Saylorville Church responds: "Could it be that Dr. Bauder has touched a nerve of fear? ... a fear of 1,000 'what ifs'?"
In 'Erasing Hell' Francis Chan writes, "If you call someone a Baptist, all you've said is that they don't baptize babies – beyond this, it's pretty much up for grabs". The 'Baptist' ame has lost the clarity it might once have possessed. It no longer stands tall as a gospel centered, life-changing church it once did.
Question: What occurs when you tell an unsaved person you are a Baptist? (Obviously referring to you who are Baptists.)
Have you even gone beyond speculation? Would you be willing to take the test? We have and have found the name wanting.
I have an atheist daughter in law who equates all Baptists with Westboro Baptist. Is that who I want to be identified with? Quite obviously not.
Let me say at the outset that I am Grace Brethren and not "Baptist." I am a product of Grace Seminary where many conservative (small "C") Baptist and IFCA pastors received their education. Some would argue that there isn't much difference between the two names, one originating in England and the other in Germany. In more lucid moments I would agree with that sentiment. However, names are powerful things. Why? Because it identifies a group.
Men and women suffered and died for the Baptist name in England and colonial America. Similarly, when Alexander Mack organized his first Brethren congregation and re-baptized members in 1708, within eleven years many of them left the persecution of both the Lutheran Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church for the freedom of America. These names were earned, not merely given. Both groups built their styles of Christianity over the years, and the names mean something.
Yet there is a growing trend within both groups to drop the formal "Baptist" or "Brethren" from the names of the individual churches. Why? These churches concluded that the names actually turn people away from them, not attract people to them.
Allow me to use two examples of these churches with which I am familiar. Faith Church is a successful GARBC church in Lafayette, Indiana. It is well-known in Nouthetic counseling circles. They now offer primary, secondary and post-graduate education and a wide range of other services for youth, unwed mothers, and Purdue students. Faith dropped the "Baptist" from their name about two years ago and is now simply Faith Church. Has it resulted in more members and the offering of even more services? I'm not sure, but the parking lot always seems to be busy when I drive by going into town. Many people with college degrees leave our small Indiana town on Sundays and drive the 25 miles or so to East Lafayette and worship there.
Goshen Community Church, Goshen, Indiana, used to be Goshen Grace Brethren Church. Some years ago a dynamic pastor took the church, sold the building, changed the name, and moved it into a newer middle school auditorium. From that point the church grew almost exponentially. It is full-bore contemporary. They built a new building south of town and have since added more space. It is now one of the largest churches in the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches.
In both cases gifted men, one primarily an expositor and the other an evangelist, built large churches rather quickly. God, of course, gets all the credit and the glory, but these men did a lot of the "right" things and have been rewarded with much responsibility for their efforts. But was the name change the difference in these two churches? Viewed from a distance I would say "somewhat" for the Goshen church and "not so much" for Faith.
I have NEVER run into anyone who brushed me off for being a Baptist. I'm not entitled to it, but I'd like a church like this to quantify the push-back they've gotten for being "Baptist" in name. I have a hunch that there are a few anecdotal stories. Will we stop using the labels "Christian" and "church" if the world comes to have a problem with them?
I have NEVER run into anyone who brushed me off for being a Baptist. I'm not entitled to it, but I'd like a church like this to quantify the push-back they've gotten for being "Baptist" in name. I have a hunch that there are a few anecdotal stories. Will we stop using the labels "Christian" and "church" if the world comes to have a problem with them?
I'ts great you've never received any negative feedback for the Baptist name. That is certainly not everyone's experience.
As one of those "anecdotal stories," my wife and I once had a couple over for dinner, and when the conversation finally got around to spiritual things, we mentioned the name of our church. Immediately, the first question from the husband was "So you think the Baptists have it right?" I probably spent 15-30 minutes trying to disentangle what we believed from what he thought he knew about Baptists.
Of course, that can happen with any name, but I see no reason we need to die on the hill of a denominational name over something like Christian. Being ashamed of Christ is far different from being ashamed for the abuses of people bearing a name that is not in itself, biblical. As others have said, you see the Bible refer to the "church of Ephesus," etc. No "Baptist" anywhere in sight. And for that matter, "ecclesia" can be translated "assembly" or probably some other words as well. Our English word "church" can have a lot of baggage associated with it, depending how it's used. I think "church" still serves well enough, but I see no reason we couldn't use something else if it got to the point where it really didn't mean the same thing as what Christ meant with the Greek word. If the primary use in the future is for a large organization rather than a local assembly (like, e.g. "The Catholic Church"), then it may be time to rethink the use of that word, just as many are doing with the term "fundamentalist."
Since one of our local "Baptist" churches is one of the most liberal churches in the area, including their recognition and performance of gay marriages, I completely identify with the quote mentioning that "Baptist" really doesn't mean much beyond no baptism of children. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that that local church I referred to would care about that either, but I'd have to ask them to be sure.
Jim,
Perhaps you misstated, but to say that Baptist have died for the name is dubious. I know of no Baptist who has died for the name. Rather, numerous have died for what Baptist has historically represented: a certain theological position on baptism.
I think that is an important distinction because that would seem to be Saylorville's point. Dying on the hill of the name is asinine, dying on the hill of the doctrine is a different matter.
FWIW, I have an immigrant community who came to our church precisely because we had Baptist in our name. They currently comprise up to 1/3 of our Sunday morning attendance. I also have two couples in their twenties from non-Baptist backgrounds preparing to join, along with another middle-aged couple coming from the mainline Presbyterian church in town.
Hey, its anecdotal. But it isn't always the obstacle some make it out to be.
To answer Pat Nemmer's question, yes, I tell lost people I'm Baptist all the time. It kind of comes with telling them where I work. If there is any recoiling in horror, they keep it to themselves, from what I can see. I just let things like our foster parenting, grief counseling for a recent suicide, and things like that paint the fuller picture of our personal reputation in our community. The work with the Karen refugees certainly enhances our reputation as a congregation, too, as does the public reputations of several of our members.
We distinguish ourselves with labels to some degree, but in the end, our call is still to stand out through love and good works. If there are negatives connected with a label, a name change only does so much, anyway. Instead of being such and such Baptist church, you'll be the church that used to be "such and such Baptist Church" (like the SBC church in our town that changed its name from Calvary Baptist Church to "Radiant Life").
There are lost people who will throw up defenses if you tell them you're a Baptist. There are lost people who will throw up defenses if you tell them you're from a "church," or if you mention "Jesus." In the end, there's only so much name changing will do, for them. The name does mean something in the scope of Christian context- in that sense, it is meant both to attract and repel.
But we've been down this road already...
In the end, it's all about locality. What baptist is associated with in location X, isn't necessarily the association in location Y.
Leave it up to the local church to decide what is best for her. After all, aren't we baptists? =)
IK
...there's a giant tank somewhere as the focal point inside. Clarity hits you smack in the face when first you pass through the doors, regardless of the name out by the street.
How silly to think that sound doctrine is somehow maintained by a label on the front of the church.
Agree
[quote=jimfrank]
Faith Church is a successful GARBC church in Lafayette, Indiana. It is well-known in Nouthetic counseling circles. They now offer primary, secondary and post-graduate education and a wide range of other services for youth, unwed mothers, and Purdue students. Faith dropped the "Baptist" from their name about two years ago and is now simply Faith Church. Has it resulted in more members and the offering of even more services? I'm not sure, but the parking lot always seems to be busy when I drive by going into town. Many people with college degrees leave our small Indiana town on Sundays and drive the 25 miles or so to East Lafayette and worship there.
jim/frank, Has "Baptist" been removed from the sign in front of Faith Church? The website photo of the church shows the full name.
Yeah. This isn't about the name. Neither side is being completely honest. I'm convinced of that much.
FBBC is hiding behind the name issue and has made it easy for Saylorville to hide behind that as well. Neither is facing the real issues involved. In fact, FBBC wrought the cudgel and handed it to Saylorville who is wielding it perfectly.
How silly to think that sound doctrine is somehow maintained by a label on the front of the church.
I can see why he would say that. At the same time, isn't it also silly to think that removing the name and welcoming in people to the fellowship of a local church who would have been repelled by the label won't have any impact on the church's doctrine? I mean, I understand the appeal to the lost and all, but that isn't where all of the growth comes from in churches like there. You draw people who were already professing believers, too. I know for a fact that there are some from the church where I used to serve as associate pastor who are active at SC. I'm not condemning them for it- these things happen the other way, too. But the point I'm making is that in moves like this, you will bring in people who may not see the necessity for say, a dispensational approach, or the ministry of the Holy Spirit, or baptism by immersion... Not every matter may be a Baptist distinctive, precisely, but a removal of the name can give the impression that things may not be as important as they used to be. You cannot (and should not) rely on the label alone to do your doctrinal monitoring, yet to imply that it cannot be a useful tool seems quite silly, too.
Do Baptists do this more than most? Tim Keller went to the heart of secular America to evangelize people who had every wrong preconceived idea there probably is of organized religion, yet he started a church with its denominational commitment clearly communicated in its name, and the church has flourished. IMO, that it is typical of unbelievers to not go to a church just because it is Baptist is just a bogeyman used by a pastor to scare a church into changing its name.
Are we not forgetting the big picture here? Who "brings" people into the church? Is it the church name? pastor? programs? methods?
I think we're placing too much weight in a name, on both ends of the debate.
Ultimately, the Spirit directs man on where he ought to go.
iK...
Well, for that matter, why bother with anything? Just let the Holy Spirit do it all...
While we do rely on the Spirit, that doesn't mean our decisions have no consequence. Granted, there is a degree of relativity to this decision. I don't think that means its irrelevant or inconsequential, though.
Greg,
Point taken. But my point is that I think we're taking this too far, giving it too much attention, as if the efficacy of the Holy Spirit rests on what letters we put on our church sign.
How about we focus on expository preaching, sound doctrine, and actual evangelism?
IK
Do Baptists do this more than most? Tim Keller went to the heart of secular America to evangelize people who had every wrong preconceived idea there probably is of organized religion, yet he started a church with its denominational commitment clearly communicated in its name, and the church has flourished. IMO, that it is typical of unbelievers to not go to a church just because it is Baptist is just a bogeyman used by a pastor to scare a church into changing its name.
Yes, Jonathan, I think that "Baptist" is especially problematic, at least for some demographics. In popular media, Baptist is associated with Southern, far-right Republican, uneducated, intimidating, and sometimes bigoted. I work at a Catholic university, and my colleagues are much more uneasy around Baptists than around some other Protestants. Some immigrant groups also feel that Baptists are more likely to be out to get them. Concretely, the most visible hate group in the nation is Westboro Baptist Church. (BTW, Fred Phelps attended BJU and left, ironically, because BJU was too prejudiced. Bizarreville.) So, whether Baptists deserve it or not, they have a PR problem. And that's why I don't think the Tim Keller comparison works that well.
If it's any consolation, Pentecostals who ask for money on television rank even lower than Baptists on the PR scale.
