For a long time trouble has been brewing in the Baptist Bible Fellowship International [BBFI]. When the BBF was only about six or seven years old, after they split off of the World Baptist Fellow, Noel Smith stood on the front porch of Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, TX and said some important things. He said that, "no Fellowship or religious organization could stay clean more than fifteen years, and then you would have to come out of it." He was one of the Founders of the BBF in 1950. I heard those remarks with my own ears, as he spoke to eight or ten preachers. Noel Smith was right, but he didn't live to see how bad it would get. That was more than 40 years ago, and the coming out is long overdue. Of course there have been small groups coming out for a number of years, but a larger coming out may be well on its way. We are happy to say that Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, TX has never been a part of the BBFI. Nevertheless, I have had some dear friends in the BBF that are sound in doctrine. I believe that most if not all of them that believe the truth will come out. If they do, my right hand of fellowship is open to them. I pray that they will realize that the fallacy of the whole organized fellowship concept is wrong. If they build a new organized fellowship, they will be building a new organization that will grow doctrinally corrupt. True New Testament Baptist Churches do not need any organization outside of the local church. Churches can work together in fellowship without any organization outside the Church.)

The following was sent to us by Robert Sargent. He received it from a friend who is unnamed, I suppose by request.

Dear Brethren,

I was privileged to attend the meeting of the Washington State Baptist Bible Fellowship (WSBBF) on the 13th and 14th of September held in Selah, WA. I have appreciated the stand and purpose of these men and count them to be faithful, separated men. For some time they have wrestled with developments that have occurred within the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI). There has been perceptible drift away from the roots of their fellowship and, more importantly, away from Biblical principles of separation. I am aware that many independent men have avoided the BBFI because of areas of compromise, but these men in the state of Washington have exhibited strong convictions to the things of God.

Many of you are aware that at the BBFI National meeting in February of 1999, Jerry Falwell was invited to be one of the keynote speakers. This, as you can imagine caused quite an uproar, and the WSBBF passed a resolution of protest and sent it to the leadership of the BBFI. Without going into all the details, they were basically given the "brush off." Because to this response and the many issues at stake, the WSBBF determined to disconnect itself from BBFI. This was not an easy decision for them to make - Many of them had gone to school in Springfield, some had only known BBF from childhood up, one 74 year old pastor had been in the BBF from its inception 50 years ago - yet they were willing to take a stand for the truth and "come out from among them." I am going to include portions of a cover letter that was sent out last night - more than 4,000 letters to every name listed in their directory - and the actual resolution that was passed.

This is open information, and I would encourage you to pray for these men and many others like them who may be challenged to take action as well. (Name not included)

From the letter . . .

"Enclosed please find a copy of our Washington State Baptist Fellowship resolution, which rescinds our relationship with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, effective immediately. This resolution was passed by a large majority vote (22 for, 1 against, 4 abstain) of our pastors at our September 14, 1999 meeting hosted by the Bible Baptist Church of Selah, Washington.

Simply stated, we believe that although the documents of the BBFI (Articles of Faith, Constitution & Bylaws, School policies, Mission office materials, etc.) are strong and right doctrinally, there has been a continual slide away from the truths of these documents. It is generally understood that the term "WE" in the BBFI documents always refers to the pastors of the Fellowship. We recognize that there has been a failure by many to hold to the truths of these documents and to honestly comply with what they say. This type of hypocrisy coupled with the blatant inconsistencies in the BBFI that we have documented have brought us to the place that as a regional Fellowship we can no longer be associated with the BBFI.

This decision was not based upon a whim, personality conflicts, nor power struggles, but rather upon principles of the Word of God, as we understand them. Much time and effort has gone into the process that helped us to arrive at this conclusion. Numerous facts have been collected, documented, researched, debated and understood by the pastors of our state; and though the resolution in self-explanatory we welcome any sincere and honest inquiry regarding the facts that have brought our Fellowship to this action."

