Featured Ashamed of being a Baptist

I have two kids in my youth group at church who were adopted around age 11 (unrelated...into 2 different families). Both decided to change their full name, even the first name, in order to have a clean start with a new family. It was about who they wanted to be, a decision made with much thought and counsel from the parents.

Was this dishonest of them, revealing a lack of integrity? ...something they should feel shame for doing? ...or might there sometimes be good reasons for a name change?

 

You should read the book, "Why Johnny Can't Preach." It is very insightful about how it is not so much the failure of seminaries, but a differing kind of person who is entering seminary...people who have been shaped by media...even sincere, devout men, who none-the-less have been deeply shaped by electronic media that they find it very difficult to think deeply and deliberately.

 

No there is not a good reason to change the name Baptist. Its window dressing at best and completely dishonest in reality. Your comparison fails to be equal in nature. The church needs to get out in the community and work to change the so called bad perception.

 

Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!

 

I have heard of the book and will probably check it out. Thanks

 

Nope. They haven't made a public declaration that they've changed something in their core beliefs.

A name change is a public declaration of something.

A sports arena in a nearby metro city periodically changes its name for one reason or another. "Naming rights" goes to the highest bidder, if I'm not mistaken. If that's OK, then why don't we start changing the names of national monuments to reflect current marketing ploys? Should we change the name of the Washington Monument? As what he stood for during the formation of this country seems to mean little now.

Removing Baptist from a church name is a public declaration that something within this church has changed. The founders of that church included "Baptist" for a reason, just as that spire in DC was named for a reason. Whether intended or not, IMO, removing Baptist from the name of a church is akin to seeking "naming rights" at a sports arena.

How does unsaved John Q Public understand there's a difference between sports areas and churches? Is there one in their eyes?

When First Baptist Church at the corner of Elm and Main changed its name to Elm & Main Fellowship Church, who owns it now? Is it still standing firm in its core doctrine or has it changed under "new management"?

 

That's a great point, but it could actually support a name change...perhaps the church feels that in the past, it and/or other Baptists have wrongly over-emphasized the Baptist name, and so they feel that leaving out the Baptist name would actually be more true to their "CORE" beliefs in Christ and his Gospel. So While they are making a statement with the name change, it is a statement that they consider a recovery of their Core, not a loss of it.

 

See post to Oldtimer...

 

Grace Baptist Church tells me something. [Insert City] Community Church, not so much.

 

IMO, there's a big difference between choices individuals make with regards to starting with a clean slate, as in your example.

When we repent and are saved, we each start out with a clean slate. Our baptism is a public witness of our new beginning. We are saying to the world that we've recognized just how much was wrong with us prior to accepting our Saviour.

Should a Baptist church ever have the need to have a "clean start"? To cast aside the "old" for a "clean start with a new family"?

 

Yes. Some churches need to change their name when they move to a new location. Some need to change their name when the old name no longer reflects what they are. Some should change their name when they change associations. There are dozens of reasons for legitimate name changes. And not all of them reflect changes in doctrine.

This issue regarding the name Baptist on the sign or not is second only to the KJVO issue in silliness, IMO.

 

It probably is. People need to get up off the pew and work to change the so called perception in love and outreach. Tricking people into believing that a church is no longer baptist when they are is not honest. Those people need to stop being baptist altogether.

 

think more important to have Christ in your church, not whatthe name on it is though!

 

Opps! I should have written.....

Should a Baptist church ever have the need, to omit the word Baptist, to have a "clean start"? To cast aside the "old" for a "clean start with a new family"?

Moving to a new location requires dropping "Baptist" from their name? If circumstances require it, instead of First Baptist Church because one is already across the street, use 23rd Psalm Baptist Church.

Here, I agree. Drop the name Baptist when the "old name no longer reflects who they are". That gets an Amen! :applause: This not only applies to some churches, it applies to some preachers, too.

Why would independent Baptist churches have to change their names when they change associations? I don't have to change my name if I join an organization with a member having the same name as myself. We have members of our church with the same names. As a stipulation for membership, we didn't ask the newcomers to change their names.

You may define this subject as "silly". That's your right, your choice. At this point, I have a different take, in general, on the trend for Baptist churches becoming generic - one size fits all beliefs - churches.

 

You are welcome to your opinion. This whole issue is just plain a waste of time (and I have wasted too much time on it the past couple of days). There are many, many churches that have the name "Baptist" on the sign that are nothing but whited sepulchers, and there are many, many churches that do not have the name "Baptist" on the sign that are doctrinally pure. It's not the label on the can that feeds us, it is what is inside the can. Even a can with no label can provide much needed nourishment.

I'm outta here. God bless you all.

 

This is why I am on this side of the debate. There are so many "types" of baptist churches that it doesn't really tell all that much about a church's core beliefs...except that they don't baptize babies, and that the church is not run by an outside organization. Aside from those 2 things...even the Baptists on this board disagree on probably every other issue.

I think we have come to the point, at least in the American Midwest, and especially in the New England areas (the 2 areas I have lived)...that the term "Baptist" does NOT tell you what the church believes.

Mex is right...there are tons of churches called "baptist" I would not want anything to do with...and there are many churches without the name baptist who I would love to be a part of, or partner with...and of course the opposite is also true: Great "baptist" churches, and lousy "formerly Baptist" churches...but the name is not what got them there either way.

 

This is nothing but common sense.

If you remove Baptist because you believe it will discourage people from attending your church then that means you do not want people to immediately know you are Baptist. You are at this point hiding the fact, at least initially, from potential visitors. Hiding who you are so people will visit is dishonest.

 

All depends IF you see yourself as being A Christian first and primary or not!

its what goes on inside the building, not whats hanging on the outside!