**DISCLAIMER** These statements are a combination of random thoughts and perceptions. Due to time limitations, these may not be completly coherent. When time permits I’ll be glad to clarify any questions so feel free to leave comments about confusing statements.
We are currently sitting in the Executive Committee meeting but since the internet is $10 per hour, I’m writing the post now, but will post it as soon as I get an internet connection. The meeting, to this point, has been rather mundane other than a question concerning moving the WMU from an auxiliary to an entity of the SBC. This didn’t seem to have carried much traction.
As I was writing that they Committee passed a motion that states that if you or your spouse receive a monetary subsidy from a SBC entity (such as an annuity contribution) you are not qualified to serve on that entities board. I say AMEN to that motion. It is positive change that will benefit by not allowing a conflict of interest to exist by those serving on a Board of Trustees.
We have now moved to discussion concerning the church in California that has been rumored to have been taken over by a local, non-SBC church, in order to assume the SBC church’s property. The Ex. Comm. has explained that the call from the local D.O.M. to “rescind the letter of affiliation” that was sent by the Ex. Comm. was inappropriate. The discussion was fairly clear in their explanation and I’ll have to say that (pursuant to Article 3) in my opinion, the SBC Ex. Comm. has made the right decision.
The Ex. Comm. has just explained their recommendation concerning the change of their previous statements recommending churches to give 10% of their funds to the CP. They also removed the 10% language from their recommendation concerning electing officials who come from churches that give 10%. The only explanation given on the floor of the meeting is that “things have happened” and that they don’t want to be misconstrued as having “mandated” that churches give 10%. The chairman did read a letter written in the state paper in California helping to explain the confusion regarding the previous statement. He also said that the Ex. Comm.’s intent in the recommendation is to encourage giving. He said that we have a problem in the convention and that without course correction we will be in bad shape in a short amount of time.
FAVORITE QUOTE: When talking about the Ex. Comm. proposal concerning 10% giving a participant in the meeting made the statement that at one point in his life he moved from being a “heathen infidel to [becoming] a Southern Baptist.” Glad to have that cleared up for me, I thought it was all about coming to Jesus. 🙂