Saylorville Church responds: "Could it be that Dr. Bauder has touched a nerve of fear? ... a fear of 1,000 'what ifs'?"

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?

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(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.

[Shaynus]

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?

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.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

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.

[JVDM]

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.

[Greg Long]

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.