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

Greg,

Point taken. But my point is that I think we’re taking this too far, giving it too much attention, as if the efficacy of the Holy Spirit rests on what letters we put on our church sign.

How about we focus on expository preaching, sound doctrine, and actual evangelism?

IK

[Jonathan Charles]

Do Baptists do this more than most? Tim Keller went to the heart of secular America to evangelize people who had every wrong preconceived idea there probably is of organized religion, yet he started a church with its denominational commitment clearly communicated in its name, and the church has flourished. IMO, that it is typical of unbelievers to not go to a church just because it is Baptist is just a bogeyman used by a pastor to scare a church into changing its name.

Yes, Jonathan, I think that “Baptist” is especially problematic, at least for some demographics. In popular media, Baptist is associated with Southern, far-right Republican, uneducated, intimidating, and sometimes bigoted. I work at a Catholic university, and my colleagues are much more uneasy around Baptists than around some other Protestants. Some immigrant groups also feel that Baptists are more likely to be out to get them. Concretely, the most visible hate group in the nation is Westboro Baptist Church. (BTW, Fred Phelps attended BJU and left, ironically, because BJU was too prejudiced. Bizarreville.) So, whether Baptists deserve it or not, they have a PR problem. And that’s why I don’t think the Tim Keller comparison works that well.

If it’s any consolation, Pentecostals who ask for money on television rank even lower than Baptists on the PR scale.

I understand the negatives that could be associated (like Westboro), yet on the other end of the spectrum, you have Jesse Jackson, MLK Jr., Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. Articulately, you can see someone like Al Mohler consulted by CNN, let’s say, to comment on some cultural issue. Now, those people aren’t “our kind” of Baptists in one sense, true… but still, those aren’t the same kind of categories of concern for lost people that Westboro is going to cause.

I think the Keller parallel is appropriate. It shows that the denominational name can, at the least, not be the huge problem it can be made out to be. Bethlehem Baptist in the Twin Cities (Piper’s old church) would be another example where Baptist doesn’t seem to have limited them.

Baptist isn’t going to communicate everything. But it does communicate something, as does removing it.

Yes, Faith Church removed the “Baptist” from the name on their several buildings. We heard they were going to do it but were still surprised when we saw the change. It appears that they recently overhauled their website, and maybe the older picture of the church “slipped through the crack.” I tried to paste a picture of the new logo here but was unable to do so.

One thing I’ve noticed about large churches in smaller fellowships is the large church can do pretty much whatever it wants to do and the central office is powerless to stop it. It is significant to note that this “controversy” is between an educational institution and an individual church and not between an individual church and the central office. Both the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches and the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches are “fellowships” of churches and not denominations. I can’t speak for the GARBC, but the Grace Brethren’s central office policy is definitely “hands off” of the individual churches. A few years ago our largest church walked away from the Fellowship. That reinforced my opinion that the large churches such as Faith Church of Lafayette or Goshen Community Church are “denoms” in their own right.

Concerning Matt Olmstead’s comment on my statement, “Men and women suffered and died for the Baptist name in England and colonial America,” perhaps I should refresh my admittedly rusty memory and read on the subject again. I should have left it at “suffered.” John Bunyan’s several years in jail is the most well-known case of persecution against English Baptists, Correction noted.

Just a Saturday morning note to make people smile.

Each day I drive by the First Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church. One of my c0-workers attends a Baptist church where many of its members are re-baptized every week to, as she says, “get a fresh start in their lives”. I was in a small town with 28 independent Baptist churches that included charismatic, free will, and four versions of KJV only.

Seriously, is having Baptist in your church name necessary to being a true Baptist church?

28 independent Baptist churches, and only FOUR KJV only! Around here it would probably be more like 20.

That was 6 years ago Greg. I’m sure they’ve done “the baptist split” a number of time since then. They had separated from each other over their “convictions” on the existence of the LXX, the inspiration of the verse numbers and chapter headings, the “right” Bible publisher, and the inspiration of the italicized words.

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.

—>

[Ron Bean]

Seriously, is having Baptist in your church name necessary to being a true Baptist church?

In the interests of full disclosure, Ron Bean was my pastor in my late teenage years (circa 1990-91), and oversaw the changing of our church’s name from Baptist to “Bible.”

––-

I don’t think it is absolutely necessary- not even Faith would argue that, I wouldn’t think. However, as they say in their statement, “It has been the intent of the school to provide an anchor for those who agree with this stand” (to ““unashamedly identify itself as Baptist”). They are seeking to preserve a tradition. As I noted in the other thread, it is something Faith has advocated for a while, and it is something the state association currently requires. The situation in Iowa is not like many in the south- if you look at the data here, for example. You will see that Polk county (where Des Moines, Saylorville, and Faith all are located) lists 14 churches that are GARBC- a larger sampling than any other Baptist group listed. While there are others that also use the name “Baptist,” in Iowa, the IARBC has 103 churches in the state, and would be representative of what it means to be “Baptist” as far as reputation in the local context. For those who are critical, you are basing some of your conclusions on your own perceptions. At least consider the perspective of where they are.

