If you think the Southern Bap Convention controls local churches...

[preachinjesus]

I DO believe in autonomy. Which includes the autonomy to include provisions that a Church never leave a denomination/association. Apparently you want to tell them what they can do...are YOU the ecclesiastical authority?

Actually the proper view of local church autonomy always provides a means to withdraw from all associations. To have a provision adhering a church to a specific local/national association violates local church autonomy.

Local church autonomy, properly defined, is the ecclesiological doctrine which asserts all local churches have authority over all matters related to their conduct, operations, leadership, and associations. Any external associations with denominational or other agencies are voluntary and can be withdrawn from at any point.

 

[Havensdad]

Actually the proper view of local church autonomy always provides a means to withdraw from all associations. To have a provision adhering a church to a specific local/national association violates local church autonomy.

Local church autonomy, properly defined, is the ecclesiological doctrine which asserts all local churches have authority over all matters related to their conduct, operations, leadership, and associations. Any external associations with denominational or other agencies are voluntary and can be withdrawn from at any point.

Unless it is precluded by the local church. Whether or not a church has an association, has absolutely nothing to do with autonomy. Autonomy has to do with that association or convention not having authority over that local church. Saying "This church will always be Southern Baptist" (or independent Baptist, or Non-Denominational, or anything else..), in no way violates that churches autonomy..

 

[Salty]

...Saying "This church will always be Southern Baptist" (or independent Baptist, or Non-Denominational, or anything else..), in no way violates that churches autonomy..

HD - you are absolutely correct :thumbsup: :1_grouphug:

The same could be said if the church Constitution said all telephone service was to be provided by ATT. If down the road, the church saw a need to change the phone plan to Verision - all they have to do is change the Constitution and then make the change (unless they have a contract for a limited time) - Oh wait that means ATT owns the church :smilewinkgrin:



(BOLD MY EMPHASIS)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is sad, really sad. I guess some of you just don't get it. If the only way a church can really own and retain its property is to never leave the denomination, then that church has relinquished its autonomy.

Situations such as have been described are indeed regrettable, but that is much preferred to surrendering autonomy.

I noticed that no one has answered regarding the scenario I posted, so I'll repeat it: What if the SBC started affirming and accepting homosexual ordinations and marriages, and a majority of a local church voted to disaffiliate with the SBC over this matter, but there was a clause in the church constitution such as mentioned here. The majority who voted to disaffiliate would have to leave and turn over their church to the apostate minority. Now, how does that line up with the historic Baptist principle of local church autonomy?

I just believe that when you surrender time-honored and cherished principles, nothing good can come out of that.

 

[Havensdad]

This is sad, really sad. I guess some of you just don't get it. If the only way a church can really own and retain its property is to never leave the denomination, then that church has relinquished its autonomy.

Situations such as have been described are indeed regrettable, but that is much preferred to surrendering autonomy.

I noticed that no one has answered regarding the scenario I posted, so I'll repeat it: What if the SBC started affirming and accepting homosexual ordinations and marriages, and a majority of a local church voted to disaffiliate with the SBC over this matter, but there was a clause in the church constitution such as mentioned here. The majority who voted to disaffiliate would have to leave and turn over their church to the apostate minority. Now, how does that line up with the historic Baptist principle of local church autonomy?

I just believe that when you surrender time-honored and cherished principles, nothing good can come out of that.

If the people who started the church and paid for the church (in this case, the SBC) change some beliefs, then it is the responsibility of those who came later to LEAVE the church, and start their own across the road....

What is sad, is that you think it is O.K. to steal...
However, this again is not what is actually happening.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If the people who started the church and paid for the church (in this case, the SBC) change some beliefs, then it is the responsibility of those who came later to LEAVE the church, and start their own across the road....

What is sad, is that you think it is O.K. to steal...
However, this again is not what is actually happening.

I think the local church should be completely autonomous, and that it should own and control its property. The minority should not be able to overrule the majority; if that happens, autonomy doesn't exist. If the minority can overrule the majority, who is doing the stealing then?

You still haven't answered my scenario about the denomination apostatizing.

 

[12strings]

If the people who started the church and paid for the church (in this case, the SBC) change some beliefs, then it is the responsibility of those who came later to LEAVE the church, and start their own across the road....

What is sad, is that you think it is O.K. to steal...
However, this again is not what is actually happening.

Part of church planting is trusting God to carry the church long after the planters are gone. If my home church goes to plant a church in Africa, after some time we will want to hand that church over to a native pastor. We will desire that the church continue on the path that we started it on...However, should they after a few years determine that they would rather not be called "baptist" due to some problem in might cause in their context...Would not the Christian thing to do be making our case to their leadership, but then respecting their decision as an autonomous church? Rather than demanding that they return the building we built get out?

 

[gb93433]

If the people who started the church and paid for the church (in this case, the SBC) change some beliefs, then it is the responsibility of those who came later to LEAVE the church, and start their own across the road....

What is sad, is that you think it is O.K. to steal...
However, this again is not what is actually happening.

My first pastorate was largely made up of KJVO originally. That church changed a lot when I came. I changed it from a KJVO emphasis and an "Us four and no more" attitude to one of making disciples and doing ministry in the community. It was almost gone when I came and is doing very well today. Stolen? Hardly. The KJVO folks stole the church and made it a den of thieves who stole God's word from the people.

 

[agedman]

The "stealing" of property is not solely a SBC phenomena.

Back in the '50's, the property and buildings were sometimes "taken" from the church planters in what I think were more frequent numbers than published. An energetic man would "plant" a church, acquire land, build a building, only to find a some "group" infiltrate, become involved and then vote the pastor out - the very man who started the church in the beginning.

It was encouraged by some IFB professors and schools that the property deed be held by the man who started the church as the sole owner. Upon that person's death or determination that the church would continue in biblical faith and practice, he might consider deeding the property to the trustees, if not then the family continued(s) to hold the land. Just recently a former pastor of a church planting work sent the transferred deed to a church he started in the '50's after visiting extensively with the current pastor.

Some SBC churches were started with the same thinking and the convention does have custodial authority over the land and buildings.


I am not opposed to a pastor teaching the Scriptures and the congregation sensing the need to leave the SBC, just as I am not opposed to a pastor teaching the Scriptures and the congregation sensing the need to associate with the SBC.

However, the idea that autonomy of the SBC toward the local church as reported on this board only part of the story.

 

[agedman]

If the people who started the church and paid for the church (in this case, the SBC) change some beliefs, then it is the responsibility of those who came later to LEAVE the church, and start their own across the road....

What is sad, is that you think it is O.K. to steal...
However, this again is not what is actually happening.

Why should they leave?

It isn't a SBC church, it is a church that associates with the SBC.

Just because the SBC decided to contribute and even give financial help doesn't equate to authority over the land and buildings if the statements of autonomy by the SBC are to be taken as factual.

The folks who came later can make decisions as they choose if the SBC is in fact truthful to the autonomous statements.

The SBC has been deceitful in the autonomy of the local church and has taken action against local congregations locking them out of buildings and land.

 

[gb93433]

There are lots of churches that are not what they once were. Some former Baptist churches are now CofC. Some cease to exist. Some have changed their names. Some churches have decided to affiliate with another denomination. Some church buildings are falling down. Some have been torn down. Some denominations have ceased to exist. So what else is new under the sun? The church still exists though.

 

[preachinjesus]

Unless it is precluded by the local church. Whether or not a church has an association, has absolutely nothing to do with autonomy. Autonomy has to do with that association or convention not having authority over that local church. Saying "This church will always be Southern Baptist" (or independent Baptist, or Non-Denominational, or anything else..), in no way violates that churches autonomy..

Well it does violate autonomy. I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

There is simply no way a free church can, or ever should, pledge undying allegience to a convention or denomination in this way.

 

[Jerome]

Salty's OP is right in noting that the national bureaucratic level has bigger fish to fry. You'll generally find these ecclesiastical tentacles originate with state and local denominational functionaries/partisans. To its credit, the national SBC denominational machine sided against the schemes of the California 'DOM'.

California Church Involved in NAMB Controversy

NAMB terminated Michael Stewart as a missionary according to NAMB officials, in part because he "tried to take over San Tomas Baptist Church."

Stewart got involved at San Tomas Baptist Church in 2001, when some sources have said he helped recruit volunteers from other local churches to join the congregation "for a period of time to try to help the church get back on its feet and grow." Stewart has said he did not recruit them. He also helped three San Tomas members file the lawsuit that, on the eve of trial, produced a settlement ousting the pastor and regaining control of most of the church's assets.

 

[Jerome]

Other examples of state Conventions/local Associations counseling/pushing the scheme:

"Since a majority vote was considered high priority in the ruling. . .[Big Emory Baptist Association DOM William] Bargiol said there is one recourse for any church that wants to guarantee remaining Southern Baptist. "The only legal recourse to prevent this kind of thing from happening is for the church to deed its property to the association or state convention, and have the recipient party to deed it back to the church with a reversion clause," Bargiol said." —"Church's departure from SBC Affirmed by Tennessee Court/ Sends Warning to All SBC Churches, DOM Says," Baptist Press, March 16, 1994

"Reverter clauses are common across the Southern Baptist Convention" —"Judge Orders 'Non-Cooperating' Church' to Return Property to State Convention," Baptist Press, August 17, 1982

"It is suggested that a church consider including a “reversionary clause” in its constitution in order to protect the future usage of its property to make sure that such property remains in the hands of Southern Baptists." —'Constitution and Bylaws' handout published by the Kansas Nebraska Southern Baptist Convention

