It depends. If you are a fairly middle-of-the-road mainstream Protestant then sure, you might no have any immediately apparent denominational distinctive to disguise (or rebrand).
The difference between a mainstream URC or Methodist church is more a matter of structure and organisation rather than anything visitors or 'outsiders' might pick up on.
If you are a Pentecostal, for instance, then the name itself is making a claim rather simply being a title.
Likewise terms like 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' carry freight and expectations.
Does it though? They tend to be less heavy on the gifts of the spirit these days, a lot of them adopt Alpha, so how different are they from the middle of the road charismatic HTB plant down the road.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that some of the complaints are coming from people who would complain in other circumstances if those churches stressed their denominational distinctives.
Sure. There's a difference though, between flaunting or majoring on your distinctive and trying to pretend you don't have any.
Of course Pentecostalism was always going to become domesticated and blend more with the landscape. It's also 'won' a place at the table as it were and is very welcome there.
There are those who would argue - and I've heard it said - that Pentecostalism offers a 'point of contact' in dialogue between 'East and West' given its pneumatic emphasis.
At the risk of sounding patronising, it's been said that Pentecostalism and its more middle-class charismatic cousin, have 'come of age.'
They are no longer the clumsy adolescents knocking things over.
I'm 'Mr Both-And' don't forget and I think there's something in those observations and that we can both acknowledge that and retain a certain wariness about some of their distinctive at one and the same time.
I don't see how holding such a position is mutually exclusive or contradictory.
Coming back to 'The Quiet Revival', I'd certainly agree that the stats don't stack up and that the overall trend is downward but anecdotally those churches which are seeing some kind of growth or an influx of enquirers or seekers tend to be those that are 'distinctive' in some way - and from my own observations, tend to be RC, Orthodox or forms of evangelicalism or Pentecostalism.
Some of these folk may gravitate into more 'liberal' settings over time, of course, but for the time being they appear to be rolling up at more traditional RC parishes, evangelical and charismatic churches and to Orthodox churches.
It's not 'revival' but there is something going on. Whether it's statistically significant is questionable of course.
With the best will in the world I don't see many new people rocking up at the Methodist, URC or liberal /MoTR Anglican churches I know.
I don’t say that to denigrate them or gloat - for all I know we might be a staging post and people will find their way into those eventually.
Our local evangelical Anglican parish used to brand itself as 'a lively part of the Church of England.' The implication being that other parts of the CofE weren't 'lively' at all ...
Well calling yourself "evangelical" already implies that others might not be preaching the Good News
And calling yourself "Pentecostal" already implies that others might not have received the Holy Spirit
And calling yourself "Catholic" already implies that others might not be part of the Universal Church
And as for calling yourself "Orthodox" ...
[edit: I see you forestalled this already yourself!]
I don't see the issue personally [*]. It's not like most of the churches rebranding are cleaving heavily to some set of 'traditional denominational distinctives' (and neither are many other churches).
[*] Apart from my general aversion to 'rebrandings'
There may be Pond Differences at play. Those churches that I see here that are “hiding” denominational affiliation generally do cleave to denominational distinctives. In my experience, those churches are usually conservative—Southern Baptist or Presbyterian Church in America, for example—and it’s almost like they don’t want to scare people away with the denominational label. They want to be attractive to those suspicious of denominations.
In some cases, I’m afraid they also seem to want to attract new folks and have an opportunity for those new folks to form relationships and feel part of the “family”—dare I say “love bomb” them—before those new folks have a chance to be put off by conservative stances on Dead Horse issues.
I noticed that about the website of one of my own denomination's so-called "mega-churches"--which is to say, they probably have an attendance in the thousands weekly, not more. But they've dumped their old St. Whatsit's name, and chosen something utterly bland like "Stepping Stones" (it's not that). And they've hidden their denominational affiliation so deeply on their webpage that even I can't find it.
I don't think this is wise. Sooner or later a newcomer is going to run up against one of our distinctives--most likely something to do with baptism or the Lord's supper--and then they're likely to feel betrayed by the "open to anything and anyone" branding. I DO hope they are open to anyone; I doubt they are open to "anything," because Jesus himself isn't open to that, and I'm very sure there are some actions that the church leadership would say a hearty "no!" to--again, most likely around the sacraments.
