Can someone here explain to me the difference between these to baptist conventions? Is it just conservative vs. liberal or is there more to it than that.

yes, there is a conservative vs. liberal difference...but yes, there is also more to it that just that.

i can't get into all of it right now but my home church, Central Baptist in Bryan, left the BGCT in 2000. our preacher, Chris Osborne, gave a presentation one sunday night (which i did attend) on why we were leaving the BGCT and you can find the text and audio/video copy here: http://kim.kairosnet.com/BGCT_Statement.html. A direct link to the video is here: http://kim.kairosnet.com/Images/BGCT_MSTR.mov
Osborne was recently re-elected the president of the SBTC (Southern Baptists of Texas Convention) so he's a good source to go to if you want to find the differences. you'll find him listed as president here: http://www.sbtexas.com/?action=getpage&page=2029

one thing i can say is that if you read some of the writings by those who lead the BGCT, you will find that some of them question some very fundamental things, like the virgin birth and Jesus being equal to God. they hold stances on some things that contradict the inerrancy of the Bible. they also might outwardly support some conservative views...but when you look at the innerworkings of that convention, they change their stance on a lot of things. these are some things that you won't find out by just going to their website. A LOT of churches, like Central, did not want to be affiliated anymore with them. There were also some political issues that couldn't be agreed upon, such as missions support...so some of it also had to do with power and control.

this topic was also discussed a few months ago here but it drifted off topic as i'm sure this one will do as well - http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=407345&page=1&forum_id=15

i hope that helps you a little, at least. this is a perfect example as to how you have to be real careful when dealing with conventions, even though any baptist church is free to adopt their own personal doctrines or policies. i can add more later if i can help clear things up in any way, but for now i'm off to bed.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 4/21/2005 1:22a).]

quote:

---

even though any baptist church is free to adopt their own personal doctrines or policies

---

Help me out here...Why have a convention to determine doctrine if each and every Baptist Church is free to believe whatever they want?

quote:

---

Help me out here...Why have a convention to determine doctrine if each and every Baptist Church is free to believe whatever they want?

---

because this is America, and you don't have to choose to be a part of a specific convention. but most do. you have the option have a "unique" affiliation, where you are joined to only one convention, or a "dual" affiliation where you have joined more than one. it's a little more complicated than that (financial support can be involved)...but my point anyways was that it's important to follow your own convictions and be sure to know how a certain convention compares to those convictions.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 4/21/2005 9:57a).]

I am under the impression that many Baptist churches belong to the convention for missions reasons - more so than for theological guidance.

you are correct...missions support is a big reason how some Baptist churches decide what convention they become affiliated with.

As for missions financial details of the SBCT, according to http://www.sbtexas.com/?action=getpage&page=1877 -

quote:

---

The current budget directs 52% of all undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention. Almost 75% of the SBC budget goes to the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board. Seminaries, the Executive Committee and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission receive the majority of the remaining amount.

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the BGCT differs greatly in the amount they contribute to the IMB, if they contribute any at all. So that is one difference, which was the original question asked in this thread.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 4/21/2005 9:25a).]

I'm kind of stuck in the middle of all of this (attending a Baptist seminary), so I'll try and give my thoughts, with an extremely abbreviated history.

This is something that's been in the making for over 25 years. In 1979 there was a group of men who decided that they were going to attempt to take over the Southern Baptist Convention with a fundamentalist agenda -- that is, they decided that if you do not believe what we believe, then you're wrong. Over the next ten years, they slowly gained control of the SBC, firing seminary presidents and professors who promoted academic freedom and who were not on their side. They put people in the seminaries who would teach exactly what they wanted them to teach (quote from Adrian Rogers: "And if we tell them to teach that pickles have souls, then they must teach that pickles have souls!" ). Along with this they gained control of all committees of the SBC.

There was opposition to all of this, from the so-called "moderates", but it couldn't be stopped. Texasag73 -- you nailed it. Being a Baptist means congregational autonomy and freedom of the believer, and now professors, pastors and missionaries were required to sign the Baptist Faith and Message and agree to teach according to it. I know you're Catholic, so this might sound like a good idea, but this is not a Baptist principle. One pastor I know claims the only thing he will ever sign is a Greek New Testament.

Anyway, out of this controversy came the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, another organization allowing churches to join loosely for the purpose of missions and others. Whoever said something about missions, that is exactly the point of having a convention. This idea came about in the 1810's with a man named Luther Rice, a Baptist missionary who needed to raise money for missionaries in Burma and India. He came up with the idea of a convention, that would allow churches to pool their resources and participate together in fulfilling the Great Commission. Out of this came the SBC, and for the first 80 years of its existence, there were no creeds to teach by.

Well anyway, back to the question at hand: as I understand it, the SBCT aligns more with the SBC, and the BGCT aligns more with the CBF. Today, the SBC has a huge problem with the CBF, and recently threatened (and maybe did) to pull out of the Baptist World Alliance just because the CBF joined it. While it can be said there are doctrinal differences, the CBF actually doesn't have any official statements on doctrine -- no doctrinal confessions or creeds. This is not their point. Their mission is to be an organization to allow smaller churches to join and fulfill Christian duties that may be difficult to do on their own - mainly missions. I don't know much about the BGCT, but they do partner with the CBF for some things. They probably don't contribute much to the IMB, but that doesn't mean they don't give to missions.


