Faith Baptist Bible College has removed Saylorville [formerly Baptist] Church from its approved churches list

…but another, more articulate perspective on the matter from Bauder-

http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/in-the-nick-of-ti…

“This may represent the hardest decision that the administration and board at Faith has ever made. They are not angry with Saylorville. They love its pastor and its staff, and they believe that Saylorville is in some ways a good model. They are not denouncing the church, but they are separating from it at one level. They are making this move because, if they do not, their principles will be obscured. They are aware that the decision will be costly.”

[Greg Linscott]

@Shaynus- I think you meant Donn Arms, not Alex.

You’re right. I knew something wasn’t right.

[Greg Linscott]

…but another, more articulate perspective on the matter from Bauder-

http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/in-the-nick-of-ti…

“This may represent the hardest decision that the administration and board at Faith has ever made. They are not angry with Saylorville. They love its pastor and its staff, and they believe that Saylorville is in some ways a good model. They are not denouncing the church, but they are separating from it at one level. They are making this move because, if they do not, their principles will be obscured. They are aware that the decision will be costly.”

That Bauder article is awesome. Praise God for Faith’s stand.

I attended Faith from 1994-1999 (got married in there someplace and took a year off). When I read this statement I had a lot of mixed emotions…none of them positive.

In lieu of the recent events in the GARBC, Faith is making a statement. They are making a declaration and saying, “We exist for the furtherance of a name.” More than that, they are saying, “We refuse to support others who do not also exist to further that name.”

The value they place on furthering that name is high. It’s worth potentially hindering the ministry of a local church and their own effectiveness.

At the end of the day, it’s all about preserving a name. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong name.

Jamie, your response sounds really strange to me, coming from someone who is planting a church that has to identify by a particular and even more specific name than “baptist” (“Harvest Bible Chapel”)…

Maybe I don’t understand your parameters, though. But why would requiring one name be a problem over another for someone like you?

[JVDM]

Dave - Faith isn’t changing anything. They aren’t leaving anyone in the lurch or making any of their employees or students make this decision. The church in question is forcing this issue. The church is the active participant here, not the innocent victim bystander.

While Faith may not be changing anything on paper, their “clarification” that while they didn’t specifically state that Baptist must be in the name, but now stating that that’s what they meant, and now applying that “unwritten” rule at the very least gives the appearance that the rules mean what the school wants them to, not what is stated. It’s an application done in a way that makes it appear underhanded.

Again, if the *real* reason for this separation is clear differences in direction of ministry, then the school should just come out and say it. People would still disagree, but then there wouldn’t be the perception that this is all over something as ridiculous as a *name*, rather than a serious issue that warrants biblical separation.

And again, I don’t change my contention that schools (at least Christian ones) serve the church, not the other way around. The church in question is not (at least from what we have heard) changing its name just to cause a split with Faith. Faith is making the issue out of this. I’m not saying the church was completely passive, but if they are being separated from over a *name*, then I think it’s clear which side has problems here.

And again, I don’t change my contention that schools (at least Christian ones) serve the church, not the other way around.

…but which church(es)?

In reading through this thread I have come to realize more and more how the “pathetic falacy” or “personification” muddles the argument. (I admit I participated in it too in my posts.) “Faith” is a college. “Saylorville Church” is an organization (local church). These entities decided nothing on their own. What should have been said is the BOARD of Faith has decided….. and the Congregation (or leadership) of Saylorville Baptist Church has decided…..

It confuses the argument to postulate through personification that the Faith College of today is the same as the Faith College of x number of years ago just because the same bricks and mortar are still there. People make decisions, not organizations. And, since they are people they can have right or wrong, correct or incorrect, motives when they make their decisions. AND, history, constitutions, “founding documents,” etc. are creations of man and should not be seen as inspired and unchangeable.

I hope the decisions of the board of Faith and the congregation and leadership of Saylorville Church were based totally on God’s Word and that they were done to glorify God and advance His kingdom.

[JVDM]

Dave - the “unwritten rule,” as you say, had been written down in several places. Greg already linked to the 20 year old essay written by Dr. George Houghton spelling out why they think the name Baptist is important. The GARBC in 2000 (I think) also stated that member churches had to have Baptist in their name. It is dishonest to portray this as if it were some unwritten rule.

Well, lets examine this so-called dishonesty. From the paper referenced in the first post above:

[Faith Baptist Bible College]

These issues impacted Faith because our Faculty and Employee Handbooks contained the following statement about church attendance.

Because of the importance that the College and Seminary places on the local church, all administration, faculty, and staff, full-time or part-time, are required to belong to an approved church and to become involved as the Lord leads as a member within one year of employment. An approved church consists of one associated with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches or another independent, fundamental, separatist, Baptist church in the Des Moines area which holds and supports the doctrinal position of this institution.

The Administration at Faith carefully considered this church attendance policy. The Administration was in agreement that when we included all GARBC churches on the approved list, we did not consider that a church in the GARBC would not have the word “Baptist” in its name. Our clear intention is that employees and students will attend churches that openly identify themselves as Baptist churches, an intention made explicit in our standing, published position, and policy statements.

Notice that “openly identify themselves as Baptist churches” is NOT equivalent to “must have Baptist in the name.” Further, this paper makes it clear that they did not “consider that a church in the GARBC would not have the word “Baptist” in its name.” Otherwise, they would have written it down. Since they didn’t, it’s unwritten.

[Faith Baptist Bible College]

Our stated policy with clear intention has been and continues to be that employees and students are to attend fundamental churches that have the word “Baptist” in their names.

Sorry, but the intention in the policy as written above is not as clear as Faith would like to make it. Their intention is as unwritten as it gets.

Note this statement under their “convictions”:

[Faith Baptist Bible College]

We firmly believe the title “Baptist” is to be part of the advertised name of Baptist organizations, churches, institutions, and agencies.

Note that while this seems like a clear statement of their convictions (but not written as a rule, and certainly not a doctrine straight from scripture), the actual policy, quoted above, does not make it a requirement, and as they themselves stated, they didn’t consider that when writing the policy.

Sorry, but I completely reject your charge of “dishonesty.”

[Greg Linscott]

And again, I don’t change my contention that schools (at least Christian ones) serve the church, not the other way around.

…but which church(es)?

That is, of course, a good question. In their case, the policy says that it would be either GARBC church or other approved independent fundamental Baptist church. They did not consider that such could exist without Baptist in the name, as they themselves stated. Interestingly, their new policy statement doesn’t include something to really fix that part.

The bigger question of course, gets to the heart of why many believe that a model where a school is not an outgrowth and ministry of a single church, and subordinate to that church, cannot maintain doctrinal purity, and gets itself into political entanglements, often with churches that were originally closely aligned with the school, but now have shifted in doctrine, practice, or emphasis.

I would actually agree that going forward, they could state their policy clearly for new employees. To retroactively apply something that they considered was “clearly” intended, but wasn’t actually stated, and force people to leave a church that was acceptable when those employees started attending, over something that is not a stated doctrine of scripture, rather than a clear separation issue, is, in my view, illegitimately forcing people to have to decide either against their church (the institution Jesus set up for this age) or lose their employment.

The bigger question of course, gets to the heart of why many believe that a model where a school is not an outgrowth and ministry of a single church, and subordinate to that church, cannot maintain doctrinal purity, and gets itself into political entanglements, often with churches that were originally closely aligned with the school, but now have shifted in doctrine, practice, or emphasis.

There are advantages to single church, yes. But that isn’t a streamlined answer, either (reference, for example, Tennessee Temple…).

