Are Southern Baptist churches independent Baptist Churches?

First question: Depends on who you ask. Southern Baptist churches consider themselves very independent. Independent Baptists, on the other hand, would say SBC churches are not, because of denominational ties and the perceived hierarhy of associations, state conventions and the national SBC.

Second question: Obviously yes.

 

Some Southern Baptist churches are similar in practice to Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Churches. They are independent and fundamentalist, but are not IFB. IFBs would properly be called non-Convention Baptists.

Baptist churches of all stripes have historically been autonomous, not part of a hierarchy.

In the SBC, power flows from the churches to the convention and to those who operate the denominational agencies.

 

"All Baptist churches are independent, some simply choose to cooperate" by Dr. John Sullivan.

There is no heirarchy in the SBC telling a church what they must do or not do. Just like every other baptist church, we call our own pastors, purchase our own property which is ours to buy or sell, ordain our deacons, determine all of our business without any one telling us yes or no.

But we choose to cooperate for purposes of evangelism and education.

I was trained by capitol I Independent baptist churches, we very rarely cooperated with anyone else and then it was usually a political issue that brought us together. So obviously there is a difference between independent baptist churches and independent Southern baptist churches.

 

Most are, although there are a few, such as 'satellite churches', and some usually smaller, mission-churches and missions, that are not 'completely' independent. And there are some other categories, as well.

Some churches, such as my home church, are not now, nor have ever actually been "Southern Baptist", by definition, although we have associated and affiliated with the SBC since its earliest days. My home church had been around for 63 years old, as the duly-constituted (and 'independent') "Forks of Dix River Baptist Church", being organized in 1782, before there was any such thing as a "Southern Baptist", anywhere. (1845)

We had been around for 32 years before the Triennial Convention existed, the first national association of Baptists. (1814)

We had been around 55 years before there was any "state convention". (1837)

And we existed before any other local 'association' or 'State-wide' convention or association of any type, in KY ever existed, as well. (1785)

Incidentally, Forks did not take a part in the constitution of the first Association anywhere in the state, Elkhorn, which was actually generally centered not an extremely great distance away, although we were well aware of it, but then affiliated with, and were involved with the founding of the closer South Kentucky Association in 1787.

So we had and have never actually 'come under' any of these auspices, in any form.

Ed

 

Well Said!!

 

there is a distinct difference between autonomy and independence...

particuarly at the point of missions cooperation.

 

Forgive me, Salty, but your poll is a little flawed. SBC pollees are saying their churches are independent, and they are because of their Bapstist polity. But the typcial SBC pastor, if asked if he were an "independent Baptist" would say "No!" So I voted the last option, that SBC are not independent (meaning not a part of the independent Baptist movement).

Historically we independent Baptists are a distinct movement that came out of (or was blackballed by, as was my grandfather) the SBC or the Northern Baptists. The movement had and has separate from the SBC, leaders and schools and mission boards and fellowships. So to say that SBC churches are independent Baptist is to ignore the history.

Concerning your second question, I don't see any difference between "independent" and "Independent." However, in recent years I have taken to using the term "independent independents" for the radical type of IFB who doesn't believe in mission boards, fellowship with anyone but their own specific type of church, etc.

 

No, They aren't Independent Baptist.

 

All Baptist churches are ostensibly independent. However, there is a negative to this as well. Many cults have come out of churches that have no accountability to anyone but themselves. Some cult leaders started as strong authority figures with no one to oversee their slide into cultic practices and beliefs. While not Baptist, people like David Koresh and Jim Jones come to mind. If Baptists think their churches are immune to such happenings are deluding themselves.

 

I was the "NOT" vote and I'll explain. I heard of a Church that was disfellowshipped by a Baptist assn. for it's non- stance on the alcohol issue. They didn't condemn the use of in their "wording" and was disfellowshiped. In that way SBC Churches aren't really independant when it actually comes to controversial issus.

 

Functionally, though, what does that accomplish? The church doesn't have to change at all. The association only has the authority to associate.

 

QUOTE -Tom Bryant There is no heirarchy in the SBC telling a church what they must do or not do. Just like every other baptist church, we call our own pastors, purchase our own property which is ours to buy or sell, ordain our deacons, determine all of our business without any one telling us yes or no.


Yes, but can you choose what missionaries you want to support? Can you support those that are not SB? Or do you send in your money and let others decide for you?

 

Actually, they are. I suspect the disfellowshipped church did not change its stance on alcohol, and the association couldn't make them do so.

In Western Kentucky, some "alien immersion" churches have separated from their associations over the issue, but still accept such immersions from non-Baptist churches.

None of those Baptists churches have ceased being independent and autonomous.

I'm aware of one association which does not permit women to serve as messengers to its meetings. One church tried to get that changed, couldn't, and withdrew. It works both ways.

 

A church can choose to support any missionary of their choice. If they give money through the Cooperative Program, the choice is made by trustees appointed by the convention. No church, however, is required to give any certain amount or not to support any other mission efforts. If the church does not contribute to the CP, however, it is not considered to be SBC and will not be able to send messengers to the convention.

If an SBC church decides to foot the bill for an independent missionary in Africa, there is nothing stopping them.

 

So, they are not really independent of the SBC?

 

If a church doesn't give through the cooperative program, it isn't an SBC church.

That's not a matter of independence or dependence but of voluntary association. The convention can't do anything to the church, but a church that doesn't support the convention can hardly claim to be a part of it.

 

Free church?

As there is no state church in the United States all churches are "free churches" in one sense of the word.

What is your definition of free church?:tonofbricks:

 

I voted "Other" because I am neither IFB nor SBC, but I agree with those who have said that by definition, a baptist church is an independent church (though it may choose to join an association of similar churches for cooperation and mutual encouragement).