Texas in rebellion

[Haruo]

Too much softening of hiring stance, or not enough?

[Dave Roberts]

Too much softening of hiring stance, or not enough?

Yes!

[Sandy]

Referencing this?
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/te ... ng-option/

[Haruo]

Referencing this?
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/te ... ng-option/

Apparently. It's not the exact same story I saw, the one I saw had a prominent photo of Paynter near the top, but I think it's the same topic. I didn't have time at that point either to (a) read the article or to (b) post anything in any detail here.

[Dave Roberts]

From what I can learn, the SBC Executive Committee leadership is blackmailing state conventions that those who allow a funding channel to CBF through their organizations will lose funding for the partnership personnel which the SBC helps to fund.

[Sandy]

From what I can learn, the SBC Executive Committee leadership is blackmailing state conventions that those who allow a funding channel to CBF through their organizations will lose funding for the partnership personnel which the SBC helps to fund.

That wouldn't affect the BGCT. Since the NAMB debacle, I don't think there are any jointly funded partnerships with the BGCT.

There has been a tendency in Texas to equate the theological and philosophical position of CBF with the BGCT, since both appear to be equally opposed to the direction of the SBC. As the article states, there are about 350 Texas Baptist churches that support CBF to some degree, and the 350 churches that support CBF have a larger-than-representative share of the convention officers, executive staff, committee members, trustee board members and executive board members. The CBF affiliated church I formerly attended in Houston had, at one time, 18 members serving on convention staff somewhere, including the chair of the executive board, and the year I was nominated for convention first VP, there were two churches, Wilshire in Dallas and First Amarillo, that each had 20 members serving in convention leadership. The first miscalculation of affinity with CBF led to the formation of the SBTC, and the eventual departure of almost 3,000 churches, along with over 40% of the CP money. Churches continue to join the SBTC, and many of the dually affiliated congregations have become unquely aligned with the SBCT over the years. I see this move as a means of attempting to stop the hemorrhaging, and to prevent the SBTC from using the partnership with CBF as a means of recruiting more churches.

I would say that the 350 or so Texas Baptist churches aligned with CBF represent the total number of churches leaning to the left, and among whom there might be support for CBF's new policy, or support for removing the SOGI restrictions altogether. And even among those, there would be congregations that favor leaving them in place because they believe that homosexuality is a sin. In the long run, there will be churches that stop CBF support over this, though I don't think they will lose too many Texas churches, and not much in the way of money. But they will lose all of those ministry partnerships, or they will have to find other ways to fund them without BGCT support.

[Dave Roberts]

Partner support from the SBC comes in funding those staff that work with the Annuity Board, church program organization staff, and some ministry support types of partnerships.

[Rvaughn]

There is also this report, though probably not the one Leland saw, either:
https://baptistnews.com/article/texas-baptist-convention-takes-note-inclusive-hiring-policy-cbf/#.WoZRz2inHrd

[Tim Bonney]

From what I can learn, the SBC Executive Committee leadership is blackmailing state conventions that those who allow a funding channel to CBF through their organizations will lose funding for the partnership personnel which the SBC helps to fund.

So much for local autonomy.

[Sandy]

From what I can learn, the SBC Executive Committee leadership is blackmailing state conventions that those who allow a funding channel to CBF through their organizations will lose funding for the partnership personnel which the SBC helps to fund.

I'm not aware of very many state conventions that have a channel for churches to give to CBF. The BGCT does, or at least, did until this week. I would guess that the BGAV does. Maybe the Baptist General Convention of Missouri, but it isn't recognized by the SBC. The only SBC funding that goes back to the BGCT now comes from NAMB, and that is being phased out like it is in all of the other state conventions that are "established," and not considered to be "pioneer" or "mission" conventions. The annuity board personnel are funded totally by the annuity board itself, the only connection is that the state provides them with office space, and they don't even do that any more. The church program support staff has always been totally funded by the state. There's no autonomy issue there at all. Churches don't need a "channel" through a state convention to give to CBF, they can all give directly.

