Resolved

Posted on Jul 18, 2006 in baptism, church, Henderson Hills by Wes Kenney 24 Comments

What follows is the text of a resolution adopted on Monday, July 17, 2006 by the Executive Board of the Capital Baptist Assocation, of which Henderson Hills Baptist Church is a member (HT: Rich Dunbar). While there potentially over 300 members of this board, there were 50-60 in attendance. This resolution was unanimously adopted:

Resolution Affirming Scriptural Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Privileges of Church Membership
Whereas, Capital Baptist Association consist of Baptist churches in the Metropolitan Oklahoma City area which subscribe to the statement of "The Baptist Faith and Message" or similar articles of faith, and

Whereas, the Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention, June 14, 2000 states in Article VII.- Baptism and the Lordâ€™s Supper: Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; Being a church ordinance, it is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership, and

Whereas, the Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention, June 14, 2000 states in Article VI - The Church: The New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, and

Whereas, Capital Baptist Associationâ€™s Constitution and By-laws states in Article III - Membership - item 3: The association reserves the right to determine its own membership and to refuse to seat messengers and/or withdraw fellowship from churches that may have become corrupt in faith or practice, and

Whereas, Henderson Hills Baptist Church will vote on the proposal of their Elder Council to eliminate baptism as a prerequisite for church membership during their services on the weekend of July 29-30, 2006, and

Whereas, the Elder Council of Henderson Hills Baptist Church has publicly announced this proposed bylaw change to eliminate baptism as a prerequisite for church membership, now therefore be it

Resolved, that the Executive Board of the Capital Baptist Association meeting on July 17, 2006 affirm the "Baptist Faith and Message" and similar articles of faith which state that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and being a church ordinance, it is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership, and be it further

Resolved, that we affirm that the New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, and be it further

Resolved, that we encourage the members of Henderson Hills Baptist Church to affirm and maintain their current bylaw requirements for church membership, and be it finally

Resolved, that we encourage the churches of Capital Baptist Association to pray for the leaders and members of Henderson Hills Baptist Church as they seek Godâ€™s will in this matter.

This is somewhat wordier than the resolution I will offer at the annual meeting of our state convention, but the intent is the same: to encourage adherence to our traditional and scriptural understanding of a regenerate, scripturally baptized church membership.

About the Author

Wes Kenney

Comments (24)

Bob Cleveland Jul 18 2006 - 4:52 pm

I can fault neither Henderson Hills, nor the Association. They are both responsible for following their leaders, and their leading, in these matters.

It would be corporately egotistical for the Association to think that every church ought to belong to their group, just as it would be the same for the church to think everyone ought to be a member there. It may well be that God doesn’t want Henderson Hills to belong to the Association any more. If true, that could be for a variety of reasons, not all of which would be complimentary to the Association, or to Henderson Hills. But whatever God wants, He’s going to get.

So be it.

Reply
Jonathan Jul 18 2006 - 5:24 pm

I’d like to make a few comments concerning the Resolution, and also Mr. Cleveland’s response above.

First, I think this type of resolution is an example of the kind of intrusion I commented on earlier today. If Southern Baptist churches are truly autonomous and self-governing, why all this interference and intrusion to try to influence the vote of the members at HHBC?

Second, regarding Mr. Cleveland’s comments. His comment, “It may well be that God doesn’t want HHBC to belong to the Association anymore. If true, that could be for a variety of reasons…” This is the kind of Calvinistic response I highly disagree with. If God wants HHBC to withdraw from the CBA, God would surely communicate that to Pastor Newkirk and the HHBC elders. I do NOT believe God speaks through circumstances. Rather, I believe God confirms what He has already said through circumstances.

If the CBA eventually eventually votes to remove HHBC from the CBA, that does not make such an action God’s will. It could be then, that CBA would be interfering and intruding on God’s will. Food for thought.

Reply
Mark Jul 18 2006 - 5:38 pm

Seriously?

Frankly, I’m amazed that the folks at Henderson even want to be Baptists any more.

You guys keep passing resolutions, and Dr. Newkirk will continue leading his church. Do you even care to respond to his sermon from Sunday? How is it possible for Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson to disagree on matters of God’s sovreignty and maintain unity, but Henderson isn’t allowed to tweak a bylaw on baptism and membership without getting resolutions passed against them.

And you wonder why people are leaving the baptist church in droves…

Reply
Alethes (Truthful) Baptist Jul 18 2006 - 7:57 pm

Bob,
On the whole, I think your comment is very insightful. We disagree on a few things from time to time, but I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

Jonathan,
I did not read your earlier comment so I speak with caution. However, the CBA has every right to post their position. You claim it is intrusion of the Association into the autonomy of HHBC. While their position may influence votes, I don’t see it as intrusion. Even so, historically Baptist associations have passed numerous documents such as this towards churches they felt were wavering. To deny associations the right to guard their membership is anything but baptistic.

Most importantly, though, I would like to take you gently to task on your understand of God’s movement through circumstances. You said, “If the CBA eventually eventually votes to remove HHBC from the CBA, that does not make such an action Godâ€™s will.” THis is certainly possible. However, how do you deal with a passage such as Matt 16.19 concering Jesus giving authority (to Peter and to the church) to bind what has already been bound in heaven and to loose what has already been loosed in heaven?

Mark,
I’m confused at the purpose of your post. And, to say this graciously, i think you have seriously underestimated the change HHBC seeks to make. It is much more than a mear ‘tweak’ing of a bylaw. The relationship between a regenerate church, baptism, membership, and Christ’s church are very serious matters. To think otherwise is not being faithful to Baptist theology and history.

Wes,
I am grateful for your coverage of this issue. I believe it is a serious matter. I do not fault HHBC for searching the Scriptures for their theology. I do not fault them for taking Baptist theology to task when they feel a doctrine is based more on tradition than Scripture. I applaude them for taking their time and for understanding the consequenses of their actions. That being said, I am still not convinced that their actions are the right and biblical course. Do I think them to be apostate? No. I respect their autonomy but I know their actions (if approved) will all but castigate them from our denomination. They are Spirit-filled and are searching for truth. May God bless their search for such truth.

Charis humin,
Alethes (Truthful) Baptist

Reply
Todd Jul 18 2006 - 8:51 pm

So potentially 20% of the Executive Board of the CBA passed this resolution. Sounds much like resolutions passed at and SBC Annual meeting. A fraction of our constituency votes and is alleged to speak for all. So, what will CBA do about the derelict board members? Will there be a move to censure those who fail to attend these meeitings?

Surely you see the sarcasm as a means to point out the unhealthy conflation of issues. Henderson Hills is not “against” the intent of the BFFM but is calling into question the practice.

Funny how everyone is convinced the Scriptures militate against HHBC’s position but the supported texts continue to be inferential based on a presuppostion one brings to the Scripture rather than from a healthy hermeneutic.

I reitereate. Tradition is not necessarily bad. Honesty is better when facing an issue such as this. Better to admit we are looking to preserve Baptist Tradition rather than mire this issue in rhetoric about someone missing the point of this Scripture or that Scripture and drawing conclusions in dire contrast to the explanations given by Pastor Newkirk and the Elders of HHBC.

Wes, I raised some questions on your “Distinctive” post that apply both here and there. Any possibility of getting your thoughts on those questions?

Reply
Mark Jul 18 2006 - 9:01 pm

Are we seeking to preserve a Baptist theology or a biblical theology?

The purpose of my post was to voice my frustration at the fact that the Executive Committee doesn’t have more pressing issues to deal with than a non-kingdom issue.

I’ve been a baptist for a lot of years, but I’m frankly getting tired of being against everything. Why can’t we cheer for Henderson for looking in the Bible for the rationale for what they do? Why do we have to pass resolutions because they’re reading their Bibles? Do we not have a biblical answer to their question?

Reply
Paul Jul 18 2006 - 10:02 pm

Am I the only one who finds it a little odd, and perhaps presumptive, that they first resolve that HHBC affirm their current position and *then* resolve that they seek God’s will in the matter? What if they seek God’s will, believe they have heard God’s will and as a result adopt the new proposal?

