Are Southern Baptist churches independent Baptist Churches?

I am sorry, after seeing David's post I just realized you aren't talking about the same (I)independent as I am.

 

Yes, even within our Cooperative Program we can designate money.

The problem comes with a misunderstanding of the autonomy of each level of the SBC. Each level is free to choose their own standards of fellowship. So the silly ass'n that decided that a church wasn't strong enough in its' condemnation of alcohol could decide that they be disfellowshipped from the association. But that decision doesn't necessarily effect their relationship with the state convention. And certainly not with the national SBC.

We might ask the same question of the independence of Baptist Bible Fellowship churches or GARBC. Each group would ask that certain requirements be accepted to have that name connected with the local church. Does that make them any less independent? I don't think so.

 

That is not entirely correct. A church can increase the numbers of messengers (up to a maximum of 10, regardless of size), by 'increased' giving to the Co-operative Program, and/or other so-called "Southern Baptist causes", but there is no 'penalty' for not doing so. A church can (and some do) designate every dime it gives, without any money going through the Co-operative Program. My own church designates a portion, but not all, of the monies we give.

Also, I also do not believe there is any 'requirement' that giving can determine whether or not a church can send messengers, either.

BTW, the maximum number of messengers for any church, allowed to the Southern Baptist Convention, is 10. This number is based on membership, and/or giving amounts. My own church does not reach this maximum number, based on membership as we are a few hundred members short, but I believe, does reach it, based on 'giving'. Or at least, we have reached the maximum allowable number in the past, although to my knowledge, we have never sent the maximum number of messengers to the convention, usually mostly due to the distance involved, but are considering this, and expecting to do so, I believe, for both 2008 and 2009, with both being in relatively easy driving distance, for us. We have already been discussing this in our business meetings, although have not 'set it in stone', yet.

Ed

 

Exactly! My own church does not 'belong' to any local association, currently, but does 'belong' to both the KBC, and the SBC.

And for that matter, we often 'work with' other local SBC churches, here in our county, and even beyond the range of our county, although not currently in any formal affiliation with any of them, except via the local ministerial association, which covers a much wider group than merely Southern Baptist.

At one time, at least four different associations 'had' churches among the 10 to 12 or so SBC churches, in Garrard Co., as Garrard Co. is at the 'border' of at least four associations, they being South District, Tates Creek, Mercer, and Lincoln. The now-defunct Central Point Association, of which we were a founding member, once reached into Garrard Co., and possibly Elkhorn Assocaition 'borders' us as well, at the northern end of the County.

BTW, a church can 'belong' to a local association, without belonging to the KBC and/or the SBC, as well, or 'belong' to any one of the above, apart from any others, as well. And one can 'belong to all the above, plus be aligned with others as well.

There are many churches that have 'multiple' alignments.

Poster Joseph M. Smith, on the BB, who incidentally was my college pastor at UK 40 years ago, mentioned that the District of Columbia Baptist Convention has triple alignment, including Southern Baptist. Actually, the DC Baptist convention is 'aligned' in even more ways than three, as it is aligned with the SBC, ABC-USA, PNBC, CBF, and BWA, none of which 'intrude' on the others.

Ed

 

Given that there are circumstances now in some state conventions, where if an SBC church decides to leave the Convention they forfeit their property, I would say independence has been lost.

Given that at least where I live, any church that does not "sign on" to the BFM2000 cannot be part of the state SBC convention, I would say independence has been lost.

Given the denominational oversight as to who can and cannot be a pastor, or deacon, I would say independence has been lost.

Even given the common usage of the term denomination for the SBC, I would say independence has been lost.

Whether that is good or bad seems to be a hotly contested debate.

 

The only way "an SBC church" can forfeit property, whether or not they "decide to leave the convention" is if the local body does not actually own the property, and perhaps the SBC does, I would think. Or at least about the only way. There are some, usually small, 'mission churches' in some areas that have property that is actually owned by the SBC, or some other entity.

Second, there is no requirement for an autonomous church to be required to belong to a "State Convention", to be part of the SBC. There are churches that are not part of a state convention, that are SBC. And why do you say that "independence has been lost", in this instance? It the state convention is also autonomous in its own sphere, does it not thave the right to associate with whomever it chooses, as well?

And the denomination has no "oversight'" to tell the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church that it can or cannot 'do anything at all', be it a pastor or otherwise. It can withdraw fellowship and/or refuse to seat the messengers, I guess, but it can in no way 'intrude' on what we do, as a body, although there is less than "an ice cubes chance in hell" that a woman would be called to pastor the Forks church. Our Constitution does not permit it, and I would not even allow such an idea to be entertained, as I am the Moderator, absent a constitutional Amendment adopted to permit this. BTW, should such an amendment be adopted, the Forks church would definitely shortly be seeking a new Moderator, and would most likely lose a member, almost immediately. But the body has that authority, not the State, or not the SBC.

Sorry, gotta' run and feed cattle.

Ed

 

I have been in Southern Baptist churches all my life, and I have not heard of anything remotely similar to this.

1. Every church I have been in owns their own property. One church I was in had in their constitution and by-laws that if the church ever ceased to be a church, that the property would be given to the Local Baptist association, but that was the decision of the church when it began, not the decision of the SBC.

2. No church I have ever been in had to sign some sort of statement agreeing with the BFM2000. Although our church does consider it our statement of faith, it is not required for us to do so.

3. There is absolutely no denominational oversight considering pastors and deacons in SBC churches. Every SBC church determines for itself who they call as pastor and who is allowed to serve as deacon.

I'm not sure who is feeding you all this, let's call it "error," but it's just not right.

 

I say "I'm a Southern Baptist".
Technically, I am not. The 'Southern Baptist' is the short answer.
Here is the Long answer.

I am a member of a Local Church.
I am NOT a member of the Union Association (My county and the one south of it)
I am NOT a member of the BGCO = Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma
I am NOT a member of the SBC = Southern Baptist Convention

My Local Independent Baptist Church is a member of the Union Association
My Local Church is a member of the BGCO
My Local Church is a member of the SBC

The Union Association is a member of the BGCO
The Union Association is a member of the SBC

The BGCO is a member of the SBC

You can see it is easier to type "I'm a Sourthern Baptist" than to give all the details.

 

SBC churches own their own property. The legal trustees of the corporation are church members. Your claim is not legal nor is it possible.

This is not a valid example of a loss of independence. Churches may or may not hold to the 2000 BFM and they are free to be a part of the convention or to not be if they do not hold to the same doctrinal beliefs. Come or go it is their choice.

No one can tell a church who to call.

This sounds more like a liberal who is disgruntled at biblical doctrines in the SBC.

 

Whoa Nelly--I am so far from liberal I just about need to look it up to spell it!!

As for the attempts to usurp church property, look at the archives of the actions of the BCNM and see what they did, or attempted to do, last year. The stated reason was that this is "a common thing for denominations to do." My concern is not that of a liberal, but of one who is watching her conservative Episcopalian friends lose their building for refusing to follow a liberal take over of their church.

My concern about the "demand" (probably too harsh but cannot think of another word) concerns some churches in Colorado, long loyal and extremely conservative, that feel Colorado's statements about the BFM2000's acceptance is a bit much. It isn't that they disagree with the BFM2000--it is that they disagree with the concept of required acceptance of change. What happens, again watching the Episcopal Church, if 10 years from now the SBC undergoes a "liberal resurgence?"

And as to the calling of pastor's and deacons--legally, I know of no SBC church that cannot call it's own choice. The idea of women being called did not occur to me. Rather, I was thinking of the growing trend of using the good old boy network to eliminate non seminary trained men as pastors, and having the pastor basically choose the deacons. I guess I really am old school--some of the best churches I have know kept the same deacon body through changes in pastors--not a custom often around here. And some of the very best pastors and preachers I have known were common working men, called by God as bi-vo pastors with more common sense and Bible knowledge than many seminary trained ones.

I will state it again--I do NOT disagree with the STAND taken by the SBC conservative resurgence. I still find it a tad liberal compared to years ago. What I fear is the setting of precedents that could come back to haunt us in a generation.

 

If I have not said it to you before, "Welcome to the Baptist Board." I do understand your concerns with "the setting of precedents that could come back to haunt us..."

However, I was not able to find any reference to this alleged 'taking of property' as regards the Baptist Convention of New Mexico", after a short cursory search, of a couple of hundred "Google" references with various key-words entered. A link or article reference would help us here.

There is simply too much "guess work" that is involved here, in attempting to equate what may be happening to an Episcopal congregation, with what may happen among Baptists, without further information. I am not 'dismissing' it, per se, but merely pointing out that more information is needed for this to be deemed parallel or relevant. Thanks.

Oh yeah! Glad to hear that you are not Biblically "liberal", in the modern idea of that word.

Ed

P.S. "You did spell 'liberal' correctly." Signed, Language Cop

 

Ed--yes, thank you for your welcoming! I think it is great that you make a point to welcome all newcomers!

You might find more information going to BCNM and checking archives of the Baptist New Mexican. You might find more up to date or accurate info than I have. I did ask about the proposed changes to someone in the state convention there, and it sounded to me like the proposal did get changed.

The proposal (as I understand it) was to retroactively change the terms of agreement concerning churches that named the BCNM as trustee on the deed. That is common practice where a church building goes to BCNM if the church disbands. My understanding is the term change wanted would also revert the building to BCNM if the church ceased to be part of BCNM.....which could happen if the church initiated leaving, or if BCNM decided they were no longer welcome to associate.

That would obviously be a whole different matter. At this point (checking yesterday) I THINK (not sure) that it is not retroactive, but only applies to new naming of BCNM as trustee.

Were I in NM, and voting as to whether or not to name BCNM trustee, I sure would not do that IF (and that is only IF) BCNM could oust a church from the state association and then use that as grounds to take the building, or take the building if the church decided not to be part of BCNM.

It sounds like some folks here know a WHOLE HEAP more than I do about the rules in the SBC. I've been told that a church can be tossed from most state associations if they send any funding at all to any other association. (Example, if you send some mission funding to a CBF missionary.)

It sounds on here that a whole lot of churches do just that sort of thing. Is there some place I can learn which state associations oust churches over this, and which don't?

 

I know that isn't true in the Florida Baptist Convention. We have some churches that give to both.

Now churches have been ousted from various ass'ns because of acceptance of active gays into membership. I think it was North Carolina.

As far as how to know who did what to whom, you'd probably have to search thru the various state baptist newspapers.

 

BINGO!....

 

Denominations such as Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Methodist where they have a heirarchy and actually provide the properties for the individual churches may be able to do that. This is not the case in the SBC. Individual churches obtain their own properties.

At times some individual churches will sponsor a mission church and provide property but when they constitute typically the property will be turned over to the new church fully.

At its worse this still doesn't make a church not independent. The church can take its ball and go home at any time.

There certainly are attempts to do this with Pastors. But indiviual churches need to avoid those situations.

Then I was wrong. I am interested to know what you find a tad liberal.

 

Rev Mitchell is right. Any time a SBC church congregation believes the SBC has become too conservative or liberal (as in the case of our church), the congregatin has the right to vote to sever ties with the SBC, or for that matter, any local assoication or state level organization.

Does anyone know, is there any sect of Baptist that has a true heirarchy? Isn't that part of the definition of Baptist, an autonomous local church?

 

Our congregation is Independent Missionary Baptist with no associational ties with any Baptist group. I do not know as to whether SBC Churches are independent or not but from our perspective I'd say that they are not. Two generations ago this flock was part of the SBC but had a falling out because a SBC supported university in Deland, Florida hired a few atheist professors. This congregation then severed all ties to the SBC.
We do have and share much local work with many Baptist Churches, SBC or independent, in and around our communities.

 

Tossing a church out of an association makes the church MORE INDEPENDENT.