;){kind=logo}
"I thought this association was for Baptist churches …"
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
I will never forget those words, uttered by a messenger at the annual meeting of the Little River Baptist Association in the fall of 2005. They pierced my Baptist heart like a dagger, because he was talking about my church … Crossroads Fellowship in Cadiz, Kentucky. God allowed me the honor and joy of planting Crossroads in March 2002. We immediately affiliated with the SBC and the Kentucky Baptist Convention. Indeed, we were welcomed into full fellowship within the KBC in the fall of 2003. Our church letterhead and our web site include the note, “A Southern Baptist Congregation,” beneath our logo. We were a Southern Baptist church from the moment of our inception.
We had been welcomed into the Little River association under “watch-care” at the spring meeting in 2005. But over the six months that followed, despite our financial cooperation and active involvement in the association’s ministries, some began to take issue with our church … particularly its name. As they say in Western Kentucky, we did not have the word, “Baptist,” “on the sign.” Funny thing was … we didn’t even have a sign … we were meeting in a local high school, with no facility of our own, when we submitted our desire to affiliate.
So it all “boiled over” at that fall meeting. Despite the assurances from the credentials committee and the ample evidence that we were a Southern Baptist congregation, several repeated the mantras: “There’s no Baptist on the sign!” “Just put Baptist on the sign and we’ll welcome you.” Since I was not given the opportunity to respond, I sat in silence.
Moments later a vote was cast. By a vote of 52-50, Crossroads Fellowship was denied full fellowship with the Little River Baptist Association. We were not even retained under “watch-care.” We were simply dropped, dis-fellowshiped, and forgotten. It was, by far, my lowest of low points (and there have been several) in my experiences in Southern Baptist life.
Yet we remain, still, a Southern Baptist congregation. We cooperate through the KBC. We give to Lottie Moon. We have partnered with an IMB team in Peru to reach an unreached micro people group over the next four years. We are SBC.
I guess my question is this … Must a Southern Baptist church identify itself, by name (on the sign), in order to be a truly Baptist church?
Obviously, I don’t think so.
Names, particularly church names, are important. But how descriptive must they be? Consider the names of some common businesses or entities in our culture:
- Target
- McDonalds
- Starbucks
- Best Buy
- Dollar Tree
- Sears
- Wal-Mart
No other descriptions are necessary. These businesses are defined by the products that they sell and the quality of their services. Not by detailed descriptions on their signs.
Should it not be the same with our churches? After all, signs can lie, can they not? We are all familiar with churches that are Southern Baptist in name, but independent, fundamentalist Baptist in attitude and practice. What is truly important is not what is on the “sign” on the outside, but what is truly being “served” on the inside.
At Crossroads we deliberately, intentionally, and strategically chose to leave the word “Baptist” out of our church name. It is our desire to reach (yes … we “target” them) unchurched young adults with children. We found that many of the people in our target group had pretty vivid preconceived notions when they read the word, “Baptist.” Most often, these notions were very traditional (pews, organs, Sunday School, suits & ties, hymnals) … and we are a very non-traditional congregation. Furthermore, we found that even if these young adults have a denominational background, they are not usually loyal to it. They are simply seeking a church where they can connect, be engaged in service, and be equipped to meet the spiritual needs of their families. Also, there are scores of people relocating to our area from the northern states. Again, there are many preconceived notions and misunderstandings regarding Baptists. So, we decided that we did not want the very name of our church to be any kind of barrier for the people were were actually trying to reach. We chose Crossroads Fellowship, because it describes the philosophy and atmosphere of our church. Most often, we just call ourselves, “Crossroads,” and so do the people in our community. It has worked. God has blessed our wonderful, growing church.
The simple reality in Southern Baptist church planting today is that the vast majority of new Southern Baptist church plants do not have the word, “Baptist,” in their name. Though I cannot prove it, I believe that the only reason some church planters include “Baptist” in their new church’s name is because someone holding the funding “purse strings” requires it.
Why are planters starting churches without “Baptist” in the moniker? Why are so many churches changing their names to remove the word “Baptist?” Are they ashamed of their heritage? I really don’t think so. No more that the people of LifeWay Christian Resources or Guidestone Financial Resources. Are they ashamed of the behaviors and “baggage” associated with some churches which call themselves, “Baptist?” Probably so. Or do they simply want to do everything they can to reach the people in their target community? Most definitely.
Personally, I cannot believe that we are still fighting this archaic battle over church names. Yet, here in the deep south of traditional SBC life, this same battle … with all of its arguments, accusations, and mischaracterizations of new church plants … happens every autumn at some associational annual meeting … somewhere …
What makes us truly, “Baptist?” Is it the names on the front of our churches? Or is it the doctrinal stands of our churches?
So what do you think? In your view, am I “on target,” or a “Baptist heretic?” Be honest … trust me, I can take it. 
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Here’s how the worship service went: first song, greeting & announcements, prayer circles (we gathered in groups of 3 – 5 & pray for each other), several songs, offering, message, invitation, out by 12:30pm. The music was blended (1-2 hymns, 2-3 non-hymn worship songs). The man came to visit. I noticed as he walked out that he didn’t look happy. One of our deacons stopped him to tell him we were happy to have him today. He said, “You’re all liars.” The deacons asked, “Why do you say that?” “That ain’t no Baptist church. You’re lying when you put Baptist on the sign.” he replied. In the ensuing conversation, he said that the prayer time, blended worship, and going past 12 noon was not Baptist.
We kept Baptist on the sign. We talked about removing it to reach more people, but decided that for our demographic it wasn’t that important. We also decided that to take it off would send the wrong signal to the rest of our church and our community. We were not a church plant, but an established transitioning church. There was already enough buzz in the community about us, and removing Baptist might have identified us as a separatist movement. My opinion. Do what God tells your church to do. Associate with who God tells you to associate with. I’d probably reapply to the association just to make a point. Then again, maybe I wouldn’t.
Cyle,
Your transitioning of an already established church is an entirely different environment from a new church plant. I can definitely see the wisdom (in a small community) of retaining your name and identity. “Dropping” the word “Baptist” from your name would be difficult, at best.
But your testimony of the man who called you guys “liars” is exactly what I am speaking of when I say that people have preconceived notions when “Baptist” is “on the sign.” Baptists have their notions. People of other backgrounds have distinctly different, yet very vivid, notions of what Baptists are like.
Again I say, what is being taught inside the church is infinitely more important than the name on its front.
I can’t really weigh in on whether SBC churches should have the name “Baptist” on their sign or not. However, when what used to be called the “Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention” changed their name to “Lifeway Christian Resources” then I guess this shows that some in SBC life think we need to re-brand our “product”.
Leaving out the name “baptist” has to be considered on a case-by-case basis but there is certainly quite a few precidents for doing this.
I think an association that won’t allow a church to fellowship with them unless the church has the name “baptist” is going too far.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Roger,
I quite agree that a “case by case basis” is in order. I think that strategy and purpose are the keys to consider.
geoff,
i believe that i would either reapply and ready to hand out what you wrote here, or else speak to it……or else i’d join another association that was not so narrow minded. if you could prove to them that your doctrine was solid and truly sb, then they should have accepeted you all into the association. the close vote would make me wanna try again. the next time, they should let you explain what yall are all about and about the doctrine yall hold to. i think it really might make a difference.
what some of you need to understand out there about w. ky and w. tn…is that landmark baptist had a great influence in this area. it’s hard to overcome.
david
David,
There is absolutely no way that we can apply again. The people of our church were too deeply wounded. And, in the end, if our church was not wanted, then my people found it difficult to imagine why we would ever need to be part of such a structure.
To all -
I didn’t intend for this to be a conversation solely about my church’s experience. What about the “Baptist in the name” issue? Is this as big a deal in the SBC as I perceive it to be?
I think that it is a big deal for existing churches, and less and less a deal for church plants. However, I think that it matters more in rural than urban areas. It also matters whether you are trying to reach existing Baptists or not. If you are, you should have it in your name. If you’re not, don’t put it in your name.
I think that requiring the word Baptist to be in the name is an absolutely insane stance to take. Good grief.
Cyle,
We really do not have a strategy or desire to reach “existing Baptists.” It has been our experience that many people who relocate here from other geographic areas are more inclined to visit or investigate our church because of our name. We believe that is a good thing.
But I believe that you are on to something with the urban / rural comparison. Our rural / small town setting is, most likely, a significant part of the problem with our acceptance within parts of the local Baptist community. The mindsets in our divergent cultures are VERY different.
Bernard,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Just curious … are you from an urban or more rural setting.
Geoff,
IMHO, it matter a great deal to some, a little bit to others, and still others couldn’t care less. Back in the 1970’s Thom Wolf went to pastor the First Southern Baptist Church of East Los Angeles. It was a dying congregation in a predominately Hispanic community. They decided the first thing they needed was a name change. Since the church was physically located on Brady Avenue, they changed the name to The Church on Brady. That’s when it began to take off.
More recently, with the IMB in West Africa, there has been a big stink because our missionaries were planting churches that didn’t have the label “Baptist” on them. When we first arrived in West Africa in 1998, we were told to “do whatever it takes” to reach our people group. We partnered with the missionaries from Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA). The CMA missionaries were leery about joining with us, because in the past, we had insisted on ruling the roost and making everything Baptist. We promised it wouldn’t be the same this time. To make a long and sad story short, an IMB missionary family were going to be fired on trumped up charges of insubordination because they wouldn’t NOT work with CMA! Their ‘case’ was taken past the regional leadership to the Office of Overseas Operations at the Board and they were allowed to keep their jobs. They later resigned anyway.
All this to say: in reality, our denominational labels will fall off going to heaven or burn off going to hell.
It was so important to my church that we identify with the SBC that back in the late 70’s or early 80’s, they changed the name of our church from “Immanuel Baptist Church” to “Immanuel Southern Baptist Church”. While some of that same sentiment is still there, given the opportunity to do it all over again, I don’t think they would have changed it.
I, too, find it extremely fascinating that the SS Board and the Annuity Board are no longer Baptist by label and we no longer have “Baptist” Bookstores. I think it probably bothers some of the older generation, but for me, in mid-life, I honestly don’t care. I KNOW it doesn’t bother the younger generation.
I do find it quite un-Christlike for your association to snub you guys. I cannot imagine such a thing in my association. It is perhaps, one of the greatest rural associations there is! (Muskogee Baptist Association, Oklahoma)
Rick Boyne
pastor
Immanuel Southern Baptist Church
Wagoner, OK
Rick,
Good word. And an excellent analysis. Indeed, the “Baptist” designation is critical to some and irrelevant to others.
I think I’m going to claim this statement of yours: “Our denominational labels will fall off going to heaven or burn off going to hell.”
I wish I had thought of that.
In reality, I do not think our experience was entirely unique.
And I would be curious about funding issues for church plants as they relate to “Baptist” in the name. Are there any state conventions or associations that require such to get funding? Out of sheer curiosity I would like to know. If any commenters need to remain anonymous, I understand.
Geoff,
If I were there at that meeting, I would have pitched a shoe after the vote. I would have asked the Scriptural reasons for your inadmission. Then I would probably have proposed that we at least continue your church in watchcare. In all liklihood, when that failed, I would have joined you in leaving that association. I may be speaking out of turn, but I believe that so would my entire church membership. If all attempts failed to admit you, that would prove to me that that association had failed. If this is residual Landmarkism then that association is in trouble already. Landmarkism is a doctrine of men and is heretical. The idea that putting the name Baptist in a churches name makes it doctrinally sound is naive at best.
Church plants need to seek God’s will with its sending church or agency and do what God leads that congregation to do in its area of ministry. If the church is doctrinally Baptist, it should be allowed in the association. I think one issue to be addressed with each church without Baptist in the name is how that church relates to the SBC. You’re clearly a cooperating Baptist church. Some, I have found, are not really cooperating churches. If a church is SBC just so the pastor can get insurance & retirement, then that’s a different issue. If the church says it is Baptist, but its doctrine is not, that is another issue.
Cyle
Geoff,
I agree to what David shared in that some regions of the country still have a perception issue with what a “Baptist” church should look like – and it will continue to be a struggle to overcome. I am not familiar with your neck of the woods but in our association, York Baptist Association – York County, SC, we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. Of the 60+ churches in our association we have several churches without the “Baptist” name and one SC Baptist church plant that meets at the associational offices named Word of Grace Community, which utilizes the Family Integrated Church model.
It’s sad that we seem to hang on to our traditions when change is evident and needed when the culture around us is changing. IMO, if we continue to hang on to a name we will continue to see churces dying.
Geoff – in closing I am sorry to hear about your church’s experience. I have been encouraged by your posts about what God is doing in your congregation. Please continue to be used by God in your community and people will come to see that names don’t matter but relationships do matter.
God Bless, Sam.
Cyle,
I decided to keep my shoes on.
Your “money” Comment: “The idea that putting the name Baptist in a churches name makes it doctrinally sound is naive at best.”
Sam,
A great testimony! And thanks for the encouragement.
Geoff,
You are welcome to “claim” it, but I seriously doubt it is mine. I’ve been using it for years, but, afterall, nothing is original anymore!
Brother Geoff,
I was not going to respond because I felt the thread was heading in a way that was not what you asked. Since you have re-directed the thread, then I will be glad to throw my narrow-minded views. :>)
Seriously, If you have done the demographic studies and have them as your facts, then stand on them. Your studies validate your theory and you obviously are doing something to reach people. I, would probably be one that would desire to see you place “Baptist” in your name, but I would not cast a vote against your joining the assoc. Especially after the credentials committee expressed their comfort with your church’s doctrine.
Why my concern with “Baptist” missing? It has nothing to do with landmarkism. I am one that believes, and I believe you will agree with me on this, what we take lightly today we loose tomorrow. While the name “Baptist” identifies a denomination, it also identifies a Scriptural doctrine. If I am today trying to reach people that are turned off by the denomination, thus I remove the name, will I be as strong when presenting the doctrine before them? The doctrine is clearly associated with the denomination.
Some of the people, and I do not know the statistics, being reached by many church plants are those who left the “Baptist” church and vowed never to return to a “Baptist” church. For example say that Walmart begins refusing to take back items you purchased without a sales receipt. Many will be turned off and stop going to Walmart. However, many will continue to come back because there are no Target stores anyplace around. But ones a Target store moves in look out. Those who left tell those who are unhappy and the two groups become loyal customers to Target.
We need to face somethings in SB life. I believe this is happening in SB life today with church plants that will not use the name “Baptist”. These folks that were “hurt by ‘Baptist’ churches” are the ones that are placing the bad light on the name Baptist. Then along comes a church that holds to the same doctrines, but do not have “Baptist” in their name and they are the best thing since sliced bread. It is like this new church plant becomes the thing to be and do. Many times you can see this portrayed in the words of those planting the churches. Sometimes it is spoken and other times it is not. It does appear that many church plants speak down about traditional churches, but expect the traditional established churches, that may not be as active in their physical involvement of missions, but gives a truck load of money to missions, to fund any and everything just because someone thinks it is a good idea. When the traditional church does exactly what the church plant promotes (voting with your money) the church plant seems to get upset and chastise the traditional church as being backwards and stuck in the 1950′s.
I am not against church plants that do not use the name “Baptist”. I do not agree, but I am not against them. What I do have concern about though is directly related to doctrine. What will be dropped next? If removing the name, which is clearly tied to doctrine, was done because it presented a negative experience, will we remove the senior adults because they are old and cantankerous? (that is an exaggeration)
Sorry for the lengthy comment, but you asked. Also, you said you were a big boy. Not trying to be harsh, just stating my feelings. Besides, you just came off of some down time you should be able to handle this. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I can most definitely handle it.
You said, “While the name “Baptist” identifies a denomination, it also identifies a Scriptural doctrine.” … and … “If removing the name, which is clearly tied to doctrine …”
I guess I just don’t see the innate, organic connection that you assume between name (Baptist) and content (doctrine). I would submit that there are plenty of doctrinally sound churches out there that do not have “Baptist” in the name. I would go so far as to say that there are plenty of doctrinally solid churches that are not Baptist.
And, after all, doesn’t the Westboro Baptist Church that protest the funerals of our American servicemen killed in combat? I daresay their doctrine is somewhere in the realm of “Looney Tunes.” Yet they have “Baptist” in the name.
I think you are mildly misinterpreting the reasoning that prompts some to not include “Baptist” in the name of new church plants. It is not simply to reach those who have been hurt or ostracized by Baptist churches (though that does comprise a significant, reachable, recoverable “target group” in the Southern United States) it is an effort to reach a generation that is not identified by labels, denominational or otherwise.
Again I say, the content (doctrine, teaching, missions, authenticity) is tantamount to the sign on the front of the building. The content is what it is. You cannot argue with it. Signs can lie.
Geoff,
I wrote a prodigiously profound post early this morning that got kicked out by my ISP. Oh, well. Most of it has already been said here by others.
But here is a thought. In the reforming of the NAMB Church Planting Group, it would be good if someone there heard these types of stories and was able to assign someone to be an advocate for new church plants in these situations. If your state convention cannot resource you in this way, perhaps someone in CP at NAMB could provide documentation on names of new churches, why “baptist” is not required in the name by NAMB, and some thoughts on what it means to really be baptist. Also, there are already many good materials on how churches can support new church plants that your DOM should have distributed to the churches there that would help them be more sympathetic toward your church.
The new “Senior Strategist” (they are using this term instead of vice-president as it sounds more like a mission agency) for Church Planting is David Meacham. I suggest you send him a link. Let’s work so that what happened to you guys doesn’t happen to anyone else.
By the way, I would be glad to call any DOM or church at any time and talk with them about supporting new church plants, in this or any other issue. But then, you knew that.
Roger,
I think a team like that is an excellent idea. The “rub” is making it happen.
Geoff,
I’m sorry for the pain your church experienced and think a blanket decision to only accept churches that have “baptist” on the sign is a wrong decision.
As a pastor in IL where Baptists are not so common, we have kept the name. Here are a couple of reasons why we choose to do so.
First, we would like to change the perception of baptists where it may be wrong or incomplete. We think we are making positive perception changes all the time. Would we reach more people if we left baptist off our name? I’m not convinced we would. I do know that we have some strong, missional sbc churches who leave the name off. Could we encourage the vibrant churches to use the name and the dead or mean churches to remove the name? That might help with perceptions!
Second, we wonder what will happen in the long-term with churches that don’t have the “baptist” name. If Rick Warren moved would Saddleback call an Evangelical Free pastor? Might they cease entirely their affiliation with the sbc? Might other churches who leave out the name be more prone to decide to call a pastor who doesn’t like sbc missions or theology? Those are questions that must at least be considered.
We have started and supported churches which don’t have “baptist” on the sign. We would not keep you out of our association for such flimsy reasoning. I do think we ought to at least consider the long term result of our choices and appreciate you asking the question. Doug Munton
Doug,
Good word … and thanks for the comment.
Those are valid concerns. With regard to the first, I think it admirable that you desire to “change the perceptions.” That is, clearly, your call for your ministry environment.
Second, the way we insure the doctrinal integrity and the calling of an SBC pastor is through our Constitution and Bylaws. The requirements are there … in writing. Along with our doctrinal statements, and a reference to adherence to the BF&M 2000.
Interestingly, during our application/affiliation process, I recall that the DOM of this local association commented that we were the only SBC church in this area that named the BF&M 2000 in our constitution.
Brother Geoff,
Maybe I did not clearly identify what I was trying to say. By referencing “Baptist” along with denomination, but also defining a doctrine, I did not mean an all encompassing doctrine. I meant specifically. Baptist identifies a denomination but also identifies the doctrine of baptism by immersion. What I am saying is that some go to churches and we have even debated this issue with SB circles because they do not desire to be baptized by immersion. Without the name “Baptist” in the churches name, it is easier to allow this doctrine to be negated because someone in 2 generations might say; “we are not “Baptist” and they would have a legitimate argument.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
The argument about not putting Baptist in a church name leading to non-Baptist doctrine is an interesting one, but in all my experience as a church planter and strategist, I have never seen this become an issue. Besides, we are not talking about taking Baptist out of the church name. We are talking about never putting it in. A church planter gets a vision from God for a unique sort of fellowship that compliments rather than competes with the local body of Christ. This may include imagery or ideas that make their way into the name. In Geoff’s case, their church is called Crossroads Fellowship. This has doctrinal ties to the cross (salvation through Christ), a crossroads (choose you this day whom you will serve…), and fellowship (Acts 2, 4). These are all pretty important biblical concepts which are not even mentioned in a name like, well, First Baptist. So which is more doctrinally correct?
The answer is that the question is absurd. Names are not doctrinally correct or incorrect. Names do not define. Most First Baptist Churches were not even the first baptist churches in their area. Geer Memorial Baptist Church means nothing to a community who has long since forgotten Mr. Geer. And Beaverdam Baptist Church is neither built on nor in a beaver dam nor targeting buck-toothed, flat-tailed rodents.
Names can be images that inspire, or words that mean something to the congregation like “Sunrise” which sounds hopeful, or “Ekklesia” which means they are like the first-century church in practice and devotion, or can be a place name like “Westside” or “Downtown” or “Arlington Heights” which identifies the church with the community it serves.
As we cannot contain or explain all of our doctrine on a sign (actually shouldn’t we all be called the Church of Jesus Christ? or would that make us sound like the Mormons?), we should explain doctrine at length in a constitution, membership class, or sermon series rather than on a sign and use the sign for a name which is winsome, evocative or just plain welcoming.
NAMB agrees. They fully encourage church planters to choose names that work with the vision God has given them for the new church, whether or not they contain the word baptist. And from Lifeway to Guidestone to Saddleback to Mountain Lake to Elevate to Resonate to my church, Woodland Creek, it seems many Southern Baptists agree that the word Baptist does not have to be on the sign for Baptist doctrine and mission to be in our hearts.
It sounds like you may have some prejudices against church plants. You speak in generalities based on a few experiences with some folks who, it sounds like, are not representing Southern Baptist church planters very well. I am sorry this has been your experience, and would love to introduce you to some devoted, doctrinally sound, church-affirming, pro-SBC church planters. There are lots of them. My hope is that you would give them a chance and listen to the stories behind the names, the hearts of the planters, and the passion with which they have been called. And that they would, in turn, listen to and respect folks like you and me. We have much to learn from each other, that we may be one faithful church, to the glory of God.
Brother Roger,
Thanks for the words. I think we posted on top of each other, but I will not repeat what I said to Brother Geoff.
As for the presumed prejudices I have against church plants, let me assure you that I do not. While I have seen church plants destroy established churches because they targeted a particular church field and planted just across the street, they were two completely different styles of worship. The pastor knew this and thus planted conveniently across the street from the church when he agreed with the association to plant in another community. Neither am I saying that church planters are not doctrinally sound and devoted to the Lordship of Christ. And by no means am I suggesting that just because one does not use the name “Baptist” they are not pro-SBC.
What I am pointing to is the attitude that seems to be portrayed, not by all, but many church planters concerning traditional Baptist churches. While I pass it off as Brother Geoff coming through a bad experience that resulted in not only him but his entire church getting hurt did you notice his language in the original article? He said; “Though I cannot prove it, I believe that the only reason some church planters include “Baptist” in their new church’s name is because someone holding the funding “purse strings” requires it.” This type of statement is what throws many traditional pastors along with the churches they pastor into frantic tizzies.
We do not hold the purse strings. However, it has been proven that traditional churches give more money to CP and Missions. While new church plants say they do missions instead of giving to missions, guess what is going to happen before it is said and done. The funding for Missionaries will dry up to nothing because all of the church plants are sending short-term missionaries to do short-term missions but will not have any missionaries to direct the work after they leave. Also, guess what happens to the less popular regions of the world to evangelize? We will miss it. EVen the IMB has noticed an over abundance of Missionaries in the regions that have the greatest responses to the Gospel.
Having said all of this let me narrow it down to one sentence. I know, the people at Yadkin tell me all of the time that if I were to do this to begin with we would be out by 11:30. :>) Traditional churches needs new church plants. New Church plants need traditional churches. We need each other.
Blessings,
Tim
Geoff,
The way your church was treated was wrong. I understand your reasons for not putting the name “Baptist” in your church name, however, I have to agree with Tim Rogers on this one.
If you’re a Southern Baptist church, then why hide it? Won’t people find that out once they attend? If they’re so opposed to the SBC, why would they remain in your church no matter how contemporary or “non-SBC” you might appear?
Also, what does this practice say about the biblical teaching that “the Lord adds to the body of the church”? Is the absence of a word in a sign going to reduce whom God chooses to add to your church body?
To me, it seems disinegenous to not identify who you are denominationally. If a church is a non-denominational church, fine. However, your church has chosen to voluntarily affiliate with a denomination.
This is only my personal opinion, but it seems that pragmatism is the overriding factor here. The absence of the word “baptist” is seen as a deterrent to church growth and so it won’t “work” there.
Having said all that, if your church came up for a vote in my association, I would gladly vote to the affirmative for you to join the association.
Regards,
Les
Tim,
I agree with your summary statement. What I wish was that there was more dialogue between the two groups. If some established church pastors could hear the reasons why a new church plant wants a different sort of name, they may not jump to the conclusion that the church is not supportive of the SBC. Here in our association, our new churches do support missions with giving to the cooperative program, and outgive many of our older churches by percent and amount.
It would be good if we could get more church planters and churches talking. Because when they do, it is really, really good for both, and for the kingdom.
Les,
You said, “Also, what does this practice say about the biblical teaching that “the Lord adds to the body of the church”? Is the absence of a word in a sign going to reduce whom God chooses to add to your church body?”
Then why market at all? Why pass out flyers? Why plant flowers or make the property attractive? I think God calls us to be faithful in reaching, asking, inviting, and preparing for the folks only He can send us.
George Barna has shown statistically that lost people do not care much about church names. The names are more for the people on the inside. And they can be pretty important so just to tack “Baptist” in there to establish denominational loyalty is a lot to ask. Our church does not have baptist in the name but our people know we are SBC and support that. It shows up on our website, worship guide, bulletin boards, newsletters, documents, and in videos and teaching illustrations. Our folks know our DOM, serve on associational committees, and support SBC missionaries. There are just so many better ways to establish denominational relations than on a 3-word sign out front.
We are not ashamed to be Southern Baptist. But we would be foolish to assume that the world around us understands what Southern Baptist means. So we tell them, answering the questions as we build relationships with them, rather than just let them see “Baptist” on our sign, make assumptions and drive on.
The really interesting thing here is that we have no Scriptural foundation here for the whole discussion. I guess we could reference the party of the circumcision, but that was a doctrine in the early church; not a denomination. The only other guiding reference I can think of that would help, if we’re interested in a Scriptural answer, is Paul’s scolding of the Corinthians for sectarianism in 1 Corinthians. Since there seems to be no Scriptural precedent for this issue, other than Paul’s scolding the sectarianism of the Corinthians, it boils down to a matter of opinion that is steeped in the traditions of men. That said, we’ll still Calvary Baptist Church at the end of the day. Some will stop by because we are Baptist. Some will drive on down the road. If we didn’t have Baptist in the name, the ones who are driving by would stop on in. Being Baptist hopefully means being doctrinally sound. Unfortunately, I have found that is no longer true. And, some who have stopped by in spite of our Baptist name have proven to be some of the most sound and faithful servants we have.
Roger,
Thanks for your spirited response.
Contrary to your response, I don’t believe I said anything about not promoting the church where God has called us.
You ask, “why market at all?”. What you describe as “market” is means through which God works. It’s God that is active and accomplishes His purpose through our efforts as carried out through His strength and wisdom.
It’s not the marketing that does it, it’s God. That’s the major point I wanted to make.
Les
Sorry, guys … I’ve been out for a while. I just spent the last two hours with my youth pastor and one of our youth ministry volunteers. It’s two hours that I greatly look forward to each week.
Tim,
We don’t have to worry about those doctrinal changes “two generations” down the road because our doctrine is safely and clearly stated in a well-worded constitution and bylaws. We don’t need a sign to remind us who we are.
BTW … you said, “Traditional churches needs new church plants. New Church plants need traditional churches. We need each other.”
Well said!! But my experience has been that the plants/planters grasp this concept moreso than the established churches.
And, yes, there are “gatekeepers” in Southern Baptist life who hold “purse strings.” We elected not to engage in that process at Crossroads by not accepting denominational financial support. Our sponsoring church helped us. We, in turn, continue to do the same for other church plants.
Les,
It is not disingenuous. It is simply removing a distinct and real barrier that may keep people from ever actually “darkening our doors.” We are the most transparent church in our community. Our doctrinal stand is available for anyone to read on our web site. We REQUIRE new members to complete a membership seminar/orientation. All of our literature includes the designation, “A Southern Baptist Congregation.” Frankly, I don’t know how more plainspoken we can be about it.
And it’s not pragmatism … just strategy. The pragmatic approach would simply be to call ourselves “Crossroads Baptist Church.” But that would not describe the unique character of our fellowship.
You said … “Also, what does this practice say about the biblical teaching that “the Lord adds to the body of the church”? Is the absence of a word in a sign going to reduce whom God chooses to add to your church body?” Why … you old Calvinist, you …
Cyle,
Amen, and Amen.
Roger,
Great insights, as always.
Les,
I agree with you that God brings them in, and pray that He will pour out his spirit on our churches to make us the kind of place He can entrust with His lost sheep.
Blessings,
Roger
Brothers Roger & Geoff,
We can agree that there needs to be dialog. That dialog should take place at the associational level at least. However, if the NAMB is sponsoring a church plant, as I understand it, the local association approves the plant. If a church out of another association decides to plant a church in a neighboring association, then the local association will never know. But the church doing the planting and providing the funds should, at least, be courteous and speak with the local congregational leaders. I know of one particular church plant that is beginning at a local Elementary School in a neighboring city. At our Pastor’s Prayer Breakfast, the Pastor of the local established church found out about this church plant at the breakfast. He had no idea until that breakfast. Did he need to know in order to approve of the church plant? No! However, when a new church moves in 100 feet from the doorstep of an existing church and that church is in the same denomination, a little courtesy would go a long way.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Agreed. A new church planter should always “make the rounds” and meet the local pastors, not just to be courteous but also to learn from them about the community and discern who they are reaching and who they cannot reach. A new church should compliment the existing body of Christ in an area, not replicating their ministry but expanding on it, serving new folks in new ways and reaching a new people group. And the two churches, old and new, should bless each other any way they can.
Geoff:
Sorry for your painful experience. If it weren’t such a long drive to the annual meeting, I’d suggest you affiliate with the Mid-South Association in Memphis. We have had some of the discussions described in this thread, but fortunately, have not denied affiliation on the basis of the word “Baptist.” Our newest churches are Grace Church, Journey Church, the Neighborhood Church and the Impact Baptist Church. All are Southern Baptist,affirm the BF&M 2000, and have been accepted into the fellowship…though there was discussion about the issues you have raised. I believe our Association, and most Suthern Associations, will have to visit and re-visit this discussion at numerous points along the journey. Praying that we get to the day where church DNA is more of an identifyer than the card we carry or the sign we have in the yard.
Geoff (and others):
I’m sorry for painful experience. But as a pastor of an SBC church in the NW Convention I just have to say that it seems that you folks in the south are from a different planet. As I read the blogs I sometimes sit in absolute amazement at the amount of time and money wasted on the stupidest things.
Voted down because the name “Baptist” is not in a non-existent sign. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
And here I am wasting my time reading this and responding.
Mike,
I guess the drive down would give me the chance to visit the in-laws! I’m glad to hear about the attitudes in your association.
Thanks for the invite.
