February 20th, 2025
by Dr. Spencer Plumlee
by Dr. Spencer Plumlee
“Will changing our name help our church grow?” A number of people have asked this question over the past few months and I believe it’s worth discussing. Our elders have attempted to make the case that the name should change because of confusion about “Baptist” that projects an identity inconsistent with who we actually are. We’ve also tried to explain that removing this confusion would simultaneously remove a barrier to inviting people to church.
To that end, I do firmly believe that removing “Baptist” from our name would help us grow. While the goal of the proposed name change is not growth but clarity of communication, I do believe a by-product of that change will be growth. In this post, I’d like to take up the potential name change and “church growth.” I hope to alleviate some misunderstandings about church growth, provide some testimony from other churches who’ve walked through this process, and provide some data about the American population relevant to this conversation.
What Is Church Growth and is it Bad?
Church growth simply means an increase in attendance. Most of the time, this is tracked around worship attendance. If a church averaged more in worship attendance this year than last year, it’s considered a growing church. This became so important to many churches that it became a movement.
Here’s ChatGpt’s one paragraph summary of this movement:
The Church Growth Movement, which began in the 1950s and gained momentum in the 1970s, focuses on strategies for increasing church attendance and expanding congregational influence. It emphasizes the use of modern marketing techniques, cultural adaptation, and outreach to attract new members, particularly through creating welcoming environments and relevant services. Pioneered by figures like Donald McGavran, this movement advocates for understanding the needs and preferences of specific communities to effectively evangelize. It incorporates methods such as demographic research, targeted programs, and an emphasis on church leaders who are skilled in both spiritual leadership and organizational management. While it has led to significant growth in some denominations, critics argue it sometimes prioritizes numerical success over spiritual depth.
As the summary points out, there are critiques and challenges that have been raised to this movement. In my view, the most penetrating of these is the tendency to “do whatever it takes” to reach new people. This pragmatism led many of these churches to water down the gospel, back burner core doctrinal issues and even confuse what the church is. This is the season when you see the phrase “I attend ________ church” replace the phrase “I belong to ________ church.” This gradually transformed church members into church consumers, who merely looked for the best place to get spiritual goods and services like preaching, music and kids ministries.
Despite these problems, I believe there were some very redeemable qualities about the church growth movement. First, a heart for the lost drove this movement forward. The leaders of this movement were obsessed with seeing people come to Christ. This commitment to reach people with the gospel is commendable. Second, this movement elevated the stewardship of gifts and resources entrusted to the church. Importing business practices into the church needs to be done carefully, but I absolutely believe the church can and should learn from other industries to improve.
Does our church leadership want to see our church grow? Yes! We absolutely want to see our church reach lost people with the gospel, leading to year over year growth in worship attendance. Here’s the difference: that’s not ALL we want in terms of growth.
We are interested not just in church growth, but church health. We want to see people not only come to Christ, but be discipled, joining the church family as covenant members. Our metrics for success are not just worship attendance but also Life Group attendance, total church membership and Lord willing one day even a church plant. I would call this type of posture “healthy growth.”
“Healthy Growth” expands the desire to reach new people to include a desire to disciple people. This is our aim. Healthy growth is not focused on transfer growth from other churches, though that is a normal part of church life in a suburb like Mansfield. Healthy growth wants to reach and disciple three types of people in this community: 1) The Lost, 2) New Residents to Mansfied (people moving into town looking for a church), and 3) De-Churched (more on that below).
I believe healthy churches are growing churches. Our church enjoys health rooted in theological commitments outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and spurred on through systems like plural eldership and covenant membership. After praying, our elders believe the focus in this season indeed needs to be on “healthy growth.” We believe a name change that removes confusion and encourages invitation and outreach will achieve that end.
Do we have any evidence of this from other churches?
Testimonies from Churches
There are three churches and pastors we’ve closely consulted with who’ve walked through a church name change:
John Meador- First Baptist Euless became Cross City Church
Chris Kouba- First Baptist Humble became United City Church
Russ Barkesdale- Rush Creek Baptist Church became Rush Creek Church
Over the past several months, I’ve had lengthy conversations with each of these men. I asked questions about their process of changing names. I probed about responses they received from the congregation. Finally, and most importantly for this post, I inquired about the result. Did it indeed help the church communicate who they were to the community? In so doing, did it help the church grow?
I heard the three themes emerge in my conversations with them. First, the new name encouraged more invitation from their membership to people in the community. As each of them removed the word “Baptist,” they saw their people be more apt to invite a neighbor, coworker or friend. They spoke about the confusion many of their members encountered when they invited someone to a “Baptist” church. Changing the name freed their people of endless qualifications about what kind of Baptist church they were and empowered their members to be more intentional about invitation.
Second, each of these churches began to see people from different backgrounds visit. All three pastors described the before and after the name change. Before the name change, they typically got people who were either looking for a Baptist church or people, who while reluctant, would visit and be pleasantly surprised. After the name change, each of them explained that more people from unchurched or non-Baptist backgrounds visited. As we plan to be, they were up front on their website and in membership classes about their affiliation with the SBC, but by that time most of these people had already “bought in” and misconceptions about being “Baptist” were alleviated.
Third, each of these churches saw the church grow after they changed the name. I didn’t ask for the percentage growth year over year, but they all indicated it was significant. In the case of Rush Creek, it led to a season of such growth that they went on to plant multiple campuses all around the southern metroplex. Cross City actually waited to expand into multiple campuses until the name changed. As they hoped, shifting from FBC Euless to Cross City allowed them to connect with families they weren’t reaching previously. Chris Kouba at United City spoke of a season of significant growth, with a surge in baptisms.
Our vision for the future doesn’t include multiple campuses but rather churches planted or replanted. Still, the consensus of multiple churches I’ve interviewed described significant growth following a name change.
“Is there anything other than just your gut and three churches backing up this belief?” Yes. Let’s look at some stats about church attendance in America.
Dechurched Research
“Dechurched” is a word that describes people who at one time were in church but no longer regularly attend. Many of these people would still identify as Christians, but they’ve left any meaningful connection to a church behind.
In 2023, Jim Davis and Michael Graham wrote the Great DeChurching, describing this phenomenon. Check out how ChatGpT summarizes their research:
"The Great Dechurching" by Jim Davis and Michael Graham examines the significant decline in church attendance across the United States over the past 25 years. Approximately 40 million adults, or about 16% of the adult population, have stopped attending church, marking a profound shift in the nation's religious landscape. This trend has led to more individuals leaving the church than those who joined through major historical revivals combined.
The authors identify five distinct groups among the dechurched population:
Did you read that!? 16% of the American population was in church but stopped attending over the last 25 years! This is a sobering statistic and one I myself have seen in this community, especially coming out of COVID 19 season. Many people who stopped attending church during the pandemic have not returned.
I believe a name change that removes “Baptist” will position us to reach de-churched people like never before. There are 40 million Americans who have some knowledge or familiarity with church, many of whom are open to being invited to church. Many of these people are hurt from past church experiences. Often, a name like “Baptist” is a barrier to the de-churched because of this hurt. A new name that removes this barrier, better communicating who we are will help us connect with the 40 million Americans who fit in this category.
“So we are changing the name just so we can grow?” No, we are proposing a name change to better represent who we are to the community. We see growth as the result of this change, not the goal of this change. The primary motive with the proposed name change is clarity of communication to people who are not here yet. I do believe that a name change will help us connect with the lost, new residents and de-churched people in an unparalleled way.
Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Senior Pastor
To that end, I do firmly believe that removing “Baptist” from our name would help us grow. While the goal of the proposed name change is not growth but clarity of communication, I do believe a by-product of that change will be growth. In this post, I’d like to take up the potential name change and “church growth.” I hope to alleviate some misunderstandings about church growth, provide some testimony from other churches who’ve walked through this process, and provide some data about the American population relevant to this conversation.
What Is Church Growth and is it Bad?
Church growth simply means an increase in attendance. Most of the time, this is tracked around worship attendance. If a church averaged more in worship attendance this year than last year, it’s considered a growing church. This became so important to many churches that it became a movement.
Here’s ChatGpt’s one paragraph summary of this movement:
The Church Growth Movement, which began in the 1950s and gained momentum in the 1970s, focuses on strategies for increasing church attendance and expanding congregational influence. It emphasizes the use of modern marketing techniques, cultural adaptation, and outreach to attract new members, particularly through creating welcoming environments and relevant services. Pioneered by figures like Donald McGavran, this movement advocates for understanding the needs and preferences of specific communities to effectively evangelize. It incorporates methods such as demographic research, targeted programs, and an emphasis on church leaders who are skilled in both spiritual leadership and organizational management. While it has led to significant growth in some denominations, critics argue it sometimes prioritizes numerical success over spiritual depth.
As the summary points out, there are critiques and challenges that have been raised to this movement. In my view, the most penetrating of these is the tendency to “do whatever it takes” to reach new people. This pragmatism led many of these churches to water down the gospel, back burner core doctrinal issues and even confuse what the church is. This is the season when you see the phrase “I attend ________ church” replace the phrase “I belong to ________ church.” This gradually transformed church members into church consumers, who merely looked for the best place to get spiritual goods and services like preaching, music and kids ministries.
Despite these problems, I believe there were some very redeemable qualities about the church growth movement. First, a heart for the lost drove this movement forward. The leaders of this movement were obsessed with seeing people come to Christ. This commitment to reach people with the gospel is commendable. Second, this movement elevated the stewardship of gifts and resources entrusted to the church. Importing business practices into the church needs to be done carefully, but I absolutely believe the church can and should learn from other industries to improve.
Does our church leadership want to see our church grow? Yes! We absolutely want to see our church reach lost people with the gospel, leading to year over year growth in worship attendance. Here’s the difference: that’s not ALL we want in terms of growth.
We are interested not just in church growth, but church health. We want to see people not only come to Christ, but be discipled, joining the church family as covenant members. Our metrics for success are not just worship attendance but also Life Group attendance, total church membership and Lord willing one day even a church plant. I would call this type of posture “healthy growth.”
“Healthy Growth” expands the desire to reach new people to include a desire to disciple people. This is our aim. Healthy growth is not focused on transfer growth from other churches, though that is a normal part of church life in a suburb like Mansfield. Healthy growth wants to reach and disciple three types of people in this community: 1) The Lost, 2) New Residents to Mansfied (people moving into town looking for a church), and 3) De-Churched (more on that below).
I believe healthy churches are growing churches. Our church enjoys health rooted in theological commitments outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and spurred on through systems like plural eldership and covenant membership. After praying, our elders believe the focus in this season indeed needs to be on “healthy growth.” We believe a name change that removes confusion and encourages invitation and outreach will achieve that end.
Do we have any evidence of this from other churches?
Testimonies from Churches
There are three churches and pastors we’ve closely consulted with who’ve walked through a church name change:
John Meador- First Baptist Euless became Cross City Church
Chris Kouba- First Baptist Humble became United City Church
Russ Barkesdale- Rush Creek Baptist Church became Rush Creek Church
Over the past several months, I’ve had lengthy conversations with each of these men. I asked questions about their process of changing names. I probed about responses they received from the congregation. Finally, and most importantly for this post, I inquired about the result. Did it indeed help the church communicate who they were to the community? In so doing, did it help the church grow?
