Date: Jun 30, 2003 [ 8: 6: 8]
Subject: Summary - Why Call it a Baptist Church?
© 2003 BCP Harry Shelton Cole
Subject: Summary - Why Call it a Baptist Church?
SUMMARY OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH PLANTING LIST
===========================================
Moderated and edited by Pastor Harry Shelton Cole
===========================================
Introduction:
These last two weeks have seend some the most thoughtful and helpful
answers to questions about Baptist Church Planting that we have had to
date. Certainly the traffic has been steady and varied. Each week the
list grows and to my knowledge only one person has ever un-subscribed.
Whether you lurk or participate I hope this list has been a blessing to
you. I lurk and/or participate on several lists but none has the
quality of content that comes from this one. Keep up the great work!
------------------------------------------
Question of the Week(s)
A church planter recently asked me the following question. Since I have
been on the Internet I have met several people who line up doctrinally
with me all the way but they do not take the Baptist name. Is it
important and what you answer be to a church planter's question of:
====================================
>Why call it a Baptist Church? Wouldn't Bible Church be less intimidating?
====================================
Malcom Feistel is supported by our church and I am more glad about that
everyday. He is a Baptist with a capital B and a missionary to boot.
He reveals some interesting perspectives on church planting. Basically
things are different on the field but church planting from a biblical
perspective does not change:
--------------------------------------
I don't have a lot of time to reply but thought I'd share a little of
our situation. We face a similar situation in Taiwan. Most people
don't even understand the word we use for Baptist because we use a
different word than the SBC. this tradition was started by Dr. Donnelson
in the Mainland. Most people do know the church name he used
"Tabernacle" which is usually used without Baptist.
Nevertheless, we have stuck to our guns, believing that a name
identifies at least in part the doctrine of a church. Still, many
Chinese don't refer to our church as the Jung Shan B.C., but only the
Jung Shan Church. I still feel that it is important to keep the
distinctions clear. It is too easy in most places to end up with a
Heinz 57 church and a doghouse full of problems. When people care
enough to come to our church at least they know what kind of church we
are. By the way the Chinese are more concerned to know if we are
Christian or Catholic. So our official church name is the Christian
Jung Shan Baptist Bible Church. (Before someone gets excited about
Bible being next to Church, in Chinese we say our last name [the most
important because it denotes family relationships] first, so Baptist
naturally comes first, Bible modifies what kind of Baptist.)
The next church we start we are going to use the name Baptist Tabernacle
to identify it with the BBF in Taiwan.
==========================================
Dr. Marvin McKenzie gives us two irrefutable answers to the Question of
the Week. I have met several people recently who are Baptist with a
small b. That is to say they are baptistic in every way. All the way
down to the KJVO. However, they are not Baptist with a capital B. Your
spell checker will tell you. Try typing baptist without a capital be
and it had better be baptistic. Thanks Dr. McKenzie.
------------------------------------------------
There are two good reasons to stick with the name Baptist:
First, on the positive side, the name Baptist identifies a certain
doctrinal statement. While not all Baptists are exactly alike, and some
who have the name shouldn't, the name does narrow the doctrinal field
considerably.
Second, on the negative side, the name Bible Church opens you up to any
number of doctrinal variations. The are Bible churches that are
Charismatic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptistic, and non-denominational.
When you plant a church, you will find that many people will visit the
church and test it to see if they can mold it and the pastor to
fit themselves. Some of the biggest problems a young church planter
faces is from those who come into the church hoping to "pastor" it
through the pastor (if they can make him their puppet). The last thing
we need to do is to invite even more of those types in by hiding who we
are with a Bible church name instead of openly declaring ourselves to be
Baptists. In the day we live in, and in the country we are in, we need
to have more and more definitives on our sign board, not fewer and
fewer!
=======================================
Pastor John Waldrip ministers in California, Calvary Baptist Church in
Monrovia, CA, and if any where in the country the tendency would be to
drop Baptist from the sign it might be California. I believe that CA is
looked upon as a modern and progressive area. His insight is well
respected. The following were from several posts.
----------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that a Church's name should be somewhat descriptive
of some of the Church's important features. Location might be an
important feature. Doctrinal stance might be another important feature.
Denominational identification (not denomination such as SBC) such as
Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, is another consideration.
One of the more unethical practices of the cults is to concela from you
as long as possible what they really believe about things. One of the
ethical practices that various Churches used to employ was their
willingness before you ever entered the building to let you know their
general doctrinal stance.
In the old days you simply knew that the Third Presbyterian Church was a
rock-ribbed Calvinistic congregation and you knew that the First Baptist
Church was resolute int heir conviction that you had to be converted and
baptized to be a member. Sadly, in these days of popular "Christianity"
no one wants to risk visitor's decisions on doctrinal stance, but on
comfort, music, ambiance, friendliness, etc.
I prefer the old way.
>Pastor Waldrip also responded and made the distinction that Baptist &
>Protestant are more than names on a sign?
>In Conclusion Pastor Waldrip excellently summed up his conviction
>concerning these questions.
A Christian is what you are when you get saved. A Baptist is
what you are when, as a Christian, you exercise obedience in
the matter of baptism and adhere, by conviction, to certain
truths that are clearly taught in Scripture.
Protestants can be wonderful people, but they are not obeying
God in important matters, whether because they have not been
illuminated by the Holy Spirit regarding certain things or
because they are simply disobedient regarding certain things.
The person who thinks the only difference between a Baptist and
a Protestant is a word on the sign is a Protestant, not a
Baptist, not really.
I sometimes do not understand why people make such an issue about
"Baptist" We need to get away from this idea that Baptist is a
"denomination". Denominations are made from the break with mother
"Rome". Real Bible believers are Baptist by identification. It is a
"BIBLICAL" thing. To be biblically correct, and we all want to do that,
we by biblical reasons should call ourselves Baptist. The Bible is a
BAPTIST book. It is the ONLY identification given in the Word of God...
Many unlearned people call themselves many things... Bible church,
Community church, Calvary chapel... etc... None of these are Biblically
correct... The identification is Baptist.
INTIMIDATING -- intimidated by whom? Why should we be concerned by what
the "world" thinks about Baptist. People, the world does not like the
truth... Many people that call themselves Christian, do not like the
truth... Many will scoff at this notion about identification, but it can
not be denied!
If doctrine, is teaching; How can someone say that they line up
doctrinally? ...They do not take the Baptist "name"... It is because
they are unlearned in the truth of the Bible. Baptist is NOT just a
name, it is the identification that God gave to the one that baptized
the Lord. God identified the man John as the BAPTIST. It is not a name
that has been given by the world, Even as the name "Christian" was given
by the world to the believers at Antioch
Acts 11:26 "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And
it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the
church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians
first in Antioch."
The bottom line is, If someone does not call themselves "Baptist" they
are not doctrinally correct, The Word of God teaches the identification
of Baptist. It is what we are. If you do not call yourself "Baptist"
you are not doctrinally correct. Why are we so quick to call ourselves
"Christian", when it was a term that the world gave to the believer, and
not call ourselves "Baptist" when God gave the identification. (That's
it, "God gave the identification, Satan would water it down")
P. S. There is nothing wrong with the name "Christian" today.
I do not fellowship with anyone that will not call themselves
"Baptist"... There is no such thing as someone that is "baptistic"
Where does that come from?
That is like "playing" like a Baptist, like "playing" like a Christian?
People ask, Why bear the reproach of the "Baptist" Name, it bothers
people! It has always been a reproach, Christ was to the world. Why
shouldn't we today? The WORLD has NEVER liked anything God has done...
Many today that call themselves "Christian" are really of the world and
they do not like God's Identification!
have been good but Pastor Ragsdale certainly has some conviction about
this issue. I agree with him and am proud to have him as a part of our
list.>>>>>>>>>>
=========================================
Pastor Ed Walls is the pastor of the Central Baptist Church in Maryland
(I believe) and is a member of the BBFI Pastors list. His post in
response to the Question of the Week. I believe that Pastor Wall is
taking a stand on being a Baptist but the familiar line here is that not
all Baptists are truly Baptist inside. He makes his point that he is a
Christian by conversion and a Baptist by conviction.
