Dual Alligment

No, and no.

 

So what does their statement of faith say? Most SBC follow the same Doctrinal statement as the other SBC's due to their sharing a co-op. Not all follow the same but most, the ABC, GARFC and the rest I would need to look at the doctrinal statement to know for sure how they believe before I would join them.

 

Living in a boarder state people from both the north and south show up. We were tri-aligned, but we disassociated our-self from one group and now are dually aligned.

Here is a statement about our church that we as a body of Christ have accepted:

We have been described as a MASH Unit ... hurting, bleeding people come to us, are patched up and God moves them on. We have always been small and I believe God wants us small. We can react much more quickly than a large church to community needs. This is not a criticism of larger churches. Each size, if they follow God's lead, have important roles to carry out.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but can someone explain what the question means?

 

I've never heard of dual alignment, but I don't see how it's possible. Each of those you mentioned have very different beliefs. In what way can they be aligned?

 

Because I don't want to.

 

Brother I just do not see the need or the purpose.

 

If we are honest we all belong to one. Not in the sense of having a multi statement of faith but in every Baptist church that I have ever been in it is a multi-faith church because of the members varying beliefs. If you don't think so just read the posts in the Baptist section of this board and see all the differing views.

 

I know of a similar situation. An Independent baptist was in a bad neighborhood as far as the members were concerned. It had become predominently a Hispanic neighborhood with many what they felt were illegal aliens. They found an SBC church without a pastor that was about 4 miles from their location. The neighborhood was becoming mostly hispanic but the church was anglo and many elderly members lived in the neighborhood.
The independent church wanted to continue support of thier missionaries and the SBC wanted to continue their CO-OP program. So the finances were split to support both and the remiaining was utilized for all church expenses. One major problem was the SBC church had money in a CD and stipulated that money would not be used for the independent missionaries.
The SBC members finally either left or passed away and eventually the independent members split and one group began their own church. The church still exist today but has a Hispanic church meeting in it with the independent pastor still their and a few of his members attending.
Moral eventually the merge will have one group of or the other become the dominant group and the church will become one or the other.

 

Prepare to face the wrath of denominational bureaucrats.

Salty, don't you remember us discussing this before:

CENTRAL COAST BAPTIST ASSOCIATION v. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF LOS LOMAS

A dwindling SBC church took steps to merge with an independent church; the Southern Baptist DOM had a fit and eventually succeeded in seizing the church's property via the courts.

Disgusting.

 

We are not dually aligned but while we are only affiliated denominationally with the SBC we are active members of several non-denominational church networks.

If we were it wouldn't make much difference to me so long as it were still baptistic. (you can't be both Baptist and Presbyterian...if you say you are you're probably just Presbyterian.)

One of my early churches (during seminary) was affiliated with both the SBT and BGCT state conventions here in Texas. Wasn't a big issue.

Right now we support the SBC because of it's missions work. We don't do much outside of that for a lot of reasons. We do ministry in a growing post-denominational world so I don't think this is too big of an issue.

I do have a friend who pastors an African-American church that is dually affiliated with the SBC and National Baptist Convention. He likes them both.

 

I, a pastor in the ABC/USA have no problems with church's wanting to be dually aligned.. most do it because of missions anyway..

I pastored a ABC church that supported IFB missionary JOHN HIMES.. in a sense we were ABC and IFB....lol

 

Would I be comfortable with a dual alignment church?

If everyone is generally on the same page doctrinally, and the fellowship is good...sure, why not?

Ultimetly, we (all christians) are all part of the one universal church anyway. :wavey:

A few years ago I was playing music at a black church that went by the name "Baptist/Presbyterian/Episcopal", and the ministry, worship and fellowship were OFF THE CHARTS good. One of the most healthy churces I have ever encounterd.

 

I can imagine a baptist church being affiliated to more than one regional or national body, so long as there was no great discrepancy between the beliefs of the different bodies. I was once a member of a church that was affiliated to both Grace Baptist Assembly, and FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evengelical Churches).

However, I cannot see any reason for a church to be affiliated to Grace Baptist Assembly, and at the same time to be part of the Baptist Union. (I know this won't mean much to people in America!)