Here is the Resolution:

"Be it resolved that the Washington State Baptist Bible Fellowship rescind its relationship to the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. Whereas Baptist Bible College has made a departure from the stand of our Washington State Fellowship concerning the King James Bible (that the King James Bible is THE Word of God for the English speaking peoples), Whereas The Baptist Bible Fellowship International has made a move away from Biblical ecclesiastical separation as evidenced by the receiving of Jerry Falwell in the Fellowship with open arms, Whereas we recognize an increasing involvement with Promise Keepers and other Charismatic and ecumenical activities within the Fellowship, Whereas there is an increasing departure from the King James Bible among the churches of the BBFI we deem it necessary to take the following actions. Resolved, That the name of the Washington State Baptist Bible Fellowship is hereby changed to Northwest Baptist Fellowship and that the official affiliation with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International is hereby rescinded. This action is not intended to dictate to any church or churches what schools they are to support, what meetings are to be attended, what missions clearing houses are to be used, what missionaries are to be supported, or anything that is to be done as individual churches. This action does not advocate the dropping of Baptist Bible Fellowship missionaries."

As you can see, this has been an important event for these dear men. Whether you still agree or not with this type of fellowship, these men are to be commended and encouraged - they will be paying a price for their decision.

The following was sent to me by Mike Meredith, missionary to Australia.

Dear friends,

The past few days I have received several messages about the recent BBFI meeting in Colorado. As someone who has never been in the BBFI, (but who did graduate from the school in Springfield and who also knows many within the group) I find these messages interesting, but not worrisome. What follows is a copy of the message I received (minus some family news), as well as my reply.

The message:

Yes, they voted out the Nebraska/West Iowa BBF for being too separatist by requiring its officer to hold to Local Church and Closed Communion and No Alien Baptism. But as you see the BBFI does not hold to that view any longer among its members even though the By-laws statethese things as truth. I did not realize the BBFI was a Denomination that you could be voted out of, but I guess it is.

This is going to cause some major problems for the BBFI. Many states are calling asking how can they vote you out of a Fellowship if you were not voted into it. It has stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy and looks to be the catalyst that will split the BBFI. Several State Fellowships have been talking of pulling out for some time and this may be all it takes for others to follow Washington's example and leave the BBFI.

My response:

I think that many people are starting to see some of the problems that have been in the BBFI for years now. That is not a bad thing, in my opinion. The BBFI has not only had the power to vote people out, but has been using it for many years. I will give you an example. Every time a church sends a "missionary candidate" to Springfield to be "approved" you see people being "voted into" the denomination. On some occasions (and for various reasons) you see candidates who do not receive "approval" and are not allowed into the group. Sure, the BBFI cannot stop him from actually going to the field, but they can block his going as a BBFI missionary. This is the same thing as voting him out of the Fellowship (or as I prefer, denomination). Whenever you have a group of men with power to "approve" or override the decision of a local church, you have a denomination. That is exactly what goes on in the BBFI (and other groups with similar initials). I am thankful that God gets glory in the church, not the denomination. I am all for fellowship, but against denominations (not just the BBFI, but ALL of them). Fellowships, Associations, Denominations, Unions, and groups of various names will come and go, but the churches of the LORD Jesus Christ will continue until He comes. Churches can, and do have fellowship without the aid of organized machinery. Missionaries can, and do go into all the world with no other backing than their home church sending them and other churches supporting them. This has been happening since the Gospels, and will continue to go on. It is God's plan, and cannot be bettered by man.

In His service,

Mike Meredith

Since 1992, Roy S. Moore has been a circuit judge for the 16th judicial District in Etowah County, Alabama. A former deputy district attorney, he is also a Vietnam veteran who served as a captain, a company commander, and a battalion staff officer in the military police corps. He graduated from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969 and the University of Alabama School of Law in 1977.

For his achievements in the community and on the bench, Judge Moore has received awards from several prominent national organizations, including the Center for Christian Statesmanship, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the Declaration of Independence Foundation, the African American Family Association, and the Valley Forge Foundation. Judge Moore's seven-year battle to preserve religious freedom of expression in the courtroom and in the public arena has earned him national media attention.

