Should We Change the Name of Our Denomination?

[Greg]

I sat at a table today with 2 very respected leaders from CRU and NAMB.  At some point they asked me about my denominational affiliation and I quickly realized that they knew next to nothing about Nazarenes or Wesleyanism.  

I did my best to give a good lesson about our church but they prefered to wonder aloud among themselves about why our denomination hasn't changed its name.

They talked about what a strange name it was and how we probably had a catholic founder.  They asked some good questions like, "what does that name tell someone about your denomination?" I offered up about how it identifies us with the poor but they didn't agree that it actually did that.  The last thing they agreed on was that no one would name a denomination that today.  

Afterwards I was thinking about watching that conversation and forced myself to consider the pros of a name change.  There are plenty of cons, but they are also all inward focused.  

Do you think we should start thinking about changing our name?

[Marsha Lynn]

Interesting question. What are CRU and NAMB?

[A. Lucas Finch]

I don't think we need to change our name. We just need to be better about telling our story. By that, I certainly mean the denominational story and why Bresee & Co. chose the name. But more than that, I mean our story in relationship to Jesus, THE Nazarene. I know of no better way in which we can be identified.

[Greg]

Sept 21, 2017 6:38:28 GMT -5 Marsha Lynn said:

Interesting question. What are CRU and NAMB?

New name of campus crusade for Christ

North American Mission Board (southern baptist).

[Kevin Wright]

How about Mark 16:6 Ministries?

[Brandon Brown]

Well the Southern Baptists don't want anyone to know they are Southern Baptists anymore.

[Deleted]

Well, the name IS weird but it's a great discussion starter. And I don't mind being identified with THE Nazarene. Sounds way better than all the "reformed" versions we have over here.

[Greg Farra]

Sept 21, 2017 23:13:33 GMT -5 @hans said:

Well, the name IS weird but it's a great discussion starter. And I don't mind being identified with THE Nazarene. Sounds way better than all the "reformed" versions we have over here.

Just so long as we don't have any 'Reformed Nazarenes'!

[Gina Stevenson]

Was wondering why, Greg, instead of just telling us what CRU stood for, you answered that "CRU" was CCC's new name. So then when googling, I found that it's not an acronym, after all, but simply the first half of the word "crusade" . . . Cru, period. Interesting.

[Greg]

There are other reasons to change the name. It has an undesirable reputation to many. Doesn't matter if it's deserved or not, it is what it is.

I like the association with Jesus too, much better than "baptists." But if you have to explain it...

I don't think the rest of the world has an issue with the name, so maybe only USA Canada?

If you google "church of the Nazarene" the list of other searches with that name is horrible for a church hoping to reach the unchurched. People can read about our beliefs on drinking, homosexuality, dancing and dress. Not a great welcome mat for a church that supposedly identifies with the original nazarene.

[Cam Pence]

Sept 26, 2017 1:08:26 GMT -5 Greg said:

There are other reasons to change the name. It has an undesirable reputation to many. Doesn't matter if it's deserved or not, it is what it is.

I like the association with Jesus too, much better than "baptists." But if you have to explain it...

I don't think the rest of the world has an issue with the name, so maybe only USA Canada?

If you google "church of the Nazarene" the list of other searches with that name is horrible for a church hoping to reach the unchurched. People can read about our beliefs on drinking, homosexuality, dancing and dress. Not a great welcome mat for a church that supposedly identifies with the original nazarene.

You bring up some good points, but I can't help but wonder (1) if the name issue really isn't that deep in the grand scheme of things and (2) I can't help but worry about drifting too far in the direction of consumeristic Christianity. Plus, personally speaking, I don't think our name is necessarily any better/worse/weirder/normal than United Methodists, Wesleyans, Baptist, etc.

[Greg]

Sept 26, 2017 11:38:22 GMT -5 Cam Pence said:

Sept 26, 2017 1:08:26 GMT -5 Greg said:

There are other reasons to change the name. It has an undesirable reputation to many. Doesn't matter if it's deserved or not, it is what it is.

I like the association with Jesus too, much better than "baptists." But if you have to explain it...

I don't think the rest of the world has an issue with the name, so maybe only USA Canada?

If you google "church of the Nazarene" the list of other searches with that name is horrible for a church hoping to reach the unchurched. People can read about our beliefs on drinking, homosexuality, dancing and dress. Not a great welcome mat for a church that supposedly identifies with the original nazarene.

You bring up some good points, but I can't help but wonder (1) if the name issue really isn't that deep in the grand scheme of things and (2) I can't help but worry about drifting too far in the direction of consumeristic Christianity. Plus, personally speaking, I don't think our name is necessarily any better/worse/weirder/normal than United Methodists, Wesleyans, Baptist, etc.

Another reason for changing the name is that it would give us an opportunity for a restart as a denomination.

I just went through a restart for our church so maybe I am stuck in that vain of thinking.  It was a very positive experience to say "this is the way things are going to be from now on" and to get everyone on board. 

There are many things that have changed about our denomination and us as members and I am unclear about where we are with a lot of what we used to do, for example, Alabaster.  I don't see it being promoted anywhere.  

[A. Lucas Finch]

Sept 26, 2017 11:38:22 GMT -5 Cam Pence said:

I don't think our name is necessarily any better/worse/weirder/normal than United Methodists, Wesleyans, Baptist, etc.

