Response:
Thanks for your letter. I do not believe that a church MUST have
Baptist in the name in order to be a New Testament church. There are
several churches that I am familiar with that do not have Baptist in the
name, yet take a strong stand on historic Baptist doctrine and
practice. By the same token, there are any number of churches from
various "Baptist" conventions and associations that call themselves
Baptists, but do not have any concept of Biblical truth.
However, I am curious as to why a church would not want to be identified
with the historic (and Biblical) name of Baptist. Some argue that the
name Baptist may carry a bad connotation in their area. However, the
names "Bible Church" or "Community Church" certainly carry connotations
of wishy-washy doctrine throughout much of Fundamentalism. Whatever
name is chosen will tell the community how the church believes. I
personally would rather go with a name that has a historical connection
to sound Biblical teaching.
Some say that even though they may not have Baptist in the name, that
the church is "Baptistic". Names identify you as to who you are. When
my wife married me, she took the name Montgomery. She did this because
she wanted to be identified with me. She did not keep her maiden name,
but tell everyone that she was "Montgomeryistic". She took the name of
what she was: a Montgomery.
Others say that churches should choose a "neutral" name (Bible,
Community, Open Door, etc.), so that they can better attract the
unchurched who may be put off by Baptists. However, I do not find any
place in the Scriptures where we should attempt to attract the unsaved
through deception (Matt 5:37: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea;
Nay, nay"). I also do not believe that the primary place of evangelism
is to be within the local church. Again, the New Testament example is
that people go out from the church, win the lost, and then bring them
into the church to be baptized and discipled. If we are going to teach
the new convert Baptist doctrine, why not do it in a Baptist church?
One more thought. If we are going to water down our name to appease the
unbelievers, what else will we someday water down to appease them? A
quick examination of contemporary "evangelicalism" shows that there has
been a great increase of churches with "neutral" names. However, many
of these churches have also tailored their services so as to not offend
the unsaved once they come into the church. How can we preach a message
that men are sinners, condemned to Hell, and completely unable to save
themselves, without being offensive? I Peter 2:8 calls Christ Himself
"a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence". Most men that I know who
have removed Baptist from the original name of their church so as to not
be offensive have also removed important Biblical teaching. The
philosophy of being acceptable to the unregenerate is a slippery slope
indeed!
I hope this gives you some food for thought. You can be a Baptist
church and not have it in the name. However, I would question why a
church would want to go that way. Perhaps they are not really as
Baptistic as they think they are.
May the Lord bless you.
|
By Dr Mark Montgomery
Ambassador Baptist Church
1926 Babcock Blvd
Pittsburgh, PA 15209
(412)477-3210
|