Does the SBC have the right to ......

No.

The churches have the freedom to serve God according to the dictates of their conscience without the SBC leadership trying to control them.

 

I don't agree with how you word your premise, but in a manner of speaking, of course the SBC has this right and the SBC has always had some sort of requirements reaching beyond just the ability to give. For instance, the SBC limits the number of messengers a church can send. It requires a formula for the sending of the members. It requires that the church be "in friendly cooperation with convention causes', which is in effect a requirement. However, this is not imposed. These are requirements going in. A church is free to follow these or not follow these.

 

No. Every level of SBC life is autonomous (national, state, local).

At the same, the SBC has the right to withdraw fellowship from any local church acting in a way that vehemently contradicts the adopted beliefs of the whole.

On the other hand, SBC employees are a different story. The SBC does have the right to make sure its employees (e.g. missionaries) are working in accordance to and not in contradiction to the belief statement of the people.

 

[ August 02, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

This may seem like a dumb question but where is the scriptural support for any kind of convention being any kind of organizer, instructor, manager, leader, etc. for a local church?

or

local church: autonomous or no (give Bible plz)

SoCM

 

The SBC can certainly exercise their autonomy and has done so in precisely the manner prescribed by messengers from the churches. The actions may prove to be wise, unwise, or neutral, but messengers have met and voted in accord with the constitution and by-laws.

The SBC could have, in the same manner, voted to accept churches with homosexual pastors, etc.

 

again

cuz I still am waiting,

what BIBLE does anyone have for saying that a convention can run a church?

I say run cuz that is what they do. All of the "assisting" "organizing" and "helping" is just leading stated by another name.

So again I state my question. And please give Bible not opinion.

SoCM

 

You really kept anyone from answering you with that "Give Bible, not opinion statement"...I think I'm going to put that prefix on all my posts...thank you

 

The Bible doesn't mention a convention structure, so there is no "Bible" to give you one way or the other. Of course that doesn't mean it is right or wrong. The Bible doesn't mention BaptistBoard.com, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Not necessarily. The SBC leadership has been somewhat guilty of trying to heavily influence churches, but the churches are free to ignore the pronouncements of the SBC and the leadership. As far as "leading" goes, the SBC (or any other denominational structure) can only lead if the churches choose to follow.

No "Bible" to give, but I like my NRSV, NASB, NKJV and "The Message" just fine!

 

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Does the SBC have the right to impose additional requirements other then the sharing of funds in the Cooperative Program, on the churches that claim SBC affliation?

If yes, what is the end result on the local autonomy of the local church?

If no, what is the end result on the denomination?</pre>[/QUOTE]The SBC is an autonomous convention. When you think about it, the Convention only really exists on those days in June, when the messengers gather for annual meeting. Since they constitute an autonomous body, they have the right to impose any kind of requirement they so choose for a congregation to be considered a "cooperating church." If someone brought a motion requiring all SBC churches to have green shingles on their roofs and the messengers passed it, then, to be a cooperting SBC church, you'd have to either have green shingles on your roof or be willing to put them on.

This would in no way infringe upon the autonomy of the local church. Each SBC congregation would re-evaluate its relationship with the convention. If they wanted to stay an SBC church, they would do what was required -- they would put on green shingles! If they thought this was an inapropriate requirement, they would simply not do it and would stop cooperating.

Of course this is a silly example. But I think it illustrates that the convention messengers can do what every the want. If they want to require EVERY SBC church to sign or affirm the 2000 BFM in order for the church to be considered Southern Baptist, they can do so. The result, I think, would be a mass exodus from the convention.

Since every Baptist church is autonomous, it has the right to choose what denominational bodies it will cooperate with. If the price of that cooperation seems to high to the church, they don't have to cooperate. It's as simple as that.

[ August 06, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: David Krueger ]

 

No, it doesn't. The SBC doesn't tell us what to do. We do what we choose to do.

 

The SBC does whatever "POPE PATTERSON" wants them to do!!!!

 

Who are the ones constantly spewing their hate now?

The SBC is in agreement with the leadership. Patterson is but one of many.

If they wanted to be like the CBF, the only thing they would have to agree on was that nothing is so important that we can't still work together. No thanks.