Ship of Fools: Naming a new church

Thread: Naming a new church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024001

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

There's a thread on church naming in Heaven but I am proposing a more robust discussion than in those august halls.

In Oxford there is a plan to plant a new free evangelical church in the city centre. The question though is what to call the new plant.

Personally I think a lot of church names can be very twee and uninspiring - Grace Church, Trinity Church, All Nations Church. They are very much of a muchness - on the cookie-cutter mould of [insert good thing here] Church, rather than telling you much about what makes it distinctive or unique, compared to other churches. These things are such common values to churches, you might as well call it 'Christian Church'. And saints names, while comfortingly traditional, don't mean as much as they used to since the patronage links of saints to specific things and places has been lost from the popular consciousness.

I suggested that the Church should make a point of including it's USP in its name, and call itself Church of the Evangelists, or Oxford Evangelical Church, but one person replied that this was 'internal communication for outsiders' as most non-christians wouldn't know what 'evangelical' was. I don't know if this is true, I suspect most people would have a fairly good idea, even if they weren't fully knowledgeable about the theology of it all.

Other people thought that the church should be named for the road it was on (when this is sorted out - the church doesn't have a physical location yet), but someone replied that this would give the impression it was the building, not the community that is the church, and thought that area naming was better than road naming.

What do people think about church names, what would you call a new church, whether a free evangelical plant, or one of your own denomination, and why? What principles should be considered when naming a church, and what do you think should really be avoided in church naming?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

One naming convention that annoys me is "Placename Christian Centre" - with the clear and probably intended implication that the people there are the only real Christians in town. In a new church, it's not really a great start to your relationship with your neighbours.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Hawk posts:

quote:
I suggested that the Church should make a point of including it's USP in its name, and call itself Church of the Evangelists, or Oxford Evangelical Church, but one person replied that this was 'internal communication for outsiders' as most non-christians wouldn't know what 'evangelical' was. I don't know if this is true, I suspect most people would have a fairly good idea, even if they weren't fully knowledgeable about the theology of it all.

Not only is it internal communication, but it's a way of ensuring that outsiders cross the street. While evangelical has resonance for practising Xns, even for those who are not of that party (because it is a party label), outsiders will likely associate it (often unfairly) with a parcel of political and social positions. If the word gives anyone a fairly good idea of anything, I fear that it might not be the meaning you would be hoping for. I cannot think of any of my non-churchgoing acquaintances who would consider entering a building labelled (e.g) Parkdale Road Evangelical.

Adeodatus' point on the unconscious arrogance of some church names is valid. I wonder if we should not look back at how churches were named originally-- I think that some saints' names might be problematic for the reasons Hawk mentions, although there is something to be said for interesting if obscure saints as a communications point-- (S Lydia's is a possible example, or a more current martyr such as Janani Luwum).

The other naming convention is on aspects or mysteries of Our Lord. Some names, such as Epiphany or Transfiguration, are also "internal communication", but Resurrection or Holy Cross or (Saint) Saviour are fairly clear. Some recent TEC plants use Prince of Peace, which has a non-denominational flair. I suppose that an evangelical plant would not use a feast or mystery of Our Lady, even if there are some good possibilities there.

Not only does a patronal feast day provide congregations with a reason for an annual celebration of witness and ministry, but it carries with it a patronal theme, which a creative leadership can use as a way of focussing and evaluating direction and performance. Perhaps an exercise to choose a dedication could be part of the planning of the plant-- after all, the name is a very permanent and public form of a mission statement.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

This city has an 'Easton Family Centre'. It is a C of E parish church and I think it's name is deplorable. What about single people? People with no families? LGBTs?

Also, i strongly dislike people who knock doors and say that they are 'from the church' when it turns out they are some new group like Vineyard.

Call me old-fashioned but there was a time when 'church' was only used of a parish church. Everything else was 'chapel'.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Some churches are named after dead people -- and I don't mean saints. My church, for instance, has the word "memorial" in the name, presumably because it was named in memory of the founding family. Another church I was a member of was also named for its founding family, although it was named Name Chapel. There are many of those running around. They seem to be mainly older congregations, and mainly rural.

