Why the Identity Crisis at Some Southern Baptist Churches?

"To thine own self be true."

Hamlet – William Shakespeare

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Venice_Carnival_-_Masked_Lovers_%282010%29.jpgVenice Carnival Masks

It appears that some Southern Baptist churches are having an identity crisis.  Have you noticed the trend of removing the descriptor "Baptist" from the church name?  Not only that, some Southern Baptist church plants and re-plants masquerade as "community" churches, "fellowships" and such. 

Recently, the Associated Baptist Press focused on this phenomenon in an article entitled:  Name changes challenge churches on Baptist identity.  It begins with this example:

Over the weekend, Virginia Heights Baptist Church in Roanoke, Va., plunged headlong into a continuing, decades-long trend in American Christianity by dropping the denominational reference from its name.

So when Nelson Harris showed up for work Monday it was as the pastor of what is now called Heights Community Church.

Harris said the change followed years of having people either avoid the church thinking it was Southern Baptist…

When I think of Baptist churches that disguise their affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention, I think of a church in Alabama that goes by the name The Church at Brook Hills.  You may be familiar with its pastor, David Platt, who was recently appointed head of the International Missions Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Then there's the Village Church in Texas.  Interestingly, this matter is addressed on the church website.  Here is the pertinent information:

What is Our Denominational Affiliation?

When The Village began, three groups gave our church financial support to help us start, with which we remain in partnership:

The Denton Baptist Association (DBA)
The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT)
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)

The website goes on to answer the question:  Why Remove the Word "Baptist" From our Church Name?

The response:

The name of the corporation is Highland Village First Baptist Church. However, as a means of eliminating obstacles that prevent people from exploring the claims of Christ through a local church, Highland Village First Baptist Church operates publicly under the name “The Village Church.” This in no way separates us from our Baptist heritage but enables us to be more effective for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Village Church also includes this information on its website:

What are the Advantages of Affiliating With the SBC?

Affiliation with the SBC allows our church to participate in the largest missionary organization in the world. Through the SBC “Cooperative Program” we help support over 7,500 missionaries in 104 countries around the world. While we support the SBC in missions, we do not send delegates to the annual convention.

But you can be sure that Matt Chandler, pastor of the Village Church, makes Calvinista conferences a priority. 

The Associated Baptist Press article cited above goes on to state:

Rather than sitting on the information about Baptist or other denominational identity, most congregations have found that it works best to sprinkle such affiliations throughout web sites, bulletins, programs and other materials, said Eddie Hammett, author, congregational consultant and president of the North Carolina-based Transforming Solutions.

“I’ve never found anybody trying to hide it,” Hammett said. “It may not be in the phone directory or on the sign, but they don’t try to hide it.”

Dee and I find Eddie Hammett's claim interesting in light of the fact that there are several churches here in North Carolina that made the top 100 Largest Southern Baptist churches in the country last year; however, there is no mention of the Southern Baptist Convention on the church website as far as we can determine.

So why the identity crisis at some Southern Baptist churches?  No doubt there are several reasons; however, we wonder whether the sex abuse scandals that are plaguing the denomination could be a factor.  A case in point is the megachurch Second Baptist Church of Houston, which earlier this week garnered headlines because it was slapped with a lawsuit over a youth pastor's behavior.  Here is what happened, as explained in the article:

Harris County family is suing Second Baptist Church for its alleged role in the sexual assault of a then 12-year-old girl. The lawsuit, filed last week, claims that Second Baptist youth pastor Chad Foster targeted victims under the guise of spiritual leadership.

In 2013, Foster pleaded guilty to sexual assault charges and received a five-year prison term. Using the pseudonym Jane Doe, the family's civil lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages from the megachurch for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and sexual exploitation of a minor.

Second Baptist Church is led by Ed Young (not to be confused with his son Ed Young Jr., who pastors at Fellowship Church in Texas.)  According to the article cited above, Second Baptist Houston boasts a membership of 65,000 and an annual budget of $53 million.  Perhaps these are clues as to why no one wanted to rock the boat regarding child sex abuse.  Here is the reason for the lawsuit, as stated at the above link:

According to the suit, Second Baptist "encouraged Foster to develop close emotional bonds with unsuspecting youth he met at public schools," yet the church did not provide any training about appropriate behavior with minors.

Instead, the suit alleges, the church focused on "enticing pre-teens" with free lunches from McDonald's and Pizza Hut. 

"By engaging youth met in public schools in church activities, the parents eventually become involved as they shuttle their children to various church activities. These same parents proceed to join Second Baptist, and subsequently help grow the flock financially," the suit reads.

Once Foster won Jane's trust, he began to chat with her on Facebook and Skype. "Using Jane as his muse, Foster would expose himself and engage in acts of self-gratification while he was in his bedroom," the suit reads. "He would ask Jane to take off her clothes, talk dirty to him and help him."

Sometime after January 2011, the suit says Second Baptist "quietly passed Foster off" to another church, Community of Faith. He continued his sexual abuse of Jane, and Community of Faith "simply picked up where Second Baptist left off."

"Once again, Foster was allowed to use his guise as a youth minister as a vehicle for his own sexual interests with a minor," the suit continues. "If not for his position with Second Baptist and then Community of Faith, Foster would have been unable to victimize Jane."

Because the churches "promoted Foster as a qualified, trained and supervised youth pastor," they are liable for his misconduct, the suit alleges.

If you have ever taken a look at a website called Stop Baptist Predators — hosted by Christa Brown — you will know all too well that there are serious problems with regard to sex abuse in Southern Baptist churches.  Christa documents many Baptist scandals.  No doubt there are others that have gone unreported.

Speaking of that, the 'alleged' real life confession of Stephen Collins who pretended to be a pastor on the beloved TV series 7th Heaven has brought this serious matter to the forefront of many people's minds.

We would be interested in your theories regarding why some Baptist churches are deliberately hiding their affiliation with the SBC denomination.

Lydia's Corner:   Genesis 3:1-4:26   Matthew 2:13-3:6   Psalm 2:1-12   Proverbs 1:7-9

Comments

Why the Identity Crisis at Some Southern Baptist Churches? — 143 Comments

  1. I believe it’s because in some circles “Southern Baptist” is a synonym for “ignorant,” “obscurantist,” “sexist,” “right-wing,” and a host of additional negative adjectives.

    I will note that the trend of getting away from “Southern Baptist” has been going on for a couple of decades; I remember it happening in Texas back when I last lived there (in the early 1990s). It says volumes that these churches want to retain some sort of affiliation with the Southern Baptist organization while trying to avoid the taint of the Southern Baptist name.

  2. Oooops. Sorry for my mistake there. I’m second so I try harder!

    Anyway, I was attending a church for a while, a rather nice one, that was affiliated with a Baptist denomination. I’m not sure which. The only reason I knew about it was that I had gone to an information session.

    I just thought it was because I live North of the Mason Dixie line.

    Baptist churches definitely need a good PR firm. Wow. Thank you for this interesting article!

  3. I think I emailed you about this Dee (when you asked about church bylaws), but it isn’t just southern baptists. Converge Worldwide used to also be Baptist General Conference. Our church just removed “Baptist” too (in a member vote), and in looking at the churches in our conference, I find a lot of “Community” and the “Baptist” going away. I don’t think us “northerners” have such a bad “Baptist” name, but there is a clear attempt to steer away any bad publicity from other conferences (or Westboro) with this name change.

  4. One sentence wasn’t clear: “Community” is popping up in place of “Baptist” in my church’s conference.

  5. wow! The “response” to the name change is nearly identical to the one we received before our vote. I’m trying to find that now to see just how close in wording it is. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong, I just find it odd and legalistic. Do churches iron this out or what?

  6. @ mirele:

    I’m not sure if I’m misreading your comment, but I am right wing and don’t consider being right wing (or the label itself) to be negative.

    I also don’t consider “left wing” to be a pejorative, only a descriptor of where someone may fall on a political or theological scale. At least, that is how I use the phrase, I don’t use it as a put down.

    As to the Original Post-
    I’m not sure why some Southern Baptist churches are removing the word “Baptist” from their titles. Perhaps they are trying to avoid the sex abuse news stories that have been cropping up.

    I suspect it may also have to do with culture becoming morally lax on a host of topics, or changing direction, and churches not wanting to alienate or turn off people who are in step with today’s moral climate.

  7. Here is my church’s reasoning (sorry for the flood of responses). I am guessing we’ll see “Baptist” go away over the next 10-15yrs:

    Our vision as a church is to make an extraordinary impact for Jesus. A big part of that impact is reaching people for Jesus. In our contemporary culture, the term “Baptist” is increasingly a hindrance in reaching those who don’t yet know Jesus, and even those who do know Him. We believe that replacing “Baptist” with “Community” will reduce some of the barriers for people in our community to meet Jesus at XX.
    ……..
    Many people (churched and unchurched) group all Baptists together—from Southern Baptists, Baptist General Conference, American Baptists, to Westboro Baptist.

    While specifically referring to research done by the Southern Baptist denomination, this statistic was telling: “Knowing a church is Southern Baptist would make 4 out of 10 Americans less likely to visit and join—and many of those are unchurched.” (LifeWay Research, 2011) We do not want to limit upwards of 40% of the people in our local community by our name.

    Please be assured, we are not changing our theology, practice, or importance of baptism, nor are we changing any of our core evangelical beliefs that exalt the supremacy of Jesus Christ and stress the authority of God’s Word for our lives and for our world. We will also continue our affiliation and partnership with Converge Worldwide. In changing our name, we simply want to remove any barriers to introducing as many people as possible to the life-changing gospel of Jesus.

