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

http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=1077

Eventually the name “Regular Baptist” became somewhat generic and no longer necessarily designated particular atonement beliefs.

As has been noted, the term “Regular Baptist” was originally used to designate Baptists that adhered to the Philadelphia (or Second London) Confession. It enters Fundamentalist history through T. T. Shields of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto, Canada. Shields was a thoroughly Calvinistic Baptist who went all the way with the Second London Confession. As Baptist Fundamentalists left the Baptist convention in Canada, they organized the Union of Regular Baptist Churches.

One of Shields’s very good friends was Oliver W. Van Osdel of Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids. Van Osdel is the original Baptist separatist in what eventually became the Fundamentalist Conflict. In 1909 he led a separatist movement from the Grand Rapids Baptist Association over the liberalism of Fountain Street [Baptist] Church. The new fellowship included the vast majority of the churches from the older association, and it called itself the Grand River Valley Baptist Association. By the late teens, it had grown to the point that it was renamed the Michigan Orthodox Baptist Association, and promptly thrown out by the state convention, which viewed it as a rival convention.

Van Osdel was never really happy with the name “Orthodox Baptist.” He was also unhappy with the name “Fundamentalist,” because he considered the Fundamentalism of J. C. Massee and the Fundamentalist Fellowship (now the FBFI) to be a compromise position. He was casting about for a better label, and Shields provided it in the form of “Regular Baptist.”

O. W. Van Osdel, together with R. E. Neighbour and William L. Pettingill, organized the Baptist Bible Union in 1922 (they had wanted to organize it in 1920, but agreed to wait until Massee, who was organizign the Fundamentalist Fellowship at the same time, had taken his shot at cleaning up the NBC). In 1930, Van Osdel led in beginning the reorganization of the BBU into what became the GARBC in 1932. By that time, most of Van Osdel’s younger proteges had picked up the name “Regular Baptist” as well.

The GARBC was dominated by a mild version of Calvinism from the very beginning. This perspective operated as an assumption on the part of many fellowshipping churches and pastors, but no one attempted to make it official until the 1970s. The result was an explosion heard as far as the Biblical Evangelist circulated. But that is another story.

At an rate, in GARBC usage the expression “Regular Baptist” lost some of its Calvinistic connotations, retaining the emphasis upon loyalty to historic Baptist principles. It’s worth noting that the GARBC was built more upon principles than personalities. Ketcham used to talk about not having any “Big Men,” and he meant it. He himself refused to be a Big Man, designing a structure that would keep any one person from gaining too much power. This was one of the key distinctions between the Regular Baptist Movement and some other versions of Fundamentalism.

Kevin,

Would the doctrinal terms of the BBU work today, or do you think that was a contributor to its demise and would be again? As I am understanding it from Delnay’s book (but it’s been a while since I read it, and its at my office, so I can’t verify at the moment), there was a wider latitude in the BBU on Eschatology than there ended up being in the GARBC, especially with T.T. Shields.

“Wealthy Street Baptist Church” - They probably needed better PR too.

Given the original topic of this thread combined with some of the other discussions going on right now, it is interesting to note that FBBC is hosting the 2013 annual conference of the FBFI. One of the keynote speakers is from a church that does not have Baptist in their name. Furthermore, I believe that the FBFI accepts conservative Bible churches/individuals into their membership. For the record, I don’t have an issue with either of those things. In fact, I think of them very positively. But it seems relevant to the conversation involving Saylorville and FBBC.

[Shaynus]

“Wealthy Street Baptist Church” - They probably needed better PR too.

