churches dropping the word "Baptist" from their names

One can only guess why Baptist churches drop the name Baptist from some local congregations. A few have done it here. Personally, I would not go to a church that was ashamed of the name.

I never saw a Presbyterian or Methodist Church try to hide their name. However, among the public, especially away from the Bible Belt, there are many myths about the word Baptist that are not justified, in summary, that of a Pharisee life style.

Baptists should have a reputation of meaning, first of all, that the Lord Jesus is the source of our salvation and life, that we live a life in honor of Him, and are guided by something called the Holy Spirit and not a set of mythical rules. Also, everyone should know that Baptists believe in freedom of religion, free from the state.

I have no idea how to turn the perception around, and it could be that we deserve that reputation from the past by letting a bunch of old and bitter Pharisee types run the show.

The public thinks all Baptists cannot dance, smoke, play the lottery, go out to eat on Sunday, drink alcohol, play cards, etc, etc, etc. In reality, the only one of these I have ever seen addressed in a church by-law is drinking. Now it is probably reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit will convict many not to participate in the others, if for nothing else but witness. That however, is a vast difference than obeying a bunch of rules that have no Biblical foundation. To me, our general reputatation, false as it is, is the reason some churches hide the Baptist name.

 

One Church I wish would drop the Baptist name is Westboro!

 

Yes, too bad they won't just the use proper name for what they are - a cult.

 

Churches like this are the main reason so many others are dropping the name "Baptist." http://www.kbmt12.com/news/local/63968712.html

 

We have a local Church (Bible Baptist Church) that believes the NIV is the authorized version of Satan. The Church I grew up in (First Baptist) believed a woman shouldn't wear pants, and other legalistic type issues. I have no problem with our current Church not having "Baptist" in the name.

 

These are the kind of examples I was talking about. There's a lot of that around here, as well as "preachers" who scream and rave and condemn... but do not offer hope of salvation.

Baptist, to me, is something special, but the people around here see it as the last place they would look to find peace for their souls.

 

The church I serve used to frown on women in pants. But that all changed when mini-skirts came into fashion. Suddenly, we were tickled to death for our women to cover up with britches.

 

The man on the farm next to us, when I was a kid, was not allowed to take communion in his church because he had a radio in his living room!

 

Greetings Trotter, it looks like you and I are from the same general area. I still run into a few churches like this around here - mostly older, rural Independent Baptist churches and rural pentecostal. What I find interesting is that I know people who were raised in a "balanced" church who use the excuse of churches being legalistic to move to a touchy feely non-denominational church. I think too many people aren't looking for a balanced teaching of the Gospel but instead are looking for all love-no judgment, everything goes. Maybe this is why people are dropping the name Baptist?

As for me, being a Baptist is second to only being a Christian. It is part of who I am and how I was raised.
Thanks for the discussion,

Johnathon

 

Now that I think about it, there is a rural SBC church that still has a "fire breathing" preacher down the road from me as well. I believe his theology is sound but his style is one of get in your face and scream.

I still know people who enjoy that style of ministry, it's just not me. I've never been a screamer. Oh well, off topic now.... sorry.

 

We have become a people of excuses. I am sorry, but a few wayward, shouting, stamping and dancing preachers does not a Baptist community make.

Rather than abandoning the Baptist name, what are we doing to honour it. We talk about the Baptist distinctives and then, from corner of mouth, remark that we get our doctrines from the Bible! What a chimera is man; What a contradiction. Baptist distinctives are biblical. That's why they were drawn up. Why don't we just get back to teaching these biblical truths and restore honour to the Baptist name?

All I read from US baptist organizations is how many are baptized and some even the same day they are saved. Take time to teach the fundamentals before dunking as a witness to that salvation. No wonder so many haven't a clue, or fall away so soon.

If people won't come to my church because it is called Baptist, maybe I don't want them anyway! I certainly won't be compromising what I believe to be true just to get people into church. I surely hope they know what I believe from the streets, from the hospitals, from the nursing homes, and from the other places I visit with God's word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The problem, Jim, isn't one of removing the name "Baptist" from a shingle because that church is compromising its beleifs, it's more often a case of a church removing the name "Baptist" because some other baptists have compromised theri beliefs, causing a case of guilt by association. I can't lay blame on a church for doing so.

That said, you're absolutely right. We need to restore honor the the Baptist name. Too many have ruined it, making our job considerably mroe difficult.

