Am I Baptist?

[donnA]

So what is the standard of length of membership, and how active must one be? For example, if I have been a member of a Baptist church (one) for about as long as you have been alive, drive a van, teach Sunday School, visit, usher, serve as a deacon, does that make me more qualified than you?

You know what, I don't make the rules, I only told you what we had been told here by the powers that be, which is not you or me.
Active, as in actually attending a baptist church, not how much you do there, which is bragging.

 

[EdSutton]

I don't make the rules. He said he does not go to a baptist church.

The only "rule" I have read, at least recently (I can't remember how they may have read two years ago, back when I joined the BB.), merely says "Baptists Only" for some forums. And that is what is stated in some forums, whereas some others say "All Christians", and still others have no 'subscript' regarding this, at all.

The "Posting Rules", which I clicked on at the bottom of the page, do not go beyond this in defining what constitutes a "Baptist", that I saw, either.

I am not questioning anyones motives, but would say that I personally have a strong dislike for the sort of unstated and unwritten "rules", that seem to get trotted out every so often, and usually, it seems to me, when some poster disagrees with another poster's POV, with the result that some try and use something as an ex post facto tool for silencing another poster. (Some might like the "something" to be useable as a de jure tool, I'd expect, as well.)

I have sometimes suggested a thread be moved by Moderators to another forum, when one does not show any "Baptist" identification in the profile, usually a new poster, but don't usually suggest one should not be posting. I don't know who may or may not have done this in this thread, merely reading a post, and finding a reason to make a humorous comment, as is my wont.

FTR, I am not any of any sort of 'power that be' either.

Sorry that my computer is acting up (probably from some key I accidentally hit, and my bride is not here at the moment to fix my MistEaKes), :laugh: so I cannot get any "apostrophe" mark to insert. I shall try and log off and edit it later, after entering this post.

[Edited to add] Apparently, loging off and coming back fixed the problem.

Ed

 

[donnA]

Ed I can only tell you what we were told.
A baptist is not someone who goes around claiming to be baptist, while attending other chrches not baptist. In the past members have been asked to not post in the baptist only, as they were not in baptist churches.
Since I don't make the rules, I am not responsable for them.

 

[Timsings]

So, what do we have here?

We have folks who don't mind being identified AS Baptist (or baptistic), but don't want to be identified WITH Baptists.

And we have folks who still identify with Baptist churches, but don't buy some of the Baptist distinctives.

I'd like to hear more from those who fit either of these categories. How come?

You have arrived at the crux of the problem. "Baptist" once encompassed a diversity of opinion. There was a "big tent" that embraced many theological types. But, in the last 30-40 years, the tolerance that once existed among the groups has been disrupted. Now things are confused.

On the one hand, there has been a tendency to redefine "Baptist" by some people who want the term to mean whatever they say it does whether it agrees with the traditional positions or not. Therefore, many traditional Baptists do not want to be identified with other "Baptists" who follow these new definitions.

On the other hand, Baptist churches that follow the new definitions of "Baptist" are more likely to ignore the ideas and principles that have traditionally distinguished Baptists.

If you are interested in reading about the ideas and principles that have distinguished Baptists, I would suggest the following:

Charles W. Deweese, ed. Defining Baptist Convictions: Guidelines for the Twenty-First Century. Providence House, 1996.

Curtis W. Freeman, James William McClendon, Jr., and C. Rosalee Vellosa da Silva. Baptist Roots: A Reader in the Theology of a Christian People. Judson Press, 1999.

Bill J. Leonard. Baptist Ways: A History. Judson Press, 2003.

H. Leon McBeth. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Broadman Press, 1987.

Walter B. Shurden. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Smyth & Helwys, 1993.

The problem with picking any one of these is that there is a diversity of approaches. Shurden is the most concise book concerned with only the principles. Both Leonard and Freeman et al. have initial chapters or introductions that detail these principles. They are either trying to give actual lists from historical documents (Leonard) or trying to distill a general list from a collection of older lists (Freeman et al.). But any one of them will get you started.

As for me, I view myself as a traditional Baptist. I grew up in a SBC church. My father and, later, my wife, worked at denominational entities. So, I have been close enough to the dark side of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. Members of my church have been disparaged or fired from their jobs because of the stances they took while the takeover was in progress. I'm biased because good Christian men and women had their faith challenged in order to cast aspersions on their characters. My view is that I am still a Baptist. I did not walk away from the SBC. The SBC walked away (or, was taken away) from me. The SBC leadership has made it very clear that they do not want me or others like me in the SBC. So, I will continue to be a Baptist in a Baptist church that appreciates the diversity that Baptists have traditionally embraced.

Tim Reynolds

 

[Tom Butler]

Not to be taken seriously.

Is this a first? A poster makes a comment, then comes back to oppose his own comment? Saturn, that's a sneaky way to get your post count up.

 

[Tom Butler]

You have arrived at the crux of the problem. "Baptist" once encompassed a diversity of opinion. There was a "big tent" that embraced many theological types. But, in the last 30-40 years, the tolerance that once existed among the groups has been disrupted. Now things are confused.

On the one hand, there has been a tendency to redefine "Baptist" by some people who want the term to mean whatever they say it does whether it agrees with the traditional positions or not. Therefore, many traditional Baptists do not want to be identified with other "Baptists" who follow these new definitions.

On the other hand, Baptist churches that follow the new definitions of "Baptist" are more likely to ignore the ideas and principles that have traditionally distinguished Baptists.

Tim, I didn't quote all of your post #24, since it was quite long, but if folks want to get caught up, they can go back and read it.

A couple of observations: You do not fit the description I outlined. You are a self-described Baptist who belongs to a Baptist church.

You have done what most Baptists have done. You have sought out a Baptist church where you are reasonably comfortable with its doctrine and practice. You seem to have found a church that is diverse enough for you.

But this begs another question: just how much diversity can a church (or denomination) handle without losing its identity? Is there a point where such diversity of doctrinal views in a church renders the name meaningless? At what point would you say, this far and no more?

So, did you really look for a church that celebrates how much its members are different from each other? Or did you look for a church that thinks pretty much like you do?

Maybe it's my old right-wing redneck deepwater SBC background that makes me wary of churches which see uniformity and unity as vices;, and diversity and how much its members disagree with each other as virtues.

 

[Timsings]

. . . A couple of observations: You do not fit the description I outlined. You are a self-described Baptist who belongs to a Baptist church.

You've got me. I'm busted.

. . . But this begs another question: just how much diversity can a church (or denomination) handle without losing its identity? Is there a point where such diversity of doctrinal views in a church renders the name meaningless? At what point would you say, this far and no more?

This question is analogous to asking the circumstances under which a person would lay down their life for someone else. No matter how you answer, it does not gain legitimacy until you are actually confronted with the decision. Last week we had a man here in Nashville who tried to prevent a purse-snatching. He was stabbed and later died of his injuries. A church is like that. The congregation can affirm high ideals all they want, but, until they are confronted with a real situation that tests those ideals, they cannot say for sure how they will react. I have heard of a church in Texas that is dealing with a homosexuality issue that developed out of the photography schedule for their church directory. It has received some publicity, so their resolution of the problem could cause them some real problems. It will also likely cost them some members. The biggest problem in my church occurred when we changed out qualifications for deacons which resulted in women being elected. We lost a few members at first, but some of them came back eventually. I don't know anyone who would suggest that we go back to the way things used to be.

So, did you really look for a church that celebrates how much its members are different from each other? Or did you look for a church that thinks pretty much like you do?

My wife and I were not happy with the church I grew up in after we returned to Nashville after college. The biggest issues for us were preaching, music, and SS. We visited several churches, and were eventually drawn to one particular church that had a relatively new preacher, a small but strong music program, and a very friendly SS class. The issue of the diversity of the church did not arise until later. But, we joined 2 1/2 years before the 1979 SBC meeting when the trouble started.

Maybe it's my old right-wing redneck deepwater SBC background that makes me wary of churches which see uniformity and unity as vices;, and diversity and how much its members disagree with each other as virtues.

I don't think it is an issue of diversity. I think it is more a question of how each member views their own position. People have always been willing to discuss matters thoroughly without taking some sort of absolute position ("If you don't agree with me, you're going to Hell!"). We have Democrats and Republicans, social liberals and conservatives, SBC loyalists and CBF followers, Caucasians, a few African-Americans, and a Vietnamese congregation. The church is largely run by committees and the deacons all elected by the congregation. Matters involving money, personnel, and facilities, have to be taken to the monthly business meetings for approval. Everything is above board and out in the open, so it would be extremely hard for someone with a hidden agenda to make any changes.

I understand your "old right-wing redneck deepwater SBC background", and I understand your wariness. You are right to be so, but it is not necessarily people's differences that drive them apart. It is how they deal with those differences.

Tim Reynolds

P. S. Thanks for asking these questions. They represent the kind of issue that we should be discussing more often here. It's 11:30 P. M. on Christmas Eve. I hope you have a Merry Christmas up in Paducah and wherever else there are Baptists!

 

[Tom Butler]

Tim, thanks for your answers, and I wish for you and your family a blessed Christmas Day.

he church is largely run by committees and the deacons all elected by the congregation. Matters involving money, personnel, and facilities, have to be taken to the monthly business meetings for approval. Everything is above board and out in the open, so it would be extremely hard for someone with a hidden agenda to make any changes.

You are describing my church as well. I understand the arguments for the elder-led system, and congregational government can be messy at times. Our treasurer accounts for every penny received and spent at each business meeting, in writing. And congregational government keeps the leadership from taking the church in directions the congregation doesn't want to go.

The congregation can affirm high ideals all they want, but, until they are confronted with a real situation that tests those ideals, they cannot say for sure how they will react.

Exactly. My church is quite conservative and traditional, but close examination will reveal a few Calvinists, a Landmarker or two, a bunch of dispensationalists, and a smattering of historical pre-mils. So far, we've had no power struggle over these issues, and don't intend to. Most church fights are not over doctrine--they're over power. Where the church leadership has a servant mentality, and where a congregation has been through the devastating effects of a power fight, they're less likely to occur again.

 

[Timsings]

. . . And congregational government keeps the leadership from taking the church in directions the congregation doesn't want to go. . . .

We are in the midst of a pastor search (14 1/2 months). This can be a stressful time for many churches. Our pastor emeritus retired after 31 years, so this is new territory for most of us. I'm 56 years old, and this is the first pastor search I've ever been through. My wife chairs our Transition Committee, and my daughter is on our Search Committee. There have been no problems aside from a little impatience from some of the members. We have a good interim, but he is completely different from our retired pastor. Some of our members are having a problem with the difference, but I think the experience has been good for us. We've also talked about the probability that we will lose some members when our new pastor comes. That will be unfortunate, but we will get through it.

I hope you have a great Christmas. We had a very good Christmas Eve service last night, and we will have most of the family here for presents and dinner.

Tim Reynolds