Imagining myself as a newcomer, I'd prefer to know where I stood. I also think that if they are trying to overcome negative elements in the way our denomination is perceived, that they'd do better to pursue actions--such as sponsoring efforts that help the local community in some way--and otherwise teaching their people to reach out lovingly to others, one on one, with the kind of care and acceptance Jesus gives us. Rebranding will never get you as far as that will.
In the instance I gave of some of the local Pentecostals, they are already quite ecumenical and relate well to all the other churches hereabouts, including the Catholics.
None of the other churches bear them any ill-will from what I can see, although 'outsiders' and enquirers might be put off by some of their practices.
It's long been a conundrum in Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches. Those I've known - or been involved with - in terms of the latter - have always struggled with this.
They are good at getting people over the threshold but what do they do when newcomers run up against people 'speaking in tongues' and so forth? A lot of enquirers head for the door at that point.
Back in the day I remember even convinced charismatics observing that these things caused more problems than they were worth.
So, what are they to do? Abandon the practice? Carry on regardless in the hope that sufficient people get past that barrier?
Similar things could be said about particular positions on the eucharist or hot-button issues of course.
Should the Orthodox desist from venerating icons because people might assume it's idolatry?
Should the RCs dilute their particular emphases to get people over the threshold, only to 'hit' people with them later on?
Mega-churches of whatever stripe are often accused of being 'a mile wide and an inch deep.'
This may very well be unfair.
But acting as if you are something you aren't doesn't strike me as a sensible strategy longer term.
I don't see the issue personally [*]. It's not like most of the churches rebranding are cleaving heavily to some set of 'traditional denominational distinctives' (and neither are many other churches).
[*] Apart from my general aversion to 'rebrandings'
There may be Pond Differences at play. Those churches that I see here that are “hiding” denominational affiliation generally do cleave to denominational distinctives. In my experience, those churches are usually conservative—Southern Baptist or Presbyterian Church in America, for example
Sure, but I'm talking about the denominational distinctives of the sort that would vary from an SBC church to a PCA church, rather than a base level social conservativism (which be assumed), or a particular modality of social conservatism (for which there isn't any real analogue).
I don't see the issue personally [*]. It's not like most of the churches rebranding are cleaving heavily to some set of 'traditional denominational distinctives' (and neither are many other churches).
[*] Apart from my general aversion to 'rebrandings'
There may be Pond Differences at play. Those churches that I see here that are “hiding” denominational affiliation generally do cleave to denominational distinctives. In my experience, those churches are usually conservative—Southern Baptist or Presbyterian Church in America, for example
Sure, but I'm talking about the denominational distinctives of the sort that would vary from an SBC church to a PCA church, rather than a base level social conservativism (which be assumed), or a particular modality of social conservatism (for which there isn't any real analogue).
I don't see the issue personally [*]. It's not like most of the churches rebranding are cleaving heavily to some set of 'traditional denominational distinctives' (and neither are many other churches).
[*] Apart from my general aversion to 'rebrandings'
There may be Pond Differences at play. Those churches that I see here that are “hiding” denominational affiliation generally do cleave to denominational distinctives. In my experience, those churches are usually conservative—Southern Baptist or Presbyterian Church in America, for example
Sure, but I'm talking about the denominational distinctives of the sort that would vary from an SBC church to a PCA church, rather than a base level social conservativism (which be assumed), or a particular modality of social conservatism (for which there isn't any real analogue).
So am I.
Okay, in that case I probably interpreted your mention of the churches being conservative incorrectly. I don't think there's enough popular knowledge of of any other distinctives in the UK for churches to be successfully hiding them via a rebrand.
Comments
The difference between a mainstream URC or Methodist church is more a matter of structure and organisation rather than anything visitors or 'outsiders' might pick up on.
If you are a Pentecostal, for instance, then the name itself is making a claim rather simply being a title.
Likewise terms like 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' carry freight and expectations.
'Become what you are.'
Also, it's somewhat ironic that some of the complaints are coming from people who would complain in other circumstances if those churches stressed their denominational distinctives.
Of course Pentecostalism was always going to become domesticated and blend more with the landscape. It's also 'won' a place at the table as it were and is very welcome there.
There are those who would argue - and I've heard it said - that Pentecostalism offers a 'point of contact' in dialogue between 'East and West' given its pneumatic emphasis.
At the risk of sounding patronising, it's been said that Pentecostalism and its more middle-class charismatic cousin, have 'come of age.'