Twice in recent years the Honorable Roy S. Moore has been sued for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. He discussed his case in a student-sponsored lecture on the Hillsdale campus in early 1999.

Judge Moore's remarks are based in part on his article that appears in the Summer 1999 issue of the Cumberland Law Review.

In his first official act, President George Washington did something that would be unthinkable today. He prayed in public! Specifically, during his inaugural address he made

fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

If that were not enough, Washington added, "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

Two hundred years later, few government officials are bold enough to make earnest professions of faith. It seems that politicians can do just about anything in public but pray, unless it is obligatory (during, say, an annual prayer breakfast at the White House). They can survive scandal and immoral conduct, but they suffer ostracism and worse once they are labeled members of the "Religious Right."

Even the American justice system, which is firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, has developed a bias against public worship and the public acknowledgment of God that ought to give the most militant atheist cause for concern. If judges can deny Christians and Jews the right to express their beliefs in the public square, they can surely deny secular humanists (devout believers of a different sort) the same right.

In California, creches and crosses have been removed from downtown Christmas and Easter displays.

In Kansas, city hall monuments featuring religious symbols have been torn down.

In Rhode Island, high school graduation invocations and benedictions have been banned.

In Alabama, students have been prohibited by federal court order from praying, from distributing religious materials, and from even discussing anything of a devotional or inspirational nature with their classmates and teachers.

And in Ohio, an appellate court has overturned the sentence of a man convicted of raping an eight-year-old child ten times. Why? Because the judge who pronounced the sentence quoted from the 18th chapter of Matthew: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

In the courtroom in which I preside, the public display of the Ten Commandments and voluntary clergy-led prayer prior to jury organizational sessions have sparked not only a national controversy but also an epic legal battle. In 1995, I was sued in federal court by the ACLU and the Alabama Freethought Association. Just prior to that case being dismissed for lack of standing (the ACLU and Alabama Freethought Association failed to show that they had been or were about to be injured), a separate lawsuit was filed in Alabama state court requesting a ruling on whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the display of the Ten Commandments and voluntary prayer in the courtroom. A state circuit court judge presiding in Montgomery County, Alabama, held that the practices in Etowah County were unconstitutional under the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause," which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." It would appear that the circuit court judge and others were not impressed when the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed a resolution stating that

(1) the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just society; and

(2) the public display, including display in government offices and courthouses, of the Ten Commandments should be permitted.

The state circuit court's ruling was appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court and, appropriately, was set aside by the Alabama Supreme Court in 1998. Nevertheless, federal constitutional issues regarding public worship and the public acknowledgment of God remain unresolved.

In a 1997 law review article, Brian T. Collidge expressed the opinion of many in the legal profession when he claimed that the mere display of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom is a "dangerous" practice. Although Collidge concedes that the Commandments reflect universal teachings that are beneficial to a civil society, they make explicit references to God, and, in his view, this is an unconstitutional breach of the "wall of separation between church and state."
This now famous "wall of separation" phrase does not appear in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or any other official American document, yet millions of Americans have been led to believe that it does and that, in the words found in a 1947 Supreme Court decision, "[t]he wall must be kept high and impregnable."
The phrase is actually mentioned for the first time in a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 in reply to an inquiry from the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson said,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

But did Jefferson mean that the government should in no way support religion? To find the answer we must go back more than one hundred years before he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson was strongly influenced by John Locke, a well-known English philosopher, who published "A Letter Concerning Toleration" in 1689 in which he clearly defined the proper church-state relationship. Locke stated that "[t]he magistrate has no power to enforce by law, either in his own Church, or much less in another, the use of any rites or forms of worship by the force of his laws."

Herein lies the true meaning of separation between church and state as the concept was understood by Jefferson and the other founding fathers: Government may never dictate ones form of worship or articles of faith. Not all public worship of God must be halted; on the contrary, freedom to engage in such worship was the very reason for creating a doctrine of separation between church and state.