I understand the negatives that could be associated (like Westboro), yet on the other end of the spectrum, you have Jesse Jackson, MLK Jr., Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. Articulately, you can see someone like Al Mohler consulted by CNN, let's say, to comment on some cultural issue. Now, those people aren't "our kind" of Baptists in one sense, true... but still, those aren't the same kind of categories of concern for lost people that Westboro is going to cause.
I think the Keller parallel is appropriate. It shows that the denominational name can, at the least, not be the huge problem it can be made out to be. Bethlehem Baptist in the Twin Cities (Piper's old church) would be another example where Baptist doesn't seem to have limited them.
Baptist isn't going to communicate everything. But it does communicate something, as does removing it.
Yes, Faith Church removed the "Baptist" from the name on their several buildings. We heard they were going to do it but were still surprised when we saw the change. It appears that they recently overhauled their website, and maybe the older picture of the church "slipped through the crack." I tried to paste a picture of the new logo here but was unable to do so.
One thing I've noticed about large churches in smaller fellowships is the large church can do pretty much whatever it wants to do and the central office is powerless to stop it. It is significant to note that this "controversy" is between an educational institution and an individual church and not between an individual church and the central office. Both the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches and the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches are "fellowships" of churches and not denominations. I can't speak for the GARBC, but the Grace Brethren's central office policy is definitely "hands off" of the individual churches. A few years ago our largest church walked away from the Fellowship. That reinforced my opinion that the large churches such as Faith Church of Lafayette or Goshen Community Church are "denoms" in their own right.
Concerning Matt Olmstead's comment on my statement, "Men and women suffered and died for the Baptist name in England and colonial America," perhaps I should refresh my admittedly rusty memory and read on the subject again. I should have left it at "suffered." John Bunyan's several years in jail is the most well-known case of persecution against English Baptists, Correction noted.
Just a Saturday morning note to make people smile.
Each day I drive by the First Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church. One of my c0-workers attends a Baptist church where many of its members are re-baptized every week to, as she says, "get a fresh start in their lives". I was in a small town with 28 independent Baptist churches that included charismatic, free will, and four versions of KJV only.
Seriously, is having Baptist in your church name necessary to being a true Baptist church?
28 independent Baptist churches, and only FOUR KJV only! Around here it would probably be more like 20.
That was 6 years ago Greg. I'm sure they've done "the baptist split" a number of time since then. They had separated from each other over their "convictions" on the existence of the LXX, the inspiration of the verse numbers and chapter headings, the "right" Bible publisher, and the inspiration of the italicized words.
Folks, let's keep our eye on the ball.
Pat Nemmers has rather cleverly diverted the discussion. Beware of following the false scent.
(1) The question is not how the New Testament named churches. In the New Testament, a city had only one church. The only differential necessary was to say that the church was "in Corinth" or "in Philippi." There were no churches that had abandoned New Testament polity, and consequently there was no need for New-Testament-polity churches to distinguish themselves from them. What we do see in the New Testament, however, is that acceptability of designating the differentia (which might now be "in Thessalonica" or "Baptist") as well as the genus ("church”).
(2) The question is not whether the name Baptist is some sort of talismanic protection against false doctrine. Pat says that my essay “insinuates” that it is. Bilge. I have never suggested any such thing. Faith has never suggested any such thing. Nobody that I know of has suggested any such thing. Pat is simply scoring cheap points against an argument that nobody is making.
(3) The question is not (as Pat suggests) whether Faith Baptist Bible College has changed its principles. For literally decades Faith has argued that the name Baptist is important. Then-vice-president George Houghton even published an article on this topic about twenty years ago. It appeared in an official Faith publication. As far as Faith is concerned, nothing is new here.
(4) The question is not whether a local church has the right to choose any name that it sees fit. Nobody denies that right. The question is whether a Christian institution has the right, at varying levels, to determine the boundaries of its own fellowship. Faith is not breaking all fellowship with Saylorville. Faith is, however, limiting fellowship at one level. If it did not, it would have to surrender a message to which it has been committed for decades.
(5) The question is not whether everybody understands or likes the name Baptist. Plenty of people do not. The question is whether the name is worth keeping, using, and even clarifying by people who prize what the name stands for. Pat has considered none of the genuine arguments in favor of that position. He has not even given evidence that he knows and understands them.
(5) The question is not whether Saylorville still agrees that baptistic polity is correct. He insists that no doctrinal difference exists between him and Faith. In fact, I think it does. When we appropriate doctrines, we always have to make two decisions. Our first decision is, What is the true doctrine? The second decision is, How important is this doctrine? Both of these are doctrinal decisions. A difference over the second decision is a real doctrinal difference. In other words, when we agree about what doctrines are true, but weigh those doctrines differently, we are experience a doctrinal disagreement. Willingness to be labeled for one’s adherence to a particular set of doctrines (which is what the name Baptist does) is an indicator of one’s level of commitment to the importance of those doctrines. I think that the difference between Faith and Saylorville is, at some level, really doctrinal.
(6) The question is not whether the name Baptist is attractive to those who are set in their rebellion against God (we sometimes call them the unchurched). If so, then we’ll drop the word church pretty quickly, too. For that matter, we’ll have to drop the name Christian, what with the Crusades, the New Christian Right, and all. Perhaps we could be more successful if we just called the assembly something like Community Garden Club. That’s fairly innocuous, right? You can always gain a bit more visible effectiveness if you are willing to down play some aspect of your commitment to truth. Of course, the result is that you get more and more converts to less and less Christianity.
Contrary to popular opinion, labels are important. They matter so much that, if we didn’t have them, we would need to invent them. The fact that some people counterfeit our label is no reason to stop using it. It’s simply reason to expose the counterfeiters. The fact that some people don’t like what our label stands for is no reason to stop using it. Our job is not simply to win people to the Gospel. Our job is to win them to the whole counsel of God. When it comes to church order, the whole counsel of God (as I understand it) has a proper name. That name is Baptist. (Other constructs have different names, and I celebrate the use of those names even when I disagree with the constructs that they represent). I think that the use of the name is a simple matter of truth in advertising.
-->
Seriously, is having Baptist in your church name necessary to being a true Baptist church?
In the interests of full disclosure, Ron Bean was my pastor in my late teenage years (circa 1990-91), and oversaw the changing of our church's name from Baptist to "Bible."
-------
I don't think it is absolutely necessary- not even Faith would argue that, I wouldn't think. However, as they say in their statement, "It has been the intent of the school to provide an anchor for those who agree with this stand" (to "“unashamedly identify itself as Baptist"). They are seeking to preserve a tradition. As I noted in the other thread, it is something Faith has advocated for a while, and it is something the state association currently requires. The situation in Iowa is not like many in the south- if you look at the data here, for example. You will see that Polk county (where Des Moines, Saylorville, and Faith all are located) lists 14 churches that are GARBC- a larger sampling than any other Baptist group listed. While there are others that also use the name "Baptist," in Iowa, the IARBC has 103 churches in the state, and would be representative of what it means to be "Baptist" as far as reputation in the local context. For those who are critical, you are basing some of your conclusions on your own perceptions. At least consider the perspective of where they are.
However, as Jesse (JVDM) has noted in this thread, and Bauder implied in his article, there are other issues related to this specific matter, and perhaps they are really the issues driving this.
When Ron led the change of our church's name in Maine, it very much made sense for the time and context. There was a large church in the area that had prominently been identified with the Baptist name that our church was striving to distinguish ourselves from, for several reasons. I don't second guess that decision. It made sense in the context, as does Faith's decision in theirs.
I knew Greg Linscott would expose me. For the record our church dropped Baptist from its name for two reasons. It was a relatively young church that had split from the largest and most noted Baptist church in town when its long time pastor was exposed as an adulterer, complete with national TV coverage and Jerry Falwell to the rescue! It had been named Landmark Baptist and the people had no clue as to what a Landmark Baptist was. And the name Baptist really was an automatic turn-off to the people in our community and we seldom had opportunity to explain why we were different. We didn't change a thing in our doctrinal statement or practice and the only problem I had was when a young man wanted to go on a mission trip with a baptist mission and they initially refused him because we didn't have Baptist in our name. I explained to them that we were, in fact, a Baptist church in faith and practice and they let him go.
If some Baptist associations or fellowships want to require their members to have the name Baptist, that's their privilege. If some don't, I guess that's OK too. If a Baptist school wants to forbid its teachers and students from attending churches that aren't named baptist, that's within their right. Isn't that what Individual Soul Liberty is about?
(5) ...prize what the name stands for
(5) The question is not whether Saylorville still agrees that baptistic polity is correct. He insists that no doctrinal difference exists between him and Faith. In fact, I think it does.
(6) The question is not whether the name Baptist is attractive to those who are set in their rebellion against God (we sometimes call them the unchurched)...You can always gain a bit more visible effectiveness if you are willing to down play some aspect of your commitment to truth.
Contrary to popular opinion, labels are important. They matter so much that, if we didn’t have them, we would need to invent them.
5 (the first) - This is one source of contention. No one even agrees what the name stands for today.
5 (the second) - Is it true as asserted in the letter that both parties have argued there are no doctrinal issues? If not, then identify the pastor as a liar for saying such. If so, than why is an outsider contradicting both parties involved by claiming a doctrinal issue is at stake. Furthermore, I strongly disagree that the label Baptist carries any doctrinal significance in and of itself. If there is some real doctrinal issue involved, then quit hiding behind a label and deal with the actual doctrinal issue.
6 - The question is whether an unnecessary stumbling block is being clutched. There is an entire shift in meaning between "church" and "garden club", something not necessarily true about removing the label Baptist.
Last quote - This church has not abandoned all labels, but one specific label. We don't have to create anything to fill the vacuum in the label change.
Not to mention Obadiah Holmes and his run in with Governor Endicott in 1651.
Concerning Matt Olmstead's comment on my statement, "Men and women suffered and died for the Baptist name in England and colonial America," perhaps I should refresh my admittedly rusty memory and read on the subject again. I should have left it at "suffered." John Bunyan's several years in jail is the most well-known case of persecution against English Baptists, Correction noted.
Dr. Bauder, I'm still not clear what doctrinal differences there are between Faith and Saylorville, other than the difference as to the importance of a denominational label. Can you enumerate these differences for me?
Perhaps the disconnect is that I do not consider adherence to a denominational label to be a doctrinal matter, if there is still an adherence to the actual doctrines in question.
Do a Google search on "Faith Church Lafayette Indiana" and this is what comes up:
Faith Church – A Baptist Church in Lafayette, Indiana
www.faithlafayette.org/church/
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Location, service times, staff profiles, ministries, calendar, beliefs, and resources.
So, what has really changed in going from "Faith Baptist Church" to "Faith Church-A Baptist Church"? Maybe they haven't finished scrubbing all traces of what they are.
