Posted on 06/13/2013 6:49:23 AM PDT by Morgana
Edited on 06/13/2013 7:35:53 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
HOUSTON (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Well, I’m sure there is something they could use for leverage, if they put their minds to it. If they have something the locals churches want, they can withhold it unless the local churches comply. Or not, maybe they don’t care.
Nonsense. The point was made originally that the Southern Baptist Convention had taken the position that it was “supporting the Scouts” still. Then the question came out why they weren’t mandating or requiring this or that. A fundamental understanding of how the SBC works is required to understand why this is not so. There was no “hijacking” of anything. Sorry you weren’t paying attention. Go back and read before you attack others!
They have taken an official position, but some here are under the mistaken impression that it has some bearing on what the local church does. It does not. (And there are no “parishes” in the SBC, by the way.) I don’t think their maker is confused about where the SBC stands as an official body on this position.
Not sure if it was meant as an attack, but there is a LOT of confusion evident about the relationship between the SBC and the local churches affiliated with it.
Which basically says: "We're really not happy with the Boy Scouts new position, and they should really change it back, but...ummmm... if Southern Baptist parents want to keep their kids in the BSA, that's cool, we understand"
Like I said, they need to grow a backbone, whether their churches choose to follow the "recommendation" or not. All Christian denominations that teach an openly homosexual lifestyle is wrong should be making statements encouraging their members and churches to leave the BSA.
Umm...guess you missed post #6. They have taken a stand, and that stand has been made in press release after press release and posted here on this forum more than once. They are not going to strong-arm the local church memberships to do x, y, z. It is not the relationship they have with the local churches. It has nothing to do with a “backbone” or not having one. What would you have them do? Go to a local church and tell them they will be booted from the convention if parents choose to let their kids stay in the Boy Scouts? Seriously?? I find it very curious that the suggestion to force others to act as one would like would even be present on a conservative site like Free Republic.
What other denominations have even given a press release about the issue, by the way? I think the SBC was the first or nearly? They have made a statement about their position — over and over and over. Many, in fact. And yet you don’t think that’s enough?
“If they have something the locals churches want, they can withhold it unless the local churches comply.”
Nope. The SBC cannot do anything other than coordinate efforts between independent churches on missions and training (seminaries). Any congregation can withhold funds from the SBC, but the SBC had no funds to give back.
Even if the SBC DID have some means of coercion, trying to use it would result in a mass exodus from the SBC.
Together, that's over 90 million people. If all three (not to mention numerous other smaller religious denominations that believe the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong) issued clear, unambiguous statements "recommending" that they DON'T want their churches to be involved in the BSA anymore, it would have a HUGE impact in America. The Catholic and Mormons could actually enforce such a directive if they wished (although I don't think that it's necessary to force their churches to comply), and if SBC may have absolutely no power on paper to do so, but we all know they could “strongly pressure” affiliated churches to do so if they wished (to the point where they'd be “uncomfortable” going to an SBC meeting if their parish had a Boy Scout pack it was sponsoring).
Unfortunately, NONE of these church organizations is willing to take that step. The Mormons have flat out said they will continue to support the BSA, and the Catholics and Southern Baptists have issued national statements saying they dislike the BSA’s new policy, but its OK for their churches and families to continue sponsoring BSA troops if they wish. (In both cases, you do have examples of individual Catholic and Southern Baptist pastors — assuming the SBA uses the title “pastor” — choosing to sever ties with their local BSA troop because of the new policy).
Bottom line, liberals know they can continue to get away with the continual moral decline in this country, and destroying the traditional American family, because most major church organizations will allow it.
No they couldn't and Baptists don't have parishes. Most churches don't even send a representative to the national convention and I doubt half the regular attending members could name the head of the SBC, or even the director of their local association. SBC churches just don't work that way.
Oh, and Cub Scouts have packs, Boy Scouts have troops.
THAT is the type of "official statement" I'd like to see from them. It has nothing to do with changing the way the SBC operates or trying to "strong arm" local churches to "comply". It is simply a clear, bold statement saying the national organization personally feels that its members SHOULD NOT be supporting the Boy Scouts in any manner.
Again, if 99% of SBC churches choose to ignore such a "recommendation", I don't believe they should do a single thing to "enforce" it. I understand it's not in their nature to do so.
But I do believe they should at least go on record stating their opinion that southern baptists as whole REJECT the BSA because it celebrates open homosexuality. The "official statement" they did issue doesn't cut it.
So what do they do if you get this?
"Hi, I'm Pastor Joe from the First Southern Baptist Church of Louville. I'm here for the National Convention. Over at my church, we preach that Jesus was just a very nice guy and not divine, that the Bible was written by ordinary people and there's nothing special about it, and we actively marry gay couples and celebrate abortion! Last Sunday we had a Muslim preach to my flock that you can accept Muhammad is your savior and still be a good Christian! So where do I take my seat so I can lobby for the entire SBC to take these positions?"
I don’t know, I think it might not be the worst move for people with children in the Scouts to decide to keep them away from homosexuals.
See post #7. I can guarantee that no messenger from such a church would even get through the first two sentences, let alone be able to take his seat. I know of at least one church which was booted from the convention for similar garbage. It happens. Occasionally a few wolves get into the mix and have to be removed.
There have always been homosexuals in Scouts.
Sure, but previously they had to be clandestine, so their influence and behavior would be necessarily circumspect. Not so anymore.
And THAT could be an issue, because sexuality has NOTHING to do with Scouting.
I’m sure it will be an issue, because it always is. Homosexuals are never happy just being given basic accommodation, they just take that as an opportunity to redouble their campaigns to tear apart traditional culture.
Funny, you were just saying the SBC "doesn't work that way" has absolutely NO ability to pressure local autonomous churches and pastors from doing whatever they please.
Yet somehow they can stop a "Southern Baptist" minister that denies Christ's divinity from speaking or being seated at a SBC convention, but NOT stop a Southern Bapist minister who sponsors a Boy Scout with openly gay members from speaking or being seated?
If that were true, people would be singling out Baptists for not breaking ties to the BSA, but giving other churches that do so a pass. In reality, all the church denominations that continue to support the BSA are getting just as much criticism on FR. There is no effort to solely "target" Baptists
On the other hand, you do see threads where Catholics are continually blasted for not withholding communion from pro-abortion politicians, while nobody says a word about all the other Christian denominations who do nothing about their pro-abortion politicians...
>> The substance of the attack is optional. <<
The questions being raised here are legitimate.
Why doesn't the SBC simply issue a more strongly worded statement denouncing the Boy Scouts of America? The replies are giving us straw man arguments, like "Southern Baptists can't be expected to expel churches from the SBC that sponsor the Boy Scouts, they don't operate that way", even though NOBODY has demanded the SBC take such a step, or even claimed the SBC has the ability to do so.
Why doesn't the SBC simply use its influence to pressure Southern Baptist pastors to sever ties with the Scouts? I'm currently getting two contradicting comments here. They claim the SBC "just doesn't operate that way" and can do absolutely nothing to ostracize a local pastor and church from saying and doing whatever they want. Then, on other hand, they claim if a Southern Baptist pastor showed up at a SBC meeting and said he didn't believe in Jesus' divinity, he wouldn't get two sentences out and they'd keep him out the meeting and swiftly move to marginalize his church within the SBC because "sometimes wolves get into the mix and have to be removed". Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either they CAN ostracize local pastors who go against SBC beliefs, or they CAN'T.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.