Increasing Leadership - Latest Comments

Re: What’s in a Name?

Matt McMorris — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:30:51 -0000

The ordinance of baptism is extremely important. I would not disagree with that.
The statement could perhaps have been worded better, but what I am saying is that the name being on our signs is not what is important. Following in baptism by immersion is very important.
Thanks for the comment!

Re: What’s in a Name?

Bobby — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:54:27 -0000

This is an excellent line-- "The world is going to have a problem with us because they ultimately have a problem with Jesus."

I think you might want another look at this one: "The acrostic we learn in Bible college that fits the word baptist is not inspired. The word itself is not what is significant – but what it stands for is."

Baptist means immersionist. It was given by God to John. Jesus started an immersionist church and commanded them to preach the gospel, baptize all who believe, and teach them all things. The churches of the New Testament were immersionist churches. I think the word itself is extremely significant. Thanks for considering.

Bobby

www.apurechurch.com

Re: What’s in a Name?

Matt McMorris — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:19:54 -0000

As always, I appreciate your thought out comments and thought provoking questions, Scott. Thanks for jumping into the conversation.

Let me begin my answer by saying there seems to be a lot of talk about dropping the name simply because of its negative associations. My primary goal in this post was to show that dropping it for that reason alone is a reactionary move and not the most logical.

However, I don't doubt that there may be times when a Spirit-filled church might find that there reach in their community could be advanced by using a different name. My point is not that it is wrong to change the name, but rather that just changing it because it is "easier" is odd.

We always identify with something. Whether it's baptist, community, non-denomination, etc.... Even having no label gives a church a label. We can't shake them. Each church must define what their beliefs are.

Can that be done with a different name. Certainly!

But for one church to change their name and then mock those that continue to use it is a problem. I've seen that too.

Those that are the cruelest to baptists are typically guys who once referred to themselves as baptists.

Does this answer your question?

I hope things are going well out there in the land of warm weather!

Re: What’s in a Name?

Matt McMorris — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:13:20 -0000

Thanks for reading it! Hopefully it will help you as you think through the issue.

Re: What’s in a Name?

Scott Postma — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:45:01 -0000

Thanks for the thoughts on this topic, Matt. I appreciate your spirit and the thoughtfulness that went into the post. I also recognize the very nature of a blog doesn't always allow for a more comprehensive treatment of a topic. But having mentioned that you're not sure what your position might be later on down the road (my paraphrase) I'm wondering if you think there may be a principled reason someone (assuming they are a committed follower of Christ) would choose not to identify with the baptist label? In your analysis of the issue could you see a biblical reason--or even one predicated on wisdom--that would compel a church to identify as a "community church" for instance? I would be interested in your thoughts on that. Thanks brother. Blessings.

Re: What’s in a Name?

CarolAnnie44 — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:18:23 -0000

I've often thought the same thing... lately I've been pointing out more and more that we are first and foremost, a church, because Jesus died for it, and independent, because the New Testament churches (and I guess the Old Testament one also! lol) were independent. We serve as a local body of Christ, and are not subject to another church, a pope, a government, etc. Only Christ Himself, through His word. While I am all for dialogue that helps us to sharpen and encourage one another, the bottom line is that we are answerable to God for our own church, no one elses (and Westboro really ticks me off! I refuse to call them Baptist, though they claim the name...)

Re: What’s in a Name?

Matthew Ehlen — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:00:49 -0000

Thank you for the article, Bro. Matt. This very topic has been something that I've been giving a lot of thought to lately and have been discussing with other students of the ministry. This article gives me something to chew on. Good thoughts and thanks again!

Re: What’s in a Name?

Brian Walden — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:51:46 -0000

Good stuff Matt! Changing the name is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If we were to change our name based on the actions or in-actions of othersothers, we should just as soon stop calling ourselves Christians as well. Let's face it, there's been plenty to shame the name of Christians as a whole. I totally agree that we should define what our church is, instead of running away from a name. I for one am happy to be a Baptist believer.

Re: What’s in a Name?

Matt McMorris — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:19:06 -0000

Correct. The issue is not so much what is on the sign at all. It is about why we are changing it. If it is simply to distance ourselves from something, it may not be the best reason.

However, if someone does feel that God is leading them to change it, they should, and the rest of us should be okay with that.

Re: What’s in a Name?

Daniel Irmler — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:13:05 -0000

Matt, good article. I think you brought up something important. And that is, you are going to have to draw a line in the sand at some point wether you have the name Baptist or just Church on your sign there are going to be those who are vehemently against you. My hope is that anyone who is making changes is just bring spirit filled and anyone seeing those changes would also be spirit filled in their reactions.

Re: 4 Reasons to be Excited about the Future of Independent Baptists

Tom Huber — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:06:53 -0000

Matt, thanks for the good thoughts on your blog! I would appreciate and welcome your thoughts on our church website. I do want it to be interesting and relevant and am praying I can learn how to do more even at my advanced age. :)

Re: 4 Reasons to be Excited about the Future of Independent Baptists

Matt McMorris — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:11:55 -0000

Thanks for the comment! I think it is important in a world where our image/testimony can spread so easily to be very careful about how we present ourselves, and more importantly, how we present the gospel.

Re: 4 Reasons to be Excited about the Future of Independent Baptists

Matt McMorris — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:07:05 -0000

I do love that young professionals are exhibiting a heart for the local church and using their gifts and talents to serve the church.

Thanks for the addition!

Re: 4 Reasons to be Excited about the Future of Independent Baptists

Bryan (@BMLESQ) — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:19:46 -0000

Solid post Matt. Because of college, grad school, and now my "real job," I've been a member of three different IBF churches in the last 8 years. All have embraced all of the above, but to varying degrees. As examples, one is a part of a state-wide youth fellowship, one is active in a group of New England/Northeast Corridor churches who work together to plant other churches, and one FINALLY updated its website. All are encouraging to an under-30 professional who has spent my life in the movement.

Re: Resolving the Unintentional Divide Created by Bible Colleges

CarolAnnie44 — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:50:43 -0000

By the way, this is not a "plug" for the Ecclesiastical Law Center. They make no profit, charge nothing, and have plenty to keep them busy. They've been around for around 25 years or so, and their goal is to help churches to just be a church - not a business, not a corporation, not an "employer", and not even a "non-profit" (would you need that if you and your neighbors decided to go in together to buy a gas grill so you could get together and grill on summer nights? ) We as a church don't "make a profit". We get together in a building, and all share in its maintenance. We band together to accomplish things for the cause of Christ. We aren't a business, and we don't need government approval. We also don't "defy" the government, so signing a document that puts you under state guidelines is setting yourself up to do so. You agree to abide by "public policy" which makes preaching against controversial issues illegal. Gay marriage, adultery, whatever.

Re: Resolving the Unintentional Divide Created by Bible Colleges

CarolAnnie44 — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:43:01 -0000

Of course, this article doesn't address those of us who never went to Bible College at all (or any college for that matter). While I am not against college (I used to say I was "all for it" but not anymore) I no longer consider it essential, and for a pastor, the ideal situation is being trained by another pastor to start a truly local church (one that splits and starts another church when they outgrow their facility, not another service time). And just to add another bit of controversy, being an incorporated church (or an unincorporated association) also places the church under the state rather than Christ (making it not a truly local, New Testament church in my opinion). This is rather recent in my life, since I never even thought about whether incorporation was "good" or "bad" before - every church incorporated, didn't they? I know this seems off-topic (I tend to do that) but I believe that the trend toward mega-churches, having the "biggest and best" Bible College, and incorporation, are all related, and tend toward the same end (turning the church into a business rather than the local gathering of the body of Christ). If anyone has any interest in looking at incorporation from a fresh perspective (most just don't want to "go there") then start with reading the incorporation papers for your church. Find out who you really serve. Who will get your church property if it should ever fold without first deeding the property to someone else? Or if it gets into a dispute? The state can (and has, in some cases) come in and take over all property owned by the church. If you're incorporated, that's perfectly legal. The picture has website information in case anyone is interested. As I said, it seems off-topic, but I don't think the correlation can be ignored...

Re: "So Amazed" Feedback

kimmy Daley — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:41:22 -0000

i remember everyone singing this song at summer camp 2012 i believe it was, at camp cobeac (: my whole cabin would sing it everynight during cabin devotions because we loved it so much(:

Re: The Unintentional Division Created by Bible Colleges

CarolAnnie44 — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 09:43:59 -0000

Sorry, I was replying to the same comment you were replying to! I'm not exactly a Bible college fan, but for very different reasons than the ones given by Keith or Isaac. The topic at hand is division caused by mega loyalty to those colleges, so delving into a comparison of Bible college vs. secular college is really comparing apples to oranges. That would be like you (Matt) complaining that you didn't get a medical degree from Bob Jones, when what you went for was music training. If the student doesn't match his/her goals to their choice of college, that can hardly be blamed on the college (and the whole "culture" comment reminds me of the "socialization" rhetoric used to slam homeschooling - utter nonsense used to justify throwing our children to the wolves, in my opinion).

Re: The Unintentional Division Created by Bible Colleges

Matt McMorris — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:51:14 -0000

Is your comment directed at Isaac or at my post? I'm a little confused. Sorry!

Re: The Unintentional Division Created by Bible Colleges

Matt McMorris — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:49:34 -0000

Keith,

I'm not sure you get the point of the post. I'm not saying there is no point in attending a Bible college. In fact, most Christian schools want you to have the degree for a multitude of reasons. For example, they want to know that you did learn something, that you were able to have the discipline to complete college, that you were able to develop some social skills that come from an environment outside of living at home, etc...

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I feel that if got "called" your daughter (probably a better choice than "moved"), then it is a wise place for her no matter the cost. If she went against your will, then I am sorry, and that is an entirely different issue.

I know, that as a general rule, I would like someone teaching in a school to have a college level degree. Of course, there may always be exceptions though.

Please just understand that NOTHING in my post was intended to make you or anyone else feel that college was unnecessary. Sorry if I poorly communicated that.

Re: The Unintentional Division Created by Bible Colleges

CarolAnnie44 — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:27:00 -0000

As someone who firmly believes in pastors getting their training through a local church (as opposed to a Bible college) I still must point out that "higher" education is also quite laughable in many respects. College is no more the "real world" than high school (both artificial environments) and "culture" is simply what you surround yourself with (why did you choose to isolate yourself during college?) so if you only hang around college students, is that not also a form of isolation? And there are very real dangers in college "culture" (party hardy, sleep around, "explore new ideas" which includes some of the most horrendously offensive ideas, depending on how "progressive" your learning gets). We are currently homeschooling a junior high and a high school daughter. Instead of the shallow, cutthroat world of high school (which I remember well) my children are interacting with people of all ages, exploring real options (my oldest just learned to draw blood from a goat for lab work) and getting a good education (no accreditation needed or wanted). While my girls will be prepared for college if they choose it, I no longer consider it a great option for many fields, and would rather see them avoid the traditional pursuit of a degree, in favor of something more practical (apprenticeships being one of many options). Matt, sorry this is so off-topic, but the idea of secular colleges being so wonderful is not something I could let pass... and ask any college if they are the "best" and they will certainly sing their own praises! So that's really an aspect of any college. It kind of goes with the territory, whether Bible college or secular college.

Re: The Unintentional Division Created by Bible Colleges

Keith — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:20:12 -0000

Thank you for confirming my opinion on Wcbc where my daughter has decided she was "moved" to go. I think it is a waste of money and she is fooling herself to think she has to have a non degree from Wcbc to work at a Christian school. My wife works at a Christian school with credits earned at a junior college for a few hundred dollars not 40K.

Re: The Difficulty of Separation

Jared — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:22:31 -0000

Ok, this is now my third comment in a row in your blogs... Am I now officially a fan or what?

Anyway, silliness aside, I always find these to be helpful:
1. Total separation from: (1) False doctrines (unorthodox teaching that are explicit in connection with the Gospel). For example: virigin birth, deity of Christ, inspiration of Scripture, penal-substitutionary atonement, etc.(2) blatantly disobedient brethren, and (3) worldliness (explicit sinful habits).

2. Concerning areas where there are theological differences in doctrines that are not related to the Gospel (Bible versions, music, eschatology, baptism, etc.), have limited fellowship. It's okay to fellowship with a fellow believer who is passionate about Christ, the Gospel, and holiness. But it will be a limited fellowship. The difference in beliefs are too great that you cannot possibly plant a church together or serve together as elders/pastors of the same church. Perhaps, you can't even be in a conference together (depending on what the conference is about).

3. Concerning areas that are trivial, let love abound. Agree to disagree.

The categories I mentioned above (especially #2 and #3) are not really set in stone. But I hope you get the idea. This principle has always been a help to me when talking about separation: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Grace and peace.

Re: How to Develop a Biblical Philosophy of Music (Part 2)

Jared — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:07:14 -0000

I like everything I read so far. I can relate to this because I just, unofficially, created my own personal philosophy of music. I never really break down the process as you have. But I find it interesting that I followed your process (though not in order) exactly as you say it.

I just wonder now how far is my conclusion from yours.

Another thing, I find "conviction" to be really closely related with "standard" with overlaps of meaning. I guess we just have a different understanding of what "conviction" mean. For example, I could say: "I have strong convictions about not going to movie theaters."

I prefer "biblical principles don't change (they are trans-cultural and timeless); but "personal convictions or personal standards" change in culture and time. In addition to biblical principles, explicit doctrines also don't change (e.g., "Jesus is born of a virgin").

So, I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you 100%. I guess this is just semantics.

Re: Are They Leaving Fundamentalism?

Jared — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:52:15 -0000

The warning about bitterness, I think, is good. We can all fall into that trap. Pride will be another one--thinking that we are somehow "better" than our hyper-fundamentalist brothers because we figured out what they don't seem to get or that we are just more theologically smarter than they are. We younger guys could fall into that easily and without knowing it.

Talking about fundamentalism repeatedly, however, does not necessarily bring bitterness and pride... if we are cautious, gracious, and loving about it.

I think it is being talked about a lot by younger guys in ministry or seminary because that is the issue they face at the moment. They see the errors from the belief systems they grew up in. Do we really complain why Martin Luther keeps talking about "justification by faith?" or why our Fundamentalist forefathers kept talking about separation and holiness (from liberal false teachers and worldly sins)?

I don't blame people in my generation for talking about the problems in fundamentalism--as long as it is in a Christlike spirit and for healthy instruction. Although I have to admit, I have never been to this blog until recently.

As far as Fundamentalism is concerned, my personal opinion is... why choose whether being a conservative evangelical or remain a fundamentalist? Why can't we just get the strengths of both and reject the weaknesses of both. Fundamentalists need to learn from confessional evangelicals. I think, evangelicals need to know the spectrum of fundamentalism and learn from them too. And I think much of this is happening now, which I am thankful for.