Tag: left

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.

Iraqi Oil and the War

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

This is another rare political post  from me, but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to speak out about something.

While I think the Iraqi war was mishandled in many ways, and the post-war plan was ineffective, I agree with the decision to invade Iraq. It wasn’t about one president’s desire to complete what his father started. It wasn’t about making some excuse to invade Iraq. It was dealing with the facts at hand: Iraq acted like it had weapons of mass destruction, and they sure seemed like they would use them, and had even pledged to aid terrorists who would.

Of all the leftist  insinuations as to the secret motive behind America’s (I mean Bush’s) actions, perhaps the lowest  was the  claim that we invaded Iraq to get a share in its oil. I never bought that for a minute, but it sure sounds bad. It makes us look bad. But the argument is false. How many billions have we spent on the war and the restoration of the country?

Anyway, here is some fresh proof to counteract that charge.

The soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released Thursday. The unspent windfall… appears likely to put an uncomfortable new focus on the approximately $48 billion in U.S. taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion. (source — Minneapolis Star Tribune 8/6/08, “Iraq amasses billions in oil profits while U.S. pays for rebuilding” by James Glanz of the New York Times)

Yep, that’s Iraqi money, not US money. And yep, we are forking out the money to help the citizens of Iraq. It’s not easy, but its right. We have to finish the job.

Religious Bigotry? Mike Huckabee, Mormonism and The New York Times

~ fundyreformed ~ 43 Comments

I hope most Republicans have learned by now that the New York Times and fair journalism are polar opposites. So when the Times takes one short statement out of an 8000 word interview, ignores the context and makes it into a big issue, you’d think Republicans (at least) would know enough to pass this off as leftist bias. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.

Okay then, here’s the scoop. Huckabee was being primed by a reporter to give his judgments on Mormonism and Romney. Huckabee (as he has consistently done in the past), was loathe to comment. He doesn’t think Romney’s Mormonism disqualifies him from the presidency, or that it should be an issue at all. So the reporter, who is also an expert in comparative religion, was pressing the issue. Huckabee at one point thought the reporter knew more about Mormonism than he did, and he innocently asked a clarifying question: “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?” The original reporter, in the context of his story, explained the question was neutral.

Not so the New York Times. They have read into that statement all kinds of malice. And this is yet another Huckabee attack in the media.

For what it’s worth, Huckabee apologized to Romney, and explained the situation at length in this video, this one, and this one. But perhaps the best response to this uproar is an excellent post by Steven Nielson entitled “I’m no expert on Hinduism, but Don’t Hindus worship cows?” His post is well worth the read, even if you (like me), could care less about yet another New York Times hack job.