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

[mandym]

Wow, what a clever and convincing response!

This clause makes them just like the Nazarenes, Methodists, Presbyterians and every other denomination which doesn't believe in or practice autonomy.

And you believe that your post was both clever and convincing? What did you say in your post that meets either of those criteria? Apparently you do not understand what is happening here. If the church chooses to place this reversion clause in their deed then it doesn't come close. This has no effect on autonomy.

 

[gb93433]

It seems like so many Baptists are about being independent and autonomous rather than being healthy. Some seem to think that being independent and autonomous build health. I pastored a church that had a regular practice of inviting the Mormon bishop to come each year and preach. When I took the matter to a former president of the denomination his response was the same as the local association--autonomous churches. What a sorry excuse for ignoring a major problem--false teachers!!!!

 

[Jerome]

How about a provision it would take 2/3 of vote to disaffiliate.

I fail to see how this would help. It would just make it a little more difficult...and that's only if the church also has a provision that says it takes 2/3 vote to amend the bylaws, in which case they could do that with a simple majority, and THEN vote to disaffiliate!

2/3? Is that all? Why not require a unanimous vote?

Just as one state Convention of this purportedly pro-autonomy Southern Baptist denomination recommends:

Article IX

In the event the Church owns, or elects to purchase real property, the following covenants, conditions and restrictions shall apply to such real property:
. . . .
shall be used for the benefit of the members of the Church who are determined to be in harmony with and affiliation with the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention (“ASBC”), even if the members determined to be in harmony with the ASBC shall be a minority of the membership.
. . . .
the provisions in this ARTICLE IX of the Bylaws may not be amended or repealed except by unanimous consent of the voting members of the Church

[Arizona Southern Baptist Convention document]

http://sbcvoices.com/autonomy-of-the-local-church/

 

[gb93433]

2/3? Is that all? Why not require a unanimous vote?

Just as one state Convention of this purportedly pro-autonomy Southern Baptist denomination recommends:

[Arizona Southern Baptist Convention document]

http://sbcvoices.com/autonomy-of-the-local-church/

When I was involved in a SBC church plant years ago we did not have any documents because we were under a mother church. We were funded by the mother church, the local association, and the state level. When I was in AZ I saw the kind of action that raised some red flags then. I was told that Southern Seminary had brought on some non-SBC folks on their advisory board. Years ago a pastor would not have gotten a job at any of the SBC seminaries if he had graduated from a dispensational seminary or school. Now take a look and see how many there are.

 

[Jerome]

From the Episcopal case in Virginia:

"Likewise, certain Baptist denominations use deeds providing that “n the event the entire membership of said Church should renounce these practices and doctrines [of missionary Baptists, as believed in and practiced by the Mount Vernon Baptist Association of Virginia, and the Southern Baptist Convention or their successors], or in case its house of worship and/or land upon which it is situated as above set forth, be abandoned or shall cease to be used as a house or place of Baptist worship, then all of the land and improvements thereon shall immediately revert to the Board of Trustees of Mount Vernon Baptist Association, LTD, its successor or assigns.” Apostles Ex. 330.0003 (deed) (emphasis added). And, outside of Virginia, Episcopal dioceses employ the same approach. Apostles Ex. 369.0015 (Article XI, § 1) (Diocese of West Missouri constitution)."

—VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, In re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church, CANA CONGREGATIONS’ CORRECTED OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF

 

[Salty]

2/3? Is that all? Why not require a unanimous vote?

If the church wanted that - fine. But I would not vote for it. As Michael stated before- suppose the SBC went extremely liberal. I would consider leaving the convention. Under your proposed 100% - just one person, out of say 75, keep us in the SBC (or any convention).
Now, I might agree to 75% - but then again its up to the local congregation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

2/3? Is that all? Why not require a unanimous vote?

Just as one state Convention of this purportedly pro-autonomy Southern Baptist denomination recommends:



[Arizona Southern Baptist Convention document]

http://sbcvoices.com/autonomy-of-the-local-church/

And mandym believes this has no effect on autonomy. Of course it doesn't! It just makes the local Baptist church no different in polity from the Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

This is quite amazing.

 

[mandym]

And mandym believes this has no effect on autonomy. Of course it doesn't! It just makes the local Baptist church no different in polity from the Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

This is quite amazing.

It doesn't make them anything like them. You have no idea what your talking about. I am embarrassed for you.

Those denominations bought and provided the land and buildings for those local churches. The church membership relied on those denominations to provide that for them. In the cooperative the churches had no one to rely on to provide the buildings and land. The local churches themselves worked, saved, and built the churches themselves. No one can make the church give the building to anyone. The church must decide for itself to place the reversion clause in the deed. That is a decision the church must make on its own through its own governance. That is autonomy. In other words if the facilities go to the association or convention then that is a result of the decision and vote of the church alone.

