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

I would guess that in times past Saylorville benefited from their relationship to FBBC and in recent years FBBC has benefited from it’s relationship to Saylorville Church. I applaud Saylorville’s move as they move toward the un-churched and de-churched taking down the barriers that exist in our society today. Having made this move many years ago and seeing the opportunity to have a low threshold on the doorway to our church and seeing lives changed that would not have made the step into many baptist churches. In our area it is worth it and I would venture to guess for Saylorville Church the short term pain will be worth it for the eternal benefit. Jude 20-25.

I’m not saying that the school has no right to limit chosen churches- sure they do. But they don’t have a “right” to do it stupidly.

If I was already a member at Saylorville and a student or on faculty at FBBC, I hope I’d have the guts to stick with my church family and accept the consequences.

[Susan R]

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.

Susan,

All of your points could be said of a faculty member who became part of an EFCA church. Such an individual could (at least personally) hold to all the same principles of doctrine that a Baptist would. Would it be equally as ludicrous for Faith to limit their partnership with such an individual, in your mind? Would this, too, be a “pointless division among brethren?” If not, what would be the difference, in your mind?

But Greg, even the GARBC doesn’t require naming to be “bapitst.”

Article IV. 1. (b)

Shall have had a Recognition Council of Regular Baptist pastors and messengers for the purpose of examining the Constitution and Bylaws of the church to determine if it is a properly constituted and functioning Baptist church.

http://www.garbc.org/?page_id=22

The EFCA church probably would not meet the GARBC constitutional requirement.

[Dan Miller]

But Greg, even the GARBC doesn’t require naming to be “bapitst.”

Article IV. 1. (b)

Shall have had a Recognition Council of Regular Baptist pastors and messengers for the purpose of examining the Constitution and Bylaws of the church to determine if it is a properly constituted and functioning Baptist church.

http://www.garbc.org/?page_id=22

The EFCA church probably would not meet the GARBC constitutional requirement.

Dan, I was discussing that line with wbarkema in one of the other related threads (here).

As far as your second point, I understand what you are saying, but that wasn’t what Susan was arguing (as I understood it). She was arguing against “pointless divisions between brethren.” I was just observing that, at least in theory, one could line up perfectly with a Baptist as far as personal beliefs and convictions and be part of an EFCA church. Is that a “pointless division” in her mind, and how does that compare to what she has concluded is a “pointless division” in this case?

BTW- I would say, that whichever side you come out on this matter, whatever else it is, it is certainly not “pointless.” There is a point of difference. Susan may not consider the point worthy of the attention it is receiving, but it is not “pointless.”

Bro. Linscott- That’s why I asked someone to explain how Saylorville has departed from sound doctrine and practice, other than by wanting to drop a word from their name.

If simply dropping the word Baptist is the point of contention, then that’s ludicrous. But if Saylorville has changed their doctrine or application of doctrine or ministry methodology in such a way that Faith can’t in good conscience allow their employees to attend, then they need to be clear in what areas Saylorville has compromised the faith, and how they believe this endangers their students and faculty.

I don’t know anything about EFCA, and I don’t have time to research them. But if I understand your point, I would agree that we may appear to agree with a group ‘on paper’, but in practice we are from different theological worlds. Is that the problem with Faith and Saylorville?

Perhaps in all these threads someone addressed this question and I missed it.

[Susan R]

But if I understand your point, I would agree that we may appear to agree with a group ‘on paper’, but in practice we are from different theological worlds. Is that the problem with Faith and Saylorville?

Perhaps in all these threads someone addressed this question and I missed it.

EFCA is the Evangelical Free Church in America (or was- they might just use the letters now. I forget). That is the church that Chuck Swindoll was a part of for quite some time (may still be, for all I know), and has Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (where Don Carson teaches). There are a lot of things they purposefully leave ambiguous and up to the individual, like eschatology, for example.

But if Saylorville has changed their doctrine or application of doctrine or ministry methodology in such a way that Faith can’t in good conscience allow their employees to attend, then they need to be clear in what areas Saylorville has compromised the faith, and how they believe this endangers their students and faculty.

I would agree more needs to be said. At the same time, using the Baptist name is a ministry method of sorts. Again, perhaps not worthy of the level of attention it is receiving for some of you, but if that is the case, then maybe SC does need to make a clean break because FBBC has elevated a point beyond reasonable limits (that’s not my conclusion, BTW).

Statement of faith:

We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.

Comment: They are chiliasts: ” premillennial return “. Doctrinal statement has essence of imminence: “at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope”

And it is an association of churches much like the GARBC or MBA.

[dcbii] Susan, what you are asking here has been an unanswered question in all the threads on this topic. It has been assumed that this must be true, but I don’t think you have missed it, because none of us have seen it definitively answered.

DCB2- the using the label is a matter of practice, and is one of the practices on which the two parties would differ on. Granted, it is not the only difference, and there is more that needs to be said (but for many reasons, isn’t being said), but there continue to be matters and approaches that would make the distinctions clear in how they function every day. I provided the example videos earlier. As some have insinuated, music is a very visible and most prominent difference, but there would be other ones, from what I understand, though I don’t have enough familiarity to comment on those.

In the end, they may not be inherent to the gospel in the estimation of many of you. I would argue, though, that they have presented challenges in a working relationship for quite some time. If, taking the one issue that has been clearly communicated on, Faith as an organization is teaching methods to their students that would include, say, when one plants a church it should clearly identify itself as a “Baptist” congregation (which would be, by the way, a principle you would get in a class at Faith), a church like SC clearly detracts from and contradicts that principle.

I believe a lot of good points have been made on both sides of this discussion. It is true that dropping the name Baptist does not necessarily indicate a change of doctrine. As stated above, many churches embrace Baptist doctrine that do not use the name.

But it is also true that dropping the name Baptist makes a statement. The assumed purpose is to make a statement to the community that the church does not identify with the negative concepts many have of the Baptist label. Well and good. But dropping the name makes a statement to both members and community that there is something unsavory about the name Baptist, or at least communicates that enough people think so that the label needs to be jettisoned.

But this comes at a price. The cost will be in losing identification with the historic lineage of Baptists. Even though doctrine has not changed, identification has, and now neither church members nor community will identify the church with Baptist history. That may not be important to some, or at least not important enough to risk creating a barrier in the community. To others, this is important. Its hard to teach your people the reasons why they are Baptists, and the value in seeing themselves as belonging to the noble Baptist heritage if the church no longer calls itself Baptist. It seems to me that something valuable is forfeited by this move. When I considered a similar change twenty-five years ago, I came to the conclusion that the cost was too great. I didn’t want our people to lose their connection to their Baptist heritage.

[Greg Linscott] I would agree more needs to be said. At the same time, using the Baptist name is a ministry method of sorts. Again, perhaps not worthy of the level of attention it is receiving for some of you, but if that is the case, then maybe SC does need to make a clean break because FBBC has elevated a point beyond reasonable limits (that’s not my conclusion, BTW).

Apparently Faith believes the use of the Baptist name is worthy of a serious level of attention if they are willing to make a break over it. It is interesting that the Baptist name could be considered a ministry method of sorts. I agree that Baptist tradition and history is precious, but are we unable to hold to an admirable tradition without the name over the door? Especially if the name over the door doesn’t hold the same distinctions that it once did?

There are labels that are useful and accurate, but some that are actually harmful. For instance, the use of “all natural” to indicate that a food is minimally processed and contains natural ingredients (as opposed to man-made). But because there are no actual guidelines that companies have to follow to label their products as “all natural”, the term is essentially meaningless. It is often used to dupe people into thinking they are buying a healthy product. Lots of things are “all natural”, and some of it gets spread around the yard every spring to make the garden grow.

Has “Baptist” reached that level yet? If not, its meaning certainly seems to be on its way to vain and hollow. It’s a forgone conclusion that any good thing that comes down the pike, Satan will find a way to diminish and besmirch and spoil it. Some things are worth fighting for, but we need to be careful about how and why we ‘contend for the faith’.

From what I’ve seen about the lack of clear reasoning here, is that what we are left with, (and please correct me if I’m wrong), is the implication that Faith believes the name change at Saylorville is indicative of a more serious but not as ‘obvious’ compromise. The problem is, at some level, this is ‘unspoken gossip’- a skill that Baptists have definitely mastered. Without clarity, there is nothing left but speculation. These kinds of machinations make my knees itch.

Susan,

I would observe that what you attribute to a “lack of clear reasoning” in the discussions here is because we have had no official FBBC representation. I have talked to some Faith people about these matters in the past, and was in the environment a decade ago, but I cannot speak for the president or the board. JVDM is back in the environment, Greg Long is a “faculty kid,” and Paul Scharf is a former student (as is Bauder, for that matter), so there are varying degrees to which we can lend our perpsectives. But none of us, in the end, can communicate what the official position of the school is. They’ve done that with their statement. What is left unsaid is because it is just that- currently unsaid. It would be better, in some ways, if some things were said- but I would say that some of those issues you would have far less unanimity on that you do with the “Baptist” name among the constituency, and even the board itself.

The comment about a lack of clear reasoning is referring to what has been left ‘unsaid’, not what has been said in this thread. I recognize that the FBBC doesn’t have a rep here to answer questions, and that we are just tossing around ideas based on what little we know.

