Featured Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

You're trying to take a two-part scenario and make it only about one part

First part - the IMB went to bat for a Muslim Mosque to be built. They exerted effort to convince a government to let those of a different religion to be able to build a facility

Second part - the effort spent supporting the so-called rights of a false religion could later be used as leverage

If you're not interested in talking about both parts of that equation, I'm not interested in discussing with you anymore

 

They could care less if it was a mosque, a temple or a synagogue. The motive is to protect the future of the church. It's that simple.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I think you mean they could NOT care less - couldn't care less

But, as if Jesus was a fool when he said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the church, and they needed to go out into left field to jockey a position for future favor?

Is there any hint that Paul did any of that nonsense before he went on a missionary journey?

The whole thing was rooted in a humanistic approach. I know, God is completely powerless to protect his servants when they go out. Such a weak God, we've got to go and seek favor from those of a false religion by partnering with them first.

 

What they believe and what they do is two different things! As a Christian I do not believe in drinking alcohol either but I'm not slinging homosexuals off buildings or chopping off heads! Supporting Muslims goes against scripture period, we're to refrain from anything sinful and we're not to be associated with those living an ungodly life, we're to witness to them but that's it! As Christians we're to be apart from the world, not part of the world!

 

Considered logically, you are technically correct. But "couldn't care less" and "could care less" when considered as idioms of language mean the same thing. Since it is an idiom it doesn't have to be logical. English is full of "illogical" idiomatic phrases that do not literally convey the meaning of the words themselves.

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks.

God uses people to accomplish means. God used Esther through humans means to protect his people. You think that makes Him weak??? Based on your statement it appears you do. Your sarcasm fails in light of Scripture when repeatedly God used men and women to protect His people.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You continue the strawman. They did not seek favor with Islam. Your argument has been reduced to an absurd claim.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

True....

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Why are you looking for Southern Baptists to "raise the banner" "hue and cry" or "complain" about things that even the trustees are being kept in the dark about by these bureaucrats:

 

I never said they sought favor....

What THEY said was that this COULD help later when they do seek favor.

And if you think you're going to twist the whole thing by trying to focus on religion as opposed to governments, that ain't working.

They had in mind favor with Muslim countries when they went to bat for a Muslim mosque. That's their words

 

You accused them of seeking favor with false religion in post 103.

"gives IMB workers overseas a credible foundation from which to advocate for freedom of religious exercise in countries that are hostile to Christianity, penalize those who convert, or make it difficult for a new church to own or rent property for worship. If one follows global news (e.g., Russia’s restrictive laws signed earlier this year, on-going battles in places like Egypt, Malaysia, or India on the right to convert to Christianity, etc.), it’s apparent that religious liberty is an ongoing global issue. IMB’s call on the government of these other countries to support the religious freedom of their citizens will ring hollow if, in the USA, we only support freedom of religion for Christians" -IMB webiste in regards to amicus brief.

The whole point is so Christians can evagengelize and plant churches. IMB and ERLC looked out Christian church plants and the abiblity to share the gospel. Much like how Esther and Mordeci looked out for God's people.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

...and why did they want to be seen as supporting religious freedom James?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I was trying to understand what is seen as the difference in this case from the ones before it. For better or worse, I think as a general rule that trustees are not always up on, or kept up on, the day to day workings of the body over which they are trustees. But the amicus brief is not new news in January (I believe Dean Haun's resignation is news now; although he actually resigned in November it doesn't seem to have been reported until now). Specifically in regard to the ERLC rather than the IMB, but related, Pastor John Wofford raised the question of this Bernards Township amicus brief back at the convention in June of last year, and Gerald Harris had criticized it in early June and Baptist News reported on it in late May.

Regarding the amicus brief for the Little Sisters of the Poor, while I am neither a trustee, a Southern Baptist, nor anyone who was informed directly about it, it was news that I heard while it was going on. It was not done in a corner.

If Roman Catholics teach a works gospel, do you think filing a brief on behalf of a Roman Catholic organization also violates the spirit of unequally yoking with unbelievers, or do you see that incident as different from the Bernards Township case?

[Note: I don't agree that not informing trustees is the proper way to conduct business.]

 

I searched the Baptist Press and SBC Annual archives and found no mention of IMB amicus filings before 2010. There were numerous references to filings (or refusing to file, see below) in church-state cases by appropriate agencies: the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the SBC's own Christian Life Commission/Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.


From a particularly relevant Baptist Press story from April 27, 1995:

 

Because it might help their cause later in other places which are hostile... That's exactly what they said

My whole contention is that we aren't supposed to care if we have any supposed religious freedom - here or anywhere else

We've been called to share the gospel. Even in places which are hostile toward us, where there is no religious freedom. We've been called to do that. And if we think we have to jockey our way into so-called freedom before we can go somewhere and do what we've been commanded to do, that's a travesty

 

Then that looks like one under Jerry Rankin, a few under Tom Elliff and a couple under David Platt. Not something that goes back over a long period of years, but not something new that Platt started.

No surprise that they didn't want their name attached to something with KKK on it. "Plenty of briefs" (The legal arguments we support were being adequately presented by CLS and others) would likely be something of an excuse. They wouldn't have filed if there had been none. In retrospect some may wish they didn't have their name attached to something with Muslim on it.

 

It seems to me the IMB was representing their missionaries. Sure that would be allowed and expected.

While typical the BFM does refer to Christian faith....for obvious reasons, there is **hints at religuous freedoms for all...."this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."

**I will change "hints" to "suggests". They could habe used the phrase "in the sphere of Christianity ", but they choose the word "religion".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk