Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (SBC) in Owensborro Kentucky refused Pleasant Valley Community Church from joining the local association because they are reformed. What are your thoughts about this issue? Should an SBC Association forbid a church from joining the association merely because they are reformed?
Church Denied into Local SBC Association
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Ruiz, Oct 18, 2011.
Page 1 of 4
-
If I had been a messenger, I am not sure how I would have voted. I would want more information.
On the other hand there would be nothing to stop Pleasant Valley from starting a new association if other churches are interested.
Remember - several States/commonwealths have two conventions.
Back in Aug, the Association also dis-fellowshiop Journey Fellowship (formerly Seven Hills Bap) due to a decision by the church allowing PFLAG to meet at their church. Association voted 242-24 to approve removal of Journey Fellowship, -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Can you provide a link for reference? This is an interesting story, but I can't comment until I see substantiated claims.
-
The issue was that the church was reformed. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Saying we "heard it from other pastors" is not much more different than gossip imho. I'd be careful with such things. There are usually about nine or ten different angles on a story.
I'd bet there is more than meets the eye wiith this issue, and challenge whether it is an issue or not. -
-
BTW, the same association did oust a pro-homosexual church. I do agree with that decision.
-
But my answer still stands - as an independent association - they have the right to refuse admittance to any church that they so deem -
https://plus.google.com/u/0/101717651124886425803/posts -
If its true, then it is sickening. They should start their own local association.
-
Associations like churches are also autonomous. They may set whatever parameters they wish for churches to cooperate within their association. Would an association of churches committed to being reformed permit a church which was decidedly not reformed into their association? I don't think it "sickening". I also do not know all the facts and "history" related to this incident.
-
-
I do not have a problem with an association choosing who they will and will not associate with, that is a part of being an association.
However, you should make your stance a part of your doctrinal beliefs. This association banned someone for not believing in their view of marriage. This association adopted the 2000 BF&M, so the association clearly made a stand on marriage and should demand all their churches to adhere or the church should remove itself from the association. The association was right in standing on her doctrine.
However, taking a stand not in your association's doctrinal statement I think is beyond the scope of your Association. -
The longer I live the less I am surprised by anything anymore.
Eccl. 1:9, "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." -
The original Philadelphia Baptist Association upheld a strong doctrinal standards and said that it was the duty of churches to adhere or leave. If they didn't leave, the PBA has the obligation to kick you out.
My problem is that this is not a part of their doctrinal standards. For the homosexual church, this is right because it is Biblical and they made it a part of their doctrinal standards. However, on the reformed issue, it was not a part of their doctrinal standards. -
So far it is merely hearsay, there for gossip and I can not comment on it.
-
A friend of mine who planted churches in Ethiopia for 23 years told me that the churches were held accountable in the group he was a part of. If there was trouble the leaders of the regional association may come in for up to three days and work with the church to set it on the right path.
Too often churches in America are allowed to continue to stray with little or no accountability and become more and more sick. Years ago I was in a church that had good organization but the regional leaders had no training in helping the churches get well and so the church eventually died due to keeping a man who spoke well but lived a lie and the leaders wondered why the Holy Spirit was not at work. When the leaders did nothingb I resigned and the church died within a few months. -
-
There is much that I agree with you on this situation and if you read all my statements, you must see that we have much agreement.
Do I believe that a church should be held accountable for the doctrinal standards listed by the organization? Of course! The Philadelphia Baptist Association, when founded, said as much. However, they also said that areas that were not listed in the doctrinal standards should be areas of liberty. Thus, while everyone in the Philadelphia Baptist Association must believe in believer's baptism, a church may believe in tri-baptism and some may only do a baptism under the water once. There was liberty.
The same goes with this association. If they placed as a part of their doctrinal standards a prohibition against reformed theology, I have no qualms with their action. As well, if they decided that this was a serious issue and needed to address this issue now, they should vote likewise.
Yet, their doctrinal standards do not prohibit Reformed Theology nor is it being sought to enshrine an anti-Reformed view into their doctrinal statement. They maintain the 2000 BF&M, which is a good doctrinal statement that allows both reformed and non-reformed to enjoy fellowship. -
Obviously, the Ass'n can do whatever they choose in terms of letting a church associate with them. But there might be other issues other than just simply, and I'm simplifying, the TULIP issue. It might be that they are not congregational rule, but elder led, but completely elder ruled with the pastor being chosen by the elders and other issues not subject to the congregation but entirely by a group of elders as in a presbyterian form of church gov't.
Maybe that's an issue also.
If it's based entirely on soteriology, I would disagree with their decision completely.
Page 1 of 4