SUBSCRIBE TODAY:
iTunes • RSS • Stitcher • TuneIn Radio • Google Play • Spotify
When churches are looking to revitalize, a name change is often on the table. Today, we discuss whether or not you should change the name of a church as part of a revitalization.
Episode Highlights:
- Most churches have no reputation in their community—which is not good.
- When churches named after their community change their name, it can be seen by those in the area as abandoning the community.
- Changing the name of a church is NOT a silver bullet for growth but too many churches act like it’s supposed to be.
The five perspectives we discuss are:
- Yes. The current name of the church has a terrible reputation.
- No. You should reclaim the name and redeem its purpose and presence in the community.
- Yes. The name is confusing.
- No. A name change acts like a silver bullet and minimizes the important factors.
- Yes. The name reflects an incorrect address.
Resources mentioned in this episode include:
- Revitalizer Profile
- ChurchAnswers.com
- Find more resources at the Revitalize & Replant page at ThomRainer.com
Revitalize & Replant is sponsored by the North American Mission Board and ChurchReplanters.com. More than 10% of churches in North America are at risk of closing and the North American Mission Board is committed to reversing this trend by decreasing the death rate of existing churches while simultaneously increasing the birth rate of new churches. To learn more about what it means to become a replanting pastor or to explore resources for replanting and revitalization in your own church, visit ChurchReplanters.com.
Submit Your Question:
Do you have a question about church revitalization or replanting for us to use on the podcast? Visit the podcast page to submit your question. If we use it on the show, you’ll get a copy of Autopsy of a Deceased Church and Reclaiming Glory.
Only if you replace it with a cool hipster name like THE JOURNEY or REVIVE or THE CROSSING or THECHURCH@____
If it helps make it less threatening for lost people who have been turned-off by traditional churches in the past, why not?! There are far too many churches with nice religious sounding, denominational-promoting names that haven’t seen a single person saved or baptised, in years.
Tongue-in-cheek humor doesn’t come across too well in this format. Frankly, I don’t care if a church calls itself Attack of the Cucumber People if it preaches the gospel. With that said, choosing a name like The Journey or Epic is 100% marketing.
No do not change the name of your church, when your church first started that name is the name God lay on your heart and that is the name you should keep. That is the name your church is known by, not one of this name that sounds flashy to the world. God has bless your church to get where it is today so keep your name and improve your worship service.
Unless that name was chosen for a self serving reason – like – “name the church after me because I gave a lot to build the building…”
I hope this becomes a podcast. Our church bears the name of the community – and while you won’t find any scandals with a good hole search, within the community is does have a somewhat poor reputation. I don’t think changing the name is an option for us so we are focusing on redeeming it.
Oops. I see that it is a podcast, not a blog. Look forward to listening.
We changed the name of our church because the original name (Evangelical Free Church of Huntington Beach) had become an obstacle to people who didn’t know anything about EV Free churches. It required too much explanation. Our new name is simple but not edgy (Beach Bible Church). It was a long, thoughtful process and a really good move.
We changed the name of our church because the original name (Evangelical Free Church of Huntington Beach) had become an obstacle to people who didn’t know anything about EV Free churches. It required too much explanation. Our new name is simple but not edgy (Beach Bible Church). It was a long, thoughtful process and a really good move.
THANKS FOR THE POST. WE RECENTLY COMPLETED A THREE YEAR PROCESS THAT LED TO CHANGING OUR NAME. IT FIRST BEGAN WITH A SOUL SEARCHING OF OUR CHURCH, OUR IDENTITY, AND PURPOSE. WE READ CHURCH UNIQUE AND GOD DREAMS AND CAME UP WITH THE NEW STORY OF OUR CHURCH. DURING THE PROCESS WE REALIZED FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF CANON CITY, COLORADO DIDNT REALLY SPEAK TO OUR UNIQUE IDENTITY AND PERSONALITY AND PURPOSE OF OUR CHURCH. WE APPROACED THE NAME CHANGE SLOWLY, PRAYERFULLY, NUMEROUS BIBLE STUDIES AND TEAM MEETINGS AND USED TOWN HALL MEETINGS TO INFORM AND HEAR FROM OUR CHURCH MEMBERS. WE ULTIMATELY CHANGED OUR NAME TO CONNECT CHURCH, IT PASSED WITH 99% IN FAVOR AND EVERYONE REMAINED AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THE PROCESS OPENED UP THE HEART OF THE CHURCH, WHICH WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND SHED LIGHT ON THE STRUGGLE OF MISPLACED PRIORITIES TO THE DENOMINATION AND THE BIBLICAL PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH. WE HAD PLACED OUR DENOMINATIONAL LOYALTY IN FRONT OF OUR BIBLICAL OBEDIENCE. REGARDLESS OF THE NAME CHANGE, THE PROCESS HELPED US TO GET RIGHT OUR CHURCH PRIORITIES. AND, WE ARE STILL SBC!
