churches eliminating "Baptist" from name...

[matt wade]

Would you like to share your opinion as to how that is ridiculous?

If you don't see how avoiding the word Christian is ridiculous, I can't help you.

 

[Tom Butler]

I suppose there are some circumstances under which a church might wish to avoid Baptist on its sign. My perception is that a huge majority of those who do avoid Baptist are do it purposely and are not under any geographical or cultural pressure.

But whatever the specific reason, it appears to me to be simple pragmatism. A way to make the church more "attractive" to this group or that, this age group, this demographic or that.

What I don't hear in our discussion is the work of the Holy Spirit in building and growing a church, in drawing men and women to Christ.

What I do hear is the philosophy that evangelization involves attracting people to a building so they an hear the gospel. That's not all bad, but that's not evangelizing.

 

[Havensdad]

I suppose there are some circumstances under which a church might wish to avoid Baptist on its sign. My perception is that a huge majority of those who do avoid Baptist are do it purposely and are not under any geographical or cultural pressure.

But whatever the specific reason, it appears to me to be simple pragmatism. A way to make the church more "attractive" to this group or that, this age group, this demographic or that.

What I don't hear in our discussion is the work of the Holy Spirit in building and growing a church, in drawing men and women to Christ.

What I do hear is the philosophy that evangelization involves attracting people to a building so they an hear the gospel. That's not all bad, but that's not evangelizing.

Where do the scriptures say that a Church needs to put "Baptist" on the sign? Maybe I just think "The Village" communicates who my church is, more than "Thirtieth Baptist Church, Denton."

 

[Tom Butler]

Please excuse some duplication from my previous post. I thought I had lost it, but obviously I hadn't.

I've noticed a couple of things about our discussion here. One is pragmatism. I suppose there are places where it would be prudent to drop the name Baptist from the sign--because of geographical, cultural or ethic animosity. So it's not all bad. But my guess is that the huge majority of those who do it are under no such pressure. It's marketing, pure and simple. Marketing is not all bad, but that's what it is.

The second thing I noticed is that nowhere in this thread do I find any reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating, drawing, convicting and regenerating. Maybe it's just assumed that the HS is involved in all those marketing decisions and doesn't need mentioning.

Maybe the pragmatists among us really do rely on the Holy Spirit, but don't talk about it much. My question is, why do I have to assume it? Why is the bulk of the conversation about doing things to "attract" people?

I just finished reading about Adoniram Judson, the famous Baptist missionary to Burma. Adoniram and Anne were there for six years before winning a convert to the Lord. In twelve years there, they won only 18 converts. They waited years before they even had a public meeting.
I wonder why they didn't quit? They probably should have. Not enough return on the investment, you see. More effective allocation of resources elsewhere, you see. Not enough pelts on the belt, you see. Maybe they just didn't like Baptists over there. Or Christians. Or maybe the Judsons just didn't know the modern ways of "attracting" people.

Too bad they couldn't conceal who they were well enough.




.

 

[J.D.]

Where do the scriptures say that a Church needs to put "Baptist" on the sign? Maybe I just think "The Village" communicates who my church is, more than "Thirtieth Baptist Church, Denton."

What is "The Village" supposed to communicate to people?

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm sure that somebody will bring up the fact that we have Southern Baptist missionaries underground in some countries. They are so underground the IMB won't even give out their names. And our people in country certainly don't loudly proclaim that they are Christians, much less Baptists. It could get them killed.

The subject under discussion is Baptists in America, land of the freedom of worship. Unless you want to talk about the Baptists in the American colonies who were killed, beaten and jailed back in the 1600s for being Baptist.

 

[Havensdad]

What is "The Village" supposed to communicate to people?

I believe that it is supposed to communicate that the group in question is not just a building where people meet twice a week, but a community of believers living life together.

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe that it is supposed to communicate that the group in question is not just a building where people meet twice a week, but a community of believers living life together.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Since I'm an old geezer, I doubt if I would have thought of a church named "The Village" in that way. I would have thought it was a bunch of yuppies trying to demonstrate hipness and relevancy.

Maybe I should rethink "The Journey" church, "Mosaic" and the like.

Sorry, forgive the sarcasm. It's the old geezer in me venting.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you don't see how avoiding the word Christian is ridiculous, I can't help you.

Nice way to evade the question by making the issue about my alleged inability to understand self-evident truth.

For the record, I'm not avoiding the word Christian, I'm saying something more than is usually said with the word Christian.

I am specifically saying that I not only see recognize Jesus as the Christ, but I also recognize Him as the primary teacher/trainer in my life.

The word Christian came about because those outside "The Way" saw Jesus' followers acting like Jesus and so they coined the name Christian. Today, the word no longer has the same meaning, so I am essentially spelling it out by saying I'm a "follower" or "apprentice" of Jesus.

So, with that in mind, what is ridiculous about what I am doing?

 

[jaigner]

Are we really so naive as to think that we don't know the reason? There are so many people turned off of Christianity completely because they were hurt by Baptists.

Do I think they should take the name off the sign? It's completely up to them. I can't say I'd blame them, that's for sure. They're trying to distance themselves from the malicious, passive-aggressive, judgmental and infighting connotations that many people can't get past.

 

[Baptist Believer]

They're trying to distance themselves from the malicious, passive-aggressive, judgmental and infighting connotations that many people can't get past.

WHAT?!? Among Baptists???

If that were true, we would see that kind of behavior here on BaptistBoard.com.

 

[jaigner]

WHAT?!? Among Baptists???

If that were true, we would see that kind of behavior here on BaptistBoard.com.

No joke. I guess people are making it up.

 

[glfredrick]

I have no problem with a church not having "Baptist" in their name, as long as it is firmly in their doctrine...

My point all along... And, I agree. If we still went by the Scriptures and were "one" church, we would need no other name than an identifier so that people knew were we were.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A local church has the right to name their church anything they want. Personally, I think it is a sad thing to hide or diminish the name "Baptist." It stands for so much that is right about being a Christian. As I said earlier, I am very puzzled why Baptist is singled out for this. I have never seen a Presbyterian, Methodist, or Lutheran church try to hide their name.

I went to a Congregational church for a while Saturn until the Pastor set up a meeting between the congregation and a Baptist Pastor (who apparently represented ministers throughout New Jersey wishing to change their identities). The meeting charter was to alter the name of the Church so (as I was told by the Baptist Pastor) they could attract Roman Catholics who he said are turned off by Baptistic churches. Apparently they are turned off by Congregational churches as well. My point is though ....its a real movement & its been out there for a while (within the last 10 years). At least up here.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The issue is a bit more complicated than what is on the sign outside.

I've experienced attending a "community church" that was stealth SBC.

I found out what they meant by "stealth." That was their word, not mine.

A stealth church comes in as a church plant. It does not broadcast it is supported by a denom or another church or mission board. It does not use denom materials.

Why? Because Sister Sue or Brother Bob has already decided they will never ever join a church affiliated with xyz group.

If we want Sue and Bob at our church, we woo and win them. Only after they are won and members, some time down the road, we quietly like at an annual business meeting discussing our annual church report let it leak we are part of xyz denom.

Now, I wanted an SBC church and felt lied to when I found out it was.

Can you imagine how betrayed I would have felt had I been trying to avoid the SBC?

This is a no win game.

Rather than stealth, Id substitute the word DECEPTION. Who wants to be a part of that?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Earlier today I found out that a church I used to attend...Morningside Baptist Church...is changing their name to Morningside *Community" Church.

This seems to be a trend these days, and I dont care for it.

Are they ashamed of the name "Baptist"?

Is it a "marketing" thing? They think it will bring more people in?

I thought it was God who brought people in?


I just dont like this trend. Why not be up front about being a baptist church???

It's because a lot of baptist people believe they have to intice people to come to church instead of simply preaching the gospel and letting God work in the lives of the lost.

Many baptist people are so concerned about what others think that they literally deceive people into thinking they are something they aren't in many cases.

Like all of the pastors who want people to think we are cool and fit in and go to great lengths to act in a way that they despise just to intice people to listen to them. Christians are not cool and will never fit in. We are hated by the world and that is good because the world is evil.

Our churches should fearlessly preach the cross of Jesus and let God sort everyone out.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It's because a lot of baptist people believe they have to intice people to come to church instead of simply preaching the gospel and letting God work in the lives of the lost.

Many baptist people are so concerned about what others think that they literally deceive people into thinking they are something they aren't in many cases.

Like all of the pastors who want people to think we are cool and fit in and go to great lengths to act in a way that they despise just to intice people to listen to them. Christians are not cool and will never fit in. We are hated by the world and that is good because the world is evil.

Our churches should fearlessly preach the cross of Jesus and let God sort everyone out.

I agree with much of what you say here, but don't you think there can be some wisdom in not putting obstacles in people's way when it comes to the name of your church?

Do you think it is a good idea for a church to name itself: "Your Infant Baptism Is Useless Church," even though that is the truth?

For what it's worth, I'm not terribly interested in building-centered evangelism, but rather relationship-based evangelism. When we serve others, and live our lives with them incarnationally, we have the opportunity to demonstrate the Kingdom of God in action. I have little interest in attracting other Baptists to our church unless they are coming to join us in serving our community and expanding the Kingdom of God.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree with much of what you say here, but don't you think there can be some wisdom in not putting obstacles in people's way when it comes to the name of your church?

Do you think it is a good idea for a church to name itself: "Your Infant Baptism Is Useless Church," even though that is the truth?

For what it's worth, I'm not terribly interested in building-centered evangelism, but rather relationship-based evangelism. When we serve others, and live our lives with them incarnationally, we have the opportunity to demonstrate the Kingdom of God in action. I have little interest in attracting other Baptists to our church unless they are coming to join us in serving our community and expanding the Kingdom of God.

I understand. But the name baptist is upfront and honest about who we are.

Infant Baptism is useless and baptismal regeneration is a doctrine of devils. That should be taught at all baptist churches.

At a baptist church a person should hear the gospel preached in an expository manner from God's word. There shouldn't be a carnival or beating around the bush to get to the climax of gospel light. It should be full bore gospel preaching Christ crucifed every time the doors are opened, in my view.

 

[Havensdad]

I understand. But the name baptist is upfront and honest about who we are.

Infant Baptism is useless and baptismal regeneration is a doctrine of devils. That should be taught at all baptist churches.

At a baptist church a person should hear the gospel preached in an expository manner from God's word. There shouldn't be a carnival or beating around the bush to get to the climax of gospel light. It should be full bore gospel preaching Christ crucifed every time the doors are opened, in my view.

I agree with much of what you said here; yes, the Gospel should be forefront (not just in the church, but on the street corners!).

However: the name "Baptist" is not necessarily honest. Most people that I know, equate "Baptist" with "no dancing" (even ballroom), "no drinking" (even in moderation), "KJV onlyism", and such. I can understand how someone, not wanting to communicate those ideas about their church (since they are false), would choose to name their church something neutral.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree with much of what you said here; yes, the Gospel should be forefront (not just in the church, but on the street corners!).

However: the name "Baptist" is not necessarily honest. Most people that I know, equate "Baptist" with "no dancing" (even ballroom), "no drinking" (even in moderation), "KJV onlyism", and such. I can understand how someone, not wanting to communicate those ideas about their church (since they are false), would choose to name their church something neutral.

Baptist is a name that stands for our "unique" stance on baptism in the history of the church.

Baptism is a command of God. It is important and is a public identification with the risen Christ. We as baptists believe that a person who comes to faith in Christ should identify with him through baptism as a public declaration of that faith symbolic of dying with him and rising to walk in a newness of life.

Other churches do not teach that truth and even the credo churches that do pervert it in some way.

Baptists are a group of people that stand firmly against baptismal regeneration or any other doctrine of salvation by works and I think that is important to carry on.

If the baptist name has negative meaning to God hating worldly people that is fine with me. I don't expect anything sensible from them anyway.

We should be honest about our baptistness and preach the gospel and leave the saving to God.