What’s in a name?
I’ve just come from a visioning committee meeting, a gathering of folks interested in starting a “new faith community” (Is that what the kids are calling it these days?) in a growing part of Santa Fe, NM. Many on the committee are retired PC(USA) clergy; I’d say the average age of those doing the visioning is around 60 years including me—a thirty-two year old.
As we were envisioning something new, discussion came up regarding a flyer/mailing to be circulated to the target communities announcing an initial information session for any would-be interested community members looking for a new faith community. As we considered focus and direction for such a faith community, I noticed that there was a phrase on the flyer saying something like: “Sponsored by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbytery of Santa Fe.” I asked: Do we have to say that?
Subsequent discussion commentary such as: being “up-front” about who we are, about liability of all things, and not being deceptive. A vote was taken and the majority felt it important that this new church plant have Presbyterian written on its advertising.
So I’m throwing it out there. Do we, in this—according to Nishioka and others—post-denominational age, have to announce we are Presbyterian when doing new church plants? If so, why? (and please don’t tell me for liability…good-grief). Would it be disingenuous not to say our denomination on advertisements? If a group of new church planters opts to “conceal” denominational identity, when would/ should this information be revealed? What would be the reaction when this information is revealed to those who didn’t know?
In very simplistic observations, it seems that those “denominations” that don’t advertise their denomination when doing a church plant have had good “success,” and perhaps recognize that people just don’t care so much. But this “success” doesn’t just come from them not advertising their denomination. So the question, I suppose is, can we be Presbyterian without having it written on our advertising? (Ironically, the PCA seems to have accomplished this.)
Oh, by the way, in case you are wondering who I am, I’m a recently ordained Presbyterian MWS, serving a small church in Santa Fe. This is my first post to this blog. We’ll see how it goes.
Comment by Brint in Richmond on 17 December 2007:
After 10 years in congregational ministry — 5 with an 18-member rural Louisiana church, five with a 600-member suburban Atlanta church — I can’t come up with any reason for necessarily advertising one’s denomination in outreach media. I’m guessing the flyer leaves out lots of information, such as where you got your degree(s), how long you’ve been in ministry, how much budgetary support the presbytery is providing, how long the presbytery spent planning this initiative before choosing choosing to launch it, what kinds of backgrounds and experiences in church planting were represented on the board or committee that planned and launched this venture, what the requirements for church membership are, what your expectations are of people who attend vs. people who join, etc. That’s all important info (okay — maybe not where you got your degree…!) that you’ve chosen NOT to publish on the outreach flyer. To say that you’re therefore “concealing” that info is what’s disingenuous. What’s the PURPOSE of the flyer? (I’m guessing it’s) To persuade people to come check you guys out. If that’s the purpose, then my inclination would be not to include anything that people might mistake as a reason for not coming — and, for reasons that I don’t think need explaining, identifying yourself as a PCUSA plant — at this stage — seems to qualify as one of those reasons.
By all means, lift up the PCUSA and the presbytery when it’s important do so — e.g., in every membership and confirmation class. In your official correspondence and stationery (if you have any). Even, sometimes in a sermon. And never, ever lie about your heritage (why would you?) But I can’t think of a reason RELATED TO OUTREACH for including it on a flyer.
(Of course, simply the phrase “sponsored by” is a big red flag in my book too, because of the corporate, institutional, establishment echoes. But you didn’t ask for anyone’s opinion on that one..)
Blessings and grace in your new ministry –
in Christ, Brint
Comment by Robert Fischer on 17 December 2007:
I’m just a lay person, but I wouldn’t be too worried about leaving it out. Don’t try to hide it or dupe people into joining the denomination — that’s just stupid — but if advertising that you’re a PC(USA) what-have-you from such-and-such Presbytery doesn’t seem to fit the overall theme of some flier, then let it go.
Comment by Rodger Sellers on 17 December 2007:
We didn’t do any of that “sponsored by” stuff with our inception here in Charlotte — developed our own logo that appears prominently, and you have to dive several layers into our website before you get to “PCUSA” mentions. And it doesn’t affect our immediate mission in the least. Some of our newest folks are like, “Oh, we’re Presbyterians? What exactly does that means?” And we do education with them as they become more involved in the community. (Some, it doesn’t matter to, for others, it’s a turn off — they do read some of our “internal” stuff in the news, etc.)
But we do regularly get various levels of “grief” from the insiders here in Charlotte, and I’m willing to go out on a limb and guess that you’re dealing with much of the same, given the age average you mentioned. These are the folks who still have a HUGE denominational identity tied up into everything we do, and still are thinking about 40 years out of date with those we need to be connecting to.
So… as to that stuff limiting outreach? Anecdotally, yeah, it could turn some off. But the “fight” to get rid of it (especially if there is the power equation of “funding” involved) probably isn’t worth the effort involved. You’ll end up fighting folks within the family of the PCUSA and investing huge amounts of energy and stress there, instead of putting that energy into the mission and ministry of seeking new expressions of church that will connect with these folks. (Granted, the whole idea of a flyer to gauge interest in a community that will lead to some kind of launch expression is a pretty outdated and limited way of going about seeking all this anyway. Has anyone mentioned how inefficient these things are? If that’s the whole basis, then sounds like there isn’t any base level vision to begin with? Just thinking out loud here.)
RPS
Comment by Steve Fortenberry on 17 December 2007:
I’m an NCD pastor in NE Ohio (near Youngstown). Our church is called Common Ground Church Community. When we did our main publicity push a few years ago, we sent out a four page brochure that included our affiliation, but not in a prominent way. We did so for several reasons:
1) We wanted people to have as much info about us as possible before they even came, so that those who did come to our “launch” would be more likely to come back. Towards that end, we sent a four page flyer out and directed people to our website.
2) Our name and literature very much addressed the post-denominational mindset and we thought that would mute negative reaction to our affiliation. Also, if we wanted to present an image of being “real”, we needed to be up front about who we were.
3) We are in an area with a lot of former Presbyterians (mostly younger). We thought that our affiliation might be an asset in reaching that group (and I think it was).
Of course, I don’t know how many never visited because of our affiliation, but my guess is that those who knew enough about Presbyterian churches to have formed an opinion, wouldn’t really be open to us long-term anyway.
Steve Fortenberry
Comment by Steve on 17 December 2007:
I have a number of pastors with whom I meet who are quite convinced that having “Presbyterian” in their name is actually a liability. One pastor said to me recently, “I know for a fact that there are people who drive by us and would never give our church a try–even though we are in their neighborhood–because we have ‘Presbyterian’ in our name. They don’t trust a denomination about whom they read in the local paper articles with headlines such as ‘Presbyterians Reimagine the Trinity’.”
We don’t need to hide the fact that we are part of the PC(USA), but there are ways in which leading with this is not an asset. After all, it is not the most important thing about us. Indeed, I can imagine from God’s point of view that it might actually be way down the list.
Comment by Neal Locke on 18 December 2007:
I like what Karen Ward’s church does on their website: They list their denomination (they actually belong to two: Lutheran and Episcopal) in a slew of affiliations that they refer to as “tribes.”
http://www.apostleschurch.org/about_affiliations.php
I think that if you see yourself “first and foremost” as Presbyterians, and derive all or most of your identity from one connection…that’s kind of lopsided. But if you see yourself as “connected” to and through an array of organizations and entities (of which denomination is just one)…that’s whole.
And if “Presbyterian” is one of many connections, and you aren’t listing all of the others on the flyer, you probably shouldn’t list it either.
Besides — if you do, you’ll most likely attract primarily all the lifetime membership, dyed-in-the-wool, by the book (of order), “don’t mess with our traditions” sort of presbyterians. That could be really bad if you’re doing an NCD.
Comment by Adam Copeland on 18 December 2007:
Sure, it’s a tough call. Two points for consideration.
First, what does lacking any mention of “Presbyterian” or “PC(USA” or “Reformed” do to other churches that make their Presbyterian identity prominent? Though I’m thoroughly Presbyterian, I’m also really open to other denoms as my wife is ELCA (Lutheran) and my ELCA college was so formative in my faith journey. If all the cool churches are “community churches” what does that say about the PCUSA church across town that’s helping the cool church get its start?
Second, it’s probably true that “presbyterian” has lost it’s understanding in our society. I’m currently in a “Church of Scotland” church that is Presbyterian, but the denomination title lacks this description. It strikes me that what we’re trying to communicate is a way of being church–the whole elder thing, priesthood of all believers, growing within the reformed tradition. Trying to communicate that faithfully is important. It’s almost our family name. And if it’s not too annoying, don’t forget ministers (and elders?) ordination vows and their promise to receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith. I better stop there.
Comment by Bruce Reyes-Chow on 18 December 2007:
Do what feels right, but I would echo some of the comments above.
Mission Bay Community Church is unapologetically Presbyterian. In fact some have joined us because we ARE part of a denomination, especially those who survived the dot.com bust. So while I agree with some of the post-denominational arguments, I think that it is post-what-the-denomination-looks-like-now that needs to be listened to.
So be careful about tossing it all out. Whoever is leading this thing must have s strong understanding of their particular Presbyterianess otherwise it will always feel like one is apologizing. If leadership does not understand and embrace why they are Presbyterian these is no freaking way a community will.
This posture can not be communicated in a flyer. So, I would not feature that it is sponsored by the Presby . . . but maybe noted somewhere.
And I certainly would not have it in the main name of whatever comes out of it. But also don’t be too cute with the name as well.
My 12 cents
Comment by Wendy Bailey on 19 December 2007:
When talking with churches and new churches who are contemplating names, I always ask, “what does “Presbyterian” say to those you’re being called to reach?” You have to know your target well enough to know whether or not the first impression of the word Presbyterian is positive or negative or neutral. I think the denominational connections may be making a small comeback among college-aged millenials … the ones I’ve met who are seeking faith are looking for history, depth, and an ancient/future presence. But I also think it’s usually a turn-off to babyboomers.
A re-developing church I was working with this week feels its call is to the 50+ retired population in an inner-ring suburb of Houston … they have to be sure they know the babyboomers in their area well enough to know if the denominational affiliation will give them credibility, or taint their mission.
So … I’m not convinced it’s a one way decision … presbytery committees ought not to “require” that presbyterian be used in print literature or on signs or in the media at all … each community has to decide for itself whether or not the word and the affiliation makes a good first impression or not.
Comment by Don Coleman on 20 December 2007:
Very interesting post & discussion. My first thought is - Are we Presbyterian? If we are, the answer is simple - print it. I’m a little frustrated with the whole “seeker-sensative, appeal to everybody, low-bar” approach many of us have taken to “reaching out” when it’s become nothing more than to get someone in the door. I personally think the idea of planting a church should include reaching out to those who are not simply “un-churched” but those to don’t have a faith in Christ - who haven’t actually HEARD the gospel. Not simply picking off the sick & lame from other churches, those who’ve been “burned” by other church experiences. But crap, I’m going off in a tangent…
The simple idea is this - are we being transparent about who we are? If we’re part of a certain denom, we should be willing to name it and explain what it means. No, we’re not going to be excited about all it’s history. Just like being a Christian makes us liable for contempt for what the Church has done in its 2000 year history including genocides and wars - but we still take up the name of Christ, because we don’t believe the Church was in the right in these situations. If we’re ashamed of being Presbyterian or whatever denom, we should get out. But my guess is, whatever denom has held our hand for years, deserves our support - even if it means standing in complete opposition to most of what it does.
So, be honest and upfront about being who you are. If it means your “target audience” may have trouble… don’t get me started on target audiences… just be honest. God will build the Church and it’s our job to be good stewards of what we have and obedient to our calling, which is tough if we’re not being honest about who we are.
Comment by Mark on 20 December 2007:
Pardon my ignorance, but what is an MWS?
Comment by Neal Locke on 20 December 2007:
Don — As with many things, I think the answer is rarely “simple.”
If we are Presbyterian, just print it. We’re also in a red brick building with a steeple. Would it be inauthentic not to include that, also? It’s important to some people. We have an early service and a late one. We have 300 members. We’re mostly conservative, white, and upper-middle class. All these are pretty central to who we are, should we include them, too? Maybe. Maybe not.
We certainly shouldn’t “hide” our presbyterian-ness, and (as Bruce says) we should definitely understand it. But choosing what information is important to go out on a flyer is a matter of choice. The question is, what do we think is the *most* important thing to convey, to this particular audience? And does it *have* to be our denominational affiliation?
I also dislike the phrase “target audience.” It’s borrowed from business and politics, two of my least favorite contexts. But I’m also an English teacher, and I always taught my students to “understand their audience” when writing. That’s just a matter of good communication skills. What we mean when we say “Presbyterian” and what our audience understands might very well be two different things, requiring more common language in order for communication to happen.
Comment by Casey on 20 December 2007:
MWS = Minister of Word and Sacrament
Comment by Mark on 20 December 2007:
Casey,
Thanks for the clarification on MWS. You’d think I’d've figured that out since I’ve been one for over 12 years, but no. I’ve not seen “MWS” used in print/on screen before. I feel really out of step.
Comment by Casey on 20 December 2007:
Mark,
Happy to help. I once looked at my own phone number and thought, “I know that number. Who does that belong to?”
This is what advent does to a MWS, yes?!
Casey
Comment by Don on 26 December 2007:
Neal - truly, you are correct. I mis-typed. While the “answer” may not be simple, I do believe that the decision should be a simple one. Not because there are huge reasons for or against, but because it gets back to what I said before about honesty and authenticity. And I doubt that being white, conservative or upper-middleclass are even in the same ballpark as a denominational affiliation.
Here’s my baggage on this - I grew up in a different denom and joined the Dark Side about six years ago. I did so because I felt God leading and because I appreciated the polity of the PC(USA). In the last 10 years, what has consistently driven me up the wall are churches who have no denominational affiliation whatsoever. I’m more scared about “Jesus Bible Community Church” down the street than I am about the most wacky Conservative or Liberal church that has the guts to claim a denomination or faith tradition. Why? Because at least I know they have some idea about their identity, and they don’t pretend that Jesus died yesterday and there’s been nothing going on in Church history or theology that has influenced their thinking.
Honesty and Authenticity. They’re huge. And I believe they trump most of our trendy marketing gimmickry. I also believe that most people who would try out a new “faith community” have some idea of what that looks like, and would appreciate knowing that this new church has someone’s stamp of approval, that they’re not simply Jim Jones. And as for requiring a “common language”… that comes down the road. Heck, you never know WHAT people may conjure up in their minds with anything you say or write nowadays - including “Christ” or “Faith”…