  8. mirele wrote:

    I believe it’s because in some circles “Southern Baptist” is a synonym for “ignorant,” “obscurantist,” “sexist,” “right-wing,” and a host of additional negative adjectives.

    I’m not sure what you mean. Is it that the churches are not all of those things or that they don’t want the negative image of being those things?

    I think it is the second, but that’s maybe sample size for me. Also, I think it might be a mask for actually being a lot of those things while avoiding the negative association with those things. In other words, pretending to be something you are not or pretending not to be something you really are…

    Also, it’s trendy for church not to seem like church-church. So, might this be seeker-sensitivity for Millennials? Coolness and trendiness is really important now, at least that’s what the kids say. There are a couple of Ancient-Future communities/churches, too, so I don’t know how to categorize those.

    65,000 members of a church? How does that work? How can they be much more than names on a list? I suppose that’s useful for bragging rights, and if you’re just giving units they can do that online. But how can that be a body?

    Really looks like finding a niche and marketing to that niche, even when the niche is pretty big like 2Hou.

    Stop Baptist Predators is hard for me to read, but I really appreciate their work. Sickening and disgusting this is tolerated by churches.

  9. Hmm…I think this is bigger than the Baptist denomination. At least in my neck of the woods, most of the Assemblies of God are taking A of G out of their name – and really, many of the main denominational churches have done so; Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist , A of G…in fact, off the top of my head, the ones that haven’t removed the denominational identifiers from their names are the Catholic, Methodist and Lutheran churches. I don’t know, but I suspect it is for similar reasons.

  10. This is not new. 20 some odd years ago our former church, Conservative Baptist, became a “Bible Church.” Several Conservative Baptist churches in our region did the same. The rationale was the “Baptist in the name inhibits people from visiting” line. A few years before the name change this church hired as the senior pastor a man with a Reformed background who began his ministry under MacArthur.

  11. @ JadedOne:
    This is an ongoing thing with so much of the “very conservative” mindset (applying both to the church and politics). We know what people associate with the Baptist moniker (and rightfully so I was brought up Conservative Baptist) and they realize that many people find it repugnant (40% by their own their own research). From having grown up in that environment (church and school) I do not find it attractive so there is seen a need to “repackage the message” by removing barriers – which is nothing more than flat out lying by hiding what they really stand for:

    “Please be assured, we are not changing our theology, practice, or importance of baptism, nor are we changing any of our core evangelical beliefs that exalt the supremacy of Jesus Christ and stress the authority of God’s Word for our lives and for our world….In changing our name, we simply want to remove any barriers to introducing as many people as possible to the life-changing gospel of Jesus.”

    Or in other words we need to deceive people to get them in the door, then we can rope them in…because how we have been doing for years has turned people away due to our ignorance, hypocrisy, legalism, misogyny and pharisitical behavior – but that isn’t changing – just our name is….. wink wink

  12. Well, if they all keep doing the same ol' same ol' then all the church names will have negative connotation. For me, Baptist is still a triggering word. I'm not sure if I could fully trust a church that was everything I want it to be if it has baptist in its name. And what does community really mean anyway? It started out meaning that churches wanted to let the community know that they were welcome. Now it seems more that the community means the select group of card carrying members are in community with each other and even if you live next door to the church, you are not welcome.

  13. Perhaps time would be better spent looking at why the name “Baptist” is perceived as negative, and addressing those problems instead of just renaming. Personally, I like denomination names as it lets me know what to expect. To some degree …

    Removing the word Baptist is like McDonalds deciding to make Big Macs more appealing by renaming them and hiding the M logo. If I don’t like a Big Mac, I may try one, but as soon as I unwrap it it’s pretty obvious as to what it is so I’m not going to buy another

    Face it, your church, no matter what it’s like, is never going to have anywhere near 100% community acceptance. Rebranding, especially is the underlying product is unchanged, will alter nothing. Luckily (not for the church in question, but for people in the community, there’s other churches for them to try).

  14. JadedOne wrote:

    I don’t think us “northerners” have such a bad “Baptist” name, but there is a clear attempt to steer away any bad publicity from other conferences (or Westboro) with this name change.

    Westboro certainly taints the brand.

    But there’s also those things that the SBC (and other denominations) do like the Disney boycotts in the 90s. Churches were voting to boycott Disney due to marketing to gay groups one year and offering same sex benefits another. Yet most members of many of these churches didn’t realize their employers were already doing both things. Airlines, tech companies (IBM to Apple), travel related firms, conventions, etc… all had gay marketing groups. And yet no one was talking about boycotting the folks who signed their personal paychecks. The hypocrisy was/is deep.

    Then you get into taking in tongues, rolling on the floor, prosperity Gospel, etc… all of which at tied to one or more denominations when mentioned in the media. So yes churches are trying to distance themselves from the news reports that talk about the name of their denomination.

    Get them in the door, get them used to the social club, get their kids expecting to go every Sunday, THEN show them the secret handshakes.

  15. I retired from pastoring SBC churches and now attend one, a new church, that has only a generic name. I think that since denominational identity isn’t so important these days it is easy to drop such from the name. Negative perceptions of Baptists may be a mild obstacle for some in the community.

    I think my fav blog queens err in positing that sex abuse scandals may be a factor, though. I think that is unwarranted by any research I’ve seen and there’s plenty of research on the public’s perception of denominational identity.

  16. All I know is that back when I was a southern baptist I got to where I was ashamed to admit that in public, especially after the southern baptists changed their self identity to “evangelical” which meant “fundamentalist light” in the beginning and now increasingly means “calvinist.”

    I did not like being identified with people who were increasingly adopting behaviors and rules and ideas that I disagreed with, and some of which I considered to be just dead wrong. Now I/we/my family note something different. Whenever anybody asks, and I have to identify myself, and I say methodist, I get no negative reaction at all. Mostly, just no reaction at all. It is good when that happens, because I will probably be detoxing from SBC until I die. And my children say that when they say episcopal, they get only stunned silence from people, including from both sides of the aisle religiously. As in “they just totally get off your case instantly; they don’t know what to do with that” (quote from one of my kids).

    So let me throw this in the discussion; a conversation reported to me a day or two ago. The nine year old said to her mom: This new church is better, but that is partly because we are more involved (meaning activities). Why were we not more involved in our other church? Mom, (raised by me for better or worse) said flat out: Because they did not want us at that other church. Child: Why not? Mom: Because I am divorced and you children are chinese. Child: Did they actually say that? Mom: No, but look at what you saw. How many divorced mothers of children did you see? Did you see me still helping in SS for the little people like I used to do? How many people with any coloring other than lilly white did you see? Child: None. Mom: Look around at our new church and what do you see. Child: Lots of different kinds of people. OK, mom, I get it.

    Now people, this is all the same place in the south. Do not blame this SBC mess on the fact that it is currently mostly in the south, and do not smear the entire south and all its people for what needs blamed on the SBC. I love defending and explaining some stuff about “the south” on here, but I do not have any good word for the fundygelical SBC affiliated churches, and I was opposed to their mess long before any of my people fell prey to it.

    This was about exclusivity. I could have written about doctrine and/or unwritten rules like the pharisees of old, or anti-intellectualism, or hysterical opposition to anybody or group that does not agree with them (think rabid anti-catholicism spread to even other protestant groups), or extreme cessationism, or focus on money/money/money, or phony mission trips (religious holidays?), or conflating religion and politics, or, or, or. People know the baptists do this, and lots apparently want nothing to do with it. So, now let’s deceive them to get them in the door and on the pew and see what happens; let’s not let them know what SBC churches really are and see if that solves anything? Barf!

    Thank you very much; I feel better now.

  17. I forgot to mention in the post that there are Christians in our community who have joined churches on that list of largest Southern Baptist churches I referred to. If someone points out that they are indeed Southern Baptist, they are highly offended! "My church isn't Southern Baptist" is the typical response. Apparently, this affiliation is a tightly guarded secret.  Good luck trying to find it on the church website. 

  18. Gram3 wrote:

    65,000 members of a church? How does that work? How can they be much more than names on a list? I suppose that’s useful for bragging rights, and if you’re just giving units they can do that online. But how can that be a body?

    I, too, am puzzled by this. I wonder how many services they have each weekend so all those members can attend. 😉

  19. And don’t forget that long-forbidden topic of hell. Southern Baptists have been perceived as arrogant and with a reputation (right or wrong) of openly proclaiming non-believers were literally going to hell.

    As mentioned by others, dropping denominational names has been going on for some time, as it appears churches are trying to de-emphasize their distinctives rather than promote their doctrinal uniqueness. The draw is to be an attractive, modern, community church where everyone feels welcome, rather than promoting uncomfortable doctrines such as water baptism, speaking in tongues, proselytizing, holiness standards(don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t…), etc.

    Again, this is to counter the image of superiority above all other sects and instead appear quite mainstream. Even baptists can now be your friendly church down the road with great programs for all demographics, rather than the Bible waving, in-your face, turn-or-burn, characters we all (think) we remember.

  20. William Thornton wrote:

    I think my fav blog queens err in positing that sex abuse scandals may be a factor, though. I think that is unwarranted by any research I’ve seen and there’s plenty of research on the public’s perception of denominational identity.