Personally I think this is a dumb thing to do. The property to revert to another SBC church not the convention.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It doesn't make them anything like them. You have no idea what your talking about. I am embarrassed for you.

Those denominations bought and provided the land and buildings for those local churches. The church membership relied on those denominations to provide that for them. In the cooperative the churches had no one to rely on to provide the buildings and land. The local churches themselves worked, saved, and built the churches themselves. No one can make the church give the building to anyone. The church must decide for itself to place the reversion clause in the deed. That is a decision the church must make on its own through its own governance. That is autonomy. In other words if the facilities go to the association or convention then that is a result of the decision and vote of the church alone.

Personally I think this is a dumb thing to do. The property to revert to another SBC church not the convention.

And I am embarrassed for you - that you can claim to be Baptist and believe in autonomy and yet endorse these reverter clauses.

Let the scenario like I have mentioned happen, and it becomes quite clear that the local church has surrendered its autonomy, to its detriment. That way an apostate minority believing in homosexual ordinations and marriages could snatch the property from the orthodox majority and chase them out of their building. Yeah, that's "Baptist" alright.

 

[mandym]

And I am embarrassed for you - that you can claim to be Baptist and believe in autonomy and yet endorse these reverter clauses.

Let the scenario like I have mentioned happen, and it becomes quite clear that the local church has surrendered its autonomy, to its detriment. That way an apostate minority believing in homosexual ordinations and marriages could snatch the property from the orthodox majority and chase them out of their building. Yeah, that's "Baptist" alright.

You show, yet again, that you do not understand the purpose in these clauses. If the clause goes into effect it is only when the church has been disbanned.

 

[nodak]

Somebody from the Land of Enchantment please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe their reversion clause is NOT.....repeat NOT just about churches that disband.

It is about churches that "cease to be SBC." Which means if the SBC decides to ordain gays and your church opts out, you can lose the building.

More likely, it means that if you cannot send your set amount of money--used to be $250--THEY can declare YOU no longer SBC and take your building.

It means if your church decides to ordain women deacons and the BCNM votes you the boot THEY can take YOUR building.

Help me out, New Mexicans--do you have to have borrowed money for the reverter clause to go into effect, or is it all new churches desiring affiliation, or what?

Remember the CR? What if it had been a liberal takeover--would you have wanted to lose your building if you decided to go independent fundamentalist?

Unbelievably unbaptistic if you know your Baptist history!

 

[mandym]

Somebody from the Land of Enchantment please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe their reversion clause is NOT.....repeat NOT just about churches that disband.

It is about churches that "cease to be SBC." Which means if the SBC decides to ordain gays and your church opts out, you can lose the building.

More likely, it means that if you cannot send your set amount of money--used to be $250--THEY can declare YOU no longer SBC and take your building.

It means if your church decides to ordain women deacons and the BCNM votes you the boot THEY can take YOUR building.

Help me out, New Mexicans--do you have to have borrowed money for the reverter clause to go into effect, or is it all new churches desiring affiliation, or what?

Remember the CR? What if it had been a liberal takeover--would you have wanted to lose your building if you decided to go independent fundamentalist?

Unbelievably unbaptistic if you know your Baptist history!

Quite the conspiracy theory. Can you present one single incident where such a thing occurred?

 

[Jerome]

You show, yet again, that you do not understand the purpose in these clauses. If the clause goes into effect it is only when the church has been disbanned.

Huh?

Let's take a look at the language recommended on a state Southern Baptist Convention website:

The real property described herein, with the appurtenances, estate, title and interest thereto, belonging to (Church) (the “Church”), its successors and assigns, shall be used for the benefit of those of the membership of the Church who are determined to be in harmony with and affiliating with the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention (the “ASBC”). This condition shall remain even if the members determined to be in harmony with the ASBC shall be in the minority. The terms “harmony with” and “affiliating with” shall be interpreted in such manner that the messengers of the Church shall be recognized and given full voting privileges at the annual meetings of the ASBC. Should the Church messengers be denied such recognition and voting privileges by the ASBC, or in case the organic existence of the Church shall cease, or in case its house of worship or the land upon which it is situated and any additional property described in this Deed be abandoned or shall cease to be used as a house or place of Southern Baptist worship by those in harmony with or affiliated with the ASBC, as above set forth, or in case same shall be sold by the Church or the title be transferred by legal process or otherwise, without the written consent of the ASBC, then in each and every such case the title to the above described property shall revert to and become vested in the (local Southern Baptist Association’s name), or its successor, to be used for a church or mission in harmony with and affiliated with the ASBC.

