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

http://www.saylorvillechurch.com/files/pdf/PublicResponsetoFaithsDecisi…

[JVDM] I mention two specific places where having Baptist in the name actually was written down by a Faith professor in a Faith publication as well as the GARBC from 12 or so years ago. When they limited church membership to GARBC churches, it was built in that Baptist would be in the name. That is, until one year ago.

This was Faith’s written policy for at least 20 years. You can disagree with the policy, but that is not even part of this discussion. We are discussing whether this was a written policy or not — and it obviously was.

Faith’s written policy was that the churches be a member of the GARBC. Just because a professor wrote it in a publication, does not make it part of the rules. It was NOT written policy for 20 years. If it were, the board at Faith would not feel it necessary to further define what is and isn’t an acceptable church. Faith has changed its stance. You can try to explain it away in that the intent is still the same, but the policy DID change.

Until 2000, the term Baptist in the name was NOT a requirement for joining the GARBC. In 2000, it was added, and then in 2011 that policy was once again changed to state that a church seeking membership in the GARBC “must publicly identify itself as a Baptist church in its corporate documents and in its practice.” So, once again, the word Baptist has not always been a distinguishing term.

As has been mentioned, it would just be more honest if Faith would come out and say, we don’t like how Saylorville Church and their leadership does church, therefore, Saylorville is not approved.

I wonder, in light of wbarkema’s observation, if the GARBC has an official statement on whether clergy should be male. If not, and a statement was made, say, this year, would that mean that was a new position, and not reflective of where the Association has stood through its history?

[Greg Linscott] I wonder, in light of wbarkema’s observation, if the GARBC has an official statement on whether clergy should be male. If not, and a statement was made, say, this year, would that mean that was a new position, and not reflective of where the Association has stood through its history?

That is a straw man argument Greg. Bernie Augsburger in his article in the Baptist Bulletin addresses the name Baptist in a church’s name and talks about the historical fact, that it had NOT been a requirement until 2000. http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=27236. The implication might have been there, but the Council at that time was much more concerned with how the church functioned than what was in it’s name.

W (may I call you W? :) ),

Why is it a straw man? I understand what Bernie Augsberger is saying, but at the same time, what he doesn’t say is if there were ever any churches that didn’t actually have Baptist in the name in the GARBC. I honestly don’t know for sure, but I suspect there have not been until recently. This development is pretty recent as far as the Association goes (I know there is historical precedent outside the Association- Spurgeon, etc.).

All I am saying is that a policy may have been changed, but that doesn’t mean the stance has. Even with the GARBC and the Baptist label, they had to address it in policy because practice was changing, even though it had not been codified in a policy requirement previously. Like the example I cited, if they would say something in a policy today that required affiliate congregations to have male pastors only, that would not indicate a change or shift- it would be codifying something that has been to this point assumed. To say it had never been a requirement previously might be true, technically, but would not be true of the established practice.

We actually had something similar to this happen when I was at Altoona. When our church was founded, they essentially borrowed from the GARBC doctrinal statement to comprise the statement of the church. At that point, the statement affirmed pre-mil, but was not explicitly pre-trib in its eschatology. Over time, the GARBC did specify, but our church never did update things to reflect that in the document, though we were right there with them practically speaking. We had someone who joined, a believer who had been converted in a church outside our circles of influence, and was at that point undecided on his eschatological conclusions. He reviewed the existing statement, saw it was ambiguous in that area, and decided he would not be conflicted and joined. He never brought it up, even, because he thought we permitted a variety of views.

Eventually, the pastor preached on the matter, and made a statement to the effect that what he was teaching (a pre-trib interpretation) was both true and was what the church believed. This raised a flag in the mind of the member, who then went to the pastor for clarification. The pastor was surprised, to say in the least, that a pre-trib statement wasn’t actually in our constitution. The congregation did eventually vote to place one in there, and the man did eventually end up leaving amicably because he did not reach a pre-trib conclusion.

It’s a straw man because it isn’t an equivalent argument. First, the Articles of Faith point towards a male clergy, so it is not equivalent. Second, I would equate this to writing into the Articles of Faith that worship should always be done with a piano and organ with no other accompanying instruments. Then, having them say that there has been a number of articles written by founding members of the GARBC to demonstrate the ills of contemporary worship and a majority (or more) of the affiliated churches do not use contemporary forms of worship. Therefore, they are not changing their position.

While Baptist has been important, it has not been a requirement until 2000, and is now not a requirement again. Whether anyone “took advantage” of that or not is irrelevant.

W said:

First, the Articles of Faith point towards a male clergy, so it is not equivalent.

The Articles of Faith actually say:

…that its officers are pastors and deacons, whose qualifications, claims and duties are clearly defined in the Scriptures.

