Introduction

Did you notice that "Church" or other spiritual things are getting renamed these days?  I have often been asked to comment on the Emerging Church movement.  I do not have much informed opinion on this movement yet.  I do however notice the tendency to rename religious things into non-religious things.  From the name change, I make the following observations.

Name Change is Nothing "New"

Name change is nothing new.  In the Bible, the word for church basically means "assembly/gathering" that Christ followers adopted to describe their gathering.  This explains why some denominations call themselves "assemblies" (e.g. Assembly of God).  The early church gathering was for a purpose though, mostly to fellowship and worship in community with one another.  Thus, the word "Church" was devoid of religious meanings to begin with. 

Starting with the 80s and 90s, I begin to see churches that move away from denominational names, even though they have denominational affiliations.  Two of the most famous are Willow Creek Community Church and Saddleback, with the former being part of Reformed Church of America and latter Southern Baptist.  I suppose it fits the zeitgeist in favor of localizing ministry rather than being centralized to a denomination. 

These days, the word "Church" seems to diminish in its usefulness.  Many "Churches" now have done away with the word altogether, in favor of some descriptive word.  Churches now choose every conceivable description for their names (e.g. the Mosaic, the River, the Bridge etc.).  The interesting names are endless.  I suppose these names help the assembly solidify what "church" means to them while not intimidating the seeker.  I suppose the "purpose driven" movement has its lasting effects, for good or for bad.

I also notice that churches have changed names for other religious labels.  Singing time used to be called worship time, which may be a misnomer as many have pointed out.  Later, some may wish to call that time "singspriation."  Church position names also change.  In the old days, the head pastor was called the "senior pastor."  These days, some are called "lead pastor."  The renaming goes on indefinitely and infinitely.   What can we make of it?

Marketing is Easy; Quality Control is Hard

I had an interesting discussion with a few lay people on this topic.  A common theme emerges: marketing.  The next question to me is, "Marketing to whom?"  Let's take the average non-Christian who may be interested in Christianity, the neighbor you want to invite to church because you want him or her to experience the goodness of our faith.  Most non-Christians know when they are in "Church" whether "Church" comes in form of a building with a pulpit and crucifix or in a warehouse. There is no mistake that they know they're in church.  In other words, unbelievers are not as stupid as we suppose.  Thus, by changing all these "Christian" words to more neutral words, we are not fooling anyone.  Neither is having a Christian label intimidating anyone who is willling to go into church with us.  A non-believer does not expect church to be anything other than ... well... CHURCH!  Do people honestly think that when we change the name of our building, somehow the unbeliever would think that s/he is in a bar having a drink?  News flash: unbelievers are not stupid.

This begs the question, "Marketing to whom?"  The reality is that we Christians are marketing to ourselves.  To me, this borderlines on madness.  How can we be marketing to ourselves?  I thought the Great Commission, in Matthew 28.18-20 and Acts 1.8, was originally designed for reaching to the unreached.  Marketing to ourselves encourage one thing among many others: church hopping.  This is spiritual inbreeding.  People hop to a different church (oh sorry, we must not use the C-word here) because it sounds cool and offers something "different."  Perhaps, to put the matter in a less cynical fashion, the renaming is the Church's way of trying to define herself.  If such a case is true, the church that has the right new name may attract some believers who may be drawn to her.

As I said before, the name change makes the place no more or less "church."  Neither does it change the essence of the program or position on which we perform the name change.  If the essence has not changed, our problem is not the name.  Our problem is quality control.  Let's say we call the sermon time "inspirational lecture" or "kerygma" would the unbeliever become more or less prone to attend church?  My guess is, the name makes no difference.  The problem is the quality of content and delivery in the preaching of that sermon.  I recall once bringing friends who were struggling in their marriage to church. My former pastor was preaching on the family on that day.  My friends' remark was, "That was really helpful." The matter was just that simple. 

Conclusion

What can we draw from the above observations?  I think this fascination with names shows that first, the Church does not know whom it is trying to reach, believers or unbelievers.  She does not know her "market."  The average church in the US has lost its relevance not because it has the name "Church" but because the quality (and with it relevance) of ministry has diminished.  Second, the Church in America  no longer knows her identity.  In the midst of the postmodern world where relevance is everything, if the Church does not know what the "Church" is, then we're in real trouble.  Language and names are powerful media.  They are powerful in exposing our weakness and illusions.