The only "partnership personnel" that will be SBC funded down the road will be in the smaller state conventions outside of Dixieland. Even a lot of that isn't happening because the funds just aren't there any more. Even here in this area, where the largest church runs 200 on a good Sunday, and there are about 40 churches in an association that covers more than a third of the state, the only "partnership personnel" that's left is a church planter. DOM, campus student minister who covered 8 campuses, and part-time secretary no longer funded by NAMB, no longer in existence.

[Tim Bonney]

If the SBC plays mean with funding, can’t the state convention just decide to send less funding to the SBC? I don’t remember the percentages anymore but, isn’t the system that CP funds go to the state convention and then are divided by a formula adopted by the state convention? (This is really digging into old brain cells now, so I could be mistaken.)

[William Thornton]

If the SBC plays mean with funding, can’t the state convention just decide to send less funding to the SBC? I don’t remember the percentages anymore but, isn’t the system that CP funds go to the state convention and then are divided by a formula adopted by the state convention? (This is really digging into old brain cells now, so I could be mistaken.)

State conventions may do whatever they want. They control the CP funding flow to the SBC Executive Committee. SCs currently give about 40% of revenue to the EC which divides it among the SBC entities. it is up to states to raise or lower this.

The EC has the option of excludng an entire SC. Never done to my memory. It's a somewhat delicate relationship.

[Tim Bonney]

State conventions may do whatever they want. They control the CP funding flow to the SBC Executive Committee. SCs currently give about 40% of revenue to the EC which divides it among the SBC entities. it is up to states to raise or lower this.

The EC has the option of excludng an entire SC. Never done to my memory. It's a somewhat delicate relationship.

Thanks for the clarification William! ABC funding (my last Baptist recollections) doesn’t work that way. National funding isn’t funneled through regional bodies.

The UMC works more like the SBC like this than the ABC. We send our apportionment to the Annual Conference and they send part of it on to the general Church. However, the percentages are decided from the top down, not the bottom up.

[Dave Roberts]

One reality that I am seeing across the board theologically is that local Baptist churches seem less and less concerned with national bodies. Some in Virginia identify themselves as BGAV only and contribute only to BGAV ministries. Others are simply reducing their percentages given to national and international ministries since there is so much strife among them. I understand their frustration, but I seem this as pulling back from the wider mission of the church.

[JE Pettibone]

One reality that I am seeing across the board theologically is that local Baptist churches seem less and less concerned with national bodies. Some in Virginia identify themselves as BGAV only and contribute only to BGAV ministries. Others are simply reducing their percentages given to national and international ministries since there is so much strife among them. I understand their frustration, but I seem this as pulling back from the wider mission of the church.

Ed: Dave, your examples here do not support your contention that what you see "across the board theologically" is that local Baptist churches seem less and less concerned with national bodies. Now if you had said "One reality that I am seeing In Virginia across the board theologically is that local Baptist churches seem less and less concerned with national bodies" I wouldn't question your observation. However in passing through Virginia a couple times a year for 20 years, and more recently I seem to hear from of winter neighbors who are Virginians a concern about a perceived leftward drift among Baptist.

[Sandy]

https://cbfblog.com/2018/02/26/while-bg ... a-pastors/

Looks like the BGAV will also stop forwarding receipts for CBF through the state convention.

It looks like the Illumination Project isn't going to please anybody. The governing board was soundly criticized by those who favored eliminating the hiring restrictions on LGBTQ persons altogether, claiming that they were being treated as second class citizens, and though most of them had supported CBF during a time when there was no compromise at all on the issue, now that there is one that moved in their direction, they've become rigid and intolerant, and churches are pulling their funding because they didn't get exactly what they wanted. The response from the more conservative side is that the compromise crossed a theological and spiritual line that they can't accept, so they are pulling their funding because they didn't get what they wanted.

The exec director has come out with some flowery-worded statements about being disappointed in the moves of the state conventions, but celebrating the fact that "beautiful cooperation" will continue with the churches. Except that many of those churches aren't going to go around their state convention to continue supporting CBF. If you think about it, many of those executive board members in those state conventions that made the decisions to stop being a pass-through for CBF are from the churches within their convention that support CBF.

