What's in a name (part 2)

Any time we name a church you are attempting to communicate something about the identity of your church. Most of the time, the name is meant to communicate something to those outside the church body itself. Naming of churches has gone through several stages. Some names are strictly utliltarian. Older church names commonly included only the denomination and the number church they are in a given area. Thus, it is not uncommon to find churches named First Church of the Nazarene, Second United Methodist, Sixth Baptist, and Tenth Presbyterian. I even found a Twenty-eighth Church of Christ. My seminary roommate pastored a church which having had a rather contentious split named itself Friendship Baptist Church #2 (the church has since changed its name).

Other churches were named for their location—named after city, road, landmark. This results in church names such as Dowagiac Christian Center, Rensselaer Community Church, or Worthville Baptist Church. Occasionally locations can result in some interesting church names. For example, Walnut Street Baptist Church in Louisville is now actually on Third Street. There are at least three “Little Hope Baptist” churches in the U.S.; as well as First Baptist Church of Cash, Boring United Methodist Church, Intercourse United Methodist Church, and my personal favorite, Calvin Free Will Baptist Church. Personally, I have dreamed of moving to Michigan to plant the First Baptist Church of Hell :-).

Knowing that names communicate, some churches include a word that relates to the gospel message. Thus, you find names such as Grace, Faith, Calvary, etc. Newer churches choose trendy names which communicate both their “post-modern” flavor and something of their core values in the name: Sojourn, Mosaic, Discovery, Journey, etc. Of course you don’t have to be a trendy post-modern church to include a core value in your name. Churches in my home state include Friendship Baptist, Community Fellowship, and of course, Greater-Come-As-You-Are-Baptist-Church. I would submit that some churches try to communicate too much in their name. Consider the following (I’m not making these up): Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas, Restoration Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, African Church of God (Yahweh) Messianic Assembly of The Kingdom of God, and my favorite, A.B.B.A.'s (Adopted into the Beloved and Blessed Abundantly) House Church of God of Prophecy. You ask what’s in a name? Sometimes a whole lot!

Anyway, the point of all this, if there is one, is to say, that there a lot of possibilities in choosing a name and denominational identity is only one of them.

Blessings!

-- Todd

What's in a name?

There is a perennial debate among North American church planters as whether or not new churches should include a denominational labels (in my case “Baptist”) in their name. Larry Baker (Kentucky Baptist church planting strategist) has offered a two recent posts on the issue and the comments to his post are as informative and helpful as the post itself. Here are a few points I would like to offer for consideration on the issue of leaving “Baptist” out of the church name. (In my next post I will offer points to consider when choosing a name.)

1. It is wrong to be intentionally deceptive. If the purpose of leaving a denominational title out of your name is a kind of “bait and switch” technique, then there is an ethical problem here. I would submit, however, that the overwhelming majority of church planters have no intention to make people think that they are something they are not, nor hide their denominational affiliation.

2. You cannot communicate everything through a name. Names, generally speaking, are short labels. With the exception of those churches with obnoxiously long names, church names tend to be 2-4 words in length. There is a limit to what you can communicate in four words or less. Including “Baptist” in a church name communicates something, but you cannot communicate what “Baptist” means. Many people are unclear what the word “Baptist” really means so that in many cases having the word in the name does not communicate anything.

3. Omission is not necessarily deception. Again, unless your name is very long, you cannot include everything in a name. The question is, what do you include and what do you leave out to communicate a different way? Are you deceiving people if you do not include everything here? Is it deception for a Southern Baptist Church to leave “Southern” out of their name? Must every distinctive of your church be included in the church name: “First Southern Inerrantist Exclusivist 7-Day Creation Contemporary Music Small Groups instead of Sunday School 3.5 point Calvinist Preach out of the NIV Serve Communion Once a Month Southern Baptist Church”. All of these are something someone might want to know. Not all of these belong in a church name. Who decided that denominational affiliation was the most important thing about a church?

4. There are other ways to communicate denomination than the name. A few examples I’ve seen include literature tables, visitor information packets, denominational missions posters, membership class, church website, etc. The most common way, perhaps, is to answer the questions of those who ask. In my first church plant, rightly or wrongly, we did not include “Baptist” in our name. We did communicate our Baptist identity in other ways and most people who wanted to know simply asked. I’ve visited other Baptist churches where you had to do extensive detective work to discover whether they were Southern, American, General, Independent, or something else. Each church must find its own way to communicate what is important and distinctive about their congregation—including denominational affiliation.

5. There are much better measures of denominational loyalty than the name of the church. “Baptist” in the name doth not a loyal Southern Baptist make. I would humbly submit that loyalty to your denomination has much more to do with involvement than the name of your church. Much more important, in my opinion, are missions giving and associational involvement. Even more important is commitment to the Great Commission.

Generally speaking, I am not highly concerned whether or not a church includes denominational identity in their name. I offer these points to suggest that we do not judge a church or church planter by their name alone.

You comments are welcome.

Should Everyone be a Missionary?

The following are exerpts from my response to a discussion in my missions class on the definition of “missionary”:

Let me offer a few thoughts on the matter that, for purposes of discussion, will be labeled as “my opinion” :-)

1. While I do not call every Christian a missionary, the motivation for doing so is admirable. The point most are trying to make is that the Great Commission is for all believers and that evangelism is the job not just of the hired guns, but of every believer. Christians need to be motivated to share their faith to the world around them and the church should in fact be a sending agency (Rom 10:15) whether the place they are being sent is next door or across the globe. Many people do not like the distinction missiologists make [e.g., Olsen, What in the World is God Doing, 9-13] because they do not want to diminish the calling of every Christian to spread the gospel wherever they are.

2. At the same time, definitions are important. We use words to communicate and it is important that everyone understands what we mean by what we say. Precise words are often needed to distinguish between one category and another. One case is that of “missions” vs. “mission.” A generation ago, this distinction became extremely important as Christians debated just what was the primary task of Christians around the world. In a nutshell, the distinction needed to be made between the primary task of evangelism and church planting and every other good thing that Christians should do (feeding the hungry, medical care, social justice, etc.). As one theologian noted in the midst of that debate, “if everything is mission, then nothing is mission.” Words and their meanings matter.

Most of our discussion on this topic has been over the definition of “missionary” and whether every person should be one. While I do not think the use of the term is a major issue worth fighting over, I offer a few points for your consideration:

a. Since the word “missionary” is nowhere in the Bible, a precise definition is not a matter of biblical fidelity. Likewise, we are free to delimit our understanding of the word and its use. In doing so, we do not undermine the Great Commission, the responsibility of every Christian to be a witness wherever they are, or the tremendous need for the gospel here at home (cf. Acts 1:8).

b. In my opinion, I believe it is indeed helpful to narrow the use of the term missionary because, although there may be no difference in importance, there is a definite difference in expectation in what a missionary does. Among other things, missionaries typically must: leave their home and extended family, move to a distant location, learn a new language, adapt to a new culture, study the new culture in order to communicate the gospel effectively, change his or her diet, etc., etc. The call to be a missionary, then, is quite different from the call to witness to a neighbor or be a light in the workplace. Having a distinct and separate term helps us to define the specific task of leaving, crossing cultures, planting churches, and reaching the unreached peoples of the world with the gospel.

c. We have other terminology that is adequate to describe the task/role of every believer. Every believer is to be a witness (Acts 1:8). Every Christian should be active in evangelism (2 Tim 4:4). What is the purpose served in calling everyone a missionary? Using the term does not change our responsibility to spread the gospel wherever we are. It may be that by calling everyone a missionary we may inadvertently discourage missions. While highlighting the responsibility of every believer to share the message of Christ with those around them, we may blind ourselves to the great need in other parts of the world. By reserving the term for those who go to another place and/or cross cultures, we remind Christians of the billions of people in the world who have yet to hear the good news. We highlight the fact that while in America there may be one born again Christian for every ten people, in the 10/40 window there may be one for every hundred thousand. Having a distinct and separate term helps us to highlight the great need in other places and define more precisely the specific roles in fulfilling the Great Commission.

3. Of course, the discussion can get even more precise. Even when we agree that the term “missionary” should be reserved for a particular type of ministry, what are the elements that define the term. There are still a few areas that my colleagues debate. For example, how far does one have to go; How much of a cultural barrier does one have to cross before they are in fact doing missions? I am a church planter. If I plant a church in my home town, am I a missionary? What about the next town? California? Western Europe? Southeast Asia? Each location offers an increased level of spatial and cultural distance one must cross. (I know one professor that argues that Paul was not actually a missionary, since he did not cross any cultural barrier in his ministry). When we want to be even more precise, missiologists have ways to classify the different types of evangelism. Ralph Winter, for example, developed a paradigm to delineate the various barriers one might cross in missions: E1 evangelism—to those of the same culture and language; E-2 evangelism—to those of similar culture and/or language; E-3 evangelism—to those of a significantly foreign language or culture (originally developed by Ralph Winter in Perspectives of the World Christian Movement, William Carrey Library, 1981, 1992). The issues can be as complex as we want them to be.

Summary: In my opinion, we must strike a balance between the academic need to be precise in our language and the pastoral need to challenge our churches with the commission of Christ. The important point is to be sure that we are actively participating in God’s global mission—both here at home and around the world. Words are merely tools to help us communicate specific concepts. Whatever terminology we use, let us be sure that we are obedient to Jesus’ command to “go into all the world” with the gospel of redemption.