Comments on: Making Waves in Missouri… http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/ Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:03:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/comment-page-1/#comment-1085 John Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:11:52 +0000 http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/#comment-1085 Gary, Thanks for the clarification... my apologies for the confusion resulting from my wording. I am aware the policy of single alignment originates with the MBC and did not intend to convey otherwise. I meant simply that the MBC requires that their churches be aligned with the SBC rather than the CBF (or other national organizations), and with no other state conventions (such as the BGCM). I can't begin to say that I understand the reasoning... from a layman's perspective, it does all seem rather politically motivated. Gary,

Thanks for the clarification… my apologies for the confusion resulting from my wording. I am aware the policy of single alignment originates with the MBC and did not intend to convey otherwise. I meant simply that the MBC requires that their churches be aligned with the SBC rather than the CBF (or other national organizations), and with no other state conventions (such as the BGCM).

I can’t begin to say that I understand the reasoning… from a layman’s perspective, it does all seem rather politically motivated.

]]> By: Gary Snowden http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/comment-page-1/#comment-1084 Gary Snowden Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:32:35 +0000 http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/#comment-1084 A clarification is in order on the issue of single alignment. You state that the MBC kicked out 19 churches because they violated the policy of single alignment with the SBC. The SBC has no single alignment policy. It is the MBC and the MBC alone that has enacted bi-laws in their constitution to exclude any group that includes a rival state convention in their budget or sends messengers to the annual meeting of a rival state convention (read that as the BGCM or CBF of Missouri). Our church was one of the 19 that was excluded, but we are still in good standing with the SBC. The MBC is leading the pack in the battle to exclude folks who don't toe the line with their political machinery. It has little or nothing to do with theology, notwithstanding all of the false accusations of heresy and liberalism that have been leveled against the other state organizations. A clarification is in order on the issue of single alignment. You state that the MBC kicked out 19 churches because they violated the policy of single alignment with the SBC. The SBC has no single alignment policy. It is the MBC and the MBC alone that has enacted bi-laws in their constitution to exclude any group that includes a rival state convention in their budget or sends messengers to the annual meeting of a rival state convention (read that as the BGCM or CBF of Missouri). Our church was one of the 19 that was excluded, but we are still in good standing with the SBC. The MBC is leading the pack in the battle to exclude folks who don’t toe the line with their political machinery. It has little or nothing to do with theology, notwithstanding all of the false accusations of heresy and liberalism that have been leveled against the other state organizations.

]]> By: micah http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/comment-page-1/#comment-1068 micah Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:02:31 +0000 http://www.toward-the-goal.net/2006/11/02/making-waves-in-missouri/#comment-1068 I don't know much about the second two issues, although I deplore the boycott idea, but the single alingment issue is particuarly stressful to me. After speaking to someone what we are both familiar with who was both at the meeting this week, and has also been involved with MO convention life for many years now, he shared with me that single alingment has been apart of the MBC policy since 1961 when it was organized to deal with SBC/ABC affiliations. The policy, as I understand it, was redefined this past year to exclude additional churches. IMO, this policy stands in stark contrast to historic SBC policy that allows churches to affiliate with the organizations of their choice. BTW, this one strikes close to home since one of the churches is in our association. I don’t know much about the second two issues, although I deplore the boycott idea, but the single alingment issue is particuarly stressful to me. After speaking to someone what we are both familiar with who was both at the meeting this week, and has also been involved with MO convention life for many years now, he shared with me that single alingment has been apart of the MBC policy since 1961 when it was organized to deal with SBC/ABC affiliations. The policy, as I understand it, was redefined this past year to exclude additional churches.

IMO, this policy stands in stark contrast to historic SBC policy that allows churches to affiliate with the organizations of their choice.

BTW, this one strikes close to home since one of the churches is in our association.

]]>