The emerging vision for the Brethren in Christ 2010-2020 is both brave and bold. Times are changing and so should one’s church. The executive branch of the BIC understands this well, if the vision cast is any indication. The overarching BIC vision for 2010-2020 – which was provided in a nine-point, rough draft, vision-laden outline called “Listening Forward: Emerging Vision Themes 2010-2020″ during the recent new pastors orientation meet-up at Grantham, PA – will undoubtedly focus forward and cause a bit of controversy. Aspects of the vision will require a lot of flexibility by those who have overtly embraced the tradition fostered by their own immediate experience and time.
Consider the name, “Brethren in Christ,” for example. The 2010-2020 vision addresses the cultural relevancy of the patriarchal, chauvinist-sounding moniker (8:8.7). Is it a proper question to be asking? Asked differently, should we be thinking about how the present, postmodern culture interprets the “Brethren in Christ” name? Yes! In fact, chances are, that if you are at all involved in street-level ministry then you have already had to explain that the “Brethren” part of our church name doesn’t refer to male dominance but rather “shared community.” That’s fine, but the reality of the situation is this: most people today assume answers to their own questions and never actually ask for further clarification from us. In other words, for every one conversation wherein we offer the appropriate commentary to aid in the proper understanding of our church’s name, five other people or families rely on their own assumed interpretation and head for less patriarchal pastures. There is a better way to address the archaic-sounding nature of our church name, but it will require us all to unite around the the future and her potential.
We should consider a denominational name change, but only – only – after everyone honestly understands that this church – or any church for that matter – is a missional organization and as such it was never really meant for private consumption. Said differently, the church was always meant for the generation living in tomorrow. Yes, we are all edified and strengthened by the present church engaged, but the church is as much – if not more – about their future as it is our present. So, we all should “hold on loosely” to those aspects of church we personally resonate with because time keeps on changing people and changing people need to hear and experience the Gospel in their own culturally palatable ways – so long as it doesn’t change the Gospel’s core. This is the meaning and power of the “redemptive analogy,” of which Jesus Christ himself was the epitome. If anything about our church obstructs the core redemptive analogy of Jesus Christ then we should all step back, study, pray, and act accordingly, in deep prayer. If we, together in the Holy Spirit, do these things, the denomination’s name will become less identity and more tool. It was created to be a tool not an identity, right? Jesus Christ, after all, is all the identity we will ever need. Beyond him, everything has the potential to be changed – even church names.
For what it’s worth, I like the sound of “Disciples in Christ” as a new denominational name, just in case anyone is wondering. Then again, the new acronym could become very distracting, and/or fodder for the sophomoric crowd. Oh well, there’s plenty of time for brainstorming. :)
Question for non-BIC readers: What do you think of the denomination’s current moniker? Would you change the name if you were a part of this denomination? Would you want the name changed? Your opinions/insights are coveted!
Related posts:
I never thought the name sounded chauvinistic… if anything, it always sounded monkish to me.
The thing about “brethren” is that, archaic language aside, it refers to “us”/”y’all” primarily in the context of a family relationship. “Disciples” is a word with educational connotations. So if the choice were between only those two options, I think it’d be more important to the subconscious inclinations of the body to keep the archaic name.
That said, it’s not merely the two options.
If there’s appropriate terminology (read: “not a cult”) that conveys the idea that “you and I are siblings, and Jesus is our big brother” then it should be a no-brainer. But if the entire meaning of the name is changed from familial to institutional/educational, it will have far more drastic (and I daresay detrimental) effects on this denomination than does the current “it sounds patriarchal” discomfort.
I think we should change it, but I have no idea what a good alternative is. I’ve heard that having the letters remain the same (B-I-C) is important in other countries where we are known simply by BIC. I feel like “Believers in Christ” sounds maybe a bit cultish and while it does resonate with the “believers church” tradition, to present-day ears it would seem to focus on doctrine. “Disciples in Christ” changes the abbreviation to DIC. If people say BIC as the “bick” church, the pronunciation of DIC would be . . . unfortunate. And even though it shouldn’t, “Disciples in Christ” also sounds a bit cultish to me.
I would hope we could find something that highlights the sibling nature of our fellowship. Our earliest Christian heritage, from Jesus and his followers for the first few centuries, defined Christianity as a new sort of family. Call no man Father but God.
But I fear that anything that sounds too new will sound too trendy (or worse). It’s a conundrum.
@Travis: Well said, brother. I like “monkish.” I’m not so sure everyone else ‘out there’ gets the “monkish” aspects of the name. They – repeat they – see more time than not immediately interpret it in gender negative terms. It’s a conundrum, like Pat says.
@Pat: Hey, bro! I think we should change it too. I also see that you too caught onto the acronym issues putting anything starting with the letter “D” in from of “in Christ” would cause. That would be bad.
PS: I’m not in support of the Scientology ads that appear here… still trying to nix those from Google ads.
Ooh, I’ve got it!
Blood-bought Incarnational Communities
LOL. Well, at least it would retain the “BIC” acronym, right?
EXACTLY! :D
Here are some constructive comments from Facebook readers:
Jeff McLain wrote:
I like it. I like history. History is respected today, so what if I have to give a quick Anabaptist history. We don’t need to sound like a NEW denomination….I dunno, anyone else?
Keep it.
Andrew Logue Styer wrote:
I’m not a BICer (obviously) but I agree w/ Jeff. Change the name and you will inevitably distance yourself from your history and heritage. It will happen. The Church’s job isn’t to be “culturally relevant”. I’m sorry, but its not. The Church IS the counter culture. We as Christians don’t need to keep worrying about how we are perceived by the World. Such thought has led to mounds of unorthodox thought (in other words, I believe that it tends to lead to being more concerned with cultural relevance than being Christ’s Church).
The Holy Spirit is the one who convinces people of Christ and the name of your denomination isn’t what stands between the Holy Spirit convincing one of Christ or one rejecting that work of the Spirit. “Brethren in Christ” is a beautiful name (much more meaningful than naming your denomination after your church’s governmental style…like us Presbyies have done hah!). It shows a deep rooted bond that is there between member of the Church in Christ’s name. I think that MOST people are smart enough to understand what is meant by the word “Brethren”.
That’s my thought as an “outsider”. I am constantly turned off by denominations who feel the need to reinvent themselves based on the waves and trends of society.
Shawn -
This has come up over the past few years of me interacting with the denomination. I say leave the name, and here’s why.
1. I don’t know about you, but most of the people I encounter aren’t caught up the denominational aspect of church culture. They are a member of this church or that church…rarely do they connect that church to something larger. In our own denomination very few of us even use the name “Brethren in Christ” in the title. It’s Manor Church…New Hope Church…Lifepoint Church…to name a few.
Along that point, those who are concerned with the name are from a churched background in the first place. Those who are coming in from the outside have no idea the significance of the name…they first and foremost interact with the community.
2. The name brings with it heritage. Our heritage contains so much significance I wouldn’t want to point people away from it, but instead guide people to it. It’s re-finding the principles and convictions of our heritage that continues to shape us into who we are today. Instead of a name change, perhaps a re-emphasis on the name and what it stands for.
In this day and age names are meant to be catchy. It’s the newest pop-phrases that we feel connect. The problem is that our pop-phrases don’t connect with anything historic, and I believe that’s what we want to be doing, connecting people with the historic Christian faith…the Christian story. The more history behind the name, perhaps the better?
3. While the title may throw you off, we are one of the most inclusive denominations regarding the ordination of women in ministry. If people care to stick around long enough, they’ll find that out.
Some of my initial thoughts. Oh, here’s one more. Will it makea difference? If not, why throw several thousand people into a tizzy over something that won’t redefine the mission of the church? We might as well just argue over carpet color at that point.
Josh. Interesting thoughts, brother. Question: How does the second half of your second point jive with first part of point one? In other words, how do these two concepts exist simultaneously:
Point #1: “I don’t know about you, but most of the people I encounter aren’t caught up the denominational aspect of church culture. They are a member of this church or that church… rarely do they connect that church to something larger. In our own denomination very few of us even use the name ‘Brethren in Christ’ in the title. It’s Manor Church… New Hope Church… Lifepoint Church… to name a few.”
Point #2: In this day and age names are meant to be catchy. It’s the newest pop-phrases that we feel connect. The problem is that our pop-phrases don’t connect with anything historic, and I believe that’s what we want to be doing, connecting people with the historic Christian faith…the Christian story. The more history behind the name, perhaps the better?
I see a disconnect there … Do you?
Not meaning to butt in, Shawn, but I think #1 is part of “what gets ‘em in the door,” and #2 is more “what we sell ‘em once they’re in.”
Shawn -
#1 I’m really talking about those outside of church. They connect first to that local congregation…and our local congregations don’t even use the name. Our local congregations remove the name “Brethren in Christ” from their title. So it’s likely they just see the Manor Church or Lifepoint without connecting it with a larger heritage. What I’m saying in #2 is much what Travis said…once people from outside the ‘church’ world connect to a BIC church, we have a responsibility to help them understand our heritage and how that heritage shapes us today.
I think a name change is to be culturally relevant to those familiar with some sense of church history and denominationalism. Otherwise I don’t think the name is a hinderance for folks.
Does that help make it clear, or is it still muddy?
@Josh: I was hoping that Travis’ comment was meant satirically, though I admit I could be wrong about that!!! It sounds too “bait n’ switch” to me.
I hear what you are saying, but my personal experience with those ‘outside’ the church concerning the name has been the opposite, for the most part. ‘Brethren’ carries with it an archaic theological expression that most people – inside or outside the church – know full well. Of course, I’m working in an urban, artistic, highly educated/intellectual environment, so… Take New York City, or San Diego, for example. I think a name change would aid efforts in places like these. Of course, ministries there could choose to not use the name in/on anything at all there too, if that helps. But not using the name is a bit strange, don’t you think? If there are churches now that don’t include the name in/on anything then how important is it, really? If not using the name on/in anything at all in big urban centers like New York City becomes standard practice, then why carry on pretending it is a good thing to hang onto? Heritage can still be celebrated with a name change. In fact, I think it would be beneficial to the heritage to NOT go on pretending like the name is immediately useful – when it isn’t – and waiting ’till people are deep ‘inside’ to seriously unpack it for/with them.