I understand, but it is a real street name- corner of Wealthy SE and Eastern SE. The connotation, at least originally, would have been no more unfortunate, at least locally, than “Hampton Park” or “Capitol Hill.” It was quite influential in its heyday. Even at Faith, I had a professor (from my grandparent’s generation) who was saved and sent out from there as a missionary. What is now Cornerstone U started in the church’s basement. The radio program Children’s Bible Hour had a lot of initial support from Wealthy (Uncle Charlie still is a part of the congregation). Henry Bosch, one of the regular contributors to Our Daily Bread, was a member. David Otis Fuller, author and compiler of Which Bible?, was pastor there for 40+ years. The old building is still there- you can see it here:

http://goo.gl/maps/oxmFn

The church still exists, though they moved. They retained the historic identification, though the moved to another part of the city, and became Wealthy Park Baptist- something that is more obscure as time goes on, and has more of the unfortunate connotation you hint at. That’s the church my wife grew up in, and my wife and I were married in.

Shaynus,

The church was originally Wealthy Avenue Baptist Church. Later on the city renamed the avenue and made it a street, so the church changed its name. The avenue was originally named after a man whose surname was Wealthy. Van Osdel used to explain this periodically to people who had the wrong idea about the socioeconomic status of the congregation.

When Van Osdel went there in 1909, the congregation was crammed into a little building that was hardly more than a shack. He drew the plans for a new building himself. The first section to be built was the education wing—three stories high, long, and narrow, the end faced the street. By itself it was an odd structure that people called “Van Osdel’s Folly.” Eventually the church completed the auditorium and the administrative wing. The building served the congregation into the 1980s, when the church moved into a new facility and renamed itself Wealthy Park Baptist Church.

Van Osdel’s successor was David Otis Fuller, eventually the pioneer of the King James Only movement. He went to Wealthy Street in—what?—1934? He was a young man, a recent graduate of Princeton Seminary, where he studied under J. Gresham “Das” Machen. The two maintained a correspondence until Machen’s death. Interestingly enough, the young Fuller tangled with Edgar J. Goodspeed over the inerrancy of Scripture. In his correspondence with Goodspeed, he maintained that the ASV of 1901 is a more accurate translation than the KJV.

KTB

Machen was also the best man at Fuller’s wedding, FWIW.

Mark,

Actually, I would not be surprised to see FBBC invite Pat Nemmers to occupy its pulpit at some point. Since at least the 1960s (and probably before) the school has taught that fellowship occurs at multiple levels, with the corollary that a limitation on fellowship at one level does not necessarily entail a limitation on fellowship at every other level.

For example, FBBC would not allow its students to be members of a Grace Brethren church, but they regularly have John Whitcomb teach and preach on campus.

So the FBFI is not necessarily inconsistent when it has a non-Baptist in the pulpit. Didn’t they used to feature Ian Paisley at some point? I’m not sure.

Sometimes, shared platforms simply do not entail a full mutual endorsement. Let the word go forth.

Kevin

yeah… but still the irony still doesn’t escape me. The whole topic is whether the name communicates to those outside the know or not, and whether that communication is important. Baptist or Wealthy Street, the point remains that its easy to see how the name matters in a way that outsiders have a different impression than insiders.

We had a big wind last night and it blew away my church sign.

My church holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, is independent and autonomous, practices baptism of believers by immersion, has two offices-pastors (elders) and deacons, holds to the individual priesthood of believers. We believe Jesus is coming back but we’re not dispensational. Can we put Baptist on our new sign?

Pastor Ron,

We also have that pesky allowance that those who have been baptized before as a believer with another mode (pouring) may join our church, though we only practice immersion. Do we count as baptists? We should.

Shayne

[Kevin T. Bauder]

…a limitation on fellowship at one level does not necessarily entail a limitation on fellowship at every other level.

…Sometimes, shared platforms simply do not entail a full mutual endorsement. Let the word go forth.

The problem with the word going forth in this way is that it will continue to cause great confusion.

People’s lives are affected by such philosophical positions. The tragic irony in the FBBC/Saylorville case is that by June 30, 2013 (not but 3 weeks after FBBC hosts a conference where one of the keynote speakers is from a church that has chosen to keep Baptist out of its name in order to more effectively reach their community) employees of FBBC will have to make a gut wrenching decision to either remain in (and lose their jobs) or leave a church that has chosen to keep Baptist out of its name in order to more effectively reach their community.