Other churches are named because they are the first such in that community. Townname First Denominational Church, for instance. Those tend to be older congregations, too.

New chuches now seem to be named things like "Vintage Faith Church" or "The Orchard" or "Mosaic". The latter two are United Methodist, by the way, but they intentionally don't brand themselves with the denominational name or logo.

I've seen "Flint Creek and Silver's Chapel Consolidated Primitive Baptist Church" which I think says a lot about how much they fight about unimportant stuff. I've also seen "Greater Macedonia Miracle Kingdom and Revival Center" -- which tells me something of their theology, although it's largely insider-speak.

If I were starting a church, I'd name it for a saint -- Stephen comes to mind, because of his service to the poor and widows, and that's where I find God leading me. I know that outsiders wouldn't know who St. Stephen was, but they surely can see how we do good things in our community, helping all whom we can help, and surely that would be a bigger draw than a name would be. My humble opinion is that a church can have the most attractive name ever invented, but the actions of the people who attend there will speak far louder than the name ever possibly could.

That's my two cents, anyway.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Some churches are named after dead people -- and I don't mean saints. My church, for instance, has the word "memorial" in the name, presumably because it was named in memory of the founding family. . . .

Other churches are named because they are the first such in that community. Townname First Denominational Church, for instance. Those tend to be older congregations, too.

Both of these naming conventions are common in the PC(USA). Historically, the "First" churches often started out simply as "The Presbyterian Church (in Town Name)" or "Town Name Presbyterian Church." It was only when a second congregation was started that the older one became "First Presbyterian." And in many cities, one can find a Second, Third and Fourth Presbyterian.

I haven't taken any kind of notice of naming trends in the PC(USA) lately, although I don't see many of the more modern variety that omit the words "church" and "Presbyterian." It would be interesting to look into.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I should have added that a number of "Memorial" Presbyterian churches I know of were named not after the "founding family," as it were. Some received that name because the building itself was built as a memorial to someone, and quite a few are named as memorials for prominent ministers in the area.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Some Churches of Scotland sound like railway stations: Paisley South, Partick West and the like (I don't know if those precise ones exist).

In Essex there is a joint URC/Methodist Church called "Dovercourt Central Church". One has to say that that is easier for most folk to understan than "St. Pelagius' Autocephalic Orthodox Church" and the like, even though the latter does describe it very actually.

A very traditional Nonconformist Christian went on holiday to a town in the south of England. On Sunday he sought out the URC church but when he got inside he was dismayed to see guitars, drums and all the usual accoutrements of Evangelical worship. He did not leave (for, after all, they were "very nice people"). But, on leaving, he carefully checked the noticeboard outside the church just to check that it really was URC.

His reaction on aeeing that it was, was to say, "I really think they should have put up a health warning so that visitors would know what to expect"!

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

Having done consulting work for a number of churches for about 15 years, I have seen some doozies. Many of these were startups. I think the names they choose indicate how they perceive themselves and their role in the kingdom.

I did consulting work years ago for a church called, believe it or not, Greater Macedonia Miracle Ministry and Revival Center, Inc. [Biased]

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

There is also the chapel tradition of calling the church after a deeply meaningful obscure bit of OT - the bethels, Ebenezers and Tabnacles etc

Often the link is forgotten by the current members let alone the wider public. However in the right area some names are as acceptable as traditionally churchy in the same way that you would know the Royal Oak was a pub without being told.

Personally I am in favour of location based names - it says the area served or even the helpful added element of where to find you.

Where to find you names can avoid the element of sounding like The church in Place, rather than a church in place.

If you are part of denomination or tribe then I think that should be made clear and not hidden - otherwise it seems as if you are ashamed of your family connections and if that is the case why are you part of them?

I agree that names are less important than what the church being there says to the local people. We can get tied up in deeply political arguements about what the name says when most people don't get whatever name we use whether a saint, Micah project, or even Grace and Hope... it all implies jargon.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Just to point out some epic choices, try Church sign epic fails part 36

#4 as you scroll down tells you waaayyy too much

but the classic is #7. Those who have read the T&T threads maight not want to attend morning services!

