Bye-Bye, First Baptist
by Tom Neven on 02/25/2008 at 1:11 PM
So, as long as we're talking about evangelism and finding the perfect church, how much are you influenced by the church's name? It might sound like a silly question, but clearly a lot Christian groups have thought about it.
Would you be more likely to check out, say, First Baptist Church or The Gathering? Main Street Presbyterian or Mosaic? St. Mark's Lutheran or Common Ground?
The trend to name Christian, um … gatherings/mosaics/grounds in ways that will make them not seem like "church" is just the latest trend that began with the seeker movement. The quintessential seeker-sensitive church, Willow Creek, wouldn't even put a cross on its property lest it trip up some people. (And we now know how well that all worked out.)
But the sentiment has continued with the so-called emergent church. In an effort to be as unlike today's evangelicalism as possible, they shun names normally associated with Christian churches in an effort to make themselves sound more consumer-friendly, more inclusive, more "missional." Unfortunately, in shunning the admittedly not-so-good things about today's evangelicalism, they often shun the things that make Christianity … well, Christianity.
Take, for example, one of the churches with an unchurchy name: the real Mosaic, founded by Erwin McManus. In his book Soul Cravings (a work so eager to be unconventional it even eschews page numbers!), McManus writes, "If you pay attention to your soul, it will guide you to God." Elsewhere he writes, "If you take the time to explore nowhere else except deep within yourself, I have no doubt that you will come face-to-face with God."
McManus is right that we all sense a God-shaped hole within. But merely exploring a hole will get you nowhere. The truth about God is to be found in Scripture, not in some navel-gazing exercise. Otherwise, you wind up with this.
More to the point, these "churches" make the same theological error as the seeker movement: They assume there is such a thing as a sincere "seeker." (Yes, I'm aware of the several verses that talk about seeking, drawing close, answering the door, etc. But note that every one of them is addressed to people already chosen by God, not to those outside a relationship with Him.) Now, I have no doubt that there are people out there "seeking" something, but insofar as they're being wooed by God, we owe it to them to preach the real thing, not the watered-down, inoffensive pap that so many trendy churches seem to think they need.
As Trevin Wax so aptly points out:
[M]ost of the non-Christians that I meet with (and most of the Christians I minister to as well) want to do business with serious theological issues, like Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to God? How can a good God send people to hell? Isn’t it intolerant to proselytize? They don't want to hear pontifications on how "these are complex questions… maybe we can search together and eventually find some answers." They want to know what Christians believe.
In a world of gray, black-and-white answers are not a turn-off to unbelievers. They are appealing if explained with grace and love.
The other problem with this movement is it introduces "seekers" to an incomplete Gospel, a one-dimensional Jesus. In his trenchant review of Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz, a book popular with people who shun conventional Christianity, Shane Walker gets to the heart of the problem:
As an evangelistic tract Blue Like Jazz is too narrow. Jesus is presented as a nice fellow who meets one at the campfire and swaps stories. He's a listener, a friend, accepting, warm, kind, and gentle. And Jesus is all these things. But the meta-narrative of the Bible, also reminds us that Jesus is terrible. He is the judge, the king, the warrior, the avenger (Rev. 19:2). The good news is not merely that Jesus wants to listen to your story, but rather that he wants to save you from his just wrath.
The postmodern convert who comes to Christ the friendly listener has yet to meet the authentic Jesus. He's met the aspects of Jesus that are most comforting to contemporary Westerners, but he has never experienced the stripping bare of all fleshly dignity before the reigning king of the universe. And this nakedness before God is necessary for salvation.
The invitation to a "journey of discovery" or to "join the conversation" and similar language that you'll find in so much "emergent" writing does not give the most important truth these people need to hear: Everyone, including you and me, is a sinner in need of a savior. Until you realize this, all the other journeying and conversing are missing the point.
Solomon tells us there is nothing new under the sun, and some of these non-churchy churches are preaching, without realizing it, the same type of liberal Christianity criticized by H. Reinhold Niebuhr more than 60 years ago:
A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.
So, in reality it doesn't really matter what you call yourselves so long as you preach the full Word of God. But that begs the question: Why would you want to hide that behind some vague, consumer-friendly name? I am a member of the Evangelical Free Church of America, and I’m not ashamed to say that. How about you?
1. Christina said the following at 1:31 PM on Feb 25:
First Baptist Church or The Gathering?
Neither, but no offense, First Baptists are always WAY too big...and the Gathering...meh
Main Street Presbyterian or Mosaic?
Main Street Presbyterian...Mosaic? are you new age or something?
St. Mark's Lutheran or Common Ground?
St. Mark's...Common Ground is just...I don't know.
Call me judgemental or whatever, but I know scripture calls me to be discerning when listening to a pastor. Creed is the most important thing to me in choosing a church. First Baptist, Presbyterian, and St. Mark's: I KNOW what the creed is before walking in the door. The rest is seeing if the pastor sticks with what I know of scripture, uses it wisely, and is not contradicting other parts of scripture in his exegesis (is that the word?)
