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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SB Associations typically do have a "Director of Missions," a "Missionary," an "Associational Missionary," or some other such person. (Never heard of a Secretary of Missions. Director is even a bad term, which is a vestige of years gone by, much like the "deacon board"). They are not regional, like a bishop or superintendent. But that person has no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever. They serve the churches, not the other way around. They are accountable to the churches, not the other way around.

 

Tom, now that you've mentioned it, I think the ones in this area are called "associational missionaries". They are not missionaries in the strictest sense (or as we most often think of missionaries). They are "missionaries" of and elected by the local association who visit churches and take care of associational business. The ones of whom I know are not involved in establishing churches, and are not regional in anything more than the "region" the local association covers. They do not possess "ecclesiastical authority", but some whom I have known possess considerable influence and may be highly effective in matters of political struggle within a local association. The ones with which I am familiar (in the political sense) are in the past and not related to the present controversies (e.g., A. J. Holt credits his work as "saving" the Nacogdoches Association during the Landmark division from the BGCT, circa 1900). I would also understand that each state has something equivalent to a "Director of Missions" for the state association or convention.

 

mark, if BMM has a policy that makes that restriction, I did not know about it. I know that our church supports BIMI, one of its area support directors and 6 of their missionaries. I was under the assumption that most IB mission boards work that way. Please remember that every independent work runs independently. Whether it is a church or a mission board or a school, they all have different policies based on where the Lord leads the leaders. I am sorry I included BMM in that description if it did not apply to them, but many if not most IB mission boards do work that way.

------------------------------
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 ]

 

No doubt the prodecures of the many independent Baptist "mission boards" vary case by case, but I am aware of this difference between some of them and groups such as the SBC, ABA, BMAA, etc. - the support for the overhead of this second group comes directly out of the missions funds, while the "independent boards" cover their overhead only with funds designated for that purpose. Ultimately, both methods have their overhead costs covered, though in different manners, rather than eliminating them.

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

 

Rlvaughn wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would also understand that each state has something equivalent to a "Director of Missions" for the state association or convention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, sort of. Each state has a convention president. (This is akin to the local association's moderator). That office is one of name only. Some states you get to appoint a committee or two. Some states all you do is gavel in the state convention meeting. Every state convention also has an executive director-treasurer, who has no ecclesiastical authority either but is the name person for financial matters in the convention and serves as a resource person.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaffeineYellow5:
..........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......

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak to whether or not this particular episode should have occurred, but most of the time the local congregation owns the land and the building.
In a missions situation, there can be various ways in which Cooperative Program funds support things at least partially, as well as directly from other churches. So a very small church could really depend on those funds.
For example, my church gives a minimum flat percentage to the national Cooperative Program, to the OK state convention, and to the local association. There are also special offerings for foreign missions, home missions, and state missions. We also support directly several other projects in funds, people, etc. The OK convention is a partner with Malawi and routinely sends teams there. MO is a partner likewise with Belarus. Some of my church's direct support has included missions in Arizona, Kansas, Canada, and international and Native American Indian missions in OK.

The percentages for the Cooperative Program, etc, are automatic. The special contributions for missions in places like Kansas are pledged for a specific period of time and then reviewed. The input of the associational missionary, I am sure, does factor in. No, we do not look for instant success or big numbers.

Karen

 

That Independent Baptists have no central organization creates a difference in their methodology from the SBC. Independent Baptists as a whole tend to be more separatistic than SBC churches. But ultimately, the autonomous nature of Baptist churches makes it impossible to establish an exact difference between IB's & SB's. Some independent Baptist churches will resemble SBC churches more than they resemble other independent Baptists. Some SBC churches will resemble independent Baptist churches more than they resemble other Southern Baptists. If nothing else, Baptists are hard to pin down!