-----------------------------------------
Although I carry the name Baptist and I do so without apology, I do not
believe God is as interested in the name on my sign as the gospel I
preach or the condition of my heart. It would be naive to think that
all churches that carry the name stand for the distinctions that we as
independent Baptists hold as dear. Frankly, I have known Baptists (name
on the sign) at both extremes of the theological spectrum. Some have
been liberal in the truest sense of the word, denying the authority and
inerrancy of the Word of God.
Others have elevated the term Baptist to the level of a cult suggesting
that only Baptists will occupy heaven. What a frightening thought. Just
carrying the name Baptist on a sign outside a building should not be a
criterion, in my opinion, to establish or break fellowship. I am a
Christian by conversion and a Baptist by conviction. I believe that is
the proper priority.
=======================================
Rev. Steve Johnson is working with the BBFI net currently and with
Pastor Billy Hamm in Denver. He is a part of the BBFI pastors list and
has started a church as a church planter. He offers these insights.
--------------------------------------
[Note: I use the term "denomination" very loosely here, for the sake of
easy reference, not to trigger a discussion of labels. I know the
difference between a denomination, association, affiliations,
fellowships, etc., but some complain my sentences are too long all
ready.]
>Why not use "Bible Church"?
There is a "denomination" that label themselves "Bible Churches". I know
nothing about the movement, other than it exists. Of course not all
churches using that name (probably the majority) are not part of that
group.
>Regarding "Baptist" in the church name:
A SBC pastor who was starting a church in Lexington last year chose not
to include "Baptist" in the name. He told me that they had surveyed
approx. 5,000 homes in the city, and when asked to rank seven
denominational names according to positive or negative, Baptist was far
and away the most UNpopular.
I drove the surface streets of Denver this morning, from the southern
tip of the city to the north. On that one major thoroughfare I must have
passed 30 churches, chapels, fellowships, worship centers, temples, and
one "New Age Meditation Center". I was struck by how many churches'
names were intended to distance themselves from traditional
denominations or faiths.
When you talk to someone from one of these churches, usually the 3rd or
4th sentence is "we're charismatic", or we're Baptistic". Wouldn't it be
simple to just put that in the name? I once considered not having
Baptist in my church name, but since every time the name was mentioned
or appeared in print it would have to be accompanied by the words "an
independent Baptist church", I didn't see the point in not saying so in
the name.
>Steve, also commented later about the name Baptist on your sign
Regarding taking the name Baptist off the church sign.
Can anyone provide a case where changing the name had a dramatic
positive imact on a church? I doubt it. The public aren't that easily
fooled. It takes more than a name to have a warm reputation. A modern
"fuzzy" name won't warm up a cold church, and a loving church
can overcome any "nasty" name.
======================================
Another Great post from the pastors list from Pastor Jeryl L. Bennett
Bethel Baptist Church Battle Creek, Michigan. Pastor Bennett has been
involved in church planting and had a great answer to the Question of
the Week.
--------------------------------------
A Baptist church has always stood for the distinctives of the faith: The
Bible is the only rule of faith and practice; The autonomy of the local
church; The priesthood of the believer; Two offices - Pastor and Deacon;
Immersion as the only scriptural baptism; Separation - ecclesiastical,
personal, state/church; Two ordinances - baptism and the Lord' s Supper.
A Baptist church has a testimony, a heritage, a purpose, and a mission.
The strength and identity of the Baptists has always been a strong
stand. The title "Baptist" evokes certain allegiences and positions.
A Bible church is historically and notibly an interdenominational
church. The teaching may be good, but the preaching normally will be
weaker than that found in a fundamental Baptist church.
To me, dropping the name "Baptist" is a compromise. When we give in to
accomodate and be less intimidating (?) to the people who attend, where
can one quit the back peddling and compromising?
One will not find the Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians or other
mainline denominations dropping their titles to accomodate anyone. Those
names stand for a particular style and purpose of worship.
For Baptists to drop their name reminds me of Baalam attempting to get
the children of Israel to intermarry out of existance or purity.
=====================================
One of the main reasons that the guys who would take Baptist off of
their name or not call themselves a Baptist Church is to reach out to
more people. They assume that Baptist is a bad name. Bob Piatt, BBFI
missionary to Japan, answers the question of the week with a personal
example that hits close to home.
=====================================================
My wife's home church recently took the name Baptist off the church
name. The church is located in an area of the US near the Mexican
border, and probably over half of the people in town are native spanish
speakers. They don't use the name Bible Chruch either. They are simply
"....... Chruch".
The reason they gave for taking Baptist from off their name was to help
get the Spanish speaking people to come to church. Baptist is suppost to
have a bad conitation, they thought. The name Baptist has been off the
church for over a year, and it hasn't helped attendance. The adverage
Catholic still doesn't want to go to their church. Are they thinking
about rechanging their name? "NO!", is their answer.
<<Editors Note: It doesn't help in New England either >>>>>>>
Personally, I am a Baptist. I wasn't born a Baptist, but when I was born
again I became a Baptist. I Believe what Baptist historicly have
believe. I am proud of the name. I am in good company. There are a lot
of great men who called themselves Baptist. Would to God there were more
today.
======================================
Bob Hines in Idaho gives us a Western perspective on this question.
Good insight and honest answer:
--------------------------------------
Every church planter is going to have to face this question at some
point in his ministry. I am glad you have asked it; it takes courage to
face our questions.
Being a Baptist is not detriment to starting a church unless there have
been others before you that have desecrated this honorable name. Even
when the name Baptist has not been treated well in the community, it is
still better to let people know who you are and what you are than to
suffer the conflicts that will invariably come later if you don't.
Let me explain. Being a Baptist is a doctrinal distinctive. We have a
noble history of doctrinal purity that God has blessed through the ages.
Although some of our forefathers were not necessarily noble, and they
did veer from the truth from time to time, the doctrinal position of
"Baptist" has stayed in tact. This is a great asset in a society that
is searching for some sort of identity based on truth. When you take
the name Baptist off of your church, you have given credibility to an
open doctrinal position that is ultimately going to allow people in your
church that you are going to have doctrinal conflict with. This is a
no-win situation. You will either have to offend them and have them
leave, conflict that has split many churches that have taken the name
Baptist off, or you will have to compromise your doctrinal position and
become truly non-denominational. Either way it is a loose/loose
situation that can be avoided by simply stating what we are in the
beginning. We made the choice to stand on our Baptist heritage and name
and it has proven to be worthwhile. I will concede we would have grown
faster, for a while, if we had taken the name Baptist off. We have had
hundreds of visitors who loved the church, until we taught on Baptist
distinctives and the church, then they seemed to be called elsewhere.
We have maintained steady growth, however, and it has been very solid.
Because we are a church that knows who and what we are, and this serves
as a screen to new members, our growth is solid. We have weathered many
storms, simply because of unity that our common doctrinal position
allows us.
I have been asked this question by many young men coming to the
Northwest because of the aversion there is to "fundamentalism" in this
part of the country. In every case where the men have taken their
"stand" for what they are they have had less problems than those who
didn't. In fact, those who didn't haven't stayed.
This has been a more practical answer to the question than purely
Biblical by design. Scripture upholds this position and promises to
bless it (Jn. 8:32) "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set
you free."
===========================
To cap it all off our dear brother Harry Jackson sent this post in that
pretty much sums it up. Our thanks to Brother Jackson.
===========================
Brethren,
I always have one question that comes to mind when someone suggests that it
might be advisable to drop the designation "Baptist" so that more people
will be attracted to the church. The question is: "Which doctrinal
positon will you change so the visitors will believe that the church is
"Bible" rather than Baptist?" Another question arises immediately: "Do
you expect these visitors to be so naive as to think you are not preaching
Baptist doctrine.
It was Charles Spurgeon who first answered the question "What would you be
if your were not a Baptist with the retort: "Well, I'd be ashamed". I echo
his sentiments.
--
-------------------------------
2003 BCP HOME PAGE
=================================
Pastor Harry Shelton Cole Moderator
bcp@baptistchurchplanting.com >:-o
http://www.baptistchurchplanting.com/
© 2003 - All Rights Reserved
Reprint by Permission Only