Greg (Long),

So you’re a fellow Ballard Bomber? I had no idea! Back in the early 1970s I spent many a happy hour in the gymnasium of the elementary school in Slater.

I can’t help thinking that we are talking past one another at several points. You evidently think that I misunderstood (or even willfully misrepresented?) some of what Pat said. By the same token, I think you have misunderstood or misappropriated some of what I said, though I don’t think you would misrepresent it. Rather than try to hash through this point by point, let me back up and try an entirely different approach.

While Charlie will surely cringe under the deficiencies of a gross oversimplification that I am about to make, I would like to suggest that approaches to language can be divided into at least three classes.

(1) Words mean other words. This is the approach of structuralism, and it readily decays into deconstruction.

(2) Words mean things. Besides being the approach of Rush Limbaugh, this is also (very roughly) the approach of nominalism. The word is merely a convenient label. When it becomes inconvenient, it can be easily replaced, discarded, or invested with some alternative meaning. Something like this is happening right now in the debate over “gay marriage,” which isn’t really either.

(3) Words mean ideas. This is approximately the approach of realism. Words point to something transcendent. Language is sermonic. While meanings can and do alter, meaning is nevertheless covenantal in nature, and, consequently, relatively stable. Meanings cannot simply be altered at will.

As it happens, I subscribe to theory (3). This definitely has an effect upon the way I view labels. Labels point, not to things (let alone to other words), but to ideas. The idea can be used to judge any appropriation of the label. If your can is labeled “corn,” and you discover green beans when you open it, you don’t just say, “Oh, this is another kind of corn.” You judge the can to have been mislabeled.

The label Baptist stands for an idea. That ideas includes at least six components.

1. The absolute authority of the New Testament in all church faith and order.
2. Believer immersion.
3. Pure church membership.
4. Individual Christian responsibility.
5. Congregational polity.
6. Separation of church and state.

Because the idea judges every appropriation of the label, we are in a position to say that people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Fred Phelps really have no right to claim the to be Baptists. If somebody wishes to associate us with them, then we ought to point out that such individuals are guilty of dishonesty (at minimum) in applying this label to themselves. Then we ought to explain what a Baptist is.

Every Baptist should be able to do this. Training in this point ought to be a deliberate aspect of our catechesis. The label may not be found in Scripture, but the idea is (or at least we Baptists believe that it is). Not only is it found in Scripture, it is prominently featured there and it is vital to the bene esse, and perhaps even in some senses to the esse, of the church.

Since it is a very important matter, a church that orders itself according to the idea ought to be willing to announce its order publicly. I suppose that there are multiple ways of doing this. One way would be to feature the above list prominently on the church sign and other public documents. Most churches, however, have found it a bit cumbersome to call themselves the First [or whatever] New-Testament-Authority-Believer-Immersion-Pure-Church-Membership-Individual-Christian-Responsibility-Congregational-Polity-Separation-of-Church-and-State Church. They have found it much more useful to use the label that reflects the idea. That label is Baptist.

I would have no objection at all to a church dropping the name Baptist in favor of another name that was equally or more descriptive of its distinctives. Unfortunately, however, such a name does not exist. No one has yet coined an alternative, and if anybody did, it would not be likely to catch on. So we are stuck with the name Baptist.

I have nowhere suggested that if a church abandons the name Baptist, then it will also abandon the names Christian or Church. What I have argued is that all of the reasons for not claiming the name Baptist also apply to other labels like Christian and Church. If the argument for dropping the name is persuasive in the one instance, then it ought to be equally persuasive in the other instances, or, indeed, in any instance whatever in which someone somewhere finds a label to be either offensive or meaningless.

Of course I do not think that Saylorville is likely to stop calling itself a church (though many of the emergents have—we may not have a “Community Garden Club,” but we do have a “Solomon’s Porch?”). But why not? Whatever reasons Saylorville can offer for retaining the name Church also apply to retaining the name Baptist. It is simply a matter of calling things by their right names.

As far as I know, Saylorville still affirms all of the Baptist distinctives. At that level, we agree. The difference between us is this. I believe that those distinctives are so important that we ought to be known publicly for our adherence to them, and that the best way of announcing our commitment to these distinctives is to use the one label that denotes them. Since it has now rejected the label, I believe that it is fair to infer that Saylorville values the distinctives themselves differently than I do. Furthermore, that difference in valuation is a doctrinal difference.

Speaking of labels, here is the principal definition of demagogue: “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power,” (definition supplied by Merriam-Webster). I certainly hope that this definition does not apply to anything that I’ve said in this discussion.

By the way, I was number 83 on the football team. I played defensive end. Go, red and white.

Kevin