If You Started a Church from Scratch ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim
  • Start date Start date
T

Tim

Guest
Would you label it "Independent Baptist" or would you distance yourself from this label? Instead of Baptist in the title, perhaps you would go with Bible or something like that.
 
Tim said:
Would you label it "Independent Baptist" or would you distance yourself from this label? Instead of Baptist in the title, perhaps you would go with Bible or something like that.
Click to expand...

When I came to our church 32 years ago, we had 8 adults meeting in a house. I was privileged to help organize, structure and name the church. In 1982 we never considered leaving Baptist out of the name.

If I were starting today, I probably would approach the SBC for support and encouragement, and would not put Baptist in the name...it bears some stigma even in our Bible Belt community, especially among the 20-30 somethings.
 
Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.
 
If you were to get married today, would you label yourself "husband and wife" or go with something a little more palatable for the 20-30-something community?

I am a Baptist and a bride.    :)

Not a Baptist Brider, though.    ;D

 
I am a Christian.  That label is enough for me.
 
Tom Brennan said:
Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.
Click to expand...

So does that mean if you don't label yourself IFB, you don't believe in anything? 
 
bruinboy said:
So does that mean if you don't label yourself IFB, you don't believe in anything?
Click to expand...

No. But it does mean if you won't label yourself anything you either don't believe anything or don't want people to know what you believe.
 
Twelve years ago my husband and I started a church in our living room. since we are Baptist, it had the Baptist name. If we were starting a church today, it would still be Baptist.
 
Absolutely not.  The idea that if you're not labeled that you must either not believe anything or are trying to hide what you believe is a false bit of logic.  I'm guessing Paul didn't spend much time trying to name churches. 

The churches that are busy winning the lost aren't necessarily the trendy-sounding churches, but many times they seem to be.  I think that shows that for those that are winning the lost the name of their congregation takes a back seat to evangelism and outreach. 
 
rsc2a said:
I am a Christian.  That label is enough for me.
Click to expand...
It was a fine label when it was clearly understood and meant something. For example, Christian didn't simply mean believer, but was synonymous with disciple.

Today it means "other than heathen" to many people.

To others it simply means "believer", or "born again person".

It would be naive to suggest that "Christianity" has not split and fractured along many important doctrinal lines.

So, Christian is insufficient today to identify me. If I say Christian, do I mean Mormon Christian, JW Christian, Church of Christ Christian, Catholic Christian, or.........?

Independent Baptist or IFB is much more of a descriptive label. Independent, as in not denominationally attached, Fundamental to me means less "I believe in the 5 fundamentals of the faith" (Although I do, but it is certainly not the limit of what I believe, or the limit of what I consider Fundamental) and more "we practice what we preach" or "conservative" and Baptist describes a particular set of doctrines which I not only believe by conviction, but defend as being authouritatively correct in spite of other doctrines other "Christians" may believe. Non-optional beliefs.
 
Marcus Constantine said:
Absolutely not.  The idea that if you're not labeled that you must either not believe anything or are trying to hide what you believe is a false bit of logic.  I'm guessing Paul didn't spend much time trying to name churches. 

The churches that are busy winning the lost aren't necessarily the trendy-sounding churches, but many times they seem to be.  I think that shows that for those that are winning the lost the name of their congregation takes a back seat to evangelism and outreach.
Click to expand...
The name of the church doesnt mean anything to the lost. It does to the saved. It should identify the doctrine and practice that occurs among the lives of the people there. It helps me short list potential churches to visit or join. The lost could care less if it is called First Baptist Church or Grace Community.
 
Tom Brennan said:
Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.
Click to expand...
There are, unfortunately, other options.
1. Others have shamed the IFB label so badly, that it may hurt the cause of Christ, in this internet savvy age.

2. The IFB of this generation don't believe what the IFB used to.

3. The 'F' in IFB is from a movement, and that movement is stalled out, and splintered.

Anishinaabe

 
I am sold on the house church movement. No real expenses as it meets in a house and when it gets to big, start another house church.
 
Tim said:
Would you label it "Independent Baptist" or would you distance yourself from this label?
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't see that being "independent" is in the cards, even, in the long run.

Jesus prayed that his church would be one. Joining with like-minded churches in a Bible-believing denomination brings that prayer one church closer to being answered. Complaints about "denominations" make no sense, once you realize that every "independent" church is merely one more denomination unto itself.
 
Ransom said:
Tim said:
Would you label it "Independent Baptist" or would you distance yourself from this label?
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't see that being "independent" is in the cards, even, in the long run.

Jesus prayed that his church would be one. Joining with like-minded churches in a Bible-believing denomination brings that prayer one church closer to being answered. Complaints about "denominations" make no sense, once you realize that every "independent" church is merely one more denomination unto itself.
Click to expand...
So, what authourity does you denomination hold over it's member churches?
 
ItinerantPreacher said:
So, what authourity does you denomination hold over it's member churches?
Click to expand...

It is a voluntary association. All member churches are autonomous to manage their own business, choose their leaders, and own their property.

The denomination credentials leaders, plants churches, provides ministry resources (such as publications, seminars, education, and consultations) and group financial resources (such as health and retirement programs). They have no control over the affairs of the local church apart from requiring member churches to have credentialed pastors and agree with the doctrines and standards of the denomination, such as are agreed upon by the membership.
 
groupie said:
I am sold on the house church movement. No real expenses as it meets in a house and when it gets to big, start another house church.
Click to expand...
Certainly is no reason to incur debt up front, is there?
In fact, there is no record of a single
cent being collected in the Churches in Scripture for the purpose of paying for corporately owned property.

Anishinaabe

 
Ransom said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
So, what authourity does you denomination hold over it's member churches?
Click to expand...

It is a voluntary association. All member churches are autonomous to manage their own business, choose their leaders, and own their property.

The denomination credentials leaders, plants churches, provides ministry resources (such as publications, seminars, education, and consultations) and group financial resources (such as health and retirement programs). They have no control over the affairs of the local church apart from requiring member churches to have credentialed pastors and agree with the doctrines and standards of the denomination, such as are agreed upon by the membership.
Click to expand...
This is where things fall apart. Gaining consensus on what constitutes credentialed and what constitutes "disagreeing" with the doctrines and standards of the denomination. 
 
ItinerantPreacher said:
This is where things fall apart. Gaining consensus on what constitutes credentialed and what constitutes "disagreeing" with the doctrines and standards of the denomination.
Click to expand...

Well, except that things haven't fallen apart.

What constitutes "credentialed" is that a pastoral candidate passes an examination given him by a committee.

What constitues "disagreement" is non-agreement with the tenets of the doctrinal statement.

See, things don't fall apart when people don't try to lawyer them apart by disputing definitions of common words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top