Naming the church

Something I have to work on is a name for this church, and I welcome your suggestions in the comments section. This is where being too close to the material can be limiting. A theological name will almost certainly send a misfired message. There are the twin risks of being too cute (an alliterating name?) or too severe (St. Anything, perhaps). I like names of the Church of the MediatorChurch of the AdvocateChurch of the Messiah school. But I might be alone there, and unchurched people may vote with the feet.

Ideally (according to Robert E. Logan again) the name should best exemplify to unchurched people the church’s key descriptor. Thus if the church values friendliness very highly, the name alone should radiate friendliness. Also, it should have an available none-too-long Internet domain, since that will help deliver the outreach message, and in no way should its acronym spell out something embarrassing.

Universalist (in the name) could scarcely have more meanings than it has, and for the last two generations, its “advocates” have deliberately de-Christianized it. On the other hand, people are attracted to the name, and it does say something. I know I’m usually suspicious of “no name” churches, including anything with the word community in it, the latter having been hijacked as a feel-good buzzword by church planters of all denominations.

Since I intend to plant this church on the parish-church model (over which I have written much) I should note that the parish can either be numbered (that is, the Second Universalist Parish in the City of Washington) or simple be the Parish of x, where x is the name of the church.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.