Baptist Churches Renaming Themselves to Avoid “Stigma”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, June 11, 2008
- Viewed 73
- (5) comments so far
Even the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in the country, whose 16 million membership has declined in recent years, has hosted church-naming seminars asking the question, “To Baptist or Not to Baptist?”
The convention meets this week to consider a 10-year program designed to stem the membership loss.
“The word Baptist is such a turnoff,” said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Connecticut, who has documented the name-changing trend. “There is a kind of national skepticism about evangelical Christianity because of the religious right and the connection to the Bush administration. You say ‘Baptist’ and people almost automatically think conservative.”
Others say it’s more about marketing. “We’re entering into a nondenominational era,” said Roger Oldham, vice president of convention relations for the Southern Baptist Convention. “One hundred years ago, when people moved to a new area, they were looking for the name brand they were accustomed to. Now, people are looking for genuineness and transparency. Not a particular label.”
Any thoughts?
Here's an interesting piece (although I think the Washington Post may be a little behind the curve on this one) from over the weekend from one of the nation's most prominent newspapers:
The Rev. Todd Thomason looked out at the nearly empty pews of his congregation at Baptist Temple Church last Sunday. He had preached long and hard about Abraham leaving all that he knew and setting out into an unknown future on nothing more than faith in God. He was hoping that, after the service, what was left of his flock would have the courage to do the same.
After 100 years, Baptist Temple, he feared, was dying. In its heyday in the 1950s, more than 900 members crammed into the sanctuary of the pretty white church in Alexandria that was built for 500. Now he was lucky to get 30. Perhaps the problem, he began to think, was the name itself.
Like those at many Baptist and other Christian churches across the country where attendance has steadily dropped, many Baptist Temple members feel they are at a point where they must either rebrand themselves with a new name, restart as an entirely new church or limp along a few more years before quietly closing their doors.
Recent national surveys show that in an attempt to fill pews, a small but steadily growing number of Christian churches are changing their names and even their religious denominations. Wycoff Baptist in New Jersey became Cornerstone Christian Church. First Baptist in Concord, N.H., is now Centerpoint Church. The Reformed Church in America outside Detroit became Crosswinds Community Church.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
CS on Wed, June 11, 2008
“We’re entering into a nondenominational era.”
It’s true. There is a stigma about traditional “name brands” when it comes to church names. People seem to be distancing themselves from denominations and titles that would have worked in the 1950s, and are now favoring names that are more vague, such as geographical or natural names. Even using classic names from the Bible in naming churches like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul are seen as faux-pas.
It’s almost like seeing how companies today are trying to slap on new faces because of the “green” efforts, or companies that rename themselves because of former stereotypes. They’re trying to appeal to new generations of people who have disdain for the way their parents did things.
I remember finding out that the church where I attend was a part of a larger denomination. I asked the pastors why this wasn’t listed that we were a part of a bigger set of churches. He told me that they try to keep that quiet for fear of scaring people off.
But, you know that the church names today will also be passe in another 50 years. Churches that have buzzwords in their names or incorporate words like “Purpose” will fade away, too. Who knows—perhaps there will be a going back to classic names like “First Baptist” and “St. Luke’s Presbyterian” in another 50 years.
—
CS
Eric Joppa on Wed, June 11, 2008
I was in a baptist church a number of years ago that did this. all we did was take “baptist” out of the name. I don’t know what it did to change anything but the letterhead in that case, but I think “re-branding” has merit.
If a church is in severe decline, or “dying”, it is of great benefit to almost completely start over. New vision, new name, new logo, new philosophy of ministry… I think it’s good to be reacquainted with the way Jesus did things, and how the first church did things, and apply those truths to the community in a new way.
I think this could be the start of a new trend.
Peter Hamm on Wed, June 11, 2008
We don’t stress our denominational affiliation, and it’s not in our name, but we don’t hide it either.
Jan on Wed, June 11, 2008
I tend to think that a name with Baptist in it really isn’t the issue in a declining church.
They most likely have stopped being relevant and outward and have grown inward.
We are Baptist without the Baptist in it, because we went from non denom to SBC and never put it in our name.
When people find out we are Southern Baptist, it’s usually no big deal. The more relevant issue, is who we are and what we do.
And we are in a very very liberal community that is anti-Christian in a lot of ways.
The big question for them is “What will church do for me? Is it worth giving my time to? Will it mean anything? and “Will it help me raise my kids who are turning to drugs and alcohol?” our biggest impact has been through youth ministry that is life changing and therefore impacting the whole family.
Baptist has never even been an issue.
Frank on Wed, July 16, 2008
Do you think its the name change that does it though? If its the same building, same way of doing things but, some missing part of the old name or a name change - In my opinion I dont know if I believe a name change reinvents anything as much as how any church or business tries to stay up to date with the current times. I noticed some churches opening their buildings to teenage music bands etc to try to appeal and create that ‘hip’ image. Obviously you wouldnt want to change so much that your church becomes a casino and nobody remembers it was even a church but, technology and aesthetics probably help to draw peoples. I’d be curious to see what type of draw a new age church could have if it added ‘futuristic’ white pews (sorta like Jetsons look) lol
Various glowing LEDs and simple water fountains around the LED lights etc.
Maybe the name change isn’t quite the full feeling of something ‘new’ to some peoples?
When I think church, I think of wooden walls , chairs, and lots of stained glass. Is it too cliche’ ? Some people may expect that, but as youre saying how newer generations may want to do something NEW in their life as adults, and not wanting to rehashwhat their parents did? Television and movies do the same thing, they basically resell the same movies, same scripts BUT, they make the sets ‘hip’ and new, they change the actors that the newer generations relate too, and they alter the scripts so that actors speak in all the current ‘hip’ language etc.
It seems that the art of reinventing something is more in aesthetics and making it relate to the new and present era. Everything else seems to be the same underneath it all but it gives the newer generations the sense of feeling its new and unique in their adult lives, and isn’t just a rehashing of what their parents did. People want to live THEIR lives, not their parents or grandparents lives in a re-run , is how I always understood it.
Interactivity is a big thing these days and people of these generations expect it. They are used to the Internet , text messaging cell phones etc. The generation 20 years was more of a bystander watching generation- their generation was the television gen. Today most peoples dont want to sit for more than 30 seconds without in some way interacting, having an input on the events taking place etc. If churches could find a way to do that , you could make your church the equivlelant of a successful Internet blogger.
People change up their web sites every 5 years at maximum and most businesses change up their letterhead every 6 months or so . Change and reinvention seems to happen at a faster rate these days where as 20 years ago you wouldnt see anything change for about 10 to 20 years and only if a competitor was changing to a new hip style.
The older generation’s church was about sitting, watching, listening as a bystander event. I assume its just not interactive enough to appeal to newer generations?
Random ideas would be text massage during the week, and come in to discuss all the questions peoples text the church about?
Also new new gens think 30 minutes its equivelant to older generations view of 8 hours. If you’re still doing the same thing after 30 minutes and espeically if theres been no interactivity .. new gens will be running to get away. Even if there’s interactivity, 30 minutes is a long time to them. So maybe a church that has multiple events or segments planned instead of one long progressive session?
Have different generations on different nights , not to split them but to make it available at least , and with people in the same age range speaking to the peoples in attendance. This is just my opinion on it what are your ideas?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Post a Comment