Should I Leave the Southern Baptist Convention?

[Revmitchell]

I may be just too inside my head most times . What is in error in the OP?

Well I mean you have had an experience with one church and somehow the entire Sbc is now the same.

The Sbc is a cooperative not a denomination.

The convention was not founded Calvinistic . There have always been both general and particular baptists in the convention.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

The convention was not founded Calvinistic . There have always been both general and particular baptists in the convention.

Probably just people I trust with church history that are wrong again.

The Sbc is a cooperative not a denomination.

True, but my issue is that I don't want to be warmly associated with false teachers. Also, the IMB needs to take back its decision to allow prayer languages for missionaries.

 

[Revmitchell]

Probably just people I trust with church history that are wrong again.



True, but my issue is that I don't want to be warmly associated with false teachers. Also, the IMB needs to take back its decision to allow prayer languages for missionaries.

What does that have to do with false teachers?

 

[JonC]

Probably just people I trust with church history that are wrong again.

The point probably being made in the church history class was that the first presidents of the SBC were moderate Calvinists. Howell even argued the point when he addressed the hyper-Calvinists who were heading the anti-missions movement. But here again we are talking about a convention (one Howell himself thought unnecessary and objected to, but also submitted to the leadership of others and ultimately became its second president).

You can't leave the SBC because you are not a member of the SBC. It is a convention of churches. You can leave your church because you object to your church's membership in the SBC.

 

[rlvaughn]

On the other hand, I'm not convinced you'll be fully satisfied anywhere and may never find "the perfect church."

The Ideal Church
I finally found the Ideal Church and joined it...

It's not the Ideal Church any more.

 

[rlvaughn]

Should I Leave the Southern Baptist Convention?

I have a few reasons to leave the SBC now...

You are in the Southern Baptist Convention by virtue of being a member of a church that cooperates with the Southern Baptist Convention. Any "leaving the Convention" is a matter of joining a church that is not in the Convention. "Leaving the Convention" should not be your primary consideration. Being in a sound Bible-believing local church should be the primary consideration, and let the other take care of itself.

 

[HankD]

Steven,

In the days of my Christian youth I was nurtured in a KJVO, Independent Fundamental Baptist church so am understanding of your desire.

I would still prefer the independent part but am presently in a local church affiliated with the GARBC but still I don't like any connection to any organization.

I can't find an independent Baptist church that earnestly contends for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints in my area.
I still retain some of the personal qualities of my youthful christian days (not KJVO though).
My wife and I have been members here for 22 years and have served in different capacities so we are rooted and it would take quite an upheaval to uproot us.

consider these factors - your church membership should be for a lifetime or for as long
as you are settled into one place if you are a nomad (or nomads)

Church hopping is not the best. my advice: if you can, wait until you have matured in the faith and resolved your "red lines" to make your move.

HankD

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have a few reasons to leave the SBC now, but I wanted to discuss with you guys and my church leaders whether I should stay or not. Here are my current reasons for wanting to leave, which may expand honestly:

As an individual, you are apparently a member of a Southern Baptist church. In the Southern Baptist scheme of things, only churches can be a member of the Convention. So the real question is whether or not you should be a member of your church - factoring in their association with the SBC.

1. The denomination is too "big tent."

You listed quite a few things - some of which I have seen in the Convention and some which may be more an expression of your church or region of the country. Because each church is independent, your experience in individual SBC church will be a local expression of the faith. Something else you need to consider is that you do not have to get your identity from the SBC. They do not control your beliefs, convictions or practice. The focus of earthly spiritual authority over you is in your church.

2. The denomination was founded Calvinistic with heavy attention to the Doctrines of Grace. I am Arminian, and honestly coming to arguments with people at church or in the conference about this issue seems foolish to me, since the denomination is most true to its roots when it allies with people, who do not believe as I do.

Don't let our Calvinistic brothers and sisters push this point too hard. The SBC has always had a mixture of hardcore Calvinists along with a modest number of "Arminians" (although perseverance of the saints has been quite consistent). Most SBC folks are 3- to 4-point Calvinists - if there is a theology developed in that area.