I don't have good experiences with "outside the norm" churches - they are wishy washy, new agey, and tbh, kinda creepy. Not saying there could be a gem among them, but I'm not a "seeker". I know what I'm looking for and you better know how to present face up what your talkin about before I walk in those doors. Don't lull me in with some feel good talk and feel good name.
I don't know how comfortable genuine seekers are with this approach, either. A lot of non-christians can spot fake from miles away. And these all feel like fake approaches to the gospel.
2. Bethany W. said the following at 1:32 PM on Feb 25:
In defense of Erwin McManus, Calvin (who obviously believed in the necessity of God reaching out to us) said a very similar thing in Book 1 of the Institutes.
He stated that we can't know God unless we know ourselves. Calvin also included that we can't truly know ourselves unless we know God.
Yes, that is a circular argument but I think what Calvin was really getting at is that truly knowing ourselves AND truly knowing God are very interconnected. I think that is also the point that McManus is trying to make.
And, I don't understand the emphasis on names? Why is "Evangelical Free Church of America" more God-honoring than "Mosaic"? Of all the things to critique about the "emergent" church, I don't think what they call themselves is one of them.
3. Christina said the following at 1:35 PM on Feb 25:
To add to that last comment, however, I am ashamed to admit to my denomination atm...and will not likely set foot in a church of that denomination until its leadership gets some things under control >.<
I am not ashamed of being a Christian, though. Even though I get these side-glances "oh your one of those" when I'm telling them I'm going to a Christian Concert over the weekend...which, fyi, Casting Crowns is amazing.
4. Leann said the following at 1:39 PM on Feb 25:
This is a great post. I'm a member of First Baptist Church in my town and I'm not ashamed either. I've found that many SBC churches have "covered up" the Baptist in their church name and in fact, my husband and I, when looking for a church, decided not to go to those. If they are ashamed of their affiliation with the SBC, then why change your name from So-and-So Baptist Church to the Church on the Hill, So-and-So Bible Church, etc.?
5. obewan said the following at 1:44 PM on Feb 25:
I don't see creative church naming always as an attempt to found churches that dodge conventional theology.
What I see is an attempt to create a mainstream evangelicalism where people can have a sense of oneness in a church that is torn by denominational divisions.
There are even many “denominational” churches that attempt to disguise themselves by adopting a “creative name”. Only after visiting several times and prompting for information does the truth come out.
The church is no longer a "catholic one". The Lutherans left the Catholic Church, and the "other Protestants" left each other to found their own particular "brands" of Christianity.
Many people who are attracted to “mainstream” churches crave a return to the church as it was in Christ’s time. They are tired of all the constant bickering about issues which are not essential to salvation, and want to focus on the most important issues.
Whenever I visit a church and fill out the visitor information card, and it says: "Church you are a member of:" I make trouble and write in: "The Holy Catholic Church of the Apostles Creed." I did this on back-to-back Sundays where I "visited" a Presbyterian and Baptist church. Within a month, both of them had their congregations recite the Apostle's Creed. Am I a troublemaker? I hope not. I prefer to hope it was the Holy Spirit and not me that prompted them to do it!
BTW I attend a generic “mainstream” mega-church with a simple name. They call it Christ’s Church.
6. Laura said the following at 2:06 PM on Feb 25:
I actually disagree with your first premise here, which is that churches call themselves something different to avoid having the word "church" in their name. I would assert that one of the primary reasons there's a Mars Hill Church or a Covenant Life Church or a Gathering or a Mosaic is to excise the denominational titles! It seems reasonable for church planters not to include the word "baptist" or "presbyterian," knowing how much baggage is associated with those words. The real issue is, what do these churches believe? If they're preaching Christ and him crucified, why would you ding them for not being called "Oak Street Baptist"? And if they're not preaching Christ, surely there's something you could discuss other than their names?
The Gospel is offensive to unbelievers, period. But I think we should do what we can to keep from turning people off with our man-made habits, vocabulary, and traditions.
My church is dually affiliated with Mark Driscoll's church planting network and a denomination, but we call ourselves a "community church" -- it seems silly to me to be proud to have the name of a denomination in your church's name. Shouldn't you rather be humbled to be a part of the Body of Christ?
7. KendraW said the following at 2:07 PM on Feb 25:
I attend Christ the King Presbyterian Church in Houston, TX and I'm proud to be affiliated with a church that isn't ashamed to consider itself such. As a church they don't shy away from teaching the whole biblical concept including those areas that aren't popular or easy. And yet they do it all in love.
I don't think I've ever attended a church that called itself anything other than a church. Why would we want to hide what we believe by going to a Mosaic instead of a Church?
8. Dan Gill said the following at 2:17 PM on Feb 25:
The reason for the name changes, as I see it, is the negative image people have of churches, denominations, and christians in general. Yes, the truth is found in scripture. But the world doesn't believe that. In this age, the world knows nothing of scripture, and sees no reason why it holds a higher position than, say, the Tao, or the Koran. You and I know the difference, but the world doesn't, and they have an image of the church as judgemental, dogmatic, and arrogant. Your church and mine may be none of those things (I hope), but the world sees us this way.
I am not altogether sure that re-naming a church accomplishes much. And certainly watering down scripture is wrong. But if people never meet Jesus at all, they will never know the REAL Jesus. IMHO.
9. BDB said the following at 2:25 PM on Feb 25:
You know, at first I thought this article was about getting rid of the distinctions between First Baptist and Second Baptist. I never knew there was a difference until one day when a fellow college student invited me to 2nd Baptist and I learned it was a black church with a gospel choir. I honestly never knew there was a difference before then. You don't think about those things when going to mega churches that have odd names and are racially integrated.
In any case, across the street from me lives a pastor of what is theologically a Southern Baptist church. But in worship format, they've adopted the mega-church PowerPoint style of praise band. It makes for some interesting visitors - those familiar with the nondenominational churches are surprised by the Baptist preaching, the Baptists who found the church in the phone book are surprised by the praise band and electric guitars. But they have an interesting little niche.
They're called "The Vine."
10. Carrie (the original) said the following at 2:25 PM on Feb 25:
Since I want to follow Ted's advise in "Communication Sandwich" . . .
I agree that seeker friendly churches do more harm than good for Christianity. I think it's downright damnable for people to hide their church and disguise it from being an actual church just so they can draw in the big crowds.
When I was reading the first part of the article and came to "Elsewhere he writes, "If you take the time to explore nowhere else except deep within yourself, I have no doubt that you will come face-to-face with God." I was worried that people (in the comments section) might bring up Donald Miller. I didn't have to wait that long though.
I read the article (by Shane Walker) cited just last week and I thought was he was very wrong in his assessment of Donald Miller and downright uncharitable. I go to a church that preaches Christ crucified and my pastor warns us (practically on weekly basis) that God's judgement will come on us all.
My pastor and I are huge Donald Miller fans.
Donald Miller isn't a preacher. He's not a minister. It's not up to him to warn crowds that God's wrath is coming. He's a plain, common, Christian who likes to share his thoughts with anyone who will listen. He has been given no more of a right to shout at the crowds of their impending doom than I have or any of the Boundless writers for that matter.
Miller presents his readers with the character of Christ that listens, cares, shares, delights, and watches over His followers. He reminds us that Christ is speaking to our souls and encourages us to listen.
The wrathful Jesus, while true, is not always very comforting. For some people (like Donald and I), we know that we are damned apart from Christ. We know it, but we don't want to dwell on it. We want to walk with Him. We want to invite others on the journey that is the Christian life.
I'd really appreciate it if Boundless would no longer criticize Mr. Miller. He's a brother, nobody can deny that and be serious.
11. Jamie said the following at 2:29 PM on Feb 25:
I would go to any church that had "Catholic" in its name somewhere--anywhere that celebrated a valid Mass.
Or, I suppose, anywhere I was invited to go by others.
I think you're right that the churches of today go too far to appeal to the pop culture of the day. Sure, a certain amount of inculturation is inevitable, because all worshipers bring their own culture to the common table, but actively SEEKING to conform to the world's standards and practices is not a Christian concept. The truth is not always easy or hip. Christ died one of the most brutal deaths ever to redeem an unrepentant and sinful humanity, before and after doing so preaching concepts that no one could fully understand. He rose from the dead and conquered death for us all. If you get away from the "Christ crucified" gospel of St. Paul, then you're getting away from Christianity itself.
The church is supposed to be a city on a hill, giving light to the world. It cannot be of the world and still do this. The church's teaching should NOT be in line with what people like to hear but rather the truth. And changing church names or building cool buildings or using popular music won't help you out if you gloss over the truth.
...so, yeah, 'tis what I think.
12. Eliza said the following at 2:45 PM on Feb 25:
For the record, I'd like to say that I go to a church named after my street. That's about as boring and traditional as it gets :).
I've done a bit of reading on the emergent church (Brian McLaren's New Kind of Christian trilogy and Blue Like Jazz) and I must say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I'm not in any kind of in-circle, but I would say that I'm pro-emergent.
I kind of snicker at names like "Portico" or "Sandals Church" or even "Terra Nova". Not because I think it's hypocritical or anything--mostly because it's so obvious that they are trying to be painfully authentically postmodern. I say, more power to them. "Mosaic" is a great name-a beautiful picture of what the body of Christ is supposed to be. "Mars Hill" obviously offers a Biblical reference promoting intellectual pursuit of God. It seems that churches are choosing names a lot like some cultures (including ancient Israel) choose names for their children: to express meaning.
However, just because a church is named something boring doesn't mean it's not got emergent tendencies. I think of Church of the Advent Episcopal in Boston and Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC as quick examples.
I think there is a tendency for people to see "cool" (emergent) churches as being seeker-friendly, but I think that's not their purpose at all. They really are trying to be very doctrinally serious. A lot of thought goes into the purpose of "doing church" or "doing theology"--of worship, of sacraments, of liturgy, etc. And the deep questions that non-Christians have are the same deep questions that young postmodern Christians have. I think emergent churches try really hard to be honest with themselves and with the world about who God is and what God really says.
