Naming a church plant

by Neal on March 10, 2009

question

I am struggling to find a suitable name for a church that I am planning on growing in this area. When I asked on Twitter for advice it was suggested by a mate that it is dangerous to name things such as churches as it becomes too defining and people can get caught up in the name and not the church. I argued that a name helps identify what it is that people are getting involved with — within and without the church (I hate to use it but — branding).

What do you think?

Possibly Related Posts

Tagged as:

  • We just made Loam up. We needed a name as I explained earlier so we brainstormed a whole bunch and then voted on them.

    I wouldn't go as far as David and say that if you name your gathering it will only be short-lived, but I do agree that the main outcome will be a connection to pop-culture Christianity.
  • It would be quite a stretch to say that churches were named because they were referred to as a church in a city or the church that meets in someone's house. This was nothing more than a way of speaking about the saints in a certain locality. It was an observation about them... not a creative think tank labeling of a group.

    Again, the idea is foreign to the New Testament and we take for granted the simplistic nature of the church planting in the first century. I'm afraid we too often believe we can improve upon this model.

    As I said before... the danger lies in something else or someone else replacing Christ as Head of the church. It is popular to rally around a "mission," a purpose, a personality, or an agenda... claiming that Christ in community is our concern.

    I believe you fill find that naming a gathering only identifies yourself with pop-culture Christianity and this eventually will prove itself a gathering short-lived and only a passing "ministry" instead of a local fellowship of believers who have committed their lives to Christ and each other.

    Just my thoughts. Peace.
  • David - while I agree with your statements about first century Christianity - do you not think that churches, which as a collective, were named after the city they were in - The Church at Phillipi etc - would the smaller churches that met in homes not be known as the Church that met at Neal's place etc? While I agree that all names for the Church are man made - in fact the Scriptures refer to the early Church as The Way etc, is there any reason not to name something?

    For example - I am going to plant a group amongst the community that comes to community meals we run - The Dining Room and Vive Cafe - and calling it "Sanga's" (slang for sandwich here in Oz) - as a way for the community to identify that it is a separate activity. May add Holy to the front - not sure yet.

    Tim - where did the name of Loam come from?
  • I think though if your purpose is for people outside of the church, then a name is certainly useful. I would argue this is where a church plant differs greatly from a dinner party or ‘being part’ of a neighbourhood. A church plant is intentional, and it is intentional about existing for the sake of others.

    It depends on who you are trying to connect with I guess but the people we are trying to connect with outside the church aren’t people who would appreciate a name. We really need to work hard to normalise the experience of a Christian community. It needs to be more like a dinner with friends who naturally exist for the sake of others rather than having to be intentional about it. When people are being intentional it can appear forced and unnatural. Our neighbours pick up on that very quickly.

    If you are running services or programs then I agree that a name probably makes sense. You have to name those kinds of things. If your church is predominately a community who lives in a neighbourhood (such as ours), then I think naming it is quite unnatural.

    Tim - so if you are reluctant to name - why Loam?

    We took on the name Loam because we were a part of Northern Community Church of Christ when we started and that’s what they did. All their congregations had names and so we created one for ourselves as well. I think it has been helpful for Christians who want to talk about us, but I don’t think it has been helpful for us or the neighbours we are seeking to love and serve.


  • It depends on who you are trying to connect with I guess but the people we are trying to connect with outside the church aren't people who would appreciate a name. We really need to work hard to normalise the experience of a Christian community. It needs to be more like a dinner with friends who naturally exist for the sake of others rather than having to be intentional about it. When people are being intentional it can appear forced and unnatural. Our neighbours pick up on that very quickly.

    If you are running services or programs then I agree that a name probably makes sense. You have to name those kinds of things. If your church is predominately a community who lives in a neighbourhood (such as ours), then I think naming it is quite unnatural.

    We took on the name Loam because we were a part of Northern Community Church of Christ when we started and that's what they did. All their congregations had names and so we created one for ourselves as well. I think it has been helpful for Christians who want to talk about us, but I don't think it has been helpful for us or the neighbours we are seeking to love and serve.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes