The Baptist Name in Church Planting!

I think the "legacy" denominational names have great value. We have Presbyterians on S/I and for Presbyterians I think that name communicates a lot.

Baptist as well. (I'm a Baptist)

My preference:

• Avoid obscure names as modifiers: Eg "Berean", "Zion", "Antioch" (unless you are in Antioch OH), "Sardis", "Beulah" etc
• I would not use "Corinth" in a church name unless one's locale is Corinth (Maine or Mississippi)
• Avoid the use of "Tabernacle", "Temple", or "Chapel"
• "Grace" is somewhat overused in a Church name. (Google "Grace Baptist Church" for proof!). Same with "Bible Baptist". There must be hundreds of Bible Baptist churches!
• Avoid "Fundamental", "Independent", "KJVO", "KJV 1611" etc in the name. ("ESV" is OK ... like "ESV Baptist Church" ( joking really!)
• A street name or place name as an adjectival modifier is positive. (Unless your church is on Devil's Backbone or some other evil sounding street name) (The GARBC will never allow Devil's Backbone Baptist Church into their fellowship! )
• If you have street name in your church name; if you move, change your name!
• If you are going to have "Friendly" in your name ... you'd better be!

We had some good discussion on this at Sharper Iron 2.0 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6579

Brands have associated connotations.

The Baptist "brand" still has value.

Some wonderful additions to a new church would never join unless it said "Baptist" on the sign. These people are often tremendous foundational workhorses in a new ministry.

On the other hand, the name will keep away many who don't understand what it really means because of what they think it means. Those are often very reachable and teachable people that could be influenced greatly for God's glory if we had the opportunity to teach them.

"Baptist" hasn't meant much to the average person since, oh about the end of the 19th Century. And not using the name doesn't change the truth we proclaim. So I lean towards not using it.

If someone called the church and asked, "What denomination is your church?" and the without-a-pause answer would be "Baptist," then I think Baptist should be in the name.

Most of the religious Suzy Homemakers and Joe Sixpacks I've talked to about denominational labels equate the word 'Baptist' with immersion and eternal security, along with hellfire and damnation preaching, or 'Bible thumping'. Now, if you ask Dr. Samuel J. Snodgrass about the word 'Baptist', you might get a 40,000 word thesis in reply, but most folks who move into a new town or decide to look for a church don't know any more about church history than they do quantum mechanics, and are going to want something on the door that tells them whether or not a church fits into their is worth a visit. 'Baptist' is less ambiguous than 'Bible', 'Community', or 'Fellowship' etc... and IMO bears enough history and meaning that I wouldn't give it up unless it became so thoroughly marked by heresy or immorality as to be past redemption.

I am a recovering baptist. The vast majority of independent baptist churches could be caricatured in such a semi-humorous manner. Of course, all churches have their own problems. I am just weighing in on using the name. I do think in general the future of historical baptist churches is not rosy. The independent fundamental baptist churches are not adjusting to the culture in general and many do not adjust to the demographic shifts surrounding their churches. The median ages of the members/attenders is rising. Unfortunately, "rich Baptist heritage" is not that important to the next generation.

The only elder led baptist churches I know are southern baptist, though I am not questioning that some others might exist.
I am not here to slam baptists, I am telling you the facts of the matter on the future of the independent fundamental baptist churches that many of us grew up in.

Here in Brazil our association is known as Regular Baptist (Batista Regular). The word "regular" in common-usage Portuguese means somewhere between good and bad--mediocre. I don't know if that usage has come into effect since the association was founded back in the '50s, but I frequently have to explain it to people who wonder why we would advertise ourselves as being "mediocre".

When I plant a church I'm not sure I want to go through that hassle...

• Charlie, since you are NOT a Baptist, I would not expect you to appreciate Baptist history, heritage, or doctrine
• Baptists look to these expressions of doctrine:
  • the 1689 London Baptist Confession
  • The Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742)
  • The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, 1833
    
  • SBC: The Abstract Of Principles
• Baptists are known by their polity which has been fleshed out in The New Directory for Baptist Churches
• An of course Baptists have noted theologians such as
  • John Broadus
  • John Dagg
  • Augustus Hopkins Strong
  • Charles Spurgeon

Of course Baptists are not a homogeneous / monolithic group. I think the same could be said of Presbyterians. You have fringe beliefs at the edges. You have Calvinistic Baptists and Arminian Baptists. You have Dispensational and non-Dispensational Baptists. You even have some Wacko Baptists that most Baptists don't regard as Baptists!

But for Baptists, the Baptist name still has meaning and value.

Good point about the "no brand manager". I said the same earlier in this thread

By essentially I mean the name functions like a brand. Someone moves to a community, they are a Baptist, and they are looking for a church. They look up "Baptist" in the Yellow pages or Google "Baptist + their town". It's a start. They may be disappointed and either drive further or find a Bible church, etc.

If there were a brand manager (a Baptist "Pope" if you will), that one would revoke the Westboro Baptist franchise!

In IT talk, Baptist is "open source" versus "proprietary". Some see it as a weakness, some view it as a strength.

There are Baptist churches whose door I would not darken (the KJVOnly, the Pastor-dictator style, the liberal, etc). Would you allow that Presbyterians have the same issue. I'm sure you would repudiate the ministry of a William Sloane Coffin or other liberal Presbyterians.

By the way I have some favorite Presbyterians: Charles Hodge, B B Warfield, Jonathan Edwards, and John Gresham Machen.

Back to the original post - which was "The Baptist name in Church planting".

I think one must ask the question, "What does the name Baptist mean in the culture and milieu of the targeted plant.?"

The name Baptist certainly has a negative connotation in Topeka KS. It's possible that in much of the 10/40 Window, the name Baptist may not communicate effectively.

From another perspective - of the one who invests (specifically gives money to) in a ministry: Being a Baptist, I personally am more likely to give to a Baptist school - say Faith in Ankeny than to a school that is not Baptist.

I can see this both ways. I think that, like Aaron said, most lost people don't care about a church name; and personally I believe that if the church members are reaching out to their friends and neighbors and community the way they should, the church will be reaching the community for Christ no matter what the name. For an example, look at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City where Tim Keller pastors. They are PCA, put Presbyterian in their name, have a fairly traditional service and simple Presbyterian order of worship, and are difficult to find (at least for me as a non- New Yorker, it seemed somewhat hidden to find the college auditorium it meets in!), but yet they have reached large numbers of unchurched in NYC.

On the other hand, I have tried or am familiar with many of the Baptist churches in San Diego county here in California, and I could not bring myself to join any of them. I am in a SBC church plant that does not put Baptist in the name. The churches my wife and I looked at were either KJVO types, or very southern USA feeling churches. While that may attract a lot of transplants from the Southeast, it does nothing to reach the local community population. Other churches that had locals in them were very old, and very white, in an area that has large numbers of people of hispanic heritage (who do speak English as their primary language), as well as other diverse cultural groups.

I do think even among those who have some cultural knowledge of Baptist churches, such as those who grew up in the southeast, with a Baptist church on every corner, that the younger generation generally views Baptists as shoutin' screamin' Bible thumpers, and have basically written off anyone who would describe their beliefs as Baptist. On numerous occasions after spending a lot of time counseling an individual and/or explaining scripture to them, then they ask what "church" I am a part of, and I say "Baptist" or "Southern Baptist", I get the same reaction that they cannot believe that I wasn't preaching at them and berating them with hellfire and brimstone sermons or getting upset with them over their language or the fact that they drink alcohol. I'm sure most of us on here would probably share the gospel in the same pointed but loving way; but for some reason that is not the reputation of the name "Baptist". If they would have known I was a Baptist pastor, I would never have gotten a hearing.

This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I also believe that if a church is Baptist and doesn't use the name, they should clearly reflect that in their literature and website. I am specifically thinking of this because of some issues that I am having to wrestle with in a Southern Baptist context. Someone may come to your church, and give you a hearing because you don't have Baptist in your name, but if you are affiliated with the SBC (or GARBC, IFCA etc.), in my opinion, at least by the time the person is considering church membership, the person should know clearly that he/she is joining a church of that denomination. If letting them know in a prospective member's guide or church information brochure your affiliation keeps them from coming back, then the problem is not your church name.

Hope these random thoughts make sense!

Just started church in Concord, NC. Crossview Baptist Church. I think your points on name and place of where you plant are important. In the south it is a identifier. In our area, there are many assembly of God churches and Community churches. If you go the Bible church route or the non-denominational route people wont have an idea what kind of church you are. In planting the church, i scoped out by visiting all the non denominational churches in the area.These ranged from "The Fire church (Brownsville Revial Church, UC Fellowship (Andy Stanley church plant), Cornerstone Church (4 square gospel out of Charleston), Rocky River Community (Follower of Journey Church movement). What I am getting at is the brand is important otherwise the non churched or the churched do not know what they are going to attend, which could mean they wont attend your church at all.

