Conserving Well, Changing Wisely (Part 4)

Image from WikiMedia Commons

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  (Mt. 16:15-18)

What is the church?  That is to say, what is the identity of the church?  More particularly, what is the identity of this church?  What are we?  This is an important question because it’s hard to know what we are about if we don’t know what we are.  This is what I want to talk to us about today.  This is going to be a message where we bring together both conservatism and change.  I’m going to talk about both today, in light of what the Bible has to say about our fundamental identity as a church.

And that’s why I chose this text as the starting point of this message.  In verse 18, we have the first mention of the word “church” (ecclesia) as it appears in the NT.  It comes to us directly from the lips of our Lord.  And in the context, our Lord is tying his building of the church to Peter’s great confession.  I think that’s really important for us to see that.

Now, these verses have also generated a great deal of heat and even religious persecution.  This is because the Roman Catholic Church’s fundamental premise in terms of its claim to papal supremacy comes from these verses.  They claim that when Jesus said, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” that he meant the church is built upon Peter and upon his successors the bishops of Rome.  Peter’s name means “rock,” and so the idea is that when our Lord said, “Upon this rock,” he meant Peter.

But the fundamental problem with this view is that our Lord says nothing anywhere here or elsewhere about the successors of Peter as the extension of this promise.  Rather, as Augustine put it, Peter here stands for the church as a whole, and he does so because of his confession in verse 16: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  In fact, as Paul puts it to the Ephesians, the church is not built upon Peter only, but “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).  All the apostles are part of the foundation of the church, with our Lord the chief corner stone.  You see this also in the book of Revelation: “And the wall of the city [the city of God, the New Jerusalem] had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).

Why is the church built upon the foundation of Peter and the apostles?  Again, it is so because of the doctrine which they taught.  It’s not so much their authority (though that does come into it in Mt. 16:19) but their doctrine and teaching that provides the foundation.  Paul, speaking of his teaching ministry among the Corinthians, puts it this way: “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:10-11).  The foundation is Jesus, that is, the confession of faith that the church has in Jesus.  That’s what Paul laid.

And that is certainly what our Lord is referring to here.  The church is built upon this fundamental confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And that tells us what the church is and therefore what it must be about.  It tells us that the church is the congregation of people who believe this and live it out in their lives and proclaim it to others.  

And therefore, this tells us something about what we should be as a church.  What should our fundamental identity be?  It should be this: we are believers united together in covenant in order to confess this Jesus together, grow up into him (for our Lord is building his church) together, and proclaim him together.  Getting a little more granular here, I would argue that we are disciples of Jesus Christ who seek to love, worship, and obey him and serve others together through a commitment to sovereign grace theology and a Baptist church polity.

In previous messages, we’ve mentioned our commitments to sovereign grace theology, as well as the simplicity and beauty of NT worship.  We are also committed Baptists in terms of our understanding of how the church organizes itself.  We are a Baptist church in that we believe in a regenerate church membership.  We therefore believe that baptism is for disciples only and that the proper mode is immersion.  

We are also believe in, and are committed to, congregational church government; that is, we believe that each New Testament church has authority under God through the leadership of its elders to make its own decisions.  This is relevant of course to any changes that are made, because the church body makes these changes by its own decision; they are not foisted upon it from other ecclesiastical bodies.

So we want to conserve these things.  We want to preserve the fact that we are a church that preaches the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace in salvation, that worships him in New Testament simplicity, and that governs its life in a congregational way.  These are matters of preservation, because they are Biblical requirements.  And they all serve our fundamental identity as a church whose primary goal is to confess Jesus together in all the fulness of Biblical revelation.

This identity needs to the be the governor, so to speak, of the direction of our church.  And in light of this confession and this identity, we should ask if there are things that are not essential to it that we might need to think through and perhaps change for the purpose of serving our fundamental identity and mission as a church.  I am going to suggest one such change today.  It has to do with the name of our church.

In particular, I think we should prayerfully consider modifying the name of our church, not in order to abandon our fundamental commitments, but in order to preserve them.  Our confession of Jesus together as a church ought to be one thing that we want to share with others.  And I think that the name Primitive Baptist is probably getting in the way of that.

Now the origins of this message go back to over a year ago. Obviously, this current series of messages have been leading up in some sense to this.  But I have also been in conversations with Elder Bradley and Elder Freeman about this for over a year, and this past January I broached the subject to the elders and deacons in our first Elders/Deacons meeting of the year.  So I have put a lot of thought into this, as well as a lot of prayer. I would like now to ask you to do the same thing.