They are no longer the clumsy adolescents knocking things over.
I'm 'Mr Both-And' don't forget and I think there's something in those observations and that we can both acknowledge that and retain a certain wariness about some of their distinctive at one and the same time.
I don't see how holding such a position is mutually exclusive or contradictory.
Coming back to 'The Quiet Revival', I'd certainly agree that the stats don't stack up and that the overall trend is downward but anecdotally those churches which are seeing some kind of growth or an influx of enquirers or seekers tend to be those that are 'distinctive' in some way - and from my own observations, tend to be RC, Orthodox or forms of evangelicalism or Pentecostalism.
Some of these folk may gravitate into more 'liberal' settings over time, of course, but for the time being they appear to be rolling up at more traditional RC parishes, evangelical and charismatic churches and to Orthodox churches.
It's not 'revival' but there is something going on. Whether it's statistically significant is questionable of course.
With the best will in the world I don't see many new people rocking up at the Methodist, URC or liberal /MoTR Anglican churches I know.
I don’t say that to denigrate them or gloat - for all I know we might be a staging post and people will find their way into those eventually.
Well calling yourself "evangelical" already implies that others might not be preaching the Good News
And calling yourself "Pentecostal" already implies that others might not have received the Holy Spirit
And calling yourself "Catholic" already implies that others might not be part of the Universal Church
And as for calling yourself "Orthodox" ...
[edit: I see you forestalled this already yourself!]
I would add the caveat that calling oneself Orthodox doesn't imply that other people aren't orthodox.
Not so true of the Church in Wales.
'We are the Church in Wales. You aren't,' as it were.
In some cases, I’m afraid they also seem to want to attract new folks and have an opportunity for those new folks to form relationships and feel part of the “family”—dare I say “love bomb” them—before those new folks have a chance to be put off by conservative stances on Dead Horse issues.
I don't think this is wise. Sooner or later a newcomer is going to run up against one of our distinctives--most likely something to do with baptism or the Lord's supper--and then they're likely to feel betrayed by the "open to anything and anyone" branding. I DO hope they are open to anyone; I doubt they are open to "anything," because Jesus himself isn't open to that, and I'm very sure there are some actions that the church leadership would say a hearty "no!" to--again, most likely around the sacraments.
Imagining myself as a newcomer, I'd prefer to know where I stood. I also think that if they are trying to overcome negative elements in the way our denomination is perceived, that they'd do better to pursue actions--such as sponsoring efforts that help the local community in some way--and otherwise teaching their people to reach out lovingly to others, one on one, with the kind of care and acceptance Jesus gives us. Rebranding will never get you as far as that will.
True!
In the instance I gave of some of the local Pentecostals, they are already quite ecumenical and relate well to all the other churches hereabouts, including the Catholics.
None of the other churches bear them any ill-will from what I can see, although 'outsiders' and enquirers might be put off by some of their practices.
It's long been a conundrum in Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches. Those I've known - or been involved with - in terms of the latter - have always struggled with this.
They are good at getting people over the threshold but what do they do when newcomers run up against people 'speaking in tongues' and so forth? A lot of enquirers head for the door at that point.
Back in the day I remember even convinced charismatics observing that these things caused more problems than they were worth.
So, what are they to do? Abandon the practice? Carry on regardless in the hope that sufficient people get past that barrier?
Similar things could be said about particular positions on the eucharist or hot-button issues of course.
Should the Orthodox desist from venerating icons because people might assume it's idolatry?
Should the RCs dilute their particular emphases to get people over the threshold, only to 'hit' people with them later on?
Mega-churches of whatever stripe are often accused of being 'a mile wide and an inch deep.'
This may very well be unfair.
But acting as if you are something you aren't doesn't strike me as a sensible strategy longer term.
Sure, but I'm talking about the denominational distinctives of the sort that would vary from an SBC church to a PCA church, rather than a base level social conservativism (which be assumed), or a particular modality of social conservatism (for which there isn't any real analogue).
Okay, in that case I probably interpreted your mention of the churches being conservative incorrectly. I don't think there's enough popular knowledge of of any other distinctives in the UK for churches to be successfully hiding them via a rebrand.
ROTFL! Whenever I hear “lutefisk,” I think of this:
https://youtu.be/bWCI2yECENQ?si=5FPPHXzLYpB3F7lV