On Changing the Name of a Church – Part 4

Previous articles: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

In considering our name, we need to consider our philosophy of church growth. In the last article, I talked about how a name attracts people who already know what it means, and repels people who don’t, or at least repels people who have a certain conception of what it means.

I wonder if part of the problem here is an underlying belief that churches are built (at least in part) by trading sheep, so when someone dissatisfied with the Baptist church down the road starts looking, let’s have “Baptist” in our name so they will come to us. If we don’t have “Baptist” in the name, they may go looking somewhere else. (I am not just speaking hypothetically here. This statement has actually been made before.)

It is a view that may have merit, but there are some concerns. First, the lesser concern is this: If they are dissatisfied down there, what will they be two years from now at our church? Maybe fine. And maybe not.

The greater concern, in my mind, is this: What about the people who are unchurched? Why should we be more concerned with dissatisfied believers than with unconverted people?

I know there is some debate about how much the church should be sensitive to unbelievers in our community. 

The truth is that I want unbelievers coming to our church, and not just once, but week after week. I believe in the converting power of the gospel consistently preached. I believe that if we expose people to the clearly taught word of God week after week, it will have an effect. And if some unbeliever will come to our church for six consecutive months, I will take my chances with that because I know that over six months, they are going to hear the gospel preached week after week as the Scripture is preached both to believers and unbelievers. That doesn’t mean I design services for unbelievers. It means that I expect unbelievers are going to be there, and I am going to address them at some point (or usually at several points) during the service.

When we are considering our community, we need ask the question, Are people, unbelievers particularly, more likely to visit our church if it does not have the name “Baptist” in the church name?

If the answer is Yes, then we should strongly consider that in establishing or changing the name of the church.

Some people charge that removing a label such as “Baptist” is a matter of honesty and integrity, like we are hiding who we really are in order to get people to come in. I don’t think this is necessarily true since there are a lot of things about our churches that do not show up on our signs, things that are part of our core identity.

For instance we are committed to the inerrancy and complete authority of the Bible as God’s revelation. That means, among other things, that we are cessationists who use a modern version. This commitment is, in fact, prior to our Baptist commitment simply because being Baptist arises out of being committed to the Scriptures. Yet nowhere in our name is that commitment or its implications held out.

By not having “ICABGRACWUMV” on our sign, are we hiding who we are in an attempt to get people in? Hardly. Yet when someone comes to our church, that is exactly what they will hear. And it is what they will see in our doctrinal statement.

The fact is that when someone comes to our church, they are coming to a Baptist church regardless of what’s on the sign. And they are going to hear and see the gospel regardless of what’s on the sign. And if they come long enough, they are going to be taught Baptist polity and doctrine as the Scriptures are unfolded.

Having a label, or not having a label, won’t change any of that for us.

And having a label, or not having a label, won’t change anything else either. So if you have bad preaching, or bad breath, or unfriendly people, or bad music, or a dirty and smelly facility, it will all be the same.

So before changing your name, try to figure out what the actual problem is at your church.

In conclusions, each church should think carefully before removing (or adding) a denominational label to their church name. There are a host of factors to be considered, such as community, area churches, strength of church tradition, whether or not the label is actually a barrier, etc. And the only way you can assess these things is by careful thought and study.

A pastor and the leadership team of the church must work very carefully through these issues before dropping a denominational label. It may be a good thing to remove a label, but it should not be entered into hastily.

If you have denominational commitments, then don’t be afraid to own them. You don’t have to do it in a sign, and in fact, it may be wise not to. But your guiding documents should clearly state what you are, as should your new members’ orientation or your membership classes.

On Changing the Name of a Church - Part 3

See previous articles: Part 1, Part 2

Another reason why a church might change their name is to try to remove perceived barriers to the gospel. This is most often the idea behind the dropping of denominational labels. There is a belief that denominational labels are a barrier to people who do not self-identify with that denomination. Thus, the label becomes a stumblingblock other than the gospel.

Is this true? Well, it’s undeniably true in some cases. These are anecdotal cases to be sure, but true nonetheless. But is it true in all cases? Who knows.

