Whats in a name?

Exactly! There is a diffrence between a Bible church and a Baptist church.....{that's not to say Baptists don't beleive the Bible, in fact I don't see how you could be Baptist and not but that's a discusion for another topic!}
To me it's compromise to change the name. Why lower the standard for the world? The fact is they may not like you for your convictions as a Baptist church but the Bible does say not to be surprised about thw world hating true Christians. If I thought there was anything better, anything holding to the Bible better than a Baptist I'd be one of the first joining....but I've yet to see anything better. Sure since we are people, we got faults, so we aren't perfect, but I think a true Baptist {by that I mean a Bible beleiveing, non compromising church} are the closest out of any group. How in the world can you go wrong using the Bible as a guide?! It's when worldliness and compromise get in that the church falls away.
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30

 

I would not belong to a church that did not have the name Baptist in it. If I were ashamed of being a Baptist, then I wouldn't be one!

 

Being a Baptist has nothing to do with the wording on a sign neither is it a sign of "compromise". It is amazing to me how many people are more concerned about what is on the sign than what is in the heart.

 

I would have to disagree. It is the theology not the name on the sign that makes one Baptist theologically. On the other hand I would agree it seems they are ashamed of their doctrinal convictions and I would not be apart of them. It is a current trend in Evangelical churches (not just Baptists but Methodists, Presbyterians also) to give the impression of being hip, contemporary (or in my opinion a Generic Non Denominational church) and place less emphasis on one's historical denomination and theology.

 

If the church you were attending changed its name from Baptist in order to (in their own words) "be more appealing" to people turned off by the name Baptist, then there is a problem. But just because the name Baptist isn't in the name doesn't mean anything. A Baptist Church is about Baptist theology. As we know from this board, there are lots of churches with the name Baptist that are NOT Baptist in theology.

My churches name is Dayspring Chapel, named after Jesus in Luke where he is described as a sunrise or dayspring. The backside of the bulliten gives the description of the church as "An Independent Reformed Baptist Church" along with a whole page describing us. If you can show me that the churches in Philippia, Ephesus, and Galatia had the word Baptist posted above their door (door to house that is) in the first century then I will consent.

 

If a church is ashamed of being Baptist (or trying to be politically correct), then it isn't for me. In fact, I've chosen not to visit churches who didn't list themselves under Baptist in the yellow pages even tho they were 'Baptist'. Hot or Cold. Yes or No.

Diane

 

One question that is important in this discussion for me is "with what do we want our church to be most associated?"

Possible answers include:

~ A denomination (Baptist in title)

~ A community in which you are serving (such and such community church ... the church at _____, etc.)

~ One's Christian roots (Dayspring chapel above)

The list could go on. A church must make this decision, but again what is on the sign has nothing to do with what is happening inside. If a church removes Baptist in order to break down a possible hinderance for those with a non-Baptist background, then SO WHAT??? Why does someone who enters our church have to know first and foremost that we are Baptists??? In my mind it is most important they hear and understand the gospel first and then understand who we are in identity second.

It goes back to the concentric circles. The core circle is the essentials (nothing to do with being a Baptist). The second circle has to do with distinctives (everything to do with being a Baptist). The third circle has to do with preferences (everything to do with the type of Baptist [or non-Baptist] you are). Which circle do we need to articulate first??? Obviously the core. From there, we can teach people why we are baptists.

 

I don't know if I would say it that way. A church shouldn't try not to be a hinderence to others because they don't understand the term baptist. And if they do understand and still don't want to come then they probably won't enjoy you church much anyway. A church should proclaim loudly that it is preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, Grace through faith unto salvation. Since that is too many words "Baptist" will have to do.

My church is not ashamed of anything. Not ashamed of being Baptist, not ashamed of being reformed, not ashamed of being independent. However, we respect our friends in other denominations such as the Presbeteryians, we just think they are wrong on some of their theology, but not their theology unto salvation which defines the Church. Indeed, my church often reccomends a Presbyterian seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, over one with more Baptist ties. The reason is that our Church sees being Reformed as important as one's stance on believers baptism, and therefor just as valid a concern when considering a good seminary. The pastor did mention that he will lement if these students then embarce Covenant Theology in all its fullnest though.

 

GRACE BAPTIST BIBLE CHURCH <-- Maybe?
a fellowship of Baptists

You think? I kinda like the sound of that

 

The term baptist does not guarantee the message of salvation is being proclaimed on the inside. My point is that the title on the sign is irrelevant in many ways. The primary task of the local church is not to propogate a denomination or even their distinctives. The primary task is to effectively communicate the gospel (if we are speaking in terms of their relationship with unbelievers). The subsequent task involves discipleship, whereby a believer then understands the distinctives that define such groups as baptists. I prefer having my church identify with its community first and its denominational heritage second. For that reason, there is no need to include Baptist in the name.

 

I agree with everything you just said, indeed that is what I was trying to say myself. I only disagreed with this qoute

Though now that I read it again you could be saying that they have no experience with a "Baptist" church and not that they have some negative connatation. I agree though that if this negative conatation is the result of Baptist churches being hijacked by the true faith and to start preaching something other then the gospel, then the Baptist should be taken down (and I will cease to call myself Baptist!)

 

That is what I am saying.

 

What about a situation where the only churches in an area with Baptist in their name were of the type that were KJV only, had excessively strict dress codes, were anti-CCM, etc. and claimed to be the only "true Christians"? If a new church was to come in that had Baptist doctrines, but didn't want to be associated with the more extreme legalistic brand of Baptists that were in the area, I can see why they might not want to have Baptist in their name, if that prevents them from reaching people for Christ. I'd agree that reaching people for Christ is more important than a name on the sign.

 

In general, the younger generations have little to no attachment to brand names, and brand names in religion are puzzling to the secular world--what on earth is a Presbyterian or Methodist?--and highlight the shame of sectarian division within the Church.

A "Community Church" near me identifies itself as "Free Methodist" in a subtitle. A Wesleyan megachurch also near me doesn't hide its identity at all. It depends. Practically all the Amish churches I knew of outside the Old Order called themselves "Fill-in-the-Blank Christian Fellowship." The blank might be a biblical place or name like Shiloh or the name of the location of the meetinghouse like Plain City or something.

A long time ago, I took for granted that a "Community Church" was either independent and non-denominational or affiliated with an association of community churches. I've learned--and now I take it for granted that a "Community Church" is denominational. I check for a subtitle, its Yellow Pages classification, or its website to see what kind of church it actually is. I also recognize that most, but certainly not all, labeled "Bible Church" are Baptist.

Anyhow... If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, even if it insists on being called a bird.

 

Have you ever seen a "Community", "Bible", or other term named church change their name to "Baptist"? Looks like the tide is going the other way when that happens.

 

Anymore I am not sure that people are as interested as we think they are in the name. The name will not keep those who want to grow if the church does not help them. A church that does not care will not get past the name.


Some churches need to replae their church with a graveyard instead of a name. If all they have is a name change then they are not much.

 

gb

Ever been in a church that has gone thru a name change? It's almost like when you change the color of the carpet or paint. What seems so miniscule to one is a huge problem for others.