January 30th, 2025
by Dr. Spencer Plumlee
by Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Trust is at an all time low. Media, government, and healthcare are viewed by many with mistrust and skepticism. Regardless of whether this is warranted, it is real. While previous generations watched the evening news with confidence, today many watch with cynicism.
Sadly this lack of trust is also present in the church. Moral failures, abuse of authority, toxic leadership cultures, financial impropriety and more have led to low levels of trust in churches. This mistrust often includes deep pain and wounds in many people’s lives. “Church hurt” is real. This creates an environment in which many church leaders are viewed with suspicion. “What are you really up to?” is often a refrain pastors feel.
This is real in Mansfield and in our church family. Nothing is sadder for me as a pastor than to hear our members share stories of church hurt. We must name this reality because it’s part of the conversation right now in our fellowship. Low trust, suspicion, and church hurt are all at play when we start talking about something as big as a name change. I do not highlight this to minimize or marginalize these feelings. Instead, I’d like to address these realities in two ways.
First, I’d like to make a case for the health of our leadership community at FBC Mansfield. This is not a perfect group of leaders, but they are people of character and integrity. I’d like to share some of the systems we have in place that encourage health in our leaders. Second, I want to address some pointed questions about our integrity as a church in this season. Our elders are currently meeting with different Life Groups to discuss the potential name change. This has generated a pattern of questions about integrity I’d like to address.
Leadership Community of FBCM
The Trellis and the Vine by Marshall and Payne uses the title's metaphor to drive home a simple point: churches need good systems (the Trellis) and good relational ministry (the Vine). A trellis, that is systems, with no vine, is lifeless. A vine, that is ministry, with no trellis, is chaos. In this age of mistrust and skepticism, both are essential. One of the ways churches build trust is ensuring their leadership community is marked by an accountable system and robust relational investment. Let me talk about how we try to live out each.
Trellis of FBCM: Plural Elder Congregationalism. About 18 months ago, you elected your first round of elders. These men serve as a team of shepherds who set the overall direction for the church and actively care for the membership. This installation was a move away from a CEO model in which we had a board and I was the chairman to a shepherding model. The men who lead the church do so as a team of pastors. Each elder is a wise, respected leader who meet the biblical qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Additionally, we took steps to structure this team in such a way that it minimized the ability of one person to manipulate the system. For example, while there are both lay and staff elders, the team as a whole must operate with a “staff plus one” ratio. That is, there must always be one more lay elder than there are staff elders. This allows for qualified staff to serve while at the same time keeping the staff from making all the decisions if they decided to vote as a block. In addition to this, on our elder team the majority rules. The senior pastor’s vote carries no more weight than the rest of the elders. This means that at times he will lose a vote (that has already happened on our elder team).
We are under no illusion that polity and structure eliminate the possibility of manipulation. We have however tried to put things in place that greatly minimize this possibility.
Vine of FBCM: Relational Disciple-Making. Discipleship must come before Leadership. Abiding in Jesus, praying, confessing sin, sharing your faith, investing in your family, living your work out as a calling are all the basic components of discipleship. Before anyone leads in a role of spiritual authority at FBC Mansfield, they must first be discipled.
My first 3-4 years at FBC Mansfield were marked by a focus on disciple-making. We launched our Multiply Groups in 2019 and have seen hundreds begin to make disciples. This process will be rebooted in the fall of 2025, but the fruit of this in our church is real. Namely, it allowed our church to see which leaders were truly passionate about the basics of following Jesus before they moved into positions of leadership. Many of our staff and all of our elders came out of this process.
As with the trellis, the vine work of relational disciple-making doesn’t eliminate a breach in integrity. It does ensure that the people who are leading this church are first and foremost growing disciples of Jesus.
With that said, let me address three questions we’ve been asked related to integrity.
Integrity Questions
Question 1: Is this potential name change a way of slowly moving us away from the Southern Baptist Convention?
No. Please see my post last week entitled, “On Being Baptist.” We are committed to staying connected to Baptist life through our historical, theological and denominational connections. Having said that, it’s important that I offer one small clarification. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) does not own or control our church. First Baptist Mansfield is autonomous, operating under congregational rule. We affiliate with the SBC of our own accord via our giving to the Cooperative Program.
To my knowledge, no leadership community has led the church to be more engaged in the SBC in our history than our current leaders. Budget, missions involvement, and theological alignment have never been higher in our history, going all the way back to 1886. This is a fact I am personally very proud of.
We have no desire after having worked so hard to lead us to be so tightly affiliated with the SBC to turn away now. We are better together. If the SBC is a fleet of ships all sailing in the same direction, our elders goal is to keep our ship sailing with thousands of others toward Great Commission advance.
Question 2: Has this already been decided by our leaders? If not, how will our leaders respond if the vote is “no”?
No. The only way this gets decided is if you as a church vote in the affirmative over 66% on April 27th.
On the potential of a no vote: I cannot speak for our other elders, because we’ve not talked about it at length. I will only speak for myself when I say this: if the church votes down the proposed name, I have no desire to revisit this issue anytime soon. The energy and time we are spending on this is significant. Hundreds of individual conversations, life group sessions, town hall meetings, members meetings, and special called meetings are all in motion right now. Some have pointed out that this seems to be a lot of energy for just a name. In the same spirit, someone recently told me they hope this doesn’t become a distraction to Advance this year.
I share this concern but have felt that we needed to give ample time for clear communication and questions. Having said that, we will either vote in the affirmative and change the name or we won’t. I feel very strongly that God is indeed leading our church to change our name. Our elders feel very strongly that this is the case too. If the church votes down the new proposed name, then I will trust the Lord’s guidance in this matter.
Question 3: If a church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and does not have “Baptist” in its name, is that deceptive?
This question makes an assumption about church names we need to address. What is the purpose of a church name? Is it to assure the people within the congregation about doctrinal fidelity and denominational identity? Or is it to communicate to new people who we are? Our elders increasingly believe we need to prioritize people who are not here yet. As a result, we believe the most important thing a church name should do is communicate to the community who we are.
Having said that, no, I do not believe removing Baptist while staying affiliated with the SBC is deceptive for the following reasons.
First, we will not hide our affiliation with the SBC. In our new members class we will make it clear that we are cooperating with the SBC. Our worship services will continue to highlight our partnership with IMB, NAMB and SBTC. Our statement of faith will remain the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and will be easily found on our website.
Second, the word “Baptist” is confusing to many people. Before the year 2000, SBC churches were basically the same. Whether you walked into a church in New York or New Mexico, if it was Southern Baptist you saw a choir in robes, a music director, programs like RA’s and GA’s and Women's Missionary Union. As the early 2000’s unfolded, this uniformity began to change. Baptist churches now worship with different styles, have a variety of programming they offer, and are even led differently via nuances in their polity (e.g. elders vs. no elders). The goal of removing “baptist” is not to hide who we are but to remove a word that’s confusing.
Third, our name must unapologetically clarify our commitment to the gospel. I fully anticipate our new name having a word like “Christ,” “Grace,” or “Cross” in it. Something theological and simple is the aim of elders. Given the degradation of our culture, it is more important than ever to clarify our core commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If people are offended, for example, by the name “Christ” in our church name, so be it. Our goal in a name change is not to obscure our faith in Jesus but rather to make that faith clearer.
(Remember, we are planning to unveil the potential name at our special called Members Meeting, Sunday, 3/2)
Mistrust of the church is real. In this season, let’s love and serve one another, assuming the best of our fellow members and our elders. I pray this post gives you more background on our leadership community and our heart behind removing “Baptist” from the name.
Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Senior Pastor
Sadly this lack of trust is also present in the church. Moral failures, abuse of authority, toxic leadership cultures, financial impropriety and more have led to low levels of trust in churches. This mistrust often includes deep pain and wounds in many people’s lives. “Church hurt” is real. This creates an environment in which many church leaders are viewed with suspicion. “What are you really up to?” is often a refrain pastors feel.
This is real in Mansfield and in our church family. Nothing is sadder for me as a pastor than to hear our members share stories of church hurt. We must name this reality because it’s part of the conversation right now in our fellowship. Low trust, suspicion, and church hurt are all at play when we start talking about something as big as a name change. I do not highlight this to minimize or marginalize these feelings. Instead, I’d like to address these realities in two ways.
First, I’d like to make a case for the health of our leadership community at FBC Mansfield. This is not a perfect group of leaders, but they are people of character and integrity. I’d like to share some of the systems we have in place that encourage health in our leaders. Second, I want to address some pointed questions about our integrity as a church in this season. Our elders are currently meeting with different Life Groups to discuss the potential name change. This has generated a pattern of questions about integrity I’d like to address.
Leadership Community of FBCM
The Trellis and the Vine by Marshall and Payne uses the title's metaphor to drive home a simple point: churches need good systems (the Trellis) and good relational ministry (the Vine). A trellis, that is systems, with no vine, is lifeless. A vine, that is ministry, with no trellis, is chaos. In this age of mistrust and skepticism, both are essential. One of the ways churches build trust is ensuring their leadership community is marked by an accountable system and robust relational investment. Let me talk about how we try to live out each.
Trellis of FBCM: Plural Elder Congregationalism. About 18 months ago, you elected your first round of elders. These men serve as a team of shepherds who set the overall direction for the church and actively care for the membership. This installation was a move away from a CEO model in which we had a board and I was the chairman to a shepherding model. The men who lead the church do so as a team of pastors. Each elder is a wise, respected leader who meet the biblical qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Additionally, we took steps to structure this team in such a way that it minimized the ability of one person to manipulate the system. For example, while there are both lay and staff elders, the team as a whole must operate with a “staff plus one” ratio. That is, there must always be one more lay elder than there are staff elders. This allows for qualified staff to serve while at the same time keeping the staff from making all the decisions if they decided to vote as a block. In addition to this, on our elder team the majority rules. The senior pastor’s vote carries no more weight than the rest of the elders. This means that at times he will lose a vote (that has already happened on our elder team).