The denominational bureaucrats can take the 'autonomous' congregation's property upon showing any one of the following:

1. The 'autonomous' congregation is excluded by the Convention ["Should the Church messengers be denied such recognition and voting privileges by the ASBC"]

OR

2. The 'autonomous' congregation disbanns [disbands?] ["in case the organic existence of the Church shall cease"]

OR

3. the 'autonomous' congregation is no longer in harmony with the Convention ["in case its house of worship or the land upon which it is situated and any additional property described in this Deed be abandoned or shall cease to be used as a house or place of Southern Baptist worship by those in harmony with or affiliated with the ASBC"]

OR

4. the 'autonomous' congregation sells its property without the written consent of the Convention ["in case same shall be sold by the Church or the title be transferred by legal process or otherwise, without the written consent of the ASBC"]

 

[mandym]

Huh?

Let's take a look at the language recommended on a state Southern Baptist Convention website:




The denominational bureaucrats can take the 'autonomous' congregation's property upon showing any one of the following:

1. The 'autonomous' congregation is excluded by the Convention ["Should the Church messengers be denied such recognition and voting privileges by the ASBC"]

OR

2. The 'autonomous' congregation disbanns [disbands?] ["in case the organic existence of the Church shall cease"]

OR

3. the 'autonomous' congregation is no longer in harmony with the Convention ["in case its house of worship or the land upon which it is situated and any additional property described in this Deed be abandoned or shall cease to be used as a house or place of Southern Baptist worship by those in harmony with or affiliated with the ASBC"]

OR

4. the 'autonomous' congregation sells its property without the written consent of the Convention ["in case same shall be sold by the Church or the title be transferred by legal process or otherwise, without the written consent of the ASBC"]

So show me where this fear you all have has ever come to fruition. Prove your conspiracy theory.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You show, yet again, that you do not understand the purpose in these clauses. If the clause goes into effect it is only when the church has been disbanned.

Not so.

You show, yet again, that you do not understand the purpose in these clauses.

Read the whole thread; that might help you.

 

[mandym]

Not so.

You show, yet again, that you do not understand the purpose in these clauses.

Read the whole thread; that might help you.

As a pastor of an SBC church and as someone who has been through the process of putting one of the clauses in a church's deed and as someone who has been through the process of reverting a property in the SBC I can say you are reading into this what you want to. And it is incorrect.

 

[mandym]

The intent behind these clauses is to safeguard the property, mainly in small churches, from being taken over by other denominations. This has happened over the years and can be a real concern. Largely, it has been where a new pastor has been called to the church and then works to get the church to leave the cooperative. This has been a problem with non cooperative Baptist pastors.

The other concern that will lead a church to place this reversion clause in their deed is so that a group of charismatics will not take over a small church.

Of course as we see in this thread the theological left wants to turn this into some kind of conspiracy in the cooperative against them.

 

[Jerome]

Theological left?

Huh?

Did you not read post 47, where SEBTS professor Nathan Finn explains that this reversionary clause scheme was the brainchild of Convention 'progressives', and it was the conservatives who defended departing churches' autonomy?

 

[mandym]

Theological left?

Huh?

Did you not read post 47, where SEBTS professor Nathan Finn explains that this reversionary clause scheme was the brainchild of Convention 'progressives', and it was the conservatives who defended departing churches' autonomy?

I am talking about the left on this thread who seem to want it to be a conspiracy of the convention.

There is an upside to doing this and a down side. Either way it cannot be done without the consent of the church.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Huh?

Let's take a look at the language recommended on a state Southern Baptist Convention website:




The denominational bureaucrats can take the 'autonomous' congregation's property upon showing any one of the following:

1. The 'autonomous' congregation is excluded by the Convention ["Should the Church messengers be denied such recognition and voting privileges by the ASBC"]

OR

2. The 'autonomous' congregation disbanns [disbands?] ["in case the organic existence of the Church shall cease"]

OR

3. the 'autonomous' congregation is no longer in harmony with the Convention ["in case its house of worship or the land upon which it is situated and any additional property described in this Deed be abandoned or shall cease to be used as a house or place of Southern Baptist worship by those in harmony with or affiliated with the ASBC"]

OR

4. the 'autonomous' congregation sells its property without the written consent of the Convention ["in case same shall be sold by the Church or the title be transferred by legal process or otherwise, without the written consent of the ASBC"]

This right here proves that it is mandym who doesn't know what he is talking about, is denying the facts that are right in front of him, and trying to deflect by falsely accusing as "leftists" those of us who are standing for traditional Baptist local church autonomy. Even after it was pointed out that it was conservatives who defended autonomy against progressives, he continues to twist, dance, and writhe. mandym is the most dishonest and accusatory person on this forum, and he proves it time and time again.

mandym, since you love the twist so much, it's time for..... Chubby Checker..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=xbK0C9AYMd8