The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship is No More!

I’m sure no one in the current FBFI objects to the label fundamentalist. This, like most rebranding, is probably intended to broaden their appeal to outsiders. I was a member of the FBF for a while 20 years ago or so and it seems to me that today’s organization is considerably smaller than what I remember. In any organization that kind of decline, even when the product quality is the same, makes rebranding a consideration.

[Ron Bean]

I’m sure no one in the current FBFI objects to the label fundamentalist. This, like most rebranding, is probably intended to broaden their appeal to outsiders. I was a member of the FBF for a while 20 years ago or so and it seems to me that today’s organization is considerably smaller than what I remember. In any organization that kind of decline, even when the product quality is the same, makes rebranding a consideration.

Now that a fundamental Baptist organization has opted to remove/replace the word “fundamental” in its name, I’m wondering how this same organization would feel about a Baptist church removing the word “Baptist” from its name?

I presently am watching a local IFB church which has taken some preliminary steps (e.g. a congregational vote, the formation of a “rebranding committee”, etc.) to eventually do exactly that. Like suggested above, I’m told the reason is that the church wishes to broaden its appeal to outsiders. From what I hear, there has already been some discussion among the other members of the Baptist association to which this church belongs as to whether such a “rebranded” church should or would be permitted to remain a member of the association.

Question: What are the limits and/or what is the tolerance for “rebranding” in fundamental circles?

Here is one of my chief criticisms to the FBFI’s unfortunate article from last year’s Frontline:

• In my opinion, the FBFI seems to view “Baptist fundamentalism” as a confessional movement, and seems to view itself as some unofficial guardian of confessional orthodoxy.

Don Johnson completely disagreed. My point is that “fundamentalism” is not a denominational or confessional label - it is more of a philosophy of ministry, and it is a big-tent concept which transcends Baptist circles. This means we’re really confusing categories if we equate the FBFI’s re-branding with a Baptist church’s re-branding. Two completely different things.

Superficially, the impetus for both a local Baptist church and the FBFI’s re-branding seem to be the same - “it’s a ‘hinderance’ ”. The issue is really much deeper than that:

• A local Baptist which decides to re-brand is being foolish. The Gospel is offensive, and nothing you do will ever change that. You will not woo people into the doors by adopting a cool and hip name (e.g. dropping “Faith Baptist” for “Agape Fellowship”). They seek to re-brand for pragmatic reasons - it will solve nothing. Even more seriously, the name change camouflages the church’s position on a real Biblical issue - ecclesiology. If you believe the Christ is the Head of the church, and left instructions about how the church ought to be run, and you believe Baptist ecclesiology is the best expression of that teaching, then you are taking a serious step to say that your name “hinders” evangelism and your church’s mission.
• The FBFI is a para-church organization. It is extra-biblical (not un-Biblical :)) Who cares if they re-brand? They’re not a church. They don’t have biblical officers. They don’t have a biblical mandate. They aren’t mentioned in Scripture. Jesus is not the FBFI’s direct head.

Two completely different issues.

I’m not saying I disagree. I’ve not really worked through all of the theological implications, personally. My church happens to be the 2nd largest church in Minnesota with “Baptist” in its name (Bethlehem Baptist, ala John Piper, is the largest), and we’ve never considered the word to be a hindrance. Nobody in the church has ever suggested that we should consider dropping the word from our name.

Question (based on your reply above): Do the same theological considerations pertain when it’s a college rebranding itself by dropping the word “Baptist” or by removing the word through changing its name? Example: When Northland Baptist Bible College became Northland International University, did that “camouflage the [college’s] position on a real Biblical issue - ecclesiology.” Or is it different when it is done by a college rather than a church?

Moreover, what of colleges favored by large numbers of Baptists that never had “Baptist” in their names to begin with (BJU, Pensacola Christian College, et al)? (Note: I realize the two colleges I just mentioned are not technically “Baptist,” per se; although their constituents are largely so.) Or what of many Baptist churches (past or present) which never have had the word in their name? I’m thinking of Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, for starters.

(I’m just wondering aloud……..)

I’m thinking out loud, too. I think a church is making a mistake to try to re-brand. I think a Bible College which drops the word “Baptist” is, too - unless they’ve decided to be ecumenical. I liked MBU’s name change because they are a university - more than a Bible College. They kept Baptist.

A local Baptist which decides to re-brand is being foolish. The Gospel is offensive, and nothing you do will ever change that. You will not woo people into the doors by adopting a cool and hip name (e.g. dropping “Faith Baptist” for “Agape Fellowship”). They seek to re-brand for pragmatic reasons - it will solve nothing. Even more seriously, the name change camouflages the church’s position on a real Biblical issue - ecclesiology.

I see your point but disagree with you slightly. Having the name ‘Baptist’ in the church title may do nothing other than reinforce bad experiences people have had with Baptists and unnecessarily create a hindrance. That’s something that ‘Agape Fellowship’ wouldn’t do - and you might get a bunch of people looking for a Baptist Church that don’t realize they need a Baptist church yet. Would you want to attend a Baptist church if the only Baptist you knew of was First Baptist Church of Hammond?

Or maybe I’m just devious enough that I want to hit them with what I believe after they get in the church door…. ;)

Personally, I despise names like ‘Agape Fellowship’. But I also know to vet any churches very carefully before I go through the door.

And not that it matters, but NBBC rebranded itself because its’ graduates were having a hard time getting into foreign fields since they hadn’t graduated from ‘University’. That was the whole reason why they changed their name, not that it matters now.

Regarding Baptist as a label, there are mixed reviews. I recall a Lifeway Research study published 2 years ago that addresses this quandary. Christianity Today posted a helpful synopsis of it here. The results indicate that if any denominational name has favorable character, it is Baptist - and more often than not. Fascinating. People have a variety of individual perspectives and experiences, but if a church embraces Baptist beliefs, it seems appropriate to embrace the label. As CT points out, dropping that label may appear sneaky. And Baptist as a label does not seem to be the same dilemma as Fundamentalist/ism.

Regarding Fundamental as a label, I personally think there is a difference between Fundamental or Fundamentals on one hand and Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist on the other. In the athletic world, for instance, fundamentals are a useful word, commonly employed without negative, pejorative connotations. We speak, for instance, of basketball fundamentals. So to speak of a church or Christian organization that embraces “fundamentals of the faith,” etc. seems equally wholesome. However, when you add ism or ist to the word, as a label in modern usage, it seems to inject an element of association with very bad, repulsive groups and ideas, such as radical Islam, militias, etc. If that is how the general public views this word, then it is easy to argue that avoiding the word fundamentalism and fundamentalist is a wise thing to do, while continuing to speak of embracing the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and so forth.

That’s my two cents, which is probably worth no more than a penny, if even that :D

I suppose it is better to say this:

• A local church and Bible College should evaluate their own reasons, their own circumstances, their own context and their own people and make their own decision - ensuring they’re doing it for good and Biblical reasons.

My initial reaction to church and Bible College name changes is always skepticism - unless it makes good sense and is not a compromise to culture (e.g. MBBC = MBU). For example, I think BBC&S’ name change (twice!) was odd.

[Ron Bean]

I’m sure no one in the current FBFI objects to the label fundamentalist. This, like most rebranding, is probably intended to broaden their appeal to outsiders. I was a member of the FBF for a while 20 years ago or so and it seems to me that today’s organization is considerably smaller than what I remember. In any organization that kind of decline, even when the product quality is the same, makes rebranding a consideration.