”Bible Churches” often do a better job of striking a balance of commitment to both “Truth” and “Love.”

So the point here is to simply announce we have changed our name from Southeast Valley Baptist Church to Southeast Valley Bible Church. You will notice the tag line is a part of a larger set of reasons why we believe this is a good move for us. We are not suggesting that all Baptist Churches are devoid of Truth or Love. You will notice in the article the context and some of the reasons behind the change. This blog article is primarily a “FYI.”

Straight Ahead!

jt

but I don’t believe for a second that it makes you “truthier” or “lovier”.

Enjoy the new name!

Does this mean we need to shun Joel now? :^)

(sorry, just couldn’t resist!)

Seriously, Joel’s hitting on a lot of things that are regrettably—or at least stereotypically—true. I am baptistic through and through, but weep at how many churches “foul” the name through legalism and hyper-separationism. One warning that I’m sure Joel has already heeded; if the name changes without a change in the behaviors and motivations, we simply repeat in 50 years with the name “Bible Church.”

[Joel Tetreau]

So the point here is to simply announce we have changed our name from Southeast Valley Baptist Church to Southeast Valley Bible Church. You will notice the tag line is a part of a larger set of reasons why we believe this is a good move for us. We are not suggesting that all Baptist Churches are devoid of Truth or Love. You will notice in the article the context and some of the reasons behind the change. This blog article is primarily a “FYI.”

Straight Ahead!

jt

Yeah, but what I want to know is would you consider your Bible church a Type A or B? :-)!

Good thing not a-l-l Baptist churches are devoid of Truth or Love. Otherwise, what’s a man like me to do??? :-)!

Southeast Valley Church sounds even better.

It does not mean you are less Baptist or less based on the Bible.

I guess you haven’t met many of the Bible church folk that I have. =)

Not really sure how to evaluate the assertion that “ ‘Bible Churches’ often do a better job of striking a balance of commitment to both ‘Truth’ and ‘Love.’” It seems to me that the behavior of the church has little connection to its name, but I guess I could be mistaken.

When a church’s reason for changing begins, “in our view,” it attempts to put any change beyond criticism. And, I suppose that since Joel felt the need to explain it, that he anticipated some critique of the church’s decision. “In our view” means that their observations have been anecdotal. Yes, there are legalistic churches, and KJVO churches in the IBF, and I guess they find that it would be easier to minister as a Bible church than a Baptist church. But you could make the same observations of Bible churches, 2 out of 4 in my community would be perceived as legalistic according to Joel’s criteria. The thing that irks me about some Bible churches is their attitude that we are “just Biblical,” it is kind of a one-upsmanship; it smells like pride. Calling a church a Bible church or claiming to be Biblical doesn’t make it so. Remember that MacArthur early on ignorantly said that Jesus was eternally God but became the Son at His incarnation. Heresy can strike anywhere. Calling a church a Bible church affords it no protection; perhaps the attitude that we are “just Bible” can become a set-up for a fall.

[Joel Tetreau]

So the point here is to simply announce we have changed our name from Southeast Valley Baptist Church to Southeast Valley Bible Church. You will notice the tag line is a part of a larger set of reasons why we believe this is a good move for us. We are not suggesting that all Baptist Churches are devoid of Truth or Love. You will notice in the article the context and some of the reasons behind the change. This blog article is primarily a “FYI.”

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel, I am with you on expectations. We should want a church name to communicate what a church is about. The Bible church name is often associated with fellowship, careful and deep Bible study, and doctrinal integrity. Yet, it is not a hill I would die on (and haven’t). For better or worse, Baptist churches seem more noted for evangelism, revivalism, and rules and structures associated with the Baptist perspective, IMO. All churches and approaches toward ministry have their weak and strong points, and impressions based on name association are like any other generality — not the most dependable. Adding to the confusion are the changes we see around us in Baptist groups and the evangelical world in general.