What if your denomination’s name triggers negative reactions because of the region you live in? Example: Southern Baptist in the North; even Baptist by itself will trigger negative reactions.
You should change your church’s name if your vision is for church growth but the church’s name is “Little Flock Baptist Church.”
I use to live a stone’s throw from Little Flock, AR.
Never knew there was such a place!
Perhaps being a Presbyterian Elder (PCUSA) skews my view, but I notice in my area (the Northeast) it is all the conservative Baptist churches who are changing their names to “cool” sounding things like “Epic, South Wind and Gateway” to try and attract younger members. I know a number of folks who attended those churches thinking they would be, “cool and hip” but quickly discovered how unwelcoming they were to people who were “different”, gay, immigrants, etc. Many returned to churches with traditional worship, a sanctuary, hymns with pipe organ, not rock and roll, a sermon, and coffee hour after worship, not during the service. We would never change the name of our church, but to each his own.
Please don’t suggest that the majority of contemporary churches are trying to attract “members”. The fact is that most of them are trying to attract lost people, who are presently on the road to Hell. Unlike many churches around our country that have become almost completely irrelevant, especially in the tradition-bound Northeast (Where I serve), contemporary churches are wise enough to recognize that the unchangeable gospel message must be communicated in ways that our younger generations can relate to. By the way, I’m 71, and it saddens me that so many of my generation seem to be more committed to traditions, than to evangelism.
I agree that adherence to tradition has killed more than a few churches and there is nothing unbiblical about being “contemporary.” However, in my experience contemporary churches are consumer driven, not discipleship driven, and the unchangeable gospel is rarely, if ever preached. Then again, traditional churches are just as bad, the difference is their customers are dying off.
Great podcast and appreciated the both sides of discussion. I agree with a previous comment that another point should be cultural awareness. I know your context and much of your ministry is southern (and baptist) which is the last vestiges and final holdouts of the Christian culture. Living in the Pacific NW brings another reason to change our name, in my opinion. It is that terms like Baptist (and denomination titles) are full of so much baggage for the non-churched that it creates a barrier to invitation and engagement.
Is the name predominantly for those inside the church or outside the church? Not a fully formed thought yet, but I lean towards outside. I think of my personal name and it gives me identity at some level but more often than not I use it to let others identify me. It would be helpful to our congregation to think in this manner and not hold as fast to the name as to the identity and mission that is represented under a title. Thanks for helping us think through this!
Changing the name is a great idea…. ’cause some churches do have a name so long that people don’t even use it… people begin to use the initials, “SBC” … “PCUSA” … and so on. But like everything in life, if you call the woman next to you “wife” and then you act like she is just a friend, you’re bound to have problems.
Instead of changing the name, changing the leaders might be a better, more productive move, in my opinion. At the end of the day, the church will be what the pastor preaches to them. The church will go wherever the leaders take them. You can change slogans and put lights and whatever… but if the people that lead do so with the mindset of 30 and 40 years ago, it’s just not going to work.
Great podcast, as always. Two comments I would make:
1) There are some situations in rural areas where churches that were once churches for a specific town are now–due to both declining population and increasing mobility– trying to reach a whole section of the county. Is being called “Smallville Church” limiting their ability to attract visitors from neighboring towns (with rival high school football teams)?
2) Some commentators have already mentioned the issue of dropping the “denominational title” such as “Baptist” or “of Christ” etc. from the church. I think churches should make sure they are considering theological as well as marketing issues when they make these decisions. It’s been said “What you win them with is what you win them to.”
Thanks for all you do!