationship with less than precise language.

 

[JonC]

If the SBC owned any church, then the SBC could tell a local church what to believe. Obviously this is not the case, and anyone implying otherwise is misinformed (regardless of how an individual church may misstate its affiliation). Since the SBC cannot impose any belief or practice it does not own another church.

If a church desires to ordain women as pastors or advocate homosexuality, the church is free to do so. Of course, then the church can’t agree with the SBC confession of faith, but no belief is imposed. For such a post to carry on for four pages when the structure of the SBC is readily available is simply silly and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of not only Southern Baptist history but Baptist history and the free church in general.

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't know of any church that is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention since its inception in 1845.

The original charter, and subsequent revisions, does not provide any apparatus for the national convention to own any church.

It is a most absurd statement to claim that the SBC can own a church.

 

[agedman]

You misunderstand the term "belongs."

I know how many churches in the SBC use the term "belong." They don't mean belong as in owned by, or controlled by, or any form of outside influence.

In this church, they use the term belong in a sense of "be part of" or "associate with" or "affiliated with." They don't mean they are owned or controlled by the SBC.



You're overestimating the use of one word. The medium sized SBC church I grew up in as a child would use similar language in describing our relationship with the SBC. "We belong to the SBC and enjoy voting privileges at the annual convention..." is part of the bylaws statement (until revised for clarity.) They meant that they were affiliated with the SBC and part of the denomination. They didn't mean they were owned by the SBC.



I think you've got a beef with the SBC and are allowing that problem to corrupt your understanding of the term.

As a lifelong Southern Baptist, and having led several SBC churches at this point, I know that all SBC churches have historically used the term "belong" to mean affiliation or partnering. They do not mean they are owned or controlled by the convention.

If the phrase "belongs to the southern baptist convention" is all we have to go on, there is ZERO reason to think that the SBC owns this church. They have simply used a common phrase to describe their associational relationship.

If I say I "belong" to a local assotiation of volunteer firemen...they don't own me, and I can stop being a fireman if I determine that my life no fits that time commitment.

The fact remains that the VAST MAJORITY of SBC churches are not controlled or owned by the SBC, other than some very minimal requirements to remain associated.

It is true that many people don't understand this, and many who do often speak of the relationship with less than precise language.

I don't know of any church that is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention since its inception in 1845.

The original charter, and subsequent revisions, does not provide any apparatus for the national convention to own any church.

It is a most absurd statement to claim that the SBC can own a church.

First, as it has already been pointed out in this thread, there are cases when the local congregation voted to remove itself from the SBC, the SBC took over the land and buildings. Such action is no doubt controlling the local assembly.

Second, as it has been pointed out in this thread the word "belong" in some folks would seem to indicate only the level of "association" or "in cooperation" with the SBC. Such use of the word is incorrect.

To use the illustration of the "volunteer fireman," one can readily see that if the volunteer "belongs" to the volunteer fireman brigade, there are certain rules, certain command structures, practice drills, and so forth that take place. If the volunteer does not follow the command structure or breaks the rules, they are removed from "belonging" to the volunteer group.

Therefore, the word, "belong" has a far greater authoritarian meaning than the words "associated with" or "in cooperation with."

Third, the fact is the site mentions this church as been around since 1907 and certainly is no recently associated member of the SBC, but holds over a century of interaction. The word "belong" then cannot merely mean "affiliated with" any more than a pastor is "affiliated with" the Masons.

Fourth, as has already been pointed out, the word "belong" also shows submission toward an authority of a whole. When one "joins" a church, they place their "belonging" into the church roles as members. They are to submit to the teaching of the church and follow the leadership. That is the relationship of the vast majority of SBC churches find themselves in with convention matters. There is certain implied pressures of conformity, and the past decades of battle over the conservative versus liberal at the national level is an indication of how bitter the struggle can become. Both sides know that by controlling the educational systems of the university, seminary and local church Sunday School literature is key to holding the local churches in the SBC.

Fifth, the SBC will never blatantly state "we control the local church" anymore than communist Russia would admit that freedom of religion in the communist block didn't exist. Why should they? When you are involved in political gain, you don't underscore and boldly pronounce a fault. So, folks who post that the SBC has a long history of..., or, the SBC states that they... , might just not be in fact fully informed.