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

Some of the churches here that are the only one in their "denomination" go for all-embracing names like "United Apostolic Pentecostal Full-Gospel Church of Christ".

I presume that this tendency is modelled on the one-pastor "denominations" that seem to be frequent in America.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

Our church is simply named after the distinctive building where it meets: so, if the building were called Foobar Hall, then we are the "Foobar Hall Christian Fellowship". We don't claim to be the "Christian Centre" of the town, or even its Christian Periphery.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

What I find most odd is the churches that proclaim that they are the 'Community Church' or 'The Church IN the Community', when they are invariably on a brownfield site, surrounded by factories, no houses in sight, and the whole area is deserted on a Sunday - which of course is the only day they are open.

This looks just as bad as the churches which proclaim 'EVERYONE WELCOME' in enormous letters, but whenever you try the door (except I suppose for one hour on a Sunday morning) it is always locked.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

How about "The Cave of Obadiah"?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Call me old-fashioned but there was a time when 'church' was only used of a parish church. Everything else was 'chapel'.

Old fashioned? No. Bigoted and insular? Perhaps ......

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Perhaps, Exclamation Mark, but I am old enough to remember when 'chapel people' self-identified themselves as 'chapel'.

It could be a vague catch-all for anything non-Anglican or RC.
'What church are you?'
'Chapel ...'

Try saying it in a South Walian accent and you get the full effect. 'Cha-PEl ...'

Although it works in a Yorkshire accent too ...

Things were a lot simpler in those days ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On a more serious note, I have no real idea how to advise on the question posed in the OP.

I used to belong to a restorationist charismatic church which gave itself a very peculiar and embarrassing name for a while (although, mercifully, this was changed to something less cringeworthy). It wasn't a name I actually used in conversation with anyone outside of the congregation the whole time the name was in currency.

The interesting thing, I think, is how names that might at first sight seem neutral, such as 'community' or 'family' soon take on particular meanings and nuances. It'll be a pretty safe bet that you'll get charismatic or charismatic-lite worship at any church with the word 'community' in the name. Why this should be, I don't know ...

Intriguingly, and counter-productively perhaps, I'm noticing that more and more teenagers are dropping out of the more 'family' or happy-clappy services at our parish church. A friend's son used to play the drums at one such service but has stopped doing so because 'it freaks him out' to see people worshipping in what he considers a 'cult-style' ie. raised hands and spiritual gurning/beatific expressions on their faces ...

But to return to the OP ... on balance, I think if you are planting an independent evangelical church then something relating to the location is the best bet - 'Bogg Street Church' or similar.

Mind you, there's a Butt Lane Baptist not far from here ...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And self-identified proudly, at that: it was something they'd fought for and, good Churchman (capital C) as I am, I respect them for that.

But going back to the OP, given the abundance (IIRC) of churches in central Oxford, what about "St Superfluous's"?

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
If I were starting a church, I'd name it for a saint -- Stephen comes to mind, because of his service to the poor and widows, and that's where I find God leading me.

Only if you're happy to never have a lie in on the day after Christmas ever again.

On a semi-serious note, if you do name after a Saint, find one whose name doesn't end in 's'. You'll save yourself a lot of hassle with dangling apostrophes on signs and letterheads.

And don't choose the same name as another local church. Our parish church has given it's name to this area of the city. Other churches have then been named after the area. So I live in an area called, let's say, St Botolphs. I minister at St Botolphs parish church, and regularly receive misdirected post for St Botolphs Methodist Church (on the same street), St Botolphs Baptist Church and St Botolphs Independent Evangelical Church. St Botolphs URC closed a couple of years ago.

anne

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps, Exclamation Mark, but I am old enough to remember when 'chapel people' self-identified themselves as 'chapel'.

One of the Anglican Churches I serve is called The Chapel. Go figure.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

There is a handful of St. Martini Lutheran churches in the US....

Posted by TonyinOxford (# 12657) on :

<tangent alert>
how badly does central Oxford need another evangelical church, for goodness' sake??
<tangent end> [Confused]

Posted by TonyinOxford (# 12657) on :

<tangent alert>
how badly does central Oxford need another evangelical church, for goodness' sake??
<tangent end> [Confused]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

"The New <optional adjective> Church of Oxford"?

Works till you build another one when it becomes "The old New Church.." :-)

[ 27. October 2012, 16:53: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Isn't New College Oxford one of the oldest?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

But it's not in South Wales nor the North of England, is it Edward?

[Biased]

Meanwhile, I'm glad someone has challenged the OP on whether the centre of Oxford needs another evangelical church when there are already some fairly well-known ones there of that persuasion.

At the risk of de-railing the thread I would be interested to know the rationale for the plant as well as the name it might go by ...

Who exactly is the church trying to reach? And, being in the centre of town isn't it simply going to attract people from some of the other evangelical churches in that area who commute into the centre of a Sunday?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I might hazard a guess that the proposed new plant is credo-baptist as opposed to the paedobaptist position of St Ebbe's and St Clement's - two Anglican evangelical churches in or near the centre.

I am sure there will be other evangelical churches in the town centre which are credo-baptist though.

So what is the other distinctive or rationale? A more Calvinist persuasion, perhaps? A less Calvinist persuasion?

Without knowing the ins and outs, I'm struggling to come up with any possible rationale there might be for new kid on that particular block.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I might hazard a guess that the proposed new plant is credo-baptist as opposed to the paedobaptist position of St Ebbe's and St Clement's - two Anglican evangelical churches in or near the centre.

I am sure there will be other evangelical churches in the town centre which are credo-baptist though.

There's a perfectly good Baptist Church, of course, on New Road, but maybe they're not biblical enough. There's also
this outfit who've just moved into an old cinema down the Cowley Road - are they trying to plant in the City Centre, in which case I think St. Aldate's may well lose a few attendees? A multi-cultural church with a charismatic black pastor could well attract quite a few white students as well, I would think, especially with some good gospel singing.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

CLC aren't involved in the plant Holy Smoke. It's a plant by the FIEC (Fellowship of Free Evangelical Churches), who don't have any central churches in Oxford.

The rationale appears to be that it is not just 'evangelical' that is missing from the church options in Oxford centre, since St Ebbes is quite evangelical, and St Aldates, while tending towards charismatic, is also of the evo flavoring. Its the congregational or 'free' aspect of an FIEC-affiliated church that is part of the USP. It is seen that this is missing from the churches in the area, and could be very attractive for both Christians in other churches, or who don't regularly attend another church who would prefer to attend a free church, as well as new converts who aren't currently attracted by the CoE churches in the area.

Personally I don't know the Christian 'scene' in the centre of Oxford well enough to know if the above holds water or not, but that's the general rationale as far as I've heard it so far. There may be more to it than what I've heard though - I'm not personally involved in any way. If some posters with local knowledge want to discuss this as well as church naming conventions in general feel free.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without knowing the ins and outs, I'm struggling to come up with any possible rationale there might be for new kid on that particular block.

I agree. I know Oxford, and there are plenty of lively churches and chapels there to suit all those who are prepared to accept something fairly similar to their ideal vision rather than absolutely identical. For what mission do its founders say God requires them to set up a new, separate and different ecclesial community there.

Even for a committed believer in Independency there must be other places within twenty miles where the need is greater.

So why not go the whole hog and give it a name like:-

'The Only True and Faithful Church of Jesus Christ' or

'The One True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Gospel Proclaiming Church of Oxford', or even

'The Church of those who know the Truth'.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

A problem with choosing a church name is that it will last as long as the church does and if this is very long (centuries) the origins of the name and whether it was a good or bad idea or not become less and less well remembered. Perhaps it is like parents giving their offspring cute names which are very off-putting on job application forms.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I was mildly amused a few years back when some unknown outfit took over a small chapel in Jericho (edge of Oxford city centre) and christened themselves 'Oxford Baptist Chapel'. Obviously all the other Baptist churches in Oxford (one of them located right in the centre and dating back to the 17th century) just weren't up to scratch [Razz]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Anyway...

quote:
Personally I don't know the Christian 'scene' in the centre of Oxford well enough to know if the above holds water or not, but that's the general rationale as far as I've heard it so far. There may be more to it than what I've heard though - I'm not personally involved in any way.

The FIEC people do have a point there. The Free Churches in the city centre (one Baptist, one Methodist, one URC) are all very, very definitely non-evangelical, while the evangelical ones are all Anglican. A lot of Free Churches evangelicals in the centre do therefore end up at St. Ebbe's (con evo) or St. Aldate's (charismatic evo). So there is a niche, especially as the two Anglican evangelical outfits are bursting at the seams. I just can't imagine where they will find a site central enough to attract people and make it worthwhile however. And if they go too far out, there are already several FIEC-type churches in the burbs.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
The FIEC people do have a point there. The Free Churches in the city centre (one Baptist, one Methodist, one URC) are all very, very definitely non-evangelical, while the evangelical ones are all Anglican. A lot of Free Churches evangelicals in the centre do therefore end up at St. Ebbe's (con evo) or St. Aldate's (charismatic evo). So there is a niche, especially as the two Anglican evangelical outfits are bursting at the seams. I just can't imagine where they will find a site central enough to attract people and make it worthwhile however. And if they go too far out, there are already several FIEC-type churches in the burbs.

A major question is why the Bishop of Oxford isn't doing something about the fact that Ebbes and Aldates are bursting at the seams. IF we are serious about enabling people to hear the gospel, as opposed to ensuring that congregations can carry on in their own sweet way for as long as possible, then the case for providing one of the central (in both senses of that word) CofE churches for such a church plant is overwhelming. But of course the CofE really exists to serve its members... [Mad]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok ...

Well, I can see some rationale (in theory) for the FIEC plant, but don't see it as a cause for taking a big stick to the Bishop of Oxford for not releasing one of the existing CofE premises in the centre of town for that purpose ...

[Confused]

I suspect that what will happen in practice, should the plant take place, is that some from St Aldgate's and some from St Ebbe's who might prefer 'independency' to the Anglican way would migrate to the new FIEC plant. I suspect it would attract more conservative evangelicals than charismatic or 'open' evangelicals who would presumably continue rather happily where they are.

So, rather than giving the good people of Oxford more opportunities to 'hear the Gospel', all it would effectively do would be to divide the existing conservative evangelical congregations that meet in the centre of town - and perhaps lure disaffected people from some of the other more FIEC flavoured congregations out in the suburbs.

Realistically, most people in Oxford (as with British cities in geneeral) don't actually live in the city centre but in the suburbs - so the new FIEC plant will probably end up as a commuter church for people who, for whatever reason, are disenchanted with their current churches out in the suburbs.

I'd have thought the wiser thing to do would be to plant an FIEC church in one of the other towns in the Thames Valley or surrounding area that didn't already have a fellowship of that flavour.

All that'll happen in this case is some shuffling of chairs and changes of address.

How the Gospel is best served by that and why Enders Shadow thinks the Bishop of Oxford ought to pull his finger out to help expedite such a situation is beyond me.

And I've been involved with church plants ... so I speak with some experience ...

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
The FIEC people do have a point there. The Free Churches in the city centre (one Baptist, one Methodist, one URC) are all very, very definitely non-evangelical, while the evangelical ones are all Anglican. A lot of Free Churches evangelicals in the centre do therefore end up at St. Ebbe's (con evo) or St. Aldate's (charismatic evo). So there is a niche, especially as the two Anglican evangelical outfits are bursting at the seams. I just can't imagine where they will find a site central enough to attract people and make it worthwhile however. And if they go too far out, there are already several FIEC-type churches in the burbs.
A major question is why the Bishop of Oxford isn't doing something about the fact that Ebbes and Aldates are bursting at the seams. IF we are serious about enabling people to hear the gospel, as opposed to ensuring that congregations can carry on in their own sweet way for as long as possible, then the case for providing one of the central (in both senses of that word) CofE churches for such a church plant is overwhelming. But of course the CofE really exists to serve its members...

