What's the difference in independent baptists and southern baptists?

Tom, do you know what percentage of mission monies collected goes to the operation of the mission system in the SBC? A few years ago I put together some figures on the program of the American Baptist Association. In their national & foreign mission work, they had about 6% overhead. In their work of the state level in Texas, it took 22% of the mission funds to operate the system! I would be interested in knowing how efficient the SBC system is in comparison. For independent Baptists (at least the ones who practice direct missions) the only cost is a check, an envelope, and a postage stamp. I'm sure some independent missionaries have a record such as you suggest, but I do not believe it is the norm. It certainly has not been in my experience.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Southern Baptist: the missionaries are controled by a mission board, not by the local church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. We send out missionaries from out church to Mexico every year. And have had some go to England. One to, and I forgot,, someplace like Haiti, but not Haiti.

 

katie, by that do you mean that you send members of your church on "missions trips" or do you mean that you send missionaries to Mexico for church planting and take over church pastorates? We are talking about overseas church planting and pastorates.

----------------------------
John Michael McCauley IV
ICorinthians 9:16 + Ephesians 6:18-20
The Plan of Salvation.

Join the King James Bible Believers team on UD.com and use your computer to help fight cancer.

 

rlvaughn,
The o'head is pretty low, as I understand it. Much of the o'head is a sum that is in the stash that the IMB keeps in case they had to fly all the missionaries home all at the same time. State CP gifts have to include O'head because they provide many more ministries and have more irons in the fire than just mission work.

Caffeine,
The situation I described is the situation I have encountered with every IFB missionary I've ever known, and I've known tons since I was a former IB and know many now. The ones I meet and know now marvel at the way we support our missionaries and wish the same for themselves. Many cannot take their families with them because they cannot afford it. Many have to quit altogether.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

TomVols,

I knew we would agree at some point I grew up in the Free Will Baptist Church, and missionaries would come through about every other month trying to raise money so they could go back to the field where they were called by God to be. Southern Baptist missionaries do not have to do this. They can stay for years at a time and form long-lasting relationships with the people they are called to minister to. It is worth a little cooperation (i.e. unity, bearing one another's burdens, etc) for just one soul to accept Christ.

Daniel Payne

 

CaffeineYellow5,

I am also an FIB and I agree 100% with you that those that don't want to compromise in any area still use the KJV. Great post.

"A true Independent English speaking Baptist Church in order to avoid comprimise will use the KJB."

 

Sister Javalady,
I loved your post about your "ib" church and practice. Although I'm sure that you and I have some theological differences (I've been called a "liberal" before), I enjoyed reading about your family's Christ-centered approach to life and worship. Thank you for enlightening us.

 

Wow so many emphatic statements made. I currently attend an SBC. I'm the youth minister and it is where God wants me. I attend an IBC school however. I have in the past attended an IBC. My concern is the unfactual statements made by many. The IBC is self propogating, self financed and self governed. Each church, is chartered as an independent church. SBC's are not always such, however, they can be very much self governed, propogating and financed. We contribute finaces to the local SB convention for the purpose of special ministries, and some missions. We do support missionaries outside the convention, we support missionaries that we have sent out. Our pastor is the undersheppard and has final authority on decisions, but the Lord who has placed him in that position has final authority, we have two deacons, who serve the pastor and the church, not run the church. The woman wear pants yes, my family does not. Why? I believe scripture explains it and we as a family are convicted and believe we should follow the Bible's teachings. Others don't. That is between them and the Lord and he will hold them, the husband in particular responsible. We do our best to be the example God wants us to be. Bottom line is this. As you travel the country to all the SBC's and IBC's out there. You will find that if the Pastor is leading the church and they are following they will do things accordingly. Some you'll find wear pants some won't. Some preach hard on this topic some allow the Holy Spirit and example guide the decision of people. I know that at Charity Baptist (IBC) none of the women wear pants. As a result new members, after attending for a period of time, tend to follow suit, at first out of the example, comfort, and later conviction. Some SBC's fully support the SB convention, some are members out of constitutional requirements. We as an SBC have full authority to support or not support the SB Convention. We can support or not support the missionaries we want to support. We are not given or directed to observe any customs or traditions, or follow any odd doctrice. Their is one area of GREAT significance that is very troubling, is that more and more SBC preachers are getting away from the King James Bible as our authority. The IBC's to my knowledge don't sway in this area. But again, you just never no.

 

Jaybird wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The IBC is self propogating, self financed and self governed. Each church, is chartered as an independent church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome aboard Jaybird! But this statement is not always true. I know of IB churches that are not this way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Each church, is chartered as an independent church. SBC's are not always such <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless you're talking about a mission church that cannot financially exist on its own right away without support from a sister church, you're right. But that's the only case. Remember, SB churches are autonomous. People forget that.

