SBC Pres. Seeks Input on New Name for Denomination

I disagree with the characterization of some of these elements, but it is clear that you will continue to press your main premise: Cooperation = submission.

You seem to believe that working cooperatively with any other organization outside a local church completely trumps autonomy. That's a false premise and it doesn't matter what the details might happen to be.

If you believe that God does not want churches working together for common purposes, then you must conclude that the Apostle Paul was in violation of God's will when he was writing the New Testament churches encouraging them to give, which in your way of thinking would violate their autonomy.

Your valid assertion that it was a voluntary gift makes no difference if you then condemn churches (as giving up their autonomy) who VOLUNTARILY give to support the SBC.

The amount of money (frankly, a trivial amount) is only to verify that a church has even a modest commitment to the mission of the SBC before extending the right to vote.

If a church does not want to give to the SBC's mission, then why would one want to be an SBC church?

 

It does.

The annual offering is a special emphasis.

You really need to check your facts.

 

Thank you BB. You are doing a good job dispelling the misunderstandings that many have concerning cooperative missions and the complete autonomy that each SBC church enjoys. Some can't seem to figure out that each individual church decides how much or how little they want to participate. They decide on what literature to use. They decide on how much to give to cooperative missions. They decide on who will or will not be their pastor. Why is it so hard to understand something so simple? It seems as if it is a "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" kind of thing.

 

Hmmm....does the phrase "conservative takeover" mean anything to you?

No. Criswell was an admitted racist, and even though he officially backed away from that position, he still demonstrated where his heart really was on the subject for the rest of his life. His church in Dallas has always been overwhelmingly, disturbingly white. The "pastor" there now has shamed Christians everywhere with his statements. Patterson, well, check out some of the things he's brought to SWBTS. I'm not saying all Baptists are like this. In fact, the majority aren't. But these are the ones who have gotten a lot of the public notice.

The numbers in the SBC are declining less than other mainline denominations, but there are huge things being done in other evangelical circles that are making a great difference in this generation. The SBC is losing ground with young people.

 

Where do you get that I said churches aren't supposed to cooperate with each other that is what unity in Christ is all about. Never have I asserted that in anyway. I am saying that as in marriage the wife gives us certain parts of her autonomy in that marriage and the husband gives up certain parts of his. Neither can do everything they'd like to do anymore because no it is about cooperating in marriage with the budget, with purchasing a home or car. A husband who dictates these is not cooperating in the marriage. He has given up his right to make every decision just as the wife gives up the right to make every decision, no as they cooperate one with the other they have given up their autonomy in things, is it in everything no it isn't. They communicate their feelings and their ideas and then strike common ground and neither fully controls the partnership, that is how the SBC and it's churches work in cooperation with each other and neither is fully autonomous.

 

What I can't figure out is why saying that SBC churches are not fully autonomous scares you folks so much. In my post #85 I hope it makes it clear. When churches enter a partnership, just as when a business enters a partnership, each party gives up some autonomy along the way. Each gives up part of the decision making process and in order to cooperate certain decisons are no longer one partners to make. Churches in the SBC have entered a partnership with the National, state and local intities and therefore much of their decision making process has been given up. The National convention must have a vote by the churches to institute certain things while churches submit to the will of the national conventions decision making process. If either fails to follow the other the co-operative effort fails but both are dependent on the other for the efficient working of the organization. So the church is not fully autonomous and is therefore submissive in many things to the national convention. The national convention is not autonomous in that it is to follow the vote of the churches but also has the ability to set rules and by laws in place that member churches are to follow. Therefore each in submissive to the other in many ways.

 

Apples and Oranges

This is completely false concerning SBC churches.

Completely false

Again not even close to correct

Alll SBC churches are fully autonomous. You have no idea what you are talking about. Based on what you have said here there is no evidence that you have had any experience with the SBC. But it does sound like a lot of non SBC church folks who speak of things they know nothing about.

No church is submissive to anything. The national convention is run by the churches not the other way around.

Exactly right

not at all

SBC churches do not cooperate with the associations and conventions. They cooperate with other churches. We agree to pool our funds together to do missions. Any explanation outside of that is made out of ignorance.

 

I thought you meant distanced itself from those men you named.

Slanderous gossip. Shame on you

Thanks for making my point

OK?

Which means nothing. In a year or any time down the road that can change. It says nothing specific about the convention.

 

WOW the church isn't submissive to anything????? Not even God now we see why churches are in trouble.

 

So there is no national, state or local association that the money filters through in order for the churches to cooperate with each other, I sure thought there was. The pool of funds is distrbuted by the National, state and local intities in copoeration with the churches, but you say no the churches do it all themselves.

 

Well since you cannot be reasonable take care and God Bless.

 

It was your statement not mine you did hit the nail on the head though as to what is the problem with many of our churches today, they want no authority over them and don't want to submit to anyone or anything.

 

You took my words out fo context. And I believe you did that intentionally. good day

 

Hey, I heard somewhere that the SBC is considering a name change! You would think someone would start a new thread all to itself for news like this! ;-)

 

Verifiable facts, actually.

 

When was the last time something had a good name and wanted to change it?

 

See what happens if an SBC church wants to bring in a woman pastor. While they may be free to do so they will also most likely be voted out. So they are not exactly free to do as they choose and remain a part of the SBC.

 

Yes, the SBC tries to stick by the Bible. I guess that's a shortcoming for some.

 

Actually, I think that the main reason is to do away with "Baptist". Apparently, a lot of churches are having success after dropping "Baptist" from their names. If it works for them, then it could work for the SBC. The problem they would have to deal with is that, regardless of what name is chosen to replace SBC, it would be followed for a long time by the phrase "formerly the Southern Baptist Convention". However, it is my opinion that the name change does not address the real problem. For the last 30+ years the SBC leadership has fostered an impression among the public that they are against women, non-whites, gays, and anyone else who does not agree with their agenda. There have been public moves to get these people out of churches, and to get churches out of associations and conventions. They have identified themselves with the platform of the Republican Party, and they have actively tried to shape that platform. There have been public challenges, firings, and forced retirements of respected seminary presidents, seminary professors, pastors, and other church staff members and denominational employees. Why would anyone want to join a church that is part of a movement that continues to maintain open wounds for so long? That is why so many churches have dropped "Baptist" from their names. And, it is why the president of the SBC is trying to finagle a name change without the approval of the messengers at the annual meeting. I grew up a Southern Baptist. I come from a family which included employees of denominational agencies. But I no longer identify myself as a Southern Baptist. I am simply a baptist.

Tim Reynolds

 

It is not likely that Baptist will be dropped. Thus far the focus has been on the word "southern". If they did remove Baptist that most likely would cause a great many churches to leave the convention. Neither should it be dropped. Also holding to biblical standards within our churches regarding homosexuality or anything else should be a standard every church sticks with.