The Independent Baptist Movement

Its Ideals, Its Integrity, Its Imperatives

By DR. SHELTON SMITH

Although we have numerous biblical instructions which clearly teach us to take a stand and to do so with full doctrinal integrity, it is nonetheless not the norm in today’s religious climate.

Furthermore, it is very unpopular and generates a flurry of criticism for those of us who buck the tide and do it anyway.

When we insist that “ecclesiastical separation” is a Bible-based philosophy that should be practiced by all of us (see my book entitled Scriptural Fellowship, $6.95 plus $6.00 for shipping and handling from Sword of the Lord, P. O. Box 1099, Murfreesboro, TN 37133), our critics often say that we are unkind, unloving and divisive. They accuse us of “bashing” those with whom we disagree. Such criticism is unleashed, of course, with the hope that it will shame us and silence us.

The question which must then be answered is—will we stand on the authority of scriptural truth, or will we acquiesce to the whims of our peers?

Issues of Separation Should Always Be Substantive

Anytime there is a disagreement between two Christians, a break in fellowship should not be the first response. There should be a spirit of resolution built upon redemptive principles which guide us (Gal. 6:1).

Minor things do come up all the time. Such incidental matters should not divide us or cause a breach in our fellowship.

But major issues are a different matter entirely. They should not be handled as though they are minor. If the issue is a substantive one, then it must be addressed.

It is always our hope to resolve the issue, and our first response must be with an eye toward doing that. However, if it is a major issue and it cannot be corrected, our scriptural mandates require that we no longer keep close fellowship.

Aren’t All Baptists the Same?

No, all Baptists are not the same! Not by a long shot!

We obviously have common roots, a common heritage, but along the way things have happened, and some Baptists have shifted their principles and their practices. So in reality they are no longer the same.

Those changes bring stress; and when the issues become sufficiently sharp, the fellowship ruptures, and we go our separate ways. It is hard. It is costly. It is misunderstood and criticized, but it is necessary.

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”—Amos 3:3.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”—I Cor. 1:10.

As an example of necessary division, consider the case of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in comparison to the independent Baptist movement. There has been this division for the last one hundred years, and there are substantive differences which necessitate it.

What’s the Big Deal Between SBC and Independents?

They’re Baptists like we are, aren’t they? Why can’t we all ignore our differences and be just one big happy family?

I understand the questions, but I am sometimes amazed at who is asking them. If it is a new convert, then we know that he just doesn’t know the issues. But if it is a preacher who has years of experience, that is another matter entirely.

If the preacher knows the Bible and has even a casual acquaintance with the issues of our day, he should know why we don’t all get together and go along with every project and every event that comes along.

Since that doesn’t seem to be the way it is, it becomes necessary once in a while for us to state our case again.

Is there a defining difference between the fundamental, separated, soul-winning, independent Baptist crowd and the Baptists who align with the Southern Baptist Convention? Should there be mixing and mingling between the pulpits and platforms of the two groups?

Should, for example, an independent pastor bring an SBC pastor to preach in his pulpit? Or are the issues within the SBC of sufficient magnitude that fundamental, independent Baptists should continue now in 2008 to separate from it—as has been the general practice for the better part of one hundred years?

When you see an event advertised where that separation is violated, should you as a Christian refuse to go? If you are a pastor, should you shield your church from it? Or should you, dear pastor, give diligence to advise your folks so they will understand what’s going wrong at the event?

Should you, as pastor, be concerned that the compromised event may build bridges for your people to the Convention? Should you voice your objections to the independent Baptist brethren who have violated your trust in them? Should you stand up publicly if they do not respond?

It is our strong opinion that the answer to all six questions is a resounding and positive yes. I believe it is important for all of us to stand up and speak up, remembering the scriptural rules for so doing (i.e., Matt. 18; Gal. 6).

It seems that we have come now to a day when too many of us (even in independent ranks) are desirous of peace at any price. In a strange sort of way, the constant clamor in religious circles for tolerance, understanding and acceptance has tethered many of God’s servants to the let’s-all-get-along bandwagon.

Doctrine is set aside! Bible principle is ignored! Clear Bible mandates are softened or supplanted entirely! Compromise eventually becomes acceptable simply because we don’t want to fight.

Oh, my brethren, there is a cause! It is a cause that deserves our love and our loyalty. There are good, solid Bible reasons why so many of us paid a dear price to become independent. We disengaged ourselves from the shackles of the Convention. We did so deliberately and, we believe, with good reason.

The heritage of the independent Baptist movement was handed to us by the generations of J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, Beauchamp Vick, Harold Sightler and Tom Malone.

They defined the issues, declared their loyalties and separated themselves decisively. The cause with which they identified was greater than the allure of personality or the appeal of mere preference.

Now here we are three generations later! Where are our convictions? Where is our discernment? Where is our sense of history? Where is our awe of this heritage? Where is our courage to stand as they stood?

The question today is twofold: How many of us will take a stand, and how many of us will cave in to pressure, thoughtlessly giving away what was handed to us?

What About the SBC’s “Conservative Resurgence”?

In 1979, the “conservative resurgence” within the Southern Baptist Convention garnered enough support to wrestle the leadership away from the deeply imbedded liberal establishment. Their rise to prominence and power instituted what came to be called a “holy war” within the Convention. The battle raged for years.

Many of the liberals pulled away. They put together a competing organization which they named the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. They opened several new seminaries. When they no longer held full control, they quickly regrouped in order to perpetuate their liberal agenda.

For the next twenty-six years (1979–2005), the conservatives held tightly to the leadership. One would assume that the Convention would soon be showing the impact of their presence. In some small measure here and there, it has done so. Unfortunately, the larger picture does not reflect the anticipated progress.

Under the conservative leadership, many, many thousands of SBC-affiliated churches have signed up for the Rick Warren and Bill Hybels style of contemporary ministry. Literally thousands of them are now fully “contemporary” (rock bands, etc.).

Under the conservative leadership, Calvinism is making strong inroads.

Under the conservative leadership, they “reinvented” the Bible once again, resulting in the official SBC version, the Broadman-Holman Bible.

Under the conservative leadership, the debate over drinking alcohol in moderation is now a front-burner debate. In 2006, it was a subject of open debate at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I will give more details in the second part of this article, but suffice it to say at this point that the claim that all is well in the SBC under the conservative leadership is totally ludicrous. It is naive and foolish.

I believe a case can be made to say that the demise and dysfunction of the 45,000 SBC churches is further downhill today than it was when the leadership of the “conservative resurgence” took control. The denomination itself is, we believe, in worse shape today (in 2008) than it was when the conservatives “took over” in 1979.

Take-Over, Make-Over

Let me remind you that in 1997 I published a small booklet entitled SBC Conservative “Take-Over” Not a “Make-Over.”

In that booklet (still available from the Sword of the Lord), I documented case after case of SBC-related issues (all of them current to 1996) which clearly demonstrated that the then eighteen-year run of the conservative leadership had not resulted in a makeover of the Convention’s ministry and business.

What I said then was right, and it is still right today (another eleven years down the pike).

It’s one thing to orchestrate a takeover, but it’s quite another to wield the power and influence in your hands to achieve a makeover.

In the SBC, the makeover was superficial and limited. It simply did not happen. To the contrary, they actually headed off into other uncharted waters such as the contemporary carnality nonsense.

The So-Called “Joshua Effect” Rose to Power in 2006

When the Southern Baptist Convention met in its annual session in Nashville in 2006, a revolt of sorts occurred. The “conservative” candidate for the denomination’s leadership was rejected. Instead a new breed of younger men (many of whom were the contemporary crowd) rose up against the conservative leadership.

They used the analogy of Moses and Joshua to assert themselves. To them it was time for Moses (the conservative) to step aside and let a Joshua (someone of their stripe) lead the denomination. I think it is obvious that they misrepresented both Moses and Joshua in so doing, but the comparison served their cause.

As a result, Frank Page from South Carolina was elected president of the SBC. He was reelected in 2007. He was portrayed as a middle-of-the-roader. He had an approach of peace with the main goal (of course) to evangelize the world.

World missions or world evangelism (though we believe strongly in both) has always been the catchphrase around which the compromise crowd camouflages their agenda. How can anyone not stand with them while they’re waving the missions and evangelism flags? It is a clever ploy, and it often works.

It is mere verbiage with them, but they use it effectively to keep their constituents on board. After all, they need their help to pay the bills. It is typically a way of spinning the story to their advantage.

Although I’m confident that some of them are sincere in their desire for world evangelism, I’m also very sure that they are not about to do what it takes to accomplish the task. In a nutshell, you cannot sell out the foundation of the faith (Scripture, standards, soul winning) and expect to get done the job of the Great Commission. It simply is not going to happen.

So at this stage of the game, the “conservative resurgence” of the SBC is in transition at best. Who knows where they will turn next. One thing is certain—all is not well in the SBC.

It has been almost thirty-two years since I left the Southern Baptist Convention. I had grown up inside the Convention. Initially I went to SBC schools. I was a pastor inside the Convention. But the day came when I could go no further with them, so I walked away.

When I made that major, traumatic step in my life and ministry, I did so out of deep conviction. I wanted to be an independent Baptist. I have never, ever regretted making that decision.

Although I will not fully catalog in this article the plethora of reasons which motivated me to leave the Convention, let me say at this point that they were many. Shortly thereafter (1979), the now well-known “conservative resurgence” got its footing and took charge of the national body, the Southern Baptist Convention. Remember, however, this does not include control of the individual state conventions or the local associations which are all affiliated with the SBC.

With the conservatives at the helm, they successfully wrested control of their six seminaries from the liberals. Their publishing house (LifeWay) and the Christian Life Commission (their social concerns agency) were also recovered.

SBC Conservatives Are Not Fundamentalists and Not Separatists

The so-called “moderates” (liberals) within the SBC are fond of labeling the leaders of the “conservative resurgence” as fundamentalists. That is far from a true description of them.

The liberals use it as a pejorative term in an attempt to intimidate and embarrass the conservatives. Often they are successful, because typically the SBC conservatives do not see themselves as fundamentalists.

They would give assent but certainly not take a strong stand on many of the separatist issues as we do. In almost all cases, they would avoid—in both philosophy and practice—any separatist principles. They would, therefore, cooperate with almost everything religious going on in their town.

All of us who watched the “holy war” being waged inside the Convention rejoiced with them in every victory won and in every liberal they displaced.

Unfortunately, the conservative leadership stopped short of full victory. They have chosen instead to be much too accommodating to the various elements. A “there’s room for all of us” philosophy has continued to be the norm. In brief, instead of a fervent pursuit for purity, they contented themselves with parity.

At the same time, many of the pastors and the people in the pew became weary of battle and began to clamor for peace in the camp. It is the chant and cry of a weak, whimpering crowd when they begin to say, “Let’s stop fighting one another and just get on with God’s business.”

Well we should know that often the enemy gets inside. He becomes one of us. We must never tire of ‘contending for the faith’ (Jude 3), or else there will soon be no one left to engage in the business of the Great Commission.

In other words, if we expect to have any preachers, missionaries and soul winners a decade from now, we had better be enthusiastic in our contending for faith, doctrine and stand.

With the leadership as well as the rank and file lying down before their victories were made secure, it was obvious that their pronouncements of success were premature and flawed.

Nonetheless, they declared that they had rescued the Convention from the liberals and that they were back on track again. While professing their belief in biblical inerrancy, the matter of biblical authority was still in question.

Some of the independent Baptist men were likewise soft in their thinking. They began to say, “The Convention is no longer an issue” and set about to chart a new and different course for themselves and their ministries.

Some Independents Ventured Out to SBC Events

A few showcase places like First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida and Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, as well as the Saddleback Church in California, have events where they conduct schools or seminars on church growth.

Some independent men ventured into those meetings. The SBC hosts rolled out the red carpet of welcome. It was easy enough to be impressed. After all, the buildings, the budgets and the crowds were there.

What the independent men did not realize was that some of the SBC leaders were laughing behind their backs about “all these independent Baptist guys” being there.

Some Independents Joined the SBC

In 1981, the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas (the church were Dr. J. Frank Norris served for forty-three years) merged with the Rolling Hills Baptist Church and in 1991 went back into the Convention.

In 1996, Dr. Jerry Falwell led the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, one of the largest independent Baptist churches in America, in taking the first steps toward aligning with the Southern Baptist Convention. Although they also maintained a dual affiliation with the BBFI (an independent Baptist fellowship), by June 1998, they were fully on board as a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Their actions were pacesetting and influenced others to do likewise.

In more recent years, churches like the North Florida Baptist Church of Tallahassee, Florida (Randy Ray, pastor) also announced their affiliation with the SBC.

In 2007, the Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga signed on with the Tennessee Baptist Convention (Southern Baptist state body in Tennessee). Their current status is listed as an “at large” member, which is a ploy that allows them officially to join the Convention without immediately seeking membership in the local Hamilton County Association in Chattanooga.

Some Independent Groups Began to Feature SBC Men

In September 2002 the Baptist Bible Fellowship held their annual national meeting in Fairfax, Virginia where they featured Southern Baptist speakers and also gave prominent place to the contemporary church philosophy.

In October 2002 the Southwide Baptist Fellowship featured two prominent Southern Baptist preachers at their annual national meeting in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Later in October 2002 the World Baptist Fellowship held its annual meeting in Jacksonville, Florida where their featured speaker was a prominent Southern Baptist leader.

Was it coincidental that these three prominent groups of independent Baptists all made the same steps of fraternizing and showcasing Southern Baptist leaders at the same time? I don’t think so.

Here are three groups who for years have been independent and maintained a full level of separation from compromised groups like the SBC, and all at once (within six weeks of one another) all of them turn their fellowships in the same direction. One would have to be naive, I think, to believe that there was not some deliberation among them about this.

By 2004, a new umbrella organization called the International Baptist Network came into being. Funded by the Rawlings Foundation, it was the brainchild of Dr. Jerry Falwell and Dr. John Rawlings.

At first, it was heralded as an independent Baptist network, but it soon came to light that the Southern Baptists were also to be included. A prominent Southern Baptist leader was, in fact, employed to be its director.

The goal was clearly to erase the lines of separation and pull all these Baptist groups together. As noble as that goal may seem, it was a finely orchestrated effort to get all Baptist groups to forget the issues and “just work together.”

Once again some of us had to remember that we pulled away in the first place over issues of compromise, carnality and corruption. If we now link back up, we simply tie ourselves to all those issues once again. It was then and is now unthinkable!

Conclusion

In the next issue of the sword, we will spell out clearly the issues which we believe are necessary for the maintaining of a line of separation between independent Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention.

We want to extend an olive branch, a word of welcome, to all who want to serve the Lord; but if we fellowship together and work together, it must be without compromise.

To offer a place in an independent Baptist pulpit to any man who has allegiances or alliances which compromise us is unthinkable!

The need to “contend for the faith” is greater today than ever before. We must not quit in the midst of the battle.

It is also unwise to build bridges to those compromised groups over which our people can easily walk.

We will be accountable to God at the judgment seat of Christ for the stewardship of the responsibilities He has entrusted to us.

Let us be vigilant! Let us be faithful! Let us stand up and be counted!

---

 Part Two

 In the April 18, 2008, issue of the SWORD OF THE LORD, we featured the first part in this series entitled “The Independent Baptist Movement.” We come now to the second article in the series in which we will give what we believe to be substantive reasoning for why independents should maintain a clear line of separation from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Why Do We Raise the Issue?

In the past twenty-five years there has been a deliberate courtship of the independent Baptist men by certain conservative men in the Southern Baptist Convention. The result has been that a number of prominent independent Baptist churches have officially aligned themselves with the Convention.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is this happening?” I want to be kind in addressing this, but be assured I will also speak plainly and frankly.

1. An element of naiveté! Some independent Baptist men want to believe that somehow everything is going to work out for everybody. They do not have the heart to stand up and hold the line. They simply do not see far enough down the street to perceive the danger. They just want to love everybody and have all of us get along. There is simply no rhyme or reason by which they are willing to stand up against the compromise of others. They have no fight in them, they say. It is, in my judgment, immature and simple naiveté.

2. An absence of discernment! When compromise and other unwise practices present themselves, they do not typically carry a placard which clearly proclaims their true nature. To the contrary, they are notorious for putting on the spit and polish to make their less-than-honorable intentions look honorable.

If you and I do not possess a degree of spiritual discernment, the culprits (compromise, carnality and corruption) may actually ensnare us into becoming complicit with them.

The lack of discernment on the part of some independent Baptist men concerning the Southern Baptist Convention leaves them vulnerable.

3. Unwillingness to pay a price! Some second-generation and third-generation independent Baptist men have paid little or no price at all for the privilege to be independent. They’ve never been inside the Convention. They don’t know both sides of the equation.

Harold Sightler, Lester Roloff, Lee Roberson, John R. Rice, Jack Hyles and a host of other men paid a heavy price for leaving the Convention to become independent.

When some of our brethren today become flirtatious with the Convention, one of the causes for so doing is truly that they have paid no real price.

This conflict that separates the independent crowd from the Convention crowd is not a battle with personalities. Of course we should love the folks in the Convention. I have dear friends inside the Convention; some of them are personal friends of a lifetime. I love them dearly, but the Convention is still an issue. It is an obstacle of offense of sufficient size that I cannot simply overlook it.

So even though I have friends there, I will not compromise my platform and my principles by featuring them. I do not want my family, my friends, etc., to be lured into the Convention because I give it place.

So What’s the Beef With the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008?

Some Convention men and some independents want everyone to believe that the “holy war” waged by the conservatives (1979–2004, approximately) settled everything. They want us to believe that the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention erased all the issues that necessitated our separation from them.

Their claims, however, are little more than public relations gestures. The substance of the issues with the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008 is still significant. Just consider:

1. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 is more ecumenical than ever before!

Ecumenical activities are commonplace practice among the SBC churches, and by the denomination as well. The Graham Crusades and the Palau Crusades have been the pacesetters for them. It is not unusual these days to see the leading conservative SBC pastors advertised as speakers at some charismatic event or otherwise vastly ecumenical gathering.

About ten years ago when I saw Dr. Adrian Rogers on the 700 Club, I wrote him a note expressing my disappointment at seeing him in that venue. He responded by saying that he hoped his presence there would influence them. I assured him that, in actuality, his presence there loaned them his influence and legitimized that charismatic ministry in the eyes of many of his peers.

Ecumenism has taken root now in the SBC. It is their philosophy and their practice.

When independents hook up with the SBC, they too become a party to ecumenism.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 is less Baptist than ever in its history!

With the gradual ecumenization of the Convention churches, their distinctives have, of necessity, become less and less an issue.

The history of Baptist people has typically been one in which doctrinal specifics were important. Salvation by grace through faith (plus nothing, minus nothing), baptism by immersion of believers only (no sprinkling, no christening of babies), the security of the believer (salvation that is everlasting life), creation (not evolution), and the authoritative Word of God (an inspired, inerrant Scripture) are just a few foundational matters that are Baptist essentials.

The acceptance of other points of view on these vital matters erodes the doctrinal underpinnings very quickly. That erosion is happening quickly in SBC ranks today.

3. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has contemporized more than ever!

When the contemporary church philosophy arrived on the scene in the 1990s, it was spearheaded in the SBC by the “purpose-driven” methods of Rick Warren (he is Southern Baptist). Over the past dozen years, thousands of Southern Baptist churches have adopted the contemporary church model. The resultant acquiescence to the demands of the culture has totally changed many of their churches. It is a tragic development!

4. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has a growing problem with five-point Calvinism!

I’ve seen estimates that indicate approximately twenty percent of SBC pastors are Calvinists. One of the leading and most visible of those in the conservative SBC leadership is Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the SBC seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Mohler is a Calvinist. He is leading the Louisville Seminary in that way. It is an openly debated and growing controversy with the Convention.

5. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has adopted “cool and casual” as the persona of its clergy!

The business world went through a phase where “casual Fridays” were the “in” thing. They soon discovered that Friday was the least productive day of the week. Many have stopped the practice for obvious reasons.

But with many clergymen, the lure of being everybody’s buddy has caused them to shed any semblance of what might appear to be in any sense professional.

The fact is that “cool dude” is far more common among them than “man of God.”

6. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has a weakened stand on alcohol!

It hasn’t been so long ago that alcohol consumption in SBC circles was totally taboo. I remember that when I was growing up, the preachers preached against it openly.

Today, a growing number of SBC pastors soft-pedal the alcohol issue. Some of them make allowance for drinking wine or beer. At a recent SBC annual meeting, it was debated publicly. It is another ominous indicator as to the spiritual health inside the SBC.

7. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has very few pastor-led churches!

The board-run approach is predominant in the Convention churches. The pastor is primarily a figurehead. He is the preacher, but his leadership is severely limited by the oversight and control of the deacons, the trustees, the finance committee, the nominating committee, the committee on committees and other such groups.

In brief, the pastor of an average SBC church has very little authority, and his leadership is restricted and contained in large measure.

8. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has a major deficiency in evangelism!

It is a natural consequence of all the other compromising things that are going on that the winning of souls would get lost in the shuffle.

In recent years there have typically been 10,000 to 12,000 SBC churches that reported no baptisms whatsoever during any given year. The fact is that the concept of soul winning is just simply not in vogue with the folks. In truth there are very, very few SBC churches that could be described as “a soul-winning church.”

When Dr. Bobby Welch was elected president of the SBC in 2004, he launched a fifty-state tour in which he was pressing the goal of baptizing a million souls in one year. For two years he preached it strongly and pressed his program fervently. The results were disappointing. Not only did the effort fail to produce increases in baptisms, but the numbers have continued to decline!

It is our opinion that the overall dysfunction within the rank and file of the SBC churches makes a full harvest in evangelism virtually an impossibility.

Now I’ve cited eight of the reasons why I believe the Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 is in worse shape than it was when the conservative resurgence began in 1979. In Part Three of this article, I will provide at least that many more reasons why I believe this to be the case. But now I want to bring Part Two to a close.

Aren’t the Convention Baptists Christians Like Us?

The folks in the Convention get saved the same way folks outside the Convention get saved. This issue over the Convention is not a matter of who is saved and who is not! If they have heard the Gospel (I Cor. 15:3,4; Rom. 10:9,10) and received the Saviour by faith, then they are saved like the rest of us.

Sources inside the Convention have confided in me that the current situation (which we are describing in this article) makes it likely that there are many more unsaved church members in the Convention churches today than there were thirty or forty years ago. I believe they are right, because the emphasis and the thrust of preaching and soul winning have not remained as strong as they once were.

Now this quickly starts to make sense, does it not? I think we must maintain the line of separation if we expect to build strong Christians and solid churches.

Should Independents Love the Convention Crowd?

Absolutely! But let’s understand that love doesn’t just agree with everything loved ones do.

Love coaches!

Love corrects!

Love takes its stand!

Love doesn’t give in to whims, fads and foolish trends!

Love does not give place to compromise and carnality!

The fact that we make our case for being independent and remaining free of entanglements with the Convention does not make us unloving or unkind; it simply means we have commitments to truth and principle that supersede our loyalty to personalities or programs.

Is Our Raising These Issues Just Bashing Southern Baptists?

Some will think so! They would not want to say a negative word, no matter how bad it gets. Others think we should never correct a Christian brother about anything.

Obviously, they are not reading the New Testament very closely. It its twenty-seven books, there are numerous examples of both instructions (to them and to us) and actual illustrations (where it was done in the first century).

“Bashing,” in my judgment, would mean that there is a malicious agenda utilizing unfair or unreasonable methods to dispense untrue information. And don’t forget about a mean, vindictive spirit. Any resemblance to such behavior would indeed be bashing.

What we have done in these articles and in previous exposés doesn’t even come close to being bashing. Any suggestion that that is our method or our motive is completely bogus.

Conclusions

In these times there is a trend to go soft, make it easy, discount the price of everything, go along to get along, and let everybody do whatever he chooses.

There is a religious pragmatism (whatever works) that has captivated many of our Baptist brethren. The reliance upon scriptural authority as a basis for all we do has gotten shortchanged.

As I pen these articles, I have two major goals.

1. I want to see our independent Baptist men stay true and stand tall in line with the heritage of our movement.

It is my prayer that all of us will be able to smell compromise a mile away and zealously turn from it.

2. I want to see our friends in the SBC disengage themselves from their dysfunctional and compromised denomination.

It is my prayer that many of them will do as others of us have already done and withdraw from the SBC. I know it is not easy, but right is always right.

So I am hopeful that many will be helped as we once again raise the issues.

In the next issue of the SWORD OF THE LORD, we plan to have Part Three of this series of articles. Do pray with me that they will be a blessing everywhere they are read.

---

Part Three

As soon as the first two articles in this series went out, I began to receive response both by mail and by phone. Some response was positive, and some was negative.

On the positive side, some who know the issues and have convictions about them simply said thank you for taking a stand. Others said they were helped tremendously and were appreciative for it.

On the negative side, there were those who accused me of being divisive, hurtful and mean-spirited. Others said my articles were filled with misinformation, but they provided no documentation to support their claim. Still others said that the attention to these matters is diversionary and detracts from our efforts to evangelize the world.

Obviously, I know beforehand that not everyone will agree with me. I know that when you nail a particular issue, the folks who are engaged in it will probably holler “ouch.” Sometimes they do so with anger.

Although we always hope for better, we understand up front that the truth is not always welcome.

It is never my desire or my design to hurt anyone or to do anything that would diminish the testimony of Christ. I know, however, that discomfort may be a by-product of getting at the truth, and that I’m willing to create that kind of discomfort.

Some of the folks who have compromising affiliations and who are engaged in carnal activity simply need to do the right thing and correct their course. Instead of taking issue with me, they need to stand up and be counted with scriptural integrity. It is my hope and prayer that they will.

There are many, many others who simply do not know the issues, the dangers and the consequences. For them, we have great hope. We are confident that a significant number of them want to do right and when faced with the facts, they will. Amen!

Recap of Article Two in This Series

In the second article in this series, I gave a list of reasons why I believe the Southern Baptist Convention is further down the wrong road than they were when the conservative leadership took control of the national SBC body in 1979.

The reasons I gave in that article were eight in number. In a capsule, I reiterate them here before giving another nine reasons.

The facts are, the Southern Baptist Convention (1) is more ecumenical, (2) is less Baptist, (3) has contemporized, (4) has a growing problem with five-point Calvinism, (5) has adopted “cool and casual” as the persona of its clergy, (6) has a weakened stand on alcohol, (7) has very few pastor-led churches, and (8) has a major deficiency in evangelism.

Since my last article went to press, the Southern Baptist Convention has released information which details their great alarm over their declining numbers in baptisms and membership.

In a Baptist Press (the SBC news agency) piece written by Rob Phillips, they acknowledge the dilemma in which they find themselves.

The number of people baptized in Southern Baptist churches fell for the third straight year in 2007 to the convention’s lowest level since 1987.

Although the SBC added 473 new churches and gave more than $1.3 billion to support mission activities around the world, Thom S. Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources, said there’s no escaping the fact that Southern Baptists are not reaching as many people for Christ as they once did.…

According to LifeWay’s Annual Church Profile (ACP), baptisms in 2007 dropped nearly 5.5 percent to 345,941, compared to 364,826 in 2006.…

“This report is truly disheartening,” Rainer said. “Total membership showed a slight decline. Baptisms have now declined for three consecutive years and for seven of the last eight years and are at their lowest level since 1987. Indeed, the total baptisms are among the lowest reported since 1970. We are a denomination that, for the most part, has lost its evangelistic passion.”

In the same news release, it is reported that the SBC churches report a membership of 16,266,920 with Sunday morning average attendance of 6,150,000. Do a bit of math, and the numbers do become discouraging. For example, the average number of baptisms per SBC church is about 8 (for the entire year). That means it takes the average SBC church about seven weeks to reach and baptize one person. The likelihood is that most of those 8 baptisms are coming from baptizing the children of existing families in the church.

If you take the Sunday morning attendance of the 43,000 SBC churches (6,150,000) and divide it by the number of baptisms (345,941), it means that it takes 18 active SBC members an entire year to get one person baptized.

Since the Convention is a stickler for compiling data from their churches, it is easy enough to check the details and assess the situation. No one, including the SBC leadership, can deny that they are approaching crisis on this matter.

In a 2004 study done by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (SBC), they reported:

For some 20 years, a disturbing statistic has left its mark on Southern Baptists—70 percent of Southern Baptist churches are plateaued or declining.…

From 1978 to 1983, the Sunday School Board (now LifeWay Christian Resources) found that 30.5 percent of churches were growing, 51.9 percent were plateaued and 17.6 were in decline. In the years studied by the Leavell Center, 1998–2003, 30.3 percent of churches were growing. And though that statistic has remained basically unchanged for 20 years, the number of declining Southern Baptist churches has increased by 6 percent from 17.6 percent to 23.9 percent. Plateaued churches now [comprise] 45.8 percent of all Southern Baptist churches.

Another report by the SBC’s North American Mission Board reveals that approximately half of the denomination’s 43,000 churches baptized three or fewer converts during 2007.

Now a word of caution to our independent Baptist brethren. We must not be smug about this and assume that we are getting the job done—if we are not.

But what we must acknowledge is the very obvious danger of assuming that the Convention is headed in such a great direction that the rest of us ought to go with them, join them or head in their direction! No! No! No! Let’s not be fooled into believing the spin that some give on this matter.

Another Nine Reasons Why the Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 Is Not Doing Well

Now I want to extend the list of my concerns about the SBC by giving you another nine reasons.

9. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has yet to address liberalism with authority and finality.

When the conservative men are elected president of the SBC, in their very first press conference they are invariably asked about the conflict with the liberals. Without exception they all respond with some version of “the big umbrella” philosophy. You know, there’s room for all of us.

While they have achieved a measure of success, it is pretty obvious that they have not “cleaned house.”

The liberals, in a number of cases, have started their own seminaries. Several hundred of them have attached themselves to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (a haven for liberals), but almost all of them have retained some measure of affiliation and some degree of involvement with the SBC or its affiliates.

The fact is the conservative leadership has had thirty years to take a bold and clear-cut stand. They have not done so with authority and with finality.

10. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 still has a sizeable denominational bureaucracy that lessens the influence of the local church.

In SBC circles, the local church is not headquarters for anything. Though they give lip service to the autonomy of the local church, everybody understands that the denominational offices in Nashville set the pace and lead the churches.

It should be noted that “the autonomy” of churches inside the SBC is never equated as “independent.” With their autonomy, they have chosen to affiliate with the SBC, and their autonomy will not be questioned unless that autonomous church decides to disagree with the denominational program. At that point the integrity of their denominational loyalty will come into question.

Let there be no doubt. The denominational structure (Southern Baptist Convention nationally, the individual state conventions and the local associations) has a strong bureaucratic hold on and over the churches.

11. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 still has issues with the Bible text and its authority!

In many ways this is the heart of the massive problematic dilemmas facing the SBC today.

Over the scope of my personal acquaintance with the SBC (stretching back into the 1950s), they have given place to first one Bible and then another. It has been a long, long time since there was a standard text in the SBC.

They have run the gamut—the Revised Standard Version, the Living Bible, the New International Version, the New American Standard Version and now their own SBC-produced Broadman-Holman Bible.

In their colleges and seminaries, place has been given to the corrupt Westcott and Hort texts and almost all English versions that have been developed from them.

Although they came to terms on “the inerrancy of Scripture,” they don't know which one of their various editions is inerrant.

One prominent SBC pastor in my acquaintance said to me, “Inerrancy we settled, but the authority of Scripture is a whole different issue.” I believe he summed it up very well.

12. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has a charismatic element that remains unaddressed!

Although the count is uncertain, there has been a growing number of SBC churches who have gotten caught up in the charismatic movement.

The most significant positive step in recent times was made by the SBC’s International Mission Board in 2005 when they agreed no longer to appoint missionaries who practice a “private prayer language” (that’s tongues). The director of the IMB, Dr. Jerry Rankin, is known to have been involved in the practice. Though it has been an issue, he remains at the head of the mission board.

Frank Page, the current SBC president, has taken what has been called a “big tent” philosophy on this as well. Once again, there’s room for everybody without regard for Bible doctrine.

13. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 continues to tiptoe around the “women in ministry” issues!

In a growing number of cases, especially with the moderate (liberal) wings of the SBC, churches are electing female pastors and deacons. The conservatives are chided as being ignorant and culturally irrelevant.

Though there have been a few cases where a local association expelled a church over this, it continues to fester inside the Convention like an open sore that will not heal.

14. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 is not producing preachers and missionaries as it once did!

When the fire dies out, it’s hard to keep things cooking. Here is another case where there’s just not a lot of bread coming out of the oven.

It’s one of the reasons why the independent Baptist churches are being courted so warmly. In many of our churches, we still have a steady flow of young people preparing for full-time service for the Lord.

Southern Baptists are finding it impossible to keep their 43,000 pulpits filled. Many of their churches go for extended lengths of time unable to find a pastor simply because the available men are scarce.

15. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has recently begun to turn from the conservative resurgence!

When Frank Page of South Carolina was elected president of the SBC in 2006, there was “a youth movement” that propelled him into office. Voices openly critical of the conservative leaders were clamoring for everybody to get along with one another.

It is too early to determine if the trend will continue, but the conservatives are nominating one of their most prominent and popular men when they meet in Indianapolis next month.

Dr. Johnny Hunt of Atlanta, Georgia will be nominated and will probably be elected. Where the current direction will lead is uncertain, but the Frank Page presidency proves, I think, that there is a large element of SBC men who are not going to be happy with someone who takes a strong stand on the issues.

16. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 has deemphasized the task of preaching!

There are still some men in the SBC who are strong pulpiteers. They are, however, the exception.

Preaching with authority and with fervor has long since slipped off the front burner in SBC circles.

Teaching is favored over preaching. Addressing emotions and life situation needs are the big thing.  Hammering on Bible truths with application to the heart and life is lessened considerably.

Generally speaking, the preacher is “hired help” inside the SBC. He is shackled in the pulpit and cannot lead the church without first having committee approval on almost everything he dreams of doing!

17. The Southern Baptist Convention of 2008 is well on its way to where the Methodists and Presbyterians have already gone!

The acknowledged decline of the Southern Baptists is in the developing stages of a tailspin that long since became the norm for the once thriving Methodists and Presbyterians.

The root causes with the Methodists and the Presbyterians are basically the same as I have outlined in these articles with the Southern Baptists.

The rate at which the decline of the SBC continues downhill is not something any of us could predict with accuracy. What is predictable, I believe, is that the decline is irreversible.

You cannot take off in so many wrong directions (as I have itemized here) and expect that things will work out by and by.

So What’s the Point in Reviewing These Issues With the Southern Baptist Convention?

The point is: The Southern Baptist Convention does not merit the support of its member churches, and our independent brethren do themselves and their people no favor by leaning toward the Convention.

Despite the appeals to broaden the base of your ministry to include interaction with the Convention, the flags of warning need to be flying high.

It is worthy of note that when an independent Baptist church aligns itself with the Convention, it is the independent Baptist that changes. It doesn’t take its strong stand into the Convention. Never is that the case. It’s always the independent who lines up with them and changes philosophy and practice!

We believe that the very contemplation of giving place to the Southern Baptist Convention is leaning toward the compromise of a lot of good and treasured things.

We believe the case can be made for the legitimacy of our stand, and we want to urge all of the brethren to do the same.

Southern Baptist Convention men, we believe, should take the same stand we have taken and free themselves from the trappings and the shackles of the Convention.

Independent men, we believe, should give no thought and no place to any accommodation to or affiliation with the Convention.

As these articles have progressed, they have also grown. Therefore, the three-part series will now have a fourth part which we expect to have in the next issue of the sword of the lord. In it, we will specifically address the issues of the ideals, the integrity and the imperatives of the independent Baptist movement.

It is my prayer that the Lord will warm the heart of every preacher who reads these articles. In today’s religious climate of compromise, carnality and capitulation, there is an urgent need for men of God to stand like prophets and put the trumpet to their lips.

May the Lord help all of us to do exactly that with conviction and with courage.

---

Part Four

I do hope that you have read carefully the first three installments of this series. It is my goal to make clear why the independent Baptist movement has kept its distance from our Baptist cousins in the Southern Baptist Convention. That distance has been maintained with other Baptist groups as well because of issues of both faith (theology and doctrine) and practice.

Anytime you deal pointedly with matters where either individuals or institutions are at issue, it is to be expected that some will holler ouch and others will cry foul.

Nowhere is this more likely to happen than in the religious arena. After all, the philosophy and practice of ecumenism (making unity among varying denominational groups without adhering to a biblical or doctrinal standard) is the primary doctrine of most denominations today.

Unfortunately, some of our Baptist brethren are also among those who are now captivated by the spirit of ecumenism. They want so badly to be at peace with anybody and everybody that they are no longer willing to make a stand on the things that would distinguish them from the rest of the professing Christian world.

For more than one hundred years, the defining trademark of evangelicals has been their penchant for warmly professing good things while at the same time giving significant place to bad things. For example, their doctrinal statement is often spotless. You would agree with almost every word in it. Yet they give place and platform (including missions money) to individuals and institutions that believe and practice something entirely different. I know it is what so many are comfortable doing, but we are not, and here’s why.

Truth from Titus

Let’s take just one New Testament epistle, the Book of Titus, and see what can be learned that would apply to this.

1. The Establishment of Order

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.”—Titus 1:5.

So it seems evident that Titus was entrusted with the responsibility of bringing things into line. Whatever disorder he found he was commissioned to correct.

When things are “wanting” (lacking), the preacher has this scriptural mandate to get it right.

2. The Confrontation of the Dissidents

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

“Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”—Vss. 9–11.

Those who are “unruly” and “deceivers” are not legitimate leaders, and they “must be stopped.” Otherwise, they will “subvert whole houses.”

If we do not have the heart to make a stand against wrong and those who do it, the consequences of our dereliction are severe. “Whole houses” of the folks get led wrong and taught wrong!

3. The Making of a Stand

“This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”—Vs. 13.

Making a stand is seldom easy. Giving “rebuke” is not what any servant of God enjoys. But it must be done, and firmly. A “sharp” rebuke is necessary when there is an insufficient “sound[ness] in the faith.”

Our rebuke should always be done in a redemptive manner in hopes of bringing the erring brother once again to be “sound in the faith.” It should never be used in order to get someone told off or bring hurt or harm to him.

4. The Priority Upon Sound Doctrine

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.”—2:1.

The goal of whatever we “speak” should be to give place to “sound doctrine.”

Specific instructions are given (Titus 2:2–10) to the aged men, the aged women, the young women, the young men and the servants. The “sound doctrine” and the specific application of it should be administered in such a way that all of us “adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things” (2:10). That is, God and His doctrine ought to be made to look good by what you and I do and say. We ought to “adorn the doctrine”!

5. Trivial Pursuits Should Be Avoided

“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”—3:9.

The key to keeping our game plan focused is to be sure that we have scriptural principle (either in precept or in practice) on which we stand.

It is neither legitimate nor wise to make major ado over minor matters. You and I can agree to disagree on inconsequential matters and still be friends. However, it is vital that we learn enough Bible and develop a measure of spiritual discernment from which we can make good decisions. Major matters must not be treated as trivial, but neither should trivial matters become a federal case.

6. Heresy Should Be Rejected

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

“Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”—3:10,11.

Unfortunately, the word treason is rarely (if ever) used in America, and in Christian circles the word “heresy” is also unemployed. But here we get very clear instructions.

Teaching heresy is such a major offense that it should be viewed like treason in reference to the country. In both cases, a great trust has been betrayed.

For example, if someone doesn’t get the salvation message right, he is guilty of heresy. Whether it be salvation or some other clearly stated Bible doctrine, if the teaching is distorted or denied, it is heretical to do so.

We, therefore, should not be giving place (platform invitations, support money) to those who are not endorsing and/or practicing “the common faith” (1:4).

7. Staying on Target Protects Against a Diminished Harvest

“And let our’s also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.”—3:14.

If we expect a fruitful harvest, we should pay close attention to the land we choose for cultivation, the preparation of the soil, the seeding, the weeding, the cultivation of the crop, the choice of laborers and the care of the harvest.

The “works” we “maintain” are “necessary” to avoid being “unfruitful.” If we are careless in doctrine, in deportment or in our duty, we can expect a lessened harvest.

You simply cannot ignore the clear mandates of Scripture and establish an agenda of your own without having a critical impact on the harvest (the winning of souls).

With these scriptural admonishments in view, I want to give some consideration to the reasons why I believe the independent Baptist movement is a credible, viable force, a necessary player in today’s arena.

I. Its Image

Like the Christians of the first century, we have never been the most popular people in the country. We are sometimes called ugly names because we do not get in line and go along with all of the popular religious practices.

We will not be given popular acclaim by today’s media or by the soft-soap, ecumenical, fuzzy-headed religionists on the scene.

It is, nonetheless, the Lord’s design for us to be a distinctive people.

“Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”—2:14.

His redemptive work purifies us “unto himself.” That’s an act of separation from the carnal and wicked. It results in our becoming “a peculiar people.” “Peculiar” does not mean weird, odd, freakish, or in some strange way so kooky that we are not normal. Although you may be accused of all of the above listed uncomplimentary things, you should just be sure it isn’t so. “Peculiar” does mean “different.” It does mean “special.” It does mean “not like the world.”

So let’s not be afraid to be who we are and who we are supposed to be. Being different is not abnormal in God’s plan; it is the norm.

Our image before the world should be different enough that a lost world can see it and easily determine that we are not like them.

Yes, indeed, we should take care to protect our image. After all, your testimony and your witness may live or die based on how you are perceived.

II. Its Ideals

Critics sometimes complain that “The independents aren’t perfect either.”

We fully understand that. We’ve never said that we or any of our crowd are perfect or that we are above criticism. But there is a distinguishing difference to which we hold tenaciously. It is that difference that defines our case and distinguishes our cause.

We have a set of ideals to which we subscribe and for which we want to be known. They could be described as follows:

1. Deity

We believe the Trinity—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are the Creators of the universe. Though three, They are one. They are absolute deity, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.

Christ Jesus, the Son, was virgin born in human flesh in order to die on the cross and rise from the grave with the purpose of providing a divine solution for the sin problem of each of us.

Therefore, we preach Christ as Saviour, as Lord, as coming again!

2. Doctrine

Salvation by grace through faith; eternal security; baptism by immersion for believers only; creation, not evolution; an inspired, inerrant and infallible Bible; the pretribulational, premillennial second coming; a godly, Christian lifestyle; separation from the world’s behavior and practices; the place of the local church—these positions and others are the bedrock foundations of the independent Baptist movement.

It is not personalities, not denominations, not preferences, but doctrine.

III. Its Infrastructure

Each local church is a separate, independent entity. There is no national or international headquarters to which that church reports or answers. In other words, there is no denominational hierarchy or bureaucracy.

We fellowship voluntarily with others of like faith, but each church maintains its independence.

The pastoral office is the highest office. The pastor is the bishop and elder in a New Testament church.

There is and should be, of course, some accountability to one another. Especially is this true when one of us seeks to involve others of us in our ministry.

For example, if we have a college, a camp or a conference for which we need the support of other churches, we should understand that our philosophy, our doctrine and our practices will be evaluated by those brethren whose involvement we solicit.

Though we all maintain our independence and have the responsibility for whatever our ministry does, we understand that other brethren across the country will compliment or criticize us based on how we handle our business.

The basis of our fellowship will always be determined by our ideals. If you stray from those ideals, you can expect that the support of the brethren will shift to someone who is not straying.

IV. Its Imperatives

Success or failure can be measured by both our mandates and our motivations. The intensity of our ministry may be determined by what we see as our imperatives. Here are our basic issues:

1. The Authority of the Bible

The church, the pastor and all the rest hold the Bible, the Word of God, to be our supreme authority.

2. The Centrality of the Local Church

This is the activity center. Here we gather and here we serve.

3. The Primacy of Preaching

The pulpit is center stage at the church house. Here the Bible is taught and preached. Here we are exhorted and rebuked as needed (Titus 2:15).

4. The Preeminence of Christ

Everything points to the Saviour! He is our Commander in Chief, our Lord and our God.

5. The Priority of Soul Winning

Our task is clearly laid out in the New Testament. Starting at our doorstep, we reach to the far side of the planet with the message of the Gospel (Matt. 4:19; 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; 5:42).

6. The Necessity of Godliness

We are not offended by standards of personal conduct. To the contrary, we expect them.

“Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.”—Titus 2:12.

7. The Power of the Spirit of God

We see our human figuring and finagling as just so much futile manipulation. We are powerless without the filling of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Where we struggle, we hedge, we stray, we fight to be who we ought to be—it is often because we are operating without the power of God.

This list of imperatives could, I think, be extended. But if the ones I’ve noted here are in place, we will be well on our way to doing things right.

V. Its Integrity

If you review even a small amount of the fundamental, independent Baptist history, you’ll discover that the movement is rooted in its strong convictions and its fearless courage.

We’ve never been among those who have chosen to accommodate the landscape of the times or the trends. We have stood against the tide of acquiesence to the culture. We have faced off against liberalism. We have said “no,” and we have said it often.

Sometimes loved and often hated, we have not been manipulated by emotions or somebody else’s comfort zone.

The independent Baptist crowd has stood when others did not.

The independent Baptist crowd chose to fight when others would not.

The independent Baptist crowd has thrived on its distinctives and shunned the appearance of fitting in with the religious masses.

The independent Baptist crowd has had commitments to truth that superseded all other interests.

The independent Baptist crowd did not give place to compromise or those who chose to be compromisers.

The independent Baptist crowd has had a cause and has pursued it feverishly.

The independent Baptist crowd has pastor-led local churches where the pastor is at liberty to be both prophetic and pastoral.

The independent Baptist crowd gave no place and no money to the compromising, ecumenical, liberal and otherwise carnal causes.

We are saddened, deeply saddened, when a man or a ministry loses its moorings and compromises itself. Those who do so usually either discover their error and correct themselves, or they drift off somewhere to align themselves with a like-minded group of compromisers.

My appeal here is that we would all recognize the snares of Satan and reject compromise every moment of the day. Let’s hold fast to the heritage of this movement and give it our very best every single day.

VI. Its Importance

Take a look at Moses, at Elijah, at John the Baptist, at Stephen, at Philip or the apostle Paul. They were mere men who yielded themselves to the God of Heaven. His authority and His agenda consumed them. They stood when others waffled. They did that which was unpopular. They led when others whined and capitulated. They confronted the culture with a message of change.

That should be the case with us. We have a period of time in which we get to carry the ball. We must not lose sight of the goal posts.

In 2008 our nation and our neighborhood need a strong, vibrant, uncompromising witness. They need to hear from God, and we are commissioned to tell them about Him.

If we fail, who will tell this generation? If we cut and run, who will get it done in our time and in our town? If we simply cave in to what people expect, what will the results be?

All of us are privileged beyond our ability to express. We are saved, and we get to serve. That's absolutely amazing! We are but sinners saved by grace. Amen and amen!

However, let’s not ever forget that the stewardship of the Gospel and the administration of the Word of God have been entrusted to us for a while. It is, I believe, very important that we not foul up the assignment we’ve been given.

conclusion

With a sense of urgency and yet with great care, I’ve set my pen to this subject over the past few weeks.

I want to be true to God, and I want to adhere to every truth of Scripture.

I ask the Lord to help me to do every day the best I can with what He would have me do.

There is no doubt in my mind that the decision I made thirty-two years ago to become an independent Baptist was a good choice. I’m still happy about it.

May the Lord be pleased to let these articles on the independent Baptist movement be a blessing and an encouragement, even a rebuke where it is needed, to others.

May our brethren everywhere get a grip on all this and cling to it without flinching!

May all of us arise without fear to take our stand and to be the ambassadors of Heaven “in this present world” (Titus 2:12).

Let’s do it today and tomorrow, next week, next month, next year and until the trumpet sounds!

Return to the SWORD OF THE LORD Homepage