« Two Notable Missions Deaths: Photographer Don Rutledge and Fuller Seminary's Dean Gilliland | Main | Craig Williford, President of Trinity International University, Will Not Renew Contract »
February 22, 2013
Should Your Church's Name Include Its Denomination?
(UPDATED) New research says both churchgoers and the unchurched agree decision is a 'two-edged sword.'
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."
An extension chart of Grey Matters findings can be found here.
Comments
What's happened to honesty? If one is a Southern Baptist, as am I, then my beliefs follow a conservative pattern...that of the scripture. Should not a church which follows a pattern set by its denomination (The Baptist Faith and Message) let those who consider it as a possible place of faith and worship know up front before one even enters the building? "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5...no even a smidgen of deviousness should appear.
Posted By: Dr. Kermit P. Soileau | February 22, 2013 1:51 PM
Paul condemns denominations in 1 Corinthians 1:11-14. You can have sound doctrine and accountability without dividing Christ's church.
Imagine how much money could be sent to third world Christians (commanded in Matthew 25) if American Christians would share a building one day a week. They could have separate worship times based on the particular non-salvational pet doctrines and worship styles they fancy. The free methodists whose book of discipline forbids all drinking but allows female elders can worship at 7:30am, the baptist gluttons can play their olde time hymns at 9, and the Mormons and JWs can be disallowed because they break with salvational doctrine of grace by faith in Christ alone. Salvation doctrine is the only thing worth parting company with other brothers and sisters in Christ over and it doesn't require starting a new denomination. Reputation will show people who the real believers are.
Posted By: Ted | February 22, 2013 2:24 PM
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.
Posted By: RobertA | February 22, 2013 3:11 PM
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).
Posted By: Van | February 22, 2013 3:52 PM
This would be a relevant article if this was 1975!
Posted By: Dave Proffitt | February 22, 2013 6:50 PM
Just when did Southern Baptists become the 'real' church that follows Scripture? I guess it is 'devious' to label yourself what you are, a group of followers of Jesus. The attitude displayed by the good doctor raises more questions about those who think more of denomination than of following Christ.
Posted By: Jim Ricker | February 22, 2013 7:51 PM
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.
Posted By: Meg Ishikawa | February 23, 2013 12:58 AM
The fact that the unchurched were polled decries the low levels to which Christianity has sunk in the past twenty years. Why are we asking what the unchurched think about church? Oh, I forgot, they are the consumer and we must market to the consumer, so figure out what the consumer wants and by any means necessary, give it to them. God have mercy on our wretched circumstance. We, the church, are supposed to take the gospel to the lost and then bring them into the church so they can be fed, edified, strengthened, discipled to do ministry themselves. Before I was saved at the age of 20, I didn't have a clue what one denomination believed from another, and what is more, I didn't care...because I was lost. But when I did get saved, I am glad I was led to Christ on the job by a Baptist who understood that soulwinning was the principle thing. Wake up folks. Church is for the saved not the unsaved.
Posted By: James Stone | February 23, 2013 6:02 PM
A community of believers that is led by a minister who is not responsible to a higher authority than himself, is more likely than not a personality cult built around the minister. A minister who is unanswerable to higher authority is self-proclaimed and the members of his parish have no protection from all manner of abuse such financial as well as spiritual. A the same time a "church" without affiliation with a larger body has no coherent doctrine and allows each minister to make up their own form of Christianity.
Posted By: Fr. John W. Morris, PhD | February 23, 2013 6:31 PM
I echo Jim Ricker's comment. The SBC is not the be-all-end-all of Christianity and I THINK (just my opinion) that if you pride yourself in Jesus more than you do an affiliation with a faulty man-made organization, then perhaps you shouldn't really be bothered whether your church doesn't display their denominational affiliation.
Posted By: Dan from Georgia | February 24, 2013 8:04 AM
Are you all so perfect in your doctrines as to deny the other denominations their place in God's house? Kermit, your remarks border on the snide. (Would Jesus make those remarks, or would He try to be more inclusive?)
Folks, wake up. Doctrinalism doesn't serve the body of Christ. Fighting over who's right only divides us in an increasingly secular world. Would it be so bad to try ecumenism and gather together against those who would have our country become post-Christian?
Posted By: Domenicus | February 24, 2013 4:19 PM
To even ask this question says a lot in terms of an underlying problem: lack of theological literacy. If a church has its affiliation in its name or even a symbol of its affiliation, ie., my Episcopal Church doesn't have its name on its sign, but it does have the Episcopal Church crest, it is up to the inquirer (unchurched or not) to investigate what is going on. So is it a matter of laziness or ignorance that people don't do any of that? As I'm the coordinator of adult Christian formation at my church, I make it a part of my ministry to organize literature folders I received from the diocese and place them onto the literature table so that anyone who comes in can pick one up. I made sure I had more than usual for the Lenten season, and especially for Eastern Snday.
Posted By: pvw | February 25, 2013 12:15 AM
As I have moved around quite a bit, I have found the two churches of the same denomination in different cities can differ as much as two churches of different denominations in the same city. That being said, I do use denomination as a starting point in exploring churches in a new city. I have also attended two non-denominational churches and one multi-denominational church.
Posted By: Dianne | February 25, 2013 3:34 AM
This is why I go with Watchman Nee's view of the local church as simply the church in said city. This follows the NT example: the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, etc.
It's a nameless approach that focuses on the locality, not the doctrine.
Posted By: Mark | February 25, 2013 9:59 PM
Post a comment: