The bureaucrats in the United Methodist Church love our logo. See here, here, here, and here.
And if you follow these links, you will find really good theological foundations for a logo with a cross and a flame. And there in lies the problem, we have really good theological reasons for a cross and flame branding; however, I will never forget bringing a friend of color to my home church and his first reaction being, "Caleb, why is there a burning cross on your church?"
Consistently in the methoblogosphere (I think that is a word) we find folks lamenting the lack of diversity within the UMC. And while we might assume that the church is slowly getting more diverse, the data says otherwise. In 1998, the UMC's North American membership was 87% white. By 2008, it was 90% white.
Surely there is a plethora of reasons for our shameful history of connecting with minority populations; however, one might assume that having a logo that approximates a symbol of terror against black bodies in the United States has something to do with the pasty whiteness of the United Methodist Church.
Again, the theological underpinnings of our current logo are great, and I would suggest that we keep them in the design of a new logo. Christocentric, excellent. High view of the Holy Spirit, fantastic. But, isn't there another way to brand these virtues that doesn't look painfully similar to the klan's device of terror?
I think there is, and I think we will see it in #NextMethodism
No comments:
Post a Comment