I do not think we can ignore the implications of a location. I grew up just south of where Greg Linscott is at now. When I was in my teens and early 20's I was not yet a Baptist, but when I was talking to people about Christ and the Bible they would often ask "what are you?" I'd tell them I was a Christian, but they wanted to know what that meant so I told them that I pretty much believed what the Baptists believed. It was a helpful descriptor in that setting. I do not ever remember getting a negative vibe for saying that, but that was 20 years ago. I do not think there are any extreme IFB churches in that area (unless you travel a couple hours to Sioux Falls) at, so that may be part of the reason.
My wife on the other hand grew up in a very extreme IFB church in WY where the the pastor was Hyles supporting, KJVO, dictatorial, taking money from the offering plate, and committing adultery. Her view of the term Baptist is a bit different than mine because of her negative experiences earlier in life. Her experience has made her much more sympathetic to Saylorville's decision.
She also had a more recent experience. She loves to sew, and has joined an online board with other women who sew as well. They have forums for sewing questions, but the ladies also bring up many other topics to talk about. She has had a great opportunity to witness and disciple online with these women. She has noticed in this group that many view the term "Baptist" much differently than I do, and many have a VERY negative view of it.
For Ron Bean it made sense to take out the name Baptist. For Greg, I can see why it really makes sense to keep it.
On a side note, we are planning to move to the Sioux Falls, SD area at the end of April to start laying the groundwork for a Regular Baptist church plant. In that area the Independent Baptist churches tend to be more extreme and many of the others tend to be quite liberal. I am expecting that many of the churches most similar to the GARBC do not even have Baptist in their name in that area. Once we get over there, we will have a better gage on how "Baptist" is viewed in that region. I want to have Baptist on our sign to identify us, but my question is how big or very small the letters should be 
. Please pray for us as we face these decisions and other challenges of planting a church.
Charlie, you're kidding, right? Catholic colleagues tell you that they have problems with Baptists and that means Baptists and their name have a problem? Has this story ever been any different in the last 400 years? You should hear what people who live around me say about the Catholic Church - and they aren't even Baptist! The scandals in the Catholic Church and the repeated heavy-handed tactics of its hierarchy have brought it shame time and again through the centuries. Westboro is an abomination. But how does its antics even compare to all the molested young people served so terribly by clergy of another institution? So how often do you tell your colleagues that they have a problem with their label? Obviously, I would not expect you to do so once. Neither would I.
So Charlie, thus far your reasoning is not very convincing. Various Catholic institutions have quite redeeming value to them. So do Baptist institutions. We should respect them a little more - name included.
Kevin Bauder makes a legitimate point in the "truth in advertising" label.
From reading what Pat has to say, the change is very much about what could be called "advertising" the church. While I'm completely outside the situation and couldn't possibly know who is involved, there is a cause (advertising in the community on the Saylorville side) and now an effect (FBBC staff will either have to leave or find a new job). There's no doubt that Saylorville has profited from FBBC's presence for the most part. They have chosen this path. Did FBBC let Saylorville know that they would take this action before the name change?
The tension between fulfilling the Great Commission and standing for a historic body of belief is one of the dividing points of many a body today. A name change does without a doubt make a statement. They obviously tracked the effect of what the Baptist name had on people they called.
What is the limit of how far we will go in order to not offend the unsaved? What guarantees do we have that changing a name will change the minds of any unsaved? Their concern, according to their statement is about the church (as in universal, rather than local if I read this statement correctly). Is their "advertising" offensive to the saved or the unsaved?
(6) The question is not whether the name Baptist is attractive to those who are set in their rebellion against God (we sometimes call them the unchurched). If so, then we’ll drop the word church pretty quickly, too. For that matter, we’ll have to drop the name Christian, what with the Crusades, the New Christian Right, and all. Perhaps we could be more successful if we just called the assembly something like Community Garden Club. That’s fairly innocuous, right? You can always gain a bit more visible effectiveness if you are willing to down play some aspect of your commitment to truth. Of course, the result is that you get more and more converts to less and less Christianity.
It does not appear that the question Saylorville is concerned with is whether the name Baptist is attractive to those who are set in their rebellion against God. Rather, the question Saylorville is concerned with is why the name Baptist may be unattractive to those who are set in their rebellion against God. And this altogether changes the conversation you are trying to have. Perhaps in Saylorville's context, Baptist has become much like the word Fundamentalist - ambiguous, with much baggage attached. That would not surprise me. I live and minister in such an area. And therefore, for the sake of the church, and for the sake of Christianity, and with a clear conscience before God Saylorville made the decision to drop the name Baptist. One may not agree with all the resulting philosophical changes, etc. that accompany the name change. But to imply that they are on the fast track to playing down their commitment to truth and becoming the Community Garden Club seems a bit harsh.
When I first came to the doctrines of grace, I was told by some of my Baptist pastor friends, that one could not be a Baptist and a Calvinist. I gave that a lot of thought. I wondered if I should become Presbyterian, but quickly decided that was impossible. I could never embrace the ecclesiology, including infant baptism. I strongly considered renaming our church "Bible Church" or "Community Church."
But I also began a study of Baptist history. I read Tom Nettles book, "By His Grace and For His Glory," regarding the prominence of the doctrines of grace in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. I read Kenneth Goode's book, "Are Baptists Calvinists?" about the doctrines of grace among Baptists in the north, and especially in the formation of the GARBC. I read other books about the history of English Baptists, and learned about the strong influence of Calvinist Baptists in England and early America.
The more I learned, the more thankful I was to be a Baptist. I began to believe that one of my goals should be to reacquaint Baptists with their doctrinal heritage, now largely lost. True, many people in the community do not correctly understand the meaning of the name "Baptist." Why should they? Many Baptists do not well understand the meaning either. Although not my primary aim in life, I believe there is great value in sticking with the name "Baptist," and endeavoring to introduce people to the true meaning of its long and noble history.
What formerly appeared to be a liability now looks like an asset. What a difference the perspective of a few years makes. I would urge caution. Too many decisions are made in the haste of the moment, but circumstances have a way of changing. I would argue for a longer view. There are reasons for these historical labels. Perhaps we should work harder at teaching our people who they are and why.
I'm a proud baptist who thinks it's a bad idea to have that fact in our church's name. My church is more historically baptist than many baptist churches, with the side benefit of having TONS of visitors who may not have come to the church if it had baptist in the name. Most people we get come to our church because they googled us, went online and looked at our website and came. A few blocks away from my workplace is a baptist church that is flying a rainbow flag proudly. Everyone looking into a new church who cared if we were baptist or not, would look at our statement of faith online to see if we were that kind of baptist or not.
I'm a proud baptist who thinks it's a bad idea to have that fact in our church's name. My church is more historically baptist than many baptist churches, with the side benefit of having TONS of visitors who may not have come to the church if it had baptist in the name. Most people we get come to our church because they googled us, went online and looked at our website and came. A few blocks away from my workplace is a baptist church that is flying a rainbow flag proudly. Everyone looking into a new church who cared if we were baptist or not, would look at our statement of faith online to see if we were that kind of baptist or not.
I appreciate your passion as well as your not standing where others do. However, I respectfully think there is an issue there. While you are a baptist and proud of it, you have cast doubt on whether that is really important. What does that do to the people who are part of your ministry? Do they become baptists? Sure, you have a nice doctrinal statement, but what are you going to have in the future? I think Greg makes some wise points above.
There is also a troubling theme, which I find among others that I appreciate who have given up the baptist label, and that is that somehow giving up that label makes them instantly more palatable and gets them more people. The emphasis is often on the negatives of the baptist name, but perhaps it is the positives of the baptist name that have people so offended. Perhaps it is the caricatures of the baptist name that we have not defended that cause this negativity. Again, if it is all about advertising, aren't we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water and giving up a good association and a good body of doctrine for the praise of man and popularity?
Steve, how are you "giving up...a good body of doctrine" by changing your church's name if you haven't changed your church's doctrinal statement?
Do they become baptists? Sure, you have a nice doctrinal statement, but what are you going to have in the future? I think Greg makes some wise points above.
Well, what did some baptists get "in the future" when they didn't teach their own doctrine correctly? Some very liberal Baptist churches, including the one aforementioned. Having a name in your title isn't voodoo that magically protects your church from error (and neither does removing the name make your church more mission minded). If having the title works so well, then why the amazing diversity among baptists themselves where the only thing they may agree on is baptism itself, and maybe not even that. I'm in an area with many stodgy, old, apostate Baptist churches, or dead, decisive fundamentalist ones (with glorious exceptions). So our setting plays into the decision because what is communicated by a name matters. Trust in the faithful preaching of the word of God, week in and week out to change your congregation to believe in historic baptist doctrine and it will stick. Trust in a name and it will not.
Should you name a church "Fire and Brimstone Memorial Baptist Church?" Let's say you did, and later when you thought that might have poor connotations, you decide to change it to "Grace Baptist Church." Your old timers in the congregation might say "you don't believe in hell anymore??!!??" And you would say of course not and preach not one bit differently on the doctrine of hell.
Of course I would not say that all baptist churches should do this, but it makes sense for some.
To the "other" Greg L...
Do you think it would be appropriate for the church at which you formerly served to remove the word "Regular" from its name? Do you see that as analogous in any way to the current discussion?
One thing no one has mentioned: in light of Greg's statistics of the Des Moines area, are we to believe Pat Nemmers that Saylorville didn't want to separate from FBBC and the IARBC? Who are they trying to distance themselves from by removing the name if not from the most prominent group of Baptists in the area? I know there are some reasonable answers to that, but it is also a reasonable question. There's obviously more to this than either side is letting on about.
Greg L,
I don't know. How's that?
(For those who don't know, I was a member and served at Altoona Regular Baptist Church from 1995-2003).
I wouldn't be in opposition to dropping it, if I were there. I know that practically, there were times in the history of the church where it was basically left out of things (like the literature stamps and stationery). At the same time, I wouldn't necessarily lead a charge to drop it, either. It's a question worth asking, but there were enough things that were being done in my time there that I think clarified who the church was with members of the community, including Pastor Humburg's ministry as a chaplain with the police department, that would overshadow any oddities people might sense with the name.
Again, I think that people unacquainted with things are going to figure out who you are, ultimately, by your actions. The people for whom the labels are most significant are other believers. And there, the term may be less useful to those who aren't in the GARBC, but it is still a term that can be clarified. Hey, we have to do that with words like "dispensational" or "separatist" or "fundamentalist" or "reformed" or what have you. Even those of you who drop the terms still have to end up employing them on some level, I expect (we are not Pentecostal, we are more like...).
I appreciate many things about the Regular Baptist name and legacy, even though I didn't grow up in those churches, and haven't been a part of one for a decade now. But even in those circles, few churches employed the name in their titles. So... eh. I could go either way in the church title. I think it is more useful in the Association level, but there you go.
Question. Let's say you don't want to change the name. Let's say you're starting out tabula rasa. Does that change the math on the question? It would for me.
Folks, let's keep our eye on the ball.
Pat Nemmers has rather cleverly diverted the discussion. Beware of following the false scent.
(1) The question is not how the New Testament named churches. In the New Testament, a city had only one church. The only differential necessary was to say that the church was "in Corinth" or "in Philippi." There were no churches that had abandoned New Testament polity, and consequently there was no need for New-Testament-polity churches to distinguish themselves from them. What we do see in the New Testament, however, is that acceptability of designating the differentia (which might now be "in Thessalonica" or "Baptist") as well as the genus ("church”).
(2) The question is not whether the name Baptist is some sort of talismanic protection against false doctrine. Pat says that my essay “insinuates” that it is. Bilge. I have never suggested any such thing. Faith has never suggested any such thing. Nobody that I know of has suggested any such thing. Pat is simply scoring cheap points against an argument that nobody is making.
(3) The question is not (as Pat suggests) whether Faith Baptist Bible College has changed its principles. For literally decades Faith has argued that the name Baptist is important. Then-vice-president George Houghton even published an article on this topic about twenty years ago. It appeared in an official Faith publication. As far as Faith is concerned, nothing is new here.
(4) The question is not whether a local church has the right to choose any name that it sees fit. Nobody denies that right. The question is whether a Christian institution has the right, at varying levels, to determine the boundaries of its own fellowship. Faith is not breaking all fellowship with Saylorville. Faith is, however, limiting fellowship at one level. If it did not, it would have to surrender a message to which it has been committed for decades.
(5) The question is not whether everybody understands or likes the name Baptist. Plenty of people do not. The question is whether the name is worth keeping, using, and even clarifying by people who prize what the name stands for. Pat has considered none of the genuine arguments in favor of that position. He has not even given evidence that he knows and understands them.
(5) The question is not whether Saylorville still agrees that baptistic polity is correct. He insists that no doctrinal difference exists between him and Faith. In fact, I think it does. When we appropriate doctrines, we always have to make two decisions. Our first decision is, What is the true doctrine? The second decision is, How important is this doctrine? Both of these are doctrinal decisions. A difference over the second decision is a real doctrinal difference. In other words, when we agree about what doctrines are true, but weigh those doctrines differently, we are experience a doctrinal disagreement. Willingness to be labeled for one’s adherence to a particular set of doctrines (which is what the name Baptist does) is an indicator of one’s level of commitment to the importance of those doctrines. I think that the difference between Faith and Saylorville is, at some level, really doctrinal.
(6) The question is not whether the name Baptist is attractive to those who are set in their rebellion against God (we sometimes call them the unchurched). If so, then we’ll drop the word church pretty quickly, too. For that matter, we’ll have to drop the name Christian, what with the Crusades, the New Christian Right, and all. Perhaps we could be more successful if we just called the assembly something like Community Garden Club. That’s fairly innocuous, right? You can always gain a bit more visible effectiveness if you are willing to down play some aspect of your commitment to truth. Of course, the result is that you get more and more converts to less and less Christianity.
Contrary to popular opinion, labels are important. They matter so much that, if we didn’t have them, we would need to invent them. The fact that some people counterfeit our label is no reason to stop using it. It’s simply reason to expose the counterfeiters. The fact that some people don’t like what our label stands for is no reason to stop using it. Our job is not simply to win people to the Gospel. Our job is to win them to the whole counsel of God. When it comes to church order, the whole counsel of God (as I understand it) has a proper name. That name is Baptist. (Other constructs have different names, and I celebrate the use of those names even when I disagree with the constructs that they represent). I think that the use of the name is a simple matter of truth in advertising.
-->
(1) I don't see the relevance of your point #1, unless you are arguing that all such differentia are biblically mandated. Pat is simply saying they are not biblically required.
(2) I can't speak for Pat, but I got the same impression from your article. You spent half the article describing Cedarville's "broadening [of] its appeal" which has resulted in a University that in your view is worse than a secular one. The second half of the article describes FBBC's resistance to "soften[ing] its commitment" or "broaden[ing] its appeal." This is contrasted with Saylorville's decision to remove Baptist from its name and Faith's subsequent restatement of its Baptist identity. Your closing paragraph contains the sentence, "Simply to abandon principles in favor of increased influence, however, is a devil’s bargain." I fully recognize that the title and topic of the article was the two colleges in question, not Saylorville Church. But Saylorville Church is mentioned in the article, and in which of the two camps you mentioned would readers infer you believe it should be placed? I could fault no one for understanding you to be insinuating that Saylorville is softening its commitment, broadening its appeal, and abandoning its principles in favor of increased influence.
(3) Fair enough.
(4) The question is not whether Faith has the right to determine the bounds of its own fellowship. Saylorville is not denying Faith that right.
(5a) You may not believe the question is whether or not people misunderstand the name Baptist. Saylorville Church, however, believes that is part of the question. Additionally, I'm surprised that you would question Pat's knowledge of the issue and imply his ignorance of it. Perhaps he has weighed the arguments and found them wanting.
(5b) I have already asked you to specify which biblical doctrine Saylorville has abandoned, other than their commitment to a denominational label (which I do not consider to be a biblical doctrine).
(6) Again, I was surprised at the demagoguery in this point. Are you suggesting that Saylorville Church will some day end up dropping the name "church"? Can you point me to any number of churches who have dropped the name "Baptist" who are now known as "Community Garden Club" or some such moniker? Do you see no difference between the label "Christian" and the label "Baptist"? If not, what other labels are doctrinally necessary? "Regular" (see my question to Greg Linscott above)? "Conservative"? "Dispensational"? "Regulative-Principled"?
A word from personal experience...I currently serve at a church that dropped "Baptist" from its name 20 years ago (I was not at the church at that time, as I was still sitting at the feet of the Rev. Dr. Paul Hartog, my youth pastor, and Rev. Chris Hindal, my senior pastor, at Slater Baptist Church). What has happened to this church, 20 years later? Although you would differ greatly with some of our methodology (read: music), I can assure you that the Word is being preached and the Gospel proclaimed as clearly and urgently as at any of the four other churches I have attended who have had Baptist in their church name. Each week people are called to repent and trust in Christ, the Word is corporately read and then preached, and people are urged to publicly declare their desire to follow Christ through believer's baptism.
I'm not suggesting that no church or institution has ever slouched towards Gomorrah because of a name change. I am simply suggesting this is not a necessary consequence.
One thing no one has mentioned: in light of Greg's statistics of the Des Moines area, are we to believe Pat Nemmers that Saylorville didn't want to separate from FBBC and the IARBC? Who are they trying to distance themselves from by removing the name if not from the most prominent group of Baptists in the area? I know there are some reasonable answers to that, but it is also a reasonable question. There's obviously more to this than either side is letting on about.
Greg Long,
I think Jesse's point is if the unchurched recoil at the term Baptist, at least part of what they would be recoiling from (and Saylorville wants to avoid identifying with) would be Faith and the churches of the IARBC, since they would be among the most prominent local examples of what it means to be a Baptist in Iowa.
Steve, how are you "giving up...a good body of doctrine" by changing your church's name if you haven't changed your church's doctrinal statement?
Greg, I think you have not characterized what I said accurately, or I have not spoken well (which certainly could have happened). I'm not saying that the doctrinal statement isn't good. The positives of the baptist name do stand for sound doctrine. We all know that a single change does not indicate decline. However, the "evolution" of churches clearly goes from more to less conservative over time in most cases. Can we blame it on one change? No, it is a series of changes over time. Because we see one change, those of us who have been around for a while associate this with a series of changes we see or have seen in other places. Just having a doctrinal statement doesn't mean it is followed. If we move from identification with an association with what has historically been a sound fellowship, only if it is "in name only", don't you see possibilities for more? After all, now there is real potential for a wedge to be put between Saylorville and Faith and the state association, even if it is not manifested right away? Not that I'm hoping for that, but these conflicts can tend to take on a life of their own once they start.
I think it does, to some degree.
I would also observe that this becomes a far less difficult decision to arrive at if you have been saturated in the environment of Bob Jones, compared to an environment like Faith and the GARBC. Baptist identity still means something to some BoJos, but there is more emphasis on the networks, prominent leaders and personal reputations. The environment of the GARBC is different. You have had (in the past) mission agencies, schools, churches, a publishing house, and various mercy ministries (Shepherds, Baptist Childrens Home, Baptists for Life...), not to mention the state associations, camps, and other things (the Grand Rapids, Michigan area has or had Michigan Christian Home, a retirement facility, for example). Now, the environment has been changing for quite some time, but (recent) historically, there has been a lot tied up in the name "Baptist" for that constituency.
"Baptist" has as much to do for that group, I would say, with identifying, not only with a set of doctrines and beliefs, but with others you fellowship and identify with. I think that it also presented problems- differences like we can see even in this situation have been endured because of the associational ties. That was certainly true in the past- consider how people outside the GARBC could not understand why things at Cedarville were tolerated as long as they were- it was that sense of loyalty. When I was in Grand Rapids in the mid 1990s, Grand Rapids Baptist College and Wealthy Park Baptist (where I attended church) had been diverging from one another positionally for some time, but Wealthy's church services were still broadcast every week on WCSG, the campus radio station. Loyalty and tradition went far (GRBC started, after all, in the basement of Wealthy Street Baptist Church, and there were buildings named after Fuller and Van Osdel, two of Wealthy's prominent pastors of the past).
At this point, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. I'm just trying to help you and others see why some consider this a big deal- not everyone who wants Baptist has probably thought it through like Kevin has (admirably) articulated.
"Baptist" has as much to do for that group, I would say, with identifying, not only with a set of doctrines and beliefs, but with others you fellowship and identify with.
Is that a good thing? Is that what John the Baptist would have wanted? (sorry cheap shot there). But seriously I'm in the "good ideas beat institutional ideas" camp. Over time it's ideas that win over generations. It's true that in my childhood I had Ian Paisley preaching as a Presbyterian and it meant no shadow of fellowship was denied him. I had Presbyterians as history faculty.
If you want to look two and three generations hence and influence today's generation, it has to be about ideas. This is why I appreciate so much Dr. Bauder's line of questioning in other places of SI. Ideas win. That's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. So for baptists to win, baptist ideas have to win.
I agree with you- I'm just observing that it is a factor in the matter.
Interestingly, Baptists for Life just changed their name to Life Matters. Over the years, their name Baptist for Life had caused much confusion to what they even do. On several occasions, people had written them off because instead of viewing them as an organization that promotes the Biblical pro-life message through gospel and pro-life ministries, they thought Baptists for Life were a group that was committed to holding people to their commitment to "be Baptists forever."
First some personal info. I grew up in a IARBC church in southwest IA. Both of my parents attended Omaha Baptist Bible College, and I went to FBBC for two years. I attended Saylorville for those two years. I then returned to my home church and started farming. Served on the board there until, because of financial reasons related to farming, I took a job in north central Iowa, where I now attend a IARBC church and serve on the church board.
My family has a unique and interesting Godly heritage which is a long story, but I was raised in a large extended family with relatives who were all believers but attended a variety of churches, Plymouth Brethern, IFCA Bible Churches and GARBC churches. My wife's family comes from a Reformed background, a church which is now PCA.
So, while I have been and continue to be a Baptist, I do not believe that the term Baptist in our culture is a useful or helpful descriptor. I was recently asked by my boss, a moral man, but an unbeliever, what my churches association was with Westboro Baptist? He happens to attend a Reformed Church associated with the United Church of Christ, very liberal with a female "pastor". Trying to explain to him that their were various forms of Baptist, just as there are three different sects of Reformed churches in this community helped, but in the end, I was told that if I was anything like that "nutcase" Fred Phelps, he didn't like it. And neither do I.
I can understand dropping the name Baptist, and if offered the opportunity to do so, would vote to do so.
Let me illustrate why.
One of my dad's brother-in-laws was an IFCA pastor for many years in Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, and did pulpit supply while working on the staff at Calvary Bible College in Kansas. After he retired from Calvary, he did interim pastoral ministry in Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas and Illinois.
I want to focus on one of those churches in northern Illinois. This IFCA pastor was the interim pastor at a Catholic Church.
(How do you put a pregnant pause in writing this?)
The first time I heard that he was doing another interim pastorate at a Catholic Church, I was dumbfounded, flabbergast, stupefied, almost speechless.
Here are the facts, with a link. Zion Christian Catholic Church was founded in Northern Illinois before 1900. It was started as planned community with the church at the center. He bought a large tract of land and designed it for a community of people who were associated with the church.
You can read, I'm not going to recount the history, you can read it for yourself. Needless to say, for almost a hundred years they were identified as a Christian Catholic church.
It is my understanding that while my uncle was serving there as interim pastor, the church voted to remove Catholic from their name.
Good move in my opinion. The term Catholic has too many connotations in our culture today, which are at odds with Biblical Christianity.
http://www.ccczion.org/who-we-are/history/
I have come to the conclusion that the name Baptist has becomes similarly stained and abused like the term Catholic. To those who are outside the faith, Baptist is what Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Fred Phelps(Westboro Baptist) are about. To those who claim the name of Christ often the term Baptist is synonymous with KJV'ers, paper dresses, various other legalistic sub cultures of "faith plus lifestyle".
Do I think Saylorville did the right thing? I can't be the judge. I do understand it though. But I also support the right of FBBC to state their position. It may in the end be the wrong position, I can't judge that for certain either. But, I support their right to require their students and faculty to attend a church with Baptist in its name, because until they change their name, they are still a Baptist institution.
Now, if I were in total control of things, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches would change their name to General Association of Fundamental Bible Churches, and the Iowa Association of Fundamental Bible Churches. And Faith would become Faith Bible College. Or Faith Fundamental Bible College.
To those who are outside the faith, Baptist is what Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Fred Phelps(Westboro Baptist) are about.
Yeah, that's it, to the lost, Fred Phelps and Bill Clinton - one and the same, move in lockstep...
If lost people don't get differences in kind like this, no amount of name changes or long explanatories will ever get through to them. But, quite frankly, I don't think lost people are as ignorant as some suppose.
Now, if I were in total control of things, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches would change their name to General Association of Fundamental Bible Churches, and the Iowa Association of Fundamental Bible Churches. And Faith would become Faith Bible College. Or Faith Fundamental Bible College.
Tom, the term "Fundamental" is far more negatively charged than Baptist.
I threw that in there as bait sir. And you took the bait.
Do you know what the difference between a Baptist and a Regular Baptist is?
One is very uncomfortable!
Regular in front of Baptist is one of the most ridiculous choices of name I have ever encountered in my life.
To anyone not attending a Regular Baptist Church and about 90 percent of those who do, they have absolutely no idea what it means. None. I have twice in my life sat in a service with the national representative of the GARBC and listed to the explanation of what Regular baptist means and heard people say afterward, "I never knew that, and I've been a member here for (fill in the blank) years.
I am not suggesting that labels are bad. And I don't necessarily believe that labels should be avoided. But, pick one that makes a useful and necessary point.
I would contend that Baptist no longer does that.
On the other hand, I can describe myself to a believer from a reformed or evangelical church as a Biblical fundamentalist, and while they may not agree with me, they do understand what the fundamentals are and appreciate them.
I think it is somewhat disengenuous to claim to be a Baptist church but not wear the label. It isn't an unpardonable sin, or maybe not even a sin at all, but I think there should be some truth in advertising applied. The fact that some claim to be Baptists who don't follow Baptist doctrine doesn't matter to me. They aren't my problem.
But that's all, I'll bow out now. Not really an issue I am too concerned about, but I do applaud FBBC for their convictions and decision.
This was a decision made by a local church. They voted on it. They decided to do it. For that congregation, they felt it was the best thing to do. Is this indictative of some dark, repressed seed of compromise? I doubt it.
What is in a name? For Saylorville, it was too much liability to stomach any longer. This is the beauty of a church being independent, not beholden to a larger denomination. They can do what they please.
Their letter was gracious and I understand their reasons. Some do not accept them. Let's take what they have to say on board, learn what we can from their situation, and be ready to tackle this issue if it ever comes up in our own churches. Again, I am so thankful individual churches can make their own decisions on this matter.
While it is important to discuss issues like this, the last thing Fundamentalism needs is a "Baptist" word hunt amongst the various churches and ministries. When I was in college, I agreed to do an internship at a Bible Church in NJ after already having completed one in a Baptist Church in SC. When I was at the Bible Church in NJ, friends called me and wondered if I might be drifting away from the Lord because I was in a church that did not have the word "Baptist" in their name. I learned more Baptist theology and Baptist Church polity and Church life than I ever learned in the Baptist Church in SC.
This church was part of a fundamentalist fellowship that had begun as Methodist but had moved to Baptist theology over the years. Over the past 20 years, I have served in various positions of leadership of this fellowship and have appreciated them in so many ways. Over the years, I have gotten sick over the dumb statements like - "We're not just Baptistic, we're Baptists." Last year, we gave all of our Pastors in our fellowship a copy of Dr. Bauder's new book on Baptist distinctives. I also just recently completed an Adult Bible Study at our church based on this wonderful book.
The funny thing is that most Baptists I know can't stand Faith. They think the GARBC is apostate. They think that Faith has Calvinism and there are several Baptist schools out there that have a spirit of animosity towards any school, church, or individual that would even suggest there could be a Calvinist out there that might be right with God. They are even denouncing Spurgeon.
So, please be careful, a bunch angry "Baptists" fighting over the word has never helped Fundamentalism that I can see in my lifetime.
Sometimes baptists can't agree on what a Baptist is. Distinctives aside, they often disagree stronly with each other on whether Baptists can have multiple elders, can be Calvinists, or can practice close, closed, or open communion.
...to be less specific?
Well, again, I can see it in some cases. But, I would say it tends to be an exception.
Whatever the case, in the case in question, Faith and the churches of the IARBC would be, if not the predominate local representative of what it means to be a Baptist, certainly a primary example of such. A church has their right to do whatever they want. But it also stands to reason that the decision will have repercussions with those they seek to distance themselves from.
Greg Long,
I think Jesse's point is if the unchurched recoil at the term Baptist, at least part of what they would be recoiling from (and Saylorville wants to avoid identifying with) would be Faith and the churches of the IARBC, since they would be among the most prominent local examples of what it means to be a Baptist in Iowa.
I think it is somewhat disingenuous to claim to be a Baptist church but not wear the label.
Assuming that being Baptist is about what we believe, why would it being disingenuous to claim to believe something you actually believe?
The fact that some claim to be Baptists who don't follow Baptist doctrine doesn't matter to me. They aren't my problem.
I think the point is that these non-Baptist (perhaps even non-Christian) Baptists are (at least in some places) a problem for the people we are trying to reach. So if (and if is the question) a label is the stumblingblock, not to the already reached but to the unreached, why shouldn't removing it at least be considered?
It is true that labels mean things. But they only help when people who share definitions. If by "Baptist" someone means Fred Phelps or Hammond, then that is not particularly meaningful when I use the term.
In some cases (not all and maybe not this one, so I am not specifically referring to anyone here), some churches may tend to show a club mentality, in which we are far more concerned about the people on the inside than the people on the outside. I tend to think that points towards the idea that we have lost sight of the mission. We are focused on keeping people happy who should know better and be more mature. Clubs exist for people on the inside. Churches exist for both people in the inside and the outside. Even worse, in some cases, people are driven by those "inside" but outside their local church: "What will so-and-so say about us if we do this or that?" I suggest that's both helpful and dangerous.
I am not persuaded that removing "Baptist" is pandering to unbelievers in any compromising sense. Nor am I persuaded that it is a slip on the slope towards removing "church" or "Christian." But even if it cedes the principle, it doesn't condone the outcome.
I say all this as a firmly committed Baptist who has not led our church to drop the name, and who has talked to some people who won't even entertain the idea of coming because we are Baptist.
I understand some of the reasoning on both sides, but I'm still left confused about the reasons for separation. I thought that Scripture defined separation as necessary only when someone was involved in unrepentant immorality or teaching false doctrine.
So- what false doctrine or immoral practices does Saylorville now espouse that requires the students/employees of Faith to leave their church and quit their jobs?
If removing the name 'Baptist' is one of the symptoms of a definite departure from sound doctrine and practice, then the leadership at Faith needs to clarify these areas.
But if the word 'Baptist' on the sign is being proposed as a defining factor for fellowship... I don't even know what to say about that, other than it's ludicrous.
I don't think the label of Baptist should be removed simply to pander to unbelievers. The church as a local gathering is not primarily for the meeting together of unbelievers with believers.
But if since word 'Baptist' is not, in and of itself, Scripturally necessary for salvation or growth in grace, then the argument is simply one of words and names and not about fidelity to Scripture and therefore a pointless division amongst brethren.
I would guess that in times past Saylorville benefited from their relationship to FBBC and in recent years FBBC has benefited from it's relationship to Saylorville Church. I applaud Saylorville's move as they move toward the un-churched and de-churched taking down the barriers that exist in our society today. Having made this move many years ago and seeing the opportunity to have a low threshold on the doorway to our church and seeing lives changed that would not have made the step into many baptist churches. In our area it is worth it and I would venture to guess for Saylorville Church the short term pain will be worth it for the eternal benefit. Jude 20-25.
I'm not saying that the school has no right to limit chosen churches- sure they do. But they don't have a "right" to do it stupidly.
If I was already a member at Saylorville and a student or on faculty at FBBC, I hope I'd have the guts to stick with my church family and accept the consequences.
I understand some of the reasoning on both sides, but I'm still left confused about the reasons for separation. I thought that Scripture defined separation as necessary only when someone was involved in unrepentant immorality or teaching false doctrine.
So- what false doctrine or immoral practices does Saylorville now espouse that requires the students/employees of Faith to leave their church and quit their jobs?
