Page 1 of 1

Not in Friendly Cooperation

PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:58 pm
by Sandy

Re: Not in Friendly Cooperation

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:39 am
by Dave Roberts
A very thoughtful response. I'm glad not to be a part of the SBC any more.

Re: Not in Friendly Cooperation

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:02 am
by William Thornton
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.

Re: Not in Friendly Cooperation

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:35 am
by Dave Roberts
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.


I guess some people were just more comfortable with Richard Land who was often more Republican than Christian in some of his stands. Strange that Moore is in trouble not because he doubts scripture but because he takes it so seriously.

Re: Not in Friendly Cooperation

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:48 pm
by Sandy
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.


If they're a megachurch that actually contributes a dollar amount that gets attention, you mean. 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, which wouldn't be consistent with a "practice" that "identifies with the denomination's adopted statement of faith."

You're right, though. It won't generate a seating motion. There are too many Trump supporters in the SBC who are angry because Moore didn't endorse him, and was critical of Christians who supported him. 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. They'll find a way to either drive a truck through a loophole, or completely ignore a principle or a rule in order to do what they want. You watch. In spite of the fact that Frank Page has affirmed the procedures, and the solid support for Moore that has been exhibited by the trustees of the ERLC, some deference somewhere will be given to a few exclusive megachurches that decide to abandon their own integrity to wield the club of monetary influence.

Re: Not in Friendly Cooperation

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:58 am
by Rvaughn
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...
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: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.
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.

A case in point of that (which happens to be Southern Baptist) can be found in the autobiography of A. J. Holt. In it he brags about a minority holding a local association because they knew the rules and the majority just thought they could do what they thought was "right" (Holt had written the rules).