The Evangelical Press Association recently voted to change its name to the Christian Communicators Network.
It was a close vote. About 57% of the 224 voters approved of the name change. Forty-two percent opposed. Also of interest: only 37% of the organization’s 664 eligible voters participated in the election.
In other words, just 21% of the membership voted to change the name of the organization.
‘Flawed’ process?
That is why a lot of members are crying foul. They say the process was flawed. The vote did not require a quorum or a super-majority, which a vote of this magnitude should require. Some also object to limited opportunities for member input. A Sept. 15 member Zoom call — the only forum for discussing the name change — did not allow for open discussion. It did, however, allow participants to write in the chat box on Zoom, and many did — mostly to express concerns and skepticism.
Otherwise, though, the Zoom meeting was essentially a presentation by the board touting the reasons for the name change.
The board’s key argument: “The recommendation recognizes that the word Evangelical increasingly carries political, cultural, and sociological meanings that often obscure its theological intent,” the EPA board wrote to members in recommending the change. “The word Christian, by contrast, is immediately understood around the world.”
After the vote, President Dwight Widaman said, “The Board is grateful for every member who participated. The discussion reflected the care our members have for this organization, its evangelical identity, its rich heritage, and its future. The Board of Directors is confident this is the right direction.”
Others are not so sure. I include myself in this group.
Sarah Kroop Brown, vice president of communications and marketing for the National Association of Evangelicals, shared in the chat section of the Sept. 15 Zoom call: “My main concern is the proposed shift from ‘evangelical’ to ‘Christian.’ At the National Association of Evangelicals, we can certainly understand the challenges and complexities surrounding the term ‘evangelical’ today. While the intent may be to broaden appeal, we have significant concerns about what such a change could mean, both for the broader evangelical movement and for the institution of the EPA itself.”
Journalist Mark Kellner, an EPA member who has written for national publications like the Washington Times and NY Post, thinks the name change is unwise.
“I’m deeply concerned about this — and opposed for a number of reasons,” he said. He wrote an article for The Christian Post (also an EPA member) opposing the change. Kellner said he understands that the word “evangelical” has taken on cultural and political baggage, but it also stands for a set of theological distinctives. “It’s not a cultural label or a voting bloc; it names a conviction about what Jesus Christ accomplished and what that requires of the people who believe it.”
Kellner notes that many groups call themselves “Christian” that do not share the group’s theological convictions, such as the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. He also said the decision was short-sighted, based on a political moment that will soon pass, and that is the evangelical movement’s association with Donald Trump.
“There is no reason for anyone to be ashamed of the name evangelical, which, in its original meaning, stands for the good news,” he said.
I agree with Kellner. The word “evangelical” has its problems. I wrote a book-length discussion of those problems: “A Lover’s Quarrel With The Evangelical Church.” But the conclusion I came to in that book — and the conclusion I come to now — is that the word is worth fighting for. Instead, we are abandoning it.
Bonnie Kristian shares that view. Kristian, until recently the deputy editor at Christianity Today magazine, told Religion News Service the change from evangelical to Christian will create more problems than it solves.
“It extends an invitation that’s not actually being offered,” she said. “They’re not becoming a generically Christian association. It’s still evangelical according to them in every meaningful sense, and so I think it’s kind of rude to suggest to our mainline and Catholic and Orthodox siblings in Christ that we are inviting them to be part of something if we’re not actually inviting that.”
Kristian’s new book “In Defense of Evangelicalism” defends the reputation of evangelicals against its cultural critics. She thinks the word “evangelical” remains helpful. “If we are trying to talk about this large group of generally low church and theologically conservative Protestants who are not Pentecostal and are not mainline, we need a word for those folks,” she said. “And this is the most useful one we have.”
Where Now?
Of course, some will say all of this is just Monday Morning Quarterbacking. The vote happened. It is a done deal, a fait accompli.
Or is it?
I do not think so. Even Dwight Widaman, EPA president and strong supporter of the name change, said, “As we emphasized during our membership meeting, the adoption of a new name does not guarantee a new future. Christian Communicators Network will prosper only if its members invest themselves in securing that future. Our new name may open doors, but members must pass through them.” He concludes his statement: “Now the work truly begins.”
He is right. If the board and the membership do not move with conviction, this name change will fail. And given the weak position of the EPA (it has lost membership steadily over the past decade), it is not clear how the organization will survive if it has further losses. That is why I respectfully offer the following suggestions to the board and the membership:
1. Table the implementation process. Changing the name of a 75-year-old organization is not easy. It will require corporate and government filings, logo designs, and other brand management activities. My recommendation is that the organization hit the pause button on these activities and do some internal work to heal the rift this process has caused in the organization.
2. Change the bylaws of the organization. A lot of even long-time members were astonished that such a major change was even possible with a simple majority vote of only those who showed up to vote. The EPA should change its bylaws to require a quorum for such votes and then add the requirement of a super-majority (60%, or two-thirds, or some number) for such fundamental changes to happen.
3. Re-do the vote using the new rules. That is the only way the board will get the organization behind this change in direction. I realize this will be a slow process, but … it should be slow. The current process resulted in a vote the board wanted, but it failed to bring along the vast majority of the membership with it. That’s a recipe for failure.
I am rooting for the Evangelical Press Association. I have spoken at its annual meetings. I have learned much from other speakers there. I have been nourished by the fellowship of its members. MinistryWatch has won awards from the EPA, and those awards were both an encouragement and a way to validate our work with readers and donors.
I pray that era has not come to an end.
EDITOR’S NOTE — This column was written by Warren Cole Smith and originally published by MinistryWatch. Used with permission.