I think that's part of the thinking spot on. St Ebbe's reportedly has been attempting to get a new plant agreed for some time (St Ebbe's Headington was the last but that was planted quite a few years ago now) but been stymied by the Bishop of Oxford, whereas a free church doesn't have such beauracracy to deal with. People are right that St Ebbes and St Aldates are bursting at the seams, personally I think that a church that's too large just isn't fit for purpose. When I visited St Aldates when I first came to Oxford a few years back I was put off by its size and not being able to get to know anyone in such a sea of people. A local church should be small enough that you can get to know a majority of the congregation, at least to say hi to, relatively quickly.

There may be a little shuffling of chairs and changes of address for existing Christians, but for the massive student population in the central Oxford colleges, this is hoped to be a powerful witness, and a catch for those who are not yet evangelised and discipled to by the current two student-focused churches of St Aldates/Ebbes.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

[tangent]

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
[P]ersonally I think that a church that's too large just isn't fit for purpose. When I visited St Aldates when I first came to Oxford a few years back I was put off by its size and not being able to get to know anyone in such a sea of people. A local church should be small enough that you can get to know a majority of the congregation, at least to say hi to, relatively quickly...

Nope - in practice that's not a realistic prospect when there is a large Christian population in a small area. It's my understanding that those churches have always seen the Christian Unions as the primary way to find people 'at least to say hi to', whilst their ministry is to provide the big, high quality presentations and teaching that it's hard to provide in small churches. However if there isn't the physical capacity to get everyone in, then there is a big problem... But to be fair, that's a different issue!
[/tangent]

Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :

The idea of USP or 'Unique selling proposition' is one to stick with. Unfortunately, many Churches are about what you can't do rather than what you can do.

My favourite choice on the positive side would be "Christ The Liberator".

Some less popular/serious suggestions:-

Our Lady of Pity - For the Catholic Parish
Heterosexual community Church
The Play Group
People like us (PLU) Church

I write on burials and funerals from an equal opportunities position at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok ...

Well, I can see some rationale (in theory) for the FIEC plant, but don't see it as a cause for taking a big stick to the Bishop of Oxford for not releasing one of the existing CofE premises in the centre of town for that purpose ...

I suspect that what will happen in practice, should the plant take place, is that some from St Aldgate's and some from St Ebbe's who might prefer 'independency' to the Anglican way would migrate to the new FIEC plant. I suspect it would attract more conservative evangelicals than charismatic or 'open' evangelicals who would presumably continue rather happily where they are.

So, rather than giving the good people of Oxford more opportunities to 'hear the Gospel', all it would effectively do would be to divide the existing conservative evangelical congregations that meet in the centre of town - and perhaps lure disaffected people from some of the other more FIEC flavoured congregations out in the suburbs.

Realistically, most people in Oxford (as with British cities in geneeral) don't actually live in the city centre but in the suburbs - so the new FIEC plant will probably end up as a commuter church for people who, for whatever reason, are disenchanted with their current churches out in the suburbs.

I'd have thought the wiser thing to do would be to plant an FIEC church in one of the other towns in the Thames Valley or surrounding area that didn't already have a fellowship of that flavour.

All that'll happen in this case is some shuffling of chairs and changes of address.

How the Gospel is best served by that and why Enders Shadow thinks the Bishop of Oxford ought to pull his finger out to help expedite such a situation is beyond me.

And I've been involved with church plants ... so I speak with some experience ...

You speak without knowledge of the geography of central Oxford, which produces a unique situation.

1) A large resident but transient population of students who largely turn over after 3 years but a very very small population otherwise.

2) An effective student ministry at two large Anglican churches which, by the sounds of it, is being choked by being so effective.

In this context an FIEC church - or a new Anglican Evangelical church - would provide additional capacity to resolve the 'it's full so I'll be uncomfortable so I won't bother to go' problem. But it's almost entirely an issue of student ministry, not any wider focus; certainly this debate has NOTHING to do with the rest of the Thames Valley; we're talking about churches to which students will walk, or at most cycle. Yes, there are some faithful souls who attend St Aldates and St Ebbes to provide continuity, particularly in the evening services, but these aren't the ones that are bursting at the seams (I'm reflecting my knowledge of some years ago, things may have altered since then).

