The intriguing idea here is that church names may affect the character of the churches so named. As against the advice to Romeo about the name ‘Montague’,
My experience confirms a theme found in storytelling through the ages that people and institutions become their names and live them out in daily activities. I have seen it in my own family. Two of our sons are each named for a different grandfather and have taken on subtle characteristics from each respective side of the family.
Can it also be true that congregations become their names? Does Christ the Servant Church live out its own life any differently than Christ the King Church? Does being a “first church” create subtle or not so subtle attitudes and postures? Does the name Independent Presbyterian Church create a confusion of identity and authority, given the fact that the very essence of Presbyterianism is connectional? Do churches that bear the names of saints or biblical characters take on their charisms? What about Trinity churches? Will they function any differently from churches with a different name, even though both affirm a trinitarian theology and spirituality? I think they will tend to interpret their stories more often in that light.
If it is right then we need to work out how and why it would be so. I suspect that it would be that persistent (annual?) references to the name in church vision sermons, foundation services, ‘name-day’ commemorations would tend to shape things over time.
And if that is right, it would be evidence that such events do have effects over time.