[Cal]

Evangelical,

First you say there is no biblical record of a church taking a name, so that's evidence they should not take one. But there is also no biblical record of a ministry taking a name, but you say it's okay if they do.

Your logic is that the church is the Bride of Christ, and the Bride should take no name other than her husband's. Even though all wives have first names which are not their husband's names. But, also, husbands are supposed have only one wife, but there are multiple practical churches. So does that mean Christ has many brides? No, it means that the Bride is actually all the church's together. So, following your logic, unless a individual church is presuming to take a name that encompasses the whole Bride you shouldn't say the Bride is taking a name.

My point is that your argument for no name is not only not a biblical command, it's full of holes logically. Now, if you want to privately believe this stuff, that's your business. But I can't believe you are trying to peddle it to others, let alone insist it's something that should be binding on us all.

As aron said, Lee's model served one purpose: To discredit everyone else and convince his followers that they were the only real deal.