What’s In A Name?
There is so much that established churches simply take for granted that can seem almost overwhelming from the perspective of planting a church. Consider the name. How do you go about naming a church? You obviously want something biblical, something that expresses at least a bit about who you hope to be and what you hope to be about.
But you also want something accessible and immediate. Foreign-language names, including Greek, Hebrew and Latin can be seen as being “elitist.” But “The Name of Your City, Street Or Neighborhood First Baptist Church” is certainly not memorable. How much do you consider marketing elements such as the “Rule of 3,” and memorability (is that a word?)? What do you do if you have a name you like but everyone else dislikes? Does that serve as “market research?” Are we even interested in market research?
What is your church’s name? Is it appropriate and effective? Did you choose it? If so, how? If not, would you choose something different? How would you go about choosing a church name? Should you be trying to elicit a response from the unchurched? If so, what response? How important is the church name? When you are looking for a new church, how much consideration do you give the name? Ed Stetzer says that if you are not using a denominational name:
The name should convey reliability, theological meaning, and the church’s commitment to reach and serve the unchurched community.
But his church’s name is Lake Ridge Church. Does that fit these criteria? Am I making more of this decision than is necessary? How would you or have you gone about this process?
- Read Planting Missional Churches by Ed Stetzer
- Read Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process For Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger
- Read Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century by Aubrey Malphurs
- Read 44 Questions for Church Planters by Lyle E. Schaller
Posted in Misc.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Not sure if I can help any. My church is New Life Presbyterian Church, Glenside.
It started in the 1970’s, and the name represented the focus the church wanted on the gospel message it preached.
The name is significant though as we have had many church plants. Each one carried the same name, but added the location to it. So we have,
New Life PC, Dresher
New Life PC, Philadelphia
New Life PC, Northeast (this was a plant from New Life Philadelphia)
New Life 5 points (church plant from Dresher).
Part of the church thought was, you get big plant a new church.
Since those early days we have had two new church plants. They went with a different name. There is Liberti church in Philadelphia. And the newest, Bridge Church. Bridge is significant because they want to be a multi-racial church reaching out to people in Philadelphia.
Yes, we have planted a number of churches through our network.
Rob
May 14th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I’ve been through a couple of church naming decisions in the past few years.
Noelridge Baptist Church had been named so for its entire 50 years of existence. But a couple of years ago we changed the name to Noelridge Park Church. Given that Noelridge Park (a city park) is directly across the street, it seemed an appropriate change, given our goal of removing the word ‘Baptist’ from the title.
When we were planning our church plant last year, we went an entirely different direction and chose ‘Imago Christi Church’. We were hoping to cause people to ask “wait, what does that mean”? And then being able to use it to focus on being made into the image of Christ. Only time will tell how successful the name (and plant) will be. (We started in January.)
May 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The church I go to is called
“St. Arbucks” ;)
Maybe you should call it “the un-church” - then being un-churched might lose some of its negative connotation.
Just trying to think “outside the box”…
May 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Love the St. Arbucks comment!
I guess one way of answering your questions is to say that our aim in all things should be to please God, as it says in 1 Thessalonians 2:4-5
Now we have to step deeper into that. Some people assume that because marketing involves considering what the audience thinks, it means you should not have any marketing or practical considerations at all. In this view, God’s pleasure and man’s pleasure are always mutually-exclusive.
That may sound pious, but when you take second look there are many small decisions that if you made them with zero consideration of people’s pleasure or preferences, I would venture to say that you’re being unloving, for instance setting a 6AM service time because you personally prefer to worship then. There are lots of other small decisions one could also approach in a people-indifferent fashion. On the other extreme, one could get so wrapped up in appearing “cool” to the outside world (or other church planting professionals!), such that you remove any Christian connotation. At that point, you’d be guilty of false advertising!
Those missteps don’t negate the reality that church planters can make all of those decisions in a God-centered way, making accomodations in love, even in little things. There’s a way to love and please others precisely because it pleases God.
John Frame has a great discussion of this in Worship in Spirit and Truth, if memory serves me.
As for name criteria, what I’d argue for is:
- intelligibility (even to outsiders)
- biblical connotation or idea
- reasonably short
- something that doesn’t require you to be a spelling bee champion to spell
- non-cutesy, for instance, my good friends are part of Journey Church (”because life is a journey”)
There’s a plant here in Phoenix that I like the name of, New City Phoenix. There must be a rule-of-3 thing going on there. Despite my preference for “church” to be on the end, I’m somehow able to associate it as a church.
Sorry for the diatribe. I’ll close with this. Church names probably mean little once you’re already inside a church, but for people who are searching for a church, ones who come from a culture largely void of religious education, choosing a commonly intelligible name is one ultimately small, but important way you can be welcoming toward them without compromising your theology and mission.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I remember reading about Christafari’s lead singer Mark Mohr having a church in Trinidad called “The gathering”. It reminds me of “Highlander”, but it sounds good.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I’ve got a diddy on our name & logo, but naming is huge, particularly if it’s bad.
