Featured Is it really that importatant for a Baptist church to have the name "Baptist" in their name?

Yeah, actually, if you're dictating church policy because of how the unregenerate may perceive you, that's letting the unbeliever dictate what is best for you.

Comes from a very low view of ecclesiology.

 

Seriously?

You hide the fact that you're a Baptist church based on Baptist doctrine in order to lure someone to attend and you don't think that's deception?

Why? Because you don't think they will come if they know you're a Baptist church.

Why are you ashamed of being Baptist? Are you also afraid to tell someone that they will go to hell for an eternity if they don't accept Christ as their savior?

 

Ah. Moving the goalposts. Don't blame you.

No. There is nothing wrong with changing the name of your church. In fact, it's probably a good thing you want to take "Baptist" out of it.

 

You intentionally leave it off the sign, but you affirm you're Baptist if asked. Why? If you don't want to deceive them one way, why is it ok to deceive them in another?

I'm relieved that you won't deceive them on the message of the gospel.

On the record, I believe you are dead wrong to hide your affiliation with Baptists. As I said before, If your sign doesn't reflect your personal witness, I believe you open yourself up to accusations of deception. And rightfully so.

 

There was this gal posted here over several years about planting a satellite church, it started out using this rationale:

That went out the window when the mother church eventually dropped "Baptist" too, and now if you try googling to find what kind of church it is, it says it's "Nondenominational"!

 

Since I don't attend there anymore, I really don't know.

 

They say hindsight is 20-20, but what you are doing here might have been better done with some wise men in your association when you were only considering the change. They might have helped you deal with reactions very early on, or even convinced you it was best to leave "Baptist" in.

Not wanting the lost avoid your sharing the Gospel because of "Baptist" can fall under the category of being made all things to all men--a good thing. There is no Bible mandate to include "Baptist" in the name; if anything, it's the other way round. However, we live in the 21st century not the 1st.

These days, those looking for a church can look up info on the web, making it easier to decide based on doctrine. But how easy will it be for like-minded Baptists to find you? Also, as said, there are those who want the term "Baptist" in the name that will skip you now. Then, unchurched does not mean non-Christian or unfamiliar with the Bible. All of this may lead to an imbalance down the road. Coupling that with association problems, your claim to remain doctrinally firm may not hold.

 

TC!... if the brethren on here knew you were doing so poorly, we would have taken up a collection... Brother Glen

 

The Final Authority, The Bee weighs in:
Non-Denominational Church Exposed As Undercover Baptists

 

Let's say your building is on 3rd Street. Why not Third Street Baptist Church?

 

I've been to "Enjoy Church". I didn't.

 

It's not just Baptists that do this. The largest church in my community is a megachurch that dropped its United Methodist designator and simply calls itself "Christ Church". I suspect in the next couple of years, they will completely separate from the UMC over doctrinal and social issues.

 

I visited such a church this morning. My work as ministry director for an interdenominational relief agency has me visiting a lot of local churches. I went to one such church this morning. They started as a General Baptist church plant in 2003 and called themselves Skyline Community Church. They've since dropped the "Community" and now they're just "Skyline Church".

I had a long conversation with their executive pastor after the service. I knew of another GB church plant that had officially gone non-denominational, so I asked this pastor, "So, are you guys still GB's?"
He gave me this look like, "we could tell you but we'd have to kill you" and explained they didn't even mention THAT until well into their membership classes...

 

This trend infuriates me. It's just not necessary.
We have a multi-site, monster-mega SBC affiliated Church in my County, with one of those uninformative, misspelled, verbally vacuous names which actually donates in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to SBC and County and State affiliated associations. I am forever floored when speaking to one of the members of this church, who, to a man/woman after hearing that I am a Baptist inform me that they go to the "non-denominational" _____________ Church. I've had these same folks tell me that they couldn't possibly go to a Baptist Church because they are too stodgy or _____ or whatever....

I then jump at the irresistible opportunity inform them that they are "Southern Baptists." They were founded by Southern Baptists, their pastor was ordained in and by the "First Baptist Church" of the County Seat etc....

They stare blankly and somewhat cross-eyed, wrinkle their nose and finally tilt their head in a strange and indescribable way.
The leadership apparently never bothers to explain their affiliation to their disinterested and completely incurious congregants who, presumably, should like to know where $300k dollars of church funds went last year. They donate more than any single church in the county association,
and the poor "non-denoms" (so they believe themselves to be) don't even know it. I suppose they never even inform them in their new-members class. It's shameful IMO.

It's a practice which, at its core, is designed to be, at best, ambiguous and at worst outright dishonest and deceitful.