Why Are Many Baptists Losing Their Children?

“Many are told what to do, but not taught why to do it, or what not to do, but not why. They have been told that baptism is by immersion only, that the KJV is the Word of God in English, that women should be modest, etc. But, these things are not taught to them from the Scriptures.”

Maybe “Baptists Aren’t Losing their Children”, but the Children are “Finding Baptists that don’t read their preferences into Scripture”.

with the first and third points. Baptism means immersion. If it doesn’t, why am I a Baptist? And the Bible does teach women (and men) should dress modestly (for varying definitions of modesty).

Is it just me or is this guy sounding like a 1-note banjo? This is about the 4th filing in the last 10 days or so bashing Independent Baptists as the forerunner to the anti-christ (hyperbole alert!).

We all understand that Independents got issues. Always have; always will. But I have been around the independent movement before it was cool, while it was cool, and, now that the Southern Baptists and the non-denom, YRR, mega wannabes are the “Who’s Who” in churchdom I am still independent, warts and all. That being said, the IFB that he seems so intent on torching is not the IFB that I’ve been part of for close to 60 years.

I’m not going to assign motives for why his consistent blogging on the matter. However, he does himself a disservice and his church a disservice by pushing this relatively narrow viewpoint. Warts? Yes, definitely. But in spite of the warts, the Independent Fundamental Baptists as a whole got and still have a stinking lot of things right.

I agree with Lee, the author needs a new hobby horse.

Most of the author’s “arguments” could be said of any church, anywhere. Not really sure how most of his arguments are Baptist-centric problems.

I seem to remember a Bobby Mitchell on SharperIron from a couple years back; I think he kept popping online to argue on one specific topic. Anyone know if this is the same guy or if my memory is faulty?

[Jay]

I seem to remember a Bobby Mitchell on SharperIron from a couple years back; I think he kept popping online to argue on one specific topic. Anyone know if this is the same guy or if my memory is faulty?

I don’t recollect that he is or has been a member.

Yes, Bobby Mitchell (along with Kent Brandenburg) were SI members back in the day (I’m estimating 2007 or thereabouts).

Lee wrote:

Is it just me or is this guy sounding like a 1-note banjo? This is about the 4th filing in the last 10 days or so bashing Independent Baptists as the forerunner to the anti-christ (hyperbole alert!).

When I first saw his postings and the promotion for the book on a pure church, I noticed that one of the authors was Erich McCandless. I noticed that name because he is the son-in-law of Ron Tottingham, a pastor here in the Sioux Falls area. McCandless is now the senior pastor of that church and Tottingham is still on staff. Back in the late 1990’s I took a few night and weekend classes at the Bible College they had in their church basement. I had been a Christian for years, but had only recently become an independent Baptist in 1996. I did not realize how different independent Baptists could be, but that experience opened my eyes. I was soon hearing in their classes that unless your baptism could be traced all the way back to the apostles, you were not a real baptist. I was soon hearing of whole churches that were being rebaptized the “right” way so they they could be part of this group. Soon I was being told that “other baptists” and even other Christians could still get to heaven, but the best places in heaven (like the Holy of Holies) were only accessible by the right kind of baptists with the right kind of baptismal succession. When I heard these things and that you should get the pastor’s permission if you get a different car, I decided I better stay clear of this group (I had never even heard of Baptist Bride before that).

I have never met McCandless or Mitchell as far as I know. I also am not certain that they hold to the same doctrines as Tottingham did; however, if they do, this might explain Lee’s concern. I do not think they view other baptists- even other independent baptists- as the anti-christ, but perhaps they view us as second class citizens of heaven.

** Original post deleted **

I posted a comment about a Q&A session from Bro. Brandenburg’s Word of Truth conference. Bro. Brandenburg took issue with the comment, and says I misinterpreted the comment and was mean-spirited and rude in my original comments. I have therefore taken down my original comment and I apologize if the comment did not reflect Biblical grace.

I stand by my condemnation of a Baptist-only, exclusivist Gospel in general terms. Anybody who teaches that there is a correlation between a “true” Baptist church and the “true” Gospel is mistaken.

Repeated Themes:

- Hyper-separatism that includes separation from anything considered false teaching including not being their kind of Baptist, their kind of dispensationalist, and/or using their kind of music.

- The failure to see the difference between new-evangelicalism and apostasy, sometimes to the point of considering new evangelicals as non-Christian.

- Preaching and posts like this one that propose various reasons for their declining membership, usually including numerous sermons on their being “the remnant”.

- Preaching and posts like this one that propose various reasons for their declining membership, usually including numerous sermons on their being “the remnant”.

And that concept of being the ‘remnant’ or the ‘godly seed’ is self-reinforcing as people drop away for whatever reasons - sickness, death, ‘compromise’ (real or imagined). It’s a brutal cycle.

Greg, thanks for the note - I was pretty sure we’d had a member by that name, but I couldn’t find any posts in the archive. I’m fairly sure even then he was criticizing SI for not being separated “enough” for a couple of reasons.

I think we would all agree with the point that our kids should be taught *why* things are so from scripture, and not just the “what,” even if we might disagree in some of the specific positions held by the blog author.

More interesting was the line from #3 “There is an open or even silent disagreement with what is taught by the church concerning entertainment, dress, roles in the home, etc.” The fact of the matter is there will be times (even if minor) where what is taught by the church and what we understand from the Bible are not exactly the same. In this case, I think “silent disagreement,” at least to those outside the home (inside, the parents will need to teach) is the way to go. Open disagreement I would personally find to be divisive, but if we really want to follow the scripture, we have to be willing to stand on the Bible before standing on the words of men, even the leaders of the church.

I’m sure that some will say in that case you should just find a different church, but of course, there is no perfect church (or perfect family), so even if you did leave because of such a disagreement, you might be just as likely to be trading small problems for larger ones as to find a better church. Further, I think it would be wise to give at least some time to see if God changes one’s own heart on an issue.

I taught my kids that the scripture comes first. I taught them to evaluate everything they hear in its light. I might be wrong, or their teachers or church leaders could even be wrong — the stand is made on the Bible. Of course, care must be taken here, but men are fallible where the Bible is not (and yes, I know that applies to me as much as to anyone else). However, since we are talking about “Baptists” here, or those who might be baptistic in belief, we believe in the priesthood of the believer instead of in some magisterium or priesthood that will interpret the scriptures for us. Hence, while I think point #3 is generally a good one, there will be times that it must be broken to be in line with scripture. Thankfully, most of us won’t have to deal with things like “indulgences” as Martin Luther did, but the principle is the same. In my view, at least, it could be just as dangerous to a child’s faith to do something “because the church does” (if you don’t see that in the Bible) as some of the other behaviors mentioned by the author.

Bro. Brandenburg posted a response to my brief note, above.

I guess I still don’t understand. I don’t see how you could take the question any other way than you did. If he is right and the question speaks to evangelizing people that might not be saved why would there be any question about how to evangelize them? It would be different if the questioner asked about nominal “new evangelicals” but he didn’t. I also don’t see anything mean about your response Tyler. I even tried an experiment and asked the question of my wife and she said she thought I was implying that “new evangelicals” are not saved.

I’ve seen several posts from this individual over the past few weeks and am wondering why SI feels what he has to say is important? Out of the hundreds of blogs why is this one that gets represented? It doesn’t seem like he has and credentials to merit that. Small church in the backwoods of Maine, no educational credentials listed for jr or sr.