churches eliminating "Baptist" from name...

So how is one motive any different than the other? I don't get it. Are people not going to Baptist churches just because the name is on the sign or because they are in fact Baptist? Is it the name on the sign or actually being Baptist? Does the church being Baptist change because the sign no longer reads Baptist? If not then isn't the church being Baptist and holding to doctrines and philosophies typical to Baptist churches the real thing people are wanting to avoid rather than just what is on the sign out front?

 

Regarding denials that that famous church in London identifies themselves as a "Baptist Church", take a look at this big sign outside their building:

Google Images

 

One motive (like you described) is to be dishonest. The other motive (like I described) is to remove obstacles/impediments to a potential relationship with the unchurched.

Please note the conditions I outlined:

IF

- “Baptist” = bad reputation or is greatly misunderstood (as in some parts of the U.S. and the world)

AND

- Your congregation has nothing to do with earning that bad reputation or is nothing like the popular stereotype within the local culture

THEN

- Not having “Baptist” is your church’s name is not deceptive.

 

Whether or not a church is as perceived is irrelevant. If someone does not want to go to a Baptist church and the name is removed to get them to come anyway. That is not honest. The key problem here is people do not want to go to a Baptist church. And rather than be up front about who we are and build relationships to change wrong perceptions we remove Baptist to fool them about who we are. It lacks transparency and honesty.

 

It isn't being deceptive. Anyone involved in our covenant membership process knows we support the Cooperative Program. We have chosen, because of missiological reasons to simply be XYZ Church.

You know the use of denominational monikers has only been popular for about two centuries. Considering that Christian churches have been around for nearly 2000 years that isn't a necessary condition.

I guess it really depends on who you are trying to reach. Like I said above we have yet to receive a complaint from anyone who is unchurched or dechurched who attends our fellowship.

 

How in the world is that irrelevant?

The name is removed to avoid incorrect first impressions.

Not necessarily. In my experience, we have had people visit our church yet decide that "Baptists" were not for them when they saw Westboro "Baptist"(sic) Church(sic) doing their thing on television, or when a Baptist "leader" said or did something that was not in line with what our church believed and taught. (And yes, our church has "Baptist" in the name.)

You are assigning bad motives and assuming certain actions which are not in evidence.

Of the Baptist churches I have seen who do not have Baptist in the name, I have seem no effort to "fool" people (many of them post the Baptist Faith and Message as their doctrinal statement right on the Web site) and I've never known an individual from those congregations who has tried to be deceptive about their convictions.

For the sake of argument, I could assign bad motives and assume certain actions which would cast churches that use the word "Baptist" in their name in a bad light, but that's just making stuff up.

You don't have to agree (or like it), but you need to be fair.

For the record, I stated at the very beginning of this discussion that I don't like the trend, but I understand it.

 

It is easy to say we are removing a barrier by taking baptist off the sign, but in doing so we are misleading those who do not want to go to a Baptist church about who we are if we are removing Baptist to get them to come in. Regardless of what one thinks is their motive it is "fooling" them is what is going on. It lacks transparency and forthrightness that Christians should be known for.

I suggest that we get out into the community and show them who we are by building relationships. Rather than marketing techniques. The church has become business like because it wants to not because it needs to. And it leads to thought processes that are not an example of Christian integrity.

I am grieved to have to disagree so strongly. I do not do it lightly. I do not believe there is any malicious intentions. I do pray that God blesses all your ministries.

 

Many years ago, I was a part of a great church. We tried to change our name and the issue of whether or not to keep "Baptist" in the title almost tore the church apart.

I've never understood the point of hiding who we are. Who are we trying to impress? Do we now base our identity on a marketing strategy? Or do we do church for the Body of Christ?

I also don't understand the point of eliminating the name "Baptist" if you're going to keep Baptist beliefs and practices.

There are Baptist churches that have dancing girls for some reason. A member of one such church is a frequent poster here. Dancing girls, rock bands, lying about who we are...I think we need to decide whether or not our mission is to entertain goats or feed sheep.

 

If I were passing by, I would think you were a Christian Church, one of the churches that came from Alexander Campbell's teaching such as Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ. When I'm passing through a town I look for a Baptist Church first.