The recent resurgence of Calvinism began in the 1980s with a heavy emphasis on selected and influential members of the early SBC. You will find major leaders on both sides of the issue.

3. Of all the church leaders of church history, I most identify with Menno Simons, so I view myself as a Baptist who is ultimately descended from the Mennonites and their teachings. Teachings that are heavily altered in some cases to better conform with a literal interpretation of the bible. I do not identify myself with the Reformation and its theology all that much over and against the Mennonites. Here again the SBC doesn't seem to fit given its more Reformed roots.

The SBC has its roots in the Radical Reformation, not in Calvin. Only in the last 50 or so years has the SBC cozied up to Evangelicalism (evangelicals are fundamentalist Christians from mainline denominations who have found an identity together). Historically, Baptists are not evangelicals.

Sounds like you are a historic Baptist. As such, you may well not fit among the most common types of SBC churches, but I encourage you to stop looking at the SBC for guidance and look at your local church and see if you, by God's grace, belong there. If not, don't get too hung up on labels when looking for a historic Baptist congregation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Nothing in this post is true

Nothing about your lazy habit of dismissing posts is helpful.

 

[Reynolds]

I have a few reasons to leave the SBC now, but I wanted to discuss with you guys and my church leaders whether I should stay or not. Here are my current reasons for wanting to leave, which may expand honestly:

1. The denomination is too "big tent." I now believe that doctrine and moral teaching is of extremely high importance. A significant minority, if not a majority at times, of Southern Baptist churches teach or enforce things I could in no way support. (Charismaticism, a kind of evangelical "modern" womanhood, birth control, church discipline in only extreme circumstances, embrace of the nuclear family over and against the extended family, a turning away from the bible as the rock of all we believe in, a poor understanding of when or when not to go to war, an odd style of American nationalism, ecumenism, health and wealth over charity, and even socially liberal politics).

While many of these are rare problems, 2 John 9-11 warns us that we are not to even welcome false teachers, let alone go to church with them! Also, some of these are trends in the denomination that I am concerned will win out in the near to mid future. Or, as is the case with church discipline, they are broad problems with determined minorities fighting for a biblical position.

2. The denomination was founded Calvinistic with heavy attention to the Doctrines of Grace. I am Arminian, and honestly coming to arguments with people at church or in the conference about this issue seems foolish to me, since the denomination is most true to its roots when it allies with people, who do not believe as I do.

3. Of all the church leaders of church history, I most identify with Menno Simons, so I view myself as a Baptist who is ultimately descended from the Mennonites and their teachings. Teachings that are heavily altered in some cases to better conform with a literal interpretation of the bible. I do not identify myself with the Reformation and its theology all that much over and against the Mennonites. Here again the SBC doesn't seem to fit given its more Reformed roots.

Thanks in advance for any comments!

When the prez of the SBC came out against the General Forrest statue, It put my resolve to see our church pull out of the SBC in high gear.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Rather than reply to everyone, because there are so many replies, I will address everyone.

I have decided to leave my local church. I agree that the SBC is a loose confederation of churches mainly united by missions. I also understand nearly all Baptist denominations are really "ropes of sand" as I have heard them called because they are congregational. I am still thinking on what this all means in light of 2 John 9-11.

I repeat what I said to TCassidy about my problems with my local church for those who missed it, as after writing this out I was sure I needed to leave my local church. I'll leave things there for now. I have edited it a little from what I earlier posted to make it read better and more accurately.

Reasons I am leaving my local church:

1. The church leaders are against me on the issue of prophecy. I used to be charismatic, but I am now out of that damnable cult thanks to this board. Thank you all again! However, my pastor still supports the modern Charismatic gift of prophecy and other sign gifts if they are practiced "biblically." They use Wayne Grudem's text on prophecy for doctrine. Thank God there are no actual ministries for this stuff at the church, except for some pastoral teachings, but the acceptance alone that Charismatic prophets are really of God by my church leaders is a huge concern for me.

