Last week, Charisma published a provocative online commentary by editor Lee Grady. Lee is a bold analyzer of Christian culture and one of my former racquetball partners back when I lived in Florida in the late ’90s. In his April 16 column, “Tired Labels and Worn-out Wineskins,” Lee urges Christian leaders to reconsider the bewildering messages being sent by the names of some of our churches:
Would you visit a church called The Holy Assembly of the Fire-Baptized Brethren? Probably not, because it sounds elitist, self-righteous and really old-fashioned. Your unchurched neighbors would most likely drive a few extra miles to avoid passing the place.
Yet many church names today sound almost as strange and unwelcoming. We insist on using religious vocabulary from previous centuries to define ourselves, and then we wonder why people consider us out of touch.
I realize I am grazing into sacred cow pasture when I suggest that we reevaluate the terms we love. We like our labels because we are fond of our history. But if we want to reach our culture for Christ, we had better become willing to let go of the past.
Have you ever asked a non-Christian how he reacts to words such as Pentecostal, charismatic, Southern Baptist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Mennonite or Foursquare? Do Methodists use methods? Do you have to be Anglo to be an Anglican? Why do some churches include “First” or “Greater” in their names? Greater than what?
I am not trying to devalue what God did when the Holy Spirit birthed these movements. But all labels have a shelf life. My hunch is that many names we use today carry expiration dates that have passed.
I think Lee raises good questions. Are some potential church visitors scared off by the archaic, religious-sounding titles they see on our church signs? When it comes to presenting a clear, inviting image to the world, should some of our church names be fair game for revision?
Lee goes on to suggest that some of the friendlier, nondenominational-sounding names that we find on a growing number of contemporary churches are a good thing. Though they often sound like streets in suburban subdivisions, names like Saddleback, Willow Creek, and Harbor Light are warmer and unencumbered by loaded religious jargon.
I get Lee’s point, and I’ve seen some polysyllabic church names that border on the absurd. However, is it always wrong to include key signifiers such as “Wesleyan” or “Apostolic” or “Reformed” in our church names? Aren’t these helpful codes for Christians moving into a new community who are in search of a familiar faith tradition? Or do we need to ditch the tradition for the sake of reaching more souls?
I wonder if we sometimes underestimate the power of sacred language. Many non-churchgoers may not understand the meaning of New Holiness Missionary Baptist or Incarnate Word Lutheran or Bethel African Methodist Episcopal, but they have a sense that it stands for something lasting; they know that God must be present there because that was the kind of church that Grandma Laura or their old neighbor Mr. Henderson faithfully attended. And that may one day be the reason they darken that church’s door.
Still, Lee’s challenge is worth pondering. Sometimes our churches and Christian institutions may be due a name change. But when and why? What do you think?
Great thought. I think that we need to always be evaluating things like this so that we not turning of our target audience needlessly.
Uncompromising on truth, but relevant on other things. Often we hold to traditions as if they are truth that cannot be compromised.
Just here to say hi. As for this question, well, I don’t know that I ever really pay attention to church names. It’s the people who are the first line.
Yep, I with you on this one Ed. Names matter and matter deeply, so we need to be willing both to change the name we’ve got and adjust the name when it becomes obsolete.
Or just name the thing something that never goes out of style:
Park Street Church.
My old church and the church I attend now changed their name to _________ Christian Church instead of _____ Church of Christ about ten years ago because there was an increasingly negative and confusing connotation to “Church of Christ.” Some people associated it with the liberal United Church of Christ denomination, and some associated it with the ultra conservative non instrumental Church of Christ movement, and with the International Church of Christ cult.
I’m personally turned off by names that seem overly denominational or long. I remember seeing a church name that was about eight words long. It must have been from a church merger or something because at least two denominations were mentioned in the name.
On the other extreme, I’ve seen a trend to give churches essentially meaningless names, something akin to the old cell phone company “Cinglular.” Names like “Quest,” “Discover” and “Endeavor” have shown up in my community recently. Those kinds of names don’t really mean anything; you can at least name the church after the street it’s on 🙂
I agree that names are important, but we can’t get obsessed with them and change the name of the church every ten years to keep up with an ever changing culture.
I believe that churches need to re-evaluate their sermon boards also. Such sayings as “This light will change will you” or “make your eternal reservations now—‘smoking or non-smoking are corny, trite, and ineffective in reaching others. In my experience most people avoid churches such as these. They write it off as another “bumper sticker” mentality church.
I think you’re right that denominational names do stand for something that’s significant and lasting. So I’d say that church leaders should think long and hard before abandoning the traditional for the trendy. After all, most of the data we have suggests that the more churches try to follow the trends, the more the seekers long for tradition.
But Evette does have a good point about the sermon boards.
The church of my youth is currently undergoing a name-changing crisis. They are an “evangelical” off-chute of a conservative (but socially liberal) mainline Anabaptist denomination.
Yes. That’s an arm-load of bomb-shell-laden baggage they are trying to diffuse with the simple end-all/ be-all process of re-naming themselves.
There are people in that congregation still offended that the church has abandoned significant tenets of the mainline-denominational heritage (ie, hard-line pacifism). Yet there are others who refuse to “vote” (part of their problem is they are a “democratic” church by constitution) for ANY name that associates the church with the town in which it is located– not everybody wants to be associated with that town.
And so-on.
They’re left struggling trying to find an agree-able, arbitrary, geographical-landmark-which-may-signify-some-profound- spiritual-meaning word or phrase by which they will forever be known. “Bridgeway”. “Crossroads”. “New Beginnings”. “Desolate Prairie”. (Okay, I just added that last one for humor.)
I’m left half-laughing, half-scratching my head. I’ve never been a big fan of labels. Especially when I’m labeled. Especially by someone who hardly even knows me, except for that label. It’s gotten to the point, though, that I’m rather put off by what I know to be a solid, Bible-teaching, evangelical church, with their current hang-up on what seems to be a self-centered, self-serving, shallow, and “un-Christ-centered” internal debate.
In the words of one of my all-time-favorite Christian singer-songwriters, Bill Malonee (Vigilantes of Love):
Don’t miss the Truth for a stupid side-show.
Don’t confuse the cup for the contents it holds.
Bill goes on to muse…
Been my staple for so many years.
It’s hard to taste the wine when you’re drunk on the tears.
The whole story begs the question:
What did the “Church in Corinth” or “The believers in Phillipi” call themselves? Did anyone (including the “card-carrying” members of those congregations) even CARE?
Indeed, the Curch of Acts was known to EVERYONE in the community (believers and others), by the name of it’s Savior, by its Faith, and by its “works”. Let this be our “name”:
“And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.”
…
… How’bout “Church of Solomon’s Portico”? Beats “Bridgeway”, don’t it?
🙂
I often think about the context in all of this. The church name generally says something both about the local body and about the neighborhood.
It is when the local body is totally irrelevant to the local community that these signs and names appear so out of touch.
If I am on a backroad and pass a country church that has a cheezy marquis and a mile down the road the local diner and bar have similar signs I get a good chuckle at each. At least they are in context.
If I am in a growing “excurb” and see that same cheezy sign I cringe, sensing that the church is out of touch with those God is bringing their way.
I am in the process of photographing (a) churches with bars and (b) storefront churches in Chicago. I think your next article ought to explore “What’s in a building”. . .
I have a question hope someone can help with.
my question is this:what is the meanning of the word
“POINT’ in church names,for example- Cross point Church
or names like Grace point. I have seen a number of churcheswith Grace Baptist and i know it is a Baptist church
but churches with names like given above i do not know
what kind of church they are can some one help.Thanks!
Dear Charles,
One of the dictionary definitions of “point” is “a location, spot, or position.” And you often will see the word used in that context as part of the name of a mall, a suburban subdivision, or maybe an office building. Other definitions for the word speak of “a specific condition or degree” or “a geometic element marking specific coordinates.” There are several other dictionary definitions as well, but my sense is that churches generally use the term as a figure of speech to suggest, for example, “a place where grace is found” (Grace Point) or “a place where the message of the Cross is preached” (Cross Point). You get the idea.
Somebody else might be able to chime in if I’m missing another possible meaning, but those are the first ones that leap to mind for me. I hope that’s helpful. Thanks so much for dropping by my blog.
Peace,
Ed G.
Hi Edward – nice blog. We have a similar discussion going at http://naturalchurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/whats-in-a-name/ if you are interested. Tobie van der Westhuizen, South Africa (land of reconciliation)