Baptist Polity of Autonomy

SBC and Church property:

Re: http://sub.namb.net/churchfinance/faq.asp

Hypothetical: Suppose a Church gets funded/liened by the SBC ministry referenced on the above website.

Suppose there is a schism: the "Free"masons must leave--but they have a majority at business meeting--they also have control of the "Board of Deacons".

Question: Who has control of the property when the assembly splits?

This situation is not absurd--it has been a reality check--it is real--right here "in River City".

Can this be compared to the "Holy See"?(on a smaller scale of course.)

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Bro. James

I stand corrected. I was completely unaware my own convention offered loans to churches and, according to their own website, would hold a lien on the property in some cases. I can see the foundation for your concern.

I still doubt the SBC would get involved in a local church fight over the property, but you have raised an interesting senerio.

 

Interesting link, but it doesn't have anything to do with church autonomy in regards to the SBC dictating to the individual churches.

1) The SBC doesn't require you to get a loan via the NAMB.
2) The terms of the loan don't say, "You have to preach this way."
3) The terms of the loan don't say, "Your church has to answer to someone else in the convention in regards to doctorine."

It simply states, this money is provided by members of the convention for members of the convention.

How do you think is different from the bank down the street saying, "We'll loan you money as long as you use it for the purpose stated on your loan application."

Are you suggesting that it would be better for the Convention to say, "We'll pay for anything as long as you call it a church, even if you are a church of Satan?"

This is the requirement for a church to join the convention: A church technically becomes Southern Baptist by contributing to the mission causes of the Convention.

If that contribution is made within the fiscal year (October-September) preceding a particular annual meeting (June), then the church is entitled to send as many as ten messengers to the Convention. The messenger card spells out the criteria. These cards can be secured from your state Baptist convention.

That's it folks.
No- "you must agree to teach this."
No- "you must let us pick your preacher."

You come to us and say, "I want to help with this mission endeavor by contributing to it financially," and you have a right to send delegates to the convention.

[ May 14, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: TexasSky ]

 

There is a group in the midwest that for the safety of the congregation held title to property. Someone here in OR took over a church and the group went to court, but lost and the guy took big property over to the sorrow of many congregants that helped build the church.

These normally were paid for properties that were held by the fellowship and the courts ruled against them.

 

Exscentric,

The church is the body of believers.

The body of believers should be more careful about property and about business.

God's word cautions Christians about indebtedness. I suspect this kind of thing is one reason.

However, you said, "someone in Oregon took over the church." How can one person take over a church? The property yes. The church itself?

 

One person taking over a Church--

Emperor Constantine did it in the 4th cent. They just had another coronation of pontifex maximus in Rome. This was apostate from its birth, but is still a good example of a man or a small group taking over.

Such has happened in our time. There are real churches which have been overrun by deacon boards and secret brotherhoods which are not Christian.

There are many wolves in sheep's clothing.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Some in the SBC stood against masonry a few years ago and didn't get far with it because too many in the congregations are involved with it.

 

"The church is the body of believers."

Last I heard you are correct.

"The body of believers should be more careful about property and about business. "

Your opinion, but in their opinion they were - at the time.

"God's word cautions Christians about indebtedness. I suspect this kind of thing is one reason."

Not sure of your point as the church in question was paid for if I remember correctly and had nothing to do with the situtation.

"However, you said, "someone in Oregon took over the church." How can one person take over a church? The property yes. The church itself? "

A pastor coming in with a smooth character and tongue can lead a flock astray - it is being done all the time. They gain confidence of the majority and it is over.

 

Question: To whom are the missionaries of the SBC accountable? The convention or a church?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

It seems as though you have some fundamental problems with the SBC right now...and nothing mentioned here will change your mind. Why would you say inflammatory things about the thousands of godly folks in the SBC, then end your message by saying "selah?"

 

No inflammation or defamation intended--

This is about the sovereignty and autonomy of New Testament Churches.

The presence of "godly people" in any group does not necessarily make the practice of the group scriptural. e.g. There are probably many "godly people" in the RCC. That does not make the RCC scriptural.

Repeat the question: To whom do the missionaries of the SBC give accountability? It is a sincere question looking for a sincere answer.

Selah (means to pause and consider)

Bro. James

 

The North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Both of these boards are held accountable by the churches that make up the SBC. There is your answer, but I know that many of my independent brethren would speak of the certain evils of of this method of missions - that a "board" would exist to administer missions.

None-the-less, thousands upon thousands have been saved because of the work of SB missionaries, as well as independent and other missionaries throughout the years - a fact which tends to get lost amidst the debate at times.

But the fact that my church cooperates with other churches to send missionaries into the field really has no bearing on whether or not my church is "autonomous."

</font>

• We pray for missionaries - by name.</font>
• We pray for missionaries - by region.</font>
• We support all missionaries through the Cooperative Program (which is seen by many brethren as a somehow "evil" entity) - and we are free to support specific missionaries when we choose.</font>
• We are able to visit that missionary when we are able and participate in the ministry - or otherwise send material, support, birthday cards, etc.</font>
• They are our church's missionaries, who we love, pray for, and support.</font>

And at the end of it all, no one comes down from the state convention, national convention, or either mission board and tells us how to worship, how much to give, or any other matter that is up to the individual church body. I speak of my own experience as a life-long member of many southern baptist churches across the nation (WA, FL, MD, MO, CA) I have been a part of while I was in the service...and now a pastor.

Please understand that I have never been pressured by "big brother SBC" as some have asserted. And now, I ask you brother, to "pause and consider" the sincere words I have communicated.

 

More questions:

1. What is the means of accountability which a church has regarding a "board" outside the pervue of a church.? i.e. How does a church control the "board"?

2. Do SBC missionaries baptize converts? If so, by whose vested authority?

3. Are we concluding that since the results are seemingly very positive, the means must therefore be justified?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

"Seemingly" positive? What are you suggesting?

The answers to your questions are easy enough to find, if you care to do so - and really want the answers. My feeling, though, is that you think you already have the answers. Therefore, you don't need me or anyone else to answer them.

 

The same God as Paul did. However the SBC folks at home sign their paycheck.

 

The same authority that Paul did.

 

Brother James

The SBC missionaries organize indeginous churches that are also autonomous. They move as quickly as possible to the point where local folks are making the decisions, paying the bills, ect. The local pastor baptizes under the authority of the local church. The missionary is not the pastor. If the missionary baptizes anyone, it is under the authority of a local church, and not under the authority of the International Mission Board, or the Convention.

The local churches control who sits on the board by their votes at the national convention. They maintain oversight through reports at the convention and make decisions based on visits by missionaries to those same local churches.

The SBC has a very stringent process that puts a missionary in the field. The missionaries are accountable to God first of all, to be faithful witnesses. They are accountable to the teams they work with in any given area. They are accountable to all the local churches that give to the cooperative fund to pay for their efforts. And they are accountable to their supervisors at the Board. All of these should be of one mind and purpose. There is no conflict or competing interests in such cases.

 

By whose authority do we do these things?

We speak of autonomy; yet some seem to suggest that anyone with a "word from God" can start whatever they "feel" led to start.

Ref. Matt. 28:16-20, "Then the ELEVEN disciples went away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped hnim: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME in heaven and in earth. GO YE THEREFORE, and TEACH all nations, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

I submit that Jesus did not post this commission on the bulletin board in the town square. He gave it to a specific group with a specific mission to accomplish.

That authority(exousia--the power to execute orders) was vested in the first assembly who passed it to the second and third and so on even until today.("Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world). Unless somehow we missed The Rapture, this commission is still in effect--under the same set of circumstances under which it was given.

The missionaries sent out by the first assembly were given authority to preach and baptize from the assembly--the only earthly entity with such authority.

Who has authority to do it differently?--executive power is not legislative power.

USN2pulpit: "Seemingly"--is used to indicate being unconvinced--but still evaluating.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

There is very little in scripture that provides the details of "how" this is to be done.

It obviously isn't under the same circumstances of the first assembly. We now have the canon of the New Testament, written records of the person and work of Christ as well as letters from the apostles (plus Luke and Mark and Jude and James and the author of Hebrews).

I am not sure what your complaint is. All missionaries, and the board itself is under the authority of the local churches, who are under the authority of the Holy Spirit. Are you saying local churches shouldn't work together for missionary efforts? What is your complaint?