Southern Baptists, how do you...

I can't speak for anyone else, but today I do not feel "cooperation" would be a word that describes the SBC. I think a better description would be "civil war". I've been a member of an SBC church for almost 20 years. The arguments never stop and the whole thing just makes one weary. I have really considered moving on. If the SBC and the CBF spent as much time evangelizing as fighting over doctrine, we would have all been raptured long ago.

 

The convention is an annual event of a collection of messengers from autonomous congregations that meet to vote on issues and business where churches and church members can collectively to more than separate independent churches. THAT is the way it is supposed to work and used to work for years. NOW the SBC has a CEO. Top SBC leaders speak "for" or represent the "views" of local members and I disagree with that concept. This makes it more "corporate world" and not congregation based. In reality, if you visited 25 separate SBC churches you would find vast diffences in worship style, church polity, and even a variation in biblical interpretation.

 

The only essential thing that has changed regarding management in the SBC is that the names at the top have changed.

In the early 60's, when Hobbs was SBC president, he "spoke" for the SBC and even then you could have visited 25 separate SBC churches and found differing styles and viewpoints.

The messenger system that was in place back then is the same one that is in place today. It is a good system that demands a concerted, committed, longterm effort by those who want a change in direction.

 

Quite honestly, the decisions that the convention makes at its annual meeting simply reflects the opinions and ideas of those present at the convention. Therefore, one cannot assume that because the church is in cooperation with the SBC the church agrees with the current direction of the convention. The SBC should stick to its vision of evangalism instead of politics. The autonomy of the local church continues to be threatened, denying the long time cherished ideas of priesthood of all believers and soul competency. We are accountable to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not to man made documents.

 

Correct. However, the convention process allows for as many as 10 messengers from each church. Those churches that care enough to send messengers will definitely have their voice heard. This is not unlike our national/state/local governmental election process where those who participate are the ones that will be heard.

Since each church has access to the messenger process, the current direction of the SBC is determined by the churches that choose to participate.

I suppose that one man's attention to doctrinal boundaries is another man's politics. BTW, if the SBC doesn't make sure that there are clear doctrinal boundaries for those in positions of leadership and employment, how can we be sure that the right gospel is being carried by our evangelistic efforts?

Can you show a single example that supports your contention?

Yet, if we wish to receive funds in order to do evangelism or missions, we are accountable to those who send the funds. Do you disagree?

 

to the last post: The saddest thing in all this SBC "stuff" is the trust that has been lost among fellow believers!

 

Ok, I'll agree. But many don't want to go because if they make a point contrary to the current leadership's position, they very well might be booed by fellow believers. Very Christlike, isn't it? I've seen it happen.

 

And they might also be black-listed by Patterson and Pressler

 

Black Listing existed long before Patterson and Pressler!

If you don't believe it ask some of the older preachers what happened if their church stopped using Southern Baptist literature.

 

Originally posted by Charlesga:

Originally posted by Jonathan:

I would also be interested in seeing an example that supports the idea that "the autonomy of the local church" has been taken away by the direct actions of the SBC. One grows weary of seeing this often quoted CBF rhetoric thrown about without evidence to support the claim.

 

Not unlike how the trust had been broken when Crawford Toy began advocating views (that were essentially the same as that of Ralph Elliot decades later). Trust without accountability is not trust.

 

Ok, I'll agree. But many don't want to go because if they make a point contrary to the current leadership's position, they very well might be booed by fellow believers. Very Christlike, isn't it? I've seen it happen. </font>[/QUOTE]I've seen it as well. However, if one has the courage of conviction, the possibility of "boos" are no barrier. To submit one's convtictions to the fear of boos is definitely not Christlike.