Here's a link to a brief history of all that other stuff if you care. To be honest, alot of it is just really stupid, and there's just no way that all of the inner-turmoil within Baptists can be pleasing to God. And there is a lot more to it than what I've put, but this is a gist.
http://www.txbc.org/1994Journals/May%201994/May94CoChairParmer.htm

And here's the interview with Pressler who finally admitted that much of what they were doing was aimed at political domination of Baptists (for a long time they denied they had such motives)
http://www.txbc.org/1998Journals/September%201998/Sept98AReview.htm

Alot of Baptist churches today are aligned with one or the other, and many with both. My old church in Houston allows members to designate money to either organization. However, because of this the pastor is not allowed to speak at some engagements of the SBC. I know alot of this just sounds silly, but there are some people who are as Baptist as texasag73 is Catholic , and they care very much about these things (I'm not really one, but I know some).

[This message has been edited by setsmachine (edited 4/21/2005 11:16a).]

quote:

---

as I understand it, the SBCT aligns more with the SBC, and the BGCT aligns more with the CBF

---

you understand correctly.

quote:

---

They probably don't contribute much to the IMB, but that doesn't mean they don't give to missions.

---

correct, they still do contribute to missions. but a lot of churches are closely tied to the IMB and staying with the BGCT would have hurt that. for example, my sister was a missionary in Germany for 3 years...but if our church would have stayed with the BGCT, she wouldn't have had much money at all and probably couldn't have stayed there as long as she did.

quote:

---

While it can be said there are doctrinal differences, the CBF actually doesn't have any official statements on doctrine -- no doctrinal confessions or creeds.

---

you may be correct that they do not have a central doctrine in their organization, but a big reason that churches are leaving the BGCT is because the BGCT is closely aligned with the CBF, and some leaders of the CBF do not believe in the same things that those in the SBC believe. so doctrines are still involved...but in a more indirect manner. so all of this craziness does support your statement, "To be honest, alot of it is just really stupid, and there's just no way that all of the inner-turmoil within Baptists can be pleasing to God." I completely agree.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 4/21/2005 11:50a).]

Osborne is the sort of hellfire and brimstone preacher its fun to go and hear on occasion. It would be nice if more spoke out for the unborn as he does.

Redstone,

that might be a fairly extreme description of him....but yes, he is very upfront in his sermons. like I said, Central is my home church where I heard him preach for over 20 years. he is fluent in Greek and preaches out of the Greek New Testament and does a great job of interpreting the scriptures and puting them into the correct context. I agree that it would be better if more people spoke out on the unborn like he does. He was a great choice for the president of the SBCT. He is one reason I miss living B/CS...but having access to his sermons on Central's website is a great resource.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 4/21/2005 12:01p).]

Fair enough. I respect him.

Between Chris and Butch... we have plenty that speak their mind quite vividly!

Thank you eveyrone for the info. The reason I am so interested in all of this, is because I'm trying to decide what seminary to attend. I'll be graduating in December, so I need to make a decision soon.

So far I'm looking at Southwestern Baptist, Truett, and Midwestern Baptist.

If anybody has any more info on which of the conventions Southwestern and Truett associate themselves with, I'd appreciate it.

Southwestern is affiliated with the SBCT, which is aligned with the SBC. The BGCT actually denied all SBC seminaries exhibit space at a San Antonio convention, according to http://www.swbts.edu/pr/pressrelease.cfm?id=160

i know two guys in Southwestern right now and they both enjoy it. Midwestern is also affiliated with the SBC, according to http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/sem.asp

I searched Google about Truett and found several links stating how they are affiliated with the BGCT and the CBF.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 4/21/2005 3:45p).]

AggiesWin:

That is an excellent question you should be asking yourself right now.

Southwestern is pretty much, besides Southern in Louisville, the most fundamentalist school you can attend, as far as Baptist seminaries go. Paige Patterson is the president -- he is one of the original three that initiated the takeover that I spoke about in the original post. At Southwestern, there are specific things you will be taught, without any room for thinking otherwise. You will be taught based on an extreme-literalist position of scripture, and there will not be much of a chance to "think for yourself". Your professors will be required to teach according to specific doctrines.

Truett is completely different -- it is more closely associated with the CBF. Some of the professors there will be the ones fired from Baptist seminaries for refusal to teach according to the SBC's guidelines. Your professors will not give you your theology, and for the most part you will be required to think a lot about what you believe.

To be honest, I'm not entirely objective here. I'm currently attending a school called BTSR (Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond), a school created out of the controversy I spoke about earlier and supported by the CBF. Because of this, there will be Baptist churches with strong ties to the SBC that will never even think about giving me a job (Central Baptist would probably be one). I would consider myself more of a "free-thinker", and so far I'm really glad with my choice. I decided that I didn't want to go to Sunday School for 3 years, with a pre-set agenda on exactly what I should be taught to think. My professors have academic freedom to try and get me to think and understand ministry in many different ways.

Midwestern, I have no idea, but from the sound of it I think it's another SBC school, so what I said about Southwestern pretty much applies.

I believe that people at Southwestern and the like would say that my school is one no one should attend. I'm not willing to say that no one should go to those seminaries, but you do need to look long and hard at what you're going to do (On a side note, if you're interested in Richmond, they have something called the Sam Houston scholarship -- I'm going for free just because I'm from Texas).

My dad attended Southern, and I know alot of great pastors that attended Southwestern, but those are not the same schools they once were. If you consider yourself a fundamentalist, then by all means go. But it is something you should be thinking about, and it sounds like you are.

If I'm being unclear or you have questions, let me know.

nm

[This message has been edited by setsmachine (edited 4/22/2005 8:47p).]