2. The church and I have been increasingly far apart at Bylaw meetings on the role of women and divorce. We now have women as ministry leaders of all types except Deacon and Pastor. We also look over divorce when picking church leaders. I have had to recuse myself from participating in certain ministries because I would not put myself under the authority of a woman. The church's culture also accepts family planning, I don't.

3. The church is fairly ecumenical, even when it comes to almost any Christian denomination. I have been told straight up that denomination doesn't matter by a number of people, including church leaders. I subscribe to the idea that there is a church of Jesus the Christ and church of the Antichrist at work in church history. A Mennonite and fundamentalist viewpoint based on passages primarily in 1 John. To be told that the church of the Antichrist himself, currently the high church and the mainline at least, is no different than the church of Jesus the Christ is beyond my ability to tolerate.

4. My church feels like it does not teach the avoidance of sin in the life of a Believer properly. By this I mean that I have been told by church leaders that the judgment for Believers has no real punishment to it and is just God explaining how disappointed but not angry He is with us. This is quite against the "as through fire" bible reference I keep getting when I bring up the subject with anyone on BB. Also, this teaching on sanctification goes against the bible repeatedly when it talks of making every effort to not sin. This is wrong to me, and I am convinced it is leading others astray who are culturally churchgoers.

5. My church lacking clear church discipline is a humongous issue to me that is unlikely to get any better. That is unless I turn into some church discipline reformer as has happened at other SBC churches I have read about, which I considered but not for this church given the other red lines.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

What does that have to do with false teachers?

2 John 9-11 and related verses about not even welcoming warmly those who teach a false Gospel. My problem with a "big tent" theologically is that it seems to allow some very off base, to my own red lines, ideas to be associated with me personally if I proudly attend an SBC church.

 

[Revmitchell]

2 John 9-11 and related verses about not even welcoming warmly those who teach a false Gospel. My problem with a "big tent" theologically is that it seems to allow some very off base, to my own red lines, ideas to be associated with me personally if I proudly attend an SBC church.

this big tent claim is not actual truth. The convention cannot dictate to churches what to hold to. The tongues in the prayer closet is a debatable issue and not a hill on which to die. People are going to have different view. This is not an issue about a false gospel. I believe the tongues thing is pure gibberish. But It is not a deal breaker for me. What the convention does in the way of missions is unmatched in the world.

 

[Reynolds]

Rather than reply to everyone, because there are so many replies, I will address everyone.

I have decided to leave my local church. I agree that the SBC is a loose confederation of churches mainly united by missions. I also understand nearly all Baptist denominations are really "ropes of sand" as I have heard them called because they are congregational. I am still thinking on what this all means in light of 2 John 9-11.

I repeat what I said to TCassidy about my problems with my local church for those who missed it, as after writing this out I was sure I needed to leave my local church. I'll leave things there for now. I have edited it a little from what I earlier posted to make it read better and more accurately.

Reasons I am leaving my local church:

1. The church leaders are against me on the issue of prophecy. I used to be charismatic, but I am now out of that damnable cult thanks to this board. Thank you all again! However, my pastor still supports the modern Charismatic gift of prophecy and other sign gifts if they are practiced "biblically." They use Wayne Grudem's text on prophecy for doctrine. Thank God there are no actual ministries for this stuff at the church, except for some pastoral teachings, but the acceptance alone that Charismatic prophets are really of God by my church leaders is a huge concern for me.

2. The church and I have been increasingly far apart at Bylaw meetings on the role of women and divorce. We now have women as ministry leaders of all types except Deacon and Pastor. We also look over divorce when picking church leaders. I have had to recuse myself from participating in certain ministries because I would not put myself under the authority of a woman. The church's culture also accepts family planning, I don't.