Two days after he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson attended a church service conducted by John Leland, a prominent Baptist minister, in the halls of the House of Representatives. Throughout his presidency, he attended similar services, which were often held in the north wing of the Capitol. From 1807 to 1857 church services were held in a variety of government buildings where Congress, the Supreme Court, the War Office, and the Treasury were headquartered.

Obviously neither Jefferson nor any other officials in the early Republic understood separation between church and state to mean that the federal government was precluded from recognizing the necessity of public worship or from permitting active support of opportunities for such worship. Indeed, they plainly recognized that the duty of civil government was to encourage public professions of faith. Perhaps this is why John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, specifically authorized the opening of jury sessions over which he presided with voluntary prayer led by local clergy of the Christian faith.

Many believe that James Madison, as chief architect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, led the fight to keep religion out of politics. In truth, he was more interested in protecting religion from politics. In 1785, two years before the Constitutional Convention, he wrote a Memorial and Remonstrance opposing a Virginia bill to establish a provision for teachers of the Christian religion. He stated that man's first duty is to God, and that "religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it," was a right and a duty "precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of a civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

Madison championed the First Amendment's Establishment Clause with one overriding purpose: to keep one sect from gaining an advantage over another through political patronage. This is a far cry from denying public worship or the public acknowledgment of God. Madison also made sure that the Establishment Clause was followed by the "Free Exercise Clause," so that the First Amendment would read, in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."

Both Jefferson and Madison would have agreed with United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's definitive Commentaries on The Constitution of the United States (1833) in which he posed the question of whether any free government could endure if it failed to provide for public worship. They would have concluded, as did Justice Story, that it could not. Justice Story explained that

[t]he promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded on moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them.

When the federal legislature met in 1789, one of its first actions was to appoint chaplains in both houses of Congress. (Congress still recognizes God by appointing and paying chaplains who open each session with a prayereven the recent session devoted to the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.)

On the very day that Congress approved the wording of the First Amendment, its members resolved to request of President Washington a day of public thanksgiving and prayer for the peaceful manner in which the Constitution was formed.

A month earlier, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, one of the most important documents in our history. Article III of the Ordinance declared, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Every president of the United States (with only one possible exception) has been administered the oath of office with his hand on the Bible, ending with the words "so help me God."
The Supreme Court begins every proceeding with the ringing proclamation, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

Throughout our history, the executive and legislative branches have decreed national days of fasting and prayer.

Public offices and public schools close in observance of religious holidays.

United States currency bears our national motto, "In God We Trust."

Also by law, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag affirms that we are "one nation under God." Congress would not even allow a comma to be placed after the word "nation" in order to reflect the basic idea that ours is a "nation founded on a belief in God."

It is ludicrous and illogical to believe that it is constitutionally permissible for all three branches of the federal government to acknowledge God openly and publicly on a regular basis, and yet at the same time accept the notion that the federal government can strictly prohibit the states from doing the very same thing. Have we become so ignorant of our nation's history that we have forgotten the reason for the adoption of the Bill of Rights? It was meant to restrict the federal government's power over the states, not to restrict the states from doing what the federal government can do.

It is no wonder that our present Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed in a 1985 dissenting opinion that "the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

Rehnquist added that "the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights." He is right. The doctrine of separation between church and state has been abused, twisted, and taken out of context in recent court decisions in order to prevent the public worship and acknowledgment of God.

The Pharisees demanded of Jesus, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" He asked them to produce a coin and tell him whose image was inscribed on its face. When they replied, "Caesar's," Jesus gave his answer: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

We have to render an awful lot to Caesar these days, but we do not and should not surrender our freedom of conscience. The state can't tell us how we ought to think or what we ought to believe. As, Jefferson testified, "Almighty God hath created the mind free."

But in the latter half of the 20th century the state is trying to take by force the unalienable rights freely given to us by God, declared in the Declaration of Independence to be "self evident." Caesar is trying to tell us when, where, and how we can profess our faith.

In 1962 the Supreme Court outlawed a simple 22-word, nondenominational prayer devised by the New York Board of Regents and used in New York public schools: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."

A year later the Court issued another ruling declaring that reading the Bible and reciting the Lord's Prayer in Pennsylvania and Maryland public schools was unconstitutional, thus outlawing "without the citation of a single case" practices that had existed in American schools for over 170 years. Writing for the majority, justice Tom C. Clark asserted, "In the relationship between man and religion, the state is firmly committed to a position of neutrality." Justice Potter Stewart pointed out in his lone dissent that this was false neutrality indeed, designed to stifle public professions of faith. Justice Stewart also noted, "We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways."

Both decisions represented a major turning point in our history. Judges were no longer interested in the "original intent" of the founders or in legal precedents (which they unapologetically and arrogantly failed to cite). They were eager to embrace the new doctrine of "judicial activism," which would allow them the opportunity to use their power to reshape society according to the attitudes and whims of the changing times.

They have done this by deliberately destroying the distinction between "religion" and "religious activity." These terms may sound similar, but in fact they are very different. Religious activities may include many actions that would not themselves constitute religion. For example, prayer and Bible reading might be characterized as religious activities, but they do not constitute religion, and they are not limited to any specific sect or even to religious people. One may read the New Testament to gain wisdom, and school students may pray before a big exam. Neither activity was intended to be, is, or should be, proscribed by the First Amendment, even if practiced in public.
Sadly, however, it seems that the judicial activists are winning the war. Consider the 1997 case in Dekalb County, Alabama. There, a federal district court determined that a student's brief prayer during a high school graduation ceremony was a violation of the First Amendment because it allegedly coerced unwilling citizens to participate in religious activity. We have evidently forgotten that nothing in the Constitution guarantees that an individual won't have to see and hear things that are disagreeable or offensive to him. We have also failed to realize that peer pressure and public opinion are not the types of coercion against which the framers were seeking to safeguard.

No student should ever be forced by law to participate in prayer or in other religious activity. But to outlaw the public acknowledgment of God simply because another student might have to witness it is as illogical as abandoning a school mascot or motto because it might be not be every student's favorite or because some might not believe in, "school spirit."

In this context, Justice Joseph Story is again worth quoting. He said: "[T]he duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshiping God in the manner, which, they believe their accountability to him requires." Even more to the point, one of the most famous Supreme Court justices, William O. Douglas, once wrote that forbidding public worship discriminates in favor of "those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

October 1997Pearl, Mississippi; December 1997Paducah, Kentucky; March 1998Jonesboro, Arkansas; April 1998Edinborough, Pennsylvania; May 1998Fayetteville, Tennessee; April 1999Littleton, Colorado. These dates and placesthese outbreaks of mass violence and needless loss of young livesserve as a cruel reminder of something gone wrong, desperately wrong, in a nation founded upon faith in God and a respect for His eternal commandments.

Liberal commentators in the media, academe, and the justice system deride the notion that restoring prayer and posting the Ten Commandments can help stem the tide of violence and bloodshed. They prefer secular solutions, especially ones that involve more federal spending and regulation. In effect, they favor more concertina wire, metal detectors, and armed security guards instead of the simple and effective teaching of moral absolutes.

Yes, teaching moral absolutes is out of the question. "We don't want to trample on the civil rights of students." "We don't want to teach that one creed or one code of conduct or one lifestyle is better than another."

When will they understand that secular solutions will never solve spiritual problems?
Tragically, as in the days of the Roman Empire, we too have become accustomed to "bread and circuses." With our stomachs full and our minds preoccupied with the pleasures of this world, we fail to seriously ponder the reason for the tragedies that are regularly occurring before our very eyes. We rarely contemplate the significance of the judiciary's usurpation of power and suppression of religious liberty. When and if we do, we are too often afraid to take a stand-ashamed of our faith in God, afraid to hazard the notion of putting God back into the public square.

We must not wait for more violence, for a total breakdown of our schools and our communities. We must not be silent while every vestige of God is removed from our public life and while every public display of faith is annihilated. The time has come to recover the valiant courage of our forefathers, who understood that faith and freedom are inseparable and that they are worth fighting for.

