You misunderstand the term "belongs."
I know how many churches in the SBC use the term "belong." They don't mean belong as in owned by, or controlled by, or any form of outside influence.
In this church, they use the term belong in a sense of "be part of" or "associate with" or "affiliated with." They don't mean they are owned or controlled by the SBC.
You're overestimating the use of one word. The medium sized SBC church I grew up in as a child would use similar language in describing our relationship with the SBC. "We belong to the SBC and enjoy voting privileges at the annual convention..." is part of the bylaws statement (until revised for clarity.) They meant that they were affiliated with the SBC and part of the denomination. They didn't mean they were owned by the SBC.
I think you've got a beef with the SBC and are allowing that problem to corrupt your understanding of the term.
As a lifelong Southern Baptist, and having led several SBC churches at this point, I know that all SBC churches have historically used the term "belong" to mean affiliation or partnering. They do not mean they are owned or controlled by the convention.
If the phrase "belongs to the southern baptist convention" is all we have to go on, there is ZERO reason to think that the SBC owns this church. They have simply used a common phrase to describe their associational relationship.
If I say I "belong" to a local assotiation of volunteer firemen...they don't own me, and I can stop being a fireman if I determine that my life no fits that time commitment.
The fact remains that the VAST MAJORITY of SBC churches are not controlled or owned by the SBC, other than some very minimal requirements to remain associated.
It is true that many people don't understand this, and many who do often speak of the relationship with less than precise language.
I don't know of any church that is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention since its inception in 1845.
The original charter, and subsequent revisions, does not provide any apparatus for the national convention to own any church.
It is a most absurd statement to claim that the SBC can own a church.
First, as it has already been pointed out in this thread, there are cases when the local congregation voted to remove itself from the SBC, the SBC took over the land and buildings. Such action is no doubt controlling the local assembly.
Second, as it has been pointed out in this thread the word "belong" in some folks would seem to indicate only the level of "association" or "in cooperation" with the SBC. Such use of the word is incorrect.
To use the illustration of the "volunteer fireman," one can readily see that if the volunteer "belongs" to the volunteer fireman brigade, there are certain rules, certain command structures, practice drills, and so forth that take place. If the volunteer does not follow the command structure or breaks the rules, they are removed from "belonging" to the volunteer group.
Therefore, the word, "belong" has a far greater authoritarian meaning than the words "associated with" or "in cooperation with."
Third, the fact is the site mentions this church as been around since 1907 and certainly is no recently associated member of the SBC, but holds over a century of interaction. The word "belong" then cannot merely mean "affiliated with" any more than a pastor is "affiliated with" the Masons.
Fourth, as has already been pointed out, the word "belong" also shows submission toward an authority of a whole. When one "joins" a church, they place their "belonging" into the church roles as members. They are to submit to the teaching of the church and follow the leadership. That is the relationship of the vast majority of SBC churches find themselves in with convention matters. There is certain implied pressures of conformity, and the past decades of battle over the conservative versus liberal at the national level is an indication of how bitter the struggle can become. Both sides know that by controlling the educational systems of the university, seminary and local church Sunday School literature is key to holding the local churches in the SBC.
Fifth, the SBC will never blatantly state "we control the local church" anymore than communist Russia would admit that freedom of religion in the communist block didn't exist. Why should they? When you are involved in political gain, you don't underscore and boldly pronounce a fault. So, folks who post that the SBC has a long history of..., or, the SBC states that they... , might just not be in fact fully informed.
Last, I will give you this information. I was involved. I did know the facts. I had the inside information. I did leave the SBC as I expressed in another thread. Am I bitter - nope. Do I miss the meetings and glad hands of the "impressive" and "well known" - nope.
The question may be asked, "Why then did you post on this thread?"
To stir up your thinking and realization that not all things are as they appear in the SBC, and to encourage the forum folks to beware of deceitfulness.
There are many good, gentle, and Spirit filled folks in the SBC.
But, if we are to take the word of God as factual, and recall that the latter days are filled with church folks who are deceived, tepid, ignorant and base demonstrations of approval by God on wealth, buildings, and works rather than purity of the Scriptural truth, then the believer needs to accept that even the SBC is gladly joined (or will be) with the harlot of papacy. The SBC will not be in the rapture, but will thrive in support of the anti-Christ of the tribulation.