Featured Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

I have heard and it now appears that there is an agenda, not currently spoken out on, to meld the IMB with NAMB. The IMB has no business getting involved in national issues even if they are related to church planting.

I believe the concern is that if the government can stop a mosque then they can stop any church in the same way.

I see this use of the IMB as poor as well. I also do not believe we should have someone leading the IMB who has never been an IMB missionary. There is just a lack of experience here and this is an example of that.

 

Of course they have, when appropriate. The SBC's home missions board, whose interjection into this stateside issue would have been more plausible, did not.

From the OP article:

"Haun said he had spoken with a trustee of the North American Mission Board who told him that NAMB 'would not touch it.'"

 

We should never be funding a temple of satan!

 

Extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.

 

Actually, it is more than toleration, it was in defense of religious liberty.

Then you are in favor of at least toleration, if not full-blown religious liberty as well.

It is simply loving one's neighbor and supporting a foundational and fundamental principle of the Baptist movement.

I applaud the IMB's work in this situation.

 

Either way my question stands

 

If you understood the role of Baptists in securing constitutional rights and the religious liberty provisions of the Constitution, you would understand that it is not mere "secular law."

 

I wasn't making a point about biblical principles. Just ignore my initial reply.

 

I was in response to your reply.

 

You need to read the story. No one is funding anything.

 

I disagree with the whole bashing the rebel flag thing. But I do agree with voicing out on these kinds of issues. Absolutely

 

Stonewalled Trustee's Church Votes to Withhold CP $$$

 

Baptist churches have supported the rights of all people to worship (or not worship) in accordance with their conscience. Adherents of Islam (often called "Mahamdans", "Mohometans" or "Mahometans" in those days) were welcome to build houses of worship and their rights were supported by Baptists and most of the Founding Fathers. At the same time, Baptists and the Founding Fathers didn't think much of Islam as a religious viewpoint. Recognizing and advocating for someone's religious rights is not the same thing as approval of their belief system.

Here's just one helpful website regarding Islam and the Founding Fathers.

 

Decades ago, I left the SBC knowing that once the local church handed money to the convention and IMB there was literally no accountability nor methods of explaining where any of the money that was given was specifically spent. Waiste and fraud were frightfully evident. I worked through the local, regional, state, and finally the national levels until being told by more than one person in authority it was none of my or any other SBC members business.

It became very evident that not everyone in authority that was working in the convention was a believer, much less had the faith and message as a basic standard for decision making when it came to spending money.

I recommend that SBC churches fund missions directly, and never contribute to the convention programs. See how long it takes before deacons will be directly contacted by "officials" to put pressure on becoming compliant.

I painted with a large brush in this post, but the stench I found decades ago was so prevellant it is highly unlikely to have gotten any less over the years.

There is no secular cause or institution to the believer, and no secular cause or institution worthy of the money God gives to the believer, with the obvious Biblical exceptions.