Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by Squire Robertsson, Nov 15, 2005.
No bites on Part 1, well here's another blast from the past:
Wayland makes a good point.
As an SBCer, I never considered that the SBC spoke for me any more than the Dalai Lama or the Duke of Windsor or Pat Robertson did.
"There are, however, other questions, as for instance, those relating to the rights of conscience, which we have never submitted to their authority."
To be fair to the SBC, many, many SBCers have stood up for soul competency and have rejected the notion that any gathering can properly specify what Baptists ought to be doing — other than preaching the Gospel.
Many, many others have simply disregarded the dictates of the SBC and just ignored the conventionalism and do what they think they should be doing.
Denominationalism, IMO, is a mode of operation on the way out for the foreseeable future.
The SBC was built upon the Cooperative Program; as support for that leaks away — as churches find alternative methods of spending their money on local, associational and state causes without the headache of conventionalism — the convention will be less and less important.
My opinon and some change will get you a cup of coffee.