Dec. 10, 2012 issue
Church name trend: less is more?
Forget denominational labels; now you don’t even need to call it a church
By Tim Huber Mennonite World ReviewThe Grove. The Springs. Watershed. Several U.S. Mennonite Brethren church plants from the last few years are modeling a trend in church names that moves away not just from “Mennonite” and “Brethren” but occasionally even the word “church” itself.
Almost every denomination is moving away from such labels in favor of metaphors and images, said Don Morris, director of Mission USA, the church-planting arm of USMB.
The move is largely a result of negative feelings many people have about church institutions and an effort to remove barriers that keep people from coming.
“It is very, very rarely, since I’ve been the director, that a church has used Mennonite Brethren in the name,” Morris said.
Looking back over the past 10 years, he said a majority of new USMB congregations do include “church” in the name, but none in the same period use “Mennonite.” He also noted “Brethren” can be a barrier if it causes women to wonder how they would fit in.
More than anything, church planters prioritize something recognizable that doesn’t seem odd or institutional.
“I want to be real clear: It has nothing to do with any kind of negative response to the word ‘Mennonite,’ ” Morris said. “It’s not that we’re embarrassed by that or don’t want to connect with things Anabaptist. We’re going to promote that heavily once people are inside the church.”
Location matters
Re-evaluating a church’s name is not limited to one strand of Anabaptism. Riverside (Calif.) Brethren in Christ Church changed its name to Madison Street Church about four years ago.
Pastor Jeff Wright said the tendency toward more oblique, non-religious-sounding names — sometimes even avoiding the word “church” — is part of living within post-Christendom.
Comments
-
Hmmm. I've read the entire article. Maybe I'm losing my eye sight, but I failed to see a single example of a church that dropped church from its name, as the lead implies.
-
I agree with Stuart. The article does not give any concrete examples.
But, as a member of an MCUSA congregation, we are a New Eden Fellowship. No church in the name at all. There's a church plant in Allentown through Franconia Conference simply called Ripple.
So, the trend is there and it is growing.
However, I fail to see any problem in doing so and I'm surprised that it hasn't happened in Mennonite communities before. For the longest time, the buildings were always called the "Meeting House". Church wasn't used for the building or the property. Theologically speaking, Anabaptists believe the church is made up of the people and that the location where they meet is immaterial in what constitutes the church.
So, while some may criticize this shift, it seems that we may be getting back to a truer sense of the word "church" in that we are relating it more to the people and less to the building and institutional programs associated with it.
-
If you preach the Gospel and that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life then I don't really care what you call yourself.
-
Stuart, The churches cited in the lead never had "church" in their names to begin with. The lead is in reference to new churches.
Robert, Thank you for calling our attention to Ripple. We've added that as an example.
-
Thanks, Vicki. I somehow overlooked "the lead."
You're asking your readers to infer a lot -- to make the connection between the three lead examples and the next paragraph.
Anyhow, thanks for clarifying.
-
If a congregation does not want to be known as a church, will they also choose to not be listed under “churches” in the Yellow Pages? Jesus used the word church 3 times in Matthew. The word ‘’churches” appears nearly 20 times in the book of Revelation and about 60 times in other NT books. Will this trend in omitting the word church in a name eventually lead to eliminating the word from the New Testament?
I see this current trend to be pushed by progressive new age self appointed wisdom thinkers. Until now, the word “churches” seemed to be acceptable by congregations.
-
I was a church planter for the Central District Conference in the late 1980's and the house church group I worked with decided to be called Christ the Peacemaker Community.
-
Dale, the word we see translated as "church" is a Greek word that was already in common use in that area of the world that simply implied a group of people gathering. No building, no program, nothing like that... just a group of people.
Jesus reference to his "church" is essentially referencing the group of people that specifically called out as his followers. Nothing more.
So, if there are other terms in our current modern usage that imply the same thing (fellowship, community, gathering, etc), why are we worried about losing the word "church"? For that matter, since when, for Mennonite and Anabaptists, did it matter whether or not we were listed in the Yellow Pages? What matters is whether or not we are a community of people centered around Christ and discipling each other to a more Christ-like life.
-
Robert, the Mennonite denomination chose to be known as Mennonite Church USA and they are listed in the Yellow Pages along with many other Mennonite churches in our area. If that troubles you, I suggest you communicate your concerns to Ervin Stutzman.
