Tag: change

Greg Locke, Fundamentalism and the “Baptist” Label

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

Recently, Pastor Greg Locke, a well known speaker among both Independent Fundamental Baptists and some Southern Baptist churches, announced that he is removing “Baptist” from the name of his church. Instead their initials GVBC will now stand for Global Vision Bible Church.

Removing the word “Baptist” from the church name is not an uncommon move. The argument is that removing the name makes the church more accessible to some who would shy away from the Baptist label.

In Locke’s case, it means more than dumping the baggage that the title Baptist holds. Instead, he views it as a departure from the IFB movement as a whole. I wonder how much of this is in part due to the recent 20/20 expose on the IFB movement? Perhaps other pastors and churches need to think through this issue themselves. Understandably, this has caused some shockwaves and Locke’s Facebook page was all abuzz with comments good and bad.

I wanted to share his reasoning for removing the name Baptist, and then ask others to chime in on your thoughts related to this. Personally, I’m a deacon at a Baptistic church, that doesn’t have the word Baptist in our name. Yet I’m not necessarily ashamed of it either. That being said, I do think that “being all things to all men” can definitely include modifying the church name (to some extent). And I’m a Christian more than a Baptist anyway.

Here’s the excerpt from Locke in a letter written for his church, explaining the change:

Here is a list of reasons that I feel this is a very important move:

1. Because of our geographic location (Nashville) 95% of any Baptist church is automatically associated with the SBC. While I have many friends in the Convention, we are not affiliated as a church. I preach in some of the greatest Southern Baptist churches in the country but I believe GV should remain Independent in our structure and governance.

2. The IFB “movement” as a whole is totally out of control and I do not personally wish to be identified with it any longer. Legally, our church will still be Global Vision Baptist Inc., Practically, I am worlds away from where I was even 5 years ago and I cannot in good conscience give my full support to a movement that has become nothing more than a mini controlling denomination. I understand that every “camp” of churches has it’s own issues, but I am unwilling to have GVBC submitted to the dictates of a legalistic mindset of man-made regulations. I preach in dozens of IFB churches, but we desire to be truly Independent, even in our identity.

3. The type of families/people we are reaching could care less about such an issue. I have come to realize that people’s lives are so much more important that the name a church has on the sign. We are the church and if we are not healthy as a body it doesn’t matter what the sign says. So many of our people are brand new Christians or are healing from an experience in the same type of church we are distancing ourselves from.

4. Because of our strong emphasis on Powerful Preaching, the term BIBLE would be much more in line with our DNA and overall vision. People say that to remove “Baptist” will take away our identity. Exactly! I want our identity to be nothing but the Word of God. We didn’t start a church so people “like us” would show up. I want a church that is solely built upon the radical principles of the Book. If people know that there is a place like that, they will flock to it. However, if they merely think we are the same kind of church they grew up in, then we won’t even get them in the door. I don’t want our church identity sabotaged by a loyalty to denomination, movement, camp or tradition. I want all my allegiance to God’s Word.

5. Personally, I’m a very hard guy to put in a box. I feel like I have not been true to who God made me to be and it has caused me much frustration. If I were to start the church over again tomorrow, this would be something I would do from the very beginning. God has done so much in my heart these last few years. But overall, I have allowed this constant “identity crises” to become such a focus that it has greatly affected my judgment and my family. I say “NO MORE”. How foolish I have been to seek so much of man’s approval. I am at a point in my life and ministry that if I can’t be who God made me at GVBC, then I must go somewhere that God can use me without the restraints of others that have nothing to do with our church. However, I know this is where God has placed me and I am positive that this is His leading. I’m not dying on the hill of being “Baptist”. But I will gladly lay down my life for the truth of the BIBLE.

We are going to remain as fundamentally sound as we have ever been. We are not changing Bibles or compromising truth. We will continue to keep a red-hot pulpit and build our congregation on expository preaching, soul-winning and world missions. I am grateful for my IFB heritage, but it will not be my future. If others interpret this as an attack on IFB churches, then they have clearly read between the lines. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”. This is not easy, but I know for us it is right. I love you all. Now, let’s change the sign and reach this town for Christ.