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Realistically, most people in Oxford (as with British cities in geneeral) don't actually live in the city centre but in the suburbs - so the new FIEC plant will probably end up as a commuter church for people who, for whatever reason, are disenchanted with their current churches out in the suburbs.

Oxford is a small, compact city with a very large central student population. While students will not travel 10 minutes out of the centre to an outlying church, citizens from those areas will be happy to meet in the centre. Unlike many cities, the centre of Oxford really is the central, easiest-to-get-to location for most residents.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd have thought the wiser thing to do would be to plant an FIEC church in one of the other towns in the Thames Valley or surrounding area that didn't already have a fellowship of that flavour.

This is also happening on a small scale, initiated independently by two individual churches, rather than the FIEC main organization. Its surprising and exciting that while the two churches were seeing the need for, and planning their own plants independently, the FIEC was also thinking about a central church at the same time. It looks like an exciting time of growth for Oxford in the near future.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
...and perhaps lure disaffected people from some of the other more FIEC flavoured congregations out in the suburbs...

I suspect part of the rationale behind this plan is that the existing FIEC churches in Oxford are also full. I'm guessing they would be looking to plant somewhere in or around Oxford soon anyway.

quote:
Realistically, most people in Oxford (as with British cities in geneeral) don't actually live in the city centre but in the suburbs - so the new FIEC plant will probably end up as a commuter church for people who, for whatever reason, are disenchanted with their current churches out in the suburbs.

As other people have pointed out, Oxford is a small compact city with a huge student population based in the centre and good public transport. When I lived on the outer edge of Oxford and didn't drive it was actually more convenient to go into the city centre than to a 'local' church. What central Oxford does (notoriously) lack is anywhere to park.

My guess is that it won't happen, simply because sites in the centre of Oxford are astronomically expensive and very, very scarce. And it would have to be right in the centre to make it worth it. I would be very curious to know where the money needed would come from. I'm guessing there may be a 'strategic' mentality at work. For example there was always alot of talk around St. Aldates about how Oxford was a 'strategic' location for influencing the next generation of leaders blah blah (remember quite how many prime ministers have been to Oxford). And Oxford city centre is also unusual in having so many fairly viable liberal/liberalish congregations and a reasonable Anglo-Catholic constituency. So there may be a certain desire to raise the flag [Razz]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'll admit that I have never lived in Oxford but I do know the city and used to visit it with work regularly back in the 1980s and also for a short period in the late '90s.

I accept ES's, Yerevan's and Hawk's assessment of the demographic, but I'm not so convinced that a new FIEC (or another evangelical CofE) plant is a solution - unless there was some kind of mutual decision to provide an 'overflow' congregation of some kind with links to all three of the churches mentioned hitherto. But I'm not sure how that would work.

Perhaps I'm rather too long-in-the-tooth and jaundiced but I find phrases like 'exciting period of growth' and so on to raise my hackles to a certain extent. Perhaps I've heard such things too many times now and with very little long-time effect.

I am pleased, though, that these churches appear to be thriving and that the FIEC seems to be doing well in that area. Although I'd no longer find a church of that kind to my own taste I wouldn't wish them any ill-will and would indeed wish more power to their elbows if they were to plant successfully and reach unchurched people rather than transfers from other churches.

My own experience of these things is that church-plants tend to attract transfer growth - but that there is always a smaller number of new converts/enquirers too.

I don't think there is any one solution or quick-fix answer.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

To put the thread back on track - or maybe not - here's a name for a church that is... different!

