While traveling, we went by a church with the sign, "St. Paul's Methodist Church." Now, I happen to know that the Methodist church didn't start until the 18th century, so I was amused that they would link St. Paul to it. Like the discussion about KJV Only. "Well, if it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me."
Clearly, unbelievers are not the only ones guilty of not thinking straight.
5 comments:
To be fair, there might be other Saint Pauls (Saints Paul?). Or they could just be ignoring Paul when he condemned the Corinthians for this.
I agree with you that “St. Paul’s Methodist Church” is odd (especially considering Paul’s clear condemnation of homosexual behavior, which many in the UMC reject), but it’s not quite as bad as, say, “The Catholic Church of St. Moses the Black” (obviously, it’s a different Moses)--and much worse ones out there!
Many years ago I read an article from a discernment ministry that lamented two common occurrences in the (relatively) modern Christian Church:
(1) the existence of local assemblies named in honor of another human being (even people mentioned in the Bible) rather than exalting the name of the Lord Jesus Christ above all else;
(2) the use of denominational labels that draw attention away from the Head of the Body of which believers are members, are associated with specific leaders of church movements (i.e. “Lutheran,” “Amish,” “Mennonite”), or that serve to overemphasize a biblical teaching or practice (i.e. “Baptist,” “Methodist,” “Adventist”).
At the time I read the article (whose focus was solely upon naming conventions and not any other issues present with different churches or denominations), I was a bit surprised at these objections (considering that this article was addressing Protestant churches), but I have to say that the points made stuck with me and have been absorbed into my personal convictions over time.
I haven't read the article, but off the top, naming conventions serve a purpose. If every church simply called themselves the "Church of Jesus Christ", telling what their actual beliefs are by shorthand would be impossible. If I'm looking for a church, I can automatically discount certain churches simply by their names as one that I'd be willing or not to attend. I certainly prefer names like "First Presbyterian" over some of the newer vague names that don't even indicate that they are a church. Seriously, I saw one in a strip mall that I couldn't tell if it was a church or a weed shop by the name.
I liked how the article promoted the model presented in the New Testament, where the various groups of believers were addressed as “the church of God which is at Corinth,” “the churches of Galatia,” “the saints who are in Ephesus,” etc. Things are different now, of course, but I think that a similar model for church names can still be utilized successfully (especially by nondenominational assemblies [my personal preference] or those that meet in nontraditional settings/venues). Consideration of denominational labels can be helpful in making judgments--if one is familiar and in concurrence with what the designations represent, recognizes that there is a large degree of variation even within one denomination, and realizes that denominations are constantly splitting and evolving into new entities.
I agree that church names have gotten a bit crazy, which reflects how off-base many churches are these days. (And I am guessing that one can even find a “church”/weed shop combo in many a major city!) Whatever a local assembly calls itself, though, I think a potential attendee would need to research the group way beyond their name--whether nontraditional or otherwise--to ascertain their core beliefs, being sure to remember the adage, “don’t judge a book by its cover.”
Given the wide variety of "Christian" churches ranging from the heretical, bizarre, and absolutely not Christian to the "ultras" -- extremes of side issues -- as well as the sheer numbers of churches, I can see how "the Church of Los Angeles 1" to "the Church of Los Angeles 28,000" might not be very helpful. Including a "message" in the name -- "We operate basically on these beliefs" or the like -- helps people looking for a church to join eliminate the "not churches" or the "churches that are really out there", so I can see why there are more than the simple naming convention of "the Church at Ephesus."
Post a Comment