    Glad we are still your “fav!” 🙂

    Seriously, though, I believe that the sex abuse scandals in the SBC are becoming nationally noted. I keep an eye on Amy Smith’s social media. It seems like every few days she reports Baptist churches who have a pedophile/sex problem. And it isn’t hearsay. She quotes the new reports. In fact, recently, I have become alarmed that so many reports are being made.

    I do agree that Baptists have been their own worse enemy. Their announcement to the world that women are to submit to their husbands as part of their core beliefs wasn’t smart. Although I am not a comp in my point of view, those who believe it could have taught it without making a public stand. Look, I have a hard time understanding it. Can you imagine this outside the church trying to fire that one out as they see women leading in business and government?

    Adding to that, their support of silly “actions” like boycotting Disney while studiously ignoring their divorce rate gives a perception of a denomination which covers up their problems while pointing at everyone “out there.”

    A family member attends a well known SBC mega church which does not mention they are Baptist. I told him that he was a Baptist. He vigorously denied such a thing. I proved to him that he was but his reaction was the key. He, a Christian, wanted in no way to be associated with Baptists and his church hid from him that he is one.

    Finally, the numbers speak for themselves. Baptisms are at an all time low, despite the megas who seem to baptize anything that has two legs.

    https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptist/15156-baptisms-in-sbc-down-to-lowest-number-in-64-years

    I believe that it is a confluence of many facts but we should not rule out that increasing public disdain for predator pastors as a contributing factor.

  21. I am not aware of any SBC churches in my town that have actually changed their names, but there is a large evangelical presbyterian church in one of the suburban areas that is not easily identifiable as presbyterian unless you just happen to know that.

    I am not inclined to think that people think that baptists are particularly child abusers or that baptist churches are particularly tolerant of child abuse. And even if you told them, I think there are a lot of people who probably would not believe it. Child abuse has not been anything I have heard said against baptists, and I have certainly heard some stuff said. Mostly baptists come across as bigoted, hypocritical and self-righteous to their detractors (at least those that I have heard).

  22. Rob wrote:

    And don’t forget that long-forbidden topic of hell. Southern Baptists have been perceived as arrogant and with a reputation (right or wrong) of openly proclaiming non-believers were literally going to hell.

    Unfortunately, Baptists have a reputation as finger pointers. The point out instead of in. And there are many still doing that as evidenced by Robert Jeffress, FBC Dallas.The message best diluted. They hear: “You are going to hell for…… x actions.” Problem is, within the church their are plenty of people who participate in x action.(fill in the blank.”

    Instead, a message that says “We are all screw ups, starting with me Super Pastor and I am going to tell you how I am a screw up and why I am so grateful for Jesus.”

    Instead, many of this e pastors have evolved into talking heads that often have relatively little interaction with the flock, preferring instead to do conferences and write books that have already been written a thousand times. The world has enough talking heads. They need an involved pastor who actually knows a few names of the “no accounts” in their congregation.

  23. @ Nancy:

    I am not trying to downplay the issue of child abuse. I do, however, think that child abuse awareness is comparatively new to the scene while this other stuff has been around long enough to stick like glue. People are incensed with child abuse when it shows up in some cult, so I don’t think that people think it is OK. But there are so many baptists around it is really hard to convince people that this many people in these many churches (including where old aunt whoever has always gone) might be a danger to children. That is a hard sell, as we have seen.

    Don’t get me wrong; you all know where I stand on abuse by now, including but not limited to sexual abuse of children. I just think there is all this other stuff also.

  24. Nancy wrote:

    I am not inclined to think that people think that baptists are particularly child abusers or that baptist churches are particularly tolerant of child abuse. And even if you told them, I think there are a lot of people who probably would not believe

    I know of a Baptist church in which a pedophile was discovered and the situation poorly handled. That church lost over 1/3 of their congregation as the incident was broadcast in the media.

    As usual, there will always be people in churches who cannot believe that “nice pastor so and so” would allow pedophiles to run rampant. However, more people are becoming aware that pastors are not handling these things carefully and it shows in their “trust” factor.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/december/seven-people-americans-trust-more-pastor-gallup-honesty.html?paging=off

    Why would trust be eroding on the part of the general public unless there is a reason? I truly believe that the scandals involving churches and pastors are beginning to take a toll.

  25. While searching for news stories last week on the Second Baptist/Community of Faith lawsuit, I discovered a child sex abuse lawsuit, Marshall v. First Baptist Church of Houston, our former church of many years. My new post discusses this case as well as the Chad Foster case against Second. http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2014/10/last-week-lawsuit-was-filed-against-two.html

    This alleged perp in the Houson FBC lawsuit, Steve Roddy, is the founder and director of the Houston Children’s Chorus where he’s been since 1989 and on a host of other prominent boards. He’s currently the Director of Traditional Worship at a church in Houston. He’s also on the advisory board for the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts in Houston.

  26. @ Rob:

    It gets complicated. These churches like you describe as apparently doctrine-free zones apparently do exist, but it would be a mistake to think that all of the older traditional main-line denominations are like that. In my church/denomination we have things which we know we disagree about but about which we have decided not to argue. It is not that we are lacking in beliefs, doctrines or strongly held opinions. It is that we have decided not to fight if we can help it. Father S at the episcopal church of my kids, so I hear. teaches traditional orthodox doctrines and has a “list” of things about which he will not tolerate fighting no matter who believes what. I think the difference is that some folks (SBC) want to pick a fight and some of us do not. I do not think that the rest of us are doctrine free at all.

    If we give that impression, I apologize. We do have more tolerance for diversity of opinion and less tolerance for conflict, though, and I think that is the primary difference.

  27. One reason given for the name changes is to bring new life to stagnant or declining churches by relaunching them like a church *plant*. This is from the pastor of the former Homestead Heights Baptist Church:
    “In the three and a half years before I became the lead pastor, the church had gone through a lot of people leaving, dissension and division. Out of 450 people, 150 did not want to shift toward doing what it took to reach people. That group left about two or thee months before the church called me to be the pastor, but calling me ensured they weren’t coming back. In 2001, the church had just about gone bankrupt. Still, from the time I became the official pastor, a core of the people who stayed were ready to get involved.
    The third Sunday I was there, I told the congregation that the vision God had given me was to change our name and relaunch the church. I had read that in older, established churches like ours, it took 90 people to get one person to Christ, but in a church plant, it took three. The idea was, What if we could relaunch like a church plant but retain some of the benefits of having a piece of property and 300 people as a core group?”
    Now what makes me really curious is– what exactly were the 150 people saying who “did not want to shift toward doing what it took to reach people”?

  28. NC Now wrote:

    Get them in the door, get them used to the social club, get their kids expecting to go every Sunday, THEN show them the secret handshakes.

    Like Mormon Temple Ceremonies or Scientology OT3?

  29. Deb wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    65,000 members of a church? How does that work? How can they be much more than names on a list? I suppose that’s useful for bragging rights, and if you’re just giving units they can do that online. But how can that be a body?

    I, too, am puzzled by this. I wonder how many services they have each weekend so all those members can attend. 😉

    I think they’re just bragging that they’re the biggest Gigachurch.
    “MINE’S BIGGER THAN YOURS!”
    (Gigachurch — when Megachurch is too small.)

  30. Dave A A wrote:

    Now what makes me really curious is– what exactly were the 150 people saying who “did not want to shift toward doing what it took to reach people”?

    Great question! Something similar happened at a church re-plant I attended, and now the church no longer exists. 🙁

  31. dee wrote:

    Adding to that, their support of silly “actions” like boycotting Disney while studiously ignoring their divorce rate gives a perception of a denomination which covers up their problems while pointing at everyone “out there.”

    Because HOMOSEXUALITY! is always The Other.

    But divorce?
    Want to keep that escape route open, never know when YOU might want to use it.

  32. I grew up with the SBC members telling me I was going to hell. And they were always so proud of their superiority.

  33. I think there is more to it, at least judging by my own recent experiences. The church I went to briefly in the summer was Presbyterian, Reformed & Evangelical and until a couple of years ago was part of the Church of Scotland. It left the denomination over the issue of the ordination of homosexuals. Its new name reflected part of its historical and geographical location. Over the last year I noticed that it’s proposed affiliations kept changing on its website. There was talk of linking with the International Presbyterian Church, then with one in the USA and then latterly with no-one. Instead they formed the West Of Scotland Gospel Partnership and joined with a couple of Baptist churches, independent evangelical churches and the local branch of James MacDonald’s Harvest Chapel brand. They declared themselves presbyterial and not presbyterian which in practice meant they could link with any other church that had a hierarchical system of church government. And this was all for the good of the Gospel.
    I queried the associations and did a bit of googling. A number of church websites seemed to have similar if not identical declarations of faith, mission statements and it seemed clear to me that there was a common thread running through them all. I found that there were links to parachurch organisations here and in the USA and that the same New Calvinist proponents who are discussed here seemed to be one big happy(but hidden) family. I left. My conclusion was that it was another way to infiltrate perfectly good evangelical denominations and to change their governance and witness into a New Calvinist one. and it’s been going on for some time.

  34. William Thornton wrote:

    I think my fav blog queens err in positing that sex abuse scandals may be a factor, though. I think that is unwarranted by any research I’ve seen and there’s plenty of research on the public’s perception of denominational identity.

    I agree with this. We did a ton of research on denominational identity in the seeker mega world years back and identifying with a denomination for the 20-30 somethings meant that you would not attract those raised Methodist, Catholic and others who come for the events and programs and don’t care about such things. The key was to “brand” your particular mega. Branding is all the rage still today except that it evolved to “branding” pastors as national “brands”.

