The Church and Branding
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : April 12, 2005
Is it impossible for a church in America to NOT engage in some form of branding? Most churches feel the need to have a logo, letter-head, a website, a core demographic, a purpose statement, etc…things which exist in part to distinguish that church from other churches. Churches "brand" themselves to compete with other churches in the free market. Doesn’t this sound like a relatively bad thing? What is the alternative?
for further reading . . .
- None Found

















Christarchy! is a growing network of small groups for people who want to put the ethical teachings of Jesus into practice.
Submergent is a network of leaders who, embracing the Anabaptist impulse, are living into the Kingdom of God in a postmodern, post-colonial, post-Christian world. Together, we will re-baptize the Christian imagination!
Anchored in the West Bank neighborhood of Minneapolis, Missio Dei is committed to following Jesus' way of peace, simplicity, prayer, and hospitality.
The Missio Dei Breviary includes morning and evening prayers for one month. Edited (and freely shared) by Missio Dei, it draws primarily upon the Gospels, reflects Anabaptist convictions, and emphasizes missional commitment.



I don’t think it needs to be a bad thing necessarily. I might draw a distinction between having a sense of community identity that presents itself publicly in specific ways and “marketing.” I do think it’s odd to find churches listed in much the same way other advertisements are displayed.
I have to agree with Chris on that one. If branding becomes the emphasis, then it runs into idolatorous territory. If it is subsumed within a missional framework, then I would be ok with it.
That being said, on a personal level, I dislike an overemphasis on branding more because I’m a BoBo PoMo than for ecclesial reasons… If that makes sense.
If a group cannot exist apart from a shared identity, then “branding” or self-identification is necessary to even define who the “we” are. Maybe the problem is not THAT churches self-identify, but HOW they self-identify and with WHAT.