Bright welcome, living water.
We've narrowed a field of dozens to four. Here's what each one is, where it came from, what it would cost us, and what we're asking you to weigh before we meet.
To be a church that is open and welcoming — one that invites all people into community together, and to align around a common faith.
Our research turned up a real gap. Inside these walls, members describe a church that is sincere, mission-driven, and genuinely innovative. The wider community sees something considerably less forward-moving — and stakeholder interviews tell us earlier eras of this church carried a reputation for being uninviting. Our momentum is not yet part of our public story. A new campus in 2028 gives us one clear moment to change that.
Creating space for genuine, down-to-earth connection, free from pretense.
Actively including and engaging people in a shared mission, moving beyond simple friendliness.
Grounding all actions and relationships in honesty, transparency, and wholesome principles.
Your three core values, from the brand blueprint. A name that doesn't serve them isn't a candidate, however good it sounds.
About twenty minutes. Come with a lean, not a verdict.
Sections 03–05 cover how we got here and how a name gets built. Sections 07–15 are the four candidates, each followed by the forms it has to live in.
Section 06 is a five-part rubric. It travels with you: on any candidate slide, open the gold Evaluation Rubric tab on the right edge and score that name 1–5 as you read.
For whichever name you like least, write down the one thing that would make you reconsider it. That's usually where the real conversation is.
We're narrowing the field together next week, not voting. A clear first and last from each of you is far more useful than consensus arrived at early.
The logo or symbol, the color and type system (already approved), the website, or the timeline for the new campus. This is the name — everything downstream waits on it.
Every name that follows survived four rounds of work. None started as anyone's favorite — they are what was left standing.
Stakeholder interviews, congregational listening, and a read of the surrounding church landscape.
Core values, personality, archetypes, and visual direction — established before a single name was written.
Dozens of candidates across eight idea groups: water and springs, shelter and arbor, hearth and hospitality, biblical geography, biblical people, patron saints, biblical–springs hybrids, and classical roots.
Successive rounds of elimination against local collisions, digital availability, theological weight, and plain-English accessibility.
Four finalists, each mapped to a naming pathway, with advantages and liabilities stated plainly.
Before anyone argued about words, we agreed on the three structural choices available to us — then ran every candidate through six tests.
Change nothing structurally. Let the identity, the voice, and the new building carry the signal.
Keep a recognizable tie to place, but trade the full municipal name for something shorter and more current.
A name that carries a story or an image rather than an address. Most distinctive, most to explain.
Carries the story, the image, or the address. The part that has to be distinctive — and the only part under discussion.
"Church" tells a stranger what we are. Three of the four candidates become ambiguous the moment it's dropped.
The denomination spelled out in full. "UMC" is insider shorthand that reads as exclusive language to anyone who doesn't already know it.
Option 3 is the only candidate that doesn't conform to this architecture. Choosing to retain the current name also means deciding whether to keep the "UMC" acronym we built this construction to avoid.
Evaluate every candidate against all five. Score 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The rubric follows you onto every candidate slide — look for the gold tab on the right edge.
How inviting is this name to people who don't currently attend? Does it avoid insider jargon and lower the barrier to entry?
How effectively does this name honor our history while minimizing disruption? Does it provide a clear bridge from the past to the future without alienating our members?
How accurately does this name reflect our core values (Authentic Community, Sincere Faith) and match the vision of our new physical campus environment?
How unique is this name locally? Does it successfully avoid confusion with secular businesses, municipal buildings, or megachurches, standing out clearly as our faith community?
How natural does it feel to say this name aloud in daily life? Does it provide a simple, intuitive shorthand for our congregation to use when casually inviting a friend or neighbor?
Select any card to jump straight to that name's full case.
The Arbor Churcha United Methodist community
Connects directly to our 1848 origins, when the first Methodists in this area met under a brush arbor near the local springs. Theologically it ties into Sukkot — the Israelites dwelling in temporary structures — symbolizing an inviting shelter of gathering and safety that stays open, without enclosing walls.
The only significant consideration on the record — the shortest list of the four.
Only at the bare name. Drop "Church" and a stranger has no way to know what we are — the one real liability this candidate carries.
Everywhere else it holds up better than any other option, and "the Arbor" is the only shorthand here that people will adopt on their own without being taught.
Wellspring Churcha United Methodist community
Uses the imagery of living water and renewal, with a subtle geographic nod to the "Springs" in Sandy Springs. It holds a link to the surrounding community identity while leaning into the biblical metaphor of a constant, refreshing source of life.
At the short form. "Wellspring Church" is what we'd want to say, but it's the form most likely to be confused with another congregation somewhere else — so in practice we'd be saying "Wellspring Church of Sandy Springs" more often than not.
That qualifier is longer than the name it's qualifying, which quietly undoes some of the simplicity we were buying.
Sandy Springs UMCthe status quo
Retaining our current name maintains continuity and honors the legacy of an institution that predates the incorporation of the city itself. It accurately represents our geographic location and our denominational affiliation.
At the front door. Our web address is SSUMC.org — an acronym of an acronym. It is the single most-used public expression of our name, and the furthest thing from plain English anywhere in our communications.