I agree that the church as Jesus and the NT writers used it is people gathered, the same people dispersed during the week, a community, a fellowship, a people born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. As a church body where I attend, we do have a constitution that openly declares who we are and what we believe. We are Biblical peacemakers and don’t need to have peacemakers in our name. The word church is all inclusive.
-
Robert, one more comment for your thinking.
Today some of these religious community gatherings should not be considered churches in the Biblical sense, rather they should be called entertainment centers that reflect some contemporary 7-11 praise and worship program and frequently includes refreshments or a meal to ensure that everything is positive from a current cultural perspective.
-
The most important church Time you will ever have, is on your knees in your bedroom praying and listening most of all to what God has to say. Too much attention on this church name issue. Pray and let God give you the name.
God first.
Brother Gil
-
The choice of the name of the denomination I think is a bit of a rabbit trail in this discussion. To make the word "church" so sacred as to lament no longer using it is, in essence, an idolatry that is unfaithful to the meaning of the word in the first place. Whether or not a group of people choose to use the word "church" (a transliteration, BTW, of a German word used by Luther "kirke") does not matter in the grand scheme of the working out of the Kingdom of God so long as what characterizes the community is the discipleship of the people, the worship and praise of God, and the working out of the Kingdom in the surrounding community.
As for your assessment of them being "entertainment centers", I suggest you come to Allentown and visit with the congregation at Ripple. They are far from an "entertainment center". New Eden Fellowship, where I attend, is also no "entertainment center". For that matter, the small group that I attend as part of NEF I would also consider a manifestation of the "ekklesia" as we gather to support each other, fellowship, pray together, teach together, and reach out to our community. No sermon or hymn books or pews or what not... it's still the "church/ekklesia".
-
Dale, I completely agree with your point about the word "church" being all inclusive. The word "church" is a very loaded word, one which evokes images of close-minded exclusivity for many people. I know far too many people who have been so wounded by their experiences in "church" but are still hungry for spiritual nourishment and fellowship with Christ's body. If the word "church" works for you, great! No one's telling you to change the name of your church! But this article is simply addressing the fact that for many people, that word is far too loaded to be helpful in this day and age. This is not a matter of "trying to be all things to all people." This is reckoning with a painful truth and trying to respond in an authentic an faithful way.
-
April 2, 2012 Issue My response to "As churches grow, Canadian MBs seek unity, identity". See oldest page and comments.
Where the Mennonite Brethren Church is today is a by-product of events that happened yesterday. Your numbers are astounding, and those numbers are a reflection that are echoing even now from the walls of Mennonite oppression in Europe, World War II, and the progress you have made over the years for your beliefs and endurance.
Some of your problems have arisen because leaders failed to keep pace with one another. Some leaders have opted to rely on local initiatives for leading the church bypassing the need for greater consultation to be found in the conference level. There needs to be a system of checks and balances to correct misjudgments, oversights, and other things within a congregation, and that system would be at the conference level. Conferences would then be accountable to the greater Mennonite Brethren Church.
You have new leadership with new visions and aspirations which is good and at the same time not so good!
It is good to review organizational structures. Mochar’s report offered nine recommendations to align the denomination to a common set of goals and strategies for sharing Christ with others, including: (I only saw 3 recommendations in the article). Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission executive secretary Andrew Dyck said developing a national vision is difficult in Canada’s fragmented society. Don’t overplay your fragmented society as your membership may be smarter than you give them credit for being.
The new leadership wants to jump ship and invent the wheel all over again because they want to control the destiny of the “Church” in the name of constituents who know very little of the Mennonite name, what it is, what is has done, and what it is doing!
What is not mentioned in the article is about changing the name of the MB Church, however, that is what I am getting out of the article. It seems as though some of your current leadership is advocating a change in the name, ie, probably removing “Mennonite” to something more eye appealing at the moment and to give credence to themselves and their viewpoints. Some may think that Mennonites are out of step with prevailing moods of the time!
In essence the identity “Mennonite” should remain in place to continue defining the denomination and what it stands for as people recognize the Mennonites for their stance on peace and their daily living for Christ with transformed lives. Individual churches should also maintain Mennonite in their name instead of something more appealing.
The virus “to change” will infect and eventually destroy the Mennonites as we know them. Already it is eating like cancer upon Mennonites in the United States!
Go with what you have, improve upon it, and let the at large membership decide issues without being coerced.
William R Moreland Jr Hesston 52
Comment on the article Church name trend: less is more?
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download