Rock on Bill Hybels ;).
13. Lindsey said the following at 2:49 PM on Feb 25:
I agree with Laura above.
Names are names and, many times, behind them are real people who genuinely want to see people know Jesus.
Surely, there are probably some artsy named churches mis-representing the truth in the scriptures - but it sounds a little boastful if any of us kind of roll our eyes at these churches - and assume that which may not be true.
Sit down with a pastor or leader at a "Mosaic" and get to know his heart for his church, the lost and his vision for a transformed community. Sometimes, sure, theology might be sketchy - but other times, there might be a cool, diverse, varied way God is using such a ministry to advance the Gospel and make God famous.
14. Ronnica said the following at 2:56 PM on Feb 25:
I'm a member of Open Door Baptist Church. I love the name because it doesn't hide who it is, a Baptist church, but also indicates that our doors our open and we welcome all.
That said, I don't like the name of our denomination so much: SOUTHERN Baptist Convention. I'm not from the South, and I think that this name unnecessarily limits it. We're international, why don't we have a name that reflects that?
15. Henry T. said the following at 2:57 PM on Feb 25:
I view it like this: Churches that have the denominational affiliation included in their name gives the potential member/adherent an idea of where the church may stand on doctrinal and social issues, and advises them of what to expect in a Sunday service.
A cool-sounding name like 'Mosaic' or 'The Gathering' doesn't provide that same sense of solidity. Also, it can give the impression that someone is trying to hide something.
(And since we're all sharing, I'm a member of Church Creek Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Charleston, SC.)
16. Brent said the following at 3:13 PM on Feb 25:
I never check out Churches that have ambiguous names. I recently moved and had to change Church homes. Out of all of the congratations I looked into join none of them had fluffy living plant by the peaceful streams of the ancient way of the Lord type of names. The way I see it, if the Church can not be honest with me up front on the building as to what their doctrinal stances and heritage is, I question their honesty in the pulpit, and also question where the leadership is taking the Church. A cute name today, at the expense of a vast spiritual inheritance, bothers me.
17. DannieA said the following at 3:13 PM on Feb 25:
I don't like vague names. As a person who may be searching, it would be ok I suppose, but after initially becoming aware of Christianity, I would hope that as a person's faith went deeper, certain beliefs would make them comfortable in a denominational church.
For example...while I don't believe creeds will save you, that's only through the Grace of God, I believe that one should hold certain beliefs true to them because to me it tells me they are studying and firm on their beliefs.
I personally enjoy visiting many churches, but in order to be a member of one I would have to limit the scope of my search to either a
1. Seventh-Day Adventist Church
or
2. Seventh-Day Baptist Church
due to the fact that I do believe in the sanctity and relevance of the Sabbath.
Not to say that I wouldn't be comfortable worshipping at a mega-church (which I have gladly done)
and I also have worshipped in Churches of Christ (Max Lucado's church) due to the affiliation of the University I attended in TX...but it is nice and a welcome experience to worship with people who more or less have the same aligned belief systems/creeds then I do. Since we are individuals, I don't believe you have to believe exactly everything that church teaches...in that same manner.
18. Mike Theemling said the following at 3:17 PM on Feb 25:
Hmm, I wonder when we'll start seeing "Buddy Jesus'" on church steps.
19. Leah said the following at 3:22 PM on Feb 25:
churches in australia have long put the denomination in the name. They don't usually drop "church" off it though- people just drop it in conversation so it's less to say. ie. my church is called Willows Presbyterian Church but people just call is Willows Presbyterian or Willows Pressie. Same goes for Townsville District Baptist Church, which most people just refer to as the Bapos. Or St Andrews Presbyterian Church which just gets called St Andy's. (Of course, these names are all by people who attend/know people who attend. To an outside, it's still the actual name because that's the name on the sign).
The good thing about including the denomination in the name means new comers (who have attended church previously) will know roughly what type of teaching to expect there. ie. a Methodist would be unlikely to agree with many of the teachings at an AOG church, and an AOG one would be unlikely to agree with many of the teachings at an Anglican one etc etc.
20. Aria said the following at 3:32 PM on Feb 25:
Interestingly enough - I've always been extremely suspicious of any church that didn't have their denomination in their name... (For that matter I'd like to see Southern Baptists churches clarify that they are, similar to the PCA and the PCUSA and whatever the new Presbyterian church is - the EPC? (I'm a Wesley-Presby-Method-aptist - I've been a lot of denominations in my life, lol)
If the denomination is in the name, then I can go find out what they believe - if its not, then I don't have an easy way to know that they're not off their rocker...(in my own humble opinion)...
Needless to say, while I don't have a problem with nondenominationalism, in practice I do, because I want to know what their theology is before I visit a church - and its rather hard to get a real picture of that on most nondenominational church websites...