3. The church is fairly ecumenical, even when it comes to almost any Christian denomination. I have been told straight up that denomination doesn't matter by a number of people, including church leaders. I subscribe to the idea that there is a church of Jesus the Christ and church of the Antichrist at work in church history. A Mennonite and fundamentalist viewpoint based on passages primarily in 1 John. To be told that the church of the Antichrist himself, currently the high church and the mainline at least, is no different than the church of Jesus the Christ is beyond my ability to tolerate.

4. My church feels like it does not teach the avoidance of sin in the life of a Believer properly. By this I mean that I have been told by church leaders that the judgment for Believers has no real punishment to it and is just God explaining how disappointed but not angry He is with us. This is quite against the "as through fire" bible reference I keep getting when I bring up the subject with anyone on BB. Also, this teaching on sanctification goes against the bible repeatedly when it talks of making every effort to not sin. This is wrong to me, and I am convinced it is leading others astray who are culturally churchgoers.

5. My church lacking clear church discipline is a humongous issue to me that is unlikely to get any better. That is unless I turn into some church discipline reformer as has happened at other SBC churches I have read about, which I considered but not for this church given the other red lines.

You need to go out in the country and find you a rural, small church. They will agree with you on everything except birth control. After you have enough kids, you will change your mind on it as well.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To be honest, there are no southern baptists in my area, so I can't help you here.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

this big tent claim is not actual truth. The convention cannot dictate to churches what to hold to. The tongues in the prayer closet is a debatable issue and not a hill on which to die. People are going to have different view. This is not an issue about a false gospel. I believe the tongues thing is pure gibberish. But It is not a deal breaker for me. What the convention does in the way of missions is unmatched in the world.

What I should say though, in addition, is that the BF&M2000 sets the playing field we are all on. It sets the lines and field size and such. Because of this, it tells us what is or is not out of bounds. The issue I have is that certain issues, such as Charismatic influence, are absolutely out of bounds to me. And I would be amazed to find a Southern Baptist pastor who would even criticize the BF&M2000 for being nebulous on these "red line" issues to me.

 

[evangelist6589]

Hey TCassidy, that's a low blow come on. I stepped into that TULIP argument knowing I had no fixed position, but if you get me talking certain other issues I have researched and am comfortable with I stick to my guns unless you beat me flat out with bible study.

Him a Calvinist? You must be joking.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Him a Calvinist? You must be joking.

No, I have started several threads recently in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate forum, and I did so to figure out my own position. Starting from stark confusion on the topic. As a result, I was flipping and flopping as the arguments continued, that is until recently when I settled on my current beliefs about the TULIP debate. However, TCassidy, last I read, does support the Doctrines of Grace, but doesn't believe in double predestination.

 

[TCassidy]

To be honest, there are no southern baptists in my area, so I can't help you here.

I find myself in exactly the opposite situation down here on the Mexican border with Texas. I come from a (rational) Independent Baptist background and can't find an IFB church down here that is not IFBextremist (radical KJVO, anti-everyone - "Me, my wife, son John, his wife, us four and no more" exclusivism, pastoral dictatorship, no deacons, etc.) so we joined a very conservative Southern Baptist church. It is as conservative, and some times more so, than most of the IFB churches I have been associated with over the years. We are doing fine and have come to love these very dedicated folks.

Most IFB churches are as "conventionized" as most SBC churches. They just don't call it a "convention." The have "conferences" instead.

And many (if not most) tend to orbit around the schools they support or that their leadership attended. (BJU, BBC, MBU, HBBC, TTU, CBTS, EBT, etc.)

These churches tend to become affiliated with groups such as the IBF, FBF, GARBC, BBF, NTAIBC.

Well, I seem to be rambling. Time for dinner.

 

[TCassidy]

What I should say though, in addition, is that the BF&M2000 sets the playing field we are all on.

Steven, that is not necessarily accurate. The SBC church I am presently a member of does not accept the BFM 2000. We accept the BFM 1963. We believe the BFM 2000 over emphasizes Pastoral authority at the expense of the Baptist Distinctives of Soul Liberty and Priesthood of the believer.