We are under no illusion that polity and structure eliminate the possibility of manipulation. We have however tried to put things in place that greatly minimize this possibility.
Vine of FBCM: Relational Disciple-Making. Discipleship must come before Leadership. Abiding in Jesus, praying, confessing sin, sharing your faith, investing in your family, living your work out as a calling are all the basic components of discipleship. Before anyone leads in a role of spiritual authority at FBC Mansfield, they must first be discipled.
My first 3-4 years at FBC Mansfield were marked by a focus on disciple-making. We launched our Multiply Groups in 2019 and have seen hundreds begin to make disciples. This process will be rebooted in the fall of 2025, but the fruit of this in our church is real. Namely, it allowed our church to see which leaders were truly passionate about the basics of following Jesus before they moved into positions of leadership. Many of our staff and all of our elders came out of this process.
As with the trellis, the vine work of relational disciple-making doesn’t eliminate a breach in integrity. It does ensure that the people who are leading this church are first and foremost growing disciples of Jesus.
With that said, let me address three questions we’ve been asked related to integrity.
Integrity Questions
Question 1: Is this potential name change a way of slowly moving us away from the Southern Baptist Convention?
No. Please see my post last week entitled, “On Being Baptist.” We are committed to staying connected to Baptist life through our historical, theological and denominational connections. Having said that, it’s important that I offer one small clarification. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) does not own or control our church. First Baptist Mansfield is autonomous, operating under congregational rule. We affiliate with the SBC of our own accord via our giving to the Cooperative Program.
To my knowledge, no leadership community has led the church to be more engaged in the SBC in our history than our current leaders. Budget, missions involvement, and theological alignment have never been higher in our history, going all the way back to 1886. This is a fact I am personally very proud of.
We have no desire after having worked so hard to lead us to be so tightly affiliated with the SBC to turn away now. We are better together. If the SBC is a fleet of ships all sailing in the same direction, our elders goal is to keep our ship sailing with thousands of others toward Great Commission advance.
Question 2: Has this already been decided by our leaders? If not, how will our leaders respond if the vote is “no”?
No. The only way this gets decided is if you as a church vote in the affirmative over 66% on April 27th.
On the potential of a no vote: I cannot speak for our other elders, because we’ve not talked about it at length. I will only speak for myself when I say this: if the church votes down the proposed name, I have no desire to revisit this issue anytime soon. The energy and time we are spending on this is significant. Hundreds of individual conversations, life group sessions, town hall meetings, members meetings, and special called meetings are all in motion right now. Some have pointed out that this seems to be a lot of energy for just a name. In the same spirit, someone recently told me they hope this doesn’t become a distraction to Advance this year.
I share this concern but have felt that we needed to give ample time for clear communication and questions. Having said that, we will either vote in the affirmative and change the name or we won’t. I feel very strongly that God is indeed leading our church to change our name. Our elders feel very strongly that this is the case too. If the church votes down the new proposed name, then I will trust the Lord’s guidance in this matter.
Question 3: If a church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and does not have “Baptist” in its name, is that deceptive?
This question makes an assumption about church names we need to address. What is the purpose of a church name? Is it to assure the people within the congregation about doctrinal fidelity and denominational identity? Or is it to communicate to new people who we are? Our elders increasingly believe we need to prioritize people who are not here yet. As a result, we believe the most important thing a church name should do is communicate to the community who we are.
Having said that, no, I do not believe removing Baptist while staying affiliated with the SBC is deceptive for the following reasons.
First, we will not hide our affiliation with the SBC. In our new members class we will make it clear that we are cooperating with the SBC. Our worship services will continue to highlight our partnership with IMB, NAMB and SBTC. Our statement of faith will remain the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and will be easily found on our website.
Second, the word “Baptist” is confusing to many people. Before the year 2000, SBC churches were basically the same. Whether you walked into a church in New York or New Mexico, if it was Southern Baptist you saw a choir in robes, a music director, programs like RA’s and GA’s and Women's Missionary Union. As the early 2000’s unfolded, this uniformity began to change. Baptist churches now worship with different styles, have a variety of programming they offer, and are even led differently via nuances in their polity (e.g. elders vs. no elders). The goal of removing “baptist” is not to hide who we are but to remove a word that’s confusing.
Third, our name must unapologetically clarify our commitment to the gospel. I fully anticipate our new name having a word like “Christ,” “Grace,” or “Cross” in it. Something theological and simple is the aim of elders. Given the degradation of our culture, it is more important than ever to clarify our core commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If people are offended, for example, by the name “Christ” in our church name, so be it. Our goal in a name change is not to obscure our faith in Jesus but rather to make that faith clearer.
(Remember, we are planning to unveil the potential name at our special called Members Meeting, Sunday, 3/2)
Mistrust of the church is real. In this season, let’s love and serve one another, assuming the best of our fellow members and our elders. I pray this post gives you more background on our leadership community and our heart behind removing “Baptist” from the name.
Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Senior Pastor
Posted in Newsletter
No Comments