 

I think the term "baptist" originally was used in cultures (England and the US) where the churches chose names to distinguish themselves from other Christian denominations (Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc) that had similar core beliefs (salvation by faith) but certain distinctives that were worth claiming a unique identity over. Because most people in the culture were quite familiar with Christian belief, the denominational names were helpful in identifying the distinctives of the different churches and, I dare say, most people had a least a general idea of what the distinctives were; or at least some of the distinctives.

Today, we do not live in a culture where everyone is a Christian or a culture in which basic tenants of Christianity are assumed as they were centuries ago in western cultures. So, for a church planter in the large city in the US who may be dealing with ethnicities from foreign countries or with people who are new age or muslim and whose understanding of Christianity is quite limited, denominational names do not serve as identifiers to these people. These people do not understand Christianity, much less do they "get" the intramural distinctions between Baptists, Methodists, etc. So the denominational monikers do not identify anything in the mind of the person the church planter is trying to reach. Rather, they confuse. And they invite the easy question "If Christianity is true, why are Christians so divided and why can they not work together?" Consequently, I understand why many church planters in the US, while keeping their distinctives in the doctrinal statements of the churches they plant, are dropping the denominational names.

In the church plant I worked in in Philadelphia, we also found that the name "baptist" got us identified with a whole host of people from the national media with whom we were not connected and with whom we really did not want to associate or have to defend. In Philadelphia there are many American Baptist Churches who were found to have homosexual men serving as counselors for boys in their summer day-camp. Then there were the occasional public gaffes by Jerry Falwell. And there was the annual convention of the Southern Baptists in which they pass some resolution pontificating on some various social issue. While I might tend to agree with them, these statements make lousy conversation starters with unsaved people. But because "baptist" was in our name, we got identified with these national issues even though our church is autonomous and not connected with them in any way. That church has recently decided to change its name and delete the name "baptist". I think, for them, this is a wise move.

 

I agree completely Jim. Too often our attitude is "great you're saved! Good luck now." and walk away. In a recent bible study one of the ladies asked us all how many times we have heard someone say "I knew they wouldn't make it" when they fall away instead of asking "how can I help this person grow in faith?"

As I asked before, if the Baptist churches who are preaching the Gospel truth, making disciples and not just baptizing for numbers or spreading hate (Westboro) drop the name Baptist, then what sort of Baptist churches will be left?

Thanks,
Johnathon

 

Mr. Spurgeon was "excommunicated" from the British Baptist Union because he took a stand against the liberal movement in the Union. He didn't drop his identifyiing moniker of Baptist. We withdrew in Canada, from the liberal Baptist Union and formed our own BAPTIST group. We didn't drop the name Baptist because one group became liberal. We fought liberalism, hook and line and sinker. To-day, our group still stands strong in the fundamental beliefs and we maintain it as Baptists.

I don't understand how dropping the name Baptist for non-denominational alters one's witness or ability to reach out to the lost world.

When I tell people I am a Baptist, they tend to perk up a little. When I say I am a Christian, the attitude seems to be so what? So am I sort of thing. The name Baptist is more attractive than just Christian. At least I am identified as a Baptist, and then I can show the differences.

Maybe I am just getting too old to change, but so be it. Praise God. At least people expect a difference.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Same holds true for having Baptist in the name. It's irrelevant.

 

This may offend some, and if it does.. recognize this is just my personal opinion...

See... for me, a church that doesn't have a website in the 21st century speaks volumes about that church. It says that they are not willing to do what it takes to reach out to the public. It tells me that they have stewardship issues because they are not taking advantage of things that can help spread the gospel...

Hey, even the Buffoon in Canton, NC that is burning Bibles has a website.. and they only have 14 people coming.. but at least they recognize the pros of a website.

So, if a church didn't have a website, I wouldn't be too inclined to visit.

DISCLAIMER.... I realize there are a lot of exemptions, and there are some good churches without websites...

BUT if I was new to a community, and was looking for a church... If that church didn't have a website, it would send a big red flag up saying that they were not open nor relevant to people of the 21st century.. and I would imagine a 1950s.. mindset.

 

The idea of a web site is an excellent idea. I have been in the Baptist church so long, I had forgotten how they were viewed when I was growing up as a Presbyterian. Your remark about the 1950s got me to thinking about it.

The First Baptist Church was down the street from ours, and basically, from my memory well over 40 years ago, they were basically thought of as a group of people that followed all the Pharisee rules of no dancing, drinking, cards, lottery, smoking, etc, except that in everyday life one would see daily contradictions. There was also some truth to the idea that rain kept them away from church. Then there were the all powerful deacons that "ran the church" even though it was a congregatinal form of government.

Since being in the local Baptist church I am now for over 30 years, there is some truth to the above, but not much. I only say this to give an example of a perception from the outside.