21. kaj said the following at 3:37 PM on Feb 25:
I have always wondered what the significance is of "First [insert denomination here] Church, Second [insert denomination here] church. And why don't we see any "Last [insert denomination here] churches (:
Obviously, from what I read in the Bible, there are no naming conventions. Paul addressed his letters to the church in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, and so on, but my understanding it was to the Christian people in general, not to a specific building or congregation.
I know of one denomination where some of the churches are named after the location (e.g. city, neighborhood, or street), and others in the same denomination which have names such as "Ebenezer," "Maranatha," "Immanuel," and the like.
I also have met people who believe that the church is really the people, not just the building. The building is just a place, a shelter, if you will, for them to hold weekend services and is a launching pad for community outreach.
Some denominational names can get rather long and cumbersome. I will refrain from naming any to not offend anyone.
I also see names, churches (and other companies, Christian, secular, or otherwise), from a graphic designer's point of view: If you must have a name, make it memorable and simple. A long name is not as cost-effective either (for example, a sign shop might charge less for a name that is, say 20 characters in length versus 40 characters in length).
(I will also note that a short name is not necessarily a good one: I have worked for a company that changed its name to one that's fairly short, but it's difficult to pronounce, and few coworkers liked it).
For me, what a church is named or the architecture outside does not matter as much as what is preached and practiced on the inside.
22. Bridget said the following at 4:02 PM on Feb 25:
I belong to the Roman Catholic Parish of the Assumption of our Lady, (I have to write really small on my checks), and I’m not ashamed of it either.
The unfortunate fact is that once I say where I go to mass a great many of my protestant friends/acquaintances start doubting my credibility-- but at least then it's about more than the name.
23. Olivia said the following at 5:03 PM on Feb 25:
I see the denomination-labeled churches as potentially divisive... at least where I live, denominations can be barriers between people. Baptists hang out with Baptists, Methodists with Methodists, etc. - because that's easier than everyone trying to get along, right? As someone who's grown up at a First Baptist, many people sincerely consider being Southern Baptist as a superior state of existence. All those people who aren't, somehow missed the boat. :P
That said, when I was in Charleston, SC this past weekend, and had to randomly pick from literally hundreds of churches which to attend, I picked one named Seacoast. Turns out, it's one of those "postmodern, seeker-friendly" megachurches, but we were incredibly impressed by the Biblical doctine preached. The /whole/ Word of God was alive and well there, and I might point out that as evangelical Christians, it might be a good idea to belong to a church to which you feel comfortable inviting your friends and acquaintances (i.e. warm, laid-back atmosphere). Just my two cents.
24. Rachael said the following at 5:36 PM on Feb 25:
I'd be curious to know any testimonies by people who may have been drawn in by 'ambiguous names' (16). I don't see the need for trendy names, but if it reaches people, so be it. To all people, all things...1 Cor. 9:22-23...(is this self-monitoring?) The church I've been going to for the past few months has a 'trendy' name, but that's not what drew me at all. Factors that drew me were the content of a particular person's Sunday School lessons(amazing!! straight up Bible! insightful!), the music (theologically rich lyrics and beautiful!), the community, and a particular outreach thing. I'm blessed. Still unsure if it's where I want to remain forever, but, I'm blessed.
25. Rachael said the following at 5:42 PM on Feb 25:
PS. Even though I personally don't feel the need for trendy names (though if it draws people maybe it's a good thing), it might be good to consider for 'baptist' churches for example. Just so you know I'm not attacking the denomination, I don't consider myself any particular denomination (my guess is that my views might be Reformed Baptist, but I go to a church of a different denomination), and my old church is baptist and I am still involved with a ministry at it. I loved the preaching there; it's awesome. However, I think that denomination is stigmatized, and there is great variation within baptist churches (different branches of baptists), so, I could see how people might want to take the word 'baptist' out. Don't think the name would have to be 'cool', as what seems 'cool' now won't in another 10-20 years.
26. Suzanne said the following at 5:49 PM on Feb 25:
I don't usually agree with Tom Neven's posts, but I have to say you are right on with this one.
I like denominational names as far as they help me understand where this particular group is coming from. It's not a surprise, and I know what I'm getting myself into.
But also, I like the "localness" of church names because it identifies a church with a neighborhood. I hope that Main Street Presbyterian is a church that welcomes everyone around Main Street. Riverside First Baptist is identifying itself with the town and the people who live there, while also letting you know what they believe.
I even like Riverside Community Church better that "The Gathering." In the first, you know that it's a church, for the community, in this community. In the second, you could be walking into a hippie commune, a bookstore, or a cult. Or a church. It's hard to tell from the name.
And while we shouldn't judge a book by its cover, most of us still do.
Oh, and Tom, I'm with the EFCA too.
27. Laura said the following at 7:21 PM on Feb 25:
I find the objections from believers a bit thin here -- it's as if some of the commenters are saying, "Look, I can't be bothered to do any research about what a church actually believes, so they'd better make that clear from the name." Every believer looking for a church has a pretty solemn responsibility to learn whether or not the church preaches the Gospel, and whether you fit with the church's mission and vision.