However, as Jesse (JVDM) has noted in this thread, and Bauder implied in his article, there are other issues related to this specific matter, and perhaps they are really the issues driving this.

When Ron led the change of our church’s name in Maine, it very much made sense for the time and context. There was a large church in the area that had prominently been identified with the Baptist name that our church was striving to distinguish ourselves from, for several reasons. I don’t second guess that decision. It made sense in the context, as does Faith’s decision in theirs.

I knew Greg Linscott would expose me. For the record our church dropped Baptist from its name for two reasons. It was a relatively young church that had split from the largest and most noted Baptist church in town when its long time pastor was exposed as an adulterer, complete with national TV coverage and Jerry Falwell to the rescue! It had been named Landmark Baptist and the people had no clue as to what a Landmark Baptist was. And the name Baptist really was an automatic turn-off to the people in our community and we seldom had opportunity to explain why we were different. We didn’t change a thing in our doctrinal statement or practice and the only problem I had was when a young man wanted to go on a mission trip with a baptist mission and they initially refused him because we didn’t have Baptist in our name. I explained to them that we were, in fact, a Baptist church in faith and practice and they let him go.

If some Baptist associations or fellowships want to require their members to have the name Baptist, that’s their privilege. If some don’t, I guess that’s OK too. If a Baptist school wants to forbid its teachers and students from attending churches that aren’t named baptist, that’s within their right. Isn’t that what Individual Soul Liberty is about?

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(5) …prize what the name stands for

(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.

(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)…You can always gain a bit more visible effectiveness if you are willing to down play some aspect of your commitment to truth.

Contrary to popular opinion, labels are important. They matter so much that, if we didn’t have them, we would need to invent them.

5 (the first) - This is one source of contention. No one even agrees what the name stands for today.

5 (the second) - Is it true as asserted in the letter that both parties have argued there are no doctrinal issues? If not, then identify the pastor as a liar for saying such. If so, than why is an outsider contradicting both parties involved by claiming a doctrinal issue is at stake. Furthermore, I strongly disagree that the label Baptist carries any doctrinal significance in and of itself. If there is some real doctrinal issue involved, then quit hiding behind a label and deal with the actual doctrinal issue.

6 - The question is whether an unnecessary stumbling block is being clutched. There is an entire shift in meaning between “church” and “garden club”, something not necessarily true about removing the label Baptist.

Last quote - This church has not abandoned all labels, but one specific label. We don’t have to create anything to fill the vacuum in the label change.

Not to mention Obadiah Holmes and his run in with Governor Endicott in 1651.

[jimfrank] SNIP

Concerning Matt Olmstead’s comment on my statement, “Men and women suffered and died for the Baptist name in England and colonial America,” perhaps I should refresh my admittedly rusty memory and read on the subject again. I should have left it at “suffered.” John Bunyan’s several years in jail is the most well-known case of persecution against English Baptists, Correction noted.

Do a Google search on “Faith Church Lafayette Indiana” and this is what comes up:

Faith Church – A Baptist Church in Lafayette, Indiana

www.faithlafayette.org/church/

General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Location, service times, staff profiles, ministries, calendar, beliefs, and resources.

So, what has really changed in going from “Faith Baptist Church” to “Faith Church-A Baptist Church”? Maybe they haven’t finished scrubbing all traces of what they are.

I do not think we can ignore the implications of a location. I grew up just south of where Greg Linscott is at now. When I was in my teens and early 20’s I was not yet a Baptist, but when I was talking to people about Christ and the Bible they would often ask “what are you?” I’d tell them I was a Christian, but they wanted to know what that meant so I told them that I pretty much believed what the Baptists believed. It was a helpful descriptor in that setting. I do not ever remember getting a negative vibe for saying that, but that was 20 years ago. I do not think there are any extreme IFB churches in that area (unless you travel a couple hours to Sioux Falls) at, so that may be part of the reason.

My wife on the other hand grew up in a very extreme IFB church in WY where the the pastor was Hyles supporting, KJVO, dictatorial, taking money from the offering plate, and committing adultery. Her view of the term Baptist is a bit different than mine because of her negative experiences earlier in life. Her experience has made her much more sympathetic to Saylorville’s decision.

She also had a more recent experience. She loves to sew, and has joined an online board with other women who sew as well. They have forums for sewing questions, but the ladies also bring up many other topics to talk about. She has had a great opportunity to witness and disciple online with these women. She has noticed in this group that many view the term “Baptist” much differently than I do, and many have a VERY negative view of it.

For Ron Bean it made sense to take out the name Baptist. For Greg, I can see why it really makes sense to keep it.

On a side note, we are planning to move to the Sioux Falls, SD area at the end of April to start laying the groundwork for a Regular Baptist church plant. In that area the Independent Baptist churches tend to be more extreme and many of the others tend to be quite liberal. I am expecting that many of the churches most similar to the GARBC do not even have Baptist in their name in that area. Once we get over there, we will have a better gage on how “Baptist” is viewed in that region. I want to have Baptist on our sign to identify us, but my question is how big or very small the letters should be :). Please pray for us as we face these decisions and other challenges of planting a church.