This is thinking outside of the box.  Though I don’t see the problem with “church” in your name?  I think most churches (not all) view themselves as a family.  I would love to ask them several questiong these few come to mind.
Sense the church is the bride of Christ are they not the bride of Christ anymore?  What motivated the change?  Are they not wanting to be associated with other churches, or to be thought of as a church and if so why? I think the motive behind this is just to be more seeker friendly.  If that is the case I see no problem I guess.  I would not do it this way.  Maybe they could use the words Christian Fellowship in place of church.  Not sure I like it, but not sure I would condem it.

This is nothing new.  In my area we have lots of churches with names like that.  The Rock, The Movement , the Edge and I attend The Bridge.  It’s a good move in most cases.

I just wanted to add, isn’t it possible that we are becoming more “out of sight, out of mind.” The church does tend to loose its balance.  We rightfully have restored the Idea that we—you and me are the church, not a building but the name “church” and structure can draw people.

I find the change interesting. In hebraic/Biblical thought, a name represents the person and/or their calling. Throughout scriptures, the Lord changes people’s names to reflect a change of character or destiny. It’s interesting that East Hill has dropped “church”, “called out ones” (not gathering of the faithful), to take on the name “family”, but doesn’t state whose family? Does it also strike anyone odd that the logo has become “eh?” as in “what’s the difference?” Didn’t Jesus pray that we would be one? Given the differences East Hill is trying to address, the one level we can all be unified on is that we followers of Christ are His “called out ones.”

I find it interesting that churches feel the need to call themselves something other than churches....they want something “different” or “catchy.” I realize that in today’s world, marketing is an important tool for selling. My question is this:  are we selling-OUT? 

Doesn’t scripture tell us to not be conformed to the ways of the world? Do we really think that changing our name will suddenly cause people to show up for worship?  If the church does not have hands and feet to serve, the title of their particular congregation really won’t make a bit of difference.

Perhaps we need to change our focus:  if we want to get noticed, concentrate on serving, like Jesus demonstrated, instead of changing our titles.

Strong’s states that the Greek meaning for church is “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.” So the more all-encompassing definition is “an assembly.”

When you strip away pre-concieved ideas about steeples and stained glass, East Hill Family is still an assembly; still a church.

What I find interesting is that the explanation seems to center around defining each part of the ‘family’ in terms of what worship service people attend.  That’s a very narrow way to define who you are, as the church is not just about what style of worship you use.  It’s more about your style of discipleship and service (as in service to God and neighbor); how you feel called to participate in and reach your community.

I’m trying to learn something here, so here’s my question.  The letters to the churches in revelations, could it just as well say, “assembly” or “family”?

Call your place of worship “Ed” for all I care, but this quote is downright terrifying:

“Church implies a single group of people,” Senior Pastor Ted Roberts stated in the article. “Now we are multiple people groups...”

Yeah, let’s do whatever we can to de-emphasize unity in the body.

I am the wife of a United Methodist minister and a musician/worship leader.  We were employed at the same church in Asheville, NC.  In November of 2005, he got ousted by a handful of people after 25 years of service in churches that grew and ministered in the communities we were in.  It has been one of the ugliest, most un-christian things I’ve ever seen.  My faith in God has not changed.  He is my Rock, my Redeemer, my Sustainer.  However, my sense of the word “church” is skewed now.  I have not been to “church” since this happened.  I don’t want to be a part of the “church” anymore.  This may not sound rational to anyone, but this experience has hurt me so deeply that I’m literally in a fog most of the time.  I desire the company of Christians and the corporate worship of my Saviour, but don’t know if I’ll ever be able to serve in a “church” again.  I do feel called to be Christ’s healing in the world and to lead people into the presence of God.  So I appreciate EH changing the name.....(even though they did it for reasons other than what I’m talking about). I’m not the only one to ever be hurt by the “church”.

Interesting discussion! Though the trackback didn’t work, I wanted you to know I posted a reply back on my own blog.

I know that this type of action by a congregation is not new by any means.  However, I personally find it sad when any church feels it must hide from the word “church” due to the reputation that many have developed through the years.  I think the church is the people, and as such, the church will continue to be viewed as “church” and associated with both good and bad connotations of the word regardless of its name in legal or promotional materials.

My heart truly goes out to people like you, Jamie, who have experienced one of the worst parts of the church.  Know that I’m praying for you today.

It has been so interesting to read this thread. I am new to this brilliant site, I’m also English so there’s a bit of culture shock going on but it’s amazing to see so much thought going into things like this. I’ll try to say something more profound next time.

Do they have different names for each of their multiple “gatherings”?