CBF has spent a lot of time and effort on re-organizing and restructuring their leadership, consolidating the decision-making power in a governing board much smaller than the coordinating council used to be, and moving away from the consensus of the general assembly. We had a few discussions here about the push to change the hiring policy before, and the potential it had for being divisive. Does the will for unity exist? CBF has been on a very fragile financial footing for a decade, with declining revenues and dependence on the timing of a couple of major donors. I don't believe CBF can be sustained, at least, not anywhere near its current level, without the support of its more conservative wing. It probably could survive without its far left wing. I've never seen CBF's leadership do anything other than to accept the fait accompli and then downsize to ensure at least some salaries of prominent leaders continue. If there was real confidence in this decision, then where are the governing board members and exec protesting what these state conventions are doing, and standing up for principles they claim are "prophetic"?

Or, is this the end of CBF?

[William Thornton]

Pretty good long ranging assessment, Sandy. It's not clear to me if churches have pulled funding yet, though the moves by the Texas and Virginia conventions cannot help.

I would wonder if this was the beginning of the end. Old CBF hands like Dave and Ed may know.

[Tim Bonney]

The problem is that it is darn hard to be a "moderate" on certain issues. The sexuality issues are so polarizing that ultimately you are expected/forced to pick a side.

There is no practical way to just be sort of for pro-LGBTQ inclusion or sort of against it. So the CBF has ended up in the darned if you do, darned if you don't position. No matter what position you take you lose people.

[JE Pettibone]

Pretty good long ranging assessment, Sandy. It's not clear to me if churches have pulled funding yet, though the moves by the Texas and Virginia conventions cannot help.

I would wonder if this was the beginning of the end. Old CBF hands like Dave and Ed may know.

Ed: I am some what surprised at the reaction of the more liberal CBF churches. As I have said while we are yet to find a CBF church in Florida to which I want to drive 40 plus miles one way often enough to be an active member. We are determined not to make any long term commitment as to what we will do regarding CBF National, at least until the upcoming General assembly. I am not a prophet but I do not expect to see CBF die on the vine vine. There will be change, ride the downward slope or struggle back to the more narrow path. I do hope to see more moderates involved in the decisions making and let the more liberal folk move to the Alliance. I have a notion that the "envisioning"committee had hopped that by changing the hiring policy that CBF could simply absorb the Alliance.

There are black Baptist churches associated with ABC-USA of the South that I could settle into. Trudy is teaching a week day Bible study on Tuesdays here in the RV park where we live. here are some other retired pastors who could carry it through the summer. After the Assembly we have reservations at a National Rally Of the Family Motor Coach Association in Wyoming in July and a month in Iowa, mid August to mid September. Between those two we will get into Montana, N. & S. Dakota. After Iowa we head south into Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia where I hope to have enough CBF folk to talk with for get a solid idea of how CBF'ers in the trenches are reacting. Maybe write a book.

[Haruo]

Hope you'll enjoy the Black Hills, Ed. We went there almost every summer when I was a kid, spent three days or more usually in one of the housekeeping cabins at the Game Lodge. It's one of my dreams to get back there and show it to Mrs. H. before we are both too decrepit to drive anywhere.

[JE Pettibone]

The problem is that it is darn hard to be a "moderate" on certain issues. The sexuality issues are so polarizing that ultimately you are expected/forced to pick a side.

There is no practical way to just be sort of for pro-LGBTQ inclusion or sort of against it. So the CBF has ended up in the darned if you do, darned if you don't position. No matter what position you take you lose people.

Ed: Well Tim, not being dependent on earthly Ecclesiastical types for livelihood, I am not real concerned about being darned or even dammed by those with no power over me. I do pray for those of you for whom it is a dilemma. BTW, I Understand L and G and I acknowledge an anomaly in transgendered but where is the room for Bi when monogamy has God's favor. And Q is sort of like police who accept being called Piggs. Some G's & L's accept Q rather than let their detractors have the satisfaction of seeing them angry.

