Hi Ron -
While bishop is used synonymously with the terms "elder," "overseer," and "pastor," and "shepherd," I have not personally seen a Baptist congregation that uses this title. However, I suppose it could be proper.
This thread is kind of a mess, which has likely delighted you. However, misinformation is serving no one so I'll see what I can do to straighten the facts out.
Yelsew said: No, baptists simply use other terms to mean the same thing.
Pastor for Priest
Area Representative for Bishop
President for Pope
Yelsew - This post is in error. All believers are priest 1Peter 2:9-10. I'm not sure what you mean by "area represenative." If by president you mean the president of a conventional affiliation, you are in error.
Ron: Then what is a Baptist Archbishop?
Beats me. I am unfamiliar with the term. I found one hit on Google using "Baptist" and "archbishop" and a story came up about some guy in Greneda who was archbishop of a single church. He got arrested for murder by the way.
I am theorizing that in the islands Protestant (please no one start a semantics game here, I use the term in the classic sense of non-Catholic) churches may have borrowed titles from the established Jesuit planted Catholic churches, but that is a guess. Each church is self-governing in a Baptistic system. The government of a Baptist church begins with the individual believer, quite similar to a democracy. For the sake of efficiency, as is the case in most democracies, committees are formed that are given power to implement decisions for the congregation. There is no such thing as a Baptist diocese, however.
Yelsew: These definitions are archaic, and only mark relative position in the organizational structure. Those in the Baptist organization holding those positions have essentially the same relative measure of responsibility to God as those occupying similar positions in other church denominations or factions. However, they do not have authority over those of lesser position except in the role of "judge" when charges are brought against one of a lower position. For example if a bishop has charges brought against him, the Archbishop would be the one to hear and decide the "case". A bishop would have the same role if a pastor within his area of responsibility had charges brought against him. A local pastor has that role when a member of his congregation has charges brought against him.
Now what if the Archbishop has charges brought against him? A council of Bishops would determine who would act in the Archbishop role among them for the purpose of administering the proceedings, then if the charges are substantiated, the council would remove the charged Archbishop and by vote of all bishops would elect a replacement archbishop.
Where on earth are you getting this, Yelsew? You are not describing a Baptist process here.
Ron: BTW, why the distinction with African America churches? Are they not Baptist if they hold to the distinctives?
This is a very interesting topic. I wish I had more concrete facts to give you in this post, but as time allows, I am typing off the top of my head.
The largest Black affiliation is the National Baptist Convention which was formed in in the 1880's. After the Emancipation, many of the black community seperated into their own churches and later affiliations as a statement of their freedom. We have evidence of autonomous black congregations from the 1770's, however, the norm was that the slaves attended church with their owners. As I say, it's a fascinating subject but I am pressed for time on any research and far be it from me to give you information that was not factual.
Ron: The SBC exercises control over supposedly autonomous Baptist churches by kicking them out out of the SBC if they don't comply with the latest doctrinal changes.
Removing someone from a membership role and refusing to take funds from them is not exercising control, at least not on a spiritual plane.
As you know, the SBC has had a political coup in the past few decades. It only meets once a year so these changes take a long time to happen. There are shadow affiliations within the convention that will likely make a full break in the coming decade to maintain affiliation for these exorcised churches. It's a lot of politics. I'm not sure that anyone completely understands it.
It should be noted, however, that the decisions of the SBC are mandated by "messengers," the term applied to represenatives from local churches that make up the SBC. That includes the offices of the SBC, the wording of statements (including the Baptist Faith & Message), and doctrinal stands. Majority vote affects and enacts these decisions for the year to come.
I hope this clears things up for you somewhat.