Great thoughts, guys. I appreciate your thinkin’ out loud with me on this.
@Pat, I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.
Satire? Not the meat of the comment; only the way I phrased it.
Personally, I think denominations are stupid excuses for our prejudice and lack of love for our brothers and sisters in Jesus. “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Paul,” “I follow Christ”… it was detrimental to the body of Christ circa AD50, and it’s still detrimental nearly 2000 years later.
But if you’re going to talk about changing the name of one of these cliques, I think it’s equally stupid to do it because the neighbors hear it and think you’re weird. Spiritual and religious groups of all stripes have things that “outsiders” are weirded out by.
But I don’t want to sound like the dude in Fiddler on the Roof (“TRADITIOOOOOOON!”), so let me try to pull my thoughts together into a single sentence:
When God calls us to change, it’s substantial change—not window-dressings like a club name—that he wants to effect.
@Travis. LOL! TRADITIOOOOON! :)
Yeah, I don’t quite see it as “changing something insubstantial so the neighbors don’t think we’re weird,” as much as I see it as “evolving forward while keeping/celebrating the best aspects of our expression (which we will always have a plurality of and will probably keep referring to it cumulatively with the term “denominations”). Organizations must evolve and progress forward, lest they become petrified and irrelevant to the people who are living and being shaped by the culture/society around them. It’s all about being missionaries, to be frank. The question then must be: “Is this topic (i.e., the name change)a necessary point of discussion given our present scenario? I’d say yes.
@ Shawn:
That’s one of the strengths, I feel, about the BIC in the current state: It’s openness to moving forward. The name change issue is a small part of it. The structural issues are a bigger part, what we’re willing to do and try…where our focus is (preservationist or mission oriented). I think as a denomination we’re at a good place. We have leadership that are asking good questions and folks raising good issues. I just question the need for a name change. Perhaps it’s too simplistic to weigh the challenges for the potential benefits, and for me there’s not enough of the latter…or the former outweighs the latter. Energy and conversation I believe could be better spent elsewhere on items like our peace involvement, new methods of church planting, engaging our churches and people with a broader Kingdom vision in local and global communities, etc. Perhaps the name change issue could fall under something like that, but as a paramount issue, I’m just not sure. Just my opinion.
That said, you and I are in different contexts, and I realize this issue may be greater for your context than the one I’m in.
Good conversation. @Travis: Thanks for jumping in! Peace to you all.
“Evolving forward?” At most, the name change would be akin to industrial melanism. ;)
@Josh: Absolutely great conversation, bro. It’ll be interesting to watch where the leadership takes it over the course of the next ten years. Clearly they see a need for it, or it wouldn’t even be on the docket for discussion.
@Travis: LOL. Some would have said the same thing about our simple dress code, the ban, and prayer caps for women. Gladly, we have evolved as a denomination and didn’t prioritize traditional idiosyncrasies over honest cultural relevancy/relationship. If we would have we would be less influential than we are now. Again, it’s all about being missionaries in host cultures.
Great conversation, brothers. Pat? Where did you go?
I know I am a bit late to the conversation here, but I would like to add my thoughts.
I attend a small BIC church in Southern California called Gateway Community Church and I have been a part of the discussions on how to remain relevant, so you can say I am an “insider.”
A name change shouldn’t be taken lightly nor looked at as a cosmetic change. I think that a name change should be in an effort to remain relevant and should be made in coordination with a shift in the way the Church presents the word of the Lord.
This discussion is more about Marketing than anything else. Hear me out here for a second because I know many resent the notion that a church should identify with business principles, but I think you may find some common ground.
The American Marketing Association defines marketing as “…the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.”
Taken this broad definition of Marketing, you can see that the Church, like any organization, must “create, communicate, and deliver an offering that has value.” The BIC Church, and the Church in general, has a very rich history – but this isn’t linked to it’s name. The foundational beliefs and teachings of the Church all remain the same, it is the way that we communicate these beliefs that must evolve to remain relevant.
@Chris: Well said, brother. I agree, with everything you said, but I especially agree with your last paragraph.
Since I just read this for the first time… didn’t realize the denomination name was under consideration for a change.
Born and raised in the Brethren in Christ, I was taken aback when “BIC” became commonly used among the members. I also agree with Shawn’s comment about congregations that don’t use the denomination’s name linked to their signs, like Manor, New Joy, etc. Once brought into the fellowship the denomination and it’s history can be introduced and explained.
Personally, I believe that all denomenation names tend to divide rather than unify. Way too much emphasis,time, and energy spent on names and titles. All sides of this discussion have valid points.