    A few years back the SBC made a huge deal of changing the name to Great Commission “Baptists”. It ended up being a “choice” instead of an official change. Al Mohler was estatic about it tweeting his joy but I have not seen any signage change at SBTS which I drive by almost daily. I wondered what that one was all about, too.

  35. mirele wrote:

    I believe it’s because in some circles “Southern Baptist” is a synonym for “ignorant,” “obscurantist,” “sexist,” “right-wing,” and a host of additional negative adjectives.

    I don’t think you would say that if you had been around in the 70’s and 80’s and perhaps spent time with some who were thrown out of places like SBTS after the CR. Some of those guys now remind me of NT Wright in their approach to scripture and Christianity. The CR basically ended up, over time, taking “thinking” out of the equation and replaced it with indoctrination and following a guru. The big thing back then was soul competency and the priesthood. Those days are gone.

  36. Dave A A wrote:

    Now what makes me really curious is– what exactly were the 150 people saying who “did not want to shift toward doing what it took to reach people”?

    First guess: music? and electronics? and what sort of person to get for the new pastor, given the fact that they left so soon before he was on site. And my guess is that did not want to do what was necessary to reach new people precisely because they did not want to reach new people at all, because they did not want “those people” in the first place.

  37. There are all sorts of cool names to attract the young to church. Sojourn, Revolution Church, Village Church, Elevation Church, and so on. The young should be asking themselves why they are so gullible when it comes to branding and identity. I think it all goes back to teaching folks how to think for themselves.

  38. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    (Gigachurch — when Megachurch is too small

    It’s possible they are a Petachurch and get to 65,000 by including their dogs and cats. Which makes me think about how tricky cat baptisms might be. And I suppose that the “Nones” are the Exachurch, but OldJohnJ would have to do the math for me.

  39. To go along with my above comments, and others I have read after, I was reminded this morning about how over the years my pastor (during some sermons) would state that we were the Baptists that weren’t angry about it 🙂 (no alcohol prohibition, can dance, etc.). I don’t really think a southern baptist church would do well in the Seattle area other than with perhaps a family group.

    Having a father in law who was a southern baptist preacher, I do know what tends to go along with that title. He and I butted heads on many occasions (mainly a “woman’s role”), but he has definitely mellowed over the past 20yrs.

  40. dee wrote:

    boycotting Disney while studiously ignoring their divorce rate

    There is a former post still up on Russell Moore’s website entitled “Is Divorce Equivalent to Homosexuality.”

  41. Dave A A wrote:

    The third Sunday I was there, I told the congregation that the vision God had given me was to change our name and relaunch the church. I had read that in older, established churches like ours, it took 90 people to get one person to Christ, but in a church plant, it took three

    Based on a situation I know a little about, there might have been a core group in the church who were taken with a fad and thought the church needed to change and they went looking for a pastor of that stripe. The ones who left before he came saw the handwriting on the wall and left. The new pastor came, tossed some staff and kept others, and brought in some core loyalists as well into the congregation to assist in the covert re-plant. There is a sizable group who don’t like the changes but are allowed to stay in peace as long as they don’t make any racket about the new direction of the church.

    Now, about the pastor announcing that God gave him a vision. Uh huh. How conveeeeenient. I’ll bet the pastor had no idea how God was about to vision him before God visioned him. Right. It was all God’s thing. Prove it.

    I question the assertion that for every 3 people who belong to the church, 1 comes to Christ. I want to see the raw data and the methodology and all relevant conditions before, during, and after the visiony change before I could say, even just implicitly, that the visiony change is the cause of the happy result. If indeed the results claim actually happened.

  42. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “What difference does it make?”

    I grew up Southern Southern Baptist, and until my wife and I led our family to Fellowship Church, we had always been at churches with “Baptist” in the public name.

    As a young married couple in Texas, we sat on the front row of the “Baptist Civil War” where the more ‘progressive’ Texas and Baylor Baptists were leading until that ultra conservative, must-sign-the-pledge group began the ‘takeover’ of the SBC. All that in-fighting, all that news coverage, all that bickering, and for what? What difference did it make? Were we not all Christ followers, trying our best (and failing daily) to bring a little light into our small worlds? Why all the anger and vitriol over secondary issues in the Kingdom? Why not just be known as Christians?

    I’m 20 years out of churches that use Baptist in their names. Many of those at Fellowship Church, and many of the later years at The Village Church. And yes, I still ‘self-identify’ as Baptist when pressed, but I try not to ever get into that situation as to being pressed to say that.

    Instead, the most exciting question a person can ask me is, “Hey, are you a Christian?” I love it when that happens.

  43. Rob wrote:

    As mentioned by others, dropping denominational names has been going on for some time, as it appears churches are trying to de-emphasize their distinctives rather than promote their doctrinal uniqueness. The draw is to be an attractive, modern, community church where everyone feels welcome, rather than promoting uncomfortable doctrines such as water baptism, speaking in tongues, proselytizing, holiness standards(don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t…), etc.

    That’s been my observation, too. For example, in my area there is a church with a winsome name and identifies itself as a “non-denominational Christian Church.” Their website states they are ordained under the “Independent Assemblies.” You have to go to the Independent Assemblies website to learn they believe in the Baptism in The Holy Spirit, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.

  44. Lydia wrote:

    The CR basically ended up, over time, taking “thinking” out of the equation and replaced it with indoctrination and following a guru.

    Yes they did. Exactly that.

  45. Personally, I avoid SBC churches because my time at SBTS has caused me to associate “Southern Baptist” with an inability to be flexible, both in thinking and actions, and with a tendency to make major issues out of minors. At Southern, I learned that absolutely any theological topic can become a “salvation” or “gospel” issue simply by stating that there is only one way to interpret the Scriptures on said issue, and that anyone who believes a different interpretation clearly does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if you don’t believe that, how can you possibly be saved? They did this with gender roles, with 7-day creationism, with end-times stuff, etc., etc. The same inflexible mindset could be seen all over campus in many other ways, too: “No, you can’t attend the married students’ orientation session because you’re not technically married (I was engaged and more interested in learning about balancing school and an existing relationship than I was in being fed to the wolves at the single students’ meat market/orientation session).” “No, you can’t write this new curriculum for your supervised ministry experience because writing isn’t ministry (I had enrolled in the CE program in order to write curriculum or to teach at the college level).” “No, we can’t hold your dorm key here at the hospitality desk for your parents to pick up while you are at your second shift job. No, you can’t make a copy of it, either.” I could go on, but you get the idea. I know that not all Southern Baptists are so inflexible–many who are more flexible contribute to this blog–but it’s a hard association to break after 5 semesters in Louisville.

  46. Nancy wrote:

    There is a former post still up on Russell Moore’s website entitled “Is Divorce Equivalent to Homosexuality.”

    Serously? What does Moore do with God and His decree of divorce?

  47. Lydia wrote:

    There are all sorts of cool names to attract the young to church. Sojourn, Revolution Church, Village Church, Elevation Church, and so on. The young should be asking themselves why they are so gullible when it comes to branding and identity. I think it all goes back to teaching folks how to think for themselves.

    Agreed. It’s much easier to change a name to attract the young than stick with an old name and proclaim “this in not your father’s Oldsmobile” to bolster sales.

  48. Nancy, Moore is a bit of a crank. Well, actually a big crank if you read him a lot. A pastor friend of mine was researching “resurrected bodies” and came across an article by Moore claiming that Christians should never be cremated.

    Yet, he is promoted over and over. Talk about non thinking infesting the SBC!

  49. Nancy wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong; you all know where I stand on abuse by now, including but not limited to sexual abuse of children. I just think there is all this other stuff also.

    You have always stood against child sex abuse in the churches. However, I think the public is starting to notice our dirty laundry. There is another log in our eyes. SBC pastors of large churches are living wealthy lifestyles with the possible exception of David Platt but he has given up pastoring.

    Imagine what they see: child sex abuse scandals, pastors living in mansions, the Christmas wars (You’d better say Merry Christmas or I am going to boycott you), the constant railing on the sin “out there,”, etc.

    As for being mistaken for Westboro Baptist, perhaps it is our fault that we haven’t made enough of a splash for doing good things.

  50. The Churches of Christ, of which I am a part, are also seeing this trend. There are several that have dropped the name “Church of Christ” and have renamed themselves as “Community Church”.

  51. Joe2 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    There are all sorts of cool names to attract the young to church. Sojourn, Revolution Church, Village Church, Elevation Church, and so on. The young should be asking themselves why they are so gullible when it comes to branding and identity. I think it all goes back to teaching folks how to think for themselves.

    Agreed. It’s much easier to change a name to attract the young than stick with an old name and proclaim “this in not your father’s Oldsmobile” to bolster sales.

    Garnering followers after themselves and “selling” Jesus as a commodity for bucks is exactly what it is all about. I have often wondered why mega church pastors cannot live on the average American income level. I wonder if Platt refused his large salary at the IMB? Begged them to pay him only a quarter of it?

  52. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Hmm…I think this is bigger than the Baptist denomination.

    Absolutely. I think this is happening all over the place. Denominationalism is simply declining. There may be differing reasons why denominational names are being removed from various churches, but I suspect that in every case, there is an acknowledgement that a denominational label may bring baggage that will be a hindrance to potential worshipers. Admittedly, some baggage is heavier than others, and the Baptists have a truckload. 🙂

  53. FormerFellow wrote:

    Why all the anger and vitriol over secondary issues in the Kingdom? Why not just be known as Christians?