Now some of you may be wondering why I am making such a big deal about the name “Primitive Baptist,” or why it is even necessary to address this in a sermon.   But you need to understand that our identity as a Primitive Baptist church has in fact been seen as a crucial part of our upholding the confession of Jesus in the world.  And without denying the Lord’s clear work in this church in the past, I want to argue for a way forward for our church that finds its identity, not so much in a name, but in the Name, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that we can probably do that better without the Primitive Baptist description.

I’m of course assuming that the name “Primitive Baptist” is not required by Scripture.  But it’s kind of self-evident, isn’t it?  Where is there a verse in the Bible that says that a church has to have the name, “Primitive Baptist”?  There isn’t one.  And any church or churches that say that you have to have this name in order to be “sound,” or “in order,” or “orthodox,” are just wrong.  They are imposing a standard that is unbiblical.  This falls into the category of human tradition.  It has been helpful in the past.  But we cannot insist upon it, at least, not Biblically.  If we do, we are the ones who are not sound!

Now before I get too far into the weeds here, let me try to explain and clarify some things here at the outset, in terms of what I’m not suggesting here.  I’m not suggesting that we change the name because I want us to change our doctrines or practice.  No: I want us to conserve those.  In fact, one of the main reasons I think a name change would be helpful for our church is in order to preserve the doctrines and practices of our church for a future generation.  In other words, this is change in the service of conservatism.  I believe that changing a name which is not required by Scripture could help us conserve the things that are required by Scripture.  

Why do I suggest this now?  There is no doubt that our church has been struggling.  Our numbers are not increasing; they are decreasing. So what do we do?  Certainly doing nothing is not an option.  One thing that we ought to be doing is to be praying together and fasting that God will once again bless this church and give us growth in grace and number.  We ought to seek his face.  But we ought to also ask ourselves, “Is there anything that is getting in the way of growth?”  Is there anything about our church that Scripture doesn’t require that might be hindering growth?  Well, if there are such things, we need to remove them.  And I’m arguing that the name Primitive Baptist is one of those things.  But again, I’m suggesting a name change for the sake of greater visibility in our community, but not for the sake of changing our fundamental doctrines and practice.

I’m also not suggesting this because I think it was always wrong for this church to be a PB church.  No, not at all.  It seem pretty obvious to me anyway, that it was the Lord’s leading and direction that brought about the constitution of this church in 1958 as a Primitive Baptist Church.  That identity has served this church well for a long time.  

I’m also not suggesting that we despise or forget our history.  This church has a glorious history, one that should be celebrated, not forgotten.  Again, I want what this church has to be carried into the future.  I don’t want us to forget our past but to pass it on.  However, the question is, does this require the name?  I don’t think so.

Nor am I suggesting this because I hate the Primitive Baptists.  I say this because I imagine someone is going to say that, somewhere.  I don’t hate them; not at all.  In fact I cherish many of the ways that I have personally benefited by growing up in our tradition.  I grew up in a PB home.  Both sets of grandparents were PB.  My paternal grandfather was a well-known and loved PB minister and pastor in West Texas.  I believe that three out of my four sets of great-grandparents were PB, which takes my family’s connection with the PB’s at least to the end of the 1800’s.  I’m not an interloper here!  I was baptized in a PB church by a PB minister.  I was ordained by a PB presbytery.  I am as PB as the next person in many ways.  But I’m not so PB that I think the name is more important than the church and the confession of our Lord Jesus.  

Nor am I suggesting that we sever our relations with other PB’s. In fact, if anything, I want to strengthen the bonds that we have with those churches that have stood in fellowship with us for many years.  Now I do know that some PBs would say that they cannot have fellowship with any church that is not called PB.  But those folks don’t have fellowship with us anyway, so there’s no loss there.  Nor do I think that such churches have a healthy grasp of what it means to be sound in doctrine and practice.

What I am suggesting is that we modify the name in order to preserve the doctrines and practices of our church for the next generation.  Shouldn’t we want that?  Are we so attached to a name, even though it isn’t required by Scripture, that we would rather see our church continue to diminish rather than give it up?  Are we idolizing a name?  Are we putting it before the interests of our Lord?

Now the truth is that any name that we come up with to replace the name Primitive Baptist isn’t going to be required by Scripture either.  And I wouldn’t want any name that we come up with in the place of PB to become an idol either.  But it would be good, I think, to have a name that doesn’t cause people to not even consider us.  

One more clarification.  I am not making a promise that if we were to change our name that suddenly this church would be filled the next Sunday.  In fact, I can’t promise that it would cause us to grow at all.  I wish I could.  Now I hope that that would happen, or I wouldn’t suggest it at all. But I’m not a prophet, and there are many things that factor into churches growing or dying.  All I know is that we should so want to be all things to all men in order to gain them, that we are willing to sacrifice anything that is not required by Scripture for the sake of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So should a church be willing ever to change its name?  Should we?  Are there good reasons to do so?  Well, I think so.  In fact, if you think about it, any Primitive Baptist church that is older than, say, 1830, would  have had to change its name to Primitive Baptist! So if it is always wrong, it would have been wrong then! But do such reasons exist today?  I think they do, and I want to give you two reasons for it.  I’m calling the first reason, “for the sake of gospel charity.”  And I’m calling the second reason, “for the sake of doctrinal clarity.”  Charity and clarity.  Both things are necessary, it seems to me, if we are going to be a church that joins Peter in a clear apostolic witness to Christ.  

For the sake of gospel charity

When I say, “for the sake of gospel charity,” I am talking about loving our neighbor in order to reach them with the gospel. There are many ways we should do that in direct effort, but there are also hindrances that we can remove that might keep someone from coming here to hear the gospel.  I don’t think there is any doubt that the appellation “Primitive” has a negative effect on that.  It just doesn’t mean what it used to.   And so, for the sake of gospel charity, I am proposing that we consider modifying our name so that it is less of a hindrance to people in our city.  

I want to begin here by considering something that the apostle Paul says to the Corinthians in chapter 9 of his first epistle.  There, he is writing in order to help them put away their supposed rights for the sake of serving the weaker brethren among them.  The problem was meat sold in the pagan temples which had been sacrificed to idols.  Paul basically says that they should not eat such meat if it causes a brother to stumble.

But there is a greater principle at stake.  It’s not just the meat, Paul says.  The greater principle is loving your brother, not wanting him to stumble, not putting a stumbling block in his way.  He illustrates this with his own ministry, which is what he is doing here in chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians.  Paul had rights.  He had the right to expect to be supported in his ministry.  But he did not take that right.  Instead, even though he was criticized for it, he gave up that right.  He puts it like this:

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14-18).

You can see that Paul goes so far as to say that he counted it a reward to preach the gospel without charge.  That is an amazing statement. Charles Hodge, commenting on this verse, made this convicting observation: “Paul’s reward was to sacrifice himself for others.”  What an example!  And how different from the attitude of people who want to wield their “freedom in the gospel” in such a reckless way that it causes others to fall away from the faith or to stumble into sin!  Paul didn’t see this “sacrifice” as a sacrifice at all; he saw it as a reward.  It was his delight to give up something of his own for the sake of others.  Isn’t that like Christ though?

It is in this context that he writes, 

“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you” (19-23).

It wasn’t just the support of the ministry that he gave up.  For Paul this was a general way of life.  The principle was this: he considered himself the servant of all so that he might gain them for the gospel.  He then gives several applications of this.  

To the Jews he became like a Jew.  Of course, Paul was a Jew by birth.  What he means by this is that, though he did not believe that he was bound by the gospel to the observance of the law of Moses, nevertheless when he was ministering in a Jewish context, he kept the Sabbath, he observed the food laws, and so on.  He didn’t do things that would unnecessarily ruffle the feathers of his brethren.  He wanted them to hear the gospel and be saved. He wanted them to give a hearing to the preaching of the cross.  And so he would forego his liberty in order to win them to Christ.  To those under the law, he became as one under the law.

Then to the Gentiles, those without law, he became as one without law.  Of course, Paul immediately helps us to understand that he does not mean that he was an antinomian.  He remains at all times under the law of Christ.  His “lawlessness” had nothing to do with God’s moral law but rather with the ceremonial law.  What he means is that when he was among Gentiles, he didn’t make them observe Sabbath days or eat kosher foods or circumcise their boys.  He didn’t make a big deal about it.  Why?  Because none of those things were necessary any longer under the New Covenant, and he didn’t want things that were indifferent to the gospel to keep people from hearing it.  

Then to the weak, Paul became as one who was weak.  There is a difference of opinion among interpreters as to whom Paul is referring here.  Some think that Paul is referring to social outcasts.  Others think that Paul is referring to the lost.  Personally, and given the larger context, I believe Paul is referring to believers who aren’t yet spiritually mature and are more susceptible to being lured back into a lifestyle of idolatry.  To win them means then to win them to a more mature understanding of the gospel in Christ.  It was for the sake of gospel charity.

And then he gives us this great principle that rules over all the others: “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”  This of course does not mean that Paul became an idolator among idolators or that he became promiscuous among the sexually immoral.  Rather, he means that he was willing to giving anything up, short of disobedience to Christ, in order to win people to the gospel of Christ.  As Hodge points out, there are two things we must observe when we seek to implement this principle.  First, we must never give in “to the sins of men, or to the superstitious observances of false religions.”  Second, we must not make any concession to others in matters that are indifferent if the ones we are making the concession to insist that they are matters of moral obligation.  So, for example, Paul had Timothy circumcised because he knew it would help remove obstacles against him in the ministry.  But he did not allow Titus to be circumcised because the legalizers in the church wanted to make it a mandatory part of Christian obedience, and Paul wouldn’t allow that.

With these two qualifications, however, this principle determined the way Paul ministered.  He was all things to all men in order that by all means he might gain some to Christ.  He is willing, as another has put it, to “flex” for the sake of the gospel, to “strategically and uncompromisingly accommodate” whether it be to Jew or Gentile, to win them to faith.

Now this is the principle which I want to set before us.  Are we willing to be made all things to all men?  Religious tradition can be good, even if it is not explicitly rooted in Scripture.  I think the name Primitive Baptist has served a good purpose for this church.  But here is my question: Would you be willing to lay it aside for the sake of the gospel?  

“But,” you may say, “it’s just too hard!  I’m so used to this identity, this name, that I can’t imagine our church being called anything else.  I don’t see how I could be comfortable with a name change.”  Well, I understand.  I do; to be honest, I wish that I didn’t have to make this proposal.  I wish our church were growing and we didn’t have to think about things like this.  But let’s put this in perspective.  Think about Paul.  He was a Jew.  He grew up, as he puts it, “Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Phil. 3:5-6).  How do you think Paul felt about the traditions of the Mosaic Law?  Even as a Christian, Paul could honestly make this statement: “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question” (Acts 23:6).  I think we could safely say that Paul was probably really comfortable with the traditions of the Jews.

Now, let me ask you this question: how long had these traditions been going on?  How old was the Mosaic Law?  About 1500 years in Paul’s day.  Now let’s ask this question: how long have churches been going by the name Primitive Baptist?  In round numbers, around 200 years.  Yet Paul was willing to give up his traditions in order to advance the cause of Christ.  Now here’s something else: the traditions Paul gave up for the sake of the Gentiles were actually given by God!  Of course God through the New Covenant in Christ made it clear that these were no longer required of God’s people.  However, names on church signs have no such imprimatur!  We can’t say the name Primitive Baptist was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and yet Paul could say that about his traditions.  And he was willing to given them up.   How about us?

Let me say again what moves me to make this suggestion.  It’s the principle that Paul lays out here: all things to all men that by all means we might save some.  I think we should at least be willing to give up a name if we think it could be something that would promote the cause of God and truth, if it could amplify our confession of Christ in this world.  Again, I’m not suggesting this because I want to change what we are.  I’m suggesting this because I want to pass on what we have to our children and grandchildren.  I think what our church has is more precious than the name on the sign out in front.

So for the sake of gospel charity, I invite you to consider a name change for our church.  

For the sake of doctrinal clarity

The previous reason alone would be a sufficient reason, I think, to make such a change.  But let me suggest another.  It is the fact that today the name Primitive Baptist comes with some unhelpful theological connotations, and anyone that does a Google search or asks ChatGPT is going to find out about some of these theological aberrations. 

Again, it’s not the name Primitive Baptist that is the problem.  It’s a very good name, insofar as it expresses the conviction of wanting to be like the primitive, apostolic church.  If that were all there were to it, I wouldn’t have any concerns.  But that’s not all there is to it. The problem has to do with the fact that they have changed over the years. Now I fundamentally agree with the initial impulse of the Primitive Baptist movement as a conservative reaction against means of human contrivance in the church.  That was a good stand to take, even though I think even there they were a bit extreme in some of the things they rejected.  But however well they may have started out as a movement, the fact of the matter is that Primitive Baptists as a whole have not stayed true to their original doctrinal commitments. They have changed over the years, and unfortunately today the name Primitive Baptist has become synonymous, not so much with the initial impulse of the movement, but with these modern changes.

My primary concern here is with doctrinal drift. The main body of Primitive Baptists, it seems to me, are those that this church has been historically associated with (and myself as well).  But this group has over time drifted further and further away from the faith of our fathers.  It seems to me that part of the problem here in terms of seeing this, is that most folks among the Primitive Baptists don’t see further back than a hundred years ago or so.  But the church is two thousand years old, and the Baptist movement as such goes back to the Puritan recovery in the early seventeenth century of the doctrines and practices of the ancient church in Great Britain.  And so the problem is that when Primitive Baptists are told they have adopted some unbiblical positions, they think in terms of what their fathers and grandfathers taught and think they are doing alright because they don’t see much change.  But if you compare what the great majority of Primitive Baptists believe today with the fathers of earlier times, especially on the matters of the necessity of faith in Christ, means in salvation, and the perseverance of the saints, then the slippage becomes very apparent. 

There is actually an easy way to see this.  It can be seen to come in three movements. 

First of all, you need to understand that Primitive Baptists, in terms of their self-understanding, are supposed to be the ones who stayed true to historic Baptist principles when the rest of the Baptist world went ape in the wake of the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s.  This is the reason why they called themselves “Old Baptists” or “Old School Baptist” or “Primitive Baptists.”  What that means is that, if this is true, then they are the ones who are organically connected to and doctrinally aligned with the Particular Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries in both America and England.

What does that mean in terms of faith and practice?  The confession of faith of those churches was reflected primarily in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.  That means that any church truly aligned with them is also going to subscribe to this confession as well.  And the early Primitive Baptists would have gladly affirmed this confession (even if some of them didn’t like to subscribe to any man-made document as an authoritative expression of faith).  If you don’t believe this, just read Hassell’s History of the Church of God, who puts the entire Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith in his history as an expression of authentic Primitive Baptist faith and practice (the Philadelphia Confession was identical to the London Confession of 1689 with the addition of a paragraph on the laying on of hands and the singing of hymns).  Elder Joshua Lawrence, an early Primitive Baptist minister, wrote that “…we [i.e. the ‘Baptists of the old stamp’] abide on the same old ground on which the Philadelphia, Kehukee, and Charleston Associations were first founded in the United States.”  Significantly, each of those associations were founded, either directly or indirectly, upon the theology of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.  

However, in 1900, when Primitive Baptists reaffirmed this confession in Fulton, KY, they did so with a lot of footnotes.  This is interesting, because the fact that they re-ascribed to the confession shows that they understood its importance as the historic expression of orthodox Baptist faith and doctrine.  Elder J. H. Oliphant, who moderated the meeting, says in his autobiography that there was great emotion and tears of joy when the confession was reaffirmed by the Primitive Baptists who were gathered there.  He also says that it was the largest gathering of Primitive Baptists that he had ever seen in his ministry.  This was clearly a consequential event among Primitive Baptists of the time.  However, the fact that they footnoted the confession, changing the meaning of multiple parts, shows the doctrinal drift.  They advertise them as explanations, but they really are genuine changes.  It demonstrates that there had been doctrinal movement in the wrong direction.

Now fast-forward to the end of the twentieth century.  Elder Mike Ivey writes a book that argues that the true lineage of Primitive Baptists need not depend on churches that embraced the 1689 Confession.  He does so, as he states in the introduction of his book, because he could not reconcile Primitive Baptist doctrine and practice with that of the Confession.  So he writes: “I could not resolve the differences I perceive between Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith and the 1689 London Confession of Faith.”  I mention this book because it has been promoted far and wide among the Primitive Baptists of today.  Here we have practically a total rejection of the confession.  So you see the move from affirmation to modification to rejection.  Elder Sylvester Hassell, speaking of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, wrote, “Father [C. B. Hassell] believed, and I believe, that the old London Confession taught the apostles’ doctrine more accurately, comprehensively and thoroughly than any other uninspired production; and therefore it is that I deeply regret the increasing tendency in our midst to ignore and to deny its teachings.”  Indeed, the “increasing tendency” of PBs “to ignore and to deny its teachings” has only increased through the passing years.

Incidentally, you can also see this in terms of how Primitive Baptists talk about “Calvinists” and even “Calvinistic Baptists.”  Today, most PBs are constantly at pains to distinguish themselves from Calvinistic doctrine.  But the 2nd London Baptist Confession was a Calvinistic Confession (so was the first one, by the way).  Our Baptist forefathers were at pains, not to distinguish themselves from their fellow Calvinists, but to align themselves with them.  In the introduction to the Confession of Faith of 1689, they explained why they modeled their confession after the Westminster Assembly’s Confession and the Savoy Declaration.  It was to show the commonalities between them, even more so than the differences.

But this is not where, by and large, Primitive Baptists are at today.  If you tell them that you appreciate and believe the doctrines of the 1689 Confession, they will look suspiciously at you – at least, most of them will.  If you tell them you are a Calvinistic Baptist, they will retort that they are not.  What this means is that they have abandoned some very key aspects of their doctrinal heritage.  They have not stood fast and held the apostolic traditions which are taught in the confession.  So that is why I don’t think the name Primitive Baptist really adequately describes what we are as a church, at least now.  

Am I saying we should never have been a Primitive Baptist church?  No, I’m not saying that.  It’s certainly a key and good part of our heritage as a church and I don’t want to deny that or devalue that or write that off.  To begin as a Primitive Baptist church was the right thing to do when this church was constituted in 1958.  I believe it was, because when this church was constituted, the Primitive Baptists were the only ones who, as a denomination, took the doctrines of grace seriously.  I want to go on record as saying that I thank God that this church was founded as a Primitive Baptist church.  God was clearly at work in and through this church when it was founded as such.  But the reality is that things change over the years, and whereas the name was indeed a helpful marker of doctrinal identity then, it isn’t any longer.

And of course we should thank God for the many ways this church, as a Primitive Baptist church, has been able to minister to Primitive Baptists throughout this country and the world, and especially the way God has used the ministry of Elder Bradley among the Primitive Baptists and beyond.  We should thank God for all this and continue to celebrate it as a good part of our history and heritage.  But I have to say that, in all honesty, due to the doctrinal drift I’m no longer sure it is best to seek our identity in the name itself.

By the way, we could ask the question: Has there been doctrinal movement in this church?  I think so.  But I think it’s been in the direction opposite to so many Primitive Baptists today.  If anything, this church has been moving in the direction towards the faith of our 17th and 18th century Baptist fathers whereas most modern-day Primitive Baptists are moving away from that position.  To me this is ironic because apparently a lot of Primitive Baptists are calling us “liberals,” whereas we are the ones who are really conserving the faith once delivered to the saints.

Next Steps

So what am I proposing?  I’m not proposing that we do anything today.  My hope is that if you have questions, you can talk to one of us elders about it.  Perhaps we can devote a Sunday afternoon time to talking through this in the near future.  My hope is that we will be able to make a decision about this in a future conference.

What I am proposing is that we do now is to pray about this.  In fact, we should not just pray about the name, but we need to be praying about our church in general.  Brethren, we need to be praying for revival.  In fact, if you are physically able, I would urge you to fast and pray for revival as God leads you.  There are certain things, our Savior said, that won’t happen apart from prayer and fasting.  I’m committed to setting aside days of fasting and prayer for our church and I would invite you to join me if you are able.  But even if you can’t fast (and I don’t want anyone to feel guilty if they can’t), we can certainly all pray.  And we have every encouragement from Scripture that when we seek his face, he will hear us and respond in great blessing.  Can I end by reminding you of something Spurgeon said that I find so encouraging in this respect?  

Why should the Church continue in prayer? For several reasons, and the first is, God will answer her. It is not possible that God should refuse to hear prayer. It is possible for him to bid the sun stand still, and the moon to stay her monthly march; it is possible for him to bid the waves freeze in the sea, possible for him to quench the light of the stars in eternal darkness, but it is not possible for him to refuse to hear prayer which is based upon his promise and offered in faith. He can reverse nature, but he cannot reverse his own nature, and he must do this before he can forbear to hear and answer prayer. The prayers of God’s Church are God’s intentions—you will not misunderstand me—what God writes in the book of his decree, which no eye can see, that he in process of time writes in the book of Christian hearts where all can see and read. The book of the believer’s desire, if those desires be inspired of the Holy Spirit, is just an exact copy of the book of the divine decree. And if the Church be determined today to lift up her heart in prayer for the conversion of men, it is because God determined from before all worlds that men should be converted; your feeble prayer today, believer, can fly to heaven, and awake the echoes of the slumbering decrees of God... Prayer is a decree escaped out of the prison of obscurity, and come to life and liberty among men. Pray, brother, pray, for when God inspires you, your prayer is as potent as the decrees of God.