“What does something like this mean?
“’When the Southern Baptist Convention met in N.C.a couple of years ago I was sickened by the tactics of men like Johnny Hunt who nominated Pastors for Presidentof the Southern Baptist convention who held a low view of the Cooperative Program.I was delighted that Frank Page was elected as President.
“In November of that year Donald Wilton,in spite of the conservative caucus,was elected President of the South Carolina Baptist State Convention.That was a real victory for our State Convention.
“The following year the “conservative,political caucus anointed Tom Tucker to be the next President of the S.C.State Convention.’
“http://hottubreligion.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/the-high-cost-of-taking-a-stand-in-the-south-carolina-baptist-state-convention/";
Well, I don’t have time right now to run your link, but what these things are are the inner-workings of the South Carolina “branch” of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
The Southern Baptist Convention, although it is is the largest of the groups of Baptists which have denominational-ized their churches, is only one segment of the overall Baptist presence in the United States.
The SC SBC would be only one segment of the Baptist presence in South Carolina, and there are more Baptist churches that are NOT member churches than ones that are.
The number of independent Baptist churches (not affiliated with ANY organization at all) in South Carolina now outnumber the churches that are affiliated with the SBC.
And then there are other Baptist organizations in South Carolina, too, that are separate from the SBC, and would have, perhaps, hundreds of member churches.
So, the SBC is still very influential, but nobody should think that the SBC speaks for the majority of Baptist churches or their members.
We encourage independent movements among all of the various flavors of non-Catholic “Christian” churches. So many of what are called, “mainline denominations” are splitting over various moral issues. It seems that the churches in these denominations that tend to be more conservative and traditional are afraid to form independent churches because their minds have been denominationalized for so many generations.
I mean, why don’t the more biblicist Lutheran people, for example, plant independent/autonomous Lutheran churches? Why don’t the Episcopal churches that tend to stick more with the old Anglican confession, plant independent/autonomous Episcopal churches? Why are there not more independent/autonomous Presbyterian churches?
This actually should make sense to the people here on Free Republic, who profess to believe in DE-centralization of power and authority.
All Baptist churches in the American English colonies (e.g. prior to 1776) were entirely independent and autonomous. All Baptist churches in the USA were independent and autonomous until the Civil War. That is the time that the SBC and the American Baptist Convention (in the northern states) began.
There were always local/regional associations and fellowships of churches and missionary societies (17th century to the present), and they worked/work together to foster missionary activity, but the churches remained independent and autonomous . . . until many of them ceded much of their authority to two major conventions after the Civil War — one convention in the north and one in the south.
Of course, the fastest way to give up independence is to create something more powerful than yourself and then become a debtor to it. The local SBC churches began sending offerings to the Convention, which thereby amassed a huge bank account and a lot of power. Then new churches which wanted to build facilities borrowed money for construction from the Convention. Well, the borrower is always SERVANT to the lender. And this is one big way denominational-ism begins and becomes the master over the local churches.
Further, a huge numbers of Baptist pastors, trusting the new conventions, ceased training their own successors in the local churches, as Baptist pastors had been doing in the 17th and 18th centuries (and prior). Denominational Baptist colleges and seminaries sprang up. Well, at least three things flow down hill from denominational seminaries, and in to the local congregations: (1.) lust for power and control; (2.) defense of the denomination itself for its own sake; (3.) apostasy and liberalization.
Churches where the local pastors train their own future pastors, evangelists and missionaries, are much slower to apostatize and liberalize. They are not trying to oil the gears of a denominational monster where the liberals, modernists and apostates sneak in and steal the outfit from the fundamentalists. And, by the way, liberals NEVER BUILD ANYTHING . . . they only steal what has already been built by the fundamentalists, and then proceed to destroy it.
Back to the Carolinas, there is still a very strong movement of Bible-believing independent/autonomous Baptist churches there. I advise that some of the pastors from those churches be surveyed, if anyone wants to get a better representation of view points.
I guess Spiff didn't get THIS press release from the campaign!
October 24, 2007, 7:07 am
Romney Loses Evangelical Endorsement
By Michael Luo
CHARLESTON, S.C.—A prominent conservative Baptist leader in this state who recently endorsed Mitt Romney amid much fanfare has suddenly withdrawn his endorsement, according to the official press arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The Rev. Don Wilton, who is the immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Convention in South Carolina, was one of an array of conservative endorsements the campaign had unveiled in the days leading up to and into the Values Voter Summit in Washington.
The list included Bob Jones III, president of the fundamentalist Bob Jones University, Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, Dr. John Willke, who helped found the National Right to Life Committee and Mr. Wilton.
The endorsements from Bob Jones University and Mr. Wilton were considered especially noteworthy here in South Carolina, because Mr. Romney’s Mormon faith has remained a major stumbling block for him in the state among evangelicals.
But Mr. Wilton now says his agreement to endorse Mr. Romney was a “personal error.”
The Baptist Press quotes Mr. Wilton as saying: “While I did give my consent to the local campaign to use my affirmation of the governor’s stance on family values in my capacity as an individual citizen, I made the mistake of not realizing the extent to which it would be used on a national basis. It was my personal error to agree to support Romney’s campaign. Until this incident I had never endorsed any person running for any elected office, Democrat or Republican.
-SNIP-
The Romney campaign issued this statement: “Reverend Wilton is a great leader in the community and we respect any decision he makes regarding his involvement with the campaign
Romney Loses Evangelical Endorsement
I have said that just because some of these leaders endorse Romney, the rank and file Evangelicals will not consider that binding on them.....sounds like Rev. Wilton got some heated response from his fellow Baptists.