 

I am in a IFB church now, but got saved in a SBC Church, which would not have been there if not for the Cooperative Program.
The Cooperative Program is the big difference between the Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists.
The vast majority of Independent Baptist Missionaries still go through Mission Board, like Baptist MidMissions. There is overhead, there is money used for insurance, buildings, retirement, all the same. I am not saying they are wasting money, they do a good job, but there is overhead. Independent missionaries sent from no board have very little accountability.
Missionaries who go through the CP (SBC) are closely watched. If they qualify to go, they are sent. They don't waste years convincing every Tom, Dick and Harry they are ok.
The deputation process also makes missionaries cowtow to every whim of every little church, such as which special version they's better use for their devotions.
One other serious flaw of the depuation process involves the jobs. Preachers (who are very important) have a huge advantage. If you are a slick talker (delivering the same sermon week after week) you'll get support quickly, but if God has called you to a support job on the field and you aren't a great speaker you can spend forever to get on the field.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mark:
...The vast majority of Independent Baptist Missionaries still go through Mission Board, like Baptist MidMissions. There is overhead, there is money used for insurance, buildings, retirement, all the same...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mark, I can't challenge your assertion, but I do question it. I know that many independent Baptist missionaries go through organizations such as MidMissions, BIMI, Baptist Faith Missions, etc., but do you really know they are the majority? I don't know either, just wondering. A large number practice direct missions - church sends, missionary goes, and supporting churches send directly to him or his sponsoring church. I would just as soon work with SBC, ABA, or other mission boards as work through an "independent" mission board. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Independent missionaries sent from no board have very little accountability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is true of some, perhaps many, but the fact that they are not sent from a board is not what makes them unaccountable.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The deputation process also makes missionaries cowtow to every whim of every little church, such as which special version they's better use for their devotions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The deputation process is flawed, and, as we know it, should be abandoned. If men are called, they should go. People get up and move every day because of all kinds of secular reasons, but some seem to think a preacher can't do it without spending a year or two on deputation. We have also somewhat culturally abandoned the idea of bi-vocational ministry, which has scriptural precedent and often fills the bill better than the alternative.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One other serious flaw of the deputation process involves the jobs. Preachers (who are very important) have a huge advantage. If you are a slick talker (delivering the same sermon week after week) you'll get support quickly, but if God has called you to a support job on the field and you aren't a great speaker you can spend forever to get on the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This partly goes to show how little real spirituality there is in many Baptist churches in 2002 (though I admit spiritual people can be fooled to). Often churches choose to support missionaries like to choose pastors!!

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Remember, SB churches are autonomous. People forget that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, when push comes to shove, the denomination always wins out in the end. In my area, the SBC regional missionary was able to close 2 SBC churches. Why? Because the cooperative program was used to keep their doors open and when the funding was yanked, the doors were closed. What's really dumb about the whole thing is that the members of those 2 churches just accepted it as the will of God.

P.S. Our local church is operated by faith in the Lord. We have a shoe-string budget and the Lord keeps it going. We are in the process of negotiating to buy the old SBC church building in our town. It is too bad that the SBC lost its faith in God.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

Typical ad-hominem, distorted facts and misrepresentation from Pioneer. We have no such thing as regional missionaries, nor do we have a denomination that exercises control over local congregations. Anyone who knows anything at all about Baptist polity knows this, and knows that a church can't close its doors unless it chooses to do it itself.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Man are you going to be sick of me in a hurry.

BIMI, Baptist Mid-Missions,..etc. are supported by local churches as a missionary. That covers the overhead. I never said there was no overhead, I just said that the missionary doesn't have to suffer because of the overhead. In the SBC someone looses out. Either it is the churches or the missionaries. The money for the overhead doesn't just fall out of the sky. Someone pays it somewhere along the line. FIB missionaries do for the most part go with a mission board and do go on deputation and they will only cowtail if they are weak in their own faith or are willing to comprimise on personal standards. If a man's personal standards are higher, then it will take him a little longer to raise the support, but that in no wise means that he is not going imeadiately as he got the call to go, it means that he must make full proof of his ministry. That way he is making full proof of his ministry before God and man. The SBC way is to approve a man to go. If it is dictated that he does not 'qualify' then he doesn't go either. Even if he is 'qualified' and he goes, where is the proof of his ministry? To God maybe, but to man, no. Plus, the deputation process gives a man a love for his feild and a greater love for the provision of his Lord. A man is more likely to desire the souls of his ministry for the Lord more if he must fight to obtain. The whole idea of; "God called me, I went and the money was provided by the convention..." doesn't give a man a desire for the feild, it allows him to be slothful and lazy. His personal faith in the Lord is the only thing that will give him a desire to see the souls saved and it must be very strong if he is to do well as a good soldier.

I am called to the mission feild of Urumqi, China and if I won some out ragious amount of money in a sweepstakes or if the SBC was to fund my ministry, it would be the same to me. If it falls out of the sky it means little to a man, but if a man works for it, it means much. The money a man works for is cherished and is much more aware of the responsiblility to its stewardship. To whom much is given, much shall also be required. Anyone who goes the SBC route is much more responsible to imeadiately set up a church and win souls daily, with not much experience(as a requirement.) A man who goes on deputation gets experience of winning souls and preaching as he goes. It becomes a requirement.