In the words of that great Christian and patriot, Patrick Henry,

"We must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! ... Why stand we here idle? What is it that the gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College.

The quotation above is the beginning sentence in the Lord's letter to the church in Sardis. "And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead" (Rev. 3:1). The Apostle John was inspired to write this letter to the messenger/pastor of the church. Just how it was received by the church we are not told. However, the effect upon John at the appearance of the giver of the message is powerful. John could hardly do less than say, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead" (Rev. 1:17a). I am not sure how long the Sardis church continued after receiving this notice but it does not exist today. However, at the time of receiving this succinct notice from its Founder and Foundation, the church in Sardis looked proper and prosperous. Had the church gotten a glimpse of the Master as did John they may well have been in existence today. The appearance of the One whose "countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength" (Rev. 1:13-16) emphasized the urgency of the messages to the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2,3).

The strangest of happenings are occurring in Baptist churches today. On the one hand some who once stood firmly identified by the name Baptist are today dropping it from their sign and signature. Adding to this phenomenon are some who still maintain they are Baptist who are recognizing those who have dropped the name (or never adopted it) as being sound in Baptist doctrine. The point is argued that the name is meaningless...it is the doctrine that counts. Granted the doctrine for any church should be of utmost importance. Yet whether an organization is spiritual or secular its name and doctrine (teaching) are inseparable.

For centuries the Lord's church has been identified by the name "Baptist" and the doctrine they embrace is immediately brought to mind. It is even so today with every man-made denomination or cult on earth. No knowledgeable person would think of the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ as being a doctrine of Islam. When we think of so-called Christian religions we make the same assessment. Infant baptism (sprinkling) is a doctrine developed by Catholicism and passed on to her children. Baptismal regeneration permeates the doctrinal statement and practice of most if not all denominations other than Baptist. Dropping the name "Baptist" quickly gives another identification to the assembly that does so. Along with this brings to mind an inevitable change of doctrine. Not only in the mind of the pastor and every member of the church or mission, but also to every person passing by or entering into its sanctuary. Which incidently is behind the dropping of the name in the first place.

Dropping the name "Baptist" is more honorable than holding on to the name and disgracing it. If being a Baptist is so undesirable and demeaning to a leader or congregation, dropping the name is a more credible action. Certainly it would be appreciated by all who love and appreciate the name Baptist and the biblical doctrine which these hold dear. However, many embrace and yet disgrace the name in various ways.

Ecumenism is not a new concept although it is catching on today like the wave in a stadium even in so-called Baptist churches. Although this is not an isolated example the front page of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 11/26/97, Thanksgiving Week, gave this account of ecumenism in an article entitled "Together In Thanks." "Lively service unites worshipers from cross section of community" sub-headed the column by Beth Pratt, A-J Religion Editor. The event is referred to as "the annual Community Interfaith Thanksgiving Service." The entire article reeks with a non-denominational/interdenominational flavor.

The column stated the most "staid Presbyterian" joined in the hand clapping and toe tapping at the "Grace Christian Fellowship Brotherhood's rendition of `Go Peter.'" "Sister" Mary Gerrior of St. Mary's Hospital (Catholic) led in "the litany of thanks" and "the Rev. Canon David Veal of the Episcopal Diocese" led in "the litany of prayer." All this accompanied by hymns led by "Adam Looney of Broadway Church of Christ" with "full participation" being the norm.

So here you have it! Responsive reading and prayer led by a Catholic and Episcopalian, responded to by Presbyterians, all singing to the leadership of a Church of Christ hymn leader at an Interfaith Thanksgiving Service held at Southcrest Baptist Church, Lubbock, TX. The reporter also said that Lubbock city "Councilman T. J. Patterson, preacher for the annual event," said to the congregation of some 300 people: "Lets do this more often, not just for the holiday." Patterson, a Methodist, revealed in a phone conversation that he was not really a preacher but was just leading in thanksgiving to God. Likely there were no Wednesday evening Bible study/prayer service at Southcrest Baptist Church. Many other Baptist churches (and others) had a time of festivities earlier in the week and dismissed mid-week services. Real thanksgiving to God is never prefaced by feasting but by fasting. Simply having the appearance that a church is alive does not always mean it is. Nor does it mean that the life that appears to be there is spiritual life from God. What would your letter say about this, Lord?

Since the inception of the Lord's church, the first day of the week (Sunday) has been looked upon as the day for assembling. The preaching of the Word of God, prayer and worship, singing hymns and melody making in the hearts of those attending, occupy a designated period of time. Salvation by grace through faith and being obedient to the ordinance of baptism then the Lord's supper has been preached from her pulpits from one shore to another. No eating and entertainment just evangelization and enlivening through the preaching of the Word and power of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure when Wednesday night Bible study/prayer meeting began but it was long before my time. It's introduction is a good thing and ought to be taken as seriously as other services of the Lord's church. However, the mid-week service is hardly a glimmer of the light it once was. Paul Gaunt, Director of Church Ministries of the BMA of Texas, has an article in the Baptist Progress, 11/19/97, p. 10, containing what seems to be astounding news. It is entitled "The Wednesday Night Phenomenon." A phenomenon is an occurrence or fact that can be perceived by the senses. However, simply recognizing an occurrence does not necessarily mean that human senses are able to make a right perception of the fact. The above Director made this observation: "...something is happening on Wednesday evenings at the church. Churches are diversifying their Wednesday night programs. Choirs, AWANAS, and small groups are meeting, along with the traditional prayer meeting/Bible study." (Eph. mine.) Had the "traditional prayer meeting/Bible study" been spiritually emphasized the other separate groups would not have begun. As sure as that is being practiced the "traditional prayer meeting/Bible study" groups will die of old age because no one will be graduating out of the other groups into it. Something is indeed happening at the church on Wednesday night but is it for the better?

The once highly distinguished Baptist prayer meeting/Bible study is being defamed by many who claim leadership under the name Baptist. The column further stated, "I pass by the First Baptist Church and see cars lining the streets for blocks around. There is a great crowd of people, and the lights are not even on in the main worship center. But the fellowship hall, family life building, and educational annex are aglow with life and activity." This Director of Church Ministries seems to be applauding this church for forsaking the "main worship center" for food, frolic, and feasting. He is employed by BMA Baptist churches of Texas and is compensated by the tithes and offerings of their membership.

I personally know about such activities. A brief prayer request secession with a single fifty word prayer and then a split off of the young people from the old folks. A fleeting Bible lesson with little or no doctrinal direction followed by the same entertainment that preceded it. The Director gave an example of a Baptist church in Conway, Arkansas that had "almost 500 in Sunday School, and over 400 for Wednesday night activities." There is no end to churches that could be said of them "thou hast a name that thou livest." I'll leave the pulse taking of their spiritual heart to the Lord.

The Director reports that in his home church on Wednesday night "...a nice, inexpensive meal is served beginning at 5:15 p.m. in the fellowship hall." He mentions at least six directions the group scatters into including, of course, Bible Study/Prayer Service. He adds, "Our Wednesday evening crowd is as large as Sunday School." This is the obvious direction the Department of Church Ministries would direct the pastors and churches of the BMA of Texas to go. The "inexpensive meal" may become more costly when we all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Could it be possible that "thou hast a name" among others that is not acceptable to Jesus?

Things sweet to the flesh have always drawn flies. But flies have a way of leaving because the object of their affection becomes stale or even dying because of over eating. "Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour" (Eccl. 10:1).

Because of lack of interest resulting in declining membership attendance, many Baptist leaders and churches are turning to outside sources to solve their problem. The great land of revival seems to have been vacated and complacent affluence has replaced combat ability. "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Tim. 2:3,4). Have we forgotten the word of God in (2 Chron. 7:14)? While prayer is time consuming and demands yielding completely to God it is the method by which victories are won. Hear these words in Jehoshaphat's prayer for help when confronted by the enemy: "O our God, wilt thou not judge them? for we have no might against this great company that cometh against us; neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon thee" (2 Chron. 20:12).