Last, I will give you this information. I was involved. I did know the facts. I had the inside information. I did leave the SBC as I expressed in another thread. Am I bitter - nope. Do I miss the meetings and glad hands of the "impressive" and "well known" - nope.

The question may be asked, "Why then did you post on this thread?"

To stir up your thinking and realization that not all things are as they appear in the SBC, and to encourage the forum folks to beware of deceitfulness.

There are many good, gentle, and Spirit filled folks in the SBC.

But, if we are to take the word of God as factual, and recall that the latter days are filled with church folks who are deceived, tepid, ignorant and base demonstrations of approval by God on wealth, buildings, and works rather than purity of the Scriptural truth, then the believer needs to accept that even the SBC is gladly joined (or will be) with the harlot of papacy. The SBC will not be in the rapture, but will thrive in support of the anti-Christ of the tribulation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

the SBC took over the land and buildings. Such action is no doubt controlling the local assembly.

If you equate the land and buildings with the "Assembly" I am sorry. If your church borrows money from me and does not pay its bills and the contract YOU SIGNED allows me to take it back if you hack me off, then your poor stewardship which is UNGODLY is to blame not me.

Second, as it has been pointed out in this thread the word "belong" in some folks would seem to indicate only the level of "association" or "in cooperation" with the SBC. Such use of the word is incorrect.

To use the illustration of the "volunteer fireman," one can readily see that if the volunteer "belongs" to the volunteer fireman brigade, there are certain rules, certain command structures, practice drills, and so forth that take place. If the volunteer does not follow the command structure or breaks the rules, they are removed from "belonging" to the volunteer group.

This is simply an argument from analogy, followed by this bald assertion....

Therefore, the word, "belong" has a far greater authoritarian meaning than the words "associated with" or "in cooperation with."

Third, the fact is the site mentions this church as been around since 1907 and certainly is no recently associated member of the SBC, but holds over a century of interaction. The word "belong" then cannot merely mean "affiliated with" any more than a pastor is "affiliated with" the Masons

.
non-sequitor

Fourth, as has already been pointed out, the word "belong" also shows submission toward an authority of a whole. When one "joins" a church, they place their "belonging" into the church roles as members. They are to submit to the teaching of the church and follow the leadership. That is the relationship of the vast majority of SBC churches find themselves in with convention matters. There is certain implied pressures of conformity,

This is simply a restatement of the "fire brigade" analogy above.

Fifth, the SBC will never blatantly state "we control the local church" anymore than communist Russia would admit that freedom of religion in the communist block didn't exist. Why should they? When you are involved in political gain, you don't underscore and boldly pronounce a fault

a vicious equivocation. and it is question begging.

The SBC will not be in the rapture,

?????................this is true by definition

I do not attend a SB church..used to...I prefer a more Independent Baptist Church, and yes some churches is the SBC DO take their association with it too far...This is often more the fault of the LOCAL ASSEMBLY ITSELF than the associations. But you are tilting at windmills.

 

[Salty]

Agedman

Just curious - is your home church affiliated with any group?

 

[12strings]

The believer needs to accept that even the SBC is gladly joined (or will be) with the harlot of papacy. The SBC will not be in the rapture, but will thrive in support of the anti-Christ of the tribulation.

[/QUOTE]

1. Any chance you had of your arguments being taken seriously has been thrown away with this conclusion. (a) it shows you are not looking at this situation with an objective eye. (b). You are right that the SBC will not be in the rapture, but neither will ANY CHURCH orginizational structure...just people. (c). Even If you were right about your future predictions, you have no way to know, so you are simply guessing.

2. No one is saying that churches don't agree to a few "cooperative" conditions when they join the SBC, but this is far different than the situation you are describing. SBC churches do submit somewhat to membership rules, but any orginzation will have these.

3. SBC churches are not required to send their students to SBC colleges... Not required to hire a SBC pastor from an SBC seminary, and are not required to used SBC curriculum.