The comment about a helps ministry is just off base. Missionaries with helps ministries usually work out of a mission board as a ministry of that mission board. When a mission board raises support for itself, it takes on helps missionaries with that support. I have yet to see a helps missionary asking for personal support. Preachers do deputation, helps missionaries, more or less, are employees of missions boards. (For example: CLAIMS is the helps mission arm of BIMI. They build church buildings, christian schools, etc. and they work out of BIMI in the US and foreign countries.)

Many Mission boards are very active in your deputation proccess anyway. They help you set up your slide presentations, help out on getting you on the feild to visit the area and 'scope out' the possible locations for the church and your family.(Like Joshua and Caleb, I guess. )

I have also yet to see any one of our missionaries(over 30) have to come home to the states to ask for more money. The only 2 reasons I have ever seen them come back is for medical reasons and to update currently supporting churches of how the ministry is going(which isn't a requirement.)

Now I have a question about the autonomy of an SBC church. What would be the consequence of a church whose pastor had been teaching and preaching his own thing for a while and convinced the congregation that they should be Pentacostal Calvinists and could use the book of Mormon and the Qu'ran as other 'holy' books of worship. Then that pastor contacted the SBC and told them of the changes, but still wanted to remain a SB church recieving SBC support? Would the doors shut on that church? They surely would, because the congregation and the pastor combined do not have any control over that building or its land. They would all be kicked off the SBC's land and out of the SBC's building. BTW, that extreme was made up, but a situation simialar to that just happened around here. A pastor and his congregation strayed from the 'SBC way' and was removed from the building and the land. They didn't even have the option to buy the building. That happened 3 1/2 years ago and the building is still empty. Also BTW, that congregation and its pastor have the biggest soul winning IB church in that area now. There was no great heresy, just a difference of opinion on how the church should be run and where its authority should be. That pastor took a stand on the Bible and the SBC took an opposing stand on the SBC.

------------------------
John Michael McCauley IV
ICorinthians 9:16 + Ephesians 6:18-20
The Plan of Salvation.

Join the King James Bible Believers team at UD.com and use your computer to help fight cancer.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: CaffeineYellow5 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have no such thing as regional missionaries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tom, I think what Pioneer is talking about is called a Secretary of Missions or Director of Missions. I don't know the exact title, but local SBC associations do have them. The Rusk-Panola and Shelby-Doches associations here in our area have them - often a retired pastor is elected to the position. Seems like most of their work is visiting the churches of the association. I can find more detail on this if anyone wants to verify it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Typical ad-hominem, distorted facts and misrepresentation from Pioneer. We have no such thing as regional missionaries, nor do we have a denomination that exercises control over local congregations. Anyone who knows anything at all about Baptist polity knows this, and knows that a church can't close its doors unless it chooses to do it itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

#1 - Evidently you are knowingly ignorant of your denominational hierarchy.

#2 - The SBC has its own version of Baptist polity.

#3 - The specific churches that I mentioned were FORCED to close because their regional missionary said that they would receive no more funding from the cooperative program.

#4 - The specific churches that I mentioned were closed because of the influence of the regional missionary and because they relied upon the cooperative program to keep them alive.

 

Pioneer,
Your posts keep showing your ignorance of facts. Repeating canards don't make them true.

 

Wow! Has this topic ever taken off!!
I only went through the entire *new* posting once, so I hope I remember the names right!
Thank you Kellisa for your post. Preacher Dave & I are *new* independent Baptists; having a journey that has included Episcopalianism (his growing up years), the Pentecostal movement (my growing up years), the Charismatic movement (our first years of marriage), to being Orthodox Presbyterians (for 6 years) to God establishing us in an understanding of His New Covenant in Christ Jesus & turning some of our theology around; so we've been "iB" for about 2+ years!
In that course of time we've been able to study the theology of nearly every area of Christendom; and the Lord has ironed out many of our kinks, wrinkles & such... HOWEVER, being that we're still on this earth it's obvious He isn't done with us yet!
In some ways, David Cooke, we are looked at as "liberal" too...the "pants" issue...we love the KJV but do not insist it is the only anointed version of the Bible & that many godly men & women use other versions & honor the Lord in & through them...we won't argue the KJV issue (we understand both sides & have just stated our stand)...we condemn drunkedness, but leave it to the conscience of the believer as to if he has a glass of wine w/ his meal (after all, Jesus turned the water into WINE!)...other things that make us appear to some as *liberal.*
Some of the things God has underlined to us:
we must be emphatic about doctrine, but not about dogma.
We must have compassion on the lost, but not upon their sin.
We must have a righteous standard, but not a self-righteous attitude.
We must be bold enough to proclaim & stick to the truth, but humble enough to admit when we're wrong.
Whew! The journey to the Celestial City has been a windy one...but I wouldn't take nothin' for my journey now!!
In His grace, and by it alone,
Javalady (Tami)

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: javalady ]

 

Caffine, I always understood from the BMM missionsaries that my wife and I support that part of their support went for BMM overhead. Even if that is not the case, by supporting the board, the church is choosing NOT to support a missionary or support missionaries at lower levels. There is only so much in the budget and if you take on the board, it lessens support somewhere else.