I've been thinking a lot about my last blog. I've especially been thinking about my "no Baptist, no deal" comment. Here are a few more comments on that idea.
You know, we have a lot of likeminded friends that WOULD NOT call themselves Baptist. The label isn't what would make a good courtship "fit" for our children, of course. It is the doctrine I would consider "Baptistic" that I feel would be necessary to make a happy match (for Steve and I anyway). There are also a lot of Baptist groups I'm sure that would not hold to doctine that we find important. So, I've been thinking about what doctrine I consider important. Here are some things I've thought of so far.
1. Biblical authority. No ifs, ands or buts! Nothing can be more important!
2. Creation. Our children are being throughly trained in Creationism, so I can't imagine a match with someone that doesn't acknowlege God as creator would be pleasant at all.
3. Believer's Baptism. Humm . . . I know this will seems nitpicky (ohhhh, lice analogy. . . ewww!), but we just happened to study this in Bible study and it brought up a discussion. I'm thinking it would be awkward to have a match with someone with a "covenant" backgroud where infants are sprinkled. Steve and I would certainly not approve of this, and would not attend a sprinkling ceremony (even for a grandchild). Just imagine the family disunity there! 
And if they did BAPTIZE the poor baby, we would have to call CPS 
(not really, but totally submerging a baby doesn't seem quite right).
4. Translation issues. Steve requires I mention this 
. Steve uses the NKJV, so we may not be consided part of the elect in some KJV circles. Obviously, that would be a bad situation too!
I'm sure I'll think of more as the days go by. I'll have a list a mile long by the time the girls hit 16.