    There is a sad reason for this. There are many who believe that the secondary issues are vital to defining your faith. If you do not hold the line on, let’s say, pre mil, pre tribe…then you might be a suspect Christian. Read this comment by a young woman who attended Souther Seminary-the hot bed of “what you must believe to be though of as a real Christian.:

    AmyT wrote:

    Personally, I avoid SBC churches because my time at SBTS has caused me to associate “Southern Baptist” with an inability to be flexible, both in thinking and actions, and with a tendency to make major issues out of minors. At Southern, I learned that absolutely any theological topic can become a “salvation” or “gospel” issue simply by stating that there is only one way to interpret the Scriptures on said issue, and that anyone who believes a different interpretation clearly does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if you don’t believe that, how can you possibly be saved? They did this with gender roles, with 7-day creationism, with end-times stuff, etc., etc.

  54. In this community the sex abuse thing is very much on the radar, but for the SBC as a whole it’s not something most of the SBC church’s are really thinking about. Sex abuse is something that happens far away at “other” churches not your own local church is the mindset for a lot of SBCer’s

    The throwing away of the Baptist name is a generational shift. Just as you see young evangelicals wanting to throw away their parents views about the “cultural” wars in the country as a whole young evangelicals are throwing away the idea of denominations. Now this isn’t a true ecumenical movement as if you were to dig deeper you would find that it’s mostly Calvinists who want to go outside the SBC to work with other Calvinists. I think you can see the trend in things like “The Gospel Coalition” and “Together for the Gospel” but it’s really more of a faddish thing to try to bring in more “young” people who view the SBC as old white men who don’t really know anything about doing church. Go back to that whole trying to change the name of the SBC controversy of a few years ago. Baptist is seen as “old” and even “racist” and for some misogynistic even though those who are changing the names are often way to the right of what was traditional SBC views on women’s roles.

  55. Nancy wrote:

    And my guess is that did not want to do what was necessary to reach new people precisely because they did not want to reach new people at all, because they did not want “those people” in the first place.

    @ Dave A A:

    Here is a bit of information: There have been a number of churches in the southeast who have had new pastors come into the area who demand strict adherence to Neo-Calvinism. In fact, it has caused a blow up at a few churches.

    Sometimes, I think they like us to think that it was really mean old people who didn’t like “the music.” It sounds better that way.

  56. Churches of Christ have the same problem. I have lost count of the number of arguments I have heard about instrumental music, the role of women in the church, how a worship service should be structured, whether or not it’s okay to take communion more than once a week, etc. etc. etc. How much good could we be doing if we took the energy we spent on these arguments and used it to serve others?

    dee wrote:

    FormerFellow wrote:
    Why all the anger and vitriol over secondary issues in the Kingdom? Why not just be known as Christians?
    There is a sad reason for this. There are many who believe that the secondary issues are vital to defining your faith. If you do not hold the line on, let’s say, pre mil, pre tribe…then you might be a suspect Christian. Read this comment by a young woman who attended Souther Seminary-the hot bed of “what you must believe to be though of as a real Christian.:
    AmyT wrote:
    Personally, I avoid SBC churches because my time at SBTS has caused me to associate “Southern Baptist” with an inability to be flexible, both in thinking and actions, and with a tendency to make major issues out of minors. At Southern, I learned that absolutely any theological topic can become a “salvation” or “gospel” issue simply by stating that there is only one way to interpret the Scriptures on said issue, and that anyone who believes a different interpretation clearly does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if you don’t believe that, how can you possibly be saved? They did this with gender roles, with 7-day creationism, with end-times stuff, etc., etc.

  57. dee wrote:

    There have been a number of churches in our area who have had new pastors come into the area who demand strict adherence to Neo-Calvinism. In fact, it has caused a blow up at a few churches.

    Well, that’s just what I was thinking might be the real reason for the 150 old fuddy-duddies leaving BEFORE New Pastor (who I never name) took over. But I was thinking of calling it “Calvinistaism”.

  58. Gram3 wrote:

    65,000 members of a church? How does that work? How can they be much more than names on a list? I suppose that’s useful for bragging rights, and if you’re just giving units they can do that online. But how can that be a body?

    A body that obese has to have major health problems.

  59. @ Jeannette Altes:

    Totally agree! I can think of the following denominations following suit. Assembly of God, Evangelical Free Chruch, Church of God in Anderson, Indiana, etc… Many are doing this becuase of all the baggage they create. Here’s an orginal thought…if some of these churches are trying escape their past, why don’t they repent of their past? For example former Sovereign Grace Churches are doing this to and hiding theri history. Eric Simmons Redeemer of Arlington is doing the same thing. At least Eric Simmons is not like the SGM Pastor at CFC in Pennsylvania who has taught its better to look at pornograghy than read the SGM Survviors blogs! 😛

  60. I’m posting blind, so please forgive me if this point has already been made. Plenty of churches are doing this, and they’re not limited to Baptist churches or even churches which are theologically conservative. A local Methodist church rebranded itself several years ago while omitting its identity, and I’m not aware of any conservative Methodist churches in my area.

  61. @ dee:

    Good grief, what a mess. I don’t know about the baptists in your area, but in my particular little methodist church it is some of us little old ladies who are part of the problem, sad to say. That would not excuse any pastoral misbehavior, of course, but we are having an issue right now and it is not resolved, resolving or perhaps resolvable and the district is sending in a team for something or other to get the church kicked in the behind and functioning better (I think that is what it all is). I hate that, because there are a few behinds where I wish I could do the kicking, but alas it is not to be. Anyhow, the pastor has had us all in small group by small group and emphasized to everybody face to face that we would (that would be would) be welcoming all comers. I do not know precisely what that was all about, but apparently there has been a problem in that area. I have been happier and happier the less I know of the details.

    I believe what you say about pastors who act like you have described. I have seen something similar, and it is a mess. I am sorry that is going on.

  62. Daisy wrote:

    I’m not sure if I’m misreading your comment, but I am right wing and don’t consider being right wing (or the label itself) to be negative.

    I also don’t consider “left wing” to be a pejorative, only a descriptor of where someone may fall on a political or theological scale. At least, that is how I use the phrase, I don’t use it as a put down.

    I wasn’t making a value judgment on right wing (or left wing, for that matter). Probably a better way to put it is that there is a perception in some circles (particularly among younger people) that conservative politics have been wedded to the gospel in some Baptist churches.

    Someone above mentioned the toxic influence of the Westboro Baptist Church. That could also be a factor, I believe.

  63. NC Now wrote:

    Get them in the door, get them used to the social club, get their kids expecting to go every Sunday, THEN show them the secret handshakes.

    After making sure they’ve paid their 10 percent tithing for a year.

  64. Patti wrote:

    Now it seems more that the community means the select group of card carrying members are in community with each other and even if you live next door to the church, you are not welcome.

    @ Nancy:

    Now that would be my guess as to the heart of the problem at my little church. Well, medium size church. There is a group who have been there forever, who grew up there, raised their children there, live within walking distance, and remember when. Mostly they are nice people, but nobody is out in the highways and hedges saying y’all come. And two pastors ago we did have the church flap over music and electronics, but it is more than that, I am thinking. But thank goodness it is not calvinism. That is the bright side of it. The rest of it can be solved, but when people start consigning each other to hell, who wants to even try once it gets to that point.

  65. Shannon H. wrote:

    A body that obese has to have major health problems.

    Well, even funnier than that number is the number found at the SBC which claims this church has @25,000 members. I know some SBC church who never remove one name of any visitor from their “rolls.”

  66. I somehow doubt that the reference to a church name will thwart the work the Holy Spirit may be doing in someone’s life.

    If it is a deterrent, perhaps it is justified and instead of disguising their affiliation they out to question the association.

  67. The church I attend is an American Baptist and name was changed to drop the “Baptist” connection. Way too much bad baggage associated with “Baptist”, Westboro being chief among them. We have our affiliation on the website and talk about American Baptist history regularly. Leans toward the Progressive/Emerging church direction. Not “that kind of Baptist.”
    We also have a Southern Baptist church in our town that used to be called “Grace Baptist Church” but now goes by “Grace Church”. I have known several people who started to attend there because of their active youth group only to leave when they discovered the highly legalistic and calvinist double predestination theology the pastor teaches. They are “that kind of Baptist.”
    And then there is the Independent Free Baptist church that maintains “Baptist” in their name. Long skirts and hair for women, white shirts and ties for men. Fire and brimstone from the pulpit. Stuck in the 60’s, at best. I am afraid this is what people expect when they read “Baptist” on the sign out front.

  68. Deb wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    Now what makes me really curious is– what exactly were the 150 people saying who “did not want to shift toward doing what it took to reach people”?
    Great question! Something similar happened at a church re-plant I attended, and now the church no longer exists.

    It’s worked pretty well for the pastor I quoted. With some 8 campuses and 8 thousand customers, I suppose it’s now bigger than what’s left of Mars Hill. But I’m sure many more “replants” have failed, like the one you attended. His description of “did not want to shift toward doing what it took to reach people” is most curious, I don’t think a single one could have told him, “Pastor– I’m leaving because I don’t want to shift toward doing what it takes!” As others have mentioned, some might not like new music, new programs, or new types of people. Some might not like the new name. But in this church it must have been the new theology, I think.