4. The staff at the SBC church I attend has talked briefly about not being associated with the SBC, but we see no real reason to do so. Positively, because of the Missons work the SBC has real value, and negatively, because they don't interfere in our church workings.
-We recently cut our Cooperative Program giving in half and gave the money instead directly to the International Mission board.
-We cut our local associational giving in half and gave the money instead to a church in Haiti.
-We have about 12 different sunday school classes...only 2 of them use sbc curriculum.
-No one from the sbc hierarchy has come to whip us back into shape or take over our building.

 

[preachinjesus]

First, as it has already been pointed out in this thread, there are cases when the local congregation voted to remove itself from the SBC, the SBC took over the land and buildings. Such action is no doubt controlling the local assembly.

I've never heard of this happening. So please provide exact, specific instances and not general claims. The SBC's charter and bylaws forbids this kind of activity so I think your point requires a specific evidential finding to be true.

Second, as it has been pointed out in this thread the word "belong" in some folks would seem to indicate only the level of "association" or "in cooperation" with the SBC. Such use of the word is incorrect.

To use the illustration of the "volunteer fireman," one can readily see that if the volunteer "belongs" to the volunteer fireman brigade, there are certain rules, certain command structures, practice drills, and so forth that take place. If the volunteer does not follow the command structure or breaks the rules, they are removed from "belonging" to the volunteer group.

Therefore, the word, "belong" has a far greater authoritarian meaning than the words "associated with" or "in cooperation with."

This is a false comparison and an erroneous belief. When Southern Baptist speak about belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention they mean association. This is how the term is used and has been used in the history of the convention. I challenge you to check out EY Mullins' works and Herschel Hobbes to see more specific outworkings of how Southern Baptists view issues of autonomy and freedom of local churches.

Third, the fact is the site mentions this church as been around since 1907 and certainly is no recently associated member of the SBC, but holds over a century of interaction. The word "belong" then cannot merely mean "affiliated with" any more than a pastor is "affiliated with" the Masons.

I don't understand why you've picked one church out of 45,000, but that's besides the point. Your entire point here is erroneous. The Southern Baptist Convention's bylaws and constitution explicitly define the notion of local church autonomy and show the difference between it an organizations like the Mason (which is a terrible analogy.) Churches are completely free for their own goverance, personnel management, and how they associate with other churches. There is no normative fiats coming down from Nashville because that isn't how the SBC works.

Fourth, as has already been pointed out, the word "belong" also shows submission toward an authority of a whole. When one "joins" a church, they place their "belonging" into the church roles as members. They are to submit to the teaching of the church and follow the leadership. That is the relationship of the vast majority of SBC churches find themselves in with convention matters. There is certain implied pressures of conformity, and the past decades of battle over the conservative versus liberal at the national level is an indication of how bitter the struggle can become. Both sides know that by controlling the educational systems of the university, seminary and local church Sunday School literature is key to holding the local churches in the SBC.

I don't think you understand the Baptist concept of local church autonomy. You're also overemphasizing the term "belong" btw. Now the other problem is that when I join a Baptist church that nature of membership is entirely different than how that Baptist affliates with other Baptist churches. If there are pressures, for instance conservative vs. liberal, that is just a pressure and there is no means whereby the Southern Baptist Convention (which technically only exists for two days a year) can do anything about a member church in terms of its leadership and decisions the body makes.

The only pressure is peer driven, not institutionally driven.

Also, no Southern Baptist Church is required to take and use Lifeway curriculum for their groups ministry. Our church does not use Lifeway. Our relationship to the SBC is limited to our giving to the Cooperative Program. No SBC leader has come and spoken at our church, we have never received a phone call about our leadership or structure from the SBC, we have happy relationships for missions and evangelism with other SBC in our area...but that is it. That is how about 95% of all SBC churches operate.

Fifth, the SBC will never blatantly state "we control the local church" anymore than communist Russia would admit that freedom of religion in the communist block didn't exist. Why should they? When you are involved in political gain, you don't underscore and boldly pronounce a fault. So, folks who post that the SBC has a long history of..., or, the SBC states that they... , might just not be in fact fully informed.

An argument from silence. This is a terrible point that isn't true. It's like saying "Well the government wouldn't want to admit they are feeding us Solyent Green...therefore the government must be feeding us Solyent Green." This isn't even a point, its an ad hominem attack that has no basis.

