State Conventions/Associations

Associations can and should deal with churches that deviate from the Bible. However, not all churches in the association need to agree on all issues (that is impossible), nor do they all need to be members of the same conventions. The association is separate and autonomous and is not a part of the state or national convention. Thus the churches do not have to be either. If an association tells a church what other groups they must support, then it has overstepped its authority and is in the wrong.

 

When a Church supports a convention or denomination that does not hold to the same doctrinal standards as other churches in that association how can they be of like mind and like faith?

 

When a Church supports a convention or denomination that does not hold to the same doctrinal standards as other churches in that association how can they be of like mind and like faith? </font>[/QUOTE]I can remember when I had a very difficult time in an SBC church I was pastoring that the local SBC pastors would not even take a stance against some of the stupid things going on in the church I was pastoring. The DOM told me there was nothing they could do so they did just that--nothing. I spoke to the moderator about the matter and he told me the same thing. For example the deacons would not take a stance against the adult Sunday School teacher inviting the Mormon bishop to teach at the local CBMC. But some of the other local pastors outside of the SBC did. They spoke to some of the deacons at the church I pastored about the matter. This was just the tip of the iceberg. The local association would take their money but exercise no discipline. So much for sutonomy of the local church as an excuse.

 

"Hardsheller," you say that you cannot associate with churches that are members of conventions that hold different doctrinal beliefs. Yet in Missouri the battles in the associations are not about this since the Baptist General Convention of Missouri formed because of differences in polity, not doctrine, with the MBC. So would you be in an association with a church that supported the BGCM and the SBC?

 

I probably am already and don't even know it!

Would you care to elaborate on the polity differences that caused the formation of the BGCM?

 

One thing I found interesting. About 1995 every seminary student I knew at SWBTS received literature about a local conference put on by John MacArthur. There is only one way they could have possibly gotten the names and addresses of current students.

 

Sure, the Baptist General Convention of Missouri formed in response to the defunding of the five institutions, the unseating of Second Liberty, and the threatening to sue. On the first, the BGCM recognizes that one can support and work with a ministry even if one does not fully control it. That is why the BGCM supports all nine institutions (even the three fully controlled by the MBC). Secondly, it is not the place of a convention to tell a church which national convention they must be a member of. After all, the MBC was dually aligned for much of its early history. To force a church to pick a national convention is to violate the autonomy of the local church. Finally, the lawsuit represents a loss of focus from the original purpose of a convention—to support missions!

 

Kaylor,

I am sure that you believe that everything you say is true with regards to BGCM. I am also sure that you're standing on what you believe to be Biblical standards. You have demonstrated your courage publicly and that is commendable.

However you must understand that there are equally
committed people in Missouri who do not see the issues in the same light as you and the BGCM.

1. On the Five Defunded Agencies. The Trustees of those five agencies followed the advice of their lawyers rather than the will of the messengers of the Missouri Baptist Convention. They made the decision to elect their own trustees. They made the decision to ignore the will of the messengers of the MBC.

They in effect said - "We will continue to cooperate with the MBC but only on our terms - Send us your money but don't bother to send us any trustees - We don't have to listen to you any longer. We don't believe you have our best interests at heart."

They broke trust with Missouri Baptists.

2.The Unseating of Second Baptist Church, Liberty

An unfortunate but predictable outcome in a Baptist Convention. What we often forget in Baptist life is that local church autonomy is never "taken away" by any outside entity. Second Baptist Liberty never had their local autonomy taken away. They were told emphatically by another autonomous Baptist body - a state convention that their national affiliation with the CBF had destroyed their fellowship with the MBC.

3. The "lawsuit" against the 5 Mo. Agencies.

The Trustees of the five MO. Baptist Agencies took a calculated risk when they on the advice of their attorneys decided to declare themselves self-perpetuating entities. Missouri Baptist Convention Messengers perceived this to be a violation of the Charters, Constitutions and Bylaws, of the agencies. Since this was a legal manuever first facilitated by attorneys of the agencies, the messengers of the Missouri Baptist Convention simply responded in kind.

St. Paul when arrested in Jerusalem made very clear his legal standing as a Roman Citizen and thus began his legal appeal all the way to Caesar in opposition to the accusations of his fellow countrymen.

The "lawsuit" is not an attack on the five agencies but an appeal to the State Court for a ruling on the actions of the agencies. The MBC is simply asking the State of Missouri - By examining the Governing Documents of the Five Agencies - have those agencies acted within the parameters of Missouri law or not?

All of this could have been avoided had the five agencies agreed to binding Christian arbitration, something they were unwilling to do.

Yes, Everything I have written here is reflective of a great tragedy that is occuring among Missouri Baptists these days.

In fact the words of Rev. Theodore Boulware that he spoke at the organizational meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention in 1834 seem very prophetic today, “We advised and entreated these brethren to disperse and not establish this cockatrice’s den among us, from which will emanate a serpentine brood, marring the peace of God’s children and bringing scandal on the cause of Christ, for we feel assured you have much more in view than the happiness of the church and the salvation of men. We fear you are deceptive.”

 

As always Hardsheller, I concur with your statements. These facts are not based on anyone's subjective opinions. These are events that have actually happened.

And now for my personal opinion - it was very underhanded of the five entities to act in that manner. A "secret meeting" in the dead of night, so to speak. They knew exactly what they were doing and the calculated implications of their actions. They are where they hoped to be at this point. And it seems that their strategy to discredit the MBC is working among some parties, but not all.

 

For an update on the Conflict in the Missouri Baptist Convention read the following article for an amazing glimpse into the mindset of those who are causing the trouble for Biblical Conservatives in this state.

Missouri Baptist College's Lawyer Attacks the Inerrancy of the Bible in Court deposition!!!

 

"Hardsheller," your post on the three issues of polity was very insightful. It may surprise you, but we agree on many things. However, I think the big difference is that I decided some time ago that if I erred in a decision it would be on the side of love, mercy, and grace.

So first, on the defunding the institutions, I do not fully support their decision. I do not think it was illegal or inherently wrong, but I do not think they handle it correctly. I too was confused and upset by their actions. However, I feel that their ministries (that are still going on just like they were before) are more important to me than having complete control over them. If they ever stop being Christian or Baptist, then we can reconsider our funding. But as long as they are changing lives for Christ, then I will fully support them.

Next, on the unseating of Liberty, since the MBC is not a member of the SBC (it is in fact older) but affiliates with it, a church does not have to be a member of both. To demand that to be a part of a state convention a church must be singly-aligned with the SBC at the national level is to go against the autonomy of that local church. And frankly, if they still wanted to work with the MBC we should have gladly accepted them and continued to work together for the Kingdom.

Finally, on the lawsuit, I think it is extremely sad that over 1 million dollars has been spent on this, and it has not even gone to trial yet. Just think about how many churches could have been planted, how many Bibles and tracts distributed, how many people fed, and on and on. And it has very poorly represented Jesus and His church in the media across the state. Simply put, it is doing more harm than it will good.

And thus, I cannot in good conscience support the MBC because of what I see to be a fundamental lack of good judgment and Christian leadership.

 

Good Judgment and Christian Leadership as demonstrated in the quality of Lawyers Missouri Baptist College has hired?

 

And just think what the world thinks about Christians suing one another. Sounds real biblical comapred to what James teaches doesn't it?

 

gb, it's apparent by your remarks that you don't understand the issue. They're not suing each other...they're asking for a judgement on a legal matter that they cannot come to terms on. It's different. The term may be confusing, but a lawsuit doesn't always mean that someone's getting sued.

And yes, it is bad press. If only the five breakaway institutions would have accepted mediation/arbitration as the MBC tried for, it would have never come to this.

 

My Church affiliates with the Mount Calvary Association of South Carolina which claims 10-11 churches (depending on who you ask).

State-wise, our association participates with the South Carolina Educational and Missionary Convention.

J5Grand

 

"Hardsheller,"
You asked about the Christian leadership of MBU. The problem is that this story is from The Pathway. I have been personally or closely involved in a few of the stories they have written in the past and have seen them write about what seems to be a completely different event than what I experienced. Frankly, they have not only engaged in poor journalism and research, but have outright lied before. Thus, I give it just a little more credibility than the tabloids in the supermarket aisle.

 

In truth, "The Pathway" does seem to be a little propaganda-oriented. The mission and church related articles are still good though. But that's what you get when you have a newspaper that's owned by an outside entity.

(Please don't consider this an endorsement of what I feel to be "Word & Way's" illegal actions, but they do have a point, at least in this issue of journalistic integrity.)

 

I certainly didn't expect you or anyone else associated with the BGCM to be positive toward the Pathway and you didn't disappoint me. You will note however that it was the National Enquirer that broke the "drug addiction story" of Rush Limbaugh and it was the Drudge Report that broke the Monica Lewinski story. Sometimes the "tabloids" get it right and get it first.

I think the story about the Missouri Baptist College is one such example.

You will be surprised that many of your "opponents" in Missouri are just as concerned that "truth" prevail as you are.

 

My church is affiliated with the Copiah Baptist Association(29 churches)---with the Mississippi Baptist Convention(2500 churches) and with the Southern Baptist Convention(42,000 churches).

Blackbird