  69. Tina wrote:

    The Churches of Christ, of which I am a part, are also seeing this trend. There are several that have dropped the name “Church of Christ” and have renamed themselves as “Community Church”.

    Next thing you know, they’ll be renaming themselves Disciples of Christ or Christian Churches!
    BTW, I visited an ICOC recently, and just from the meeting it seemed quite “mainstream” (CoC) Kip McKean would definitely think they’re lukewarm and not “sold out”. Still some very troubling aspects I’m aware of, since I have a close family member there.

  70. @ Nancy:
    I should have tagged you in my comment to Deb. In many churches, not wanting to reach new people at all is a major problem. Knowing that this particular pastor is a Calvinista colors my perception in this case.

  71. Dave A A wrote:

    not wanting to reach new people at all is a major problem. Knowing that this particular pastor is a Calvinista colors my perception in this case.

    Well, to be fair, Calvinistas *do* want to reach out and convert people, too. To their doctrine which is quite precise and non-negotiable. To Christ, maybe not so much. 😉

    I’d still like to see the actual numbers and definitions from that guy you mentioned. Just not believing he’s being exactly straight.

  72. Gram3 wrote:

    Now, about the pastor announcing that God gave him a vision. Uh huh. How conveeeeenient. I’ll bet the pastor had no idea how God was about to vision him before God visioned him. Right. It was all God’s thing. Prove it.

    I cynically think he saw a ready-made building and 300 ready-made giving units and his eyes lit up. Much more beneficial to “plant” a church with those benefits in place!

  73. Gram3 wrote:

    I’d still like to see the actual numbers and definitions from that guy

    He definitely has numbers of attendees– I’ll stop blabbing now and try doing some research!

  74. Dave A A wrote:

    8 campuses and 8 thousand customers, I suppose it’s now bigger than what’s left of Mars Hill

    Campuses and customers indeed. Mars Hill still has Mark Driscoll, and what else really matters there? I mean, except the money, of course.

  75. Dave A A wrote:

    I cynically think he saw a ready-made building and 300 ready-made giving units and his eyes lit up. Much more beneficial to “plant” a church with those benefits in place!

    My experienced cynicism suspects your cynicism is right about that. I think that’s what the “partnership” between Acts29 and the NAMB to “plant” and “re-plant” churches is exactly about that. And now Platt at the IMB. Seizing resources and repurposing them.

  76. @ Gram3:

    I have been known to wonder what the impact would be to mega-megas if we have a really bad and long epidemic scare (pandemic panic) and people started staying home from church to avoid the crowds. That sort of thing used to happen in my childhood when we still had polio epidemics. Public places would be shut down and people would avoid crowds at all cost. I am thinking that would have an impact on church revenue. Hope mega-mega has a really large emergency fund.

  77. A church I attended for a long time had this discussion back in the mid 80s. We’re in a college town and considered dropping “Baptist” (it’s CBA affiliated, not SBC governed, huge difference) because of how the word has negative connotations for many people (such as thinking all Baptists are mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers).

    Whether recent name changes are because of more egregious circumstances within the SBC is beyond my ken, but I know there was nothing even remotely driving the discussion 30 years ago in that college town congregation.

  78. Here in the rural area of East Texas the word Baptist is still worn with pride.
    It’s the urban areas, which are growing like mad in Texas which are dropping the word Baptist from their name.
    The SBC is in a crisis, and many of the churches know this. They know the SBC is seen as too reactionary for a urban more ” hip” younger crowd.
    It’s the same old tired SBC message. Patriarchy, do what we say, we’ re Republican so you should be too….except now the preacher has a cool new haircut and on the the church staff bio page, we include our favorite Starbucks drink….

  79. I grew up Southern Baptist, primarily, but had gone to several church’s of various other denominations for some time.
    I now go to a church that is Baptist, but doesn’t have it in the name.
    It used to be part of Acts 29, but left the network a few years ago. Now we are are own network (of just two fairly small churches, mind you).

    I am not sure of it’s listed on out website or not I’ll have to look, but I think it is, that we are affiliated with SBC and NAMB.
    Our affiliation, we are told, is so we can be a part of supporting missions, etc
    Our name has a special meaning by itself, no Baptist tacked on there.
    I think because they felt our name was sufficient on its own, and a lot of people are turned off by the name Baptist.

    I remember a lot of Catholic, apostolic, etc jokes told in the church I grew up in, and my father never went there because of it. He didn’t feel it was right to make fun of other denoms, of course and felt out of place as a former catholic especially.
    He and I think a lot of people, associate Baptists with that judgemental attitude, so would never set foot in a Baptist church.

    So ours is baptist but has people from many different backgrounds/denoms who have said they wouldn’t have even tried the church of they knew from the start it was Baptist.
    So leaving that out is effective…but is it disengenuous? I think it can be, but I don’t know if that was the intent.

    I’m probably rambling. Interestingly, though, we seems to have more of those from other backgrounds that stay here, including now, my parents- and I have more traditional Baptist friends who don’t like my chruch because they feel like it isn’t Baptist, or conservative enough.

  80. Gram3 wrote:

    Well, to be fair, Calvinistas *do* want to reach out and convert people, too. To their doctrine which is quite precise and non-negotiable. To Christ, maybe not so much.

    Who needs Christ when you have CALVIN?

  81. mirele wrote:

    NC Now wrote:
    Get them in the door, get them used to the social club, get their kids expecting to go every Sunday, THEN show them the secret handshakes.
    After making sure they’ve paid their 10 percent tithing for a year.

    How much $$$$$ do you have to drop in Scientology before you are allowed to see their Inner Mysteries of OT3 and Xenu?

  82. Eagle wrote:

    Here’s an orginal thought…if some of these churches are trying escape their past, why don’t they repent of their past?

    Easier to change your name and make like you’re fresh and new. Ask the ChEKA — I mean OGPU — I mean NKVD — I mean KGB — are they the FSB now?

  83. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Well, to be fair, Calvinistas *do* want to reach out and convert people, too. To their doctrine which is quite precise and non-negotiable. To Christ, maybe not so much.
    Who needs Christ when you have CALVIN?

    I shot hot tea out my nose when I read this laughing…..trouble is, it is so true….:/

  84. dee wrote:

    Here is a bit of information: There have been a number of churches in the southeast who have had new pastors come into the area who demand strict adherence to Neo-Calvinism. In fact, it has caused a blow up at a few churches.

    How does that differ from Wahabi taking over mosques (with oil money) and enforcing strict adherence to Shari’a?

  85. Lydia wrote:

    Nancy, Moore is a bit of a crank. Well, actually a big crank if you read him a lot. A pastor friend of mine was researching “resurrected bodies” and came across an article by Moore claiming that Christians should never be cremated.

    http://www.radiofreebabylon.com/RFB%20Images/CoffeeWithJesus/coffeewithjesus499.jpg

    That said, the reason cremation was forbidden by several of the mainstream churches for a period was that around 200 years ago, the Richard Dawkinses of the time pushed cremation hard to show their opposition to the church. It was a flip in the face of the Resurrection. And the church pushed back by requiring burial. Since then, conditions have changed, the Dawkinses have shifted the battleground to other things, and cremation is once more acceptable, for reasons given in the above link.

  86. dee wrote:

    Adding to that, their support of silly “actions” like boycotting Disney while studiously ignoring their divorce rate gives a perception of a denomination which covers up their problems while pointing at everyone “out there.”

    HOMOSEXUALITY(TM) is the Other Guy’s Sin, never your own.
    (Unless you’re Ted Haggard, that is.)
    We always sniff out the Other Guy’s SIN SIN SIN. How else can we count coup to prove our own Righteousness?

    But divorce? Better keep that option open, you never know when you might need it yourself…

  87. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    How does that differ from Wahabi taking over mosques (with oil money) and enforcing strict adherence to Shari’a?

    Well, if you disagree and want to leave, you get to take your head with you…

  88. Nancy wrote:

    I have been known to wonder what the impact would be to mega-megas if we have a really bad and long epidemic scare (pandemic panic) and people started staying home from church to avoid the crowds.

    They would go broke. Stats tell them that only about 3-9% of attendees actually “tithe” in the old fashioned sense of the word. Most of the dough comes from pew sitters writing a check, going to the kiosks spread around for such things and putting it on their credit card or throwing a 20 into the plate.

    The point is, the money comes in when there are bottoms in the seats. They used to call them “nickels and noses”. But the point is, they need to be there for some reason…that is key. Ergo, all the entertainment, events and programs. People tend to forget to pay up if not there. :o) There is also the peer pressure part of the equation. Watching thousands throw something in makes people uneasy if they don’t too.

    They have all sorts of special events, sermons, etc for months where giving typically declines. It is a well oiled money machine.

  89. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Eagle wrote:
    Here’s an orginal thought…if some of these churches are trying escape their past, why don’t they repent of their past?
    Easier to change your name and make like you’re fresh and new. Ask the ChEKA — I mean OGPU — I mean NKVD — I mean KGB — are they the FSB now?

    You missed out the FSK.

  90. Nancy wrote:

    when we still had polio epidemics. Public places would be shut down and people would avoid crowds at all cost. I am thinking that would have an impact on church revenue. Hope mega-mega has a really large emergency fund.

    It is truly scary that people now have no memory of iron lungs and paralyzed children. No deafened kids or kids killed by measles. I suspect that when there is no magic bullet or herd immunity to fall back on, it will get ugly, and I don’t think that people will go out in crowds, just like with polio.

