In the U.S., especially in the Southeast, there are a lot of Christian Evangelist churches. ( Catholic not too much ) Of all those other churches, the First Baptist is almost inevitably the largest and fanciest of them all the the parking lots will be filled with the newest and most expensive vehicles. There is even the old cliche of a prosperous family moving to a new town and being expected to search out the “First Baptist”
How did it come to be that the “First Baptist” became synonymous with being the biggest & fanciest and where the more wealthy people and the politicians go?
1st Baptist represents the original church polity, which was and is majority white. 2nd Baptist is majority black, which split off.
The word “First” is not part of the name of the denomination. It’s a term used to distinguish between all the churches which are Baptist (or whatever denomination) in particular city. There are cities with First Baptist, Second Baptist, and Third Baptist churches. I can’t find any examples of cities with that many churches of any other denomination though. The church called the First Baptist is the Baptist church which was established first in the city. It’s thus usually the largest one (and, according to what you say, the one with the richest congregants). Baptist churches are most common in the southeastern U.S. A lot of Baptist churches are not actually part of a denomination (and there are several denominations called Baptist), so the First Baptist, Second Baptist, and Third Baptist church may actually be not part of the same denomination.
Baptist is the most numerous denomination in the South, and “First Baptist” would be the oldest Baptist church in any given area. Isn’t that enough to explain it by itself?
Maybe “Baptist” is the most numerous “overall”…but there are certainly areas where that’s not the case. I see areas where the Church of God appears to be more numerous, the lone First Baptist in those area’s always seem to be much larger & fancier…
Does the first Baptist church in the area get named “First…” ? I’ve seen / heard of First Baptist’s breaking up and another renaming their church First Baptist and working to become that icon… And I’ve heard of churches debating whether they wanted to be come a First Baptist and deciding against it because they didn’t want to be known as that… So I don’t think it’s always the first in the area that has the name, especially after all this time.
Note; I’m not trying to use “large and fancy” in a derogatory way, I’m just trying to use plain and simple language.
First Baptist is not a denomination. It is the name chosen by the local congregation. There are numerous Baptist denominations: (Southern Baptists; Missionary Baptists; American Baptist Association; Central Baptists; etc. etc.) And no particular Baptist denomination has claim to the name “First Baptist”.
And Second Baptist isn’t primarily associated with black churches. The largest Second Baptist church is located in Houston, is a predominately white church.
This is like asking why companies name themselves AAA Auto, or AAA Tire. It’s an advertising thing. If you’re the First Baptist church, people are more likely to visit there before they go to the Second Baptist church.
I can’t see the point in naming a particular congregation “First Baptist” unless there is at least one other Baptist congregation in the same town. So my guess is that a typical pattern is that the town of Sickdale initially has one Baptist church, boringly called Sickdale Baptist Church. But sooner or later a second Baptist church is established, either because a rival Baptist denomonation comes to town, or because there are divisions in the existing congregation, or simply because the existing congregation becomes too big and/or the town becomes too widely spread, and a decision is taken that the best way forward is to establish a second congregation. At that stage distinctive names have to be chosen, and the longer-established congregation gets first dibs on the name “First Baptist”. And, as the longer-established congregation, it’s likely to be wealthier, to be based in the older and therefore more central part of town, etc, etc.
Not true. There are numerous rural communities that have only one baptist church, and that one will be named “First Baptist Church of BFE”, even if it’s the only one. I know it doesn’t necessarily make sense, but who said there was logic in naming churches.
Besides Baptist churches, there are also some Methodist and Presbyterian churches which use number names. In fact, there is a Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. There is or was a Twenty-Eighth Church of Christ, Scientist in Los Angeles, although I think the numbering there refers to the number of the church among all the churches of the denomination in the world, not just to those in the city. In any case, there’s no requirement that the first Baptist church in the city has to be called the First Baptist. They can choose their own name which can be based on something else like the street name:
And of course, some denominations don’t use number names. Catholics, for instance, are well-represented (even if not the most numerous) pretty much everywhere, but almost no Catholic churches are called “First Catholic” (I’ve never heard of one, certainly, though I suppose there might be one somewhere): Catholic churches are usually named after a saint, or occasionally after a more abstract concept like “Resurrection”, “Transfiguration”, or “Holy Rosary”. Number-names are also uncommon for Episcopalians and Lutherans, two other fairly common denominations.