If removing the name 'Baptist' is one of the symptoms of a definite departure from sound doctrine and practice, then the leadership at Faith needs to clarify these areas.
But if the word 'Baptist' on the sign is being proposed as a defining factor for fellowship... I don't even know what to say about that, other than it's ludicrous.
I don't think the label of Baptist should be removed simply to pander to unbelievers. The church as a local gathering is not primarily for the meeting together of unbelievers with believers.
But if since word 'Baptist' is not, in and of itself, Scripturally necessary for salvation or growth in grace, then the argument is simply one of words and names and not about fidelity to Scripture and therefore a pointless division amongst brethren.
Susan,
All of your points could be said of a faculty member who became part of an EFCA church. Such an individual could (at least personally) hold to all the same principles of doctrine that a Baptist would. Would it be equally as ludicrous for Faith to limit their partnership with such an individual, in your mind? Would this, too, be a "pointless division among brethren?" If not, what would be the difference, in your mind?
But Greg, even the GARBC doesn't require naming to be "bapitst."
Article IV. 1. (b)
Shall have had a Recognition Council of Regular Baptist pastors and messengers for the purpose of examining the Constitution and Bylaws of the church to determine if it is a properly constituted and functioning Baptist church.
The EFCA church probably would not meet the GARBC constitutional requirement.
But Greg, even the GARBC doesn't require naming to be "bapitst."
Article IV. 1. (b)
Shall have had a Recognition Council of Regular Baptist pastors and messengers for the purpose of examining the Constitution and Bylaws of the church to determine if it is a properly constituted and functioning Baptist church.
The EFCA church probably would not meet the GARBC constitutional requirement.
Dan, I was discussing that line with wbarkema in one of the other related threads (here).
As far as your second point, I understand what you are saying, but that wasn't what Susan was arguing (as I understood it). She was arguing against "pointless divisions between brethren." I was just observing that, at least in theory, one could line up perfectly with a Baptist as far as personal beliefs and convictions and be part of an EFCA church. Is that a "pointless division" in her mind, and how does that compare to what she has concluded is a "pointless division" in this case?
BTW- I would say, that whichever side you come out on this matter, whatever else it is, it is certainly not "pointless." There is a point of difference. Susan may not consider the point worthy of the attention it is receiving, but it is not "pointless."
Bro. Linscott- That's why I asked someone to explain how Saylorville has departed from sound doctrine and practice, other than by wanting to drop a word from their name.
If simply dropping the word Baptist is the point of contention, then that's ludicrous. But if Saylorville has changed their doctrine or application of doctrine or ministry methodology in such a way that Faith can't in good conscience allow their employees to attend, then they need to be clear in what areas Saylorville has compromised the faith, and how they believe this endangers their students and faculty.
I don't know anything about EFCA, and I don't have time to research them. But if I understand your point, I would agree that we may appear to agree with a group 'on paper', but in practice we are from different theological worlds. Is that the problem with Faith and Saylorville?
Perhaps in all these threads someone addressed this question and I missed it.
But if I understand your point, I would agree that we may appear to agree with a group 'on paper', but in practice we are from different theological worlds. Is that the problem with Faith and Saylorville?
Perhaps in all these threads someone addressed this question and I missed it.
Susan, what you are asking here has been an unanswered question in all the threads on this topic. It has been assumed that this must be true, but I don't think you have missed it, because none of us have seen it definitively answered.
EFCA is the Evangelical Free Church in America (or was- they might just use the letters now. I forget). That is the church that Chuck Swindoll was a part of for quite some time (may still be, for all I know), and has Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (where Don Carson teaches). There are a lot of things they purposefully leave ambiguous and up to the individual, like eschatology, for example.
But if Saylorville has changed their doctrine or application of doctrine or ministry methodology in such a way that Faith can't in good conscience allow their employees to attend, then they need to be clear in what areas Saylorville has compromised the faith, and how they believe this endangers their students and faculty.
I would agree more needs to be said. At the same time, using the Baptist name is a ministry method of sorts. Again, perhaps not worthy of the level of attention it is receiving for some of you, but if that is the case, then maybe SC does need to make a clean break because FBBC has elevated a point beyond reasonable limits (that's not my conclusion, BTW).
We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.
Comment: They are chiliasts: " premillennial return ". Doctrinal statement has essence of imminence: "at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope"
And it is an association of churches much like the GARBC or MBA.
DCB2- the using the label is a matter of practice, and is one of the practices on which the two parties would differ on. Granted, it is not the only difference, and there is more that needs to be said (but for many reasons, isn't being said), but there continue to be matters and approaches that would make the distinctions clear in how they function every day. I provided the example videos earlier. As some have insinuated, music is a very visible and most prominent difference, but there would be other ones, from what I understand, though I don't have enough familiarity to comment on those.
In the end, they may not be inherent to the gospel in the estimation of many of you. I would argue, though, that they have presented challenges in a working relationship for quite some time. If, taking the one issue that has been clearly communicated on, Faith as an organization is teaching methods to their students that would include, say, when one plants a church it should clearly identify itself as a "Baptist" congregation (which would be, by the way, a principle you would get in a class at Faith), a church like SC clearly detracts from and contradicts that principle.
I believe a lot of good points have been made on both sides of this discussion. It is true that dropping the name Baptist does not necessarily indicate a change of doctrine. As stated above, many churches embrace Baptist doctrine that do not use the name.
But it is also true that dropping the name Baptist makes a statement. The assumed purpose is to make a statement to the community that the church does not identify with the negative concepts many have of the Baptist label. Well and good. But dropping the name makes a statement to both members and community that there is something unsavory about the name Baptist, or at least communicates that enough people think so that the label needs to be jettisoned.
But this comes at a price. The cost will be in losing identification with the historic lineage of Baptists. Even though doctrine has not changed, identification has, and now neither church members nor community will identify the church with Baptist history. That may not be important to some, or at least not important enough to risk creating a barrier in the community. To others, this is important. Its hard to teach your people the reasons why they are Baptists, and the value in seeing themselves as belonging to the noble Baptist heritage if the church no longer calls itself Baptist. It seems to me that something valuable is forfeited by this move. When I considered a similar change twenty-five years ago, I came to the conclusion that the cost was too great. I didn't want our people to lose their connection to their Baptist heritage.
Apparently Faith believes the use of the Baptist name is worthy of a serious level of attention if they are willing to make a break over it. It is interesting that the Baptist name could be considered a ministry method of sorts. I agree that Baptist tradition and history is precious, but are we unable to hold to an admirable tradition without the name over the door? Especially if the name over the door doesn't hold the same distinctions that it once did?
There are labels that are useful and accurate, but some that are actually harmful. For instance, the use of "all natural" to indicate that a food is minimally processed and contains natural ingredients (as opposed to man-made). But because there are no actual guidelines that companies have to follow to label their products as "all natural", the term is essentially meaningless. It is often used to dupe people into thinking they are buying a healthy product. Lots of things are "all natural", and some of it gets spread around the yard every spring to make the garden grow.
Has "Baptist" reached that level yet? If not, its meaning certainly seems to be on its way to vain and hollow. It's a forgone conclusion that any good thing that comes down the pike, Satan will find a way to diminish and besmirch and spoil it. Some things are worth fighting for, but we need to be careful about how and why we 'contend for the faith'.
From what I've seen about the lack of clear reasoning here, is that what we are left with, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is the implication that Faith believes the name change at Saylorville is indicative of a more serious but not as 'obvious' compromise. The problem is, at some level, this is 'unspoken gossip'- a skill that Baptists have definitely mastered. Without clarity, there is nothing left but speculation. These kinds of machinations make my knees itch.
Susan,
I would observe that what you attribute to a "lack of clear reasoning" in the discussions here is because we have had no official FBBC representation. I have talked to some Faith people about these matters in the past, and was in the environment a decade ago, but I cannot speak for the president or the board. JVDM is back in the environment, Greg Long is a "faculty kid," and Paul Scharf is a former student (as is Bauder, for that matter), so there are varying degrees to which we can lend our perpsectives. But none of us, in the end, can communicate what the official position of the school is. They've done that with their statement. What is left unsaid is because it is just that- currently unsaid. It would be better, in some ways, if some things were said- but I would say that some of those issues you would have far less unanimity on that you do with the "Baptist" name among the constituency, and even the board itself.
The comment about a lack of clear reasoning is referring to what has been left 'unsaid', not what has been said in this thread. I recognize that the FBBC doesn't have a rep here to answer questions, and that we are just tossing around ideas based on what little we know.
Greg (Long),
So you're a fellow Ballard Bomber? I had no idea! Back in the early 1970s I spent many a happy hour in the gymnasium of the elementary school in Slater.
I can't help thinking that we are talking past one another at several points. You evidently think that I misunderstood (or even willfully misrepresented?) some of what Pat said. By the same token, I think you have misunderstood or misappropriated some of what I said, though I don't think you would misrepresent it. Rather than try to hash through this point by point, let me back up and try an entirely different approach.
While Charlie will surely cringe under the deficiencies of a gross oversimplification that I am about to make, I would like to suggest that approaches to language can be divided into at least three classes.
(1) Words mean other words. This is the approach of structuralism, and it readily decays into deconstruction.
(2) Words mean things. Besides being the approach of Rush Limbaugh, this is also (very roughly) the approach of nominalism. The word is merely a convenient label. When it becomes inconvenient, it can be easily replaced, discarded, or invested with some alternative meaning. Something like this is happening right now in the debate over "gay marriage," which isn't really either.
(3) Words mean ideas. This is approximately the approach of realism. Words point to something transcendent. Language is sermonic. While meanings can and do alter, meaning is nevertheless covenantal in nature, and, consequently, relatively stable. Meanings cannot simply be altered at will.
As it happens, I subscribe to theory (3). This definitely has an effect upon the way I view labels. Labels point, not to things (let alone to other words), but to ideas. The idea can be used to judge any appropriation of the label. If your can is labeled "corn," and you discover green beans when you open it, you don't just say, "Oh, this is another kind of corn." You judge the can to have been mislabeled.
The label Baptist stands for an idea. That ideas includes at least six components.
- The absolute authority of the New Testament in all church faith and order.
- Believer immersion.
- Pure church membership.
- Individual Christian responsibility.
- Congregational polity.
- Separation of church and state.
Because the idea judges every appropriation of the label, we are in a position to say that people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Fred Phelps really have no right to claim the to be Baptists. If somebody wishes to associate us with them, then we ought to point out that such individuals are guilty of dishonesty (at minimum) in applying this label to themselves. Then we ought to explain what a Baptist is.
Every Baptist should be able to do this. Training in this point ought to be a deliberate aspect of our catechesis. The label may not be found in Scripture, but the idea is (or at least we Baptists believe that it is). Not only is it found in Scripture, it is prominently featured there and it is vital to the bene esse, and perhaps even in some senses to the esse, of the church.