    I don’t, however, expect that the megas have huge reserves, though I don’t know. I do see a lot of probably leveraged church real estate that is especially illiquid, and that would sink the megas at some point.

  91. Lydia wrote:

    The point is, the money comes in when there are bottoms in the seats.

    Just like in pro wrestling. And promoters work wilder and wilder angles to keep those butts in their seats.

  92. Gavin White wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    It’s a bit like you blaming everything on Calvin, hug.

    Nah, we can include Beza and some other old guys, too.

  93. Mandie wrote:

    Our affiliation, we are told, is so we can be a part of supporting missions, etc

    I’ve heard that, too, but this I know. Every church, just like every individual, can participate in missions without their participation via IMB or NAMB. An example is SIM that does work in some really tough places, or Wycliffe. Or, here’s something really radical. Churches could send out their own missionaries!

    The fact is, the SBC runs the largest missions operation, and it requires very little consideration of what is being done with that money. Non-SBC churches can give to any SBC missions work, and they don’t turn down contributions if you’re not SBC.

    So, when I hear that, I don’t think that is the most important consideration. What drives affiliation may be any number of things, including that the church chooses to delegate their missions equipping and sending and maintenance.

  94. @ Gram3:

    That time that I spent in a certain west africa country the issue was brought up on more than one occasion about how much better it was to be sent by what was then the FMB than how some other missionaries had to do it. “Our people” had each other, an organizational structure on the field, resources to access, salaries to count on, furlough time back in the states on a regular basis. They could spend furlough time in continuing ed (the docs did some of this) and in missions ed for the churches without having to spend the time trying to raise their own money. Their kids got time back in the home culture (though MKs still had problems) and there was time with the extended families back in the states. These are just the things that I remember about what they said. Anyhow, later I had some close up contact with an IFB missionary to central america, and his situation was not nearly as good in the absence of adequate resources and “fellow laborers” and the constant need to raise his own support.

    I am thinking that non-SBCpeople could certainly send money, but with the push for adherence to the baptist faith and message statement on the part of missionaries these other groups would just be sending somebody else’s missionaries that they might disagree with. Maybe some people would do that, but I would not, for sure.

  95. @ Nancy:

    Nancy, You are so right about how it worked on the mission field for SBC missionaries who did not have to spend time raising their own funds. And we can all thank the WMU…the women who started it all.

  96. Gavin White wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    And I thought you were a Turretin “fanboy”. Lol

    OK, if you insist, he can have a cookie, too. He certainly earned it.

  97. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    Nancy, You are so right about how it worked on the mission field for SBC missionaries who did not have to spend time raising their own funds. And we can all thank the WMU…the women who started it all.

    I take your points which are good ones. The other side of the coin is that the support-raising model builds very strong personal connection between “our missionary” rather than the SBC missionaries somewhere. On the missionary side, it *can* also create a certain complacency among certain missionaries. Don’t ask how I know this…If you have to stay in touch with your supporters and visit them, it tends to keep things a little tighter.

    My main point was not to argue which system is better but that involvement in missions should not be used as the selling point for affiliation. As I said, anyone can contribute to whatever SBC missions project or entity they want without being affiliated.

  98. Even though I am late to this conversation, I noticed this a long time ago. I was in Southern California in the late 80’s or early 90’s and our mission church did not have Baptist in its name. A bit later I moved one county north, and was looking for a Southern Baptist Church. Rick Warren’s church doesn’t have Baptist in the name nor is the connection easy to find on its website. (or at least at the time)

  99. Gram3 wrote:

    I’ve heard that, too, but this I know. Every church, just like every individual, can participate in missions without their participation via IMB or NAMB. An example is SIM that does work in some really tough places, or Wycliffe. Or, here’s something really radical. Churches could send out their own missionaries!

    The fact is, the SBC runs the largest missions operation, and it requires very little consideration of what is being done with that money. Non-SBC churches can give to any SBC missions work, and they don’t turn down contributions if you’re not SBC.

    Yes, I agree with you. I was supremely disappointed when a longtime friend of mine, who is a missionary with the ABWE in the Czech Republic (my progenitor!) and talked to at least one of our pastors about it.
    Our church supports a church on Quebec, were connected through NAMB, and I do think that’s important…one of the most (for lack of a better term) “de-churched” areas in North America, with less than 1-3% identifying as believers…I thought for sure they would be excited about Melissa at least speaking to put congregation while she was raising money- Czech is nearly identical!

    But they didn’t have her do so, or I imagine may have been the case-let her. She never said anything about it, still has only had good things to say about the church, but I certainly noticed.

    I support her, and she ended up raising what she needed but I was still disappointed, it seemed like a great chance for our church to support more mission work.

    I remember Wycliffe coming to my school years ago, hadn’t thought about them much since then, I’m glad you brought them up.

    I guess maybe they’re more focused on supporting missions in the form of other church plants…which I guess is the new thing now.
    Our pastor was saying NAMB and IMB no longer support people just as missionaries, or missionary families so much, but are funneling most money into church planting.

    In fact, I think our pastors are, at this time, paid by NAMB. Our church financials have never included salaries (don’t have enough to support even one at this point), so I don’t know if that’s a good or not.

    I think all denominations have their problems, though…and our pastors I feel, are good men, there is financial transparency where church funds are concerned, they all live in modest homes, and whatever their views, discussions or opposing ones are welcomed, not just tolerated.
    So it doesn’t feel like the lorded over kingdoms that seem to plague so many churches

  100. I’ve noticed it’s not only Baptist churches in our area but Nazarene, Methodist and Assembly of God, just to name a few. I think it has to do with attendance and money. Most mainline denominations have experienced declining numbers in attendance and donations so it’s a way to rebrand and market themselves. A gimmick, so to speak, to get people in the pews (or theater seats) and money in the bank for payroll.

    Here’s a link to an interesting article about David Platt’s interview for his new job.

    http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article-detail.php?id_art=32332

    Seems that DP admitted that –
    “he made a mistake in not supporting the CP at a better level and plans to correct it. Furthermore he acknowledged that he was a product of the CP and should have been more circumspect in supporting it. He pledged to become a passionate advocate of the CP.”

    Well, I guess so! Now that his paycheck depends on it.

  101. I happen to live in the same county as the Church at Brook Hills. And it’s not the only large Baptist church to remove denominational identity from its “street name”.

    It is absolutely up the the local people who are charged with seeing that the church fulfills its responsibilities in the community, to determine how to best go about all aspects of that. And if they decide their name may have some influence on their effectiveness at doing that, then they will select the name which contributes the most.

    Nothing more complicated than that.

  102. Here in Canada, the Southern Baptists have been around since the 1950’s.

    ‘Southern Baptist’ does not fly well here – in 2008 the Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists became the Canadian National Baptist Convention. Has a staff of about 48 full and part time and a budge of about 5 million a year.

    The most recent stats that I’ve found are 2006 – just over 11 thousand members and just over 200 churches. Most are in Western Canada, which tends to lean a bit more theologically conservative.
    We have our fair share of Canadian born and bred conservative Baptists, there are 234 churches listed on the convention site, and while a lot have Baptist in the name, none have Southern.

    The Canadian Southern Baptists want 1000 churches in Canada by 2020. Not going to happen.

    Interestingly, the seminary hasn’t changed it’s name – it is the Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary and has been around since the 1970’s as a bible college in a town of about 20 thousand outside Calgary. The seminary was added in the 1980’s. 10 of the 12 faculty were educated at SBC schools in the US.

    I guess a fair number of staff are essentially missionaries from the US.

  103. mirele wrote:

    I believe it’s because in some circles “Southern Baptist” is a synonym for “ignorant,” “obscurantist,” “sexist,” “right-wing,” and a host of additional negative adjectives.

    Makes sense to me.
    The thing I see around here, is independent Baptist churches, who have long called themsleves “nondenominational”, are putting “Independent Fundamentalist Baptist” in their names. I figured they were just finally identifying themsleves; maybe its another tactic at obscuring who they are.

  104. Gram3 wrote:

    It’s possible they are a Petachurch and get to 65,000 by including their dogs and cats. Which makes me think about how tricky cat baptisms might be.

    ROTFLOL!!
    This raises the vision of my larger cat teasing my smaller one: She lies in wait, & when the little (but older) cat comes along, she upends their water dish all over her…….

  105. So I have a question for the Baptists. My Grandfather was raised ‘Hardshell’ Baptist. I’ve never really know where that fits in the whole Baptist family tree. I know they were pretty legalistic, but beyond that….does anyone know anything about them?

  106. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    So I have a question for the Baptists. My Grandfather was raised ‘Hardshell’ Baptist. I’ve never really know where that fits in the whole Baptist family tree. I know they were pretty legalistic, but beyond that….does anyone know anything about them?

    Hardshell Baptists are also called Primitive Baptists, and they are Particular Baptists who have gone hyper-Calvinist over “the mission question.” I don’t know the origin of the term Hardshell, but my understanding is they are basically identical with the Primitive Baptists.

    Particular Baptist are full 5-pointers like Mohler, Dever, Founders(!). But they have not gone full hyper-Calvinist because they still believe the gospel must be proclaimed, whereas the Primitives or Hardshells do not believe in missions or evangelism because God has predestined and he will save whomever he will save. I’m not sure about the rationale for this specific flavor of true hyper-Calvinism, but it might be that missions are either unnecessary or an affront to a sovereign God.

