January 16th, 2025
by Dr. Spencer Plumlee
by Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Sometimes the best way to clarify what you want to say is by explaining what you do not mean to say. This happens in interpersonal communication all the time. How many times have you heard someone say, “well, what I’m not saying is _________”?
The history of the church also bears out the importance of this principle. It is often the case that the teaching of error precedes the codification of the truth. The major ecumenical councils that confirmed things like the divinity of Jesus all arose because error was being taught. False doctrine is not good, but it has provided an opportunity to get to the truth.
In a season of prayer about a potential name change, I want to do everything I can to continue to clarify the heart and goal from our leadership community. To that end, I’d like to talk about why a church shouldn’t change their name. As I share about each of these, I’ll take time to explain why our motive and aim is different.
1) Being Trendy
Trends come and go. I am amazed to see how often this is cyclical. If you had told me that mullets would ever make a comeback as a hairstyle for men, I would not have believed you. But just walk through any of our high schools in Mansfield and you will see that (sadly) it’s back.
Trends are not just a phenomena in fashion. There are definitely trends in churches. I’ve been around long enough to see more than a few trends blow through churches in this country. There was a season when off-campus, in home small groups were all the rage. It was believed that meeting in homes would provide more intimacy and connection for people instead of a classroom on a church campus. Coupled with the fact that it freed churches from having to build expensive education buildings, and boom, a trend was born and took off.
(For the record, I am not opposed to off campus groups. I think they have a lot of strengths. I however do not think they are the only way to do grouplife in a church)
It is equally true that for some churches, a name change is nothing more than following the current fads and trends. More than a few historic churches have changed their name in recent memory. First Baptist Euless has become Cross City Church. First Baptist Colleyville has become CrossCreek Church. First Baptist Humble has become United City Church. First Baptist Springdale, Arkansas has become Cross Church.
I’m citing these churches not because I believe they were just following trends. I cite them to say that it’s obviously a wide-spread phenomenon. I believe the churches listed above did it not out of a desire to be trendy, but a desire to be faithful.
Are we considering a name change just because other churches are doing this? No.
We are not considering a name change because it’s a trend. We believe God’s done a new work in our church family that our current name no longer represents. Both our past history in this community and the perception associated with “Baptist” make a new name a topic of prayerful consideration for our body.
2) Projecting a False Reality
There are times when organizations will change the name, or look of a thing, but continue to do exactly what they’ve done before. In an age when image is most important, organizations can fall in the trap of thinking the next marketing campaign will fix everything.
Here’s the problem: if you’re doing exactly what you did before and just putting a different label or look on it, you aren’t really progressing. True change happens when the culture and product an organization offers changes and the marketing follows.
I grew up going to BlockBuster Video to rent movies. Nothing was more exciting for me than a friend spending the night, Little Caesar’s Pizza and renting a movie or game from Blockbuster (in my hometown they were right next to each other!). Sadly, BlockBuster no longer exists, in part because they didn’t adapt to the changing online, streaming landscape fast enough.
In their decline, they tried numerous marketing campaigns to turn things around. But a new logo or commercial didn’t turn it around because the business model and culture of the organization didn’t adapt.
Culture change should ideally precede marketing changes. If all an organization does is come up with a new name, logo or marketing campaign, nothing fundamentally changes.
Are we considering a name change because we believe it’s the key to a massive turnaround for our church? No.
We believe the culture in our church has radically changed and a name change will better reflect who we actually are. I’ll write more on this in the coming weeks, but I believe our culture has shifted to a healthier balance of grace and truth, our mission has changed to be laser focused on disciple-making, and our polity and leadership structure have changed to be more biblical.
These massive changes create a dissonance with the name “First Baptist” that doesn’t communicate who we are. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any “First Baptist” churches doing the above. It does mean this is not normally what people associate with a church named “First Baptist.”
I truly believe we’ve already put in the hard work of change. A name change would be nothing more than an alignment of our external facing communication to our internal culture.
3) Isolating from a Denomination
One of the enemy’s primary tactics is to get believers isolated, disconnected from people who genuinely love and care for them. Over the years, I’ve watched people go through something difficult and because of the pain or shame, they isolate themselves. This never helps this person. It always hurts them. They spiral into further discouragement and depression, often requiring extreme measures for recovery.
Isolation is dangerous individually. But isolation is also dangerous organizationally.
Churches are meant to cooperate with others for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. See how Paul talked about partnership in Philippians 1:3-5:
I give thanks to my God for every remembrance of you, always praying with joy for all of you in my every prayer, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
Partnership among churches to accomplish the Great Commission must be the norm. The task is too big! We are told to get the gospel to the nations and there’s no way we can do that alone. But more, we are connected to other believers and churches in Christ. We believe that we have a real, powerful connection with other believers via the universal church that we are called to participate in with all our might.
I am the product of Southern Baptist investment. I’ve been trained in a Southern Baptist seminary. I’ve been mentored by godly Southern Baptist leaders. I’ve been a part of amazing cooperative efforts at the state and national level through the Southern Baptist Convention. Our family of churches is far from perfect, but the impact it's making around the world for the gospel is unparalleled.
Are we considering a name change that will not include the word “Baptist” to distance ourselves from the Southern Baptist Convention? No.
We are more committed than ever to partnering together with other Southern Baptist for the advance of the gospel. Over the past few weeks I’ve been asked, “If First Baptist has a perception problem, then why not just drop ‘First’ and include ‘Baptist’ in the new name?” It’s such a good question I plan to write on this more extensively in the days ahead.
For now, let me pull the curtain back on the dominos that have fallen over to get us here. We are facing a perception problem on two fronts.
Front 1: Perceptions about First Baptist. Three splits over the last twenty years have created a massive perception issue for people in this community.
Front 2: Perceptions about Baptist. While “First Baptist” is an issue for people who’ve been in Mansfield for some time, “Baptist” is an issue for new people moving into our community.
I absolutely want the best of both worlds: I want to stay actively connected to the SBC while removing perception issues with both “First Baptist” and “Baptist.” Our leadership unanimously believes a new name will help accomplish this best of both worlds scenario.
4) Distancing from Biblical Doctrine
Widespread confusion about gender, sexuality, marriage can be seen in every direction in our culture. Deeper, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of concepts like our purpose, right and wrong and truth itself. As this confusion has taken root, hostility to the truth has grown. Biblical morality is no longer just tolerated. In many circles, it’s an enemy that must be defeated.
Here’s what ChatGPT gave me when I asked about recent persecution of evangelicals in 2024:
“Jack Philips is a baker in Colorado who was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a transgender celebration. In 2024, California passed a new law requiring all healthcare providers, including those with religious affiliations, to provide referrals for abortions or provide abortion services directly. In the same year, evangelical Christian student groups at several University of California campuses faced hostility when they attempted to host pro-life or pro-marriage events. At UC Berkeley, a student group faced intense protests and demands to cancel an event featuring a speaker on traditional Christian views of marriage.”
Churches must decide how they will respond to these types of trends. There seem to be two paths: drift away from beliefs the culture finds reprehensible or lovingly hold fast to biblical truth.
Are we considering a name change because we want to drift away from beliefs the culture finds reprehensible? No.
We are more committed than ever to the value of compassionate conviction, and have ensured this posture through our acceptance of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM 2K) as our statement of faith in our governing documents. Let me remind you that through our bylaw revision process, you as a church enshrined the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, the BFM 2K, as a legally binding statement in our bylaws. This was not only because we wanted to clarify and strengthen our commitment to these truths, but also because we wanted to protect ourselves from potential lawsuits regarding who we would marry and even employ.
On November 3rd, I preached a message on politics. In the message I made a simple claim: I don’t believe you can affirm our statement of faith and vote for the platform of the Democratic National Convention. In the message, I explicitly cited article and paragraph of the Baptist Faith and Message to demonstrate the incongruity of voting for political leadership who actively seeks to undermine our sincerely held beliefs. You can find that message here.
I speak for our leaders when I say this: this kind of preaching and teaching will not stop if the church votes to change our name.
The simple truth is this: we are considering a name change because our leaders believe our name is out of alignment with our culture. I pray that we will all continue to pray and lovingly talk with one another about this important change in this season.
Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Senior Pastor
The history of the church also bears out the importance of this principle. It is often the case that the teaching of error precedes the codification of the truth. The major ecumenical councils that confirmed things like the divinity of Jesus all arose because error was being taught. False doctrine is not good, but it has provided an opportunity to get to the truth.
In a season of prayer about a potential name change, I want to do everything I can to continue to clarify the heart and goal from our leadership community. To that end, I’d like to talk about why a church shouldn’t change their name. As I share about each of these, I’ll take time to explain why our motive and aim is different.
1) Being Trendy
Trends come and go. I am amazed to see how often this is cyclical. If you had told me that mullets would ever make a comeback as a hairstyle for men, I would not have believed you. But just walk through any of our high schools in Mansfield and you will see that (sadly) it’s back.
Trends are not just a phenomena in fashion. There are definitely trends in churches. I’ve been around long enough to see more than a few trends blow through churches in this country. There was a season when off-campus, in home small groups were all the rage. It was believed that meeting in homes would provide more intimacy and connection for people instead of a classroom on a church campus. Coupled with the fact that it freed churches from having to build expensive education buildings, and boom, a trend was born and took off.
(For the record, I am not opposed to off campus groups. I think they have a lot of strengths. I however do not think they are the only way to do grouplife in a church)
It is equally true that for some churches, a name change is nothing more than following the current fads and trends. More than a few historic churches have changed their name in recent memory. First Baptist Euless has become Cross City Church. First Baptist Colleyville has become CrossCreek Church. First Baptist Humble has become United City Church. First Baptist Springdale, Arkansas has become Cross Church.
I’m citing these churches not because I believe they were just following trends. I cite them to say that it’s obviously a wide-spread phenomenon. I believe the churches listed above did it not out of a desire to be trendy, but a desire to be faithful.
Are we considering a name change just because other churches are doing this? No.
We are not considering a name change because it’s a trend. We believe God’s done a new work in our church family that our current name no longer represents. Both our past history in this community and the perception associated with “Baptist” make a new name a topic of prayerful consideration for our body.
2) Projecting a False Reality
There are times when organizations will change the name, or look of a thing, but continue to do exactly what they’ve done before. In an age when image is most important, organizations can fall in the trap of thinking the next marketing campaign will fix everything.
Here’s the problem: if you’re doing exactly what you did before and just putting a different label or look on it, you aren’t really progressing. True change happens when the culture and product an organization offers changes and the marketing follows.
I grew up going to BlockBuster Video to rent movies. Nothing was more exciting for me than a friend spending the night, Little Caesar’s Pizza and renting a movie or game from Blockbuster (in my hometown they were right next to each other!). Sadly, BlockBuster no longer exists, in part because they didn’t adapt to the changing online, streaming landscape fast enough.
In their decline, they tried numerous marketing campaigns to turn things around. But a new logo or commercial didn’t turn it around because the business model and culture of the organization didn’t adapt.
Culture change should ideally precede marketing changes. If all an organization does is come up with a new name, logo or marketing campaign, nothing fundamentally changes.
Are we considering a name change because we believe it’s the key to a massive turnaround for our church? No.
We believe the culture in our church has radically changed and a name change will better reflect who we actually are. I’ll write more on this in the coming weeks, but I believe our culture has shifted to a healthier balance of grace and truth, our mission has changed to be laser focused on disciple-making, and our polity and leadership structure have changed to be more biblical.
These massive changes create a dissonance with the name “First Baptist” that doesn’t communicate who we are. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any “First Baptist” churches doing the above. It does mean this is not normally what people associate with a church named “First Baptist.”
I truly believe we’ve already put in the hard work of change. A name change would be nothing more than an alignment of our external facing communication to our internal culture.
3) Isolating from a Denomination
One of the enemy’s primary tactics is to get believers isolated, disconnected from people who genuinely love and care for them. Over the years, I’ve watched people go through something difficult and because of the pain or shame, they isolate themselves. This never helps this person. It always hurts them. They spiral into further discouragement and depression, often requiring extreme measures for recovery.
