If the Apostles Came Back in Our Time...

In theory. Practically in most IFB churches it IS one man who makes the decisions. There is more congregational rule in the SBC church that I now attend than there ever was in any of the IFB churches I attended.

I'm grateful for all good Gospel preaching churches. I work with SBC or IFB it does not matter to me. I have been blessed to work with folks on both "sides" and can get along with anyone, even my IFB KJVO friends. And that is the way it should be.

 

Your assessment is not accurate. Just because you have had some bad experiences with some IFB churches doesn't mean they are all that way.

 

You are apparently seeing more in the word "support" than intended. The Convention supports the cooperative mission of the individual autonomous churches. The Convention supports the churches in the sense that the cooperative efforts, such as seminaries, make it possible for SBC churches to provide theological education in a more effective way than it might be otherwise. Again, support does not mean dependence or control.

Being uncooperative an isolationistic is not historic Baptist polity or a necessary distinctive of Baptists.

I stated no such thing. I definitely didn't say SBC churches "are dependent on the Convention."

However, I apparently didn't state things as clearly as I could have for someone who clearly does not understand the SBC structure.

Non sequitur.

You have shifted the argument from whether or not the SBC churches are independent to whether or not the current leadership and guidelines of the mission boards would have supported a historical figure.

I could easily say that there are quite a few Independent Baptist churches who would reject the incarnate Jesus if He were to have walked into their midst, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the Independent Baptist church structure/policy has validity.

The leadership at the Convention is made up of messengers from individual churches, and for the other 362-363 days of the year, it is the leadership elected by the Convention (trustees nominated by the Convention President) as well as those hired and maintained by those elected by the Convention over multiple years, like agency heads, etc.

If the leadership is bad, then the Convention's agencies are eventually corrupted/weakened.

Of course that is true of any organization, include the local independent Baptist church. So that's not necessarily a reason to reject the structure/organization or the principles of cooperation that formed the SBC. In fact, because of the multiple churches involved in the decision-making, there are many more checks and balances than in a local church.

There are all sorts of things today that churches use to further the gospel that are not mentioned in the scripture. Many structures are appropriate for certain cultures, eras and needs. I believe we are entering a post-denominational world at this time, so I actually have little interest in denominational enterprises unless they serve to advance the Kingdom of God in terms of disciple-making that is effective in our current cultural milieu.

But I think you should notice that Paul mentioned taking up a collection/gift from the benefit of the saints in Jerusalem. Would you have debated Paul that the Jerusalem church should not be "supported" by funding from other churches and that it is against the Christian principles of independent churches to do so?

Would you have railed against Paul and Barnabas for appointing elders in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (see Acts 14:21-23) because those churches shouldn't have had outside authorities (Paul and Barnabas) controlling the selection of leadership in those "independent" churches?

As has mine. Some through mission agencies like the Southern Baptist Convention, Youth With A Mission, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and a number of others directly from our church.

And that's part of the point of churches cooperating together. Small churches who may not be able to provide much support for even one missionary are able to participate in missionary work by cooperating with others.

It's exactly the same problem. Human nature is the same in small groups as well as large ones. Larger groups can benefit from more extensive checks and balances that comes from a larger organization.

And, for what it's worth, I've known MANY independent Baptist churches where the pastor is the benevolent (or sometimes malevolent) dictator.

 

I have never had a bad experience with an IFB church, I have managed to stay away from the bad ones- or get out before they were found out. I could easily go back to IFB if the time ever came for me to do so. I still work with IFB churches and mission boards and we support three IFB missionaries in our church.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about an IFB church in my home area of Paducah, Ky. They have affiliated with the SBC, but not with the Kentucky Baptist Convention or our local association.

 

By the way, at one time, the IFB churches in Paducah area were considered rivals of the SBC churches. Not any more.

My SBC church has been exchanging membership letters with Independent Baptist churches for 40 years now.