Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

[Tom Butler]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
However, such a decision ought to be recognized for what it is: a marketing technique, pure and simple.

The decision was based upon a desire to break away from denominational barriers in an effort to reach those who might not come otherwise.

Oh, I think you're exactly right. That's called a marketing decision.

I wonder if some thought has been given to the implications of such a decision. However noble the the motive, it is still as if the church is saying to itself: "We are Baptist in every way. We just don't want people to know it. So to make sure we reach those who may be turned off by the name Baptist, or the historic Baptist doctrines, we'll pretend we're not."

How is that not a marketing decision? And how is it not deception?

 

[Gershom]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
However, such a decision ought to be recognized for what it is: a marketing technique, pure and simple.




Oh, I think you're exactly right. That's called a marketing decision.

I wonder if some thought has been given to the implications of such a decision. However noble the the motive, it is still as if the church is saying to itself: "We are Baptist in every way. We just don't want people to know it. So to make sure we reach those who may be turned off by the name Baptist, or the historic Baptist doctrines, we'll pretend we're not."

How is that not a marketing decision? And how is it not deception?

The original post was in reference to why this Baptist brother would part ways with me even though I believe the same doctrine as he. I am making the point that even though I believe the same, his choice to part ways is based soley upon a name.

Your painting a picture to give leverage to your argument, as we all are geared to do. I believe biblical doctrine, period. And what my church offers is biblical doctrine. We are not "Baptist" in every way. We are "biblical" in every way. It just so happens that the Baptists where I am from believe the same doctrines. No one is pretending to be something or not be something. No one is deceiving anybody.

 

[Gershom]

This is a common reaction from the Baptists that I have told about this decision to plant a church. Instead of blessing and well-wishes because of the fact that I am planting a mission-minded, biblically sound church that is out in the community telling others about CHRIST, the reaction is that they get up in a knot over the NAME.

Silly.

 

[Tom Butler]

The original post was in reference to why this Baptist brother would part ways with me even though I believe the same doctrine as he. I am making the point that even though I believe the same, his choice to part ways is based soley upon a name.

Your painting a picture to give leverage to your argument, as we all are geared to do. I believe biblical doctrine, period. And what my church offers is biblical doctrine. We are not "Baptist" in every way. We are "biblical" in every way. It just so happens that the Baptists where I am from believe the same doctrines. No one is pretending to be something or not be something. No one is deceiving anybody.

To be clear, I would not part company with you over a name. If your church's doctrines are the same as the Baptist church which I serve, I would welcome your fellowship. And if one of your congregation decided to join my church, I would vote to receive him.

I'm old and out of touch with modern thought on this matter, though. I just wonder why anyone would start a church with the same doctrine as the Baptist churches, and not identify with them. I understand the desire to attract those who may be turned off by the Baptist name. And I can fellowship with folks like that. I guess I'm just too stuck in the past to buy the premise.

 

[Tom Butler]

Another thought: I have been raised in churches which use mostlly traditional music in worship. I am not culturally attuned to contemporary worship music or worship styles. Even though we may hold to the same doctrines, I doubt if I would ever join that church.

I can fellowship with those folks as individuals. I can fellowship with them even as a congregation. I would not part company with them over worship style. But I could not feel comfortable in their worship services over the long haul.

I understand that it's a cultural thing. I understand why we don't have a lot of yuppies at my church. They are going to a church where they are culturally compatible. That's not a reason to separate from them, nor fellowship with them as Christian brothers and sisters. But it does reveal why in many cases a person is attracted to one church but not another. It has little to do with doctrine.

 

[DHK]

hmm -- IFB?? Misssionary Baptist? SB? Moderate? Reformed? Full-Gospel Baptist? Seventh-day Baptist? Free Will Baptist??

The "list is endless" for a group that you claim should be said to "have a creed" that all have signed.

Kinda fun to watch you flip-flopping on this one DHK.

In Christ,

Bob

There were creeds written in the past--in the 18th and 19th centuries. Creeds in the 20th and 21st centuries are less common. It is true that most Baptist Churches do not have a "creed" as such. But if you do a search on the net, I am sure that you can find some Baptist creeds. They are more historical in nature, and obviously don't have too much relevance to the average independent Baptist church today.

Every Baptist Church needs a statement of faith, and every church should have a constitution. Depending on the type of Baptist Church (like the ones you mentioned), the statement of faith will change. Again, a quick search will verify that. One will quickly realize that a KJVO church will have in their statement have that the KJVO is the only inspired Word of God, and that all others are not. We would never have a statement like that. Some Baptist churches are ecumenical; ours is separated. Some are charismatic; ours is not. The statement of faith will reflect these differences.

Most constitutions simply deal with church order and polity. Are you willing to agree with the constitution, the way the church is run, and the statement of faith. These are key questions. If you are not able to agree with the doctrine of the church, and the purpose and philosophy of the church, then you better not join it. A creed today is irrelevant. The statement of faith and the constitution of the church have become very important. In most places the church cannot be registered without a constitution.

 

[D28guy]

"And how is it not deception?"

Maybe because the ones in this fellowship are not interested in getting people to be "Baptists", but rather "Christians"? :thumbs:

Mike

 

[Hope of Glory]

Gershom, I missed this when you first posted it, but I'd like to throw in my two cents' worth.

A year or two back, several churches contacted me to see about me coming to pastor. (There was the possibility that for health reasons I was going to have to move; I'm not quite sure how the grapevine worked, but word got around.)

Several of these churches had dropped "Baptist" from their name, not to "fool" anyone, but because the Baptist denomination, by and large, has abandoned their traditional beliefs. (Personally, I would have kept "Baptist" because of the traditional beliefs, and I ended up staying at my Baptist church here.)

There was no intention to deceive anyone, or to appear more friendly, but by changing to a "Bible Church", they were able to concentrate on the Bible instead of Baptist doctrine.

As long as you are preaching sound doctrine, I don't think it matters what you call yourself. I have one pastor acquaintance who preaches at a Lutheran church that is Lutheran in name only because as an assembly, they came to realize that many of their traditions were unbiblical. But, they kept the name. (I think that's tradition, not deception.) In other places, governments dictate what kind of church you can plant. So, if you plant a "Lutheran" church and preach the Scriptures soundly, is that wrong?

The name "Baptist church" runs the gamut from IFB KJVO to Catholic lite to Pentecostal, and everything in between. Either most (or all) of them are being deceptive, or they hold to enough Baptist doctrine to want to keep the name. Perhaps those who shed the name "Baptist" do so for the same reason, but with the opposite conclusion.

 

[Tom Butler]

"And how is it not deception?"

Maybe because the ones in this fellowship are not interested in getting people to be "Baptists", but rather "Christians"?

Yep, our sole concern is getting lost people to "call on the name of the Lord and you shall be a Baptist." Rats, our dirty little secret is out.

Seriously Mike, why would you automatically assume that the their motives are pure, and those of my fellow Baptists are not?

Even those who are baptistic in all but the name admit that the move is designed to attract people that won't go to a church with Baptist on the sign. That's fine and dandy. It's also marketing--a strategy designed to get people to buy what they're selling.

Did it ever occur to them that at some point, those new members will eventually realize that this non-Baptist church teaches and preaches Baptist doctrine, holds to Baptist polity. If they're turned off by the name Baptist, what do you think their reaction is going to be when they find out and start asking questions.

What are the answers going to be? "Wal, we knew you wouldn't come here if we called ourselves Baptist, even though there's no difference in our doctrines and those of the Baptist church down the street that you won't go to either. Well, there is a difference. They teach Baptist doctine, but we teach doctrine from the Bible, even though what they believe is the same is what we believe."

Now, let me be clear. If that's what you want to do, go for it. Baptist churches have been devising plans and programs to reach the lost and unchurched for centuries. It would be wrong of me to suggest that you shouldn't. I appreciate that those new members will be sitting under gospel preaching and Biblical teaching. And we can fellowship at any time. If you don't like calling it a marketing strategy, call it an outreach strategy, call it a church growth plan.

But it's a plan that requires one of two things. Either you're up front with them about your doctrines and the Baptistic nature of them. Or you're not.

Up front, wonderful. Not up front--deception, no matter how much one protests that its not, and no matter how much one wraps it in noble motives.

 

[Tom Butler]

While the church is commissioned to go out into the world and tell them about Jesus, some might come to us even though we may not have spoken to them directly. By not having a denominational name, our hope is to reach those who we might not have come because of this barrier. Maybe they have some pre-conceived idea that keeps them from coming or whatever. The goal is to get folks saved and discipled. This offers another avenue. And it's a biblical one.

In case I'm not being clear, the strategy of being Baptist in every way except the name is not unbiblical. The goal of pointing people to Christ, and discipling them is exactly what your goal should be.

But it would be helpful to me if you would clarify a couple of things.

When do you tell prospective members, or new members, about your doctrines, polity and practices? Do you identify them as the same as Baptistic? Do you explain why you don't don't have Baptist on the sign?

Are you up front with all this? If you are, then ignore my tirades, they aren't aimed at you.

If you withold any of this information, would you give your rationale for doing so?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Did it ever occur to them that at some point, those new members will eventually realize that this non-Baptist church teaches and preaches Baptist doctrine, holds to Baptist polity. If they're turned off by the name Baptist, what do you think their reaction is going to be when they find out and start asking questions.

Not that I agree with these tactics, if this is their reasoning, but there are many people who are turned off by the name Baptist because of groups like Westboro, or even the rantings and ravings of many so-called fundamental Baptist churches.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

My question to the list, is whether or not if these that believe like Baptists, preach like Baptists, and walk like Baptists would be justified if when someone wises up to their beliefs and calls them Baptists, they puff up and try to say that they are NOT Baptist, but rather non-denominational?

 

[Gershom]

But it would be helpful to me if you would clarify a couple of things.

When do you tell prospective members, or new members, about your doctrines, polity and practices? Do you identify them as the same as Baptistic? Do you explain why you don't don't have Baptist on the sign?

We are in a study right now about the church; what the church is, and how it functions. Tomorrow I will be teaching government. The two ordinances, the offices of pastor and deacon, church discipline, etc. I will be teaching these thing from the Bible. They are biblical doctrines and no reason to bring Baptist into it by calling them Baptistic. They're Scriptural practices. And as such they will be accredited to God. I don't see any reason to have to explain to someone why I don't have the name Baptist on the sign. But if they were to ask, I would return the question as to why should we?

Are you up front with all this? If you are, then ignore my tirades, they aren't aimed at you.

I am upfront with any and all things concerning the church. I have nothing to hide and would be very willing to reason through such concerns with anyone who is curious.

If you withold any of this information, would you give your rationale for doing so?

I think I answered this question above. God bless, and I hope you have a blessed Lord's day!

 

[Tom Butler]

Thanks, Bro. Gershom, I appreciate your answers, and I am satisfied with them. I pray God's blessings on you and your work for Him.

Perhaps some day, God will open the door for you to put that Baptist sign up. If not, that's okay, too.

 

[BobRyan]

In case I'm not being clear, the strategy of being Baptist in every way except the name is not unbiblical. The goal of pointing people to Christ, and discipling them is exactly what your goal should be.

But it would be helpful to me if you would clarify a couple of things.

When do you tell prospective members, or new members, about your doctrines, polity and practices? Do you identify them as the same as Baptistic? Do you explain why you don't don't have Baptist on the sign?

Are you up front with all this? If you are, then ignore my tirades, they aren't aimed at you.

If you withold any of this information, would you give your rationale for doing so?

I visited a community church (mebership around 400) for a number of years whose pastor was trained at the Moody Bible Institute with a congregational model that was strictly controlled by the pastor and just two elders. The idea was that the Pastor called all the shots. Even though he always taught along Baptist lines - he did not "NAME" the church with the word "baptist" in the name nor did he insist that members sign up to his creed to retain their membership. They only had to agree to a very few basics to remain members.

So they had Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists etc all attending the same church and listening to what were essentially Baptist sermons -- and the members differred with the pastor whenever they felt like it.

But - still they attended and they listened. Some of the more strict presbyterians were not happy with his 3-point-calvinist view of the world so eventually they left - but most people stayed and the church grew by about 30% each year.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tom Butler]

Bob, why do you think that the growth continued? Does this suggest that there were other factors that kept them there or attracted people there besides doctrine?

This is more anecdotal than scientific, but over the years, I found an increasing number of people who join churches are Biblically illiterate. They don't know what the church believes, would know Bible truth if it wore a label. They are attracted to churches by worship styles (read contemporary), stuff for the kids, a good choir, a good nursery, or they were just plain friendly.

What do you think?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Bob, why do you think that the growth continued? Does this suggest that there were other factors that kept them there or attracted people there besides doctrine?

This is more anecdotal than scientific, but over the years, I found an increasing number of people who join churches are Biblically illiterate. They don't know what the church believes, would know Bible truth if it wore a label. They are attracted to churches by worship styles (read contemporary), stuff for the kids, a good choir, a good nursery, or they were just plain friendly.

What do you think?

I'll be a buttinski here, but I also think that their opinions can be negatively influenced by those who give Baptists a bad name. They may be the minority, but they're very vocal and get a lot of press coverage.

My wife and I were married before we had turned our lives over to the Lord. But, I couldn't get her to step foot in a Baptist church when we did start returning to the Lord. Why? Because of a personal experience with an IFB church in which the preacher spent the entire sermon yelling at people and calling them by name that "You are going to hell! Because you (insert chosen sin here)." Then, there was the IFB street preacher who was a vile little man on the lines of Westboro's pastor. (Can't recall his name right off hand. Phelps, is it?)

