Southern Baptists vs. Fundamental Baptists

SBC is organzed. FBC are independent.

 

In Canada we have Fellowship Baptists and Independant Baptists.

Some of either of them are a few bricks short of a load.

 

The fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early 1920s had a specific and distinct effect on Baptists in the south. At the outset of the controversy, SBC churches and fundamental churches were one and the same. The fundamentalist-modernist controversy sparked different responses in baptists. Many in the SBC were slow to understand the impact that liberalism would have in the seminaries and they were reluctant to institute a purge of liberalism. They remained in the SBC and tolerated liberalism in the seminaries. Fundamentalists decided that staying in the convention amounted to compromise with liberalism. They applied the command to "come out from among them and be ye seperate" to the issue. Fundamental churches left the SBC. The movement to leave was lead by fundamentalists like J.Frank Norris, John R. Rice, and others.

But a funny thing happened in the SBC. While other denominations which tolerated liberalism (Methodists, Presbyterians, Northern Baptists, for example) lost the denomination to liberalism, conservatives in the SBC remained a cogent force. In the 70s, SBC conservatives began to implement a strategic plan to take back the SBC from liberals.

Meanwhile, fundamental churches in the south prospered. Led by two wings of fundamentalism: one led by Bob Jones University and the other by Tennessee Temple University and the influence of the Sword of the Lord newspaper, large fundamental churches sprang up in the south, and pulpits were filled by Bible College grads. By the 70's, fundamentalism was prospering.

Today, the seperate paths the two have taken seem to be merging in some ways. Some fundamentalist leaders are pretty free in having SBC speakers in their pulpit (though I am not sure that freedom runs in the other direction). And of course, Jerry Falwell has alliances with both.

Will the two ever merge completely? There are reasons not to. Both have their own schools. And there is quite a distinction in the way fundamentalists do missions compared to the way SBCers do it. While I think that there may be increasing cooperation between the two, there are differences between the two that are more than superficial and a merger is not likely.

 

As a conservative SBC'er, I hope that FBC types will be careful of merging--for their own sake. There still remains a lot of liberalism within the SBC, judging from the editorial stances of the Alabama Baptist Convention's organ, The Alabama Baptist, and I presume that liberal infuences haven't been entirely purged from Baptist seminaries and certainly not from Baptist colleges.

 

There is still some distance between the SBC and independent fundamental Baptists. House cleaning the convention of all liberalism from the churches, schools and other institutions is a lengthy and maybe impossible task.

The fundamentalists have taken two key stands that the SBCs need to take or are in the midst of taking. They have chosen separation rather than inclusion and compromise. The FBF, GARBC, CBA and other individual churches paid a real price to leave the conventions, both north and south and have carved out a biblical ministry based on separatism (CBAs no longer are though they once did).

The second stand is that of getting out of a controlling convention and allowing the churches full freedom of independence. The SBC has kept close control over the churches in various ways, and in some cases interfered in church autonomy. If the SBC would dismantle the convention and allow the states to have loose associational fellowships they might be on the road to being where the indepedents came to be in the middle of the past century.

 

CircuitRider - Give me some examples of how the Southern Baptist Convention tries to control local churches.

 

From different discussions, it would appear that the Fundamentalist Baptist, do not accept Spiritual Gifts, while it may be possible (im not sure) in a SBC to be prayed for healing.

 

Southern Baptists have loaned money to churches and held the title to that property even after the loan is paid. When a church attempted to separate from the SBC over doctrinal and biblical issues, the convention took over the building.
State convention officials have interfered in the autonomy of local churches with regard to church matter and decision making. Examples of these kinds of interference can be found by talking with men who have tried to take a stand against the liberalsim of the SBC. Conventionism if found in the SBC, ABC, CBA, GARBC, NTA or any group of affliated Baptists is bad. Assocations are great as long as they do not interfere with the autonomy of the local church.

 

Southern Baptists have loaned money to churches and held the title to that property even after the loan is paid. When a church attempted to separate from the SBC over doctrinal and biblical issues, the convention took over the building.
State convention officials have interfered in the autonomy of local churches with regard to church matter and decision making. Examples of these kinds of interference can be found by talking with men who have tried to take a stand against the liberalsim of the SBC. Conventionism if found in the SBC, ABC, CBA, GARBC, NTA or any group of affliated Baptists is bad. Assocations are great as long as they do not interfere with the autonomy of the local church. </font>[/QUOTE]In the first case - that of Church Loans - It is my understanding that the mortgage holder can repossess the property if the church defaults on the loan or any conditions of the loan. One of the stipulations in most Church Loans from denominations is that the church remain affiliated with that denomination. Nothing unusual there.

In the second case - that of individual State Convention personnel interfering in local church matters - Local churches have every right and can refuse to be coerced.

I think all of us have heard of unscrupulous individuals violating the autonomy of the local church from within the local church and from outside sources.

It is not the normal practice of the SBC or any of the state conventions to interfere in local church matters unless they have a financial stake in that local church.

I think you are speaking of abnormalities instead of normal operating procedure.

 

A denomination is representative of an Apostolic Conference. In a perfect world there should only be one. Lets not forget however that the church is much much larger than when it was planted, so there is a need for many Apostolic conferences to organise the church.

 

I am not an expert on this matter but I can talk from personel experience. In my heart I am Independent in the fact I find in the SBC a lot of politics. By the way I have belonged to an SBC church for along time, but was raised in a Independent.
I have found that in SBC churches they brag about local atonomy and independence of each church but in reality just question the cooperative program just once and watch how fast you will be treated. Still on the other hand most people in the SBC churches are good people with the same values for doctrine and family values. I have found that SBC people are usely less knowledgable of scripture and don't know their Bibles very well. Still they love the Lord. This excluding the liberal side of the SBC.
Now for the Independents they are no more Independent than SBC. They have their conventions though they call them other names. I find that FIB's know their bibles and are sound in doctrine, but they can be sometimes mean and I do not mean" standing on the word" just mean. I do think that there will never be a complete merge of the two but their is a better tolerence and love for each other.

 

I have contact with both IFB and SBC churches and para-church ministries.

Personally, I can't understand why a local church would want to toss all or some of its missions money into a collective pot, but that seems to be merely extra-biblical, not actually anti-biblical.

Does the SBC Cooperative Program support the Baptist World Alliance, or is it funded by the SBC in some other way? I understand the BWA to be a blatantly ecumenical organization, including groups that openly compromise the gospel. Am I mistaken?

Does the SBC fund pastoral pensions? In other denominations that has been an influential factor in keeping doctrinally sound (yet spineless) pastors in the fold. Again, not necessarily unbiblical, but very dangerous.

Fundamentalists like to talk about their independence, but the truth of the matter is that the IFB colleges often exert an influence that is not much different from that of the denominations.

 

Joke of the year thus far: IFB churches are free from denominationalism

The CP definitely has its problems, but overall it is one of the most effective means of supporting missionaries ever implemented.

Having lived in both worlds, I am thankful to be a part of the SBC.

SBCbyGRACE