Personally, I like the idea of having some Latin or some such in the name, but that’s just how I roll. I was able to get it in the logo nonetheless.
First Whatever Church is so lame.
I’m tired of everyone having “Community” in their name, but it least it attempts to communicate something.
I wanted “Church of the Eternal King” when we started our plant nearly 2 years ago. I only had one other taker.
Since we didn’t know exactly where we would wind up, we held off on using any neighborhood or town names in the church name.
At end of the day, “Providence Church” communicates about us not only our beginning, but our understanding of the world in which we live.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I was part of a church plant a couple years ago called “Newsprings Christian Church.”
Having been down that road, my honest opinion is that you shouldn’t pick anything like “First Baptist Whatever” unless you’re trying to sound really traditional.
Pick something Latin/Greek if you want to sound postmodern.
Otherwise, don’t sweat it. I can’t think of anybody who really cares about their church’s name.
I think naming it geographically is a good idea, based on the neighborhood or something like that. But I wouldn’t sweat it–it seems like a big deal, but as long as it isn’t St. Arbucks’ or something, I wouldn’t sweat the marketing aspects (I just don’t think they’re that important).
May 14th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Some names to leave on the cutting room floor:
Free Love Baptist Church
Ebenezer Baptist Church
Buelah Land Baptist Church
Anything with “Temple” in it.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I thought for sure “Anti-Terrorist League Church” would be in there somewhere!
May 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Is there any research on whether or not a church name is statistically significant in people’s choice of where to attend church?
Either it is or it isn’t: If it is, then the name becomes, as Jim says, “important”. If it is not, then it is mostly a brand name in which case what matters isn’t the name but the substance of the product.
For instance, Apple, Starbucks, and Nike are branded to cool computers, overpriced coffee, and slave wage produced running shoes. But the names are only meaningful as branding associated with the product/image/experiance people are wanting to purchase. Any of the above are just as easily names for cars, casinos, or spacecraft parts.
Perhaps in generations past people wanted geographically located church names, but with transiency, I don’t suspect people want geographical identificion. Also, if you choose a geographical name (city or street) and move, then of course you are in a bad way.
Not much of an argument there, but hopefull y those thought spur more discussion.
Thanks all y’all.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Whoop!
You know, I’m sure there are some of my SBC brethren who would be quick to tell you that if you remove “Baptist” from the church name, then the terrorists have already won!
May 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Thanks Hector. Good thoughts. In that line of thinking, the “brand,” in this case the name, takes on its significance based on the “product.” So the life of the church itself determines whether or not the name is significant, is that right?
There doesn’t seem to be much objective research about the effectiveness of names, at least not that I have found. Does anyone know of any such research?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I think I might somewhat agree w/the gentleman, Jim. I don’t think you should have some big Latin name. Your average, non-seminarian folk aren’t going to have a clue what it means anyway. And that Veritas thing just sounds a little…umm…snooty?
Maybe you should just stay w/us. ;) I’d keep y’all.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Gunny will get a kick out of this!
How about: First Reformed Calvinistic doctrines of Grace Tulip Community Temple (For those who are truly Christ centered…)
Pretty good? There are more where that came from…
I have seen some others that should be avoided:
Little Flock Baptist?
Little Hope Baptist?
Not thought through very well…
May 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
around these parts we name em after the neighborhood or geography. our church is pretty old (St. Elmo), but the new ones do it the same way (Northshore, Rock Creek) except they’ve dropped “Presbyterian” for “Fellowship”. I guess this is done so as not to scare away anyone with bad associations with the denomination and/or an aversion to Scotland?
May 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
The church we’ve attended here (www.WestRidge.com) has a church-planting school for would-be pastors of new church plants. You could try contacting them to see if they have any tips or philosophies about naming a new church. It seems to me like many of their plants have names with the word “Ridge” in them somewhere (Church at the Ridge, RidgeStone, etc.)
May 15th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Here’s a real church name that should maybe be avoided: Fundamentalist Premilennial Baptist Bible Church
May 16th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Ok, well, I’m sure my mom can add more to this if she wants.. But I know that she’s having to search for a church right now, and she definitely wants something reformed. Some churches are very vague about what they believe, both in name and on their webpage. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of reference in the name that will help believers searching for a church relate it to the kind of church they are looking for (i.e, reformed.) but still be not too uninviting for non or new believers. I like things like Sovereign and Providence and Grace. You might feel inclined to shy away from Grace, considering, but I don’t think you should have to. Something like Grace and Truth sounds very nice, don’t you think?