Since it is a very important matter, a church that orders itself according to the idea ought to be willing to announce its order publicly. I suppose that there are multiple ways of doing this. One way would be to feature the above list prominently on the church sign and other public documents. Most churches, however, have found it a bit cumbersome to call themselves the First [or whatever] New-Testament-Authority-Believer-Immersion-Pure-Church-Membership-Individual-Christian-Responsibility-Congregational-Polity-Separation-of-Church-and-State Church. They have found it much more useful to use the label that reflects the idea. That label is Baptist.
I would have no objection at all to a church dropping the name Baptist in favor of another name that was equally or more descriptive of its distinctives. Unfortunately, however, such a name does not exist. No one has yet coined an alternative, and if anybody did, it would not be likely to catch on. So we are stuck with the name Baptist.
I have nowhere suggested that if a church abandons the name Baptist, then it will also abandon the names Christian or Church. What I have argued is that all of the reasons for not claiming the name Baptist also apply to other labels like Christian and Church. If the argument for dropping the name is persuasive in the one instance, then it ought to be equally persuasive in the other instances, or, indeed, in any instance whatever in which someone somewhere finds a label to be either offensive or meaningless.
Of course I do not think that Saylorville is likely to stop calling itself a church (though many of the emergents have--we may not have a "Community Garden Club," but we do have a "Solomon's Porch?"). But why not? Whatever reasons Saylorville can offer for retaining the name Church also apply to retaining the name Baptist. It is simply a matter of calling things by their right names.
As far as I know, Saylorville still affirms all of the Baptist distinctives. At that level, we agree. The difference between us is this. I believe that those distinctives are so important that we ought to be known publicly for our adherence to them, and that the best way of announcing our commitment to these distinctives is to use the one label that denotes them. Since it has now rejected the label, I believe that it is fair to infer that Saylorville values the distinctives themselves differently than I do. Furthermore, that difference in valuation is a doctrinal difference.
Speaking of labels, here is the principal definition of demagogue: "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power," (definition supplied by Merriam-Webster). I certainly hope that this definition does not apply to anything that I've said in this discussion.
By the way, I was number 83 on the football team. I played defensive end. Go, red and white.
Kevin
I have on more than a few occasions, had the door slammed in my face when I stated I was from such and such Baptist church. But there was no way to tell whether it was because I said "Baptist" or because I said "church". Many are turned off by the name "Christian" and almost always site the RCC Crusades as evidence that Christians are evil. Yet I refuse to stop calling myself a Christian.
I have found that most of the doors I have knocked that abruptly ended any potential dialogue about the Bible already had their minds made up before I stepped on their porch. There have been many instances where there was a sense of hostility when the name Baptist was mentioned, and once I explained that you do not have to be a Baptist to go to heaven, and that you can be just as much a lost Baptist as a lost Catholic or Jehovah's Witness, their defenses weren't so taut.
In 1 Cor 1:11, Paul labeled a church as the house of Chloe. It was not just the church in Corinth, or the church by the riverside, it specifically identified the believers of a particular group. When a believer entered that town, they knew the difference between the doctrines of the house of Chloe, and the church of Webelieveitall on 1st Street.
I believe that changing your name can be seen as even more sinister than maintaining the Baptist name. It gives the appearance that you have something to hide once it is discovered that you believe the same things as a fundamental Baptist church. Seventh Adventists did this with their "Amazing Facts" ministry and more people were turned off by the fact that they tried to hide it then if they had just admitted their doctrinal distinctions were in line with the 7DAC.
Furthermore, I don't see the logic in the exchange of reputations. We don't want the Baptist label because of a few bad apples, but we would rather have the reputation of all the other emerging churches, charismatic denominations and other pseudo Christian cults that appear non-denominational? There is also just as much documented abuse within the non-denominational churches as there have been within the Baptist churches.
Finally, anyone who has studied the "trail of blood" of the Baptist church knows that fundamentalists have been labeled no matter what they have chosen to name their church. Changing the name of your church will not prevent those whom you fear will erroneously categorize your church from calling you a Donatist, Bogomile, Paulican, Montanist, et al, regardless of what name you give your church. We live in a society that thrives on labels whether it's the label of a church, a food category or an attitude defined by the DSM, it's inescapable. So why change a label that clearly identifies what my beliefs are to satisfy the criticisms of those who will eventually find another label for me anyway?
I'd love to say everything I want to say - but will not yet because of another private conversation I need to have first. I think I can say something very quickly to bring light at least to one part of the discussion. Some here might ask, "OK if the church in question says it is historically 'Baptist' why would they not put the label on their church name?" Let me draw a comparison.
There are many churches today that are historically and in practice a fundamentalist church. However many of those churches will not publicly call themselves a fundamentalist church because often very strong or even hyper-fundamentalist churches have given the good name of fundamentalism enough of a black eye that it actually impacts ministry (negatively) on the local level.
in the same manner
There is at least one Baptist church in Iowa that is historically and in practice a baptist church. However apparently they are no longer calling themselves "Baptist" (at least in the title of the church) because perhaps in Iowa and no doubt in other parts of the Mid-West there are very strong or even hyper baptist churches that have given the good name of Baptist enough of a black eye that it actually impacts ministry (negatively) on the local level.
So if you would not separate a fundamental church that does not use that name to describe itself even thought it is in fact historically fundamental......why would you separate yourself from a baptist church that continues to be a baptist church but simply does not use the label?
My guess is some here are just struggling with why you would do this......especially when the majority would admit that the term "Baptist" while historically significant simply does not say everything today that it once meant. A Baptist church can be everything from Hyper-Fundy to the extreme right to a Liberal/Neo-Marxist liberation theology to the left and everything (and I mean everything) in between.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Full disclosure time: FBBC grad. Went to Saylorville my freshman year for all the wonderful reasons a person chooses their college church: My roommate was going there. She was planning to attend Saylorville because family friends from their neck of the woods (and the same general neighborhood of my eventual in-laws) had settled in at Saylorville. So a lot of deep thought went into the decision. Ended up at Ankeny Baptist for the remainder of my time in Iowa.
In the past decade we have unhappily found ourselves seeking out a new fellowship several times. It is well nigh impossible to find a doctrinal statement with any substance from churches which do not have a "denominational tag". We ended up in what should have been a baptistic leaning "nondenominational" church plant, only to realize the pastor took Presbyterian style polity as a defining issue. Which is certainly his prerogative but it was masked somewhat by the statement of faith. We had told the pastor we would be faithful attenders (and givers) but could never join. We were initially welcomed and allowed to serve but eventually were basically told to knuckle under for the sake of church unity. We left, feeling like habitual church hoppers.
We are in Lutheran territory here - ELCA, WELS, Mo Synod and a couple of smaller bodies plus a few breakaway congregations (over various issues) with no formal ties to any body. There is no wholesale movement to drop the Lutheran name. I am right down the road from a Lutheran university, and got my teaching credential from a Catholic university. Historically, it would seem those two groups have had their share of issues and reasons to want to move away from their names, but they don't.
Just my observations from these deep, dark, woods
You want yellow corn. Your favorite brand used to be called "Yellow Corn." Now the canning company, which only cans yellow corn, has chosen to remove "Yellow" and simply call their product "Corn."
Then you write papers supporting a boycott of this company's corn because words mean things and if they are going to change the name, maybe the corn won't really be quite as yellow.
- The absolute authority of the New Testament in all church faith and order.
- Believer immersion.
- Pure church membership.
- Individual Christian responsibility.
- Congregational polity.
- Separation of church and state.
...
Every Baptist should be able to do this.
If you asked a bunch of unchurched people, "Tell me what 'Baptist' means." You would not get anything on that list, except #2 sometimes.
Greg (Long),
So you're a fellow Ballard Bomber? I had no idea! Back in the early 1970s I spent many a happy hour in the gymnasium of the elementary school in Slater.
I can't help thinking that we are talking past one another at several points. You evidently think that I misunderstood (or even willfully misrepresented?) some of what Pat said. By the same token, I think you have misunderstood or misappropriated some of what I said, though I don't think you would misrepresent it. Rather than try to hash through this point by point, let me back up and try an entirely different approach.
While Charlie will surely cringe under the deficiencies of a gross oversimplification that I am about to make, I would like to suggest that approaches to language can be divided into at least three classes.
(1) Words mean other words. This is the approach of structuralism, and it readily decays into deconstruction.
(2) Words mean things. Besides being the approach of Rush Limbaugh, this is also (very roughly) the approach of nominalism. The word is merely a convenient label. When it becomes inconvenient, it can be easily replaced, discarded, or invested with some alternative meaning. Something like this is happening right now in the debate over "gay marriage," which isn't really either.
(3) Words mean ideas. This is approximately the approach of realism. Words point to something transcendent. Language is sermonic. While meanings can and do alter, meaning is nevertheless covenantal in nature, and, consequently, relatively stable. Meanings cannot simply be altered at will.
As it happens, I subscribe to theory (3). This definitely has an effect upon the way I view labels. Labels point, not to things (let alone to other words), but to ideas. The idea can be used to judge any appropriation of the label. If your can is labeled "corn," and you discover green beans when you open it, you don't just say, "Oh, this is another kind of corn." You judge the can to have been mislabeled.
The label Baptist stands for an idea. That ideas includes at least six components.
- The absolute authority of the New Testament in all church faith and order.
- Believer immersion.
- Pure church membership.
- Individual Christian responsibility.
- Congregational polity.
- Separation of church and state.
Because the idea judges every appropriation of the label, we are in a position to say that people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Fred Phelps really have no right to claim the to be Baptists. If somebody wishes to associate us with them, then we ought to point out that such individuals are guilty of dishonesty (at minimum) in applying this label to themselves. Then we ought to explain what a Baptist is.
Every Baptist should be able to do this. Training in this point ought to be a deliberate aspect of our catechesis. The label may not be found in Scripture, but the idea is (or at least we Baptists believe that it is). Not only is it found in Scripture, it is prominently featured there and it is vital to the bene esse, and perhaps even in some senses to the esse, of the church.
Since it is a very important matter, a church that orders itself according to the idea ought to be willing to announce its order publicly. I suppose that there are multiple ways of doing this. One way would be to feature the above list prominently on the church sign and other public documents. Most churches, however, have found it a bit cumbersome to call themselves the First [or whatever] New-Testament-Authority-Believer-Immersion-Pure-Church-Membership-Individual-Christian-Responsibility-Congregational-Polity-Separation-of-Church-and-State Church. They have found it much more useful to use the label that reflects the idea. That label is Baptist.
I would have no objection at all to a church dropping the name Baptist in favor of another name that was equally or more descriptive of its distinctives. Unfortunately, however, such a name does not exist. No one has yet coined an alternative, and if anybody did, it would not be likely to catch on. So we are stuck with the name Baptist.
I have nowhere suggested that if a church abandons the name Baptist, then it will also abandon the names Christian or Church. What I have argued is that all of the reasons for not claiming the name Baptist also apply to other labels like Christian and Church. If the argument for dropping the name is persuasive in the one instance, then it ought to be equally persuasive in the other instances, or, indeed, in any instance whatever in which someone somewhere finds a label to be either offensive or meaningless.