I prefer “Bible Church” to describe the kind of church I am associated with for several reasons: (1) people who have Baptist or other denominational expectations are forewarned that there are some differences; (2) it states the emphasis of the church; by advertising yourself as a Bible church, you are affirming sola scriptura , and an emphasis on Bible content/study (as opposed to revivalism, music obsession, or an agenda to improve society). As pastor of a non-denom without the term Bible (I wish we had Bible in our name!), we get people who want a “worship” (code word for music) emphasis, a wild charismatic church, or a seeker-sensitive church. Although the term “Bible” does not necessarily preclude all these things, it is a guiding star as to what your church is about and can preclude some bad experiences for the sake of church shoppers — and the church’s sake! We want to be a clear target for people seeking a church like ours.

But if you are going to be a Bible church, you should also differ from a Baptist church on some points, or you might as well retain the name Baptist. You mentioned KJV, and that is a good example for certain regions where Baptist = KJV. If we are going to be bound by Baptist traditions, what’s the use of being non-denom? To me, being a Bible church puts a special pressure on us to re-evaluate and hone our rulings and routines in light of the Bible, not feel bound by inherited patterns. For example, we don’t have standing committees. We have elders, deacons, and deaconesses. We don’t take offering in our early service or evening service or Sunday School, just our main service. So let me encourage you to find a new freedom in this name change, not that Baptist systems are necessarily ineffective. Bible Churches belong to what I call the “Baptist Family of Churches.” Grace Brethren, Brethren, CMA, and conservative Mennonite and other groups would fall under this general heading. The difference is not always the convictions, but rather how we got to those convictions.

Ed,

Wowzers - it’s like you read my mind. Thx for sharing. These things you share very much reflect the heart and soul behind the change.

Straight Ahead Ed and all!

jt

Having been in similar discussions I am puzzled when people with strong Baptistic convictions, autonomy of the local church being second in the common acrostic, decry one church’s autonomy to make such a decision.

Similarly the phrase “in our view” need not imply that a change is beyond criticism but rather that the criticism should be evaluated with a greater weight to the sitz im leben of the church making the change. If the local flavor of Baptist churches tends to leave a sour taste then criticism from those where the local flavor of Baptist churches is sweet bears little to no weight.

My own like or dislike for JT’s church’s name change is irrelevant, unless of course he is asking for input on the decision. Since he isn’t asking, and the matter is not a defection of the faith then I am content to read his letter, and pray for the removal of the hurdle to be a blessing to their church; and perhaps that the compulsory and arduous paperwork with changing a church name will not be overly burdensome!

Have fun in your corner of the field JT!

PJ

_{Prov 18:2 a fool has no delight in understanding but in expressing his own heart.}

I was saved in a Baptist church when I was 19 having NOT grown up in church. For 13 years after that I had no idea there was even such a thing as ” bad revivalism”, “KJV onlyism”, or “music wars”.

It is interesting that you attach those ideas to being Baptist.

In my city the largest church BY FAR is X Bible Church (name redacted because it doesn’t really matter to you all). All of the politicians go there (I live in a state capital). It is known for its reformed theology and surface legalism. I wouldn’t associate that church with “truth” or “love”.

Imagine a small (7000) town in which there are over 20 Independent Baptist churches. Among them are at least 3 KJVO churches who’ve split from one another over things like inspiration of italicized words, the existence of the LXX, and pro and anti Cambridge;free will and hard shell, charismatic and anti-charismatic, all white and all black, and music differences that are beyond number. BTW, the two big SBC churches are spiritually and numerically healthy. Confused?

Anyone here saved in a non baptist church and eventually migrate that way due to doctrinal convictions?

So many have added to the negatives of the term “Baptist” that many flee from it. To me, its a sad commentary. If Joel really feels like he is going to something rather than leaving something that has become odious to him, all the best. Like the term dispensationalist, Baptist is on the wrong side of the cool spectrum these days.

For me, the historical term has value, in spite of its excesses and problems.