 

Yes, if one Googles

Long Island "Island Christian Church"

the first result is

Upper Room Christian World Center - Long Island Christian Church

But click on its service webcast, and you will soon hear the preacher proclaim:

 

Some how I think you got churches mixed up. I don't think this is Ann's church.

 

I still don’t think you get the point I’ve been trying to make.

Most people (including Baptists) don’t really know their Baptist distinctives very well. All they know is what they see on television or hear other people say. And unfortunately, most of the Baptists who get television coverage are not talking about Baptist distinctives, but are usually presenting some sort of political position, getting arrested, or the Westboro cult acting like anything but Christians.

So I don’t think the name “Baptist” is a helpful descriptor to unchurched people. To people who are involved in church life already, they will know enough to check into things and do some research on the Web.

Thinking about it, there are some small communities I know in West Texas that only have one church, and it happens to be Baptist. Yet, for the better part of a century the single church in the community has just been named [Name of Community] Church. Do you think they are somehow being dishonest because they don’t spell everything out on the sign?

If you are a hyper-Calvinist, should you put “You May Be Damned For All Eternity and Can’t Do A Thing About It Family Church” on the sign?

What about holding to traditional Baptist beliefs regarding baptism – “Your Infant Baptism Is Meaningless Fellowship Church”?

Is that really the best way to approach the unchurched?

Shouldn’t they get to know the beliefs of a congregation in some sort of context before they make a judgment?

You’re assuming the hypothetical church in question is trying to do building-centered evangelism, and that’s ridiculous.

Every church I’ve known that is essentially Baptist but does not use the word “Baptist” in the formal name is very active building relationships in the community. By not using the name Baptist they are actually avoiding some of the traditional Baptist “church-hoppers” who move back and forth between congregations following charismatic ministers or popular programs, so they are more focused on the unchurched.

Even the church where I am a member which does identify as Baptist in the name relies on relationship building and working in the community to draw people in.

Hate to break it to you, but building relationships is the essence of marketing. (I earn my living in marketing for a professional firm, so I know that of which I speak.) It is a very positive type of marketing motivated by love (like Jesus), but marketing nonetheless.

I know you’re trying to make marketing a dirty word, but it’s not. It’s a neutral term and can be perfect, completely evil or many things in between.

You’re the one ascribing evil motives and actions to everything… you are insisting that others have evil motives and then declaring them evil because of their thought processes. That’s circular logic with a holier-than-thou halo scotch-taped to it.

Believe me, a few years ago I would have been right beside you arguing the same thing. However my eyes have been opened recently to some of these issues and I see that they are not as simple as I thought they were.

I believe you, although you certainly are ascribing bad motives to the hypothetical congregation we’ve been talking about!

And yours as well. There is room for “Baptist”-named ministries as well as regular Baptist ministries.

 

Some of the great churches - pastored by some of the giants in the faith - did not have a denominational name. Spurgeon's church did not. Lloyd-Jones's church did not. I could go on. You get the point.

I agree that far too many have the denom title on the door but not in their doctrine. Most Baptists now have no clue what it means to be such.

On the other hand, most people I know are wary of churches not having a denom title - but these are folks in my generation. Those in their 20s and 30s seem not to care so much. Shepherds have been leading their flocks away from doctrinal understanding of their denominational ties, and culture has sold (and we have bought) the notion that divisions are bad. So we tear away monikers or names that sound divisive.

I'm not torn up either way. I know I saw one study years ago that said that only a couple of the 100 fastest growing churches in America did NOT have a denominational name in the title, so punting the denomination's name from your sign isn't going to guarantee growth. I'd be curious to see the numbers now.

 

So true. And it's equally true for Methodists and others. You can visit Southern Baptist churches within eyeshot of each other in my suburb. One SBC church sings contemporary songs, the pastor uses a modern version of the Bible, and dress is business casual to business wear. The other church is KJVOnly, sings only songs from one certain hymnal, and women in pants are not considered appropriately dressed, though the pastor prefers not to wear a tie in order to look "educated."

 

Not always true. Sometimes names must be changed due to legal reasons, holding company status, etc. It's not always apples to apples.

I'm no church marketing guru. I don't believe churches should replace the gospel with marketing. That said, I think churches should do anything short of sinning to get the gospel in front of as many people as possible. You can do that without following Madison Ave type activities (Hyles' church comes to mind as a great example NOT to follow).