I heard the three themes emerge in my conversations with them. First, the new name encouraged more invitation from their membership to people in the community. As each of them removed the word “Baptist,” they saw their people be more apt to invite a neighbor, coworker or friend. They spoke about the confusion many of their members encountered when they invited someone to a “Baptist” church. Changing the name freed their people of endless qualifications about what kind of Baptist church they were and empowered their members to be more intentional about invitation.
Second, each of these churches began to see people from different backgrounds visit. All three pastors described the before and after the name change. Before the name change, they typically got people who were either looking for a Baptist church or people, who while reluctant, would visit and be pleasantly surprised. After the name change, each of them explained that more people from unchurched or non-Baptist backgrounds visited. As we plan to be, they were up front on their website and in membership classes about their affiliation with the SBC, but by that time most of these people had already “bought in” and misconceptions about being “Baptist” were alleviated.
Third, each of these churches saw the church grow after they changed the name. I didn’t ask for the percentage growth year over year, but they all indicated it was significant. In the case of Rush Creek, it led to a season of such growth that they went on to plant multiple campuses all around the southern metroplex. Cross City actually waited to expand into multiple campuses until the name changed. As they hoped, shifting from FBC Euless to Cross City allowed them to connect with families they weren’t reaching previously. Chris Kouba at United City spoke of a season of significant growth, with a surge in baptisms.
Our vision for the future doesn’t include multiple campuses but rather churches planted or replanted. Still, the consensus of multiple churches I’ve interviewed described significant growth following a name change.
“Is there anything other than just your gut and three churches backing up this belief?” Yes. Let’s look at some stats about church attendance in America.
Dechurched Research
“Dechurched” is a word that describes people who at one time were in church but no longer regularly attend. Many of these people would still identify as Christians, but they’ve left any meaningful connection to a church behind.
In 2023, Jim Davis and Michael Graham wrote the Great DeChurching, describing this phenomenon. Check out how ChatGpT summarizes their research:
"The Great Dechurching" by Jim Davis and Michael Graham examines the significant decline in church attendance across the United States over the past 25 years. Approximately 40 million adults, or about 16% of the adult population, have stopped attending church, marking a profound shift in the nation's religious landscape. This trend has led to more individuals leaving the church than those who joined through major historical revivals combined.
The authors identify five distinct groups among the dechurched population:
- Cultural Christians: Individuals who grew up in church-centered families but lack a deep understanding of Christian doctrine.
- Dechurched Mainstream Evangelicals: Those with a strong grasp of doctrine and are believers, with many expressing a willingness to return to church.
- Exvangelicals: Individuals who have intentionally left the church and are unlikely to return, often due to negative experiences within the church community.
- Mainline Protestants: Former attendees who left due to reasons such as moving, having other priorities, or not fitting in.
- Catholics: Dechurched individuals who left because of differing priorities, political differences with others in their parish, or disagreements with clergy.
Did you read that!? 16% of the American population was in church but stopped attending over the last 25 years! This is a sobering statistic and one I myself have seen in this community, especially coming out of COVID 19 season. Many people who stopped attending church during the pandemic have not returned.
I believe a name change that removes “Baptist” will position us to reach de-churched people like never before. There are 40 million Americans who have some knowledge or familiarity with church, many of whom are open to being invited to church. Many of these people are hurt from past church experiences. Often, a name like “Baptist” is a barrier to the de-churched because of this hurt. A new name that removes this barrier, better communicating who we are will help us connect with the 40 million Americans who fit in this category.
“So we are changing the name just so we can grow?” No, we are proposing a name change to better represent who we are to the community. We see growth as the result of this change, not the goal of this change. The primary motive with the proposed name change is clarity of communication to people who are not here yet. I do believe that a name change will help us connect with the lost, new residents and de-churched people in an unparalleled way.
Dr. Spencer Plumlee
Senior Pastor
Posted in Newsletter
1 Comment
Greetings ,
nAm proposing Dispensational Bible Church Mansfield or Grace Faith Bible Church Mansfield
nAll steming from our believing of how we save. 1Cor 15:1-4.
nThank you
nPaul