Church Names Unbiblical?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryan&Amber2013

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Graduate
I've often wondered why churches have names like "Saint Mark's", or "Saint Peter's", or "Saint Andrew's." Am I missing something, or is this unbiblical? Should Christ's Church really be named "Saint Mark's Church"? What really throws me off too, is that the apostrophe indicates possession. So reason would say that churches with these names are actually saying "This is Mark's church, not Christ's."

I must be missing something, but churches with these names sound very strange to me. Why not stick with names like "Christ's Church", or "Christ the King", or "Grace Church", as opposed to saying the church belongs to one of the Apostles? I don't think the Apostles would be too thrilled about this.

Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks!
 
See this old thread. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/75127-Church-names
In Scotland the Presbyterians of course took over buildings that had names; James Durham for instance preached in the area of Glasgow cathedral known as St. Mungos (no idea if that is still true). Free to start new places of worship in this country Presbyterians and nonconformists generally named their church by street location or in order of founding the city (First, Second, etc.). I think if it is free of superstition retaining the historic name is not unlawful; otherwise we should not name the names of the week as we do. But I think preference is to be free of such.
 
Last edited:
Most churches here with Saints names are mainly Anglican and presumably continued the RC practice of naming. Although many of the Welsh oldest churches were named after the original missionaries who founded them. The practice of the non conformist churches is to give the building for worship a biblical place name to distinguish it from others in the village or town. Such as, Zion, Peniel, Salem, Elim, Moriah, Carmel, Jerusalem, Ebenezer, etc. We would call the building a chapel, rather than a church which really describes the congregation.
 
It is a preference thing, but being of one who is fond of the parish system and notes the names of the churches in the Bible, I am a fan of churches being named after the area they serve rather than after men or emotions.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
See this old thread. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/75127-Church-names
In Scotland the Presbyterians of course took over buildings that had names; James Durham for instance preached in the area of Glasgow cathedral known as St. Mungos (no idea if that is still true). Free to start new places of worship in this country Presbyterians and nonconformists generally named their church by street location or in order of founding the the city (First, Second, etc.). I think if it is free of superstition retaining the historic name is not unlawful; otherwise we should not name the names of the week as we do. But I think preference is not to be free of such.
Click to expand...

Glad to see my views have not changed over the last four years. :lol:
 
It's interesting that this practice, so far as I know, didn't exist amongst Reformed churches in the Netherlands. When the Reformation took place, Reformed churches there typically adopted the name of the place. Back in Canada, in the churches I used to serve, there is a St. Albert Canadian Reformed Church, but only because the church is located in the city of St. Albert.
 
So would you guys say it's wrong to call a church "St. Peter's Church"? By doing so, this would be saying it is his church and not the Lord's, right?
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
So would you guys say it's wrong to call a church "St. Peter's Church"? By doing so, this would be saying it is his church and not the Lord's, right?
Click to expand...

And just adding to this,

How about Faith Church or Redeemer Church,
Is this to be avoided too? I ask this as a genuine question as we are about to name our new church.
 
There should probably be a distinction made between naming a building and naming a congregation. It seems like most of the Reformation-era names applied to the buildings, whereas in America today we name our congregations. For example, my congregation is called Reformation Presbyterian Church, but we don't have our own building (the building we are currently worshipping in is actually called the Christopher Hall Building).
 
I can understand a church named "Knox Reformed Church", but a "Knox's Reformed Church" would be a whole other story. The latter shows possession whereas the first could just indicate that the church follows his understanding of the Scriptures. I think the latter would not be right, do you?
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
I don't think the Apostles would be too thrilled about this.
Click to expand...

Why? Did they tell you that directly? The writer to the Hebrews also said something about honouring those who have taught us the word of God ...
Click to expand...

1 Cor 12:27 says "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." To me, it sounds like the Apostles would agree that it is Christ's Church, and no other's. I think it is great to honor people, but not to say the church is their's. There is a huge distinction. Look at the attitude of the Apostles when people were trying to ascribe glory to them: But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them."