But the church doesn't simply exist for the sake of believers -- to make things convenient for Christians -- it exists to shine the light of the Gospel in its community. Some church leaders have decided it's best to avoid the stumbling block of a denominational titles. So what?
28. Katie P. said the following at 7:35 PM on Feb 25:
I guess I have a personal testimony for Rachael (post 24). My dad planted a church (along with my best friend's family) when I was 3 with one of these "ambiguous" names. Of course, this was about 18 years ago, before the whole trend took off, but our church was and always has been a Southern Baptist church. It's not something our church has tried to hide, and the staff (and members) will gladly tell anyone who asks. However, because the church is not in the middle of the "Bible belt," most people do not necessarily grow up as nominal Christians, and because of the negitive stigma, would never set foot in a church with the name "Baptist" in it. That's not a value judgement one way or the other, but simply the reality of the situation. The church teaches and preaches the whole Word of God, and accountability and community are values that are championed.
To me, the name of the church doesn't matter nearly as much as the heart of the church. I don't think there are many things as beautiful as a church that is actively and enthusiastically chasing after God, His Word, and people, whether it is called First Baptist or The Door :)
29. Al said the following at 7:41 PM on Feb 25:
In Blue like Jazz's defense, Donald Miller readily recognizes that the main problem is *him*. He is well aware of his own sinfulness and his brokenness and his own inability to love despite how he thinks it a grand idea, and finds hope and forgiveness in Jesus. I think that's a good starting point to faith in Christ even if the book doesn't pound home Christ as glorious, wrathful Judge and King in the end. At least I find it a lot better than the sort of vague Christian spirituality, "emergent" or otherwise, that doesn't confess and mournfully embrace the truth about one's own darkness, and then embraces God's forgiveness and repentance in turn.
Yes, Jesus was God who told stories. He was also "buddy" enough of a God who attracted children and who John was able to lean on during the last supper-- as weird as that is to our modern day masculine sensibilities. And finally, He is victorious king who will open a can of whooparse in the end, adorned with tats, and as Mark Driscoll says, "uses blood as a fashion accessory". It's hard for me to reconcile all these things as I don't know anyone in life that I relate to simultaneously in all those ways.
Anyway for what it's worth, Miller speaks highly of Driscoll, and I do really enjoy Driscoll for being able to preach a firm message of both God's justice, wrath, hell, and forgiveness in Christ with boldness, conviction, and with a voice that still drips with love and concern towards the hearer.
As far as names go, names shouldn't matter on some level, but they do. Having always gone to non-denominational congregational fellowships/churches that tended to be somewhat moderate-to-conservative, I would be slightly subconsciously predisposed against a denominational church, out of fear that I'm marrying the denomination's theology and interpretation of scripture rather than scripture itself, or at least being allowed to struggle though it myself. But that probably wouldn't be the case, and that's just me being silly.
What matters about a name is probably mostly what it expresses, and how well it expresses its congregation, as well as the motivations behind the name. The latter I don't always read correctly. There is a local church named the Great Exchange that I first thought referred to it being some sort of social community and marketplace of christian fellowship and interaction. My more cynical size thought it must be referring to it being a Christian meet/meat market of sorts. Turns out that the church's name quotes Martin Luther, in referencing our Great Exchange through Christ-- that He takes our sin, and gives us grace, and ultimately Himself.
Not exactly what I thought it meant... it's a name I could get behind though.
30. DT said the following at 8:59 PM on Feb 25:
I'm very thankful for my First Presbyterian Church (PCA)! In fact, it's so well known in the large city where I live that people only have to say "First Church" to know exactly which one you're talking about.
31. Matthew Ussery said the following at 9:13 PM on Feb 25:
It seems wise that we refrain from using such a broad brush when painting a picture of American-Evangelical-Churches. The church at which I attend is officialy and doctrinally Southern Baptist, but the approach that it takes is not cut from the traditionalistic-baptist-church cloth of the 1950's. The church is also named after the area (we'll call it North Wade Church).
I won't write on the issues related to emerging vs. emergent vs. emerg-whatever. The cultural shifts that we are witnessing in this age are tremendous and have already produced many volumes by many authors. For a blog, it should suffice to say that Christians and the Church in America MUST preach from the only authority available to humanity - the Word of God.
32. Glenise said the following at 11:00 PM on Feb 25:
My grandma's name is Muriel. No offense to anyone whose name is Muriel, but there's a reason people don't generally name their kids that any more. Times change.
I'm sorry, but I think this article is based mostly on stereotypes. I go to a wonderful church with a very non-traditional name, and when it comes to sin we let you know that God loves you, but He doesn't tolerate it. Ain't NO candy coating in here. I think that if you want to judge a church's character, you'd better find something more substantial to base it on than what people choose to call it.
And I am so fed up with all this emphasis on "my" denomination. You'd think we'd be GRIEVING at all the divisions in God's Church! I believe that God does every Sunday. Remember, one of Christ's last prayers before He went on the cross - "...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you"? What on earth happened? Sometimes it saddens me to see how we flaunt our Sunday differences in the face of a world which already mocks us for the paradox of our lip-service of love and our deliberate acts of segregation. Why do we have to wait until we're dead and before the throne of God to truly act as one Body? Maybe getting rid of denominational names is just a step in that direction.