    Not surprisingly, they usually are very small churches. Don’t ask me how I know this, either…

  107. @ Jeannette Altes:

    I thought I understood it until I read the article in Wikipedia, and it is more complicated than I thought. In the article there was rather much information in the realm of “some do this and some do that.” I can’t remember the details (was not that interested) but the article will give you a general feel for it.

  108. Gram3 wrote:

    The other side of the coin is that the support-raising model builds very strong personal connection between “our missionary” rather than the SBC missionaries somewhere.

    Your experience with it sounds good, but that is totally not how it worked out for the person I referenced. He said that many churches want a lot of missionaries on their missionary lists and so they give a minimum amount per missionary to do that, like some at $20 or $30 per month. Then they expect the missionaries to keep making the rounds of the churches every time they are here to conduct missionary conferences and keep the 20 or 30 dollars coming in. He was disdainful of the churches and thought it was a rip-off and absolute hypocrisy to claim to be missions minded and then do such mess as that. He was with an IFB mission board in Texas which managed the money for the missionaries but did not supply funds themselves.

    I am sure the churches liked it. Personally, I think if your can’t go you can give, and playing these games with missionaries is hyper-not OK. Perhaps some systems do better than that. Let’s hope so.

  109. @ Gram3

    There Are definitely pros and cons to the structure. I am sure my perception is skewed because I grew up with missionaries staying with us here on furlough.

  110. The SBC is a non-denominational denomination with fierce congregational polity. Churches are independent though they cooperate together as a denomination, particularly in missions. So it isn’t a surprise churches are dropping “baptist” from their title. Bad press and denominational strife probably have also made churches drop “baptist” from their title. There is much good about “baptist.” People don’t know this: but baptists were once a persecuted religious sect and we owe the constitutional separation of church and state to the lobbying of baptists. And the reformation doctrines of sole scriptura, soul freedom and priesthood of the believer have their strongest expression in the baptist sects. There is also the bad reputation baptist have as intolerant, bigoted, and legalistic , and argumentative people, some of which is deserved, but I am baptist and I don’t think I fit these descriptions. And sometimes we are quarrelsome because we are trying to make sense of it all and it shows we care.

  111. @ Nancy:

    There was a time I was receiving about 10 donation “newsletters” per month from independent missionaries whether it was YWAM, Pioneers, etc. I do not see how fundraising is not almost a full time job for them. Think of all the people you need to give you 10 bucks a month.

    Another problem is that donors scruitinize every single move. I can remember one independent missionary couple I knew in Africa who hired a person to help them and were blasted by donors for doing so. American donors did not understand that it was important to do so for many reasons and the fact that being paid such a low amount was huge to the hired and supported his family.

    Then again, I am amazed at the Pioneer Mission couple who sent me a donation newsletter with pics of the building their beach house and the pleas for funds to finish it. :o)

    The internet and global business have changed the face for foreign missions and how that works out, we will see. I almost expect to see missionaries from other countries coming here to tell us about the non Westernized Jesus. The real One. :o)

  112. @ Bob Cleveland:

    Local people? Do you mean the elders of the church or the church planters? With Sojourn here, it was not local people. It was church planters deciding a name that would attract the young, using SBC money.

    I have no problem with what they decide to name themselves. Perhaps “Great Commission Baptists” after that huge fight? I do find it amusing they sure do want SBC money but are ashamed of the name.

  113. Jan wrote:

    Seems that DP admitted that –
    “he made a mistake in not supporting the CP at a better level and plans to correct it. Furthermore he acknowledged that he was a product of the CP and should have been more circumspect in supporting it. He pledged to become a passionate advocate of the CP.”
    Well, I guess so! Now that his paycheck depends on it.

    Bet some people questioned his appointment because of that. Now he has apologized. Case closed with very little understanding as to why his church didn’t give.

  114. Mark wrote:

    Churches are independent

    Do you really believe that this is true? It does appear that the SBC will remove churches that have women pastors and are gay affirming (i am not making a statement here as to my thoughts on the matter, btw). However, they ignore churches which have a history of child sex abuse coverup.

    I think the independent thing is misleading.

  115. Bob Cleveland wrote:

    Nothing more complicated than that.

    It is more complicated for me. Why did they get to the point that this was necessary? How do we know it won’t happen again? And what about the whole Great Commission Baptist thing? Now there was a bust and much time and effort was spent on it. Maybe they realize it wasn’t the “Southern” in the title that was offensive and off-putting? Maybe it was the “Baptist” word?

    Also, if it were so simple, why do many folks in my area have absolutely no idea that they are members of an SBC church when they join one of these “no name brand” churches? This is even after they joined the church. It is so funny to watch the expression of members faces when I ask them how they enjoy going to an SBC church. The look of shock, followed by the inevitable denial that they are Baptists, following by a panicked look when I show them, is rather amusing.

  116. It’s bigger than local churches. Two years ago, at the SBC in New Orleans, the Southern Baptists decided that churches could use the term “Great Commission Baptists” when referring to their churches. The churches would have the option to use this term alone or with the Southern Baptist designation.
    The main reason given was it would be better for “outreach” which points to my earlier post about increasing their numbers, both people and money.

  117. dee wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    Churches are independent
    Do you really believe that this is true? It does appear that the SBC will remove churches that have women pastors and are gay affirming (i am not making a statement here as to my thoughts on the matter, btw). However, they ignore churches which have a history of child sex abuse coverup.
    I think the independent thing is misleading.

    The convention heirarchy is pretty selective in disciplining churches for perceived doctrinal error. You are correct : they have chosen a binding confession that diminishes supposed church autonomy, but they have chosen gender roles and human sexuality as doctrinal standards, and have ignored pedophilia and sex abuse, calling those who have publicized the problem, “evil doers,” Shame on those churches that do nothing and allow pedophiles and perverts to go from church to church where these fiends can victimize more children and unsuspecting people.

  118. The Elevators in Charlotte (Elevation Church) are always suprised when I point out the fact that they are Southern Baptists to them.

  119. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Just like in pro wrestling. And promoters work wilder and wilder angles to keep those butts in their seats.

    Ahem, there is a difference. Pro-wrestling fans know wrestling is fake – they know the shows are scripted, the outcomes are predetermined, there isn’t a real competition and the wrestlers do not intentionally try to injure each other. They know when certain wrestlers are pushed into the spotlight and others drop out. The fans follow the story line. It’s sports entertainment. In comparison, churchgoers actually believe all the books, seminars, records, conferences, etc. are of intrinsic value and certain pastors, speakers are to be revered. The churchgoers don’t recognize it as marketing and are offended if told what they experience is primarily entertainment.

  120. @ Gram3:
    My first thought, as I began to read through the comments, is that changing the name doesn’t change the content, merely disguises it. So we’re looking at a short term “fix” that isn’t really a fix.

  121. @ Lee:
    My knee-jerk reaction is to say, “Are there no safe churches out there?” My mental picture is one of a crocodile lying lie and still in the water, pretending to be a harmless log.

    I want nothing to do with Baptist, or reformed, or people trained by Piper or MacArthur or Dever or Driscoll or any other big names, or who swear by Calvin.

    But that is my knee-jerk reaction. I realize that I am painting with a very broad brush. I have heard of non toxic churches out there. It just sounds like they’ll be harder to find with so many others putting on deceptive camouflage.

  122. p.s. To Dee: My first thought, also, was not about “sex scandal” news being linked to “Southern Baptist” but rather, the thoughts that come to mind when I hear a church is a Baptist church: narrow-minded, hatefulness covered with a veneer of sweet, sticky syrup; “counting coup” or taking scalps (as in, “winning souls” — handing out tracts and urging people to accept Jesus, with no follow-up); a list of rules for living that takes all the joy out of life and replaces it with fear that you might put a foot wrong.

    I was never a Baptist, but there are Baptists in our extended family. The church we are currently attending seems to be heavily influenced by people with Baptist background, who have repudiated the name and some of the teachings but kept some things (like believer baptism by immersion).

  123. @ Lydia:
    I have no idea what you’re talking about. What is CR? The guys who were thrown out, who reminded you of NT Wright, were they thrown out because they were too conservative or too liberal? Too much “thinkers” or not enough? Sorry, I feel like I should recognize something from the name NT Wright (have seen it before and recognize it but my brain refuses to supply any context).

  124. William Thornton wrote:

    I think that is unwarranted by any research I’ve seen and there’s plenty of research on the public’s perception of denominational identity.

    Nicely said, William. For those who care to look into the research on this subject, attempting to link removing denominational identity from church names with sex-abuse scandals is tenuous at best. Denominational churches have been doing this for decades. Besides, no church would be able to avoid legal liability for its negligence simply by changing its name; so there has to be a stronger reason to do so. That reason is usually related to how that church’s leadership discerns the local community’s perception of denominational identity.

  125. @ Jeannette Altes:
    Or not. There are a number of United Methodist churches that have embraced the mega and dropped the Methodist identifier: Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City is the main one, then there’s Ginghamsburg Church in Ohio, Granger Community Church in Indiana, Christ Church in Illinois, and the list is growing.

  126. Also Austin Stone Community Church, in Austin, TX, whose pastor Matt Carter spoke at this year’s ERLC conference.

  127. @ buddyglass:
    There are a bunch of churches like that in our area. I know a young woman who attends one of them who claims she is not a Baptist yet she joined the church and still does not know it. They do’t even mention it in membership classes. So, it is not merely a way to hook people. They keep it up after membership. How funny is that!