Baptist relationships

jon, this is the short answer to a very involved couple of questions. Early Baptists in the Americas fell into two basic groups - Particular (would later be called Regular) and General. This relates basically to their soteriology, and is probably the only division of American Baptists that can be traced directly to the British Isles. Another broad division of American Baptists is due to sectional or regional differences, particularly north and south. At least some of the regional differences do relate to the background, religion, and purpose of the people who settled particular sections of the country. A third division is ethnic and/or linguistic. A couple of present-day major American Baptist bodies (the Baptist General Conference and the North American Baptist Conference, for example) were originally started due to language differences from the major Baptist bodies of that time. For the two mentioned groups, the language barrier has long since ceased, but the groups have maintained their separate existence. A fourth major division of American Baptist bodies is over the use of means such as missionary societies, theological seminaries, etc. Of course, there are divisions within these four major divisions. One that came in the last century was over the fundamentalist/modernist controversy. No doubt American Baptists have been overly divisive (in part due to their individualism and freedom of religion), but one must consider that there is also much more diversity of origin in the peoples and religions of America than exists in many other places.

How do they relate to one another? Some groups are totally separatistic and do not relate to any other Baptist bodies at all. At the other extreme are those that are definitely ecumenical and not only cooperate with other Baptists, but with other denominations as well. The majority of American Baptists would fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, but probably tending a little more toward separatism than ecumenism.

BTW, a "Campbellite" in America is any member of one of the churches that descended from the Restoration movement of Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, Walter Scott, et. al. Many of these churches denominate themselves "Church of Christ" or "Disciples of Christ" or "Christians". "Campbellite" is a term used casually, or by people that cannot bring themselves to refer to them as "Church of Christ". It is not a term these people apply to themselves generally.

[ November 20, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

The Bible just says where 2 or more are gathered in My name.....I'm an IFB but I am not going to put my salvation on it.I know too many Baptists personally,haha

 

Jon,

My primary denominational relationship is with the Alliance of Baptists - which is strongly in explicitly ecumenical.

Our strengths:

- an enthusiastic, well-educated, competent clergy
- very involved lay leadership
- strong commitment to pastoral care
- outstanding social activism
- profoundly inclusive
- worship that is litugically rich, theologically healthy, and beautiful
- solid ecumenical ties

Our weaknesses:

- a tendency to deliberate too much
- the liberal fear of being too "evangelical"
- a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater in avoiding fundamentalism
- not enough good ol' gospel preachin'

Joshua

 

Well, for starters the CBF isn't a part anymore. That means the apostates have left. Now, if only the moderates would leave as well.

 

Well, for starters the CBF isn't a part anymore. That means the apostates have left.</font>[/QUOTE]Glad to see that your status as a moderator doesn't keep you from slandering whole groups of people.

Yes, because complete uniformity of doctrine should certainly be the goal of the denomination.

 

Well, faithfulness to Christ by faithfulness to the Scripture. That is the goal. So, yes, what you said.

 

They should strive to be as much alike as possible. Right now, when a missionary goes to the foreign field, does he represent the conservative types or the Warren types?

Believers should not have a lowest common denominator theology of cooperation.

Absolute uniformity is unrealistic within the SBC. Too many churches would drop out if they had to stand for something.

 

I'm letting the CBF discussion stand for now, but with the warning that this is likely to stray far afield from the original intent of jonmagee's question. Everyone keep in mind what he has asked as you post to this topic.

 

Hello Jon,

One strength of the Southern Baptist Convention ia its stance on the inerrancy of the Bible. This stance divides truth from error. Hence we have the most biblically sound doctrine.

Another is our commitment to missions. We are the largest missionary sending agancy in the world bar none.

 

hey Jon don't mean to interrupt,but i go to a s.b.c. church also; i think the same problems that exist in the sbc are the same all over;
PEOPLE!!!;i have gone to all kinds of baptist churches;IMHO same deal everywhere - PEOPLE, i go where i go because i felt God led me there,these folks love the Lord no doubt in my mind; Jesus first everything else 2nd....sbc strenghs=good programs; sbc weakness's=people, gota get people together! hope this helps you understand us USA baptist; by the way when u gonna invite us over?
..........bill

 

I attend CBF and SBC churches.
The strength of the SBC lies in its huge infrastructure and facilities, such as its missions organizations, seminaries, and the like, and the huge material and monetary resources.
The SBC does have weaknesses. Because of its size and power, the SBC is fairly attached to a number of high profile political figures, which tend to make the SBC seem as much a part of the world and its power structure as any other large institution, and I think the closeness affects objectivity (Republicans are not as critisized for their moral failings as are Democrats). This also leads SBC members to think they are right because they are in power-"God put me here", etc. Also, the pronouncements of SBC leaders about Jews, gays, Disney, and Muslims, that many members are so proud of often comes across as arrogant and intolerant, and ultimately are sometimes damaging to other Christian's witness ("Oh, you're Baptist? Why do you hate Jews and Gays so much?").
The CBF is harder to assess b/c its not really a denomination, but an association or fellowship. Because it "partners" with other organizations instead of owning them there is less uniformity in belief and less control. In a way that is a strength and a weakness.
I think some CBF churches or organizations are less likely to promote local evangelism (as opposed to "unreached people groups"). You see alot less "high attendance Sundays" at CBF churches.

[ November 22, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

just as soon as i find them durn sox of mine Jon;
oh yeah & a big jacket ......bill