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

Pace Ender's Shadow, is Oxford unique? Unusual, perhaps, but Cambridge is very similar. It too has a large transient population. There are a fair number of churches (CoE and others) in the city centre, none of which has a parish except in the historical sense. Each attracts folk from the suburbs and 'necklace' villages by whatever distinctive features it presents. There is a conservative evangelical Anglican church (approved as 'sound' by the university CU) which according to its internet site particularly targets students and international visitors. This established a village plant some years ago. There is also a Simeon trust place (like St Aldate's) which again has a deal of student support. Other shades of Anglicanism up to FiF are represented. The free churches on the whole tend towards the liberal, though one or two of the three baptist places tend more, I think, toward the evangelical. A recent-ish addition to the mix describes itself as 'presbyterian', though it looks to be more Paisleyite than Auld Kirk. Whereas in Oxford redundant churches have been revamped as college libraries or chapels, there is an empty city centre building (All Saints) which this group have been allowed to use. So a group of stict calvinists worships in Bodley's tractarian splendour. [Roll Eyes]

To try to get back tothe original topic - the newish congregation doesn't call itself All Saints after the buiding - rather, after the manner of the baptists in Oxford, they call themselves the Cambridge Presbyterian Church. In this case, however, that is a name which has been going spare since the formation of the URC. So I suppose it does what is says on the label.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To put the thread back on track - or maybe not - here's a name for a church that is... different!

Should be called the Davidic Faith Assembly!

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Pace Ender's Shadow, is Oxford unique? Unusual, perhaps, but Cambridge is very similar. It too has a large transient population.

Also of course both have large numbers of tourists/parents visiting offspring etc, which IME can be a reasonable presence in city centre congregations.

As an aside, Ebbe's seems to be basically FIEC with only a very thin veneer of Anglicanism/

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I think this is the most biblical name for a church I've ever seen.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[tangent]

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
[P]ersonally I think that a church that's too large just isn't fit for purpose. When I visited St Aldates when I first came to Oxford a few years back I was put off by its size and not being able to get to know anyone in such a sea of people. A local church should be small enough that you can get to know a majority of the congregation, at least to say hi to, relatively quickly...
Nope - in practice that's not a realistic prospect when there is a large Christian population in a small area. It's my understanding that those churches have always seen the Christian Unions as the primary way to find people 'at least to say hi to', whilst their ministry is to provide the big, high quality presentations and teaching that it's hard to provide in small churches. However if there isn't the physical capacity to get everyone in, then there is a big problem... But to be fair, that's a different issue!
[/tangent]

/tangent

The Christian Union at my uni has the opposite idea. It feels churches are there for Christian socialising and the CU is purely there for mission to non-Christians on campus. Not even mission or ministering to each other.....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ho ho ho ... Scum Of The Earth Church ...

They wish ...

[Roll Eyes]

Move along please, there's nothing to see, just another middle-class pomo congregation who think it's cool to have a funny name ...

When my brother was in art college there was a punk band doing the circuit called The Fucking Bastards.

I remember observing at the time that they wouldn't get 'done' under the Trades Descriptions Act.

Now, there's an idea for the name of this proposed new church ...

[Big Grin]

Surely nobody could object to that epithet?

How about:

The FIECing Bastards Church.

Has a certain ring to it, dontcha think?

[Devil]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I rather like some of those alternative names for churches, they sound like fun places to try out. (Rather like Scumbag College). I did once hear of one labelled 'Church for those who don't go to Church'. Didn't it meet in a pub, or something?

In a similar vein, there is UnChurch and A church without walls.

However, what's in a name if the set-up is still unattractive once you get there? One of the best cartoons I ever saw was of a banner outside a church proclaiming: 'Welcome to FaithLand!'. The caption underneath read: 'But inside it was still St. Willibert's.'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yeah, I'm sure that's right, Chorister.

I would very much doubt that the Scumbag Church or Scum Of The Earth or whatever-it-calls-itself is actually doing anything substantially different or more radical than some mainline or more conventional church down the road that is probably running social programmes and soup-kitchens and so on without making a great big song and dance about it.

The very fact that they give themselves such a self-consciously out-there name tells me that it's probably more than an aspiration than anything else.

We Suck Just Like Everyone Else Church might be a more appropriate name.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I said it was a good name, Gamaliel, not a good church. Their sermons (available online) are utter drivel. They're just a bunch of diaffected 2nd generation mega-church kids, but I'm quite impressed by how they fund their staff though.

[ 29. October 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0