Pastor Resigns as IMB Trustee over Support of mosque construction

[JamesL]

You quoted me on post #84, which i stated this was aboit protecting Christians....guess you didn't read what i posted????

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

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

 

[McCree79]

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

 

[JamesL]

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.

 

[stevewm1963]

Muslims do not believe in drinking alcoholic beverages -
Do this come under "Supporting anything the Muslims do is ungodly and goes against scripture!"

I do not believe that Muslims do not worship the same God we do
However, JonC, brought up some very good points.


From JonC post "The SBC is becoming (some would say has become long ago) too large and independent of the churches it was formed to represent." xxx
The SBC was formed for the purpose of missions - and if this will help up to bring Christ to Muslims - then so be it.

-Many preachers , currently and in past years said TV was of the Devil - yet, how many come to Christ as well as live a better Christian life becasue of Christian TV.

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!

 

[rlvaughn]

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

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.

 

[McCree79]

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.

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

 

[McCree79]

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.

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

 

[McCree79]

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.

True....

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Jerome]

have Southern Baptists previously raised the banner high against the IMB filing briefs in church-state issues, or is this becoming controversial now for this first time?

I am questioning whether Southern Baptists have ever complained before about the IMB filing amicus briefs in church-state cases.

we do see the briefs from 2011 to the present....where the hue and cry has been over these, if there has been.

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:

Don't know for sure, but I suspect that trustees (regardless of what is right or wrong) are often not informed about all the day-to-day workings

 

[Salty]

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!

The point being what you said in a previous post "Supporting anything the Muslims do is ungodly and goes against scripture!"

So you saying that that abstaining from alcoholic is ungodly.

Bottom line - be very careful when you make blanket statements.
Now if you had said "Supporting MOST anything the Muslims do is ungodly and goes against scripture!" would have been acceptable.

 

[JamesL]

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

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

 

[McCree79]

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

 

[McCree79]

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

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

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

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 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.]

 

[Jerome]

Aaron Weaver also wrote that "For many years, the IMB has regularly weighed in on church-state issues in U.S. courts."

The IMB joined an amicus brief in 2014....The same year....In 2015....In 2011...

I'm sure there are others.

one would need to go back and find amicus briefs filed by the IMB over the course of several years, further back than what rsr cited

There may well be earlier examples, or there may not.

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:

the Ku Klux Klan applied for a permit to place a cross alongside a Christmas tree and a Jewish menorah....The state agency, Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board, refused to grant a permit.

Both the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission and Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs support the right of a private group to display a cross on the capitol grounds, but neither filed a brief in the case, their lawyers said.

Christian Life Commission General Counsel Michael Whitehead...."the CLC chose not to join in a brief because of the KKK's involvement. "The Klan has a right to free speech, no matter how offensive their message, but they do not have a right to our support in their lawsuit," he said.

"The legal arguments we support were being adequately presented by CLS and others. The CLC made the judgment not to file a brief."

 

[JamesL]

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

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

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

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

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.

From a particularly relevant Baptist Press story from April 27, 1995: [KKK,etc.]

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.

 

[JonC]

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

One issue here is that it has been assumed the Christian faith includes fighting for a general freedom of (and from) religion with the world it finds itself. But throughout Scripture this is not the case. The principle is misapplied. Within the baptist distinctive this freedom has traditionally been against imposed Christian faith (not advocating a freedom for all religious belief). And I do not see this as the context within the Baptist F&M.

That said, the larger problem is that the IMB acted in such a way as not to represent those it was designed to represent. I think that it may be inching towards another division (not because of this one incident). And this is probably a good thing. Denominational conventions, associations, and para-church organizations need shaking up from time to time. But this time I believe that the more conservative voice is going to be the one's left behind as the SBC moves forward. I'm really not sure where this will leave me.

 

[McCree79]

One issue here is that it has been assumed the Christian faith includes fighting for a general freedom of (and from) religion with the world it finds itself. But throughout Scripture this is not the case. The principle is misapplied. Within the baptist distinctive this freedom has traditionally been against imposed Christian faith (not advocating a freedom for all religious belief). And I do not see this as the context within the Baptist F&M.

That said, the larger problem is that the IMB acted in such a way as not to represent those it was designed to represent. I think that it may be inching towards another division (not because of this one incident). And this is probably a good thing. Denominational conventions, associations, and para-church organizations need shaking up from time to time. But this time I believe that the more conservative voice is going to be the one's left behind as the SBC moves forward. I'm really not sure where this will leave me.

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

 

[JonC]

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

Their missionaries to that township in NJ?