Cross or No Cross?

Perhaps the most fundamental question in designing or choosing a logo for a Christian church today is whether or not to include a cross as a symbol of the faith within the logo itself. The logo is normally considered the centerpiece of an organization's media identity, and so this decision is heavily weighted in the church's overall ministry promotion strategy. There are basically two fundamental schools of thought:

The case for the cross. In support of a cross as a part of the church logo, it is the basic identifying icon of the Christian faith. It immediately identifies the church with Christ and is recognized anywhere in the world. Because so many churches from multiple denominations--the vast majority, in fact--use a cross as a logo element, it also identifies the church with the worldwide body of Christ. While the cross may conjure some thoughts or preconceptions about Christians in the minds of non-believers, it is generally considered a unifying element within the church (the worldwide body of Christ) itself.

The case for something else. Many churches choose not to have a cross in their logo. The predominant thinking is audience-based. The cross, in this scenario, creates some initial negative perceptoin on the part of visitors as to what the organization is about. By focusing the logo on something else, the church has the ability to craft a unique message to their community. Some of the more popular logo themes are location-based, using symbols like rivers, mountains, valleys, or other geographic features that help people locate the church). Some are also strategy-based, using shape, form and color to indicate the church's primary mission or vision within the context of their ministries and community.

Where did the cross come from? The origin of the cross as a symbol dates long before the time of the early church. Several pagan religions used the basic cross shape to denote deities, celestial states and even human sacrifice. The earliest icons of Christ were not crosses, but usually Christ as a shepherd carrying a lamb (140 - 230 A.D.). It's interesting to note that the earliest Christians did not identify with the cross symbol, but used the fish, or ichthus, to secretly identify with other believers, most of whom experienced public persecution for their faith.  Another symbol of the faith popularized by the Roman Emperor Constantine was the labarum, which looks like a capital "P" with an "X" through it, a representation of the first two letters for the Greek version of the word "Christ."

We know from a few remaining artistic works that the cross was used to represent Christ as early as the Second Century A.D. The cross symbol in the church was opposed by at least one church father in the Third Century A.D., but by the mid-Fifth Century A.D. it was used as art within the Vatican. The form at that time was a Greek variety with four equal length arms, and Christ's body was not shown. In fact, the Greek form of the cross was actually an abbreviation in Greek for the name of Christ and not a representation of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.

The cross we know today, with the lowest leg longer than the others, generally referred to as the Latin cross, is specially representative of Christ's crucifixion. When shown with the image of Christ it is called a crucifix. Most evangelical denominations choose the represent the cross without the image of Christ attached, indicating His current resurrected state as opposed to His death.

There is some minor debate on the shape of the stake, cross or beam on which Christ was actually crucified. Several references, including the Gospels, describe his death as being on a "tree" versus a "cross", although most modern Bible translations use the word "cross". That's really a small point and not worth arguing here as the cross has become, over the last 1500 years, a nearly universal symbol of the Christian faith.

The bottom line. In the church logo choices I've included on the site I've given both choices with crosses and choices without. Personally I do not hold the opinion that a church logo must contain a cross to be legitimate, and some logos I have seen without a cross are not only attractive, but provocative and effective in communicating an aspect or aspects of the Christian faith. There are other symbols to indicate Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection besides the cross. I have seen logos representative of the "crown of thorns" and the "empty tomb," both of which are Christ-centered and symbolic of His suffering and resurrection.

That said, because I lean so heavily toward identification with Christ first, especially in the promotion of ministry, I also lean heavily toward including a cross in a church logo. All of the churches I have served in two decades of ministry have included a cross in the logo. I would strongly recommend including the cross in some form as a symbol of the faith in a church logo.

  

Logo Savvy: Top Brand Design Firms Share their Naming and Identity Strategies

Logo Design That Works: Secrets for Successful Logo Design (That Works Series)

The Big Book of Logos

> Click for more books and periodicals on designing.

  It's Time To Celebrate!
God is doing amazing things all the time, and we get to be a part of it. Somebody put some candles on the cake and start the music! Join the party.