Does a logo matter? (2 of 2)

(Continued)

Logo  – n.  An insignia used to make a first impression and promote continued recognition.  (Derivation:  logotype – a distinctive company signature, trademark.  Modification of Gk. logos – dynamic message, word.)

~ ~ ~

In the church sphere, what would make a good logo?  Although changeable signage offers appealing variety that may pique the interest of passers-by, a single, simple, well-conceived logo is surely best, in order to foster recognition over time, and to identify the group appropriately.

The concept of a logo is, in its origin (Gk. logos), word-based, and I’m much more verbal than visual, so, for at least those two reasons, I’m led to words and not as much to graphic design.  I’m talking here about simple, message-based church names more than about anything cool-looking or glamorous.  In my book, here are some good, basic church names that might make logical logos (message-based insignias/names designed to lead to an apt first impression):

1. Church of God (what a shame a couple of groups grabbed this one and made it a sectarian marker)
2. God’s Church or Jesus’ Church (etymologically pure, but possibly sounds too pretentious)
3. Church of Christ (ditto note on #1 above … yes, dear, much-loved CofC friends, it’s true)
4. Christian Church (ditto again)
5. Church of the Nazarene (ditto again, so maybe alter this one to Church of the Galilean, or Church of the Capernaumite?)
6. [Anyone have any other good ideas?  Please post a comment!]

A church name with the word “Bible” in it may suggest an appealing adherence (see prior post on Bibliodoxy), but the name “Bible Church,” in focusing on printed matter over its Lord, probably doesn’t make the best logo.

Similarly, the ever-popular “Fellowship” focuses the lens on the people rather than on the Savior.

Whatever shall we call ourselves?  Whatever shall our logo be?

I know, I know — it’s more important simply to be God’s church, rather than fretting over verbiage on the sign and the letterhead.  Still, I will always care about the label.  Labels and logos that honor humans (St. Thomas Aquinas, Mennonite, Wesleyan) or theological or practical underpinnings (Lutheran, Catholic, Family Life) or methodological organization (Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal) all seem off-base to me.  The church is to belong to the Lord, not to us lopsided lunkheads who loosely lay claim to His throne.

Does a logo matter? (1 of 2)

Logo  – n.  An insignia used to make a first impression and promote continued recognition.  (Derivation:  logotype – a distinctive company signature, trademark.  Modification of Gk. logos – dynamic message, word.)

~ ~ ~

At first glance, there is an obvious tie among the four — count ‘em, four — logos shown at the left.  Yet there are differences among them that caused a group of someones, at some point, to opt, on behalf of the entire institution, for a new logo.

I have been an employee of the named institution for 4.7 years and have personally used materials with four different logos.  Four.  In less than five years’ time.  Does anyone see anything wrong with this fact?

And does anyone deign to question why I won’t bend over backwards for the various, revolving-door Marketing and P/R folks who, in their well-intended zeal, have perpetrated such annoying, egregiously paper-wasting acts upon a campus that is otherwise often overwrought in terms of environmental consciousness?

~ ~ ~

In the church sphere, what would make a good logo?  Please check back tomorrow. . . .

Disappointed again

A few days ago, I happened by a church building I hadn’t ever seen before.  It looked well kept and reasonably up to date.

Its sign said something like “Valley Christian Fellowship,” and I quickly thought maybe we’ll visit there soon. But then I saw that one more piece of information was given on the sign—the pastor’s name. Letting alone the biblical definition of “pastor” and the discrepancy between biblical precedent and the roles of most churches’ “pastors” today, I would like to express my disappointment in such signage.

Why do churches feel called upon to display one man’s name for all to see, along with the name of the church?  Perhaps it’s ego-stroking:  “I started this church, and by gum, my name is going to be engraved.”  “I play a huge role in making this church what it is, and after all, I am the leader, so why shouldn’t my name be up there?”  Or a function of brainless parishioner-rats, like those who followed the Pied Piper?  “Pastor Ernie–he’s our man!  If he can’t preach it, nobody can!   His name goes on the sign because, well, we’re in a long line of people who have put their pastors’ names on signs.  It’s been done for years.”

A hierarchical view of church leadership is not a very biblical one.  And if there were to be a hierarchy, a single person should not be at the top.  Such signs indicate a top-down hierarchy.

I wrote about this once before, and it was suggested to me that outsiders need a point of contact, which is one reason a pastor’s name might be displayed.  (Incidentally, I responded that the church secretary’s name is really the one that should be on the sign!)  If we say to the world through our sign two things—1) that this is who we are, and 2) that this is our single leader, well, it sends a message, and it is a message I don’t believe God wants sent.

