Recently, Pastor Greg Locke, a well known speaker among both Independent Fundamental Baptists and some Southern Baptist churches, announced that he is removing “Baptist” from the name of his church. Instead their initials GVBC will now stand for Global Vision Bible Church.
Removing the word “Baptist” from the church name is not an uncommon move. The argument is that removing the name makes the church more accessible to some who would shy away from the Baptist label.
In Locke’s case, it means more than dumping the baggage that the title Baptist holds. Instead, he views it as a departure from the IFB movement as a whole. I wonder how much of this is in part due to the recent 20/20 expose on the IFB movement? Perhaps other pastors and churches need to think through this issue themselves. Understandably, this has caused some shockwaves and Locke’s Facebook page was all abuzz with comments good and bad.
I wanted to share his reasoning for removing the name Baptist, and then ask others to chime in on your thoughts related to this. Personally, I’m a deacon at a Baptistic church, that doesn’t have the word Baptist in our name. Yet I’m not necessarily ashamed of it either. That being said, I do think that “being all things to all men” can definitely include modifying the church name (to some extent). And I’m a Christian more than a Baptist anyway.
Here’s the excerpt from Locke in a letter written for his church, explaining the change:
Here is a list of reasons that I feel this is a very important move:
1. Because of our geographic location (Nashville) 95% of any Baptist church is automatically associated with the SBC. While I have many friends in the Convention, we are not affiliated as a church. I preach in some of the greatest Southern Baptist churches in the country but I believe GV should remain Independent in our structure and governance.
2. The IFB “movement” as a whole is totally out of control and I do not personally wish to be identified with it any longer. Legally, our church will still be Global Vision Baptist Inc., Practically, I am worlds away from where I was even 5 years ago and I cannot in good conscience give my full support to a movement that has become nothing more than a mini controlling denomination. I understand that every “camp” of churches has it’s own issues, but I am unwilling to have GVBC submitted to the dictates of a legalistic mindset of man-made regulations. I preach in dozens of IFB churches, but we desire to be truly Independent, even in our identity.
3. The type of families/people we are reaching could care less about such an issue. I have come to realize that people’s lives are so much more important that the name a church has on the sign. We are the church and if we are not healthy as a body it doesn’t matter what the sign says. So many of our people are brand new Christians or are healing from an experience in the same type of church we are distancing ourselves from.
4. Because of our strong emphasis on Powerful Preaching, the term BIBLE would be much more in line with our DNA and overall vision. People say that to remove “Baptist” will take away our identity. Exactly! I want our identity to be nothing but the Word of God. We didn’t start a church so people “like us” would show up. I want a church that is solely built upon the radical principles of the Book. If people know that there is a place like that, they will flock to it. However, if they merely think we are the same kind of church they grew up in, then we won’t even get them in the door. I don’t want our church identity sabotaged by a loyalty to denomination, movement, camp or tradition. I want all my allegiance to God’s Word.
5. Personally, I’m a very hard guy to put in a box. I feel like I have not been true to who God made me to be and it has caused me much frustration. If I were to start the church over again tomorrow, this would be something I would do from the very beginning. God has done so much in my heart these last few years. But overall, I have allowed this constant “identity crises” to become such a focus that it has greatly affected my judgment and my family. I say “NO MORE”. How foolish I have been to seek so much of man’s approval. I am at a point in my life and ministry that if I can’t be who God made me at GVBC, then I must go somewhere that God can use me without the restraints of others that have nothing to do with our church. However, I know this is where God has placed me and I am positive that this is His leading. I’m not dying on the hill of being “Baptist”. But I will gladly lay down my life for the truth of the BIBLE.
We are going to remain as fundamentally sound as we have ever been. We are not changing Bibles or compromising truth. We will continue to keep a red-hot pulpit and build our congregation on expository preaching, soul-winning and world missions. I am grateful for my IFB heritage, but it will not be my future. If others interpret this as an attack on IFB churches, then they have clearly read between the lines. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”. This is not easy, but I know for us it is right. I love you all. Now, let’s change the sign and reach this town for Christ.
What do you think? I for one, commend a man who doesn’t walk a party line but is willing to follow God’s leading and stand on his own two feet. I also predict the reaction to this may just prove once and for all that the IFB movement is in fact, a de-facto denomination. Reactions such as this one by Pastor Gary Click, indicate that to remove the name and distance oneself from the IFB movement is taken (by the supposedly “non-movement”) as “separation”, with the result that the true IFBs will then respond in kind.
For more on Greg Locke, you can read an interview that Re:Fundamentals did with him back in 2009. Please, let me know what you think about this. For the record, I don’t necessarily endorse bailing from the IFB movement as the solution for everyone and every church. But it’s hard to argue that the label is falling on hard times.
I’m very encouraged by the changes I’ve observed in his thinking over time. And I’m glad he’s doing what he believes is right regardless of how the club will take it.
That he feels removing “Baptist” from his name sets him apart from the IFB movement is testimony to how far that movement has moved from the true historical and theological meaning of the terms “Baptist” and “Fundamentalist.” It’s sad to see good men moving away from something good because the crazies have taken over…
“It’s sad to see good men moving away from something good because the crazies have taken over…” Good point, Jason. For Locke, I’m sure he holds the fundamentals, he is Baptistic and very independent, but the label IFB is something he cannot own.
In one sense, I’m happy to see a move toward more independence from the IFB movement. In another sense, however, I feel that inter-connectedness is a good thing. Why not create a new denomination or convention that aims to avoid party politics but bring together likeminded churches for support and fellowship? Autonomy doesn’t have to be threatened by such an association, which is very much a Baptist phenomenon….
Thanks for dropping by,
Bob
My church just recently stopped using the term Baptist in our name. We’re taking it off the stationary and whatnot but we’re still keeping it in our legal, official title. The main reasoning given to us is confusion – the name Baptist no longer accurately defines who we are because it means so many different things to so many different people. It may actually hinder us more than it would define us.
I thought of your church in all this, too, Kevin. You’re right about the confusion on the term.
For me I think that name “Baptist” has value. I understand that some crazies have sullied that name!
The Kevin Thompson approach mentioned above is not a bad way to go either.
Legally, Locke’s church is still named Baptist. But publicly they’re using Bible, now. I think if you are truly Baptistic you shouldn’t have to hide from the name, but I can see some benefits from not making it a hill to die on….
Thanks for posting the link, too, Jim.
I wrestled with this same issue 25 years ago. We kept the name, and in time, established a somewhat new identity, no longer connected to the IFB churches in our area. The name is not really the issue, and when you change the name, you haven’t necessarily solved the problem. I think it makes one feel a little better for a while, but ultimately, every church establishes their own identity in their community by the way they minister, and the lives of their members.
Those who are familiar with the church scene know that the label “Baptist” can be attached to churches of different types and styles. Those that don’t know much about denominations aren’t really terribly concerned about labels one way or another. Bible Church, Community Church, etc, can be just as problematic, as there are all sorts of churches using those labels, from charismatic to emergent, or whatever. I’ve come full circle. I am now happy to be identified as a “Baptist” because of what it indicates historically, and, though we don’t promote Baptist history or denominational distinctives, I am happy to endeavor to help Christians understand and return to a solid type of historic Baptist faith and practice.
Great comment, Greg. It’s good to see your thoughts on this and how you dealt with it long ago. Good points.
While I understand the issue with the name “Baptist”, at least I think I do, I would agree with with Mr. Barkman. Any label or name carries with it negatives and positives including the name “Christian”, but I am not ready to drop or look for a new identifying label. Mr. Locke is quoted as saying “Because of our strong emphasis on Powerful Preaching, the term BIBLE would be much more in line with our DNA and overall vision. People say that to remove “Baptist†will take away our identity. Exactly! I want our identity to be nothing but the Word of God.” Let me say I am a Baptist because of my emphasis of the Bible. I am independent and fundamental because of what the Bible teaches. Our church is expository in the style of preaching because we believe the Bible should be foundational to any church. I have rambled and for this I apologize.
No worries on the rambling. I agree you can stand for the Bible with the Baptist name. But you don’t have to have it, either, in my opinion. It’s the doctrine that’s more important than the name anyway….
We removed Baptist from our title two years ago. For us it was a return to our roots. We were originally Church of the Open Bible and we are now A New Hope Bible Church (go ahead…make the Star Wars comments:-). We changed our name originally for some internal reasons that had nothing to do with being more connected with the IFB.
We’ve changed our name this time to return to what we believe allows us to continue with our mission locally. Traditionally our church has never been involved with those within movement fundamentalism. In fact many names in the movement would be completely unknown to me and my congregation if it were not for my time spent within the movement. Unfortunately for some time our church lost its local identity in an attempt to conform to the movement within the IFB (Someone decided to send us the Sword of the Lord). Couple this together with the fact that there are six other “Baptist” churches within 10 minutes of my church that are nothing like us (both in polity and doctrine) and it just made for much confusion.
I don’t think there is a proper church title. I would argue that connecting the name “church” to a building is a bigger mistake but that’s for another time :-). In the end I believe it’s about what God has called your to do in your area of service. We’re a Bible church, you’re a Baptist church…now lets talk about the Gospel.
Glenn: “We’re a Bible church, you’re a Baptist church…now lets talk about the Gospel.”
Amen!
We are Baptists where I pastor.
Never the less, I must say that Scripture does not demand the use of the name.
There also comes a time when identity is not bound to the name, because the name has been so sullied that one must simply be identified by who they are, what they believe, and what they practice. After all, we all have family members who have the same surname as we, and we don’t want to be identified as being like them. We may not change our family name, but we take some sort of measure to show the distinction between us.
For us, we’ll remain Baptist. Our circumstances allow us to do so with no real problems. At the same time, we hope to grow to give Baptists a better name in our area.
The church where I currently Pastor was originally called Open Door Bible Church, but it was always known that we were a Baptist Church. In the last decade the name Baptist has been added because we are not afraid to identify what we believe or what we are.
We aren’t allowed by what we believe to correct other autonomous bodies of Christ, but I do strongly believe that the world should not dictate nor should “community” dictate what we call ourselves when it comes to what is right. In the world we will always have tribulation and persecution. The key to removing the bad name given by what many have called the “crazies” is not to change your name but to remain faithful to why you took the name to begin with. We didn’t take the name, or at least I hope you didn’t, because of what others were doing, so why should that be the reason to drop it. The truth of why many of using the “crazies” as a scape goat to cover up the real reason for the change is because it sounds a whole lot more praise worthy than ” we are changing our name, because honestly we just don’t want to stick to what we have said we believed before and a name change doesn’t hold us to identifying who we are or what we believe” people will just have to come and find out over time.
Be faithful to the word of God, remove not the ancient landmarks, identify yourself to the world like Christ did without being afraid of what yog may cause people to think, and trust God with the result. While I might add all of this ought to be done full of the Spirit of God and with a loving and merciful spirit.
How many people use Christ’s name as a curse word? How many hate the name and what it identifies with? Should we then stop calling him Jesus?
Doesn’t culture already dictate what we are “called?” Was it not the world that first called us Christians? If all of our beliefs are bound up in a title we are a sorry lot indeed. Perhaps we should stop worrying so much about what titles are included in our name before we are given the worst title of all: forgettable.
Chris,
He isn’t changing what he has believed. He is distancing himself from a movement that is totally hijacked by crazies. Most people still in the IFB don’t even understand that they are blinded to the unbiblical practices and philosophies that they are following.
I grew up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist church, although I had never heard the initials “IFB” being used for it until the 20/20 episode. I moved out of state and for a short time I was in a Southern Baptist Church, but then upon coming back to my original state, I started going to, and eventually joined a Bible church (Northwest Bible Church, Oklahoma City). In the fundamental Baptist church I was exposed to many (Scripturally unfounded) extremes, and so, to me, I always identify that movement with those extremes, although it may not actually be the case in every church and there are some good IFB churches and pastors. The IFB do not want to lose the name IFB for three reasons: history, distinctives, and doctrine (I think in that order, too). In my experience the first is the most important to them. They believe that Baptists (especially IFB) are part of some unbroken line that started back with Christ and the twelve. This is a doctrinal necessity because they deny a universal aspect of “the church”. But if this is someone’s reason for keeping the name, I think that is very sad. As far as distinctives and doctrine, it is possible to not be an IFB or a Baptist for that matter, and agree substantially with them on some of these things. So, personally, I think IFB churches remain so because of a false view of history and the extremes that are usually exclusive to them. Having said all that, there are plenty of other types of Baptist churches not related to IFB that also hold to similar or the same doctrine, etc. So, I don’t think it is necessary to keep the name, but it is also not bad to keep it either. Really, only that congregation can determine that. But, if someone does change their name, other IFB churches will probably shun them. Ever since I’ve been reformed and in a reformed church that is baptistic, I haven’t been able to determine if I am a Reformed Baptist, or just Reformed. Perhaps it just doesn’t matter. Another thing is IFB churches tend not to fellowship with other denominations and sometimes not even with each other if they have disagreements on specific things (I’ve seen this with my own eyes). So, removing the name Baptist could open up a new door of fellowship with other churches from different denominations- Presbyterians, for example. So, there are definitely pro’s and con’s, but realistically I don’t think there’s any reason to be tied to the name Baptist, but one should not be ashamed of it either.
I just find it ironic that a man presumably so sensitive to the impact of names has given his son the first name of “Hudson-Taylor.” Come on.
I know of one SBC church plant in Lexington KY that won’t use the word Baptist in its name because the Lexington Baptist churches have such a bad testimony for vicious fighting and self-righteous legalism.
When I came to a reformed understanding of salvation, many of the IFB pastors in our area became hostile towards me, and a few even publicly denounced me and our church. That’s when I wrestled with the advisability of a name change. However, we kept our name, but began to call ourselves “Reformed Baptist” in newspaper ads, church literature, website, etc. That seemed to solve the problem. Most formerly hostile pastors became civil again. Not that they embraced our doctrine, but they no longer seemed to be disturbed by our presence. I concluded that until we publicly identified ourselves as Reformed Baptists, they feared some of their members might stumble into our church unsuspectingly, and be adversely influenced by our doctrine. Now, the identification issue was sufficiently clarified that no one should wander into our church inadvertently, but only with their eyes wide open. Interesting. Any thoughts?
I think it’s a natural reaction, Greg. And your church siding with the Reformed name is a kindness in this scenario.
Great points, all. There are pros and cons and it isn’t an easy decision.
Does dropping the name imply you are selling out? No. And there are plenty of examples proving that point.
Before 1600, no one had the name Baptist, anyway.
I emailed pastor Locke and told him he can count on me to be a friend when he loses a bunch of them. It took incredible courage to make this kind of move especially because of the name he has made for himself in his evangelistic ministry prior to becoming a pastor. He is willfully walking away from lots of opportunities in the IFB. That takes guts
Yes, this isn’t an easy and self-serving move for him, that’s for sure. I first saw this through your FB link, Will. Thanks for swinging by….
Removed a comment per the comment author’s request.
I praise the Lord for any Church that will remove the name Baptist from their identity. This means that they have some problem with the doctrine, standard or tradition of the Baptist faith. Usually they want to accept the baptism of anyone who wants to join, or they want to allow any Christian to participate in their communion service. Many have been pulled out by their use of and following of inter-church music.