Everything else here is frictionless. That one form is the whole argument against this option, in five letters.
City Springs Churcha United Methodist community
Anchors us to our immediate civic context. City Springs is the cultural, municipal, and developmental heart of modern Sandy Springs; adopting the name signals that we are the spiritual center of that newly urbanized core — and subtly combines the imagery of a "City on a Hill" (Matthew 5:14) with the life-giving metaphor of the Springs.
At the conversational form, which is the one that matters most for invitation. "I go to City Springs" points a neighbor at a performing arts center and a city hall before it points them at us.
This is the only candidate whose shorthand belongs to somebody else — and we would be permanently renting it.
The strongest argument against both spring-derived candidates. It doesn't disqualify them — "Springs" is genuinely ours, and it predates every business that borrowed it — but it means competing for attention inside a very loud category, on our own street.
Against: distinctiveness is diluted, search is harder, and we sound like the neighborhood rather than the landmark in it.
For: we were here in 1848, before the city and before the developers. Ceding the word may cost us more than sharing it does.
A map of trade-offs, not a scorecard — there is no total at the bottom, on purpose. ●●● strong · ●●○ mixed · ●○○ challenge
| Criterion | The Arbor | Wellspring | Sandy Springs UMC | City Springs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local distinctiveness | ●●● StrongVery little direct competition in metro Atlanta. | ●○○ Challenge37% local "spring" saturation. | ●●○ MixedOurs historically, but shares the municipal name. | ●○○ ChallengeShares a name with the civic center itself. |
| Digital availability | ●●● StrongLow national church usage. | ●○○ ChallengeCommon nationally; clean handles unlikely. | ●●● StrongAlready held; zero transition. | ●○○ ChallengeCompeting with a municipal venue for search. |
| Geographic clarity | ●○○ ChallengeNo locational cue at all. | ●●○ MixedNods to "Springs" without naming the city. | ●●● StrongExactly accurate. | ●●● StrongNames the civic core precisely. |
| Theological depth | ●●● Strong1848 brush arbor; Sukkot; open shelter. | ●●● StrongLiving water; the woman at the well. | ●○○ ChallengeDescriptive; carries no scriptural image. | ●●○ MixedCity on a Hill, but the reference is subtle. |
| Plain-English welcome | ●●○ MixedWarm, but needs "Church" to be legible. | ●●○ MixedWarm, but reads commercial without "Church." | ●○○ ChallengeThe "UMC" acronym is the known barrier. | ●●○ MixedClear, but can read municipal rather than warm. |
| Legacy continuity | ●●○ MixedNew word, but the oldest story we have. | ●●○ MixedKeeps the spring, loses the name. | ●●● StrongTotal continuity; no member left behind. | ●●● StrongKeeps "Springs" and the geographic tie. |
| Signals a new era | ●●● StrongUnmistakably a deliberate new chapter. | ●●● StrongClear break with the old name. | ●○○ ChallengeThe signal has to come entirely from elsewhere. | ●●○ MixedModernizes the vocabulary without a full break. |
The working group's assessment against the filters in section 04 — a discussion aid, not a verdict.
Every argument in this deck eventually reduces to one of these. Resolve them, and the name resolves itself.
How much of our past do we carry forward by name, and how much do we ask the building, the voice, and the identity to carry instead?
Retaining costs us nothing and risks nothing — except the chance to tell the neighborhood something has genuinely changed. Changing buys that signal at the price of asking every member who loves the old name to let go of it.
Do we want a name a neighbor can find, or a name a neighbor already understands?
The Arbor is the most distinctive and the least self-explanatory — it needs "Church" beside it and a story behind it. The spring-derived names are instantly legible and instantly crowded. Sandy Springs UMC is perfectly clear and says nothing new.
Before you rank the names, tell us where you land on continuity-versus-signal and distinctive-versus-legible. Say it out loud in the room. The name follows from that.
You don't need to give us a final answer next week. Get us down to one or two, so we can spend real money on the next step — legal and trademark clearance, domain and handle acquisition, and congregational testing.
Treat every digital availability note in this deck as a shape to test, not a confirmed fact. Give us the go-ahead to run a Georgia Secretary of State check, a trademark search, and a domain and handle sweep on whichever names survive.
Where this sits in the project
Thank you for
your time and care.
Naming a church that has stood since 1848 is not a small thing to be asked to weigh. We're grateful for the attention you're bringing to it.
Brand strategy, naming, and identity · station16.com
The Sandy Springs UMC
Brand Working Group
Senior pastor, staff, and lay leadership
The palette and type direction you selected. Classic pairs a measured editorial serif with a clear, friendly sans: the serif carries warmth and welcome, the sans handles wayfinding, copy, and interface.
#005F73Deep teal anchors the identity with rooted hospitality.#F2D481Radiant gold warms the welcome of a porch light left on.#D88D5ATerracotta illuminates hospitality and communal warmth.#A7AE87Soft sage grounds the brand in organic life.#FFFFFFCrisp white frames wide-open hospitality.#D8E2DCSoft mist blue mirrors living water.Bright welcome, living water.
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.