Do you honestly believe that non-Christians give two cents about what your denomination's name is? You'd think that they'd be more to likely stay because we follow Christ and are filled with His Holy Spirit, rather than be attracted to the name on the front door. Granted, yes, some newer churches do have vague, club-sounding names and do tend to sugar-coat and beat around the gospel bush. But I, like many people, have previously made the mistake of judging books by their covers (and titles) and being very, very wrong.
No, my church's name is not traditional. So what? The truth it preaches hasn't changed in over 2000 years.
33. david beldon said the following at 11:05 PM on Feb 25:
I think you are getting being a little silly and completely missing the point on the church name thing. The fact of the matter is there is a lot of baggage in most people's mind's on what a baptist or a protestant is. A lot of people have no clue. Are we bobbing for apple what are we protesting. Instead of saying we are baptist lets talk about Jesus. Lets hold on to entire theological truth of scripture and let go of the some of the stupid methodology that doesnt work. I agree somewhat with the charicature of blue like jazz but the reason it is so popular with young christians is because a lot of us were never shown the side of Jesus that desperately loves us, that is truly tender and would be our friend and wants to show us kindness (boundless really needs to quit taking shots at this guy; he loves Jesus and what he writes isnt heretical). We were only shown the do this do that side of Jesus (without a clear display of his heart towards us). In short a lot of the emergent stuff is a overreaction to cold, prideful, fundamentalists. There is also a lot of goofy christian subculture and method of church that are not holy in and of themselves that can be shed.
In the end we need churches that preach the Gospel and are true to scripture. Who cares what the name is!
34. Tiffany said the following at 3:29 AM on Feb 26:
Apparently I'm much the opposite of most people on here. I prefer non-denominational churches and the first thing I like to find out about a church is its doctrine. I resent the criticism of Mosaic just for its name, and that comment leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well as a reflection of bad journalism. So what if they don't have "church" on the end of their name? Does it make them any less a church? I live in China, and many fellowships here are left unnamed - that must be terrible for the congregation. Just fyi, from their website, "The name of our community comes from the diversity of our members and from the symbolism of a broken and fragmented humanity which can become a work of beauty under the artful hands of God." What a terrible example of symbolism, huh?
I don't understand why there are so many people who are SO critical of the emergent movement. According to that new survey, there are fewer Christians in the US than ever before. I'd like to see both sides of the church start to live by Phil 1:15-18.
35. Glenise said the following at 6:51 AM on Feb 26:
Just to clarify.
I don't think there's anything identifying yourself with being Baptist or Catholic or Pentecostal. I just don't think it's accurate to say that "Well, OUR church is more spiritual than THEIR church because because our name is more traditional than theirs".
I refuse my baby Muriel and I certainly don't think that will reduce her character.
Come on, people.
36. Grays said the following at 7:54 AM on Feb 26:
I always wanted to go to church at a place with a sign out front that said:
"CHURCH".
What church do you go to? "CHURCH".
Yess, it would be marvelous.
37. Jen said the following at 8:14 AM on Feb 26:
Thanks for the post, Tom. I appreciate your willingness to take a stand on the issue of "seeker sensitive" and "emergent" churches.
38. andrew said the following at 8:57 AM on Feb 26:
ev. free church? cool. thats the one that let us start a coffee shop style service in the 80's. nice to meet others with that denomination.
we are considered emerging church but we play down our label and name in order to be the church in our city. didnt churches in the new testament get identified with their city or area? why is naming a denomination a better way to go?
39. Tom Neven said the following at 10:17 AM on Feb 26:
Wow, it's amazing how the unintended rabbit trails go running off in a direction you never expect.
My point was not that churches should have a denominational name in them. I wrote in my conclusion:
For several years I attended the nondenominational College Church in Wheaton. I even tried Willow Creek for a while. (I found it to be like eating rice cakes: momentarily sweet in the mouth but, in the end, insubstantial.) I attended the formerly nondenominational Grace Church in Fredericksburg, VA, for some time before it joined the Evangelical Free Church, and I've been an E-Free guy ever since.
My point, perhaps not stated clearly enough, was that churches that tend to downplay their affiliation, i.e., Christian, in the name tend to downplay the central tenets of Christianity in their teaching. Of course, not always true, and there are certainly several formal denominations that have also moved away from teaching biblical truth.
To reiterate my central question: if you want to preach the gospel and introduce people to their need for a savior in Jesus, why be so coy in what you call yourself?
By all means be culturally relevant. As Francis Schaeffer said, meet people where they are and proceed from there--the key word being proceed. Remaining at the level they come in in order to be culturally relevant doesn't bring them up; it brings you down.
40. Liz said the following at 12:16 AM on Feb 27:
AMEN, brotha! When I read this, I was like... "Preach it, preacha!"
