About the following report : Everything
depends on asking the right questions.
Why attend a church with a denominational name ?
( 1 ) Trust. You can depend on a
consistent message and viewpoint.
( 2 ) Pride. You can identify with great
men and women of faith from that denomination.
( 3 ) Institutional Foundation. The
church is part of an effective system that gets things done.
.
Seems to me these are important considerations. Besides, a
church can use
a denominational name in a creative way and pick up some
advantages
found in "new name" churches. Such as ? How about--
Open-minded Baptist Church
Challenge-the-Culture Lutheran Church
21st Century Presbyterian Church
Modern Fundamentalist Methodist Church
New Reformation Episcopal Church
.
Should work out OK.
Billy
.
.
.
from the site :
Gleanings
.
.
Should Your Church's Name Include Its
Denomination?
(UPDATED) New research says both churchgoers and the
unchurched agree decision is a 'two-edged sword.'
Jeremy Weber
A new study by Grey Matter Research suggests that both
churchgoers and the unchurched largely agree on whether or
not Protestant churches should reference their
denominational affiliation in their names.
Most Protestant churches reference their denomination in
their name. A prominent counter-example: Rick Warren's
Saddleback Community Church, which is affiliated with the
Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
The SBC recently debated changing
its name to remove potential obstacles to people
attending new church plants, particularly
in the Northeast. Instead, it decided to allow
the use of an unofficial moniker, Great Commission
Baptists, which LifeWay Research showed less
than half of churches intend to use.
Grey Matter surveyed a representative sample of 773
unchurched and churched adults in all 50 states and found
risks in both approaches.
"When a church does not reference its denomination in the
church name, unchurched people tend to see that church as
less formal, rigid, and old-fashioned," notes
the Phoenix-based market research firm in a news release.
"But this also makes them feel more uncertain and wonder
whether the church is trying to hide its beliefs."
The most interesting findings:
1) Churches with denominational references (vs. none) in
their name are:
Four times more likely to be perceived as
"formal." Three times more likely to be perceived as
"old-fashioned." Almost three times more likely to be
perceived as "structured and rigid." Three times less likely
to be perceived as "open-minded."
2) By contrast, churches with no denominational references
in their name are:
Less than twice as likely to be perceived as "honest."
More than twice as likely to give people "feelings of
uncertainty."
Almost five times more likely to be perceived as "trying to
hide what they believe."
3) The perceptions of Protestant churchgoers and the
unchurched only differ on a few matters:
Churchgoers believe a church with its denomination in its
name would be "more welcoming to visitors" (33% to 20%).
The unchurched believe the opposite: that such a church
would be less welcoming to visitors (30% to 19%).
Churchgoers believe a church with its denomination in its
name would be "a church for people like [them]" (40% to
20%).
The unchurched are evenly divided. Approximately 1 in 5 pick
churches with denominational names, and almost 1 in 5 pick
churches without denominational names.
Churchgoers say they’re "more likely to consider" churches
with denominational names (39% to 23%).
The unchurched are more evenly divided. Almost 1 in 4 are
more likely to consider churches with denominational names,
while 1 in 5 pick churches without denominational names.
4) The main caveat is age, concludes Grey Matter:
"In general, older Americans are more comfortable
with denominational church names than are younger people.
People age 65 and older are especially likely to see
non-denominational names as the church trying to hide what
they believe (55% to 3%) and as making them feel uncertain
(51% to 7%), as well as to see denominational names as
welcoming new visitors (38% to 18%) and as a church they
might consider visiting (48% to 14%). On the other hand,
adults under the age of 35 are much more divided over this
issue. For instance, while they agree with older adults that
non-denominational names are more likely to make them feel
uncertain, the split is only 34% to 22%, and it’s noteworthy
that 22% say a denominational reference is what would be
more likely to make them feel more uncertain. Younger adults
are also more likely to see non-denominational names as
welcoming to new visitors (36%, versus 27% who say this
about denominational names), as a church for people like
them (27% to 18%), or as one they might consider visiting
(27% to 19%)."
5) Ron Sellers, president of Grey Matter, offers advice on how
to mitigate risks associated with either choice: "A church
with a denominational reference can have a contemporary and
friendly logo and sign to help deal with any perceptions that
it’s rigid," he writes, "while a church without the
denomination in its name might use a catchy tagline to
communicate something about its beliefs, to help overcome any
uncertainty people may feel." 6) Denominational names are not
a widespread liability as often thought. Grey Matter found
that only a minority of the unchurched have negative
perceptions about such names: "Eight out of ten unchurched
adults do not feel a non-denominational name would make them
more likely to consider visiting a particular church, and six
out of ten do not feel this signals a more open-minded
church."
-----------------------------------------------
.
Selected Comments
.
As a former denominational executive officer, I can attest
that thousands of churches are electing to drop denomination
identity in an attempt to reach a more diverse populace. It is
a fact that most people on the street don't even know what a
denomination is, and they could care less. My prediction:
denominationalism is fast becoming irrelevant and will
eventually become extinct like the Dodo bird. I further
predict that unless the local churches change their divisive
and excluding message in favor of a welcoming and inclusive
message, they, too, will become a thing of the past (see 2 Cor
5:18-19).
.
I'm not completely certain that 773 people is a good enough
sample group to draw significant conclusions from for this
kind of research. Besides, the research doesn't really tell
very much. We're still left with a cursed if you do, cursed
if you don't thing.
The biggest difference of getting an unchurched person in
the door is relationship. I don't know how you do that with
the moniker on you sign.
.
I am a member of an SBC church and proud of this as
initially being one who came from a strongly liberal
denomination that stood for anything and everything - unless
it was Biblical. I do get frustrated though when people who do
not understand the fact that being "baptist" can mean anything
from a liberal Baptist denomination to a legalistic one - in
my opinion both being un-Biblical. I just got finished
explaining to a friend that the "baptist" church she was a
part of in Virginia was not SBC but a very legalistic baptist
that I will not mention here. Men like Dr. Al Mohler and David
Platt and Matt Chandler represent the SBC (holding to the
Bible as inerrant in-spite of what our culture says) yet both
The Church at Brookhills and The Village do not include SBC
anywhere in their name. I recently was trying to find the
denominational affiliation of a church to recommend to a
friend and could not discover it until I checked where their
mission's money goes. Yes, it is an SBC church and mostly made
up of people under 40. I knew that if it was under the
covering of the SBC that it would be Biblical but hiding the
SBC part makes it more attractive to young people.
-- 