Bart Ehrman, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is something of a celebrity skeptic. He's written a number of bestsellers exposing the alleged errors in traditional accounts of early Christianity. His book Misquoting Jesus (2007) asserts that the manuscripts used to compile the New Testament are corrupted and unreliable, deviant from original autographs. His book Forged (2011) claims that many of the New Testament writings were counterfeits written pseudonymously under the names of the apostles.

In his latest book, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Ehrman argues that belief in Jesus' divinity evolved over the first few centuries and eventually crystallized into what we know today. Jesus didn't claim to be God; rather, his followers thought he was divine because they believed he rose from the dead. But even then, the understanding of Jesus' divinity was incredibly elastic, ranging from a man exalted to be God's vice-regent to a pre-existent person who was equal with God. Only much later was Jesus identified as the Almighty. You can read Ehrman's own summary of his book at The Huffington Post.

Ehrman has a famous de-conversion, turning from an evangelical Christian to an agnostic. And he loves to tell his story. Ehrman is a gifted communicator, never short of a provocative quote. He knows how to stir a crowd, and he does well in talk shows, conferences, presentations, and debates.

But I've got my own de-conversion story to match his.

When a church does not reference its denomination in the church name, unchurched people tend to see that church as less formal, rigid, and old-fashioned, but this also makes them feel more uncertain and wonder whether the church is trying to hide its beliefs.

Study findings just released by Grey Matter Research (Phoenix, Arizona) among a demographically representative sample of 773 American adults examine the impact of including or excluding a denominational reference in church names. Most churches that are part of a denomination include a denominational reference in their name, but some avoid such references, selecting names such as Saddleback Church or Community Church of Joy. But what impact does that have?

In the study, Grey Matter Research asked both the unchurched and people who regularly attend a denominational Protestant church about the impact of a church including a denominational reference in its name. Interestingly, there are only a few places where churchgoers and the unchurched disagree. The research reveals that the decision to include or exclude a denominational reference in the name is a two-edged sword, with advantages and disadvantages to both choices.

On one hand, when people see a church with a denominational reference in its name, they are over four times more likely to perceive that church as formal than if it has no such reference. Denominational references are also three times more likely to make people see that church as old-fashioned, and almost three times more likely to make them feel it is structured and rigid, than if there is no denominational reference in the name. The lack of a denominational reference is also three times more likely to lead people to feel that the church is open-minded.

On the other hand, including a denominational reference is more than twice as likely to help people feel the church is honest. Excluding a denominational reference is more than twice as likely to give people feelings of uncertainty, and almost five times more likely to lead to thoughts that the church may be trying to hide what they believe.

On all of those measures, people who currently attend a denominational Protestant church and those who don't regularly attend any sort of worship services have very similar perceptions. But there are a few areas where the churched and the unchurched differ, or where perceptions are less clear-cut.

People who attend a denominational Protestant church believe (by a margin of 33% to 20%) that a church with its denomination in its name would be more welcoming to visitors. But the unchurched, by a very similar margin, have exactly the opposite perception (30% to 19%). In each case, about half feel the name will not impact how they perceive the church.

As the leader you are not the most qualified person on your team for every decision, every initiative, or every aspect of the team's collective work. There are others the Lord has placed on the team who are more uniquely gifted and prepared to lead specific functions.

For example, the senior pastor may not be the most gifted to spearhead pastoral counseling or lead a new initiative. Or the team leader may not be the most creative or the best designer of systems that undergird the organization.

The team is stronger and her impact is greater when the leader of the team recognizes the gifting surrounding him/her, hands leadership to others, and graciously places himself/herself under their direction for specific initiatives and functions.

Max Depree referred to this as "roving leaders" in his classic work, Leadership Is an Art. Depree articulated that there are strong leaders throughout an organization who don't carry the organizational title of team leader but are the ones who really lead, who really make things happen.

Those with the organizational title of "team leader" are wise to hand responsibility to others – to trust "roving leaders." Practically this means the team leader delegates and serves as a team member under the direction of the "roving leader" who is running point on a particular function or project.

If roving leadership sounds idealistic it is because many of us have been confronted with two significant barriers to roving leadership.

Insecure leaders need to be the ones making every decision and leading every initiative. Their organizations or ministries don't need them to be the ones always running point; they need to be the ones always running point. Their egos will not allow another person to thrive, another person to lead, or another person to be perceived as "wiser" or more "effective" in a particular discipline. Their need for power or control debilitates the organization and stifles the development of the team.