What makes it difficult to study this issue meaningfully is the fact that there are no two identical churches in identical communities, one with a denominational label and one without. There is no church that both has the label and does not have the label. Even if the churches are substantially similar, they have different pastors, different members, different gifting among the members, different guests, different locations, etc. And even if everything was the same except the name, that won’t tell you anything about your church and location. So any studies are always comparing non-identical things.

The best way to study the big picture is probably to ask questions of a lot of people in a lot of different places, even though responses to denominational labels probably differ from place to place. Ed Stetzer’s has done that and found that the name is at least a factor for SBC churches, particularly for younger people. How big a factor? Again, it is hard to tell. More importantly all of Ed’s questions won’t tell you anything specific about your ministry context. And in order to minister in your community, you need to know your community.

And you need to know yourself and your motivations. Why are you doing this? Of course, people around you will be quick to chime in and tell you why you are doing it, and you need to think carefully about it.

For some critics, dropping a denominational label is an automatic sign of compromise and deception, of hiding who you really are in order to attract more people.

For some proponents, dropping a denominational label is a no-brainer. In fact, someone (who works for a major Baptist organization) in identifying me as a “fundamentalist” said, “Do you still have Baptist in your name?” When I answered affirmatively, he said, “Well there’s that,” with “that” meaning the label Baptist was a sign of being a fundamentalist.

Now, make no mistake. I am a Baptist by conviction. I am a Baptist because Jesus said to be one (and remember, he only blessed babies; he didn’t baptize them).

Okay, so that’s (only) a bit tongue in cheek. But I am a firmly committed Baptist. And I don’t lower my voice when I say that. And our church name is still Grace Baptist Church. And I am Baptist enough to believe that a local congregation has the sole authority to determine what name their church goes by.

But the reality is that there are a lot of people who see a label on a group or building, and they have no idea what the label means, but they know it’s not them because if they were one of those they would know it. This is common in our Baptist churches. People see the name “Lutheran” on a church, and they have no idea what Lutherans believe or do, but they know they aren’t a Lutheran. The chance of getting them into a Lutheran church is slim-to-none, so long as the label is on the building. Is that good or bad?

Others see the label and they do know what it means, at least in their minds. So “Baptist” means Fred Phelps to them. Or “Baptist” means the churches who have pedophiles, or buses blowing horns outside their window on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m. when they are trying to sleep. Or “Baptist” means their grandmother’s church that was whacky to them. And they want nothing to do with any of that.

And who can blame them. I don’t want anything to do with any of that either. (Which is a good reason to be a Baptist; I don’t have to have anything to do with it.)

What is keeping these people, humanly speaking, from hearing the gospel isn’t the cross or the call of Jesus. It’s the name on the sign that they associate with certain things. They are judging a church based on something that has nothing to do with you.

Is that what you want? I don’t.

I don’t want people who God has called us to reach to reject us simply because of a denominational label that they may not understand.

And that is part of the core issue in this consideration: Who are we trying to reach? I imagine that, for most people, denominational labels only mean something to people who are already “in.” They mean little to nothing to the unchurched.

That means if someone is a Baptist already, having “Baptist” in the name may be more attractive to them (though I confess it would not matter to me). Newcomers to the community may be looking for a particular type of church and will look no further than the label.

But we have to ask the question: Has God called us to reach people who already agree with us?

If they answer is no, then we need to ask what, humanly speaking, is keeping us from reaching the people God has called us to reach.

On Changing the Name of a Church - Part 2

Following up on part 1 of this series, let me address a second reason why a church might consider changing a name, namely, to distance yourselves from problems of the past without going so far as to actually reconstitute.

Every church (or organization) is has a history, and most histories of any length are probably going to have some unsavory moments in them. Some of these issues, depending on their visibility, can cause a church to develop a reputation that is not good for the gospel in a community.

It may be their history of financial dealings. It may be a string (or single occurrence) of unethical or illegal behaviors by high profile leaders or members. It may have to do with the stance on community relations or racial relationships. It may have to do with a previous pastor’s ministry emphasis. And the possibilities go on.

Sometimes, these things can be dealt with by public statements and restitution where possible. And as much as possible they should be.

But on occasion, these things have so badly damaged the testimony of the church in the community that renaming the church may be a very wise thing to do.

Renaming your church can provide a fresh start and some distance from the past. It can say, “We are a new old,” or “We are an old new.” It can change away from the focus from “The church where the youth pastor molested a girl” or “The church where the pastor stole $100,000 and left the creditors unpaid.”

However, this must not be used as a way to avoid legal or moral obligations. Neither should it be done while retaining the people or policies that were either cause or contributor to the problem. In other words, this is not an “easy way out.”

Changing a name for this reason is, in my opinion, more controversial that closing a church and restarting it. It runs several risks.

First, it runs the risk of simply being wrong on the issues. Some pastors lead churches to apologize for things that weren’t necessarily wrong. Just because someone differs on philosophy of ministry does not mean that they have compromised the gospel or hurt the church.

Second, it runs the risk of attacking faithful believers by implicitly (or explicitly) accusing them of something that they didn’t do, or that wasn’t wrong for them to do. It can become an attack on the heritage of godliness that has preceded a particular ministry at a church.

Third, it runs the risk of shaming the gospel and the church by becoming just another church that finds fault with everyone who doesn’t do things their way. It can become the pastor pursuing his pet issues without respect for the larger body of Christ.

Fourth, it runs the risk of further damaging the church’s testimony in a community because it can appear to be a rather transparent way to avoid problems, like putting lipstick on a pig.

So tread carefully here, and consider whether some other tack may be more effective for the gospel.

Name Change – Interruption

In the midst of my series on name changes, let me highlight two recent articles by Ed Stetzer on the consideration of changing the name of the SBC (with actual numbers about how people view the name of the SBC) and the name change of Campus Crusade to Cru (with a link to the page where CRU describes its motives and process for its name change).

Consideration of labels, particularly denominational labels, is the subject of the third part of my series, so I wait to talk more about it.

Reading Cru’s explanation should remind us all to take a step back before blasting some group for a name change.

On Changing the Name of a Church - Part 1

These days it is somewhat common for churches to change their names. Particularly common, it seems, is the dropping of denominational labels. Even presently, the Southern Baptist Convention is considering a name change for itself.

Is this good or bad? Well, it depends on who you listen to. And why you do it.

I think there are good reasons to change names, and bad reasons to change names. In this series of posts, I want to discuss some of the reasons why a church should, or should not, consider changing its name, beginning with reasons why a church should consider changing its name.

Leading off, and perhaps the most obvious, I think name changing is a good idea when you are restarting a church. It creates a new identity. Studies have shown that a church’s greatest period of growth is in the first five years. There is a “try it out” attitude that people have. It’s not “old hat” anymore. A church that is being restarted is probably a church that has been around for some time, and been in decline for a variety of reasons. Adopting a new name creates some freshness, even if the building and people are the same.

One of the things I found here was that there were (and still are) a large number of people in our community who are familiar with Grace because their grandma and grandpa or mom and dad went here, and they went here as kids. It is old hat to them. They know what it is (or at least what they think it is), and they are not coming back to try it again.

Changing a name removes that barrier. No one can say they grew up in a church that was started last week, or last month, even if it is a restart.

The downside of changing the name of a church is history. When I started at Grace, we had ninety-five years of history. Now we have almost one hundred and ten years of history. You can’t get that overnight. Theirs is something significant about saying “We have been in this community more than a hundred years.”

Each situation is different, and requires different considerations. Restarting a church (disband and reconstitute) can give new life into an old congregation. And changing the name probably is a wise thing to do in that case.

A church may try to rebuild without restarting. But even in this, a name change may be a good thing, even if the name is similar.

As a side note, restarting a church can also give good and faithful people an gracious exit ramp if they are simply attending church out of a sense of history rather than a sense of mission. Many old-timers feel a sense of commitment to a church, not to a mission, and not to a community. Providing them with a grace-filled way to exit that honors their commitment without guilting them is a valid consideration in some cases.

More to come …