That is all. The conclusion seems obvious (and is), but still must be drawn. If we were using a slightly different example, say, whether or not “husband of one wife” applies to divorced people, it might not be so clear, though perhaps most people and churches in the GARBC assumed that at one time… Anyway, the point is that the assumption is that male clergy is mandated, but if a statement was made to clarify, it wouldn’t necessarily be a change. I don’t think that the situations are completely dissimilar with the Baptist name- and apparently enough other people didn’t either, if the GARBC felt the need to clarify the situation with a formal statement or two.

You can argue Faith changed, but again, all you have to do is look back to 2000 and John Colyer’s mid-semester release because he took a position at a church that didn’t have Baptist in the name, but was nevertheless a Baptist church (just not a GARBC one). There is precedence of the position and its enforcement (more than just the Houghton article), whether or not the policies needed to be amended to reflect the positions or not.

Now, per your earlier post, I do think that Faith should make other matters clear, too. I just don’t think that the one issue being discussed is a trumped-up charge.

Saylorville’s has been made ‘private’ on Youtube.

:/

So JVDM,

I am conservative because the positions I take based on my views of Scripture and then the application/implication of that make me conservative in the eyes of most……..especially in a humanistic, post-modern society. A few short thoughts.

1. Conservative is not the issue pro or con.

2. Biblical authority is where it’s at. If you’re going to bind other believers to some version of conservative “whatever” you better come with Scripture. Not philosophy…..not rhetoric….not even logic by itself.

3. For the record I love Classical music. My friendly jab at the Beethoven group is just that - a friendly jab. Many of them have an idea as to what “good” in the area of musical esthetics - in my view they import their idea of what “good” is into the Biblical text and treat it as a standard for all of us to follow. I actually love conservative music ….. because I like it. I have a taste for that kind of music. I also have a taste for other kinds of music.

4. If a ministry is more conservative than I, that in and of itself does not bother me. It’s how they try to leverage that on to or against other ministries.

5. Being “Conservative” can be an idol. Let me say that another way - just as we had Pharisees in the first century that defended “conservative” vis-a-vis “Christian” - a fear is that some today would devote themselves to being “conservative” that would also displace directly or indirectly the gospel message itself.

6. I would rather be Biblical than “conservative.” When one is Biblical in a postmodern culture, you will by default often be viewed as “conservative.” That should be a result rather than a mission.

I actually appreciate much of what you are saying - thought I’d just throw this in as you mentioned me earlier.

Straight Ahead!

jt

thx brother

fair response

jt

Jesse,

I said fair response - It didn’t click with me your point on #3. The Scriptures are clear on homosexuality. Less clear on musical differences. I would say your third point is a gross fallacy both in content and comparison. Were you trying to be funny? It missed.

Straight Ahead!

jt

JVDM,

Are you saying that all believers must have identical tastes in music? Perhaps a definition of “taste” would be helpful.

It seems to me that the idea that people having a taste for all sorts of wicked things doesn’t really answer the argument. I think we all agree that “certain ‘tastes’ should be mortified in humility and fear of the Lord.”

But does it follow that the great commandment leaves no room for variety?

Jesse, just so I understand you correctly, are you saying there are certain kinds of music that necessarily and exclusively result in someone feeling like a preteen girl with a crush on Justin Bieber, to the exclusion of, say, feeling like he is worshiping and exalting God?

Given JVDM’s input, it seems that nearly all music-related issues have been settled. There are only two remaining questions that occur to me:

1. Regarding Jesse’s position as the ultimate earthly arbiter of the music that is a proper “expression of feeling” and “expresses the [right] kind of love in worship” (as to which “believers should have identical tastes”), do/did the rest of us get a chance to vote on his election to that position, or was he directly appointed by God so that a vote would be superfluous?

2. For the benefit of those of us who are not yet sufficiently enlightened, precisely which songs/arrangements are approved by God (through Jesse) and which are not? Now that we know there is a black and white list, those of us who are interested in being obedient in this area would genuinely like some specific direction. I suspect I can divine some of the broad parameters: obviously, anything you can hear on a CCM radio station is out, so no Chris Tomlin or (heaven forbid) David Crowder; also, anything more than 100 years old is in and, if it’s even older than that, it’s in even if its melody was originally a bar song. But what about Sovereign Grace? Getty? Townsend? Michael Card? Twila Paris? Music from more than 20 years ago but less than 100 years ago? Surely now that Jesse is here God doesn’t want the rest of us trying to work through these decisions ourselves and arriving at differing conclusions. And clearly Jesse has the list, so he is presumably willing to share it.

Thanks for that response to my previous post. May I press a bit more for understanding? I realize I am exposing my lack of understanding and I hope you will indulge me with grace.

When you talk of “identical tastes (which is a variety) in music,” what exactly does that mean?

Can different cultures express the same ordinate love (“good taste” if I understand you correctly) in different ways? How would we draw biblical parameters around that?

Thanks in advance.