I have argued all along in this thread (and other places) that our names must be "on purpose" and that we either have Baptist in our name or not based on an understanding of the missional context of the area and people we serve and reach.
Just imagine having Baptist in the name of a mission in Saudi Arabia or Iran... Would it exist for as long as an hour?
But, but, but, that is different... Nope. It isn't.
Not trying to hide something, not ashamed of something, just doing what it takes to reach lost people instead of other Baptists -- which, BTW, seems to be the primary motivation for keeping Baptist in any given church name in this thread and on this board.
I've started churches in the north, where using "Baptist" in the church name means several things. First, it becomes unlikely that you will get the required permits or community support to actually start your new church. Some might argue that one does not need those things to start a church, to which I would reply very simply, when have you started a new church and tried to get things that existing churches take for granted? Not as easy as it seems once everything is up and running.
Second, it often means that the only persons who will join the effort are other displaced Baptists -- many (or at least some) of whom are in a war with their home church, which is why they are seeking a new church home. Just who one wants in a new church start... Also, typically (at least in my northern experience) those who are attracted to the name Baptist are often from the south, which is fine, except that they are not acculturated to the north and probably will never really be -- at least enough to be effective evangelists. There are cultural differences that are virtually in-born that have to be learned and they can be difficult, and attracting a host of people who don't know those issues ends up with a bunch of people calling each other "brother and sister" which never happens in a new church start -- especially in the north -- unless southern people who happen to be Baptists join the group.
Third, in some areas where people think that Baptists are a cult like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, just how much good is it to place Baptist front and center? Again, in the Baptist Bible Belt, EVERYONE is or knows of a Baptist. Go north of Chicago and try that... See how far you get...
I was on the first team of SBC missionaries to enter Newfoundland, Canada in 2000. We did ethnographies so that future church planters would understand the culture and know where to start in their endeavors. Now, think about being the FIRST team of Southern Baptists to enter Newfoundland! St. John's Newfoundland was a stopping-off point for re-supplying the Mayflower on its way to Plymouth Rock and no Southern Baptists had been there yet on mission? We searched and searched and found two (yes -- 2) Baptist churches on the island. We visited both. Neither were SBC -- good folks, trying hard, and utterly failing. No one would come in because they had the name Baptist on their signs. Both have since failed... We've sent up 2 teams of church planters since. One has failed, the other is still working, but not having much effect. I greatly fear that they are too "Baptist" for their own good! I know the people on both teams -- and I know that they would do almost anything, but at the same time, they cannot stop being "Baptists" and displaying that name everywhere. We discovered that the name "Baptist" means WAR in Newfoundland, but try convincing some of the missionaries that don't think so... (For the record, EVERY religion means war in Newfoundland -- but the people are open to godly "relationships".)
There are good reasons -- distasteful to many Baptists -- but that work in the larger context of God's mission, which (in the Bible) is NEVER called "Baptist" but rather, Christ and Christ's gospel.