Wow, I wish more people would have their eyes open like this. Thank you for taking my thoughts and putting them in words that I am not capable of doing. I think so many things, but I have difficulty bringing words to them.
This issue is something I'm torn on... the idea you've mentioned above with the "emergent" church. Have you read the "unChristian" book? I'm curious to know what you think, Tom. Have you ever read "The Kingdom-Focused Church" by Gene Mims? If not, I HIGHLY recommend it.
Thank you again for putting this in words...again, I find it just refreshing that there are other people out here who realize that it's not about softening the message. I am just so torn on where the balance is... sharing the gospel and loving people. You've gotta do both, but where is the line and how does one know it? And plus, I've also realized that some have the gift of evangelism (like myself) so my thoughts are different than others' thoughts regarding the loving people yet preaching Christ Jesus.
I love the verse that the apostle Paul uses... 1 Corinthians 2:2,"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." Knowing Christ and Him crucified. Gosh. Powerful stuff...
41. obewan said the following at 11:38 AM on Feb 27:
I don’t have a problem with churches seeking to become more relevant as long as they do not compromise their positions on scripture.
I found this article in my email today called: “They Love Jesus, They Just Don’t Like the Church”. If it is accurate, the implications are both disturbing and thought provoking. It says in part:
“Those outside the Church hold increasingly negative views of Christians as well. Among young people (aged 16-29), roughly 49 percent hold an “extraordinarily negative” view of evangelical Christians and only 3 percent have a “good” impression!
Kinnamon and Lyons summarize the problem well by pointing to the comments of one thirty-five year-old believer who says, ‘Christians have become political, judgmental, intolerant, weak, religious, angry, and without balance. Christianity has become a nice Sunday drive. Where is the living God, the Holy Spirit, and amazing Jesus, the love, the compassion, the holiness? This type of life, how I yearn for that.’”
http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11568526/
42. Leah said the following at 10:14 PM on Feb 27:
Laura- if you're on holidays for a few days somewhere, you might not exactly have the time to do extensive research into the area's churches to see what they all stand for. Having it in the name is helpful.
43. obewan said the following at 11:58 AM on Feb 29:
Leah at #47 writes:
"...you might not exactly have the time to do extensive research into the area's churches to see what they all stand for. Having it in the name is helpful."
What's in a name can be a dangerous and misleading game to play with some churches. What about those denominations ready to split up over gay clergy? Should some of them or all them be written off based upon their name?
My brother in law is an elder in a large PCA church. They fired their "non-celibate" gay organist, and faced an immediate backlash and media frenzy and protests that brought out police barricades. Other PCA churches have little probelem with "non-celibate" gays and make huge noises at the annual convention evey year.
Should a Bible believing PCA church that sponsors "Walk Through The Bible" seminars be written off? The person that does it would really miss out I think.
The same is true of Epispocal churches here in FL. There is one in our town that is closer to mainstream evangelical than Epispocal. They are very solid on the scripture and evangelism and have music that any Pentecostal church would envy!
My experience has taught me that church names are not always WYSIWYG! I would say visiting is still required because it can vary with individual pastors.
44. obewan said the following at 6:53 AM on Mar 3:
At post #43 I said PCA when I meant to say PCUSA. I always get them confused.
45. Christina said the following at 10:48 AM on Mar 3:
Obewan -
Post #41 (i'll read the article in a lil bit):
Why limit it just to non-christians? There are christians out there that view churches with the same amount of suspicion and have been treated just as bad, if not worse, by people in the church.
Post #43:
I grew up Episcopal. My uncle is an Episcopal priest and refuses to leave the church. My home church recently split, seperating itself from the church I walked from diapers to womanhood in...and the church I still plan on getting married in...even though my family is part of the half that is no longer "Episcopal".
Where I have my own views on the gay clergy (that I feel are incredibly biblical, not intolerant, and completely not supportive of the current state of my "denomination"), I see the direction that the Episcopal church is going in in general and cringe. There is still a lot of biblical teaching going on in Floridian Episcopal Churches (I grew up here and am still aware of what's being taught within that denomination here). But Bishop Howe won't be bishop forever, and where he's already begun to compromise, who's going to be in charge of appointing the new bishop when he retires?
Right now, I can walk into a florida church with "Episcopal" written across the front, and take comfort and find rest from a long week in the format of a service, the familiar words of the creed, the easy melody of the "Sanctus", and giggle over the cumbersome melody lines found in many of our hymns. So far, nothing's changed when you attend a service...but I go in keeping in mind that I have to be mindful of the teaching. Its like everything that happened simply confirms what we all should be doing anyway (and someone pointed out):
You must exercise discretion no matter the words printed on the sign outside the door.
46. Christina said the following at 10:52 AM on Mar 3:
lol...oh...concerning comment #3 and the one I just posted.
After looking for a new church for a few months, I finally got tired of not being in one...I was longing for that pattern again (really, many hate it, but I find that it helps me relax and gain a clearer focus on who God is).
I walked into an Episcopal Church on Sunday...and I actually quite enjoyed it :)