Featured Southern Baptists churches - are they independenet?

independent of what?

 

I do not like getting into a confrontation,and I have seen boards go crazy just trying to find stuff for some to fight with others over.
So I will simply state I voted....

 

I tried to adopt that policy when I first showed up here, JCH, but I quickly found out that these folks like a healthy debate and can quite often have one civilly without seeking outright anger or rudeness. And, you can learn a lot by throwing yourself into a debate around here.

 

I am one not for confrontation. If I have a question I will ask a question, but when it comes to debating, that is just not me
I know everyone has an opinion,and not everyone is right,and not everyone is wrong I stay neutral on things, I always have..That is just me
This is a great forum though...

 

And please understand I meant no offense. Joining in the debates and discussions here has really helped me in my own study.

 

Oh I know what you meant
I am a quiet person, really I am ...
By the way... Nice to meet you ....

 

Excuse me but you do not know how I voted Good day...

 

I grew up all of my life in SBC Churches. There was never to my knowledge any authority which made any dictates to the churches. Every church was autonomous. The unifying quality of SBC churches I have been associated with was similarities in doctrine and giving cooperatively to support mission work.

 

The Baptist Faith and Message has become a litmus test, a creed in the SBC ... so no the churches are no longer truly independent. Also because of this creed the SBC is for this reason no longer Baptist.

 

Even if you were right about the BF&M (and your not) that has nothing to do with being independent.

 

SBC churches are independent as long as they don't get too far off the reservation. Our state convention just expelled a church because it decided to ordain openly gay individuals. Now I would hasten to say that they should have been expelled for this reason, but the action belies any claim of true independence.

 

How is that? Did they take their property from them? Did they stop being a church? Were they forced to stop their actions?

Refusing to fellowship and cooperate with them does not make them less independent. They are still a church and are still functioning on their own. They are now just one less independent church no longer in cooperation with the SBC.

 

I guess it depends on how you choose to define "independent." And I stand by my statement that SBC churches are independent as long as they don't stray too far off the reservation. A truly independent church would not be removed from the larger organization due to doctrinal differences. But by using your narrow definition of "independent" one could say that SBC churches are independent.

 

As a lifelong Southern Baptist, I can honestly say that we are a network (or association) of autonomous churches that cooperate for the purposes of Gospel proclamation and missions both locally, nationally, and internationally.

If you say we aren't, you're really up against a wall because its simply not true.

Name for me one church in the SBC who has had a pastor appointed by a denominational hierarchy.
Name for me one church in the SBC who has had their budget determined by a synod or external committee.
Name for me one church in the SBC who has been required to give "X%" of their budget to the Cooperative program.
Name for me one church in the SBC who has been required to give to a designated yearly offering for missions.
Name for me one church in the SBC who has been required to attend the annual convention.


Quite simply, you cannot.

The principle of autonomy, or independence, is that no external controls or hierarchy can be allowed to force its decisions on a local church body or exhibit control of a local church in standards of giving and leadership.

The BFM2000 is a voluntary document. I know of 5 trustees at various agencies who do not affirm the BFM2000 in their churches, they affirm the 1963 version. Yet they still serve as trustees.

The BFM2000 isn't creedal, you don't have to accept it to be part of the SBC.

However, it is entirely in line with principle of autonomy to dismiss a church, or disfellowship them, if they violate an agreed upon confession of faith. What does it hurt the dismissed church? They still are a church and have not been controlled. They are simply not part of the association any more.

So, the SBC is indeed a group of independent churches. It is a great strength of this convention.

 

Yes I have to rein myself in frequently when posting here because if I always said what I felt like saying I would soon be banned. So I sacrifice some of my independence because I enjoy participating on this board. For most Baptist churches being in the SBC presents no issues of independence. But for Crescent Hill Baptist Church it is a problem. They want to ordain homosexuals and they believe it is right to do so. So for them to remain in the SBC they must sacrifice their liberty to do this. They were not willing to do this so now they are on the outside looking in.