Baptist churches changing their names

I'm not a "KJVO type," (I am a MT/TR and only use the KJV b/c I believe it to be an accurate translation from the preserved texts), but I'm sure in your mind and writing you would lump me in the same crowd. However, I find it a bit irritating that it is only the "KJVO" tpe, IYO, that are "frothing-at-the-mouth." It could never be the (let's see if you like the broad, general, inaccurate lumping of yourself [I'm assuming] into a category) weak-rationalistic-unbeliving MV camp that is "frothing-at-the-mouth," of course not -- How could the Bible Intelligencia be wrong -- could only be those red-neck, ignorant, fideistic, moronic-frothing-at-the-mouth animal KJVO'ers.

Excuse me, I have to whipe my mouth after that one. :laugh:

Steve

 

I believe there is a profound difference between the label "Baptist" and the label "Christian." I also think that there are churches that may not call themselves baptist in their name but still teach baptist doctrine and are still open about their baptist affiliations. I also think that a church can be seeker-sensitive (do not mistake for seeker-driven) and still teach doctrine and the Word of God.

That being said, I've seen my share of your observations as well.

For the most part, removing "baptist" from the name is usually done, not out of shame for baptists, but out of a knowledge that many lost people do not have the first clue what the BF&M2000 is. I have had someone tell me once that they could not attend a baptist church because in baptist churches they make you throw away your TV and you have to sign over control of everything you own to the church when you get baptized. I don't have the slightest idea how they got such ideas, but needless to say if they were inclined to go to church, they would probably avoid the one that says, "baptist" on the sign. They might understand a little once they here the truth of scripture taught.

However, as I've said before, that's a lessening trend. In the 70's and 80's the unchurched that many churches were reaching were those who had been raised in a church but left upon adulthood. They carried all kinds of baggage associatied to church names. A church working to reach unchurched folks today will most likely find people that do not know, nor care what "Baptist" means.

If all we are discussing is a word on a sign, then I hope a church will not allow anything insignificant to stand in the way of the gospel. If we are talking about the issues Joseph brought up, then I agree, there is a much bigger problem.

I have seen both. The church I pastor is considering a new sign right now...it will say baptist on it.

 

Considering the many myriad of abominations- er, I mean denominations, that claim the moniker of "Baptist" from one end of the religious spectrum to the other, what is particularly 'distinctive' about being the First Consolidated Freewill Missionary Predestinarian Full Gospel Primitive Community Faith Calvary Baptist Church? Somehow I fail to see it.

When I was much younger, I recall hearing of churches of "like faith and order". Sounded then, and sounds now, much more Biblical, IMO.

Ed

 

It depends. Are you going to get up and scream and holler about everyone is going to hell because they read those perverted texts? Are you going to yell about how inspired the KJV translators were, even above and beyond the original manuscripts? Are you going to lie and distort the truth to "prove" that your Bible is better? Do you hold the KJV translators to be infallible?

If the answer is yes, then you're what I'm talking about.

 

Because many of the churches that do that are Baptist churches.

I was asked to come pastor an SBC church because the church felt that the SBC has been getting further and further from Baptist doctrine, and this last BF&M was the final straw.

You will find that Baptists are as varied as they come.

 

Again,

If the local Church does not agree with the denomination, then maybe they should seperate. I know I would if the disagreement was big enough.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Cultural associations seems to be a large part of the topic ... why some churches elect to remove "Baptist" from their name. But if any of you are working in the African-American community, as I was when I was serving a pastorate, you may recognize that people are attracted by the word "Baptist". Many of the people who visited and ultimately joined our church knew from the get-go that they wanted a Baptist church ... and although ours was different in worship style, racial makeup, and probably even theology from what they had expected, the name brought them there.

Of course getting them to stay is another matter .... but it is even when you hide the Baptist identity.

 

Maybe we should put "Old Time Baptist" on our signs, what do you think?

 

This isn't an issue of doctrine. The church where I get to serve is distinctively Baptist in all areas of doctrine and we don't avoid the issue in our new members' classes and in conversations when people ask us. Actually you'd probably be surprised how truly "baptist" we are, particularly in who are pastor is, and how we are probably more distinctively/historically baptist than the FBC of Someoletownyplace in our polity, doctrine, and disctinctives.

I had a conversation with a truly unchurched person the other day. (Really interesting convo too, he had invited me to go to strip-club with him minutes before) I basically gave him the run down on what I get to do with my life and listened to where he was at. As we talked I realized that he had grown up in an IBF, hard-core KJVO church tht ate him alive while he was a teen. I mentioned our church and he showed up Sunday. I've had multiple conversations at this point like this in our local community.

Is this the only justification for our church decision? Certainly not. We have a missiological belief in reaching the unchurched in ways unique to our local community. We are trying to be intentional about connecting with unchurched and dechurched people. Our approach isn't for everybody. But that's the beauty of Baptist polity...specifically local church autonomy.

 

Each one of those positions you just stated...I would state are inaccurate and are unscriptural. (However, there are some that believe some but not all that you stated that are not frothing at the mouth -- however...I find on both sides...there is a lot of frothing-at-the-mouth...but it never seems to be spoken of in balance). Sometimes you misinterpret "conviction" for "frothing-at-the-mouth." Is there nothing that you hold to by conviction? And if attacked by a brother in Christ would you stand by? I would say there probably is much that you hold by conviction.

I am not saying that we should excuse men who are frothing at the mouth over poor exegesis of Scripture that leads to faulty and erroneous positions on the text, but please don't paint them all as that way.

And really my point of contention is when men lump one's such as myself (Again, I am a MT/TR man that believes by conviction that the KJV is the only MODERN English translation available to the Eng. speaking world [Yes, I am aware of the NKJV claim -- but reject it for several reasons all of which many in this room know] and yes I absolutely do reject all translations based on the CT, et. al. But I get very weary of those men that lump those churches and men like me who are not frothing at the mouth, who do take a position of careful study/exegesis of the doctrine of preservation found in the Scriptures, who have spent many, many hours reading from both sides of the issue, AND STILL HAVE ARRIVED AT THE POSITION THAT THE KJV IS AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF THE PRESERVED TEXTS (MT/TR). And one way that many simply dismiss us...is to lump us in with a group that is clearly wrong and willfully ignorant of the whole text issue.

Still trying to clean all the spit off of my mouth,

Steve

 

Totally in agreement with posts #2 and #3, and couldn't add anything.

 

Then perhaps you could point me to the post where I did that.

 

If anyone doubts why some of us choose to leave "Baptist" out of our name, just re-read this thread and you can get a strong indication why that choice is made.

 

I also completely agree with posts #2 and #3. There is no grey area here....Use the baptist name if you are baptist, if you aren't, then don't :thumbs:

 

Since each Baptist Church is an autonomous body---it really is nobodies business why a church might want to remove baptist from the name. I pastored a church called Skyline Fellowship and we kept the SBC logo on all correspondence and on the sign. For those that it mattered to they knew we were SBC---for others in the community they came to find out what we were about without the negative connotation of the churches previous history being a barrier. I am now in a church that is a First Baptist Church and would not want in any way to change the name. Don't need to, the church has been faithful and above reproach through the years. Two different churches, with two different backgrounds. God is good and has blessed both, and neither is anyless biblical or baptistic.

Bro Tony

 

And who exactly decides this definition?

 

If a church is doing it to attract people, they should look at the studies which show that denominational names do not impede growth at all. Most people I come into contact with who are totally unchurched want to know what kind of church they're being invited to.

However, what a church believes, proclaims and practices is more important than what a church calls itself.

 

Ro 1:16 -For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The power, the strength, the source of effectiveness in people coming to know Jesus as Lord and Savior cannot be found in secular methods of cultural evangelism.


The power of winning souls to Christ is in the gospel being preached with the power of the Holy Ghost. No where in scripture does it tell the church to reach out to the lost community by finding out what the lost community thinks.


The church today is polling the neighbor hoods of the lost and determinig what they want to see and hear in the church. If they want a preacher with an Izod on they put it on him. If they want rock and roll music then fire it up. If they want dancing and knee slapping then do a jig. If they dont like your sign change it.


Why are lost unsaved people determining what goes on in our churches? Why would any one poll unregenerate people, those people who do not have the mind of Christ, to dictate the church worship.


Changing the name on the sign to hide what you are is dishonest. And that is ecxactly what you are doing. You are not simply removing the offense, you are hiding what you are. Its a lie, and its ungodly.


The church has lost it power cause the power has left the church. So many churches today are walking zombies. They do not know that they are dead. Ichabod is on the door post. And there is a difference between a crowd and a church. I would rather be a part of a church with three members than be part of a crowd with three thousand memebers.

God doesnt bless lying, secular churches.

 

Curious that we would possibly get to the place where at the very least we would associate the power of God and the work of the Holy Spirit with a denominational name. Let's be honest the name on the door does not assure anything. The name "Baptist" used to mean a lot, but not anymore. There is no assurance that the Baptist Church down the road is any more sound doctrinally then the Mormon one. Don't believe me-----just read some of the theology offered by "Baptist" on this board. It is not dishonest to change your name, it is not a sin----our churches should be known for being biblical much more than for being denominational.

Bro Tony

 

Good job twisting what I said.