At any rate, those of us who hold to the title, “Baptist,” do so because we are not ashamed of but proud of the heritage that began and continued the stand that Baptists have taken since the name was applied to them by their detractors centuries ago. The reason they have the name “Baptist” still exists today. Baptism doesn’t clean anything, it is a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Stan,
We began as Baptists, and have continued as Baptists for more than thirty-eight years. Yet we accept the baptism of those who are not baptists who come to us, if they were believers when baptized and were baptized by immersion. We also allow any born again, baptized believer who is a member in good standing with his local church (not necessarily Baptist church) to partake of communion with us. We use a hymnal produced by Presbyterians, but supplement with other hymns, both ancient and modern, many of which could be called “inter-church.” It never occurred to us that any of these things called our “Baptist” label into question.
I have come to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter what you call your church, all labels have baggage, even the “Bible” label. For all the baggage associated with “Baptist” I still do not have any difficulty identifying with the core identifying marks of a Baptist (e.g., Bible as sole authority, autonomy, 2 ordinances, priesthood of believer, etc.).
So I’m in agreement with my Indianapolis friend Brian here. In the end all labels have down sides. However, I have no problem with a church that decides to call themselves “Bible” instead of “Baptist” because they are wanting to distance themselves from the theological slop associated with much of Baptist fundamentalism. That’s what we had when I pastored Mildred Bible Chapel in Backus, MN. We were a Baptistic Bible Church that had come from the IFCA “mindset” of the 1940’s. So we weren’t into the Baptist mold but we were historically “fundamental” and practically “Baptist” without the baggage. I totally get it. We here at SVBC have decided for the time to keep the title “Baptist” because really “Baptist” pre-opted fundamentalism. At least here in the Phoenix area the average “Zonie” (people from AZ) doesn’t assume you are a nut just because you are a Baptist. By the way, the “hyper-fundy’s” know we stand against KJV onlyism, easy-believism and a legalistic view of church music. So, they never show up! The community knows that we are a different kind of Baptist than the Type A+ churches in the community. As we say it, we are “historic Baptists” not “hysteric Baptists”. Everyone get’s it. Straight Ahead friends!
Thanks Brian and Joel for jumping in with your thoughts too. I agree that locale and context weigh into things here. And that abandoning the Baptist name isn’t always a good thing, either.
Baptists historically are not a denomination. Bible churches, on the other hand, are. The Bible Church denomination was founded in the 1930’s by 39 church leaders, 30 of whom were Presbyterians. This explains the Calvinism present in many Bible churches (“Sovereign Grace” theology. Also, those at the forefront of the Bible church movement preach that water baptism is no longer necessary, and that only the epistles of Paul really apply to us today. So, Greg, you left what was never a denomination (“mini” or otherwise), and joined a denomination.
I think I am right in noting that the churches that are removing the name Baptist are not doing so because the mainstream of Baptists are becoming apostate, but because the removers are changing their convictions or standards and no longer wish to be associated with the historic Baptist paths.
Yes, very true.
Stan,
That’s an pretty big false judgement. reading through the comments here is enough to disprove that statement.
I really should learn not to post things typed on my phone lol
The commentators on this page would possibly be the exception to my stated rule, because most of these are writing by conviction.
But again Stan its “your” stated rule. I’m not saying it’s not true, but I do know it’s not true in my experience (which is limited). I only mention this because of the harsh criticism that is leveled against those who would dare remove a title that, at the end of the day, is simply a title. According to you there are two possible reasons for this. The first is that they are doing it because of the reasons mentioned in these comments and the second is because they are no longer in compliance with a predetermined list of convictions that you hold to. If the first is true then it’s a good thing and if the second is true I see this as a help to those who hold to your set of convictions. Sounds like a win win to me.
I’m not ready to reject the name Baptist, but I definitely wish to reject much of what the IFB movement has come to stand for. I want to return fundamentalism to historic fundamentalism, whether it is possible I’m not really sure.
There are Americans doing bad things. So we should stop identifying ourselves with the label American.
When Greg calls his church a Bible Church he is identifying himself with the Bible Churches. Has he checked them out?