Of course I do not think that Saylorville is likely to stop calling itself a church (though many of the emergents have--we may not have a "Community Garden Club," but we do have a "Solomon's Porch?"). But why not? Whatever reasons Saylorville can offer for retaining the name Church also apply to retaining the name Baptist. It is simply a matter of calling things by their right names.
As far as I know, Saylorville still affirms all of the Baptist distinctives. At that level, we agree. The difference between us is this. I believe that those distinctives are so important that we ought to be known publicly for our adherence to them, and that the best way of announcing our commitment to these distinctives is to use the one label that denotes them. Since it has now rejected the label, I believe that it is fair to infer that Saylorville values the distinctives themselves differently than I do. Furthermore, that difference in valuation is a doctrinal difference.
Speaking of labels, here is the principal definition of demagogue: "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power," (definition supplied by Merriam-Webster). I certainly hope that this definition does not apply to anything that I've said in this discussion.
By the way, I was number 83 on the football team. I played defensive end. Go, red and white.
Kevin
When we moved to Iowa in 1986 from Ohio for my dad to take a position at FBBC, we lived in Huxley for two years before moving to Ankeny. We attended Slater Baptist Church all throughout my upper elementary and teenage years. I was not a Ballard Bomber per se, as I attended Grandview Park Baptist School, but I attended several Ballard athletic events and had several close youth group friends who attended the school. I know the Slater Elementary gymnasium to which you refer and can picture it in my mind because Paul Hartog took the youth group there on several occasions for open gym nights. Unfortunately (I hope you are sitting down for this), that elementary school has been razed to make way for a bank. As far as I have seen, there is not even any kind of historical marker commemorating the spot where the mind of the young Kevin Bauder began to be shaped in his formative years. But perhaps they have retired your football jersey number?
Thank you for your follow up post and for your patient explanation of your position. It was a helpful clarification. And I apologize for the "demagoguery" remark. (I could say that I was choosing to define the word differently than the dictionary, but I don't think that explanation would suffice with you. )
I am a Baptist through and through. In my younger days I was saved under the preaching and pastoral ministry of Dr. Ernest Pickering at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio. As I mentioned, as a teen I was mentored and taught by Pastors Hartog and Hindal at Slater Baptist Church. I was the youth pastor under Dr. John Hartog II as we helped to plant Maranatha Baptist Church in Grimes. I served on staff at Grandview Park Baptist Church. I graduated from Grandview Park Baptist School. I received my bachelors and masters degrees from Faith Baptist Bible College & Theological Seminary (taking Church History as well as Baptist Faith and Polity from Dr. George Houghton) and am pursuing an advanced degree at a Baptist institution. I have taught the Baptist distinctives to both teens and adults in church ministry. I am not ashamed of my Baptist beliefs.
I also understand the importance of labels. However, I'm sure you would agree that all labels are not equally important? Perhaps instead of theological triage, we could practice some kind of (I'm not sure of the right word)..."nominal triage"? (By "nominal" I mean "relating to names," not nominalism in the sense you mentioned.)
For example, up until my current ministry I have been a Regular Baptist. But as Farmer Tom N pointed out, the label "Regular" has caused almost universal confusion (if not mockery). I can't think of a single time when I mentioned that name to someone that it did not require explanation. In fact, I agree with Farmer Tom that most Regular Baptists don't even know what it means. (I would go one step further--and please correct me if I am wrong--I don't think it was used by the original Regular Baptists in an historically correct way. If I'm not mistaken, "Regular Baptists" were Particular [vs. General] Baptists. I believe the GARBC founders used "Regular" in the sense of "Good Old Fashioned Regular Baptists," that is not modernist or liberal.)
I agree with Greg Linscott that "Regular" is still helpful in an associational name, but I do not think it is necessary in a church's name. On the other hand, no one is suggesting that the name "Christian" should be discarded, no matter how much confusion or misunderstanding there is concerning it.
So what about "Baptist"? I think that is somewhere in between those other two labels. In other words,
"Christian" > "Baptist" > "Regular" (or "Fundamentalist" or "Dispensational", etc.).
The point is, I understand the desire to hold on to the label "Baptist." And yet I also understand those who are willing to let go of it (the name, not the doctrine) for the sake of the greater name, "Christian." I understand Faith's desire to keep the label, but I also have no quarrel with Saylorville's desire to let it go. The beliefs are far more important to me. I would agree that there are inherent dangers in discarding certain labels, but there may be greater advantages as well. Additionally, as I mentioned from personal experience (which is obviously not normative), a church can remove the name "Baptist" and still remain faithful to Christ, to His Word, and to Baptistic doctrine. We teach this to everyone interested in becoming a part of our church in our membership class.
Thanks for allowing me to interact with you, Dr. Bauder. Again, your contributions to this forum are much appreciated.
This past summer the SBC adopted the Great Commission Baptist (GBC) as an alternative label for churches. This was done to help Northern SBC churches to avoid the stigma of the word "Southern." This was a hotly contested issue and both sides made great points, but it passed by a slim margin. So take a page from your compromising cousin in the south, let them change their name. We can't stop this mentality, of being pleasing to all. This is between a church/collage and not a denomination, so unless your a member of that church/collage, who cares?
If I'm not mistaken, "Regular Baptists" were Particular [vs. General] Baptists. I believe the GARBC founders used "Regular" in the sense of "Good Old Fashioned Regular Baptists," that is not modernist or liberal.)
I thought it was to distinguish themselves from American and Southern Baptists. I could also be wrong on that, but here in Iowa, nearly all of the Regular Baptist churches were splits out of the American Baptist Church.
Edit: Now I'm seeing that even this is not accurate, as the IARBC folks left the NBC, which later became the ABC. Hah, I guess we don't know, do we?
According to the fount of all wisdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Baptists
According to the fount of all wisdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Baptists
Argh. Yer killin' me. Please don't regard the Wiki definition as being accurate. At some point I'll hack into their site and give the definition an update...just haven't had time.
Short story: In the northern tradition, "regular" means "orthodox." The phrase was in popular use way before the GARBC adopted it in 1932. In fact, it crops up in the New York Times well before 1900. Its usage was a sardonic commentary on the state of Baptist affairs in the north: Churches had to go out of their way to clarify that they were orthodox Baptist churches, not the other kind. Our GARBC usage of this phrase was inspired by Howard Fulton's noted 1932 sermon, "What Do Old Fashioned Regular Baptists Stand For?".
Kevin Bauder is a "regular Baptist." Note the small "r" here. He embraces regular Baptist ideas. Note his post (#52223) in this thread, where he outlines (6) Baptist ideas. By the way...[commercial break]...those are the first six chapters of his new book, which everyone should purchase.
As far as my own "Regular Baptist" credentials go...I grew up on the same street as Greg Long in Toledo, and I've actually shared dinner with Kevin Bauder at the famed Taco Time in Ames (order the fried burrito, Bauder says, a fond memory from his high school career).
Inevitably, when staffing the IARBC booth at the Iowa State Fair, you would get the guy who would come and make the crack about "regular" Baptists in regards to bowel movements... 
Kevin beat me to the punch.
For more information, you can read "What Does It Mean to Be a 'Regular' Baptist?" (The article also mentions the sense in which Abraham Lincoln was a Regular Baptist!)
After settling into the colonies, General [General Atonement] Baptists in the middle colonies were more commonly called Free Baptists. Particular [Particular Atonement] Baptists, in and around freer colonies such as Rhode Island, came to be called Regular Baptists. The designation “Regular” to describe one kind of Baptist did not appear until the Baptists came to America...
Eventually the name “Regular Baptist” became somewhat generic and no longer necessarily designated particular atonement beliefs...
Eventually any Strict Baptist churches in Canada that held to this strict order of belief about communion called themselves Regular Baptists because they were just normal, orthodox (regular) practicing Baptists...
The General Association of Regular Baptist Churches has affirmed a moderately Calvinistic statement of faith based on the New Hampshire Confession (1833). Its use of the word “Regular” has never been a direct reference to a particular view of the atonement; rather, it stems from the later, more generic meaning of the word. By the time the GARBC was formed in 1932, the Modernist Controversy had split the Northern Baptist Convention into several factions. Regular Baptists held orthodox beliefs in an era when some Baptist churches were highly irregular. This meaning of “Regular” was clear from the beginning, when Howard Fulton preached his seminal sermon “What Regular Old Fashioned Baptists Stand For.”
The Latin term regula, which means “rule or example,” is the root of our English word “regular.” The first time the word was used in the English form was in 1387. John of Trevisa (c.1326–c.1402, English writer) connected it to the Canon (“rule or measure”) of Scripture. The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary provides a similar definition for “regular” in the adjectival form: “Ecclesiastically subject to, or bound by, a religious rule, belonging to a religious or monastic order.” For our churches, “Regular” is an adjective that describes Baptists as orthodox churches that affirm the rule or measure of Scripture.
In The Baptists (1988), William Henry Brackney summarized this long history by stating, “Baptists have differed widely about their origins and their composition.”6 This is certainly true. But when it comes to answering, “Who are the Regular Baptists?” it is not so difficult to find their origin or the distinct quality found in the word “Regular” when placed next to the name “Baptist.” A Regular Baptist believes orthodox, Baptist doctrine.
And let me correct one of Kevin's statements...I grew up on his street.
Aren't the "Regular Baptists" different than the "Old Regular Baptists"?
What does it mean when we have to spend this much time finding a definition the name "regular" among ourselves?
I work in a secular workplace and have spent my last few days taking an unofficial poll among my co-workers. While I did encounter a few Christians who knew the "right answers, here are some general findings:
Everyone knew what a church was. (Condensed definition: a place for people who believe in God.)
What is a Christian?
1. Somebody who follows or believes in Jesus.
2. People who aren't Muslim or Jews.
3. Didn't know.
What is Bible?
1. A religious book.
2. An inspirational book.
Here's the interesting one: What do you think of when you hear the words "Baptist Church"?
1. No idea was the number one answer.
2. A kind of a Christian church
most didn't know how Baptists were different while the rest said that they believed in dunking people in water
The there were the responses from people who knew about Baptists or were Baptists:
1. "We believe in getting baptized to wash your sins away" narrowly edged "we believe in getting baptized because Jesus was baptized".
2. Baptists don't let women wear pants
3. And my favorite, "Go talk to M___ and B______, They're Baptists."
M________ tells me that he goes to the only real Baptist church around. The one started by Jesus. You can tell because they wash each others feet and don't do all this modern, worldly stuff.
B______ goes to the big Southern Baptist Church in town. She's looking for another church because she feels lost in the crowd. She just goes to church when she doesn't have to work, but feels she doesn't fit. We talked about her salvation and walk with the Lord. She said her church is big and just built a new annex, but most of the people are over 50 (she's in her 30"s) and there a very few younger people or teens.
Again, I know this doesn't prove anything, but it helps me to talk to people who are in the real world.