am I the only one?

NateT: I'm with you. I have found the whole thing to be enormously disturbing, as a Christian. I belong to a Southern Baptist church which is affiliated with the MBC, and I am probably the only person in the whole church who objects to this action - and when I stated what I thought in discipleship training one time, I was looked at like I was not quite normal.

Basically, my thoughts on this problem boil down to one thing: A pox on both their houses! It seems to me that both sides have acted wrongly, and neither is willing to submit to Christian arbitration as believers should. This should not have been taken to secular courts for settlement; both sides being Christian, it should be settled within a Christian setting.

The latest news has the MBC setting up a $1 million line of credit to pay the lawyers! I am appalled that they are doing this at a time when programs are being cut due to lack of funding, and they are asking that people designate contributions to a legal fund which should never have been necessary in the first place. Needless to say, I will not be contributing to that fund.

P.S. - I am a KC kid too. Nice to meet another one!

Ruth

 

From what I gather in the bpnews article--the President/Pastor had no choice but to consult a law firm---

See, the problem comes when the state conventions have a desire to have these entities--for instance, a children's shelter or hospital--then they vote on trustees for the entities, allow the entity to remain autonomous--with the idea that trustees will be elected which will be loyal to the convention----well, you nominate enough trustees for a given entity who is not loyal---they come in and vote certain ways and change policy---and before you know it--a hostile takeover is orchastrated---the state convention owns the assests of the given entity but has no control over what transpires---

The key is---if the convention wishes the entities to remain autonomous---trustees must be nominated and appointed who are convention loyalists.

Blackbird

 

Or how about elected by the convention directly?

 

Dr. Bob - So are the chances for the churches regaining control, as has happened in SBC over the last 30 years to some degree. If we believe local churches are God's primary agencies of kingdom extension, shouldn't they have control over their institutions rather than the institutions controlling themselves? In 20 years as a SoBap Associational Missionary, I always made a point to emphasize that the association has no existence, authority, or function apart from the constituting churches, which in turn are authorized by Jesus Himself in the light of Mt. 28:18-20. It is tempting to seek self-perpetuation to avoid heresy; that is precisely how Romanism developed as the Dark Ages came on - an attempt to maintain control for what those in charge considered "the truth." I always enjoy your provocative suggestions. Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

A board of three is more democratic: one sick a bed, one out of town and that leaves me.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Ninety-Nine! Don't you wish it'd work out that way??

Your buddy,
Blackbird

 

Just send them post-dated invitations to meetings and wonder why they are late.

Cheers,

Jim