[SOURCE …link now not working…]

What do you think? I for one, commend a man who doesn’t walk a party line but is willing to follow God’s leading and stand on his own two feet. I also predict the reaction to this may just prove once and for all that the IFB movement is in fact, a de-facto denomination. Reactions such as this one by Pastor Gary Click, indicate that to remove the name and distance oneself from the IFB movement is taken (by the supposedly “non-movement”) as “separation”, with the result that the true IFBs will then respond in kind.

For more on Greg Locke, you can read an interview that Re:Fundamentals did with him back in 2009. Please, let me know what you think about this. For the record, I don’t necessarily endorse bailing from the IFB movement as the solution for everyone and every church. But it’s hard to argue that the label is falling on hard times.

Preserving the Truth Conference: A Success?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

First Baptist Church in Troy, MI hosted a new conference this past week. The Preserving the Truth Conference had over 350 in attendance and included the following main speakers: Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI), Mark Minnick (pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC) and Chris Anderson (pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH, blogger at My Two Cents). The conference was a “symposium on Biblical separation”.

It seems to be somewhat of a success, with great discussion in the panel session, and hopes that fundamentalism can work through remaining questions on how to implement separation in faithful and careful ways. The concern is how they relate to conservative evangelicals on one hand, and more right-wing fundamentalists on the other. On the one hand, their stated goal is to “[preserve] the truth through careful separation, robust theology, and cultural conservatism”. Yet it seems apparent that the organizers of the conference are hoping to address issues which are problems in the mind of many young fundamentalists who are leaving fundamentalism for greener, conservative evangelical pastures.

Here are some accounts of the conference (which I did not attend).

Here is the link to the audio or written notes from conference workshops and plenary sessions, as well as some additional material contributed for the initiative.

I’m optimistic about this conference, even though I wonder about the defense of “conservatism” as part of the rescue of Fundamentalism. Also the inclusion of multiple peripheral issues as key points related to the preservation of truth and the Fundamentalist movement doesn’t seem to help in stemming the drift of the young people out of fundamentalism. Still questions are being raised and addressed, and some solutions are being offered. Even though I differ with some of their emphases, I’m happy to see things like this happening, and can hope it has a positive impact in the future. I suppose this is happening elsewhere, but I’m happy to report the reformation of fundamentalism continues.

I hope to listen to some of the audio and interact more on this topic in future posts. I’m discussing some of my initial impressions over at Sharper Iron, right now.

Let me know if you were present at the event, or what your take is on it. Was it a success? Or is it the first step toward lasting and positive change?

A New Dynamic for Reforming Fundamentalists

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Change is underfoot at the group blog of reforming fundamentalists that I contribute to. Fundamentally Changed (subtitled Fundamentalists Who Are Fundamentally Changed, Yet Fundamentally The Same) will be moving to a new website: re-fundamentals.com soon, and we’re changing the name to Re: Fundamentals.

Rather than just focusing on the errors of fundamentalism today, we want to reform, revitalize and renew an emphasis on the original fundamentals. We’re hoping for a Fundamentalism 2.0 you could say.

The new blog will focus more on a positive stance for the fundamentals of the faith, and will flesh out how that impacts the church today. We hope to tackle some contemporary issues and offer a blueprint of sorts for how the church can move forward, taking the best of what was fundamentalism with it.

In this vein, we’ve been sharing some principles that form a new dynamic for where we want the blog and the conversation to shift. Here are the links if you care to check it out.

Phil Johnson on Standing Firm

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

…And let me add this: if you do abandon Arminianism and become a Calvinist; if you leave one eschatalogical position and take up another one; if you undergo any major doctrinal shift””don’t suddenly act like that one point of doctrine is more important than all others. Don’t blog or talk about it constantly to the exclusion of everything else. Spend some time settling into your new convictions before you pretend to have expertise you frankly haven’t had time to develop.

I think the tendency of fresh Calvinists to become cocky and obsessive about the fine points of predestination is one of the things that makes Calvinism most odious to non-Calvinists. Don’t do that. It’s not a sign of maturity, and you’re not truly steadfast in the faith unless you are truly mature…. (from Phil Johnson’s recent post: “Stand Firm“)

This fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in theology, is always open to the pendulum swing and a general unstable perspective on all things. This tendency is something to be aware of and to guard against.

Does this mean we should all have a stable eschatology or all points figured out on every doctrinal position? Does it mean we should pontificate and criticize others not exactly like us? No. We shouldn’t be tossed by the wind, but neither should we root ourselves in something that isn’t connected to solid ground.

For those who are still developing in their pursuit of a stable and correct theology. Don’t rush things. Take your time. Be slow to talk and aim for wisdom. Take Phil’s advice. Study your Bible first, books second, and blogs last.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of not heeding this advice in the past. But by God’s grace, I’ve become settled on many things. And I’m not afraid to say when I’m not! May God continue to shape and mold us all.

Seriously, check out Phil’s article, it will be worth the read, and let me know what you think.

A Fundamentalist Self-Critique

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

The last few years have seen the world wide web do a number on fundamentalism. I speak particularly of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement, and the influence of blogs like Sharper Iron (SI).

Jason Janz, SI’s founder, published his young fundamentalist survey, and soon thereafter Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniac fame), delivered his speech “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism“. A maelstrom of web action, interaction and reaction ensued which has yet to calm down. The fundamentalist blogosphere has been a place for theological critique and development, and has been the occasion for a slow exodus from the IFB movement.

Some, like myself, left the IFB from other considerations. Others were awoken to errors in extreme fundamentalism (IFBx) through the web. For all, the availability of conservative evangelical materials produced by John Piper and John MacArthur and others, has given a greater intellectual freedom to many as they can see what life outside IFB (or IFBx) halls looks like.

With the winds of change blowing strong, and with the emergent movement and other bleak theological developments on the horizon, many a fundamentalist leader and institution has taken a skeptical view of the web and of Sharper Iron and other fundamentalist blogs. This should not be surprising.

The reactions have not all been so stick-in-the-mud-like, however. Many fundamentalist leaders are jumping into the fray and being honest and open about the problems they see. Leaders like Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder and other contributors at Sharper Iron, give hope to fundamentalism as a willingness to change is displayed. The idea and merits of fundamentalism are being clearly put forth, and many a young man stays within the IFB ship hoping to play a part in righting it and seeing fundamentalism play a part in helping wider evangelicalism see the errors of its way (and there are many).

Now that I’ve brought you up to speed, let me encourage you to read this fundamentalist self-critique by Kevin Bauder. He has just started a series that will detail a history and critical examination of fundamentalism. His posts come first as essays in his online publication In the Nick of Time, from Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. Then they are showcased at Sharper Iron. Andy Naselli tipped me off to the article being available, and I’m sure this week SI will be publishing it there. You can read it now here (pdf). [Update: here’s the link for the article on SI]. Let me add an excerpt or two from it to entice you to read the whole thing. Part 1 is also available here.

…Because they are cut off from the Christian past, fundamentalists have little sense of the extent to which they have truncated the whole counsel of God. While they rightly insist upon the necessity of confessing certain fundamentals, they have little patience for careful doctrinal exploration and articulation, even when the doctrines under consideration are fundamental. They profess to love the Bible as an object, but even in the better neighborhoods of fundamentalism it is not difficult to find people who despise the attempt to understand biblical teaching in any depth.

Fundamentalists are all about defending the faith. Too often, however, all that they are willing to defend is a truncated faith of slogans and clichés. Even the most important areas of doctrine are reduced to rather pat formulae. Non-fundamental areas of the faith may be left completely unexplored.

Comparing Fundamentalist faith and practice to the faith and practice of historic Christianity is like comparing a hamburger to a filet mignon. The two obviously have something in common, but it would be misleading to say that everything in the steak is also in the hamburger.

Kirsopp Lake said that Fundamentalism is the “partial . . . survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.” To the extent that he is correct, Fundamentalists should probably be a little less enthralled with his description. And I think that he is right.