Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

[JonC]

I don't. So much of the biblical principles on which we stand are taken up as political. Given that this country and its government was founded on biblical principles to have the church completely withdraw from government is to abandon our founding.

I think that much of this falls under Christian liberty. There are areas, both in the secular arena and in our own lives, that we will have to evaluate and determine how Scripture and our faith applies.

I would have had no issue with David Platt working towards the mosque being built. There have been several churches allowing displaced Muslim congregations the use of their facilities to worship Allah. While I disagree with both of these, I do understand the need for Christians to live out their faith in all areas of their lives (to include our citizenship).

The problem here is that the IMB has, in my view, exceeded it's commission. I give money to the IMB through my church. In my view, Islam is a dangerous and evil religion in opposition to God. It denies the gospel, blinds millions of men and women, and has killed Christians. It facilitates the spiritual death of millions. I do not see this as much different from petitioning to allow an abortion clinic (as long as it is legal) in one's neighborhood, or allowing a pro-abortion movement to use your church for meetings. Death is death. So I have a problem with my money supporting the freedom for a group of Muslims to build a mosque.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think that much of this falls under Christian liberty. There are areas, both in the secular arena and in our own lives, that we will have to evaluate and determine how Scripture and our faith applies.

I would have had no issue with David Platt working towards the mosque being built. There have been several churches allowing displaced Muslim congregations the use of their facilities to worship Allah. While I disagree with both of these, I do understand the need for Christians to live out their faith in all areas of their lives (to include our citizenship).

The problem here is that the IMB has, in my view, exceeded it's commission. I give money to the IMB through my church. In my view, Islam is a dangerous and evil religion in opposition to God. It denies the gospel, blinds millions of men and women, and has killed Christians. It facilitates the spiritual death of millions. I do not see this as much different from petitioning to allow an abortion clinic (as long as it is legal) in one's neighborhood, or allowing a pro-abortion movement to use your church for meetings. Death is death. So I have a problem with my money supporting the freedom for a group of Muslims to build a mosque.

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.

 

[Jerome]

interestingly, he pointed out that "virtually every SBC entity (including seminaries) has filed an amicus brief at some point."

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.'"

 

[Yeshua1]

http://christianindex.org/former-georgia-baptist-pastor-resigns-as-imb-trustee/

I was reading this last night in our association's paper. Basically, the IMB used monies and resources to defend the building of a mosque in the name of toleration. It was (to my knowledge) largely unnoticed until this pastor resigned in opposition of the decision.

I do not believe that we are to oppress others, or even oppose their right to worship freely. But I do have a problem with the IMB using resources so that a mosque can be built. (For the record, I am SBC so I'm not gossiping here...this is my denomination....for now ).

We should never be funding a temple of satan!

 

[StefanM]

How is standing on biblical principles extra biblical? How is found a country on biblical principles extra biblical?

Extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I was reading this last night in our association's paper. Basically, the IMB used monies and resources to defend the building of a mosque in the name of toleration.

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

I do not believe that we are to oppress others, or even oppose their right to worship freely.

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

But I do have a problem with the IMB using resources so that a mosque can be built.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

Extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.

Either way my question stands

 

[Baptist Believer]

My disagreement is that the Church, even understanding future potential consequences to the Church, was never commissioned to defend secular law or constitutional rights.

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."

 

[JonC]

We should never be funding a temple of satan!

We weren't funding it, we were fighting against those who were opposed to allowing the mosque to be built.

 

[StefanM]

Either way my question stands

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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

I was in response to your reply.

 

[Baptist Believer]

We should never be funding a temple of satan!

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

 

[JonC]

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.

I will see how this unfolds. I do not like how it came to light, but mostly I disagree that this is the purpose of the IMB.

That said, I don't oppose their right to worship. And I advocate our (and their) constitutional rights.

Another issue for the SBC was the rebel flag. I agreed with the content of the SBC resolution but disagree they were purposed to author such resolutions. My point is not whether the IMB voiced a legitimate concern, but whether they were purposed to voice that legitimate concern.

 

[Revmitchell]

I will see how this unfolds. I do not like how it came to light, but mostly I disagree that this is the purpose of the IMB.

That said, I don't oppose their right to worship. And I advocate our (and their) constitutional rights.

Another issue for the SBC was the rebel flag. I agreed with the content of the SBC resolution but disagree they were purposed to author such resolutions. My point is not whether the IMB voiced a legitimate concern, but whether they were purposed to voice that legitimate concern.

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

 

[JonC]

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."

It is more than secular law, I agree. Are you suggesting that these Baptist Churches were also fighting with the purpose and intent that Islam be established in our communities?

 

[JonC]

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

I guess you could say, when it comes to these issues that I believe in voicing in. We can disscuss these issues within the SBC, and even come to resolutions. But I disagree that it was the proper role of the IMB (just asd the resolution about the Rebel Flag was not the role of the convention).

 

[Jerome]

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

Before Haun resigned as an IMB Trustee, he asked IMB President David Platt to address the issue in the August meeting of IMB trustees. Haun said that Platt simply read from a brief statement....that still left Haun and others with questions.

Haun and other members of the church want IMB to rescind its name from the brief.

"We are hoping that the escrowing of these funds is a temporary thing because we have really been committed to SBC. We gave $151,000 to the Lottie Moon offering last year and all of our mission giving last year was right around a half a million dollars," Haun explained.

Haun said that the "substantial" funds would be withheld until a compromise can be made regarding IMB's inclusion in the brief.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It is more than secular law, I agree. Are you suggesting that these Baptist Churches were also fighting with the purpose and intent that Islam be established in our communities?

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I understand no one is advocating Islam (although, perhaps an argument can be made they are facilitating that believe....but I'm not make that argument here). I disagree that it is a purpose of the Church to advocate for the freedom of religion.

 

[agedman]

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.