Why Your Church Should Keep its Name

When an evangelism minded Arminian
can't see 'Wesleyan' on the sign, why
should he stop in?

 The worst part about being a younger sibling is inheriting someone else' reputation. Other youngest children will relate to this – walking into high school and the teacher saying, “Oh you're a Deane? I expect you to get an A in this class.” It's the shadow-drowning shoe-filling everyone dreads – being compared, for better or worse, to someone else. Churches are no different, and there has been an upswing in recent years of churches removing 'Baptist,' 'Methodist,' or other affiliations from their name. It's the same simple logic - 'don't want to ride the bad reputation of Bible-thumpers in days gone by.' For better or for worse, no one wants to be judged by their name.

Here we will examine the three most common reasons for becoming non-denominational – reputation in the community, a history of fighting over doctrinal differences, and disunity between churches - and defend denominationalism.

'The denominational name affects our reputation.'

“My neighbour doesn't want to come to church with me, he says he was badly treated once at a Baptist church.” We can all appreciate the logic of this thought, but does removing 'Baptist' from your name solve the problem? As long as you have 'church' in your name you'll encounter the same problem. Remove 'church' from your name and you'll lose all the people who love church and are searching for a home.

And what about people with theological convictions? Men and women who know their Bibles and know exactly where they stand – these are the kind of people you want in your church. When an evangelism minded Arminian can't see 'Wesleyan' on the sign, why should he stop in?

If you want to have a church that's worth attending, you're going to offend people. And if you don't do it with the sign on your front lawn, you'll certainly do it with all the things the sign stands for.

'Holding to a denomination means owning a history of petty doctrinal fights.'

This is a common reason for a name switch, and with good reason. No one wants to be labelled as Bible thumpers just because their grandparents were. But just because theological issues cause debate and heated feelings doesn't mean they aren't important. Being 'one body' (1 Cor 12:12) that is to 'all be one' (John 17:21) means to 'work out salvation' (Php 2:12) together. Since working out salvation means discussing (for example) what role God plays in the process, and the last 500 years hasn't found consensus on the issue, disagreement among God's people should be expected.

Do you see the value of the Luther's Reformation? Do you see the value of the fundamentalist fight in the 1900s to reestablish the Bible as God's inspired word? Then you see the value of holding convictions. All it means to have a denominational name on your front lawn is to tell the world what your churches convictions are. Saying 'we are the Neighbourhood Christian and Missionary Alliance' is like saying, 'we are evangelical and value sanctification and the work of the Spirit, world missions and servanthood.' While saying 'Neighbourhood Church' is like saying 'we might still be Catholic, you never know.' To be denominationless is to be (in appearance) convictionless.

Depending on your church, it's likely that men and women died to hold a belief you now see as petty. Read your church history and unless your Pentecostal or Lutheran, you'll probably find Anabaptist roots. The Anabaptists were slaughtered in droves. Why? They baptized adults. They aren't the only martyrs and it's not the only issue. Historical disunity among denominations has almost never been over something petty – it's usually an issue someone gave their life for. Throwing away a denomination means throwing away the blood-stained work of God-fearing intelligent and convicted men before you.

'Being of a certain school of thought affects the unity of our church.'

Individuals need to explore theology at a deeper lever, form opinions, and present their opinions – not to tear down other thought but to edify the church. If you are so grace driven you don't see the value of repentance, and I am so works driven I don't see the value of faith, then in the proper format, we would do well learning from each other. If individuals need it, why not churches? Arguing is of no benefit, but neither is entrenching behind walls of opinion. Open discussion is very valuable among evangelicals who agree on the fundamental issues (authority of Scripture, grace through faith, etc.).

As Jeremiah Burroughs once taught, it is unrealistic to expect that issues that have been debated for two thousand years will be able to be sorted out now. Furthermore, it is unwise to dismiss these 'secondary issues' as unimportant. People must continue to hold opinions on matters that do not pertain to salvation (politics, eschatology, etc.) because to be forced to believe otherwise on these issues would be to violate one's conscience. No single church structure can represent the true body of Christ, but rather, independent churches ought to be striving together to fully live out the Word of God. This means denominations working together toward a common goal, while being open to one another's critiques of their means. When there is open dialogue about the means a church uses to pursue the common goal, there is the greatest opportunity for unity among diverse people.

A better solution is not to remove from the churches the name which offends, but use the differing opinions as a starting point for edifying theological insight. If the left-wing churches could create compromising debate with the right-wing churches we would be less likely to become extremists. I'm not talking about universalism, I'm talking about profitable clergy meetings among evangelical leaders.

Conclusion

If no one had convictions, no one could debate. If we weren't allowed to take sides on issues that have been the centre of hot discussion for thousands of years, we wouldn't be able to explore the character of God, the meaning of the cross, the process of salvation – everything important would be unoffensive, convictionless and bland. Theological issues need to have sides – and open conversations between those sides. Hiding which side you're on only makes your church attractive until someone walks through your door.