Prayer is indeed a difficult work in the flesh but it results in spiritual accomplishments that can be gained by no other means. It is a sad state of affairs to be as captive Israel. "So they feared the LORD, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence" (2 Kgs. 17:32,33). Though they had a mediocre moral reverence to God they felt it more prudent to place their allegiance in a false religion. They chose leadership which had no sound conviction or spiritual character. They sought to develop their standing before God by submitting to the religion of their captors. Choosing the wrong leadership has been the downfall of kingdoms and nations. It also has been the disintegration of once strong religious organizations. Many churches have called the wrong pastor (simply to have a pastor) to their own ruin both spiritually and financially.

Baptist leaders are being chosen in many places today who are looking to other sources for their solutions. I would not deny that prayer is not involved in their quest for help. But is it prayer for God to lead the churches or is it that God would bless what they have decided is best for the churches under the circumstances? In the BMA of America missions magazine, The Gleaner, the center pages 15-17 contain what is called "Project Overhaul" for the BMAA. Page 15 reveals seven "keys" for development of Baptist churches and missions. Pages 16 and 17 give the explanation of each of these keys. The beginning statement on page 16 states: "The Bible League has graciously shared with the BMA Department of Missions an exciting church planting model." The statement does not reveal whether the mission directors rushed to the Bible League for help or if the Bible League sought them out. Anyone's guess!

According to their own Web Site, "The Bible League is an interdenominational Christian ministry founded in 1938 to give Scripture to people who want it." It would be more admirable to follow the Scripture we already have to guide in church organization. No doubt the work of this organization has admirable characteristics but hardly the source for Baptist leaders to learn how to "plant" churches. This organization came into existence 1900 years too late to have the original plan for church propagation and organization. Not only is the organization interdenomina tional the term "church planting" very likely has the same origin. Yet doubtless many pastors and churches will be duped into believing here is the answer to re-developing our name and number. This move by the BMAA missions department will no doubt be lauded as a masterpiece of spiritual development in "church planting."

Whatever happened to the church propagating plan originating in heaven and displayed on earth? "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2). The Lord gave the plan to the local church, the local church gave the praise to God, and the Holy Spirit gave the power to go. This divine plan is still operable today. Where would Baptist be today if the leaders of the church at Antioch had sought advice from the interdenominational group of their day? The Herodians, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. only joined forces when it would discredit the Lord and His church. To take such action would be a disgrace to the church at Antioch. It is also a disgrace today for Baptist leaders to seek help from man-made organizations circumventing the Lord's divine plan.

The Lord will not bless nor can He receive glory for accomplishments outside His divine plan. Be it a plan for evangelization, salvation, preservation, or propagation it must be designed by the Lord for the plan to receive His approval and blessing.

Though we be accused of being a trouble-maker, remember that so was Elijah. "And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim" (1 Kings 18:17,18). Though we be accused of being insensitive to the needs of the church, remember Paul. "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved" (2 Cor. 12:15). It is often costly to defend the truth that Jesus gave His power and authority to His local church and not to man-made organizations. The power of the Lord is still available to the local church. No where did the Lord imply there would come a time when an outside organization will be needed to govern it's spiritual activities.

Dear brother pastor/preacher, do not fall into the crevice of change for the sake of change. Defend the name that today stands for the doctrine of Christ in His body, the church. Unashamedly own the name and practice of Baptists that for centuries has declared the whole council of God. Satan has drilled an inescapable hole named "Ecumenicity" and is luring even the most staunch Baptist pastors and churches into it. Dear church membership, hurriedly fire or dismiss any and all leadership leaning toward joining or seeking help from the ecumenical system. And " ...earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Then "...come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:17,18).

Satan is rushing and roaring to see which devours more quickly, ecumenicalism or entertainment, in seeking the demise of doctrinal purity in the local church. Let every church that claims the name Baptist consider the possibility of receiving this notice from the Lord: "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God" (Rev. 3:1b,2).