If I may be so bold, I believe that too often our fundamentalist institutions of higher learning wield far too much power.

We also have that pesky allowance that those who have been baptized before as a believer with another mode (pouring) may join our church, though we only practice immersion. Do we count as baptists?

The Baptist response is “No,” because there is no such thing as “baptized … with another mode.” Baptism is immersion. It is impossible to be “baptized by another mode” unless you mean by “mode,” something like forwards or backwards, hot or cold, running or still, etc (Was that Strong?). Whatever happened, it isn’t NT baptism unless it is immersion.

I would argue this ties in with the regulative principle. We do not have the liberty to confess Christ any way we choose. We are to do it the way Christ ordained, which is by baptism, and in the NT that is immersion.

What you have in this description is believers without a credible public confession of faith. (Remember, Dever’s comments on this in response to the question about public invitations and how people would profess their faith in Christ without one? “I suggest we do it the way they did in the NT … by baptism.”) Baptism is one way that you guard a regenerate church membership. It’s not a foolproof way, but it is part of the equation.

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.

Isn’t the biblical label that encompasses these things “church”? Of course this goes to the definition of “church,” and there is some debate about the minimal qualifications (i.e., not a church vs. a church out of order vs. a properly ordered church). “Baptist” is necessary only because others have (illegitimately, IMO) misappropriated the label “church” for things that don’t match the list you give. So if we have a biblical definition of church, it will be the things you list above, and no other label will be needed. Of course, it’s not so simple because we don’t all share a biblical definition, so the ship of simplicity has sailed long ago, but nonetheless I would argue that the biblical label for these things is “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.

But do they? I am not sure I am convinced yet, though perhaps I misunderstand you. For one, I have not encountered anyone who thinks the same way about “church” as they do about “Baptist.” For two, the label “church” and “Christian” are NT labels; the label “Baptist” is a label that describes NT teaching about what “church” means. So in NT terms, “Baptist church” is redundant, or as one person said, “It’s like deja vu all over again.” Or to quote Jack Nicholson, “Is there any other kind?” (Someone told me he said that once.)

So, in a sense, the use of “Baptist” in a church name is already an accommodation, brought on by those who have adopted “church” to mean something else. Is it a good and necessary accommodation? In some cases, yes. But in all cases? That is the question.

Kevin, I think you would say, “yes, it is important in all cases of church names.” No?

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.

That assumes that the argument is the same (see above). But even if this is so, would you agree that there are differing levels of meaning and offensiveness, and that not all levels are equal (or else even the word “level” would have no meaning). Even the word “offense” needs meaning. For some, it means “makes me mad.” Or “rubs me the wrong way.” For others it means “cause to sin.” In this particular instance, I think the better word to use is “stumblingblock.” Is the label “Baptist” a stumblingblock to people hearing the gospel? If so, is it a biblical stumblingblock?

Or to put it differently, is the label “Baptist” so important that it is worth turning people away from hearing the gospel over it? Now, I write that as a firmly committed sovereigntist in salvation who believes that objections over labels are not real reasons, and as one who hasn’t considered it important enough to lead our church to remove it. But is a question worth asking.

Kevin, if I understand you correctly, you would answer that question affirmatively: Yes, the label “Baptist” is so important that it is worth turning people away from hearing the gospel over it. No?

One last thing, I think at some level, we are discussing whether to have a conversation about Baptist distinctives up front, that is, prior to the gospel, or later, after the gospel. To use the name Baptist as a leading identifier requires that I explain that to at least some people prior to explaining other things. And indeed, that has been the response of some, though I don’t recall who: “Just explain that Fred Phelps is not part of us because we are independent and autonomous.” Is that an opening conversation? Or a later one?