Last, I will give you this information. I was involved. I did know the facts. I had the inside information. I did leave the SBC as I expressed in another thread. Am I bitter - nope. Do I miss the meetings and glad hands of the "impressive" and "well known" - nope.

The question may be asked, "Why then did you post on this thread?"

To stir up your thinking and realization that not all things are as they appear in the SBC, and to encourage the forum folks to beware of deceitfulness.

I'm glad you were involved but I suspect your experience wasn't authentic to what is actually the Southern Baptist Convention.

There are many good, gentle, and Spirit filled folks in the SBC.

But, if we are to take the word of God as factual, and recall that the latter days are filled with church folks who are deceived, tepid, ignorant and base demonstrations of approval by God on wealth, buildings, and works rather than purity of the Scriptural truth,

Well I take the Bible seriously and believe in its inerrancy I disagree with all of your assessments. The SBC isn't papal, it isn't catholic, it isn't a false prophet, it isn't the whore of Babylon. Those are vindictive statements that have no place in a reasonable debate.

The reality is that the Southern Baptist Convention is a wonderful organization of autonomous churches free from denominational control who partner together to advance the Gospel across the world in a manner unparralleled in human history. There have been more people brought into the Kingdom of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the united ministries of partner churches in the Southern Baptist Convention than any other Christian missions group in the history of the Church.

then the believer needs to accept that even the SBC is gladly joined (or will be) with the harlot of papacy. The SBC will not be in the rapture, but will thrive in support of the anti-Christ of the tribulation.

Wow, you actually said this. I'm sorry someone hurt you in your experience with the SBC but this is a terrible, horrible overreach.

I challenge just about all your assumptions about the Southern Baptist Convention based on their bylaws and constitution as well as having an insiders knowledge of how things work for the past 20 years. There is no way the annual convention (which meets for only 2 days a year) can exert this kind of control and no apparatus whereby this is possible.

My challenge to you is to explain your current church situation and show us explicit instances of churches being controled by the Southern Baptist Convention in ways that violate Baptist local church autonomy.

 

[preachinjesus]

Maybe this is a helpful note, maybe not. This is how the church where I get to serve exists in relation to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Historically we began as a church plant of a larger church that was situated in the downtown of the metro area we serve. We received a core group of leaders from that church and zero dollars from the state and national missions agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. (I have friends who have planted churches with assistance and will address that below) Since then we have consistently given to the Cooperative Program and sent messengers to the annual meetings of our state and national conventions. We have also partnered with other local churches in our region to do missions and evangelism work.

That is where our relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention is an ends. We have never had a "president" (a virtually powerless positions) of the annual convention show up. We generally don't invite leaders to speak at our church. Frankly, unless you're really interested (and we're happy to talk about it) we don't talk about being Southern Baptist very much at all. We give to the Cooperative Program and then go about our ministries our way. There is no way, and never has been, for a person in the convention HQ (which in reality is an office in a building in Nashville...not some monolothic institution) to speak into our leadership structure, our policies, our missions, our way of being church. We voluntarily associate with other churches, as we do that we comprise the whole of the convention, and if we desire to severe that relationship we can freely do so and will not be conjuled into staying.

I think the mischaracterizations about the Southern Baptist Convention come from a very limited view of what the convention is. As I've encountered people (primarily independent Baptists...real people don't care about this stuff) who don't like the SBC most all of their information is based on bad information. Generally when I have talked with them within several minutes we both discover that what they've been told is erroneous and often leads to a better view of the SBC.

Now, I've got several friends who have planted churches using funds from the state convention or the North American Mission Board. It is absolutely critical point out that the "Southern Baptist Convention" never, cannot ever, give money to a local church plant. It isn't possible. As my friends have gotten these, limited, funds from the state convention or NAMB they have some simple accountability devices in place (so we can be wise in our stewardship) that have little to do with numbers and "results" and more to do with authenticity. Also, these funds never come with strings attached. There is no controlling, like requiring these plants to only use Lifeway resources, devices in place. Finally, the funds are given for a specific period of time, usually long enough to get on their own feet as a church body, and then aren't available afterwards. Also, there is no expectation that the plant pays back these funds.

So I think the belief that the SBC controls churches is highly erroneous and is not reality. So what do you think?