[Tim Bonney]

Ed: Well Tim, not being dependent on earthly Ecclesiastical types for livelihood, I am not real concerned about being darned or even dammed by those with no power over me. I do pray for those of you for whom it is a dilemma. BTW, I Understand L and G and I acknowledge an anomaly in transgendered but where is the room for Bi when monogamy has God's favor. And Q is sort of like police who accept being called Piggs. Some G's & L's accept Q rather than let their detractors have the satisfaction of seeing them angry.

Ed, don't worry about me. I honestly believe the UMC is heading towards some compromise of its own. When we get there the conferences will align pastors as appropriate. I believe likely I can stay right here no matter what the decision (always as long as the Bishop wants me here of course.)

As to LGBTQ, people confuse the meaning of "bi." Bi doesn't mean that you have to be in a relationship with a person of each gender. It means you have attraction to both genders. If I find both blondes and brunettes attractive, it doesn't mean I have to marry one of each. I know some bi folks who are in a same sex marriages and others that are in a traditional marriage. It doesn't follow that bi folks aren't or can't be monogamous if they want to be. It just means they have a wider natural attraction.

As to Q, I add that to the list because persons in the community choose to call themselves that. I let people decide for themselves how to identify who they are. Terminology does change often just like some persons who are black prefer to be called black now rather than African American. That is their choice and I respect what they choose.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: Well Tim, not being dependent on earthly Ecclesiastical types for livelihood, m not real concerned about being darned or even dammed by those with no power over me. I do pray for those of you for whom it is a dilemma. BTW, I Understand L and G and I acknowledge an anomaly in transgendered but where is the room for Bi when monogamy has God's favor. And Q is sort of like police who accept being called Piggs. Some G's & L's accept Q rather than let their detractors have the satisfaction of seeing them angry.

Tim: Ed, don't worry about me. I honestly believe the UMC is heading towards some compromise of its own. When we get there the conferences will align pastors as appropriate. I believe likely I can stay right here no matter what the decision (always as long as the Bishop wants me here of course.)

Ed: Tim why would I worry about you. But tell me when did the Methodist start trying to find a way to compromise with Sin?

Tim: As to LGBTQ, people confuse the meaning of "bi." Bi doesn't mean that you have to be in a relationship with a person of each gender. It means you have attraction to both genders. If I find both blondes and brunettes attractive, it doesn't mean I have to marry one of each. I know some bi folks who are in a same sex marriages and others that are in a traditional marriage. It doesn't follow that bi folks aren't or can't be monogamous if they want to be. It just means they have a wider natural attraction.

Ed: Which Homosexuals confuse the meaning of "bi". You are not unique in the use of BI in your list, and I am aware that they need not marry one of each sex. in fact it has only been in your lifetime that they could marry some one of the same sex in any of The United states. Our neighbors across the street went to Canada to get married, long before they could marry in this country.

TIM: As to Q, I add that to the list because persons in the community choose to call themselves that. I let people decide for themselves how to identify who they are. Terminology does change often just like some persons who are black prefer to be called black now rather than African American. That is their choice and I respect what they choose.

Ed: Tim, you are not unique in the use of Q in your list. Race and sexual preference designations are two very different things.

Ed: HAURO I hope this helps.

[Haruo]

Ed, would you mind going in and robustly editing that last post? I find it hard to read, and harder yet to imagine you meant it to be so off-topic and repetitive internally.

Well, it's better, but I still would like to see Tim's quotes in

quotes.

The way you do it still makes me think at first glance that there is only one paragraph quoted from Tim, and all the rest is your writing.The colored nameplates make it possible to sort out, but not intuitive.

[Tim Bonney]

Ed: Tim why would I worry about you. But tell me when did the Methodist start trying to find a way to compromise with Sin?

When we decided that not ALL Baptists were going to hell so we might talk to a few of them without sinning over much.

And, Ed we've argued in the past (ad nauseam) as to if homosexuality is sin or not. We have different views and that hasn't changed.