Keith,
We are the B(aptist)org … you will be assimilated … resistance is futile …
Geoff:
I have noticed the similarities!
Geoff,
We started our church plant in Albany, NY with the name Baptist in it because I believe Baptist distinctives are important and (most importantly) biblical. However, about six months in, I discovered it was a serious hindrance. First, while we are in an area that is 80-90% unchurched, we learned that they still identified themselves with a specific denomination. When I said, “I’m from Immanuel Baptist,” they would say, “thanks, but I’m Episcopalian/Methodist/Catholic or whatever.” In reality what they meant was that grandma was Episcopalian/Methodist/Catholic or whatever. We dropped it from our name and have seen a dramatic difference.
To address what Les said, the issue is breaking down the initial barrier to get them in the door. We don’t hide that we are SBC. We are leading one of our small groups through the BFM study right now. Never once have I had anyone accuse us of deceiving them.
I agree with Keith on this one. This is yet another example of a great problem in the SBC: we talk a lot about missions, but many of us are so unable to perceive life outside of the South, that we are unwilling to think missionally at all. We’ve run into this time and again over the last three years in our church plant in dealing with churches in the South.
Brad,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I don’t recall that you have commented before. An excellent insight from a church planter outside the South! Your personal illustration proves my point and clearly demonstrates the concept.
Indeed, the so many of us in SBC churches in the south have a distinctly myopic southern worldview. And many cannot understand why that worldview does not transcend cultures.
I wish every one of our pastors could be trained in cross-cultural church planting and evangelism … then they would realize that vastly different cultures already exist within their own communities.
One word: CONTEXTUALIZATION!
BTW … your name sounds very familiar. Any chance that we have met?
Geoff
When I have moved to different places, we have driven right by several SBC churches because we thought they were non-denominational churches. We couldn’t seem to find a church fit for us and did not visit the ones that did not say SBC.
After a while, we found out that there were other SBC churches in the area and eventually joined a couple (not at the same time!!!).
With no affiliation on the sign, even very small, I think where you might reach disgruntled Baptists and people that have no denominational affiliation you might also miss some very active servants of God that will pass you by.
Liz
Liz,
I don’t know about reaching any disgruntled Baptists … they tend to find another SBC church to exercise their disgruntledness.
There may, indeed, be a few faithful relocated Baptists who fail to find churches not identified as Baptist by name. But a quick call to a local association could solve that. They are always glad to connect newcomers with their churches.
We solve that problem by placing a piece of mail in the hands of every newcomer to our three immediate ZIP codes. We accomplish that through a service called Details Direct out of Birmingham. We basically “own” the rights to first contact in these ZIPS through D.D. That way, everyone knows that we are “A Southern Baptist Congregation.” (For those who see that as important.)
Good insights, Liz.
Geoff,
Thank you for the welcome. As usual, I arrived late to the discussion.
I don’t believe we have met, though I would welcome such an occasion. I did have the pleasure of meeting Bart Barber recently when he came through our area. So, if you ever get to make it to upstate NY, and autumn is the time to do it, I’d be glad to make your acquaintance.
God bless you in your church plant. As someone recently said: if the fifties come back into vogue many of those churches that would reject yours will be well positioned to reach the culture. Until then, however, keep reaching out.
I will remain SBC because of the CP and our strong stand on the innerrancy of scripture. But I remember a number of students in my church planting classes at SEBTS having the attitude that all it will take to reach the Northeast and Northwest is just to transport the Mississippi church of their youth northward. I’m more or less from NY, having lived here 20 of my 31 yrs, but one of the funniest moments for me came when I had a South Carolina student arguing with me that NY was an hour ahead in time zone (the Atlantic time zone?) and only got 5 hours of daylight in the Winter (maybe he was confusing us with Alaska?)
Brad,
I’ve never done any work upstate. I did lead a World Changers project in 2002 and a PowerPlant project in 2003 Cornwall, Ontario. I did cross over into the upstate … went to Syracuse for something … can’t remember.
I worked with a pastor from New York on the PowerPlant project. I can’t remember his name. I just remember he was red-haired and had a house full of kids (like 8 or 10). Do you know who I’m talking about?
As to the, “Everyone should be doing ‘southern fried” Baptist church … it’s the biblical way …” attitude, I am all too familiar with it. Such attitudes come from myopic ministry experiences and a lack of mission action.
Thanks for your service and for boldly living the Gospel on your mission field.
Geoff
I think you might be referring to Sean Pierce. He fits that description. He pastored someplace in Northern NY and in Vermont and is now our Director of Associational Development in the Hudson Baptist Association.
That’s him! Sean Pierce!
I figured you knew him. Tell him I said, “Hi!”
They did you a favor. A HUGE favor. Take the money you would have sent to them, and use it on local missions of your own leading (as opposed to the association’s leading). Use this as an impetus, right or wrong, to continue to grow and reach people. Then, when you are a large congregation, and the association wants you to join, you can say, “thanks but no thanks.”
It may not be the right motive, but it works for me!
Jasonk,
Yep, those motives may be a bit on the questionable side…
We have, indeed, made changes in our investments. We already have a tremendous presence in our community as a church that does meaningful ministry.
So, elaborate a bit. Why do you think they did us such a HUGE favor?
Well, don’t tell anyone I said this, but…The local Baptist association is a bit of a dinosaur, I think. There was a time when the association was necessary, but with the exception of some extremely rural areas, they are no longer necessary. They are organizations going about looking for excuses to exist. Your church was a victim of that expression.
Because you are not a part of the problem, you are now part of the solution. Your church will thrive without the benefit of associational affiliation, and will become proof that the association is obsolete. Their refusal to acknowledge your validity as a church will lead to their own undoing. Sweet.
For the record, I am not a prophet, nor is my dad :>)
Jasonk,
Pretty blunt, but … then again, I did ask you to elaborate.
I must admit that we have thrived without an associational affiliation.
Geoff and Jason,
I would encourage you guys to look beyond your own experience in this. I don’t believe the association is always obsolete, especially for pastors in trouble, ethnic churches, and in new work areas. Many have become irrelevant but many others are cutting-edge, godly and have made quite an impact. I know when I was serving in Maine with churches two hours apart, we appreciated the association and how it brought us all together.
Besides, are you advocating not gathering together or cooperating together with like-minded churches? Or just a more informal “association” without a lot of rules or employees?
I, for one, think we need more “association” together. Maybe not the judgemental attitudes, the Robert’s rules of order, and the committees. No way. But we do need each other, have much to learn from each other, and can do more together than we can separately. I just think it is sad that Geoff’s association did not see that. It is their loss, but it is also the kingdom’s loss, I think.
Roger,
I didn’t say it! Jason did!
I quite agree that we need more association and cooperation … but without all of the trappings of legalism, committees, exclusion, etc…
And thanks for taking this comment thread over the 50 threshold. A first for sbc IMPACT!
Glad to help. Being long-winded kind of goes with the call to preach…
Unfortunately, even when we organize informally, over time there is a need or desire for more structure, thus employees, committees or teams, goals, plans, events, etc.
We have to constantly be vigilant to keep things simple.
I think I qualified my statement on the nature of associations by saying that there are certain areas where they are still necessary–extreme rural areas being one example, but new work areas, and places not considered traditional SBC regions.
However, there are areas in southern states, Oklahoma being one of them, where the association office is six blocks from the state convention. There are churches here that drive further to get to their association office than others, because they want to be in a different association.
I see associations that have fat payrolls, yet do very little that is not busywork, trying to justify their own existence. The proof is in the pudding–when DOMs started insisting on being referred to as “executive directors,” the jig was up. Executive Director of what? If each SBC church is truly autonomous, then they are ED of not much.
Now, do we need more fellowship, accountability, cooperation, and association with one another? Sure! But not in the way it has been done traditionally. Its just not necessary anymore.
Jason,
I agree. There is so much waste and aggrandizement in our Convention in associations, state conventions and churches, I hardly know where to start. I cannot solve this problem, but I can pray. And I do.
I just don’t want to lionize the godly, faithful Associational Missionaries who are planting churches, encouraging pastors, mentoring young leaders and provoking churches to good works in Christ. There are many doing this, not as many as you or I would like, but many. Let us not discourage them by looping them in with the rest who merely see a DOM job as a chance to get paid in retirement.
Perhaps we should take away funding for some associations who are not fruitful and give it to places like Atlantic Canada, where they need associations and cannot afford them. But who would make that happen?
[...] Geoff Baggett related in a guest post on sbc IMPACT! how his local association spurned his fledgling church plant because it didn’t have the word “Baptist” on the sign. [...]
[...] Geoff Baggett related in a guest post on sbc IMPACT! how his local association spurned his fledgling church plant because it didn’t have the word “Baptist” on the sign. [...]
As an Associational Missionary in a missions area, I am thankful that the “die-hard traditionalist” mindset does not seem to rule in the area of church names in out association or state convention.
The important areas to consider are doctrine and cooperation. The reasons you gave for not including “Baptist” in your name are the reasons why a number of the churches in our Baptist Association do not use “Baptist” in theirs. I believe that the strategic decision to be focused on reaching people is the right one. There are too many “Baptist” Churches who have camped out on sideline issues and have forgotten that they need to be about the Lord’s work of seeking and saving the lost.
By the way, I believe that the Associational Missionary (DOM) needs to take the lead in matters like this one. Did your DOM speak up on this matter to guide in a Biblical way? I believe that I would make another effort to be a part of the local association. Talk to the DOM and talk to the pastors of the churches to discuss the issue. Being a part of a local network or association of churches could prove to be helpful in your church carrying out the Great Commission in the future.
George,
Thank you so much for your visit and your comment. As a missionary on the North American “frontier,” you understand the missional decision for our name.
The DOM in our situation was, in a word, blindsided. He is a fine man, and we are friends. When the vocal resistance began in the meeting, both he and the credentials committee stated (over and over) the fact of our doctrinal stance. Our cooperation was beyond question. But closed minds had already been made up.
As far as making another effort to affiliate, I just don’t see that happening. The slap of rejection stung deeply. I don’t think I could ever expect our congregation to submit itself to that again. I quite think that the “ball” in in “their court.”
I think associations are useful if. . .
If they are cooperating to plant churches.
If this cooperation includes their own finances.
If they are helping one another become more effective churches as they reach the unreached in their communities and among all nations.
If they are led by Directors of Missions who direct missions rather than serving as some sort of Baptist Bishop to the pastors. The pastors may expect that and a few may want it, but it is neither helpful nor biblical to serve in a way contrary to God’s design. (This statement is notwithstanding a pastor’s personal desire for counsel from a trusted advisor such as a DOM.)
I hope my comment is helpful coming at the tail end of such a long list of good comments.
Shane