 

[D28guy]

Tom Butler,

I said...

"

Maybe because the ones in this fellowship are not interested in getting people to be "Baptists", but rather "Christians"?

And you said...

"

Yep, our sole concern is getting lost people to "call on the name of the Lord and you shall be a Baptist." Rats, our dirty little secret is out.

Seriously Mike, why would you automatically assume that the their motives are pure, and those of my fellow Baptists are not?"

Well, 1st of all, dont take it personally regarding your Baptist affiliation. If you felt that I was slamming the Baptists I apologise. I didnt mean to pick on them exclusvily. I used that because it just happens to be the denomination that was involved. I could have said Lutheran, or Presbyterian or Assemblies of God or any number of denoms. Although my primary fellowship is Pentecostal, I am very sympathetic to many Baptist distinctives. Eternal security, local autonomy, etc. I praise God for the Baptists!

But I have seen in many Baptist fellowships...and other groups as well...a quite distasteful (to me) tendancy to be very much guilty of what might be called a preoccupation with "denominationalism", rather then being preoccupied with simply getting people born again and into ANY fellowship....

"What can we do to increase our Baptist *numbers*....lets have a "High Attendance Day" so we can beat last years number of people in attendance (at OUR church of course)...How many baptisms have WE had this year? (did we beat last year?)....lets distribute pamphlets all over the community to get people to come to OUR church.(why not distribute "plan of salvation tracks" and let God take of placing them where He wants them?) etc etc etc etc.

And again...its not just Baptist. I've seen it in many other groups, including my preferance, Pentecostal/Charismatic. (Although I have noticed that in Pentecostal and Charismatic groups it seems that this mindset is much MUCH less prevalent.)

Anyway, I fellowship quite a bit at a friends Baptist church and am blessed there. As I said, there is much about the Baptists that is just wonderful, and sometimes I even refer to myself as a "Bapti-costal". :thumbs:

But because of this unhealthy pre-occupation with "denominationalism" that I see so much of, I am pretty much glad to see ANY fellowship do away with as much of it as they can...like a denominational name, as the church in question on this thread have done.

Peace,

Mike

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Yes, if they have agreed to disagree; but then there comes a points in real life where even that, becomes almost impossible. That's why a Christian 'movement' must have a clear confession of the 'Essentials' of the Faith.

Now both Luther and Karl Barth (both men one should listen to) have said that the one 'doctrine' that necessarily divides Churches, or rather, The Church, is the doctrine or 'fundamental' or 'principle', of 'free grace'.
I have found it experientially the cold truth.
But just so, have I found out the Day of Worship-Rest of the Church, brings along, division, unavoidably, relentlessly, without mercy, without forgiving.

I lament the situation - either way -- and wonder what the Saviour of both sides think and feel.

 

[Tom Butler]

But I have seen in many Baptist fellowships...and other groups as well...a quite distasteful (to me) tendancy to be very much guilty of what might be called a preoccupation with "denominationalism", rather then being preoccupied with simply getting people born again and into ANY fellowship....

"What can we do to increase our Baptist *numbers*....lets have a "High Attendance Day" so we can beat last years number of people in attendance (at OUR church of course)...How many baptisms have WE had this year? (did we beat last year?)....lets distribute pamphlets all over the community to get people to come to OUR church.(why not distribute "plan of salvation tracks" and let God take of placing them where He wants them?) etc etc etc etc.

I'm glad you're an equal-opportunity knocker. Some of your criticism is valid.

If I'm reading you right, you're equating denominationalism with an obsession with numbers. I don't think such an obsession is denominationalism, but I agree that the obsession can lead to some bizarre kinds of pragmatic church growth methods.

And be careful about knocking denoms for numbers-emphasis, because it seems to me that the many of the mega-churches are not denominational at all, and are the heaviest in to seeker-sensitive CGM.

I guess I was over-sensitive to the criticism, but it comes from my reading in which the theme is the same:

Non-denoms good, denoms bad.
Non-denoms pure, denoms tainted
Non-denoms teach the Bible, denoms filter the Bible through their belief system.
Non-denoms a-political, denoms filled with politics. I'm talking about denominational power grabs and fights here.

So you can understand why my hot button got pushed when I read that maybe the non-denom was more interested in making people Christians than in getting them to be Baptists. Some of that criticism is probably true, but it seemed to let the non-denoms off the hook.