“If you’re an unsaved person who’s never been to church, do you look for a particular denomination?  A cool looking building?  A nice yellow-pages ad?  A church where you know somebody?  How do you pick the church you go to if and when you decide to go?”

There’s a large portion of the problem right there.  Churches are more focused on how they appeal to the unsaved world than to believers.  So, amongst other things, they strip out their denominational markers so that they don’t look, “old,” or, “like my parents’ church.”

I agree with the two main points that Peter made in his first paragraph, but I do not see that being the primary motivator in doing this.  Instead, I see it being done (forgive the harsh language) for the pleasing of the goats.

--
CS

--
CS

CS,

I’m very concerned about how we appear to the world, especially the unsaved world, but we do NOT hide our denominational affiliation to do it. And our denomination is very much unlike us as a church to all appearances… If the motivation is to hide the affiliation to attract seekers, I agree that that is problematic at best.

JOB,

Although I don’t necessarily TOTALLY agree with your last two sentences, you are on target with what you’re saying… Our denomination also self-identifies as a ‘movement’ (and I’ve been part of the AG before, a “troubled movement” with a GREAT future, imho). If you have to hide it, or say your inter-denominational (a preposterous notion when you think about it), just leave… Ohmygosh, JOB, I pretty much agreed with you. (Although I wouldn’t have pegged you as a pentecostal… go figure…

CS,

I kinda agree… BUT…

I will become a methodist to reach methodists, a goth to reach goths, a non-denom to reach non-denoms… you get it…

I dispute your assertion (I think) that making your church attractive to non-believers is wrong.

I don’t dispute that the denomination you’re part of really doesn’t matter, so if you’re trying to make changes in this area to reach the lost, it’s the wrong area.

You know, we might just agree here… just wanted to clarify that.

JOB,

That kind of change is scary to a lot of people, and think how many people need to be involved in such a decision in many churches.

But sometimes it happens, look at how whole churches and dioceses (spelling?) are leaving the Episcopal Church USA right now and affiliating with theologically conservative branches of Anglicanism in the Global South.

But here’s the problem with that, using that example (and I’m aware of many churches in this quandry over this issue). If you are a formerly Episcopal Church that is now part of the Diocese of Nigeria (or some such place), you are identified to anybody outside your walls based on just one issue, homosexuality. It is unlikely that a homosexual non-believer is likely to find salvation, healing, restoration, et cetera in the walls of your church now.

It’s problematic.

Sam,

Good call! Fact is, there are theological distinctives I hold that would keep me out of several denominations, even though I may appreciate and celebrate them and their efforts for the gospel. I for one am glad that there are multiple flavors of Christianity.

As far as the church’s first responsibility, as important as God’s word is, our first responsibility is the great commission, would you not agree? making disciples.

No, Sam, it is not an either/or proposition. But you stated “The Anglican church’s first responsibility is to be obedient to God’s word not to appeal to a hostile dying world that despises the gospel.” I was challenging your assertion of obedience to God’s word as the primary responsibility of the church, without mentioning the great commission.

Back to my example, my really big issue with the ordination of Gene Robinson (the gay bishop ordained) was not that he was gay, and it even wasn’t that he was actively practicing a gay lifestyle. We all have sin in our lives, but this statement by him would be my issue. This is a direct quote. Google it.

“Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong,” he said. “We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth.”

The Episcopal Church knowingly ordained as a bishop a man who shows disdain for the authority and inspiration of Scripture. I am in agreement with you on the importance of obedience to Scripture, so are the articles of religion that the ECUSA is founded on. (We agree a lot here, don’t we...)

BUT… our big primary responsibility is to make disciples. Is obedience to Scripture part of that? I would argue yes.

Anyway, we’re getting off track a bit.

Your final question is good. I don’t think I’d be part of a church that did this. I was out of the Episcopal Church before Robinson was elected, so it was never my issue…

But if it happened here?… Yeah, I’m probably gone really fast, once I’ve been heard on the issue.

A couple of additional thoughts.

(1) Sometimes hiding (or not putting the denominational affiliation upfront) has negative impact later on. I can speak specifically about Mosaic in LA. Love the church, but they are Southern Baptist. One of the things Southern Baptists are known for (fairly or not) is their stance against women serving as pastor. I’ve known two women who loved the church. Became Christians. And then felt very betrayed when they learned of the connection.

(2) Sometimes the desire to distance from a denomination without formally leaving is all about the money and property. In denominations where the denomination owns the property - it is not just an emotional hardship to cut ties.

Isn’t the answer to “why people choose a church” obviously because they feel connected to someone there?

We are “Aberdeen Wesleyan Church,” and don’t have any reason to change that - for now.

However, I can think of reasons it might be good to change a name to not include the denominational tag:

1.  The previous history of that church or denomination in that area may be totally negative, and the congregation wants to make a new start.

2.  You’re a Baptist Church in Wichita, KS (home of Westboro Baptist Church of “godhatesfags” notoriety).  If a Wesleyan church in our area was that kind of church, we’d be changing our name in a heartbeat.

Also, if a church has regular “membership” classes (or introductory classes or whatever you want to call them), then the denominational affiliation can and should be spelled out.

I have seen many pastors split and even ruin congregations over this issue… IMO if you’re a preacher candidate for a church, candidate for the church in which denomination your theological doctrines line up with… I have seen far too many preachers accept a calling to pastor a congregation that was outside of their denominational affiliation… and to the congregation demise not soon after the theological doctrines they held dear has soon vanished and even changed to fit the pastors’ affiliation… I have witnessed this first hand… (without giving names) my former pastor was a Apostolic preacher who left the Apostolic denomination and took the calling of a Baptist church… soon after taking the calling and signing in agreement to teach Baptist doctrine… my former pastor started teaching his apostolic doctrine… soon after the church became confused on what to believe and division arose… IMO this pastor did more harm then he did good…

Denominationalism arose to safe guard particular doctrinal beliefs and to prevent heresy from arising within the congregations… I agree with Peter, denominations have lost its purpose and are fading away… today there are few congregations that hold true to their denomination doctrine… many pastors and congregations today are unlearned, uninformed and unwilling to learn the doctrines in which these denominations hold… it would be a shame on me being a Baptist preacher to take the charge to lead a Calvinist or Lutheran congregation… it would be negligence and pride on my behalf to do such a thing…

I agree with the many who stated, if the pastor doesn’t agree with the denomination in which he’s under then the best thing to do is just leave that particular denomination… (Congregation and all)… if you’re ashamed of the denominations doctrines then the best thing to do is not take the charge to lead those denomination congregations… (That would be like wolves in sheep clothing…)

Far too many pastors are taking the church from what it was and making it into what they want it to be… if the church has been known as being Jesus Baptist Church for over 100 years, who are we to come along and change it from Jesus Baptist Church to Jesus Church? (We knew it was Baptist before we took the charge)… Once the denomination affiliation is dropped then the pastor is free to teach whatever doctrines he desires… (That’s considered to be deception at best...)

just my opinion… should we hide our denomination affliation? No…
should we be concerned if a person likes us but not our denominational affliation? No (Tha’t just like saying, you like me as a person but you don’t like my name...)