Denominational churches with nondenominational names

[PloverWing]

In another thread, we started talking about the phenomenon of denominational churches (Baptist, Methodist, etc.) that remove the denominational label from their church names. I'm starting an independent thread to discuss this issue. Some examples of renaming are listed at What's in a name? Churches trade old names for new, younger members and Some churches drop 'Baptist' from names to gain new members. As described in these articles, "Trinity Baptist Church" became "LifePoint Church"; "First Lutheran Church" became "Community of Grace"; "Maple Grove Evangelical Free Church" became "The Grove"; and so on. The practice seems odd to me, because I would think that a visitor or new member would eventually discover that the church is Baptist/Lutheran/etc., so why hide the denominational affiliation from visitors? Will visitors feel tricked?

So, for CF-ers who have visited such churches: Was the church more attractive because it didn't appear denominational? Did you feel deceived when you found it belonged to a denomination? Or were you happy to have been brought into the church, because denominations don't matter to you? I'd like to hear your feelings and experiences.

 

[HereIStand]

I've never attended a church that dropped the label or kept a real label hidden. A Bible church that I attended was probably nominally Baptist, but probably more broadly evangelical. If a church is actually Baptist (or what have you), then it should label itself as such. Opinions differ, clearly. Since Saddleback Church, one of the largest in the States, is Southern Baptist. There are probably other prominent examples.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Non-denoms have become so popular that struggling denominational churches think if the de-brand themselves perhaps they can make themselves more attractive to seekers. My favorite story is of a friend who I heard had joined a church known to me to be a UMC that had de-branded itself. (I was UMC at the time myself). The next time I saw him I said, "Hey, I didn't know you were a Methodist, too!" He said, "I'm not. I joined <name of de-branded UMC>."

He had attended many months, sat through membership classes, & joined without knowing his church was UMC.

 

[PloverWing]

He had attended many months, sat through membership classes, & joined without knowing his church was UMC.

Is he still there? Has he figured out that they're Methodist yet? If so, does that bother him?

 

[seeking.IAM]

He still attends there. Yes, he knows. I told him, much to his surprise. I couldn't help myself.

 

[PloverWing]

I guess if he still attends, he wasn't too deeply offended.

 

[straykat]

Even "nondenominational" is often recognizable enough at this point that I generally have a good idea what they're going to be too.

If people are trying to escape preconceptions, it's not going to happen... because it happens even in "nondenominational" cases too!

 

[aog17]

Pentecostals have been naming churches this way for many decades.

 

[anna ~ grace]

In another thread, we started talking about the phenomenon of denominational churches (Baptist, Methodist, etc.) that remove the denominational label from their church names. I'm starting an independent thread to discuss this issue. Some examples of renaming are listed at What's in a name? Churches trade old names for new, younger members and Some churches drop 'Baptist' from names to gain new members. As described in these articles, "Trinity Baptist Church" became "LifePoint Church"; "First Lutheran Church" became "Community of Grace"; "Maple Grove Evangelical Free Church" became "The Grove"; and so on. The practice seems odd to me, because I would think that a visitor or new member would eventually discover that the church is Baptist/Lutheran/etc., so why hide the denominational affiliation from visitors? Will visitors feel tricked?

So, for CF-ers who have visited such churches: Was the church more attractive because it didn't appear denominational? Did you feel deceived when you found it belonged to a denomination? Or were you happy to have been brought into the church, because denominations don't matter to you? I'd like to hear your feelings and experiences.

I have felt a little miffed, and weirded out. It's like, ok, you're Southern Baptist. Cool. Why hide that and not call yourself 'West Avenue Southern Baptist Church' as opposed to 'The Point of Grace Fellowship'. It does feel kind of deceptive. And stupid. Sorry, but it does.

I'm sure people are pulled in by the music, coffee, fellowshipping opportunities, and atmosphere, but why hide your specifically Baptist, Lutheran, or Reformed nature?

 

[Paidiske]

My guess is that the distancing from denominational affiliation isn't just about how outsiders see that church, but about how insiders see it too. As relatively independent from denominational structures, oversight and rules, for example... at least, that's what I observe about de-branded Anglican churches near me. They're the ones least likely to be using an authorised form of service, or having a strong sense of connection with the wider church, etc.

 

[Philip_B]

My guess is that the distancing from denominational affiliation isn't just about how outsiders see that church, but about how insiders see it too. As relatively independent from denominational structures, oversight and rules, for example... at least, that's what I observe about de-branded Anglican churches near me. They're the ones least likely to be using an authorised form of service, or having a strong sense of connection with the wider church, etc.

That may be an Ausralian experience influenced by one Diocesan perspective that neith of us are part of. My feeling is in the UK and US Anglican separatists are likely to be more traditional bell book and candle.

 

[Kersh]

Really depends on the denomination. Some denominations are really just a loose association that allows for pooling of resources and a general shorthand for their theological leanings. Others are much more structured, and the denominational body exercises substantial control over the workings of the local church.

For example, I would contrast the SBC with the UMC in this regard. I choose these two, because I am Southern Baptist but I grew up the UMC. My current church does not use the word Baptist in its name or market itself as SBC. However, we contribute to SBC missions, and students are able to attend SBC colleges and seminaries at SBC tuition rates, and the like. But, our church structure and politics is not affected at all by the SBC, and our theology is only conincidentally tied to the SBC.

The UMC, on the other hand, controls much of the local church practice. The denomination is divided into conferences and districts that appoint pastors to local churches and a general conference that determines the acceptable social and theological views of member congregations. I think it would be disorienting for a person to join a UMC congregation if they were not aware of the denominational affiliation, especially when it comes time to appoint a new pastor or when there arise discussions about the positions of the church.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't think the denomination name needs to be in the name of the church. Affiliation should be stated somewhere pretty obvious though. I think denomination names aren't as important because there is much less denomination loyalty then there used to be.

 

[Paidiske]

Do you think there's less loyalty because people tend not to see the differences in denominations, though? (I guess I'm asking, is it a chicken and egg thing?)

 

[Arcangl86]

Do you think there's less loyalty because people tend not to see the differences in denominations, though? (I guess I'm asking, is it a chicken and egg thing?)

I think so actually. In my experience often when people are looking at churches they are looking for a community they feel they could be part of and "strong" preaching, whatever that means for that person. And really I think that when it comes to doctrine people more see a difference between "liberal" and "conservative" rather then say Anglican and Lutheran.

 

[Dave G.]

I'm sure de-branding is about breaking old stigmas and bringing in new people..

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The practice seems odd to me, because I would think that a visitor or new member would eventually discover that the church is Baptist/Lutheran/etc., so why hide the denominational affiliation from visitors? Will visitors feel tricked?

The examples I've seen have seemed to be for reasons of attracting new members who aren't wanting to go to 'traditional' denominational groups,
and they don't usually feel 'tricked' (but they may, I don't know, but in the services they don't mention it or look like they feel tricked ; maybe they actually don't know yet ? ) ....
Also, I noticed churches "hiding" the fact that they signed 501 contracts, apparently since so many people don't want to be associated with that kind of contract anymore. (the last 20 years)... and the 'business' of the church wants more people to come, so hides what they think will keep them away.

There is much worse going on , of course, in some churches/groups that go along with the horrendous activities of the government willingly , and even help 'advertise' them ! but that's for another thread if at all.....