Name change at my church

[FredVB]

I have been going to a Baptist church for years. Where I attend was the second Baptist church that I have attended regularly, and when I started posting in CF I had been going to that first one for years. The one I have been going to up until now was with the American Baptist churches previously, but with other churches they split from those ostensibly over the issue of the American Baptist churches accepting homosexual people among them into church positions. The spliting churches were united under the new name Transformation Ministries, though I never heard anything about it from any while going to this church, and only learned some things about it with checking on this online myself this year. Many churches in their list of their churches have changed their name, to some other name without Baptist being shown in the name. I looked into this when the name of this church I have going to now became known as an issue from the leadership, with the head pastor initiating the name Purpose along with the initials of the name the church had all along in all church materials. Others who involved the church board or other advisory positions objected to this procedure without coming to the church membership for then to vote on this. They then campaigned for a name change, and were very effective among the large youth segment of this multigenerational church, using an argument that Baptists were a bad name among the general population in recent times, and many who would won't come to church there, and there would be people for that reason that would not get saved. This poor argument used faulty understanding of the gospel and what our responsibilities to do are. But the campaign and vote went so quickly I had no time to speak to any about it, and it is a huge church.

I identify with Baptists with going to a Baptist church, otherwise I am a Christian believer without using another term. But I never hear the word Baptist in this church now, an objection to the change by some other was its association with the Purpose Driven church, just before the change I heard the change supported with a claim this church would still be "baptistic".

 

[Bluelion]

Sounds like they are trying to be PC, it really does not matter as long as Jesus is the head. I like that we have preached so much false doctrine we ruin the name, let's get a new name lol some times you just have to laugh.

 

[Tigger45]

I see both Baptist and Assembly of God congregations doing this very thing often lately. I believe they do it to come off less mainstream and more non-denominational. I actually like knowing as much as I can about a particular congregation before even entering their service and their specific denom is a good place to start for me.

 

[Bluelion]

Maybe its time the church go back to its roots where there were not denominations just churches of Jesus. Then we would be as one mind as God said to be.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have been going to a Baptist church for years. Where I attend was the second Baptist church that I have attended regularly, and when I started posting in CF I had been going to that first one for years. The one I have been going to up until now was with the American Baptist churches previously, but with other churches they split from those ostensibly over the issue of the American Baptist churches accepting homosexual people among them into church positions. The spliting churches were united under the new name Transformation Ministries, though I never heard anything about it from any while going to this church, and only learned some things about it with checking on this online myself this year. Many churches in their list of their churches have changed their name, to some other name without Baptist being shown in the name. I looked into this when the name of this church I have going to now became known as an issue from the leadership, with the head pastor initiating the name Purpose along with the initials of the name the church had all along in all church materials. Others who involved the church board or other advisory positions objected to this procedure without coming to the church membership for then to vote on this. They then campaigned for a name change, and were very effective among the large youth segment of this multigenerational church, using an argument that Baptists were a bad name among the general population in recent times, and many who would won't come to church there, and there would be people for that reason that would not get saved. This poor argument used faulty understanding of the gospel and what our responsibilities to do are. But the campaign and vote went so quickly I had no time to speak to any about it, and it is a huge church.

I identify with Baptists with going to a Baptist church, otherwise I am a Christian believer without using another term. But I never hear the word Baptist in this church now, an objection to the change by some other was its association with the Purpose Driven church, just before the change I heard the change supported with a claim this church would still be "baptistic".

In many communities in the United States, Baptist churches are finding it desirable, if not necessary, to remove the name “Baptist” from their name. This is largely due to the fact that Baptists are very often seen by others as being arrogant, hyper-critical, and uncaring people. Indeed, in my community, the Baptist churches are the only churches that do not have any charitable programs.

 

[Goodbook]

Think its rick warrens takeover of existing churches to fit his mould...purpose driven is all about money at the end of the day.

I read his book and was disgusted by it.

 

[FredVB]

I see both Baptist and Assembly of God congregations doing this very thing often lately. I believe they do it to come off less mainstream and more non-denominational. I actually like knowing as much as I can about a particular congregation before even entering their service and their specific denom is a good place to start for me.

The head pastor and leadership in consensus at this church gave clear communication that they promoted this change because the name with "Baptist" in it in today's surrounding culture was keeping people (apparently some people, which I guess was all that was meant, it is a large church and it still grows) away from church, but with a claim I heard said that some will not come to salvation because of that, which I will dispute as such being a heretical position with respect to the gospel. There wasn't emphasis as there should have been to equipping the believers to spread the gospel, as there should have been instead, with that, converts from this could go to any church with believers with fellowship where good preaching includes the biblical gospel of Christ, and should be encouraged for doing so, whether or not they come to this church. Leadership at this church apparently couldn't see it like this. As I said, it happened quickly when it was clear that it would procede that way, I was not given opportunity to be heard by any in that time. Indeed it seems that the name change was toward something hipper, as other churches doing this thing and coming to success in growth was mentioned and that churches without such change are generally failing in growth, not that this was the case with this church, as I was saying. So yes the church is distancing itself from anything of Baptists, Baptists are not mentioned in any communication from it. And I remember in the change it was said for it that the name "Baptist" was a negative for them. So in that it would be nondenominational though that wasn't said. I found out myself about the connection there was with the other churches in that previous breakaway.

Sounds like they are trying to be PC, it really does not matter as long as Jesus is the head. I like that we have preached so much false doctrine we ruin the name, let's get a new name lol some times you just have to laugh.

Yes it did not address that a church could live putting itself with the name it has in a good light with what it does. Apparently the Westboro one gives all Baptist churches a bad name, and instead of living to show Baptist Christianity in a good light, which could be done and I say should be done, instead a name change and moving away from identification with Baptists is chosen. Not speaking for how the gospel should go forth instead, with equipping of believers, did not help for having correct teaching.

In many communities in the United States, Baptist churches are finding it desirable, if not necessary, to remove the name “Baptist” from their name. This is largely due to the fact that Baptists are very often seen by others as being arrogant, hyper-critical, and uncaring people. Indeed, in my community, the Baptist churches are the only churches that do not have any charitable programs.

This is apparently much of what is seen as negative in the term "Baptist" that this church wanted to move from, though this church definitely has ministries to the community here, in many of the areas to approach. It is a rather formal and structured organization though.

Maybe its time the church go back to its roots where there were not denominations just churches of Jesus. Then we would be as one mind as God said to be.

This is what is modeled for churches, as shown by what was under the apostles who were with Christ, when no other example for them as a church came from society around them, in Acts of the Apostles 2:42-47 and 4:32-35. I agree and say this is what there is for churches of believers to come to, with Christ being the head.

Think its rick warrens takeover of existing churches to fit his mould...purpose driven is all about money at the end of the day. I read his book and was disgusted by it.

As I said originally in this thread I heard it said there was this connection, and I saw this link to a site online http://church-video.beforeitsnews.c...lan-to-destroy-your-church-video-2456300.html to show this. This is all I know about such correspondence to what I saw going on, there were a few things in common and it is possible there is some connection, although they won't admit it. But this change was about church growth, though with saying this was the way for some more to be saved, but it was not simply having the gospel of Christ going forth more, which is what there should be, and in which God would give blessing.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure exactly what part of that is your focus, Fred, but many denominations are seeing the same thing happen. They feel that many people think of "pointless bickering" when they see ANY denominational name. That's one reason why so many denominational churches have changed their official names to "Community" or "Family" church. And as for special interest groups within the church adopting some odd name for their cause, that's often a prelude to choosing a new denominational name when they break away formally. I don't know if that's the case with the folks you were referring to in your post, though.

 

[Bluelion]

Fred maybe this is a Good thing. not they are trying to be PC but rather now we are taking out Baptist, Lutheran and so on. maybe one day all churches will just be Church of Christ and we will be one mind. work to one mind.

 

[Goodbook]

Rick warren is all about church growth but he means numbers and church membership so tithes can go in their pockets not souls saved and delievered.

Just warning you, it sounds fishy.

I am not put off by the name baptist. After all, john the baptist was the friend of Jesus. He made straight the paths and is the voice crying in the wilderness. If people are offended, they are dissing Jesus good friend, his best mate and cousin.

 

[Goodbook]

If it has always been baptist, ok, I understand but if its a new church plant thats different. They become non denominational which is fine, but baptist isnt so much a denom as just declaring that people can be baptised into christs body as believers, and this is a congregation of believers...

 

[Goodbook]

The whole point of being called baptist is that those in these church follow the command to repent and be baptised. So having the name just declares to everyone thats what you as believers do and practise. Most baptist churches I know take on the name of the local area so you know where it is.

Although theres many that have names like new hope, or first, or hosanna or some other descriptor. I dont see a problem with that. But personally i like to know where it is!

With other churches i notice they get named after saints, but often people dont even know who the saint is, and some of them arent even in the bible. Baptist churches dont tend to be named after people.

 

[FredVB]

I'm not sure exactly what part of that is your focus, Fred, but many denominations are seeing the same thing happen. They feel that many people think of "pointless bickering" when they see ANY denominational name. That's one reason why so many denominational churches have changed their official names to "Community" or "Family" church. And as for special interest groups within the church adopting some odd name for their cause, that's often a prelude to choosing a new denominational name when they break away formally. I don't know if that's the case with the folks you were referring to in your post, though.

The basis used for the change and the way it was done were both an issue to me, though I don't say anything in church about it now, a few months after, but it is not so resolved for me, to just not care now. Beyond this I am responding to the issues that other posters see with this, some of those do have to do with this. It is not so much what the name is, I have been going to other churches with such different names before. I would be agreeable to not be divisive in the body of Christ. But the change with this was not just that. This wasn't a special interest group with a name they took for themselves it was the leadership of this church with the chief pastor, who is the one almost always preaching for the congregation, the one who the church should be trusting in that, heading this, and having changes for it in church material for distribution, without telling the church or with discussion for it. This was with another branch church in an adjacent city, and for a number of months in church materials the new name Purpose was shown with the initials of the name that the church had all along following it, some there I think saw an issue with that, but it became a big issue when materials for the church then started appearing with the new name without even those initials, with others in the leadership behind this, while this still wasn't addressed with the church, when it was an issue, as the pastor said he had been caught, because the church board had to approach him about this, saying the church had to agree to this for there to be these changes, but rather than really having apology for that he and those with him in this campaigned for it, with giving reasons that I mentioned in the thread, with which I see a problem. This campaigning was greatly successful with the fellowships and study groups of the younger people in this multi-generational church. It certainly affects the whole church there, a large one, together.

Fred maybe this is a Good thing. not they are trying to be PC but rather now we are taking out Baptist, Lutheran and so on. maybe one day all churches will just be Church of Christ and we will be one mind. work to one mind.

I am not against real unity of true churches in the faith in Christ, but not like this and not with throwing away what is of historical value. Negativity was claimed to be seen with Baptists, and there is in fact what is good about Baptists, but rather than emphasizing for that to be shown, and for those in this church to be equipped, for sharing the gospel of Christ with showing Christ and who he is with others, it was said it was important for such others to come to this church, and if the name wasn't changed with the name Baptist which should no longer be included, they wouldn't come and they wouldn't get saved. This is the main argument with which the change succeeded, but as I say it was totally wrong, much like, but the children, won't anyone think of the children?

Rick warren is all about church growth but he means numbers and church membership so tithes can go in their pockets not souls saved and delievered.
I am not put off by the name baptist. After all, john the baptist was the friend of Jesus. He made straight the paths and is the voice crying in the wilderness. If people are offended, they are dissing Jesus good friend, his best mate and cousin.

I mentioned the site with the link that I was shown by another and there are a number of things in common with that agenda so far, but denial of connection to that is there from that leadership. I don't by the way think much of making out there was a special relationship continuing between John and Jesus in their lives.

If it has always been baptist, ok, I understand but if its a new church plant thats different. They become non denominational which is fine, but baptist isnt so much a denom as just declaring that people can be baptised into christs body as believers, and this is a congregation of believers...

This church had a long time, over a century, of being a Baptist church with that in the name they continuously had up until this year.

The whole point of being called baptist is that those in these church follow the command to repent and be baptised. Most baptist churches I know take on the name of the local area so you know where it is.
With other churches i notice they get named after saints, but often people dont even know who the saint is, and some of them arent even in the bible. Baptist churches dont tend to be named after people.

This church does have importance that is shown of baptizing believers and soon when they come to Christ in the faith. It doesn't seem to emphasize repentance like that, from what I hear of it there, but I do, it is essential in the faith. The name it did have was indeed for this city it is in. And now with this change there is no more mention here of Baptist for anything and I don't see any thing for evidence that this church is Baptist as opposed to any Christianity where preaching includes looking at Bible passages.

 

[Albion]

Fred, I'm completely in your corner on this matter. At first, I think I didn't quite understand all that you were saying, but a re-read put that right.

A great wrong was done to the congregation, IMHO, but I don't know what a person like yourself can do about it now. Worse, perhaps, this is the kind of thing that isn't easily reversed, unlike some other kinds of changes for which we might say, "Wait until the next voters' meeting" or "The next pastor will be different."