It seems that they want the name of Jesus to be glorified and known, not their own. So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. This can be done even in the naming of the local church. The church isn't Peter's or Andrew's, it is Christ's. Why would we rob Him of such glory?
 
Even naming a church after something that appears safe like its street address can have unexpected consequences years later. Sometime around 1922, Toronto's St. James Square Presbyterian church merged with the Bond Street Congregational church to create a new "United Church." Thirty-five years later, a development in the literary world made the longstanding church sign a jaw dropper. It read "St. James-Bond United Church."
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
Reformed Covenanter said:
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
I don't think the Apostles would be too thrilled about this.
Click to expand...

Why? Did they tell you that directly? The writer to the Hebrews also said something about honouring those who have taught us the word of God ...
Click to expand...

1 Cor 12:27 says "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." To me, it sounds like the Apostles would agree that it is Christ's Church, and no other's. I think it is great to honor people, but not to say the church is their's. There is a huge distinction. Look at the attitude of the Apostles when people were trying to ascribe glory to them: But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them."

It seems that they want the name of Jesus to be glorified and known, not their own. So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. This can be done even in the naming of the local church. The church isn't Peter's or Andrew's, it is Christ's. Why would we rob Him of such glory?
Click to expand...

Naming a church after someone is hardly comparable to worshipping them, nor does naming a church after someone imply that they own it as opposed to it being the possession of Christ. It seems to me that you are trying to make a preference a dogma.
 
I remember the name Leslie Nielsen (I think) mentioned in one of his movies of a hospital O.J. was in: Our Lady of False Miracles.....
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
Reformed Covenanter said:
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
I don't think the Apostles would be too thrilled about this.
Click to expand...

Why? Did they tell you that directly? The writer to the Hebrews also said something about honouring those who have taught us the word of God ...
Click to expand...

1 Cor 12:27 says "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." To me, it sounds like the Apostles would agree that it is Christ's Church, and no other's. I think it is great to honor people, but not to say the church is their's. There is a huge distinction. Look at the attitude of the Apostles when people were trying to ascribe glory to them: But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them."

It seems that they want the name of Jesus to be glorified and known, not their own. So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. This can be done even in the naming of the local church. The church isn't Peter's or Andrew's, it is Christ's. Why would we rob Him of such glory?
Click to expand...

Naming a church after someone is hardly comparable to worshipping them, nor does naming a church after someone imply that they own it as opposed to it being the possession of Christ. It seems to me that you are trying to make a preference a dogma.
Click to expand...

I guess I must be misunderstanding something. When I see a church that is named "Christ's Church", I think to myself, "this is Christ's church." So, naturally, when I see a church named "St. Peter's Church", I think to myself, "this is Peter's church." But everyone would agree that the church is Christ's, so why would we say it belongs to someone else? The key is that the comma represents possession. So a church named St. Peter's, is saying that that church belongs to Peter. But it doesn't, it is Christ's.

Please help me understand the reasoning why this is done, seeing that it seems you are not opposed to it. I must be missing something. Thanks!
 
Hi Ryan,

I am noticing that no one seems as passionate about this name designation as you do.
We have had so many centuries of marketing and names that everyones kind of used to it.

When I see St Peter's Church I don't think about St Peter, I think about Christianity and Jesus Christ.
It may be a mental trick of our society that we have learned to associate things with other things.
When I think of Toyota I think cars, but they also make sewing machines.
I don't see branding as glorifying the name so much as representing the product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Church names
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
reaganmarsh
reaganmarsh
B
  • Locked
Church Names
Replies
11
Views
6K
govols
G
Scott Bushey
  • Locked
Names database?
Replies
0
Views
2K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
R
  • Locked
Changing names
Replies
7
Views
2K
govols
G
B
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Concealed Carry Biblical or Unbiblical?
Replies
10
Views
5K
Tim
Tim
Back
Top