# Naming a Church After a "Saint"?



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 4, 2010)

This is just something I'd be curious to get your take on. What are your thoughts on naming a church after a saint (e.g. Saint Andrew's Chapel, Sproul's church). 

Are there "camps" on this issue? What are their points of contention? Does it even matter? 

Just curious.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 4, 2010)

As long as nobody names a church, St. Ivan....just sayin'.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 4, 2010)

Ask and ye shall receive... 







St. Ivan Rilski Chapel


----------



## Ivan (Jul 4, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Ask and ye shall receive...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Serbia...figures!


----------



## Jack K (Jul 4, 2010)

For me, I'd say naming a church after any person but Christ is not the preferred way to go. It suggests a part of our worship might be directed toward that person. I'd rather see place names, names for Christ or theological references. Even the use of people in denominational names (Lutheran) doesn't sound quite right to me.

That said, I wouldn't refuse to attend a solid church because of such a name. I just think people names are not ideal.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 4, 2010)

I would personally not be in favor of it, partly because I'd be afraid it would foster the wrong attitude toward men like the apostles (read: RC treasury of the saints and other such notions). But to be technical, I think Sproul's church is not named for the Apostle Andrew per se, but for the location in Scotland (which _is_ named for the Apostle, of course). But then again, my last name is named for an apostle.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 4, 2010)

While I haven't researched it, I'm pretty sure the practice arose out of medieval ideas about "patron saints." That being a thuroughly unbiblical doctrine, I'm inclined to disagree with the practice. However, I've heard of Baptist churches naming their churches in honor or memorial of notable figures in their history or history in general (e.g. Judson Memorial Baptist Church). Which I'm not as uncomfortable with but still not crazy about.


----------



## torstar (Jul 4, 2010)

maybe it was named after the town in which it was founded. or a golf course. RC likes to golf.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes, ARP Churches have unfortunately been known to do this as well ("Pressly Memorial Presbyterian Church," for instance) and I'm no fan of the idea either. And I believe you are correct about the Patron Saint idea (which is where "Phillips" came from -- Philip was selected and expected to "watch over" the family). But St. Andrews is actually the name of city in Scotland and an important site in the history of the Reformation in that country, so I suspect this is what Sproul is drawing from.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 4, 2010)

I take no real issue with the name of Sproul's church, but all one takes away from Saint Andrew's Chapel is "St. Andrew." There is no way in that name of communicating that its geographical or not.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 4, 2010)

Our church was founded by a man called James Edward Walker, and until the 1970s was known as 'The Walker Memorial Church'. Our official name now is "Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Walker Memorial)" ... bit of a mouthful.


----------



## Philip (Jul 4, 2010)

I just want someone to try naming a church "St. John of Geneva" Presbyterian


----------



## yeutter (Jul 4, 2010)

Did Calvin or Knox encourage the renaming of Churches that are named after saints?


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 4, 2010)

> Did Calvin or Knox encourage the renaming of Churches that are named after saints?



Knox served as a chaplain at St. Andrews and preached from the pulpit there -- and it was not renamed. Calvin's church in Geneva was named St. Peter's -- and it was not renamed.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 4, 2010)

Thomas Boston (speaking of the phrase "Saint John" occurring in the text of _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_) has this to say:



> This word might well have been spared here; notwithstanding that we so read in the title of the book of the Revelation in our English Bibles; and in like manner, in the titles of other books in the New Testament, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, etc.; it is evident, there is not such a word to be found in the titles of these books in the original Greek; and the Dutch translators have justly discarded it out of their translations. If it is to be retained, because John, Matthew, mark, Luke, etc., were, without controversy, saints, why not on the same ground, Saint Moses, Saint Aaron (expressly called 'the Saint of the Lord' (Ps. 106:16)), etc.? No reason can be given of the difference made in this point, but that it pleased Antichrist to canonize these New Testament saints, but not the Old Testament ones. Canonizing is an act or sentence of the Pope, decreeing religious worship and honours to such men or women departed, as he sees meet to confer the honour of saintship on. These honours are seven, and the first of them is, 'That they are enrolled in the catalogue of saints, and must be accounted and called saints by all' (Bellarmine).



While that doesn't speak directly to the question about naming churches, it does raise the valid point that we should not get our roster of saints from the Roman church.


----------

