I think you are on to something here Billy. Rebranding is important. My favorite is "New Reformation". You could apply that to all denominations. The New Reformation ______ Church.
Chris From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:31 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [RC] New Names vs. Tradtional Names 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 <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/septemberweb-only/southern-baptist -name-change.html> to remove potential obstacles to people attending new church plants, particularly in the Northeast <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/november-web-only/sandy-spotlights -surge-in-southern-baptist-church-plants.html> . Instead, it decided to allow the use <http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/02/task_force_ke ep.html> of an unofficial moniker, Great Commission Baptists, which LifeWay Research showed less than half <http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/06/membership_do wn.html> 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 <http://www.greymatterresearch.com/index_files/Church_Names.htm> 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. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
