Do you consider cooperating churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention to be independent churches?
Why or why not?
Why or why not?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Southern Baptist Convention
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Yes - independent of the SBC - as they do not have control over our local church!
We cooperate as we see fit with the SBC.
Remember, the ONLY action that the SBC (national, State, or local) can do is to withdrawal fellowship!
Yes, because there is no governing authority above the church (they are literally independent churches).
The SBC can't tell you what to do, but they can kick you out.
No, this is not true. I am actually surprised you didn't know this.
Most SBC churches own their building. They can leave the SBC, the state convention, and local associations as they see fit. The SBC, state convention, and local association cannot take any church property
The only exception is the few churches where the state convention or association owns the property the church is using (sometimes with church plants unless the congregation buys the property).
I have been a member of SBC churches that decided to leave the Convention. What happened? They stopoed contributing to SBC missions. That was all. No name change. No property taken. No real change at all.
It is exactly the same for IFB churche's that work together, or have a type of association.
Here is an example - If one IFB church decides to provide a building for another struggling IFB churches and the struggling church ends up changing doctrine to a degree incompatible with IBC beliefs, should that struggling church get to take the building provided or does the property owner get to own the property?
State and local associations are not obligated to provide property to churches not associated with their organization. They are not obligated to provide property at all.
Last edited:
NEGATIVE!!! The only way that can happen is if they have a financial interest in the property.
Just like a bank would.
Say there is a loose organization of IFB that is KJ Only. - well, at one meeting one Pastor Jones decides
to preach out the "perverted" NKJV- well that group of IFB KJO will never invite Pastor Jones back to their meetings
let alone let him preach. ---- Same difference! They have no power to tell that church to kick out that pastor!
Good!
Was referring to kick out churches. Saddleback ring any bells?
Yes, the SBC wanted to withdraw fellowship from them - BUT the SBC cannot force that church to take a certain action.
Same thing happened in our association - a pastor decided to divorce his wife to marry the church secretary. - DOM did not think that was appropriate. DOM talked to church - church said they were fine with it! Our executive council withdrew fellowship and they were no longer SBC. Within 2 years, the church folded. - BTW about a year previous to this, I was a candidate at that church. They would have given me 2 rooms in the basement of the church to use as a "parsonage". There would have no financial remuneration. ! However, I do have this problem of wanting to eat at least 5 times a week!
Why? Their leaving (along with several others) simoly reinforces that your post was wrong.
Most SBC churches don't give a hill of beans about the politics of the SBC (who is saying what, who was elected this year, SBC seminaries, etc). They see that the SBC is currently the most active Baptist organization in reaching the world with the gospel and give to support that mission.
But I am legitimately interested in the "why?".
There are reasons I prefer to leave the SBC, but most of the reasons I see non-SBC members mention have no relevance. Mostly the objection seems to be "I dont like that these independent churches chose 'that guy'".