I don’t think we’ll visit the Valley Christian Fellowship after all, and that’s a shame, because there could be some really good, God-honoring, Bible-following people there, and the “pastor” could in fact be very humble—a true leader who didn’t really want his name in lights.  But the sign sent a message, and I am weary of encountering churches that send that message.

The sign of top-down-ness

I’ve often wondered why we put the preacher’s/(a/k/a pastor’s) name on the church sign. Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Because we’ve always put his name there
2. To give the church an air of professionalism and stability
3. To announce the arrival of Mr. Cloth to the community (when he’s our new preacher)
4. To make Mr. Cloth feel welcomed and supported
5. To give any passerby a name to know, should she or he darken the door
6. Because we feel it’s important as a marker of identity—Main Street Church is, to whatever extent, a function of Mr. Cloth

And why would we NOT choose to put the preacher’s name on the sign?

1. Because we’ve always put his name there
2. To avoid the impression that he is self-centered
3. To avoid the association of the church with just one person
4. So ne’er-do-well beggars and ruffians won’t be able to ask for the preacher by name

Even if you’re a traditionalist in this regard (read: you believe the preacher or pastor has God-given authority by virtue of his “call” [whatever that is, in your tradition], and/or you believe the church identity should be clearly tied to this one person), maybe you would think on this: if we don’t display the preacher’s name on the sign, it could signal a positive change toward a mutuality-based paradigm.

FOOTNOTE: Yes, there is some (limited) biblical rationale for the authority of a single evangelist, but this model is not as commonly depicted in scripture as the model that has multiple shepherds/elders as spiritual leaders, with no person or group in authoritarian command. And beyond either of these models — that of the authority of a single evangelist or a group — the biblical vision of a one-another-based church is compelling.

Referential prominence

The sign outside the healthcare facility used to read “Brandywine Convalescent Home.” When the fancy new conglomerate bought the place, the sign was revamped to advertise something different:

Accord Health Services

at Brandywine Rehabilitation Center

Today I saw another sign:

America’s Best Value

by Vantage

The second one seems a more apt signifier, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it advertise more clearly the thing that’s significant to those who see the sign?  If I’m looking for my motel and I know it’s “America’s Best Value,” I could find it when I see the sign.  Conversely, when one is looking for the Brandywine Nursing Home to visit great aunt Millie, she could easily pass over “Accord Health Services.” Who really cares that it’s Accord Health that runs the nursing home?  That’s not what I need to see on the sign.

What needs to be “signed” is the thing that people who see the sign need to know. The attention should be placed on the right thing, or entity, or person.

In my way of thinking, it is highly inappropriate to name a church or church building after a human. “Johnson Memorial Baptist Church” and “Thomas E. and Margaret Weatherford Chapel” are spiritually bothersome, if not irreverent. (I don’t even like the naming rights guaranteed to large-scale donors at institutions of higher learning, but at least there’s no deity to upstage there.) “Methodist” or “Baptist” by themselves may be shades more apt than “Lutheran” or “Wesleyan,” but the hue is the same.

It should be recalled that neither Luther nor Wesley wanted a denomination named after him.  And, in my time, I haven’t known of Lutherans or Wesleyans bent on using those names with the purposes of  dividing, but the effect of erecting walls still warrants mention.  Denominating itself can be neutral, harmless … but it also can result in insidious divisiveness.

Rubel Shelly, in I Just Want To Be a Christian, begins a fair-sized shoring-up of restorative nondenominational Christianity:

The first reason I favor the attempt to practice undenominational Christianity is that it is Christ-honoring. Sectarian versions of Christianity are hardly in position to give the glory to Christ which He alone should have. Instead they tend to give honor to human leaders, human opinions, and even human creedal formulations of beliefs rather than simply centering their faith on Christ and the cross. (p. 35)

Agreed — anything in the church universal, including naming rights, that takes honor from Jesus is to be avoided.

It’s even possible to use His name divisively, as Paul mentioned in a letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:12). In this context, Paul’s, Apollos’s, Cephas’s, and Jesus’ names were being used divisively. (And I got spirito-emotionally smacked around by my own church about 15 years ago for suggesting we were doing just that.) May we never be guilty of sectarian exclusiveness, and, on a more positive note, may we advertise to the world — in our signage and by our lives — precisely what Jesus would want broadcast.

For comment:

Words can make a lot of difference. Please share how you define, use, or differentiate among …

• denominational
• cultish
• exclusive
• sectarian
• narrow-minded