Baptists in control
Welcome to Debatables, a place where we all talk about the issues of the day. Please keep them on point and constructive. Now to the first topic:
After yesterday's action expelling Myers Park Baptist, the group has told five Baptist colleges that they must give up their funding if they want to name their own college trustees.
Do you think the State Baptist Convention has control issues? OK, that's just a throwaway joke.
Seriously, have the colleges gone too far in requesting this autonomy? Or is the convention working on the wrong things?
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The "throwaway joke" comment is much more true than a joke!
Control has been an issue within the larger body of the SBC for nearly 30 years. Remember the old adage; power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!
While I may not agree with all persons selected to serve on any of those five college board of trustees, in the historic baptistic principle of local autonomy, the colleges did not have the authority to run itself.
The best example I can find to illustrate what the BSCNC was doing is thus. Imagine only having a 1%-4% stock ownership in a corporation and yet having the complete and final say in how that corporation is operated. That is the basic premise.
I believe that the comment about the institutions in question are affiliated, not founded nor owned by the BSCNC is totally on target. The affiliation was due to similar beliefs. However, as the hijacking of the BSCNC by fundamentalists has progressed, the similar beliefs have shrunk. The institutions of higher learning are still baptistic in belief and practice. Far more of the churches are baptist in name only.
So, this issue has finally come after speculation of better than 10-15 years.
I speak on this because I am a product of one of these institutions. I am glad that these institutions have chosen to take the better road in this disgusting situation.
Shalom
Posted on November 14, 2007 10:11 AM
I think everyone is making way too much of this "disgusting situation" as stated by Darryl.
The issue is the developement and maturity of the schools. Funds from the SBCNC may only represent 1.5 to 4% of the budgets today, but that was not always the case. As this proportion has declined over the years and the schools have developed in the the fine institutions that they are today, it is only logical that the financial relationship be redefined.
The schools want autonomy. Great. But the SBCNC has every right to have expectations. That means we don't want our funding given without accountability from those who are controlling it. By directly controlling scholarship dollars offered to individuals, I think the SBCNC is better served.
I would call that a win-win.
Posted on November 14, 2007 11:02 AM
I think everyone is making way too much of this "disgusting situation" as stated by Darryl.
The issue is the developement and maturity of the schools. Funds from the SBCNC may only represent 1.5 to 4% of the budgets today, but that was not always the case. As this proportion has declined over the years and the schools have developed in the the fine institutions that they are today, it is only logical that the financial relationship be redefined.
The schools want autonomy. Great. But the SBCNC has every right to have expectations. That means we don't want our funding given without accountability from those who are controlling it. By directly controlling scholarship dollars offered to individuals, I think the SBCNC is better served.
I would call that a win-win.
Posted on November 14, 2007 11:03 AM
Yep, they are a bunch or power hungry controlling morons. God does not force his love and grace on anyone nor does he force acceptance, so why does this organization practice something that is totally opposite than that? A persons relationship or beliefs is between them and the Lord, or I should say that's the way it is suppose to be.
Posted on November 15, 2007 11:02 AM