Where did Church Names Come From?
From infancy through today I’ve attended various local churches, each with its own name. A sample: Northlake Christian Church, Calvary Christian Assembly, Scum of the Earth Church. Church names are normative – every church has a name – and for that reason I never thought much of it.
But I wonder why/when/how did church-naming start?
The New Testament refers to the church of various localities such as “the church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31), “the church at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “church at Cenchreae” (Romans 16:1), “the church of God that is in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2) and there are many more. But these are not the same as our church names. To me this sounds more like, “the part of the body of Christ that is in Antioch” whereas our church names have more to do with posturing and positioning (intended or not).
If Paul were writing a letter to the church in America today, might our epistle contain a section about church names comparable to 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (below), where Paul addresses division rooted in leadership preferences?
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (ESV)
Aren’t church names kind of the same? At the end of the day, aren’t they more about distinctions among God’s people?
Am I making too much of this? Am I being too serious?
It’s not like God hasn’t used church names, after all. Personally, I’ve seen him use Scum of the Earth to bring people closer to Jesus.
And we all know this verse: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Rom 8:28) All things. Church names too!
But just because God can work good from all things does not mean all things have his blessing. My hunch is that there is more to be had but we settle – we miss out. I’m not here to say church names are wrong. I am wondering if there is a better alternative. Just because church names have been our norm does not mean they express God’s vision for the church. We cripple ourselves to use personal experience as a guiding standard, especially when we dismiss what God is doing around the world.
At the end of the day, especially in an era where church names are “the way it is”, it’s hard to know whether church names are ultimately more helpful or unhelpful. We might do well to consider what church names have cost the church.
What reasons prohibit us from pursuit of simply being nameless and faceless disciples making disciples, loving God and our neighbors, letting the Holy Spirit lead, passionate about the Kingdom and its King, and finding our identity in Jesus alone?
In Paul’s day there were usually only one church per city. As they increased in numbers Paul often referred to the persons house where the people met (Col. 4:15). We need to also remember that not only visited the local church (always in people’s houses) but he also preached (or reasoned!) in the local synagogues (Acts 18:19).
Personally, I like the thought of naming churches after the person/people whose house they meet in. It’s much more personal, intimate, local and easily identifiable for the neighbours/locals looking for a place that loves Jesus. “Oh, you’re looking for a place that talk about God? If you just go down the road to Zach’s place you’ll meet a bunch of people who meet and talk about God!” Much more personal, eh!
“What reasons prohibit us from pursuit of simply being nameless and faceless disciples making disciples, loving God and our neighbors ” This is totally possible (ie the church of the garage) in hidden places where there is poverty or persecution and thus secrecy is needed. But this is more challenging in the US, but it could be the church of the living room, but without a name? Are names needed? Not really. Church = first as organism; and then second as organization, this latter part tends to be more emphasized here in the USA (and in big cities) around the world.
PO
Yeah, Paul, where I am in favor of names is where they are personal, and where the function of the name is more for reference. That makes much more sense to me. Especially if people did it in such a way where different gatherings are not seen as “us and them” as much as “different parts of us in different places”.
P, do you think more organization-oriented churches can transform into more organism-oriented churches, or do you think the church needs new wineskins for this new wine?
http://tiny.cc/q3sq9
Some quick thoughts on the subject:
I look at the situation from a brand vs product dynamic. Usually people / groups like to brand themselves to show that they’re different, unique, or better. Church 1 doesn’t do anything different than Church 2, but they believe in pre-trib rapture instead of post-trib rapture, or spiritual gifts, or Reformed theology. Since they don’t do anything different, that is, since they don’t have a different product, it becomes necessary to differentiate by branding and marketing.
Let’s call branding the interaction of your product experience and marketing the promise of what it will do for you in the future.
Right now, most American churches brand themselves as Evangelical. If you go to an Evangelical church, your experience will be: a music set of personal songs to a personal Jesus, a sermon of spiritual principles that can be individually applied, and all done in an hour.
Now, within that Evangelical brand they market to different demographics. Assembly of God, Covenant, Calvary Chapel, Baptist, and non-denom are all marketing a different promise: more spirit, more multi-cultural, more doctrine, and more of less, sequentially. But if the promise doesn’t materialize it doesn’t matter. The promise is what you wanted out of the brand, not what the brand offered. The brand is individual experience in a group setting.
Like a movie. Regardless of which movie you see, be it Schindler’s List or The Matrix, you will never participate in the making of the movie, the acting, or the revenue. Your interaction is passive consumerism. The active consumerism is deciding which movie you want to see and deciding how much you liked or disliked the movie afterward. It gives the semblance of active participation; but only as a consumer. The brand is movie, the marketing is bigh brow, thought provoking, or action.
So should a church have a name? That depends on if you’re naming the marketing, the experience, or the product. Hamlet as a book, movie, a Broadway play, or Shakespearean festival are the same name, but different marketing, experiences, and products. So to, Hamlet is different if you’re a reader, a watcher, or an actor.
One question to ask is whether your church is a community, an hour-long service, a Body, or a group of individuals. The marketing, experience, and product will differ accordingly. While most churches think they can be all of the above, I don’t think that’s possible either practically or biblically. But that leads to the overall confusion about what the church is, how to interact with it, and how to promote it.
The other question is,”what do others call you?” Other people will name and define what you do. Pay attention to whether they call it community, church, or way of life. We spend a lot of time trying to tell people we’re a community, but in the end they call us church.
Within a Corinthian context, Paul rebukes the notion and practice of factions. Named or not. But Paul’s remedy is to define the outcome, not the name. If your product and experience looks like I Cor 14, where people are involved in an empowering and equipping community of the Spirit, then call it whatever you want. If you’re doing church based on doctrinal distinctions and personal freedoms, then just calling it something different won’t help it become something it’s not.
PS: All “you’s” and “your’s” above are meant in generalities, not pointed at you :)
Thanks, Troy. That makes good sense.
And I want to be done with it all!
I’m refreshed by stories coming out of places like China… missionaries had been working there for decades, maybe a century when Mao came and drove them all out. At thT time, people estimated there were about 1 million people following Jesus in China. 50 years later when Mao was done and China opened back up, the world found out there were now around 60 million followers of Jesus. Because it was illegal, the church was driven underground with no chance to institutionalize, market, brand, and whatever else even if they wanted to. And the Chinese church flourished. When interviewed, Chinese believers said they found persecution to be so helpful in avoiding distractions and keeping their focus on Jesus. They also said they grieved for the Western church, weighed down by our wealth and distractions of our own, and that maybe we should pray to be persecuted too! Maybe they are right…
Speaking of marketing / church… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7_dZTrjw9I