Featured Southern Baptists churches - are they independenet?

How does that steal their independence? What, at that point, do they become dependent on?

 

This has, historically, never been part of the proper understanding of autonomy, or independency, of Baptist churches. I'd refer you to Thomas Helwys on this, and a bit of John Smythe.

One of the aspects of autonomy is also accountability. If a network, or association, of autonomous churches feels that one member is operating outside the agreed upon confession (and again its different than a creed) than they can vote to remove, or disfellowship that community without impugning autonomy. Mind this difference: the association isn't forcing the disfellowshipped church to change whatever given practice or belief that are the grounds for disfellowship. Instead they are stating that this member body is no longer within the same ideological camp as the others and needs to be separated from this group.

The major difference between autonomous and non-autonomous churches (be they presbyterial or episcopal in polity) is that the other two examples the local community loses the right to the property and leadership. As they are disfellowshipped they are removed from the local establishment where they convened for worship and assembly since it is not theirs but the synod or bishopric.

It is an important difference.

 

Churches have one set of rules and missionaries, etc., have another. Which, considering missionaries, etc are ultimately accountable to the convention messengers and they have established rules that don't apply to themselves. Not unpresidented in baptist life. Independent Baptist churches do this type of thing as well.

 

Congratulations!!!! QuantumLeapofFaith---has scored a 100 on his Southern Baptist Polity exam!!!:type::type:

 

I beg to differ. No one will tell you your pastor must have a seminary degree. No outside board will examine someone who aspires to be your pastor. But put a woman in your pulpit and soon you will be banned from sending messengers to conventions and required to remove any and all SBC owned symbols from your premises. So yes, there is an external control over who gets to be a pastor in the SBC. I'm not saying this is a bad thing but I am saying that those who think SBC churches are truly independent are engaging in ecclesiastical fiction.

 

Yes it is but it's not the only difference. And whether a congregation can keep its property when it no longer belongs to the denomination really depends on what state you are in. Just because Baptist congregations don't lose their real estate doesn't make them independent. They do lose other property, such as the right to the SBC name in conjunction with their own name. Also, and I'm not sure about this, I believe their members would lose access to the SBC Foundation as a vehicle for charitable giving. It's also possible that their pastors would lose access to Guidestone for their retirement.

 

Again, being disfellowshipped isn't a condition of autonomy.

These churches, for instance, the woman pastor, aren't forced to change anything. They simply aren't part of a voluntary association anymore. They retain local control and local leadership.

If you make a condition autonomy freedom to associate regardless of doctrinal belief, than you have a flawed definition of autonomy.

 

See my answer to JonC in Post No. 19.

 

Guidestone is available for pastors of any church, regardless of SBC or not. If I were to leave the SBC affiliated church where I'm serving and head over to a Bible church, than I can still give to Guidestone. Even if I'm Lutheran I can still give to Guidestone.

You can be Episcopalian and still give to NAMB or IMB through a direct offering. I'm not sure why you would, but they'll take your money.

 

The denomination, and make no mistake about it that's what it is, provides a number of services to local churches that are no longer available if you aren't a member.

There is no practical, functional difference between expelling and withdrawing fellowship.

 

Their liberty is in tact. Cooperation or not in no way infringes on autonomy. It is not even reasonable to assume so.

 

Without arguing the point, what is the practical difference between a confession and a creed, except that Baptists have confessions and Catholics and mainline Protestants have creeds?

 

You have an atrophied concept of liberty, but I will accept that because it's really a matter of semantics and whose definitions you use as to who is right on this point.

 

Its an extremely good question.

Creeds are doctrinal statements that force conformity to the faith.

Confessions are agreed upon statements of faith, such as the Second London Confession and the BFM2000, but are not required for faith.

It has been, rightly, said that the difference between the two is application. Both are doctrinal documents that help clarify and define the faith. However, they are different in the orientation of their application.

The initial creeds of Christianity are helpful documents for clarifying the faith. However, as you get into later Roman Catholic creeds following the establishment of their Church (usually post-Gregory I) there is a requirement inherent in these creeds that lends itself to determining the salvation of some who accept it or who do not.