churches dropping the word "Baptist" from their names

[Johnv]

Followers of Christ are usually Christians, but not always. Christians are usually followers of Christ, but not always. We must endeavor to be both.

 

[webdog]

To clarify: I did not say that if someone uses "follower of Christ" or "Christ follower" they are necessarily in the emerging church movement; I just said that many in the emerging church do use these phrases.

My problems with these terms:
1. The bible records that that those who believed in Jesus "first called themselves Christians" at Antioch. Just because the name "Christian" is misused by many, does not mean it's not a good name to use. I am not ashamed of using this name.

2. "Follower of Jesus" or "Christ follower" (or variations of these) can imply just following someone in your own strength, and/or imitating that person. This is a common view in non-Christian religions - I follow Buddha, I follow the teachings of X, etc. It says nothing about trusting Christ and being "in" Him supernaturally. It can sound to some unbelievers that you think the teachings of Jesus are great and so you are following him. It does not have the same meaning to everyone as does "Christian."

Many New Agers say they follow Jesus as well. They mean that they think he's a great guy and want to follow his teachings (usually like the sermon on the Mount). Aside from the fact they have the wrong Jesus, they believe, as all unbelievers do, that they can be good in their own strength.

To me, Christian means taking Christ as my Savior, not just "following" Him.

To my mother-in-law Christian means going to mass every Saturday night and trying to be a good person. It's relative.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's not only to preach the Word, it's also how you do it. We should model ourselves after Paul's attitude. I'm sure if the name "Baptist" hindered his work, he would have no problem removing it. He essentially said just that when he scolded those who said they followed him or Appolos in 1 Corinthians 1.

It is deceitful, immoral, unethical and a sin. People do not have a problem with the name Baptist. They have a problem with Baptists the people. When you work to hide who you are you are lying, misleading, and deceiving. If you have a problem with the name Baptist as a church and wish to separate yourself from it the responsible thing to do is to quit being a Baptist all together rather than hide the title of what you are. In the end simply removing the name to hide yourself is a reproach on the Kingdom of God. All the name removers need to just go non denom.

 

[Marcia]

To my mother-in-law Christian means going to mass every Saturday night and trying to be a good person. It's relative.

Note that I said however misused the word "Christian" may be, it's in Acts 20 as what the first believers called themselves. Some New Agers call themselves Christians; this does not keep me from using it.

It is the most accurate and biblical term we have.

 

[Johnv]

When you work to hide who you are you are lying, misleading, and deceiving.

One should not presume that removing one's denomination from the shingle means that one is hiding the fact that one is a Baptist. One need not have the word "Baptist" on the sign outside in order to be unashamedly Baptist, anymore than one needs to have the word "Christian" on the sign outside to be unashamedly Christian.

 

[Revmitchell]

Note that I said however misused the word "Christian" may be, it's in Acts 20 as what the first believers called themselves. Some New Agers call themselves Christians; this does not keep me from using it.

It is the most accurate and biblical term we have.

The bigger problem is some are working to hide who they are. Baptists are an offense to some so they hide that fact by removing the name. Christians are an offense to some so the work to hide who they are by removing the name. Satan has got them running in false circles.

 

[webdog]

It is deceitful, immoral, unethical and a sin. People do not have a problem with the name Baptist. They have a problem with Baptists the people. When you work to hide who you are you are lying, misleading, and deceiving. If you have a problem with the name Baptist as a church and wish to separate yourself from it the responsible thing to do is to quit being a Baptist all together rather than hide the title of what you are. In the end simply removing the name to hide yourself is a reproach on the Kingdom of God. All the name removers need to just go non denom.

I would point you to the Underground Church in areas hostile to the Gospel where they "hide" who they are every waking moment to further the Gospel message, even going so far as to change some of the terminology in Scripture. For instance, to someone who has never seen snow in a tropical area, they change Isaiah 1' "...though your sins are as scarlet they shall be as white as snow" to "...as white a coconut flakes.

You should read some of Richard Wurmbrand's life experiences (Voice of the Martyr's). You're entire point is invalid when compared to the persecuted Underground Church.

 

[webdog]

The bigger problem is some are working to hide who they are. Baptists are an offense to some so they hide that fact by removing the name. Christians are an offense to some so the work to hide who they are by removing the name. Satan has got them running in false circles.

You are elevating the word Baptist to a very unhealthy level...

 

[Revmitchell]

You are elevating the word Baptist to a very unhealthy level...

