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?
{ 13 comments }
I think that lots of the time, unless you name things it can be hard to take them seriously, and have them taken seriously by others. Often a reluctance to name something can almost become a way of avoiding the reality of the situation. With respect to church plants, that reluctance is also obviously tied to a fear of becoming institutionalised. So I reckon go for it.
But I’m not creative enough to actually have ideas for you. Sorry about that.
I hear what Geoff is saying, but I want to say don’t rush into naming it. Let the thing take shape before a name emerges that matches the people, the way the community lives out its life, its values and its vibe.
I was part of a missional community that is going on 4-5 years old, and has never had a name. I tried to encourage some creative, cool, hip name, but the people in it just weren’t interested. It just is what it is – and to them that’s what mattered.
Give some time for the shape of the community to emerge (or just call it “emerge”!).
Cheers
I’d comment, but given that it was me the first time I’ll just try and keep quiet.
C’mon Tim – I would love for you to join the discussion – it was you that prompted the post anyway. I wanted to hear what others thought – so please comment some more!
Well I think it really depends on what kind of church plant you are doing. If you are doing something small and local then I think names can be unhelpful.
If you were having dinner with some friends would you name it? If you lived in a neighbourhood with people you knew would you name it?
I agree with Scott in that if a name emerges then great, but I often feel that naming something is about trying to build it yourself rather than just letting it grow.
My 2 cents.
I wouldn’t do it simply because it is foreign to the New Testament vision of church planting. There was no need for it then and there is no need for it now. I could say a great deal about the dangers of this approach to church planting. What concerns me most is what sort of church planting is being done that requires or even entertains the idea of naming a local community of believers anything but that wonderful name of Christ.
It’s cool that you are asking the saints what they think about it.
Peace, bro.
I agree that it depends on what sort of church you are planting on whether a name is helpful. Generally, I would vote ‘yes’, find a name for your plant.
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.
To name something is certainly ‘biblical’ (think Genesis & Garden), it is a key part of the \creative\ process of shaping something according the desire God has birthed in your heart. It also helps communicate that to those who want to join you in this vision.
Go for it Niall and may God bless your dream for the church
Thanks for the ongoing discussion guys! I will be bringing this issue up over the weekend at the Church Planting weekend I am taking part in – see the posts related. Would love to hear more from you all too – anyone game to keep the discussion going?
Tim – so if you are reluctant to name – why Loam?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }