Know what exactly, and why is that the only reason you see?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
churches dropping the word "Baptist" from their names
- Thread starter jprieto
- Start date
If removing the name reaches an entire new demographic of people for Christ, it's not hiding, it's being proactive in the approach of sharing the Gospel.
Most Baptist churches do not have "SBC", "IFB", etc, on our shingles. Are they hiding the fact that we're SBC/IFB etc?
Most Baptist churches do not have "Christian" in their name. Are they hiding the fact that they're Christian?
It's hypocritical, then, to presume inappropriateness simply because a Baptist church does not have "Baptist" in their name.
Most Baptist churches do not have "Christian" in their name. Are they hiding the fact that they're Christian?
It's hypocritical, then, to presume inappropriateness simply because a Baptist church does not have "Baptist" in their name.
On the other hand many Baptist churches will put "King James" somewhere in their name.
Can you think of any other adjective names Baptist churches uses?
Hungry?
In at least one example given, there's already a Baptist church nearby, and from the poster's description, they're untra-fundie. Having another church nearby with the same denominational moniker might stand the possibility of confusing the community. Whether such a confusion is a reasonabel expectation, it's sufficient cause not to have "Baptist" on the shingle.
Not the same thing unlesss it was on the sign and then removed for the purpose of hiding it so people would not know who you are.
That's ridiculous, IMO.
What? The ridiculous reason for taking off the name or the use of the word shingle?:laugh:
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the compliment.
But what does the unsaved man know about being a Baptist. They only know the caricature of Baptists.
The churches I know that no longer have the name "Baptist" in their names (btw, we do, we are 1st Baptist and are not even thinking about changing it) feel like the caricature of Baptists that is prevalent in the culture is a barrier to getting people in the door.
To be sure there are some who are ashamed to be baptists. There are some baptists I am ashamed of also. But many never seek to hide the fact that they are baptists except in the name. It is on their literature about the church. It's just not on the front sign.
That is not always true. It may be that you do not want to be associated with some who profane the name Baptist such as Westboro Baptist. However it would help if Baptists came out and stood against particular churches that call themselves Baptist and are not. There are many Baptist churches that are not as close to being Baptist as those who preach the Bible. So what does one do with conventions who accept their missions money and yet know about those particular Baptist churches whose practice is far from what scripture teaches all in the name of autonomous churches?
One has to go no further than the convention which supported the BFA in enabling the money people gave to be used for ministry and instead was used to fund "investments". The BFA was a repeat of an earlier event in another state under the auspices of the same convention. You would think they would have learned about what theirt Bible taught before the first event and they for sure by the time of the BFA event.
Why, exactly?
The church in post one at http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=62287
is hiding nothing. They are making it known that they are Baptist.
saturneptune
New Member
I guess the same thing one would do with a person whose hobby is demeaning the Baptist faith and local church authority.
Tom Butler
New Member
Actually, that verse implies that the disciples in Antioch were given the name Christian by others.
And I think that Baptists were labeled as such by their enemies.
Okay, so it's your contention that if it was already on the sign, and removed, then it's wrong? But if the word "Baptist" wasn't already on the sign, then it's okay?
If the sign said "Celebration Baptist Church, IFB", and they changed the sign to "Celebration Baptist Church" is that wrong?
So it's yoru contention that if a new Baptist church starts up, they must have "Baptist" on the shingle?
Tom Butler
New Member
Johnv said:
I don't have to presume it. Every explanation of the practice in this thread, although couched in different terms, is explicit about it. The church, at some level, conceals its Baptist identity.
I am not totally opposed to the concept, particularly in countries and societies where such an acknowledgement could get you killed or imprisoned. That's not marketing, that's self-preservation.
But in America? That's not self-preservation, that's marketing.