The fascination with hip names is widespread, and every study that I've seen on the subject indicates that it only results in the church or congregation losing its identify in the minds of the people looking in
--while not succeeding in attracting new members, anyway.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I don't like baptist churches changing to some catchy name. It actually makes me feel dubious of what they teach in them, like there's some sort of odd renewal or fanaticism going on. This is mostly because if you see a church called 'The Supreme Church of the Almighty Jesus' on it, it probably is saturated in eccentricity
They should stick to names like 'Hanover Baptist', or '1st Richmond Baptist'- how it goes with naming a church after the area it is in. Those are the one's that tend to stay the most grounded.

 

[mnorian]

The original post states that the reason this church changed their name was cause of the American Baptist churches allowing homosexual into leadership positions in the church; but then uses another reason to the local congregation as to the name change. This seems disingenuous; if they didn't want to be associated with the American Baptist for this reason; they should say so and maybe change to another affiliation of Baptist, like the Cavalry Baptist; although I don't know if they hold the same opinion.

When I was growing up I went to the Cavalry Baptist churches and always look to them to hold core beliefs and not be swayed by the latest fades that go around in other denominations; and would look on any name change from Baptist with a jaundiced eye.

 

[FredVB]

The original post states that the reason this church changed their name was cause of the American Baptist churches allowing homosexual into leadership positions in the church; but then uses another reason to the local congregation as to the name change. This seems disingenuous; if they didn't want to be associated with the American Baptist for this reason; they should say so and maybe change to another affiliation of Baptist, like the Cavalry Baptist; although I don't know if they hold the same opinion.

There is with this some misunderstanding of what was said in the OP, as there has been. With a more careful look at what was said originally, it may be noticed that the split of this church from the American Baptists happened previously, that is, several years before I started attending there, and that split was with many other churches, with all of them together under the name taken for them, Transformation Ministries. I never heard of all that when I was coming to the church, until this year when the process to change was already happening, I heard something of this group of the separated churches, just one time, and with looking up what I could for it online, I found out these things about the churches of Transformation Ministries. This can be checked. They have a good number among them with their name having Baptist included, but many of those churches don't, and I was seeing in this a trend of these churches distancing themselves from Baptists. The change of the name for this church with the reason written in the post is the main basis that was given there for a majority to agree to have this name change. I agree it is a disturbing sign, a church should not come to something so major without a very major and immediately compelling basis, there was some little bit of scripture used to connect to a basis for such change, but such scripture didn't convince me that it was basis for that, I don't see that there is anything in scripture for basis of any church changing its name, churches in the new testament do identify with in which city they are located, and I do see things there that are in common with changes one is to watch for in a church mentioned in that linked site warning of influence from Purpose Driven movement.

 

[twin1954]

There is with this some misunderstanding of what was said in the OP, as there has been. With a more careful look at what was said originally, it may be noticed that the split of this church from the American Baptists happened previously, that is, several years before I started attending there, and that split was with many other churches, with all of them together under the name taken for them, Transformation Ministries. I never heard of all that when I was coming to the church, until this year when the process to change was already happening, I heard something of this group of the separated churches, just one time, and with looking up what I could for it online, I found out these things about the churches of Transformation Ministries. This can be checked. They have a good number among them with their name having Baptist included, but many of those churches don't, and I was seeing in this a trend of these churches distancing themselves from Baptists. The change of the name for this church with the reason written in the post is the main basis that was given there for a majority to agree to have this name change. I agree it is a disturbing sign, a church should not come to something so major without a very major and immediately compelling basis, there was some little bit of scripture used to connect to a basis for such change, but such scripture didn't convince me that it was basis for that, I don't see that there is anything in scripture for basis of any church changing its name, churches in the new testament do identify with in which city they are located, and I do see things there that are in common with changes one is to watch for in a church mentioned in that linked site warning of influence from Purpose Driven movement.

Are you still attending there? Is there a Baptist church in your area that you can attend? I have no problem with being identified as being a Baptist though it doesn't have to be in the name of the church. The church I now attend is named after the road it is located on not as a Baptist church but it is a Baptist church and makes no apologies for it.

 

[twin1954]

Even that popular church in LA, Grace Community Church where that blathering heretic MacArthur is pastor, doesn't have the name Baptist but identifies itself as Baptist nonetheless.

 

[Albion]

If you don't mind my saying so, there's something strange about that. If a church steadfastly adheres to a certain denomination's beliefs and does preach them, it would seem to make its avoidance of any mention of that fact to the community, by using a generic name, even harder to explain.