Why still SBC

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Salty, Sep 29, 2011.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,086
    Likes Received:
    218
    At least two States or Commonwealths have 2 SBC State Conventions, Texas and Virginia. Each have a conservative and liberal convention.

    Here is my question - since the SBC has returned to its strong evangelical historical base, why has the BGCT and BGAV which are the liberal groups - why have they decided to remain in the SBC, especially when they could affiliate with the AoB or CBF? I realize that some may be in 2 or possibly even 3 groups (SBC,AoB,& CBF) . Why would a church want to be in two opposing groups?
     
  2. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the BGAV is also associated with the CBF. I do not know why anyone would remain a part of the BGAV. Yet, I am not a SBCer, so I do not know why someone would be a strong supporter of the convention either.
     
  3. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Of course we understand why "Mr. I'm to Spiritual to Say the Pledge of Allegiance" wouldn't want to be in the SBC but that's not the point. Salty didn't ask for insults of the SBC but why a church would want to be duly aligned with two opposing groups.
     
  4. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    The rump coventions have specifically provided for dual affiliation since their founding. They would be even smaller than they are if they did not allow such.
     
    #4 Jerome, Sep 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2011
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Course, Brother Salty would have us say 'I pledge allegiance to the United States and Commonwealths of America... :)

    Sorry, back to you regularly scheduled thread...
     
  6. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love it when people engage in a red herring. Really makes me respect them.
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    AFAIK the SBC's only requirement is for a church to agree to "The Baptist Faith and Message" which is rather broad and not theologically focused. Most Baptist churches would have little or not problem agreeing to it... liberal or not.
     
  8. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    188
    Your premise is faulty. I don't know enough about the Virginia conventions to feel comfortable making the call, but Texas has a Conservative Resurgence supporting convention (Southern Baptists of Texas) which is self-identified as "conservative" and a non-Conservative Resurgence supporting convention (Baptist General Convention of Texas) which is also generally conservative, but specifically attempts to maintain its historic stances regarding polity and theology.

    Speaking to the Texas situation, the reason is simple: The Baptist General Convention of Texas is not liberal, even though its detractors keep trying to paint it that way.

    My church supports the missionary program of the SBC and the missionary program of the CBF, although we don't particular care (as a church) for the other activities of both organizations. We have nothing to do with the Alliance of Baptists.

    The reason why we can do this is that we are a mission-oriented church and understand that the power struggles between the individuals and groups that comprise the leadership of the SBC and the CBF are largely confined to the United States and have very little meaning overseas. There are solid missionaries in both groups and their work needs to be supported.
     
  9. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    There is no creedal requirement. Churches must merely be in "friendly cooperation" with the Convention and send it money.
     
  10. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    188
    Southern Baptist of Texas, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Baptist General Convention of Texas all allow for dual affiliation since that is historic Baptist polity.

    As you noted though, the "rump conventions" (Southern Baptists of Texas and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) heavily promoted dual affiliation at their founding so as to reduce the initial commitment level for churches in order to quickly grow their membership.

    That's true. However, it's also historic Baptist polity to allow churches to autonomously associate with other groups as they see fit.
     
  11. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I led a church out of the BGAV in Viriginia. While I have never been associated with the convention in Texas, the convention here in Virginia is liberal.

    BTW, the CBF is liberal. Jerome posted in another thread about the Missouri State Convention and Molly Marshall. If you research Molly Marshall, you will see she is a member of the ABC-USA, but has actively engaged in work and been asked to speak for the CBF. Molly Marshall is respected in and among many in leadership in the CBF. Her beliefs are well documented, but among those is her alliance with the Sophi movement. There are many in the CBF who adhere to this belief and her other liberal beliefs.

    Those who are engaged with the CBF, usually are liberal, just as the BGAV. Spurgeon noted the beginning of the downgrade, and I would say that both the BGAV and CBF is far beyond where the Baptist Union was when Spurgeon sounded the alarm.
     
  12. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    188
    Exactly. No church is required to affirm (or even acknowledge the existence of) the BF&M document.
     
  13. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    188
    The labels "liberal" and "conservative" mean very little to me as helpful indicators of what people actually believe in this Baptist conflict. However, I will accept your opinion that the BGAV is quite a bit to the left of the SBC, since I strongly suspect that is true.

    Some in the CBF are liberal. However, the CBF is theologically diverse and you have many moderates and conservatives in the organization as well.

    I'm familiar with Molly Marshall. We have some mutual friends and I've been around these accusations and name-calling for more than 25 years. And yes, there are some true "liberals" in the CBF, but I wouldn't say there are "many." However, the more liberal membership tends to gravitate toward leadership positions since they have more to lose if the CBF is not successful.

    I can see how this would be a natural assumption, but it is not necessarily true. Many more "conservative" churches associate with the CBF to support the cooperative missionary work because they don't have many options since they can't in good conscience support the Pressler-Patterson concocted "Conservative Resurgence." a better measure of whether a church is "liberal" would be their relationship with the Alliance of Baptists.
     
  14. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would invite you to read Charles Spurgeon's Downgrade controversy. Several years ago I wrote a major paper on the Downgrade and the ABC-USA. Researching the ABC-USA, I noted in the 1990's, that they were well beyond ever recovering to Biblical Orthodoxy.

    At the time, some conservatives in the ABC-USA blasted my work saying that I did not truly understand the state of the ABC-USA. After some exchanges, I concluded that Spurgeon was right and that they were far down the road of the Downgrade. I never changed my position but believed the Baptist Union was mild in comparison to the ABC-USA.

    Several years later, one of the leaders of the conservative movement in the ABC-USA essentially voiced my belief and called for people to leave. This is one of the same people who blasted my research and said I was out of line. One of the examples I cited back then was Molly Marshall, as of yet a member of the ABC-USA. I also noted other prominent figures inside and resources within the ABC-USA as examples.

    From what I see from the CBF, they are far beyond where the ABC-USA was when I originally wrote my articles. If you read through the Downgrade articles by Spurgeon, I would suspect that, even if you disagreed with Spurgeon, you would agree with me that based upon his viewpoint, they are well down the downgrade.

    Thus, calling them liberal is really just saying they have embraced a modernist philosophy and are entertaining theologically destructive doctrines. Molly Marshall is prime example of that movement.

    Take your time and read through Spurgeon. When he sounded the alarm, he was severely criticized but his insight was later seen by some of his biggest foes as being correct. Unfortunately, it was too late to act upon the information Spurgeon provided.
     
  15. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, Charles Wade, the former head of the BGCT, was very liberal. I remember reading his sermons blasting the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I would never have called him a moderate, but a liberal who did not believe in the innerancy of Scripture, but held a modernistic view of Scripture. So, while I am not a member of the BGCT, having read a number of his sermons, I would find it hard to believe the convention is much more conservative than him (I know he has retired, but he was the key point man in these issues).

    The new President was President of the John Leland Center. I never attended but had a member of my church attend two classes there and dropped out because of their attacks on the Scriptures.
     
  16. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Wow, you seem to have issues with a wide range of Baptists groups. Just what kind of Baptist church do you attend now?
     
  17. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are independent and have been for the entire 60 years of existence.

    I am not a fan of denominations/conventions. I take a very similar stand as Spurgeon did. When I did Pastor an SBC church, I saw the convention as a bigger headache than a resource. It is not that I disagree with them doctrinally, but that I see them as too political internally which caused too much division that bleeds over into the church, an unhealthy situation. There have been several Biblical peacemaking assignments I have been a part of where part of the problem was related to convention politics.

    Now, if they were the best church for me in the area, I would belong to the SBC through the church. However, several Pastors have asked me if they should remain or go independent. I almost always recommend going independent. By forming relationships with other churches that fit your church better, you can get rid of some of the politics and the "BIG" focus in the SBC.

    Thus, I have seen DOMs run Pastors out of their pulpit, convention politics cause churches to split, and the "big" focus which has caused good churches to run off course into the "hip" of the day in the convention. Some churches are not impacted by these, but they are the exception.

    So, no, I am not a fan of conventions in general. I tend to prefer independent churches who are solidly reformed, support their own missionaries, and are focused on solid exegesis.
     
  18. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I know plenty of people in the BGCT and they aren't a "liberal convention." If we remember our history the BGCT has been around for over one hundred years, actually almost 125 years.

    During the resurrgence there were a lot slings and arrows between the two sides. (I wasn't around for that so I can't, and don't, take sides) In the end it was the fundamentalists who left the BGCT and started their own convention. Then they slowly began peeling away various institutions and agencies to join them. What has remained in the BGCT is a group of biblical churches who aren't liberal but devoted to the historic Baptist work in Texas and expanding the Kingdom of God. Now I'll say some of the churches (and leaders) are moderates but they aren't liberal.

    I know plenty of people in the BGCT and BGVA and I don't know anyone who denies the virgin birth, divinity of Christ, physical resurrection, authority of the Bible, etc. Now we can get into a glaring match over how conservative some people feel others should be, but those are mostly issues which they (and us) agree on the major points but respectfully disagree over the minor details.

    I've served in a dual-aligned church while at SWBTS. (Technically SWBTS was a dual-aligned seminary while I was there) A lot of it has to do with historical respect and that they had been raised in the BGCT tradition. (I'm not from Texas by birth, thankfully, but some of people on staff and in the church were born and raised in the Texas Baptist tradition) They wanted to support both groups because they felt torn. There are a lot of good people serving in the BGCT and just as many serving the SBTC. Keep in mind that up until the fundamentalists tore away from the BGCT that convention was the largest denominational convention in the US.

    I'll say it again, the BGCT isn't a "liberal" convention. Remember it was the convention in Texas for 100 years and had a huge influence. Lots of people and churches want(ed) to respect that honor their commitment. Now I'm not being an apologist for the sliding theology but we need to remember that there is a deeper history and heritage here. :)
     
  19. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wrong! The SBTC requires not only acknowledge the BF&M but sign it as well.
     
  20. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    188
    I was referring to the Southern Baptist Convention, not Southern Baptists of Texas. Southern Baptists of Texas are more fundamentalist and controlling than the Southern Baptist Convention.
     

Share This Page

Loading...