Here's the second installment in a short series, for consideration in light of Northland's imminent adoption into the SBC. Read part 1 here.
Is the SBC a
denomination?
Depends what you mean by denomination. I remember a
couple SBC leaders argue that the SBC isn’t a denomination, only to refer—one
of them within a couple paragraphs—to “our denomination.”
Is it a denomination in the sense that there’s an
authoritative hierarchy or an organic linkage among the churches? (Think Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians.) Not in the
slightest. In the sense that all SBC churches would identify as Baptists? Well yes, but
that’s hardly what most people mean.
When people who understand the SBC call it a denomination, I
suspect that they mean that there’s a strong, structured partnership among SBC
churches that fosters a cohesive identity. And that's largely true.
Are SBC churches
autonomous?
Yes. Yes. YES. I’m
always puzzled when independent Baptists claim that SBC churches aren’t autonomous?
Can anybody really explain this to me? Do independent Baptists think that
denominational officials exercise improper influence over pastors and churches?
Is that really different from what IFB college presidents and evangelists have done, or what IFB churches have relinquished to them?
SBC churches own their property, choose their leaders, and
exercise full control over every dime of their money. If they want to leave the
SBC, they’re entirely free to do so. There would be a pitchfork rebellion among Southern Baptist churches if they thought for a moment that some suit in Nashville was robbing them of their autonomy. Think I'm kidding?
By the way, some of you may have heard stories of churches getting sued for leaving the Convention back in its less conservative days, and perhaps even losing its property. For a few years I was a member of an independent Baptist church that existed because it had tried to leave the Convention, got sued (by the minority of the original church that wanted to stay), and ultimately lost its property. But the ultimate issue in that situation was that the church disregarded its own governing documents in the process of leaving. That was the source of the legal battle, not a lack of autonomy.
By the way, some of you may have heard stories of churches getting sued for leaving the Convention back in its less conservative days, and perhaps even losing its property. For a few years I was a member of an independent Baptist church that existed because it had tried to leave the Convention, got sued (by the minority of the original church that wanted to stay), and ultimately lost its property. But the ultimate issue in that situation was that the church disregarded its own governing documents in the process of leaving. That was the source of the legal battle, not a lack of autonomy.
What do SBC churches
have to believe? What can get you kicked out?
The SBC has what’s more or less a confession of faith—the
Baptist Faith & Message 2000, a strengthened revision of earlier versions.
But SBC churches don’t have to adopt or affirm it. Rather, the BF&M defines
the parameters of the cooperative ventures of the convention.
Here’s what the SBC constitution says about membership in
the Convention: An SBC church is one that is:
“In friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.”
Up next:
- What does it mean to be an SBC church?
- How does the Convention work, and what’s up with the state conventions?