Reply
Jonathan Jul 18 2006 - 10:25 pm

Alethes:

Please my response to the Baptist Messenger commentary that Pastor Wes provided. That’s the post I referred to. Call it influence if you’d like, but to me and my friends at HHBC, it is interference and intrusion.

The authority that Jesus granted to Peter and the church deals with binding and loosing, and that authority is not for elders only, but for every Christian believer. That is, you and I, as non-pastors (I am assuming you’re not a pastor, but if not, the same is true), have the authority to bind and loose things in heaven. However, I would not consider an act by the CBA to remove HHBC from its membership to be something within the scope of Matt. 16:19.

Todd,

I think you made an excellent point here… “Funny how everyone is convinced the Scriptures militate against HHBCâ€™s position but the supported texts continue to be inferential based on a presuppostion one brings to the Scripture rather than from a healthy hermeneutic.”

Paul,

Your point is right on as well. HHBC may truly be hearing from heaven… why should the CBA or BGCO interfere or stop them?

Reply
Rich Dunbar Jul 18 2006 - 11:49 pm

Okay, I was at the meeting and personally do not support removing HHBC from fellowship even if they pass this proposal and have publicly supported Pastor Newkirk even though I disagree with the proposal. I however did vote to AFFIRM THAT THE POSITION STATED IS THE TRADITIONAL BAPTIST POSITION. No action whatsoever has been taken against HHBC in any way.

Now to clarify a few falsehoods.

1. The leadership at the CBA has been very careful to not take any PUBLIC position with regard to this matter. You have not seen or heard our DOM\’s comments anywhere even though he has been asked by TV news, and multiple print media to comment on this. His position all along has been to wait until HHBC takes their vote so as not to \”influence\” them in any way.

2. The CBA is also an autonomous organization and has every right to affirm what they and a majority of their voluntarily affiliated churches believe and practice. They are not sending copies of the resolution to HHBC members. They will likely send a copy to their Pastor though. Also keep in mind that all resolutions are NON BINDING.

3. As to the way that the CBA conducts it\’s meetings. I attend most pastor\’s conferences and Executive board meetings. The number that attends probably flucuates between 30 and 60 on any given month. Any pastor may attend any and all meetings if they wish. The fact that they don\’t is in no way an indictment on the legitimacy of the matters decided. A detailed agenda of every meeting is sent out in advance so every Pastor has the opportunity to attend and participate if they so desire.

4. The CBA is governed by bylaws just as churches are and probably adhere to them more closely. In fact they adhere to them to the letter of the law. The process by which HHBC could eventually be removed from the CBA by force will take over a year to complete and would span no less than two annual meetings and require a super majority to pass. In the span of that year the CBA would be obligated to work with HHBC to resolve the matter in a more agreeable fashion. Alternative approaches to what they are saying they intend to do have been offered to their leadership and one by me personally which you can read on my blog. So far there doesn\’t seem to be any indication that they are interested in any of them. I could be wrong but after listening to Dennis sermon on the web from last Sunday, I don\’t think so.

5. Lastly, I have spoken with Dennis personally and state again publicly that I would stand beside him if there were any effort to break fellowship with them even though I disagree with their proposal. However the BGCO and CBA are not the ones who brought this matter into the public arena. If I am not mistaken HHBC leadership went public with their intentions first. I will correct that if I am wrong though. I know with regard to the CBA that they haven\’t said anything publicly until the resolution was passed on Monday and am not sure to what extent they have even made that known officialy. Intrusion and interference would be launching a campaign to speak to their members and influence them directly. If HHBC has a solid Biblical position then they should trust their members to read all they can and come to the right conclusion.

I will be happy to answer to anything I have said above if it is inacurate in any way.

Reply
Kevin Stilley Jul 18 2006 - 11:54 pm

I typed a comment, but it became too long to affix here, so agains my better judgment I posted it to my blog. Nevertheless, let me make just a couple of quick comments. I think that some of you are missing a key element – - – association. Association is voluntary, association welcomes feedback, and association implies identity.

Jonathan, if your friends at HHBC consider the communication from their brother and sister churches as intrusion, then that accusation itself is a form of dis-association from the community. Those interested in community/assocation do not tell those they disagree with to “shut up” your opinion isn’t welcome.

Mark, your comment about non HHBCers being part of the zeitgeist of negativism is absurd. That is the kind of rhetoric that the abortionists use against Christians. “Christians are against choice,” they say. Christians aren’t against choice, they are “for” unprotected babies. The CBA isn’t against HHBC, they are “for” Baptism.

You guys need to put on your thinking caps because it appears that you have jumped to a one-dimensional conclusion without seriously exploring all the issues.

Reply
Jeff Richard Young Jul 19 2006 - 12:50 am

Dear Mark,

Your reference to the policy of baptism prior to church membership as “tweaking a by-law” and a “non-kingdom” issue shows your unfamiliarity with the seriousness of this issue. I offer this seriously, not as a joke or a smarty response: Please note that we are “Baptist” churches. If we don’t believe that people should be baptized prior to becoming members, then what in the world DO we believe?

Dear Brother Wes,

I do believe people are taking this seriously—good! I find that Baptists, even pastors, are generally ignorant of our traditional beliefs about baptism. This is surely sending many pastors and other members to their Bibles to study.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

Reply
Jonathan Jul 19 2006 - 12:51 am

Pastor Dunbar:

Thank you for your kind words and explanations. I appreciate your clarity.

Kevin:

I don’t think what I’ve heard from friends at HHBC rises to the level of accusation.

In light of the comments on your blog, I have some follow-up questions:

1. What is the difference between fellowship and association?

2. What is your spin on the threat to refuse to accept CP funds if the bylaw change is approved?

3. Why does association imply identification? Please explain that because I do not understand your point there… elaboration would probably help, please.

4. Have you listened to Pastor Newkirk’s sermon from last Sunday?

5. Please respond to this: 1 John 2:19 refers to antichrists, and those who depart from the Christian faith, not to those who leave a particular denomination or church.

6. Besides your personal testimony, why do you think it would be disrespectful for Henderson Hills to remain a member of the SBC if the bylaw change was adopted by HHBC’s membership?

I look forward to the responses to these questions.

Reply
Wes Kenney Jul 19 2006 - 7:22 am

Todd,

Forgive me for not addressing your comment. I’ve been busy, what with the deer hunting and all…

You suggest that in this case, the autonomy of HHBC is being infringed because baptism is a more important distinctive (if I’ve mischaracterized your point, please correct me). I don’t agree with that premise. I have repeatedly said that HHBC has every right to make this decision, or any other decision the membership believes God is leading them to make. Their right to autonomously decide on a course of action, however, cannot infringe on the right of organizations with which they voluntarily associate to judge those actions in light of the majority practice, and to take appropriate action. Attempts by the BGCO and the CBA to influence their decision should stop short of threats, but it is entirely appropriate in my opinion that HHBC be shown the potential consequences their actions might have upon these relationships.

As to your questions about scriptural support for church membership as we have it today, I would just say that the first century church obviously knew nothing of denominational distinction. Of course many of the things we do are culturally influenced, but I believe what we have done is to apply, as faithfully as we know how, the authoritative biblical text to our current context.

What I come up with in that context is a situation where a Christian who does not share my church’s conviction on the proper mode and meaning of baptism is not a good candidate for membership in my church, and I would be puzzled as to why they would desire such membership.

I’d also like to address the claim that I, and those who agree with me, have a “sacramental” view of baptism. While I don’t think that is what is meant, as “sacramental” in its strict definition refers to the imparting of some grace, I would suggest that that claim cuts both ways. For someone to refuse to submit to baptism on the grounds that their infant sprinkling was true baptism reveals a “sacramental” view on their part of that baptism.

It is precisely because I do not have a sacramental view of baptism that I have no problem asking someone who has received “baptism” in another tradition to submit to what they might view as “re”-baptism. It is another opportunity for them to preach the gospel, and a refusal to do so comes either from pride or from a sacramental view of their previous experience.

I hope I have addressed the issues you raised; if not, please feel free to point out what I have missed. While I don’t expect that you will agree, I appreciate your involvement in this debate.

Reply
Jeff Richard Young Jul 19 2006 - 12:04 pm

Dear Brother Wes,

Ooooo, I’ve got to take issue with part of what you just wrote. You mentioned the case of a believer who wants to join your Baptist church, but has been sprinkled instead of immersed, and considers that Baptism. You say that you want the person to submit to immersion IN ORDER TO be qualified for membership in your Baptist church. That is exactly the false practice to which HHBC is objecting!

Oh, Wes, how could you?!?

Here is what we as Baptist pastors must do for the believer you have mentioned:

1. Instruct him from the Bible in the ONLY mode of baptism, immersion.
2. Offer him the chance to admit that his sprinkling was NO BAPTISM
3. Offer him baptism (by immersion, of course)
4. Baptize him
5. Ask him if he would like to start the process of becoming a member.

If, after #2, he does not admit that his sprinkling was no baptism, and that he is in fact un-baptized, then he should NOT be encouraged, nor finally allowed to join your Baptist church. He is not a Baptist, and just getting him to submit to dunking will not make him one. It will, however, violate his conscience, and make him more confused about baptism than he already was!

Love in Christ,

Jeff

Reply
Wes Kenney Jul 19 2006 - 12:42 pm

Having been taken gently to task by the Rev. Young, I now see that I was unclear in my previous comment. When I talked about asking someone to submit to what they see as “re”-baptism, I did not mean to infer that they should do so begrudgingly or against their will, but rather that until they can submit wholeheartedly to immersion as a proper method of baptism, they are not fit candidates for church membership.

I’m happy to say that Jeff agrees completely with me now.

Reply
Paul Jul 19 2006 - 2:03 pm

It seems to me that we’re contributing to our own confusion in this matter when we make statements like this one that was in Brad Waggoner’s article in the Messenger: “One clear truism regarding baptism is that virtually all Christian churches or groups since the time of Christ have practiced this ritual.” I read Al Mohler make essentially the same point: that the church has universally held to a baptized church membership. Then we turn and say that anything other than believer’s baptism by immersion is not baptism at all. Which is it? Do Presbyterians and Catholics practice baptism or don’t they? Since they don’t baptize it really isn’t true to say that they believe in a baptized church membership.

Reality is that a great majority of Christians for the last 2000 years have never been baptized.

Reply
Luke Jul 19 2006 - 3:04 pm

“Reality is that a great majority of Christians for the last 2000 years have never been baptized.”

That seems like a bit of a far fetched argument. Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be hard to back that up.

Reply
Paul Jul 19 2006 - 3:28 pm

Well, if believer’s baptism by immersion is the only thing we can call a true baptism then what is and has been practiced in the majority of churches throughout church history is something other than baptism. We may wish to call it a religious rite or some other name, but it isn’t truly baptism. That eliminates all of the Roman Catholic church along with Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, most Methodists, a good number of Nazarenes and the Christian Reformed Church along with others. In addition, the number of believers prior to the Protestant Reformation who practiced belivers baptism by immersion, while difficult to number, would have been minuscule.

Rather than being far-fetched, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate otherwise.

Reply
Mark Jul 19 2006 - 5:21 pm

“Please note that we are â€œBaptistâ€ churches. If we donâ€™t believe that people should be baptized prior to becoming members, then what in the world DO we believe?”

I find that petty. Baptism for membership is not the hallmark doctrine that holds the Baptists together. Believers baptism is. Henderson isn’t denying believers baptism, just saying that you can be a member of a local church without being baptized. Can’t you see the difference in that?

Reply
Kevin Stilley Jul 19 2006 - 11:15 pm

Jonathan,

Thank you for reading my blog ramblings/essay. I typed you a nice long reply here and then when I clicked â€œsendâ€ Wesâ€™s blog said I had typed the wrong security code and deleted everything I had typed. Arghhhh. So. . . you had better appreciate me composing this a second time (smile). However, I have to tell you that I am disappointed there are no questions below regarding my comments about baptizing Teddy Bears, or 7-Up the Un-Cola.

You suggested that what HHBC is saying about outside influence does not rise to the level of accusation. In Dennisâ€™s sermon he used the words â€œintruding,â€ â€œthreaten,â€ â€œtamperingâ€ and â€œbullying.â€ I would call that an accusation.

Here are my brief answers to your questions in the order prescribed by umim and thummim.

4. Have you listened to Pastor Newkirkâ€™s sermon from last Sunday?

Answer to #4: Yes.

2. What is your spin on the threat to refuse to accept CP funds if the bylaw change is approved?

Answer to #2: I wouldnâ€™t call that a threat. I wish my mortgage company would threaten me that they werenâ€™t going to accept my money.

5. Please respond to this: 1 John 2:19 refers to antichrists, and those who depart from the Christian faith, not to those who leave a particular denomination or church.

Answer to #5: I was extrapolating a principle regarding human association from the text. If you disagree, that is fine, it does not affect any of my points.

1. What is the difference between fellowship and association?

Answer to #1: Fellowship is a couple of guys going fishing. Association is a couple of guys deciding to buy a boat together.

3. Why does association imply identification? Please explain that because I do not understand your point thereâ€¦ elaboration would probably help, please.

Answer #3: When you join a team you become identified with that team. â€œDad, Iâ€™m a Tiger.â€ When you marry you become identified with your spouse, â€œI now pronounce you husband and strife. Ladies and gentlemen, I am privileged to introduce to you Mr. and Mrs. Chance Hardly.â€ When you are part of a gang and one member shoots a teller in a botched bank robbery, all of the gang are guilty by â€œAssociation.â€ When HHBC joined the CBA they became identified with it. Which leads right into #6.

6. Besides your personal testimony, why do you think it would be disrespectful for Henderson Hills to remain a member of the SBC if the bylaw change was adopted by HHBCâ€™s membership?

Dennis states in his sermon, and I quote, â€œOur issue there really effects us, it is about us as a church, no one else, just us.â€ That is absurd, as John Donne said, â€œNo CBA Church is an island.â€ (or something like that) That he could make such a statement bewilders me. Either he has not thought about the impact this will have on the other churches in his association, or. . .well, I donâ€™t even want to think about the alternative. And, if he and the elders have not thought about how this affects their sister churches, they need to postpone the vote until they have done some more thinking.

Further, I have a question that I keep trying to ignore because I donâ€™t like any of the possible answers. Any reasonable person who has spent even a few years in Baptist circles could have told HHBC what the response of their sister churches would be. However, Dennis, who has been a SBC pastor for 30 years ? seems surprised by actions of his fellow pastors. Is he really surprised? If he is, I am concerned. If he isnâ€™t, I have even bigger concerns.

HHBC and their sister CBA churches bought a boat together. HHBC has decided to pull the drain plug while out on the lake. The CBA churches protest that HHBCâ€™s actions effect more than just HHBC and that the CBA churches have a vested interest in the boat and HHBC is saying to stop intruding on their autonomy.

Bible Church folk are generally faithful God-loving people and I enjoy preaching in their churches, but they are not Baptist. I love my Mennonite friends and am even â€œassociatedâ€ with them via the Anabaptist-Mennonite Scholars Network, but I have not associated myself with them as a church, because they are not Baptist. The CBA and SBC have clearly stated that they believe and adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. HHBC has clearly stated that it does not believe in the BF&M. I guess the question is, will they still be Baptist if they travel down the road for which they seem headed? Even if they remain of the genus Baptist, I believe there actions like that of those baptizing Teddy Bears makes them a different species of Baptist than SBC Baptist. So, I think the most honorable action would be for them to take Mark and sail to Cyprus.

Jonathan, I hastily put together this second version so there may be a loose end or two. If you have further questions I will be glad to answer them, but it will be several days due to other obligations.

Wes, I apologize for posting such a lengthy comment. Iâ€™ll try to be more concise in the future.

Reply
Paul Jul 20 2006 - 12:13 am

Is baptizing in a fire truck still of the Baptist genus, and would we make a different argument about our association with those who shoot off confetti at such baptisms? If so, why? If not, why not? Now I’m off to recheck my Baptist history and make sure I didn’t miss some historic Baptist precedent on that matter.

Reply
Jonathan Jul 20 2006 - 12:21 am

Kevin,

Thank you for your lengthy response. I appreciate your diligence.

Your comments and answers are much appreciated; they are very insightful to help me understand your position.

I would like to respond to a few of your comments.

First, although I am not a member of HHBC, I do have friends who go there, and I also live in Edmond, so I do have a concern that what HHBC decides will affect other churches in the area, not just other CBA sister churches, but most likely other churches in Edmond… maybe even my own. You are correct that no church is an island, period. However, I do not see how a change like this in the HHBC bylaws would affect directly their relation to the CBA (or BGCO or SBC nationally). I think it is very sad that the CBA or BGCO (or whichever organization accepts the CP funds from HHBC) would refuse to accept mission checks. If no church is an island, then a “threat” to refuse missions money would actually be a signal that the CBA/BGCO desires to alienate HHBC for the reason of a change in its bylaws.

Second, you suggest that HHBC and the CBA sister churches bought a boat together, but now HHBC has decided to “pull the drain plug while out on the lake.” How does a change in their bylaw, potentially, signify pulling the drain plug out while on the lake??? That just does not make sense to me.

Third, by “Bible Church,” I don’t know what you were implying?? I go to Faith Church in Edmond (corner of 15th and Bryant), not Faith Bible Church on Coltrane (if you are familiar with various churches in Edmond or the area.

Fourth, HHBC has NOT, to my knowledge, denied belief in the BFM. They have stated only that a change in their bylaw would concededly be a step outside the BFM. But they have not given a blanket denial of the BFM. I think this is a key distinction, don’t you???

Finally, what exactly would be the reason why HHBC would “evolve” into something other than a Southern Baptist church? Is it the change in the bylaw? Is this one change so different than other Southern Baptist churches? And finally (this is my second close), do you really think this is turning into a Paul/Barnabus/Mark situation??? I sure hope not.

Again, thanks for your time and response. I look forward to reading your response to these follow-up questions when you have time to respond to them.

Reply
Kevin Stilley Jul 20 2006 - 6:27 pm

Hello Jonathan,

I think I must make this my last post on HHBC lest I drift into the territory of being contentious rather than contending for the truth. Let me reiterate that I really do think they have the right to baptize Teddy bears for the dead in a pool of Jello if they desire to do so. I just donâ€™t think they are still in Baptist territory if they choose to do so.

Regarding â€œFirstâ€: Plato once said that the best biographies are not written with ink that fades, but rather upon the lives of other men. You mention several times that the disagreement is over a change in bylaws. I donâ€™t agree, I believe that the issue at hand is much greater, — it is not about what is written with ink that fades, it is about faith and practice.

Regarding â€œSecondâ€: I agree that I could have framed the analogy better. The boat â€œbatteryâ€ would have made for a better analogy, so here it is: HHBC and their sister CBA churches bought a boat together. HHBC has decided to throw the battery of the boat overboard. The CBA churches protest that HHBCâ€™s actions effect more than just HHBC and that the CBA churches have a vested interest in the battery as part of the boat and HHBC is saying to stop intruding on their autonomy to throw the battery overboard.â€

Regarding â€œThirdâ€: I was not casting stones with my comment about Bible Churches, and was not referring to any specific church. I only meant to point out that while most churches that call themselves Bible Churches are doctrinally very sound, and remarkably close to Baptist churches in what they teach, they are still not Baptist churches. Most Mennonite churches are doctrinally very sound, and remarkably close to Baptist churches in what they teach, yet they are not Baptist churches. And, it is possible for a Baptist church to change its faith and practice such that it is like Bible churches and Mennonite churches for the most part very sound doctrinally, and remarkably close to Baptists in what it teaches, while having crossed the line into non-Baptist territory. So that leads into your â€œFourth.â€

Regarding â€œFourthâ€: I think you have put your finger on the crucial question. How much can HHBC deviate, in the area of baptism, from what Southern Baptists have stated they believe (BF&M), before HHBC is no longer representative of Southern Baptists. It is kind of like the question of how many parts per million of arsenic is acceptable in a product before the FDA rules it unhealthy for human consumption. Some in our midst feel that HHBCâ€™s take on Baptism (and obedience) represents an amount that is safe to consume, however, the vast majority considers this new doctrine to be a dangerous element that is too poisonous to take into the system.

And in your second conclusion you ask, â€œIs this one change so different than other Southern Baptist churches? And finally (this is my second close), do you really think this is turning into a Paul/Barnabus/Mark situation??? I sure hope not.â€

This is one of the things that really bothers me about the whole situation. I cannot speak for the entirety of Southern Baptist history, but I believe that as a general rule Southern Baptists have always considered this issue to be critical enough to lovingly divide over. It would seem to me that HHBC would have had to realize that the response of Southern Baptists was going to be exactly what it has been. If the leadership at HHBC did not realize this was going to be divisive, I have some thoughts about them that I donâ€™t want to think. And, if they did realize that it was going to be divisive, I have other thoughts about them that I donâ€™t want to think.

Now, no more HHBC for me – - back to writing about mission critical blog issues such as my wife’s career as an exotic dancer, Iceland â€™s Blue Lagoon, getting spanked at my eighth birthday party, and other such weighty issues (smile).

Blessings, and peace,

Kevin

Reply
Joan Jul 30 2006 - 2:42 pm

I am with some of the others who have commented on here and don’t understand why HHBC would even WANT to remain part of this association? They have over 6,000 members, thus they are fully capable of operating independently if they so choose.

For those pastors who are more hung up on the “traditions of men”, whether Baptist or otherwise…I think this would deter me from even visiting your church.

However, after reading Paul Littleton’s blog, his comments here and viewing his church web site, I visited his church (as I have recently moved here) and enjoyed it immensely. It was like a breath of fresh air to go to a church where I know the pastor does not major on minors and seems to truly have a heart for relational Christianity and the Kingdom of God more than TRADITIONS OF MEN.

This is why more and more people are leaving the traditional churches in droves and flocking to homechurch situations (which my husband and I have considered as well). They are starving for genuine, relational, back to basics, NT, grace-filled, away from the tradtional dogma and schisms bologna that exists in most churches today.

As a person who was more or less “forced” to be re-baptized, I an certainly understand the viewpoint of HHBC. I was saved when I was 8 as a Free Will Baptist, Baptized as a FWB when I was 10 and later in life (as an adult of 24 years of age) decided I was eternally saved instead of conditionally saved. Then I started attending an Independent Baptist Church and in order to join, I was made to be re-baptized. I was very confounded and I will admit, somewhat offended by the entire thing. I have been to Bible College, lack only 11 hours having a BA in Theology, been overseas for 3 months as a student missionary, taught every age level from nursery through adult and “I” am being told I need to be rebaptized in order for my baptism and church membership to be valid? In whose eyes? I certainly do not think it was God’s. It was only for man and I did it for man to appease man so that I could be a member of that church. This is the type of scenario HHBC is trying to avoid.

If I lived closer to Edmond, I might just have to attend there because I agree with their views on elder rule as well. The practice of elder rule is much closer to a theocracy than to the popelet ruled church of today that is supposedly a “democracy”.

I understand that I am the only woman that has commented here so please forgive if I have overstepped the bounds in some way. I just could not go on reading about this situation w/o saying something in relation to my own experiences in this area.

God bless you all and may you be led by His Spirit and not the pleasing of man or man’s traditions.

Joan Vasquez
Sapulpa, OK

Reply