Isolation is dangerous individually. But isolation is also dangerous organizationally.
Churches are meant to cooperate with others for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. See how Paul talked about partnership in Philippians 1:3-5:
I give thanks to my God for every remembrance of you, always praying with joy for all of you in my every prayer, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
Partnership among churches to accomplish the Great Commission must be the norm. The task is too big! We are told to get the gospel to the nations and there’s no way we can do that alone. But more, we are connected to other believers and churches in Christ. We believe that we have a real, powerful connection with other believers via the universal church that we are called to participate in with all our might.
I am the product of Southern Baptist investment. I’ve been trained in a Southern Baptist seminary. I’ve been mentored by godly Southern Baptist leaders. I’ve been a part of amazing cooperative efforts at the state and national level through the Southern Baptist Convention. Our family of churches is far from perfect, but the impact it's making around the world for the gospel is unparalleled.
Are we considering a name change that will not include the word “Baptist” to distance ourselves from the Southern Baptist Convention? No.
We are more committed than ever to partnering together with other Southern Baptist for the advance of the gospel. Over the past few weeks I’ve been asked, “If First Baptist has a perception problem, then why not just drop ‘First’ and include ‘Baptist’ in the new name?” It’s such a good question I plan to write on this more extensively in the days ahead.
For now, let me pull the curtain back on the dominos that have fallen over to get us here. We are facing a perception problem on two fronts.
Front 1: Perceptions about First Baptist. Three splits over the last twenty years have created a massive perception issue for people in this community.
Front 2: Perceptions about Baptist. While “First Baptist” is an issue for people who’ve been in Mansfield for some time, “Baptist” is an issue for new people moving into our community.
I absolutely want the best of both worlds: I want to stay actively connected to the SBC while removing perception issues with both “First Baptist” and “Baptist.” Our leadership unanimously believes a new name will help accomplish this best of both worlds scenario.
4) Distancing from Biblical Doctrine
Widespread confusion about gender, sexuality, marriage can be seen in every direction in our culture. Deeper, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of concepts like our purpose, right and wrong and truth itself. As this confusion has taken root, hostility to the truth has grown. Biblical morality is no longer just tolerated. In many circles, it’s an enemy that must be defeated.
Here’s what ChatGPT gave me when I asked about recent persecution of evangelicals in 2024:
“Jack Philips is a baker in Colorado who was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a transgender celebration. In 2024, California passed a new law requiring all healthcare providers, including those with religious affiliations, to provide referrals for abortions or provide abortion services directly. In the same year, evangelical Christian student groups at several University of California campuses faced hostility when they attempted to host pro-life or pro-marriage events. At UC Berkeley, a student group faced intense protests and demands to cancel an event featuring a speaker on traditional Christian views of marriage.”
Churches must decide how they will respond to these types of trends. There seem to be two paths: drift away from beliefs the culture finds reprehensible or lovingly hold fast to biblical truth.
Are we considering a name change because we want to drift away from beliefs the culture finds reprehensible? No.
We are more committed than ever to the value of compassionate conviction, and have ensured this posture through our acceptance of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM 2K) as our statement of faith in our governing documents. Let me remind you that through our bylaw revision process, you as a church enshrined the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, the BFM 2K, as a legally binding statement in our bylaws. This was not only because we wanted to clarify and strengthen our commitment to these truths, but also because we wanted to protect ourselves from potential lawsuits regarding who we would marry and even employ.
On November 3rd, I preached a message on politics. In the message I made a simple claim: I don’t believe you can affirm our statement of faith and vote for the platform of the Democratic National Convention. In the message, I explicitly cited article and paragraph of the Baptist Faith and Message to demonstrate the incongruity of voting for political leadership who actively seeks to undermine our sincerely held beliefs. You can find that message here.
I speak for our leaders when I say this: this kind of preaching and teaching will not stop if the church votes to change our name.
The simple truth is this: we are considering a name change because our leaders believe our name is out of alignment with our culture. I pray that we will all continue to pray and lovingly talk with one another about this important change in this season.
Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Senior Pastor
Posted in Newsletter
No Comments