Whatever else, Faith’s boards (link- http://www.faith.edu/about-faith/personnel) consist of several local church pastors and members from Iowa and other states- churches that would be indicative of the clientele and constituency they serve, I would submit. The Iowa Association of Regular Baptist Churches maintains a very strong working connection with FBBC and between its affiliated congregations (in a way I’ve never seen anywhere else in the country, frankly), and is able to cooperate to Faith’s ministry, even though no one single church in the state would really have the resources to keep a ministry like that going on its own. One thing that hasn’t really been spoken of to this point in the conversation is that, though Saylorville maintains their connection to the national organization (GARBC), they no longer do with the state (IARBC) because of the name drop.

That may not make any difference to you, but there you go.

[Greg Linscott]

Jamie, your response sounds really strange to me, coming from someone who is planting a church that has to identify by a particular and even more specific name than “baptist” (“Harvest Bible Chapel”)…

Maybe I don’t understand your parameters, though. But why would requiring one name be a problem over another for someone like you?

Greg,

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you trying to say that Harvest’s partnerships and associations are more separatist than Faith’s? I’m sure you’re not. I’m sure you know that along with planting Harvest churches we also partner outside of ourselves to support other works that preach the same gospel. We give ourselves to Harvest…but not JUST Harvest. Faith seems to be saying just the opposite. This is a statement to say that they are only interested in churches that carry the Baptist name. This satement says “It’s about more than the gospel…more than doctrinal agreement. It’s about the name.”

In lieu of the recent events in the GARBC, Faith is making a statement. They are making a declaration and saying, “We exist for the furtherance of a name.” More than that, they are saying, “We refuse to support others who do not also exist to further that name.”

Jamie,

Are you saying that Harvest puts as much into church planters and efforts that aren’t Harvest Bible Chapels as the ones in their network? I’m asking. It seems surveying the site that there is an expectation for new or “re-plants” to assume the name and approach in order to get the benefits of the support structure and so on. Maybe I’m wrong, though. If so, please, enlighten me.

Faith, as we would both know, is aware of and benefits from, and provides benefits to other people than Baptists. They did when we were there, and still do now. They would invest in and service churches other than Baptist ones, too, in limited ways- I know they have provided things like pulpit supply, bookstore services, Biblical counseling… But just like your network has a specific focus and obligation to its affiliates, Faith serves a constituency that is in some ways, geographical (the IARBC/IRBC dynamic), some ways organizational (the GARBC), and some ways ideological (“unaffliated” churches represented by people like Ernie Schmidt or Rick Shrader). In the past, you have had people like George or Myron Houghton or Hartog III speaking at these conferences hosted by a group of New England Bible Churches (Link- http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/conferen/ministry.htm).

Central Seminary drew some lines not too long ago that addressed students not attending Bethlehem/Piper’s church. This isn’t that different, in my mind. There are specific ideas that the school wants to promote, partners that will help them as they work toward fulfilling ministries in ways they mutually agree with. For that matter, Faith has been quite diverse in the congregations represented and philosophies coexisting on campus (I sat under both John Colyer and Bill Edmondson; I took Biblical counseling courses as well as “Intro to Psychology and Counseling”; I listened to Ken Ham in chapel and Harry Gray in class…).

You can read it to be about “the name”- but it is also about ideas and a philosophy contained in and connected to that name. We both know there were churches with Baptist in the name in the area students were not encouraged to attend (like the one of First Street, whose name escapes me at the moment). Faith hasn’t changed on this. Maybe that makes some upset because they should have by now, but you and I both know that they are where they have always been, even as others have changed. Whether or not that is a good thing or not is beside the point. They are being consistent- and whether or not some want them to change, this is not a surprise to anyone who really knows the school. It’s just not.

Thanks, Greg. Your post was helpful.

I don’t agree with Faith’s stance on separation. I don’t agree with many of their views, though we still agree on the same core doctrines I was taught when I was there. But I have to be careful about demonizing them and making this out to be more than it really is. Good reminders.

Blessings.