Does the SBC have the right to ......

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by go2church, Aug 2, 2002.

  1. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Does the SBC have the right to impose additional requirements other then the sharing of funds in the Cooperative Program, on the churches that claim SBC affliation?

    If yes, what is the end result on the local autonomy of the local church?

    If no, what is the end result on the denomination?
     
  2. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    187
    No.

    The churches have the freedom to serve God according to the dictates of their conscience without the SBC leadership trying to control them.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't agree with how you word your premise, but in a manner of speaking, of course the SBC has this right and the SBC has always had some sort of requirements reaching beyond just the ability to give. For instance, the SBC limits the number of messengers a church can send. It requires a formula for the sending of the members. It requires that the church be "in friendly cooperation with convention causes', which is in effect a requirement. However, this is not imposed. These are requirements going in. A church is free to follow these or not follow these.
     
  4. All about Grace

    All about Grace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Every level of SBC life is autonomous (national, state, local).

    At the same, the SBC has the right to withdraw fellowship from any local church acting in a way that vehemently contradicts the adopted beliefs of the whole.

    On the other hand, SBC employees are a different story. The SBC does have the right to make sure its employees (e.g. missionaries) are working in accordance to and not in contradiction to the belief statement of the people.
     
  5. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ August 02, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]
     
  6. Son of Coffee Man

    Son of Coffee Man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may seem like a dumb question but where is the scriptural support for any kind of convention being any kind of organizer, instructor, manager, leader, etc. for a local church?

    or

    local church: autonomous or no (give Bible plz)

    SoCM
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Churches have historically (read Acts) worked together for common goals/purposes. All a convention, association, mission board, camp, bible college, seminary, etc does is to facilitate that mutual cooperation.

    If a local church decides it cannot abide by the standards, policies, doctrine, etc of the group, then they have 100% freedom to withdraw.

    Just remember that we SHOULD have "unity" without requiring "unanimity".

    Example: Six local ifb churches "own" a camp and run weeks of programs. Now each church has its own flavor (one is deacon run, one is pastor dictator, one is reformed, one is hylesish, and one is dead in the water) but they OPT to work together on the camp.

    It does NOT infringe upon their autonomy as they set policies and procedures that may not reflect exactly their local church. Still, at any time, the church could quit cooperating. Their right.

    The SBC "should" operate the same way, with elected messengers meeting in June and making decisions.
     
  8. Wm

    Wm
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The SBC can certainly exercise their autonomy and has done so in precisely the manner prescribed by messengers from the churches. The actions may prove to be wise, unwise, or neutral, but messengers have met and voted in accord with the constitution and by-laws.

    The SBC could have, in the same manner, voted to accept churches with homosexual pastors, etc.
     
  9. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    For the most part I would agree with what has generally been stated, but what about the effect that the answer no has on the denomination? How does the inability to impose additional requires effect the denomination as a whole?
    I have no doubt that 98% of the SBC churches would state the exact same concept of denominational leadership. What I worry about is that the SBC is becoming a top heavy lead organization rather then the bottom up organization that it was intended. We (SBC churches) seem to be looking to "higher-ups" for direction instead of relying on ourselves to seek God and determine the direction He would have us go. Criticism of key leaders is frowned upon rather then investigated with the intent to understanding someones point of view to see if there can be some common ground with which to minister from. I have been called a moderate and a liberal (to name a few) on this forum because I have expressed such criticism. Are we losing the very thing that makes us unique as a denomination, our style of bottom up leadership?
     
  10. Son of Coffee Man

    Son of Coffee Man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    again

    cuz I still am waiting,

    what BIBLE does anyone have for saying that a convention can run a church?

    I say run cuz that is what they do. All of the "assisting" "organizing" and "helping" is just leading stated by another name.

    So again I state my question. And please give Bible not opinion.

    SoCM
     
  11. GIG

    GIG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    You really kept anyone from answering you with that "Give Bible, not opinion statement"...I think I'm going to put that prefix on all my posts...thank you
     
  12. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    187
    The Bible doesn't mention a convention structure, so there is no "Bible" to give you one way or the other. Of course that doesn't mean it is right or wrong. The Bible doesn't mention BaptistBoard.com, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

    Not necessarily. The SBC leadership has been somewhat guilty of trying to heavily influence churches, but the churches are free to ignore the pronouncements of the SBC and the leadership. As far as "leading" goes, the SBC (or any other denominational structure) can only lead if the churches choose to follow.

    No "Bible" to give, but I like my NRSV, NASB, NKJV and "The Message" just fine! [​IMG]
     
  13. David Krueger

    David Krueger
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Does the SBC have the right to impose additional requirements other then the sharing of funds in the Cooperative Program, on the churches that claim SBC affliation?

    If yes, what is the end result on the local autonomy of the local church?

    If no, what is the end result on the denomination?</pre>[/QUOTE]The SBC is an autonomous convention. When you think about it, the Convention only really exists on those days in June, when the messengers gather for annual meeting. Since they constitute an autonomous body, they have the right to impose any kind of requirement they so choose for a congregation to be considered a "cooperating church." If someone brought a motion requiring all SBC churches to have green shingles on their roofs and the messengers passed it, then, to be a cooperting SBC church, you'd have to either have green shingles on your roof or be willing to put them on.

    This would in no way infringe upon the autonomy of the local church. Each SBC congregation would re-evaluate its relationship with the convention. If they wanted to stay an SBC church, they would do what was required -- they would put on green shingles! If they thought this was an inapropriate requirement, they would simply not do it and would stop cooperating.

    Of course this is a silly example. But I think it illustrates that the convention messengers can do what every the want. If they want to require EVERY SBC church to sign or affirm the 2000 BFM in order for the church to be considered Southern Baptist, they can do so. The result, I think, would be a mass exodus from the convention.

    Since every Baptist church is autonomous, it has the right to choose what denominational bodies it will cooperate with. If the price of that cooperation seems to high to the church, they don't have to cooperate. It's as simple as that.

    [ August 06, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: David Krueger ]
     
  14. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    No, it doesn't. The SBC doesn't tell us what to do. We do what we choose to do.
     
  15. atestring

    atestring
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    The SBC does whatever "POPE PATTERSON" wants them to do!!!!
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who are the ones constantly spewing their hate now?

    The SBC is in agreement with the leadership. Patterson is but one of many.

    If they wanted to be like the CBF, the only thing they would have to agree on was that nothing is so important that we can't still work together. No thanks.
     

Share This Page

Loading...