No I'm not. You need to reread what I posted. It is not about the name it is about hiding who you are.

 

[Revmitchell]

I would point you to the Underground Church in areas hostile to the Gospel where they "hide" who they are every waking moment to further the Gospel message, even going so far as to change some of the terminology in Scripture. For instance, to someone who has never seen snow in a tropical area, they change Isaiah 1' "...though your sins are as scarlet they shall be as white as snow" to "...as white a coconut flakes.

You should read some of Richard Wurmbrand's life experiences (Voice of the Martyr's). You're entire point is invalid when compared to the persecuted Underground Church.

Really? Would you deny Christ to further the gospel?

 

[webdog]

Really? Would you deny Christ to further the gospel?

Non Sequitur...nobody is denying Christ when they remove Baptist from the name on the building, they are doing so with furthering the Gospel in mind.

 

[webdog]

No I'm not. You need to reread what I posted. It is not about the name it is about hiding who you are.

Is there a sin in that? Christians all across the world hide who they are to further the Gospel. Some even join the secret police in order to find out inside information that aids the Underground Church. They pretend to be persecutors.

Let me ask you this...is it permissible to hide the Baptist name to further the Gospel? If I had a friend that was molested by a Baptist pastor, would "hiding" my affiliation be permissible?

 

[webdog]

Originally Posted by Revmitchell
I am amazed at the lack of understanding of this issue. When you don't want someone to know you are a Baptist and you are so that you can trick them into coming to your church is far different than the persecuted church.

How is it different? How is the agenda any different? Both want to see the lost come to Christ. How is keeping "Baptist" relevant to them coming to Christ?
Nobody has said they don't want them to know they are not Baptist...they remove the name to remove any potential barrier to them coming to Christ.

Would you remove the name from your church if you knew it would lead more to Christ than keeping it?

 

[Tom Bryant]

Dropping the name "Baptist" from your name is hardly hiding who a church is.

Should they put the words "inerrant Bible" in the name also because we don't want to hide the fact that we believe in inerrancy? or any other doctrines we believe are important such as deity of Christ or substitutionary atonement?

 

[annsni]

Hubby and I talked about this last night in light of the new church plant we'll be doing. We will actually not be an independent church but another campus of our current church. It's our vision to actually have a few campuses in the future. Our current church is Northport Baptist Church and it would be weird to have Northport Baptist Church - Eastern Campus because how would you tell the locals of the church if Northport is a town that is not local? So we're looking to give the new church a different name and put down something about it being a part of NBC. Right in the area there is already a Baptist church - although it's KJVO/skirts only so we will be different from them. We're thinking of a "Community Church" name - like "Island Community Church" or "Community Life Church" or something like that. I'm not sure though - it still needs a LOT more hashing out IMO. But to be another Baptist church just a few blocks from the first one - that is an ultra-fundamentalist church might be very confusing to those in the area.

What do you think?

 

[Revmitchell]

How is it different? How is the agenda any different? Both want to see the lost come to Christ. How is keeping "Baptist" relevant to them coming to Christ?
Nobody has said they don't want them to know they are not Baptist...they remove the name to remove any potential barrier to them coming to Christ.

Would you remove the name from your church if you knew it would lead more to Christ than keeping it?

Nope because it is a false argument that anyone would not be lead to Christ because of being Baptist.

 

[Revmitchell]

Dropping the name "Baptist" from your name is hardly hiding who a church is.

If someone does not want to go to a Baptist church and you knowingly hide that information from them that is deception.

Should they put the words "inerrant Bible" in the name also because we don't want to hide the fact that we believe in inerrancy? or any other doctrines we believe are important such as deity of Christ or substitutionary atonement?

What does a lost person know about those things. As uncommon as it is for you that is a strawman.

 

[webdog]

Nope because it is a false argument that anyone would not be lead to Christ because of being Baptist.

Nope to which question?
I never made that argument, btw.

 

[Revmitchell]

How is it different? How is the agenda any different? Both want to see the lost come to Christ. How is keeping "Baptist" relevant to them coming to Christ?
Nobody has said they don't want them to know they are not Baptist...they remove the name to remove any potential barrier to them coming to Christ.

Would you remove the name from your church if you knew it would lead more to Christ than keeping it?

Removing the name means you do not want them to know.

 

[webdog]

If someone does not want to go to a Baptist church and you knowingly hide that information from them that is deception.

Can someone be drawn to the Gospel without wanting to go to a Baptist church? All deception is not sin, btw.