"This condition shall remain even if the members determined to be in harmony with the ASBC shall be in the minority. . . .in case its house of worship. . .shall cease to be used as a house or place of Southern Baptist worship by those in harmony with or affiliated with the ASBC. . .then in each and every such case the title to the above described property shall revert to and become vested in the (local Southern Baptist Association’s name)" —'Restrictive Covenant' document recommended by the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention



And one doing the right thing:

"Approved the request from the Calvary Independent Baptist Church (Mount Airy) to remove the reverter clause from their deed." —2010 Annual Report of the Baptist Convention Of Maryland/Delaware

 

[Salty]

...I noticed that no one has answered regarding the scenario I posted, so I'll repeat it: What if the SBC started affirming and accepting homosexual ordinations and marriages, and a majority of a local church voted to disaffiliate with the SBC over this matter, but there was a clause in the church constitution such as mentioned here. The majority who voted to disaffiliate would have to leave and turn over their church to the apostate minority. Now, how does that line up with the historic Baptist principle of local church autonomy?

Okay, I will directly answer the question!!!
(assuming - our church constitution required by 2/3 vote if the church voted out of the SBC then property would go to association)
First if- and thats a big IF - if the SBC went to that extreme liberalism - I would request the church change its constitution to rescind that provision.
Next - we would stop all funding of the SBC
Third (after consulting with a lawyer) we would then vote to disaffiliate with the SBC.

Now, if the church body refused to change the constitution (say the vote was 60% to leave - which would be short of the 2/3 required -and there was no reasonable chance of changing some minds - I would leave the SBC, and I trust as well as the other 60% who voted with me.
Okay, we loose the building - but it is only a building. But we would be standing on truth and that is much more important. A wonderful time at our church, (that I mentioned in a previous post) is when we regrouped - found a new building and prepped it for worship services.

As for me and my family - we will serve the Lord.
-Joshua 24:25

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Okay, I will directly answer the question!!!
(assuming - our church constitution required by 2/3 vote if the church voted out of the SBC then property would go to association)
First if- and thats a big IF - if the SBC went to that extreme liberalism - I would request the church change its constitution to rescind that provision.
Next - we would stop all funding of the SBC
Third (after consulting with a lawyer) we would then vote to disaffiliate with the SBC.

Now, if the church body refused to change the constitution (say the vote was 60% to leave - which would be short of the 2/3 required -and there was no reasonable chance of changing some minds - I would leave the SBC, and I trust as well as the other 60% who voted with me.
Okay, we loose the building - but it is only a building. But we would be standing on truth and that is much more important. A wonderful time at our church, (that I mentioned in a previous post) is when we regrouped - found a new building and prepped it for worship services.

As for me and my family - we will serve the Lord.
-Joshua 24:25

Thank you!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Other examples of state Conventions/local Associations counseling/pushing the scheme:

"Since a majority vote was considered high priority in the ruling. . .[Big Emory Baptist Association DOM William] Bargiol said there is one recourse for any church that wants to guarantee remaining Southern Baptist. "The only legal recourse to prevent this kind of thing from happening is for the church to deed its property to the association or state convention, and have the recipient party to deed it back to the church with a reversion clause," Bargiol said." —"Church's departure from SBC Affirmed by Tennessee Court/ Sends Warning to All SBC Churches, DOM Says," Baptist Press, March 16, 1994

"Reverter clauses are common across the Southern Baptist Convention" —"Judge Orders 'Non-Cooperating' Church' to Return Property to State Convention," Baptist Press, August 17, 1982

"It is suggested that a church consider including a “reversionary clause” in its constitution in order to protect the future usage of its property to make sure that such property remains in the hands of Southern Baptists." —'Constitution and Bylaws' handout published by the Kansas Nebraska Southern Baptist Convention

"This condition shall remain even if the members determined to be in harmony with the ASBC shall be in the minority. . . .in case its house of worship. . .shall cease to be used as a house or place of Southern Baptist worship by those in harmony with or affiliated with the ASBC. . .then in each and every such case the title to the above described property shall revert to and become vested in the (local Southern Baptist Association’s name)" —'Restrictive Covenant' document recommended by the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention



And one doing the right thing:

"Approved the request from the Calvary Independent Baptist Church (Mount Airy) to remove the reverter clause from their deed." —2010 Annual Report of the Baptist Convention Of Maryland/Delaware

These reverter clauses make a Baptist church something less than Baptist.

 

[mandym]

These reverter clauses make a Baptist church something less than Baptist.

No it doesn't

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No it doesn't

Wow, what a clever and convincing response!

This clause makes them just like the Nazarenes, Methodists, Presbyterians and every other denomination which doesn't believe in or practice autonomy.

 

[Salty]

These reverter clauses make a Baptist church something less than Baptist.

No it doesn't - if the church voluntarily decided as such to protect it. Unfortunately - it can go either way as some posts have shown.

But remember the real church is the people - not the building - and that is one major item that does make us a Baptist!