Elevation Church Breaks Ties With The SBC

I didn't even know they were part of the SBC. With their teachings, they don't belong in there anyways

4 minutes ago, Pastor Matt said:

I didn't even know they were part of the SBC. With their teachings, they don't belong in there anyways

I agree. Many of the other churches have questioned why they were allowed to be in good standing with the SBC. The only thing that I can see that would keep them being eligible to be in good standing is the amount of money they contribute to the cooperative programs each year. There's a push to overhaul or dispatch some of these entities such as the North American Missions Board and the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. Many have already stopped using Lifeway materials. They're so watered down doctrinally and ethically that many churches are using other, more doctrinally sound materials from elsewhere. There have been many churches in the last few years that have suspending supporting any of these entities until changes are made and guaranteed.

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

 There have been many churches in the last few years that have suspending supporting any of these entities until changes are made and guaranteed.

They don't go far enough if you ask me. Any church carrying the Baptist name should have nothing to do with ANY convention, association, or fellowship. 

True, traditional and historical Baptist churches are to be totally autonomous, they have no business joining these extra-biblical organizations, or supporting anything these organizations put out there for their followers to use.

And make no mistake, churches that are a part of the SBC, or any other organization are followers of that organization. 

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

1 minute ago, Jim_Alaska said:

They don't go far enough if you ask me. Any church carrying the Baptist name should have nothing to do with ANY convention, association, or fellowship. 

True, traditional and historical Baptist churches are to be totally autonomous, they have no business joining these extra-biblical organizations, or supporting anything these organizations put out there for their followers to use.

And make no mistake, churches that are a part of the SBC, or any other organization are followers of that organization. 

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Yet, churches can become so Independent" they end up with little or no accountability to their people, as the pastor becomes a dictator and usually ends up in some kind of trouble. Not all are like this, but, many do. Case in point is First Baptist in Hammond. And, as I have stated many times here, all SBC churches are Independent, autonomous, Baptist churches no matter how much some here will disagree. They decide whom they wish to fellowship with...and believe it or not, there are many IFB churches that fellowship with SBC churches. Jim, you're always welcome to your opinion on the subject. Yet, many in the IFB churches hate to admit they associate with other IFB churches through things like listings of IFB churches for travelers, or for people moving. And just as all IFB churches are not the same, neither are churches who fellowship with other SBC churches are not all the same. 

Brother Tony, I m aware of your position in this matter, and of course you are entitled to it. But, I respectfully disagree with your assertion in many posts that "all SBC churches are Independent, autonomous," 

I disagree for these reasons; if your church is listed as an SBC church, you are part of that organization, after all, it is an organization, something organized to exert some form of control over their membership churches. If your church uses SBC materials, supports their mission boards, or any of their programs or in any other way, toes the SBC line, you are not truly Independent. You may have limited Independence in that, your church membership votes and decides what other churches it will fellowship with. But if your church deviates from SBC guidelines, or if you break with their traditions you are no longer in good standing; that is control.

If the SBC has any authority to disfellowship or kick your church out of the SBC, your church is not truly Independent. This subject has been hashed over many times among Baptists and no agreement will result from this post at this time. But looking to scripture for justification of organizations in regard to churches will fail. Scripture is clear in its teaching that each church is to be Independent. 

6 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

The only thing that I can see that would keep them being eligible to be in good standing is the amount of money they contribute to the cooperative programs each year.

That's a problem right there. The Bible should always be the dividing factor, not money.

BTW: I love the photo chosen for this article, it's very fitting.

19 minutes ago, Pastor Matt said:

That's a problem right there. The Bible should always be the dividing factor, not money.

BTW: I love the photo chosen for this article, it's very fitting.

I agree on all counts. I chose that picture specifically because of the interactions that I have had with Mr. Furtick. He was flippant, foul, and quite unscriptural in his approach to questions asked of him.  Then many of his sermons over several years were Steven Furtick centered, not Christ centered in any way, shape, or form. He IS a wolf in sheep's clothing. The sad part of all of this is that a few weeks ago, our pastor put a quote by Furtick in the church bulletin. I was shocked. 

I see no problem with a church being part of a convention or association but also am aware that these associations usually go bad over time. Just like about everything else. They follow the Man, Movement, Machine, Monument law.

I also disagree that a pastor in a totally autonomous church usually becomes a dictator. From my experience members will hijack the church from the pastor more often than the pastor becoming a dictator.

3 hours ago, SureWord said:

I see no problem with a church being part of a convention or association but also am aware that these associations usually go bad over time. Just like about everything else. They follow the Man, Movement, Machine, Monument law.

I also disagree that a pastor in a totally autonomous church usually becomes a dictator. From my experience members will hijack the church from the pastor more often than the pastor becoming a dictator.

Again, not all IFB churches have a dictator for a pastor, nor was that implied....but, I have been in churches where such was the case. I gave one example of a very high profile church that was. FBC of Hammond is a very good case in point. I grew up in an IFB church where the pastor was not a dictator. 

The SBC has it's liberals and even heresy infecting their circles, such as Calvinism, just like IFB churches do. Calvinism is very heretical if you ask me and I can't, for the life of me, comprehend why either a SBC church or IFB one would associate with such who teach it.  But just like IFB churches can choose not to affiliate or associate with certain churches with teach false doctrine(and many do have networks of churches they associate with), the SBC can do things like "kicking out" churches with women "preachers". And an SBC affiliated church can leave the SBC any time it wants to. An example, by contrast, I know of a little country Methodist church we used to visit in our area (to play music) which recently pulled out of the United Methodist organization; the organization took their church building, bank accounts and all other assets. I know of an Assembly of God church which went through basically the same thing. But I'd be willing to bet my pastor would pull out of the SBC if they condoned women preachers, homosexual preachers, or any other junk like that, and we wouldn't lose our church assets for doing it. How is that not actually independent?

2 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The SBC has it's liberals and even heresy infecting their circles, such as Calvinism, just like IFB churches do. Calvinism is very heretical if you ask me and I can't, for the life of me, comprehend why either a SBC church or IFB one would associate with such who teach it.  But just like IFB churches can choose not to affiliate or associate with certain churches with teach false doctrine(and many do have networks of churches they associate with), the SBC can do things like "kicking out" churches with women "preachers". And an SBC affiliated church can leave the SBC any time it wants to. An example, by contrast, I know of a little country Methodist church we used to visit in our area (to play music) which recently pulled out of the United Methodist organization; the organization took their church building, bank accounts and all other assets. I know of an Assembly of God church which went through basically the same thing. But I'd be willing to bet my pastor would pull out of the SBC if they condoned women preachers, homosexual preachers, or any other junk like that, and we wouldn't lose our church assets for doing it. How is that not actually independent?

I think in the future preachers will start giving up and donate their facilities to others church ministry. That will continue, then eventually selling out, and becoming water down religions. United faiths for Christ. This sounds like a good name for one of these weak churches.