I think we are overplaying the culture/location card. I lived in Topeka, KS where Fred Phelps and his extremist church is. There were several Baptist churches throughout the city that were doing quite well despite having the same nametag. Everyone in Topeka - and I mean everyone - knew that he was a kook, plain and simple. So the only ones that presumed the Phelps represented ALL Baptists were the extreme on the opposite side - all out reprobates who rejected the Bible and Christianity wholesale.
Anne, there is a missionary in Kiev named Perry Demopolous who has been in the Ukraine since 1995 or so - he is Baptist, and he has started many Baptist churches in the villages throughout Ukraine. His "homebase" is a Baptist church right there in Kiev.
After reading some Baptist history recently, I have come to realize how important that name is. Baptism is a watershed issue ( , and it has been for several hundred years. WE have lost sight of that because our political freedom. However, it distinguishes us from all other denominations. Also, the name Baptist is the name given to us by our enemies (the Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.). I am sticking with it. There are a handful of good Bible churches that I am familiar with, but very few. They generally tend to Covenant Theology, and generally tend to more liberal views of separation (at least in my experience.)
There are some countries that I am unsure of regarding the use of the name, but I have not heard from any of the missionaries that I follow an issue with using the name Baptist. These missionaries cover the entire globe. It is no different here - ON OCCASION (very rarely) I must distinguish our independent Baptist church from the ABA, SBC, GARBC, etc. No big deal...

In Christ,

It is interesting that when so many churches started using "community church" that the world thought it must be a new denomination. Most people living in the USA either grew up in or attend a denominational church. I have never heard anyone say something negative about the name of their church. I've heard a ton of criticism based on what happened in the church. If a church should change their name it would be the Catholic church with all the sex scandals and etc. I haven't heard any talk about changing the name.
Because of my ministry with Baptist Church Planters, I travel extensively. I get into all kinds of Baptist churches. I can tell you that churches grow, not based on their location, name, music or culture. They grow when they have a true shepherd in leadership who knows what God wants done and can lead people to serve.
Someone referred to this in another blog, but when starting a church, there are often good and godly people looking for a Baptist church to attend. These key people can be extremely helpful to the church planter. In this day when pastors are unethically taking established churches and turning them upside down, telling the faithful saints to leave if they don't like it, these dear souls will be looking for a solid Baptist church to attend.
If I were going to put anything on the sign or in advertising other than the name, I'd put "expository preaching" or "clear Bible teaching." I get all kinds of people that have been in good expository preaching churches and then move to another location begging to plant a church where they can be fed. Starting with a verse and saying all kinds of good things but having nothing to do with the text is famine for the person who knows the difference. These people beg for a good church and having the name Baptist on it provides some measure of identification.
At Baptist Church Planters, we require church planters to start churches with the name Baptist in them. We are not ashamed of those who gave their lives for beliefs clearly taught in the scriptures and we believe that Baptist churches who choose to support Baptist missionaries expect them to plant a Baptist church.

Sorry, but "Baptist" is not what defines a good church. In our area you can attend various Baptist churches that stand for anything, including women pastors or gay marriage. The name Baptist is not an indicator that the church will be a solid, biblical church. You need to know more, whether it is a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Community, Bible, or whatever kind of church. (And yes, there are fundamental, bible-believing, expository preaching churches of all of those stripes.)

Bingo. This is right on the money. Of course, it has nothing to do with the name "Baptist."

I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ either, and the Bible itself noted where believers began to identify themselves as Christians. But even though I currently attend a Baptist church, I would not give my life for the name Baptist (or any other name that identifies me with something "more" than being a Christian, or follower of Christ).

I can rejoice with you that you expect your church planters to follow biblical teachings, but if your emphasis is on "Baptist" rather than Bible, I believe it to be completely misplaced.

But strangely enough, the disciples who heard him obeyed him by going out and planting churches.

I don't see this in the Bible. It doesn't seem to be a distinction that is made by the apostles in carrying out the mission.

In the NT, the churches are the means of discipleship, not the result of it. I think it is a major mistake to draw a distinction between church and discipleship. It's why you have professing Christians who think they can love and follow Jesus without the church.

You may be right that some people have wrong motives in planting churches. That doesn't seem to be relevant though.