What makes a church "Baptist"?

The XXXXX Ministries is only a temporary name change until we develop a concensis within our body about a name that will probably be a single name that doesn't carry (as much) baggage with it. Probably not even using the word "Church" or "Ministries" in the name.

Those that are deeply concerned about a name are the churched, not the unchurched. Those people can still go to the "Baptist Name" Church down the road if they have a problem with our identification. We are trying to reach the unsaved lost not lost and confused Christians.

We still preach the same message, we still baptize, we still are baptistic in polity.

Rob

 

I suppose this is my point. If the unchurched don't really care about the name, why not use the label to identify what is inside for those who do? I submit it is to attract a broader range of current or formerly-churched people.

It seems to me that often (not always) the churches who do drop identifying labels often grow by drawing from formerly churched people- second and third generation christians looking for their "own" brand of Christianity. Distinctives become less important, if not viewed as unnecessary. Methodology (such as worship styles) and bells and whistles (Starbucks in the foyer and other "atmosphere" type things) become the identifying criteria of the particular local church.

The truly "unchurched" people are going to believe what they are taught from Scripture. As they are discipled, you explain to them the significance of the Baptist name. In my experience, the name "Baptist" (or "church," for that matter) has never really been a true obstacle (and believe me, I've seen some circumstances where the "baptist name" has really been drug through the mud!).

 

This was not true in my case. When I was 'unchurched' and 'unsaved' the Lord started putting me under conviction.

I started reading a Bible, that I had received as a child, and got saved at home, alone. Jesus can do that ya know?

The first thing I did was look for a Baptist Church. I was not sure what it meant exactly, but I knew they had salvation down pat.

I had talked to a couple of Baptists several years before and what they said made sense. I was just not ready yet. I remembered what they said when I finally got saved and looked for a church with the name 'Baptist' in it.

I have been a IFB for 27 years now and at the same church. If my church ever becomes ashamed to wear the name 'Baptist', I will find one that isnt'...

 

"If my church ever becomes ashamed to wear the name 'Baptist', I will find one that isnt'..."

It seems rather obvious that you are more concerned with the name of the package than what is in the package. That makes me think of 2 old feuding families, where a member of one refuses to meet a person bearing the other family's name, even though this new one had no involvment or relation in the feud.

It's terribly ironic, but the nmae "Baptist" and its ideals may be well into the time of implosion. If a major 'Baptist distinctive' is the autonomy of the local church, then according to this Baptist distinctive a church can remove the name Baptist from its title and still be Baptist. But this is a more recent happening. For more than a century and a half, the tenet that creeds cannot be imposed on the local church by a denominational body has led to many splits of association, and thus many different theologies among churches/groups that call themselves Baptist. It's hardly any surprise then that 'Baptist' churches range from ultra-reactionary to very liberal, and thus the name Baptist does not carry the meaning some wish. And whether we like it or not, in observing how congregationalism ['autonomy of the local church'] progresses, it tends to lead to liberalism, and away from literalism. [Compare today's 'Congregational' churches to those of Johathan Edwards.]

I think all we are seeing in the name issue, and others concerning Baptist churches today, are some of the inevitable consequences of 'Baptist distinctives.'

 

Don't forget that 'Baptist/anabaptist', like 'Puritan' began as a term of abuse. The 1st London Baptist Confession begins with a reference to themselves as being "falsely called Anabaptist". So I wouldn't be too bothered about labels - after all neither our Divine Founder nor indeed the NT (other than reference to John the Baptist) used the term 'Baptist' - so I wouldn't get too hung up on its use. 'Baptist' is after all a theological (esp ecclesiological) description of how a church is rather than a label to stick on the side of the building in which that church meets.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I am "Baptist" because I believe in baptistic principles... I am concerned about the label "Baptist" because it has become a "denomination" rather than an accusation or confession.

Pretty much anyone can put "Baptist Church" on their sign... for this reason, if I were starting a church, I wouldn't use the term. "Baptists", whether we like it or not, is often defined by the "high profile" folks... like Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Jack Hyles, and that whacked out character from Kansas that says "God hates fags".

"Bible Church" seems to mean what "Baptist" used to mean. I would not hesitate to attend a church that was baptistic but did not have Baptist in its name. In fact, I would prefer it.