SBC leaders respond to DOJ investigation

Oh, yes. It is a 3rd party that works with many churches.

I thought you meant an actual retirement from the SBC (the SBC does not pay into it, but the churches can).

GuideStone is a popular choice for churches around here.

That said, the SBC can't take their retirement because that would be theft. Has nothing at all to do with the SBC.

If Mt. JonC Baptist church withdrawals from the SBC and pastor Reynolds remains with his retirement fund things keep going on as normal. The SBC didn't pay a dime. Mt. JonC Baptist church and pastor Reynolds made contributions.

 

No, it's up to the churches. The individual pastor chooses his retirement plan (if any). My last pastor just had his own IRA. He explained the retirement as almost being self-employed. We got on the topic as I was retired military and he had served in the Air Force.

A friend (he oasswd away a few years ago) was a retired Navy Chaplin. He did not get any retirement from his time as a pastor. Said he didn't need it with the military retirement, so he never looked around.

Not sure how our current one plans for retirement.

The NC SBC recommends GuideStone for churches who want to offer a type of retirement (a friend who pastored a church in TN came from a NC church).

Anyway, from what I understand there are companies that cater to church ministers for retirement and medical insurance. Don't know the details, but it is not provided by the SBC.

I wonder how seminaries work on this issue.

 

The SBC Retirement system is Guidestone.
My church pays x amount of dollars in each month (tax free)
Taxes will be paid when I withdraw.
In addition the State convention puts in a little bit once each year.

Remember what I previously posted!!!

Now, this thread is about the DOJ and the SBC
Lets get back to the OP

Rev Mitchell in post 1:
" an investigation into the SBC that will include “multiple SBC entities,”
Apparently nothing was said about local churches.

So - any future post on this thread about the retirement system of Guidestone for SBC churches and entities - WILL BE DELETED!

But feel free to start a new thread about Guidestone!

 

Why are you still waiting on me? I gave you my answer. The church needs to know about pastor Jay because, as you point out, inconsistently, the pastor will never be fully exonerated.

But dismissed "with prejudice" means it can't be revisited by the court. Dismissed "without predjudice" means the DA can still prosecute if further details warrant such.

If you have a molestation charge that was dismissed with prejudice (prejudice is towards the prosecution) then you can join the military, hold a security clearance, etc. But if it was dismissed without prejudice it is considered open by security agencies.

Either way, the church needs to know this information. Things that happen to us in life follows us through life, regardless of fairness.

 

Yes, they need to know because (as you pointed out) that the guy will always carry a bad reputation. You also indicated the man would never be completely exonerated, that the guy could be a molester but the DA didn't have enough to win (or think he could win) the case.

Your idea that the government decides guilt or innocence is wrong. A guilty man can go free while an innocent man can go to jail. You deny this, but history proves you wrong.

The government tells you OJ had nothing to do with his wife's death, therefore OJ is innocent. But what of OJ really was involved?

After all, the only thing Al Capone was "guilty" of was cheating on his taxes.

What should happen is the pastor should talk to the church about the issue. That is the Christian thing to do.

 

Is it Innocent until proven guilty

OR

Presumed innocent until proven guilty?

 

Sounds real Christian of you, @Reynolds. I would not want anybody to be wrongfully accused.

The issue is you have no problem with cases like this:

Seven Years of Sex Abuse: How Mormon Officials Let it Happen

Unless they have been convicted you have no problem with keeping allegations of abuse secret.

We can replace "How Mormon officials let it happen" with "How Reynolds would let it happen" and be spot on. Reynolds would be waiting to see what the government has to say, and that would be simply based on whether the DA thought he could win a case.

And OJ was acquitted of committing the crime of murder. Civil issues are not criminal.


BTW, for sensitive purposes "dismissed without predjudice" is considered "open charge".

Should a pastor have to let a prospective church know if he has an open charge for sexual crimes?

You say "no", let the accused child molester work with children until he is found guilty. I question your discernment.

(An expunged record that cannot be recovered counts as "guilty", btw....just some advise if you ate wrongfully charged and then it is dismissed with prejudice).

 

So the question really is whether or not laws requiring the reporting of sexual crimes should be enforced. Some say "no, there should be no system in place except post-conviction". Others say "yes, we need to protect children".

 

It is a difficult line.

What about the girl (in the prior article) who reported abuse but the gut was not convicted until 7 more years of being raped?

The guy killed himself when caught, but one girl could have been soared abuse and the other 7 years of rape after the initial case.

And that was far from an isolated incident.

I do not believe people should be guilty without evidence. But at the same time I do not believe allegations of sexual abuse should be ignored until the person is found guilty by the government.

That was the mentality of the Mormons and the RCC.

That said, go find an accused child molester awaiting trial and leave your grandkids in his care if you want. Personally, I think it irresponsible.

Too many criminals have been found innocent and too many innocent people have been found guilty.

 

When it comes to kids - I will err on the side of safety.