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

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.

[farmer Tom N]

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.

[farmer Tom N]
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 Linscott]

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.