Yeah, the only difference I see is that names like "Methodist" and "Baptist" are more familiar to people than "Nazarene".  That could be good for them . . . but it could not be.  Those names carry baggage, depending on who you ask.

Honestly, I do not see how the name could be changed without it either becoming too generic to have any real meaning or needing a similar explanation to the current name.  I prefer continuing to associate with THE Nazarene, and through that, work to make the name "Nazarene" more positively known and recognized.

But it's definitely a worthwhile conversation.  :-)

[Greg]

Sept 26, 2017 16:22:42 GMT -5 A. Lucas Finch said:

Sept 26, 2017 11:38:22 GMT -5 Cam Pence said:

I don't think our name is necessarily any better/worse/weirder/normal than United Methodists, Wesleyans, Baptist, etc.

I prefer continuing to associate with THE Nazarene, and through that, work to make the name "Nazarene" more positively known and recognized.

Long before I got to this church, the board made the decision to not call ourselves Nazarene.  Officially we are "The Point, a church of the Nazarene."  Since my arrival I have done even less to give visibility to the name "Nazarene."  And I am sorry to say that that is one of the best decisions this church has made.  In our region nobody is giving us an opportunity to come back and "make the name "Nazarene" more positively known and recognized."  They have already made up their minds the first time they hear it and have now moved on.

One thing I am trying to understand is why is the word "non-denominational" is such a positive word.  To me it's even more weird sounding and negative than Nazarene.  But I regularly encounter unchurched people who have near zero Christian experience that are proud to say, that if they did go to church, they would go to a nondenominational one.  Does it have to do with a deep and wide anti-establishment mindset in our area? How did they even hear or learn about the non-denominational word?

A couple months ago we had a Stanford MD visit our church.  She can't be dumb.  We asked her how she found us and she said she Google'd "nondenominational church" and we came up and she loves it and I just kept nodding.  I'll update you as this story unfolds. 

So... in my experience here, using the word "Nazarene" is bad for Kingdom business. 

[A. Lucas Finch]

Sept 27, 2017 9:22:29 GMT -5 Greg said:

Sept 26, 2017 16:22:42 GMT -5 A. Lucas Finch said:

I prefer continuing to associate with THE Nazarene, and through that, work to make the name "Nazarene" more positively known and recognized.

Long before I got to this church, the board made the decision to not call ourselves Nazarene.  Officially we are "The Point, a church of the Nazarene."  Since my arrival I have done even less to give visibility to the name "Nazarene."  And I am sorry to say that that is one of the best decisions this church has made.  In our region nobody is giving us an opportunity to come back and "make the name "Nazarene" more positively known and recognized."  They have already made up their minds the first time they hear it and have now moved on.

One thing I am trying to understand is why is the word "non-denominational" is such a positive word.  To me it's even more weird sounding and negative than Nazarene.  But I regularly encounter unchurched people who have near zero Christian experience that are proud to say, that if they did go to church, they would go to a nondenominational one.  Does it have to do with a deep and wide anti-establishment mindset in our area? How did they even hear or learn about the non-denominational word?

A couple months ago we had a Stanford MD visit our church.  She can't be dumb.  We asked her how she found us and she said she Google'd "nondenominational church" and we came up and she loves it and I just kept nodding.  I'll update you as this story unfolds. 

So... in my experience here, using the word "Nazarene" is bad for Kingdom business. 

There is certainly "baggage" that comes with the name "Nazarene".  We have an unfortunate history with legalism, not to mention the occasional scandal that takes place.  But again, I do not know of any organization that does not have to fight against these things.  I fail to see how a simple name change is going to make a difference.  It just takes a lot of work to overcome the damage done when people abuse a name.

On my district, there is a town that about 20 years ago had a thriving COTN.  Their average attendance was over 300 (that is a lot for our demographics), and they ran a well-respected private school as well.  But then . . . scandal broke.  I don't know specifics, and what I do know is hearsay, so I won't share so as to not misrepresent the actual situation.  Regardless, though, attendance plummeted, and the church lost its favor in the community.  For years, new pastor after new pastor came in and tried to reboot things.  They used all the tactics.  They even tried disassociating from the name "Nazarene".  Nothing worked.  Several years ago, the final attempt included selling off their facilities and starting fresh in a new location with yet another new name but still in the same town.  That attempt had some marginal success, but it was largely around the personality of the pastoral couple, and they accepted a call elsewhere.  The newest pastor has taken those pieces and actually started again in a different community.  It is right next to the previous community, though, and growth in the community is such that they have basically grown together.  This newest effort finally seems to have shaken off the history that the COTN had there (though it is still early to say for sure).  But it has been much more than just a name change, and this latest effort certainly retains its association with the denomination.  It takes a lot of work to establish credibility and even more work to regain it once credibility has been lost.  Cosmetic changes, like a name, hardly suffice.  People need to see apparent and authentic institutional change.

As far as the attraction of non-denominational churches, I think it is largely because of American anti-institutionalism.  And this is certainly nothing new.  Americans have always been suspicious of institutions.  Once again, it just takes a lot of work to establish credibility.  History of scandal or not, a COTN that just sits on a corner and builds facilities and programs with little effort to actually go into a community to be a force of transformation for the Kingdom will only have marginal success, if any.  However, I believe that a church who takes an active role for justice and restoration in its community will be well-received, even in the most anti-institutional communities, and even if there is a history of scandal.  It just takes a lot of work to build goodwill and establish or reestablish credibility.