Moderator: William Thornton
William Thornton wrote:Yeah, I get the thinking. The definition of "friendly cooperation" has been based on money given in the fiscal year preceding to the Cooperative Program or convention causes. Additionally, a church in friendly cooperation would have "a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith."
Just saying you are escrowing or withholding denominational funds doesn't trigger anything but a lot of heat if the escrowee/witholdee is a megachurch.
I suspect any motion not to seat messengers from the escrowing church would be ruled out of order, since the church clearly meets the constitutional requirements for sending messengers.
William Thornton wrote:Just saying you are escrowing or withholding denominational funds doesn't trigger anything but a lot of heat if the escrowee/witholdee is a megachurch.
I agree that there is some lack of integrity in what Prestonwood is doing. But I also contend this is just the flip side of a system that is built on giving more votes to churches that give more money.Sandy wrote:...Using missions giving as a weapon to get your way is certainly a demonstration of a clear lack of integrity on the part of the church that does it...
They're not the only ones I perceive as being that way. In most associational formats where I have been, it seems like the rules were used by those who understood them best to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish -- even though "their way" might not have been the majority view.Sandy wrote:I've always insisted that the SBC is provincial and backward in that its procedures and rules are only meaningful when its most influential leaders want to use them to their own advantage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest