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

[JohnDeereFan]

We are not letting the unbeliever dictate what is best for us, we are making (traditional) changes to reach the lost. There is a difference.

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.

 

[carpro]

deceived how?

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?

 

[Felipe Rios]

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.

Church polity is one thing. What about scripture. Is there scriptural bases showing that our church is in the wrong for changing our name?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Church polity is one thing. What about scripture. Is there scriptural bases showing that our church is in the wrong for changing our name?

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.

 

[TCassidy]

If that works for your church, then Amen to that.

I am of the opinion that truth in labeling always works. When I open the pantry and pull out a can that says "Tomato Soup" I know what is inside. And when I pull out one marked "Ripe Olives" I know what is inside.

But when I pull out a can that says "The new everybody will love it food" I still don't have clue what is inside.

 

[Felipe Rios]

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?

I just had someone asked me what denomination we were. You know what I said? I said we are Baptist. If I would have said something different I would have deceived that person.
And the answer is NO! I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus. I'm not ashamed to tell people they need to repent and believe in Jesus to be saved. Come on bro!

 

[Felipe Rios]

I am of the opinion that truth in labeling always works. When I open the pantry and pull out a can that says "Tomato Soup" I know what is inside. And when I pull out one marked "Ripe Olives" I know what is inside.

But when I pull out a can that says "The new everybody will love it food" I still don't have clue what is inside.

That's where you get the chance to try it to see what is inside

 

[TCassidy]

That's where you get the chance to try it to see what is inside

It was dog food.

 

[carpro]

I just had someone asked me what denomination we were. You know what I said? I said we are Baptist. If I would have said something different I would have deceived that person.
And the answer is NO! I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus. I'm not ashamed to tell people they need to repent and believe in Jesus to be saved. Come on bro!

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.

 

[Jerome]

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

while we are Baptist, it will not be part of the church's main name (as I said, in all documentation, on our website and such, it will be clearly labeled as a campus of --------- Baptist Church

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"!

 

[Salty]

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"!

The plot thickens

 

[HeDied4U]

In what way did they become non-denominational?

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

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Not too long ago my church decided to change the name of the church for several reasons. ...
We are still Baptist. Our doctrine has not changed and it will not change!
What is your opinion on this? Is it right that others are giving us a hard time over this?

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.

 

[tyndale1946]

It was dog food.

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

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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

 

[Aaron]

Not too long ago my church decided to change the name of the church for several reasons (I will mention those reasons). We went from Grace Missionary Baptist Church to New City Church. Because we took the name 'Baptist" out of our name, many of our brethren from other sister churches have given us a hard time because of it. A pastor even accused us of not being Baptist because we took the name "Baptist" out of our name.

Reasons why we changed our name:

1. There were too many churches around us with the name "Grace" and we were being confused for another church.

2. Our name was too long and it was hard for people to remember our name when we evangelized.

3. There are some Bapticostal churches around us with the name "Missionary" in it and we didn't want to be confused with that denomination.

4. My church wanted a simpler and basic name so that people can remember us easier.

5. We chose "New City" after the New Jerusalem where we will live with God in eternity. Our slogan is "New Life leads to New City."


Reasons why we decided to not leave "Baptist" in our name:

1. Most unchurched people do not know what a "Baptist" is and may not even know if we are a "Christian" church (I had a situation when someone asked me if we were Christians). So we didn't want people to not come to our church just because our name has "Baptist" in it.

2. Most Baptists are already in a Baptist church so we want to promote ourselves as a Christian church. We are not looking for Baptists to join our church (though they are welcomed of course), we are looking for the unchurched since most of our city does not go to any church.

3. We do not have to have the name "Baptist" in our name to be Baptist, so our church didn't have a problem with removing "Baptist."

4. Jesus never gave His church a name so we felt comfortable with making a change to our name.


We are still Baptist. Our doctrine has not changed and it will not change!


What is your opinion on this? Is it right that others are giving us a hard time over this?

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

 

[Mike Stidham]

Nine Types of Trendy Church Names

You get the picture, but at the end he summarizes research that's debunked excuses often given for seeker-sensitive, pretentious namechanges.

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

 

[Mike Stidham]

I for one appreciate the fact that some of those churches that are supposedly "Baptistic" (baptizing by immersion, etc.) are not really "Baptist" due to some severe doctrinal differences. If the designation name ever were to be dropped from a Pentecostal-type church, from the Church of Christ, or (even worse) a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness congregation -- all of which baptize "believers" by immersion -- I would lose any ability to make a doctrinal distinction without first having to attend such churches and ask various questions. As it is, I am far more comfortable when I see designations such as "Methodist", "Presbyterian" "Episcopal", as well as "Baptist", since these already give a clue toward belief and practice. The same applies to the various cultic groups, and I am glad they self-identify as such.

So why do Baptists (apparently alone among the major denominations) seem to think giving up the name distinction and thereby allowing all sorts of confusion with various non-named interdenominational or non-denominational churches is such a wonderful option? I just don't see it.

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.

 

[Mike Stidham]

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

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...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.