Why not? If it’s the only one, then surely it’s the first in the town, right? Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, even before the second guy stepped off the ladder. George Washington was the first president of the USA even before John Adams took over. There doesn’t need to be a second for there to be a first.
Now, if there’s only one church and it’s named “Second Baptist Church”, that would be strange. I’d assume the other one burned down or something.
I think that, as a rule of thumb, a denomination is more likely to have numbers in the names for its churches the more that it is a low-church denomination as opposed to being a high-church denomination. The spectrum from high church to low church is approximately Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Episcopal-Congregationalist-Presbyterian-Lutheran-Methodist-Baptist. Going the other way, a denomination is more likely to have saints in the names for its churches the more that it is a high-church denomination as opposed to being a low-church denomination:
Being a Lutheran myself, I’d put Lutherans way up that listing… most Lutheran churches I’ve attended are basically just below Episcopal in terms of liturgy.
One thing I hear from my Baptist friends, is that the pandemic and wearing of masks makes it easier for them to go to the liquor store now.
Cecil’s column about theFifth Third Bank also touches on churches.
It’s also important to remember that the Southern Baptist Convention is pretty loose in terms of organizational structure. Local churches are autonomous, and there’s no authority that says a church can’t call itself “First” even if it was third.
The oldest Baptist congregation in the City of St. Louis is First Baptist Church only because the original First Baptist Church disbanded, and the Second Baptist Church grabbed the name. The oldest Baptist congregation in St. Louis County doesn’t use any kind of number in its name.
I know that the oldest Presbyterian church in Cleveland used to be called “First Presbyterian”, but now everyone just calls it “the Old Stone Church”. It’s about as close to smack in the middle of the city as it’s possible for a building to be, and a church surrounded by skyscrapers really stands out.
This is not true, either. For example, Smallville may have one Baptist church that is named “Smallville Baptist Church.” Many small communities do not have any church called “First Baptist Church.” As has been pointed out in other posts, individual churches are autonomous and can call themselves anything they want (within reason).
A minor point, but Omar Little said “there are numerous rural communities that have…”. He did not say that it always happens that way. I’m pretty sure he used the phrase “will be named” to mean “happens to be named,” rather than “is required to be named.”
If someone here is better at working with Excel files than me, they might want to look at the following. I linked to a Mental Floss webpage in post #9. In that webpage, there’s the link below about church names in the U.S. It, in turn, links to an Excel file. This comes from a survey in 2010 of 95,000 U.S. churches, and the Excel file gives the 1,000 most common church names among those churches, including the number of churches with each of those names. Among those names are many starting with First, some starting with Second, and one starting with Third. If you’re better at using Excel files than I am, you might be able to put together in a smaller list just the names starting with First, Second, and Third and the number of churches with each of those names so that we can look at it before making any big claims about which denominations have many churches with number names:
http://www.openbible.info/blog/2010/06/church-names-in-the-u-s/
I guess where I’m coming from is that a Baptist church doesn’t need a name to distguish it from other Baptist churches unless there are other Baptist churches from which to distinguish it. But “Smallville Baptist Church” effeciently distinguishes the only Baptist Church in Smallville from all the Baptist Churches not in Smallville. “First Baptist Church of Smallville” does suggest to me that there is a second Baptist church in Smallville that needs to be distinguished.
But rationality must yield to reality. If there are, in fact, numerous towns with one Baptist Church called “First Baptist Church of X”, then clearly ecclesiastical nomenclature is not driven by the considerations that seem natural to me. I’m at a loss to know what is driving it, though.