An interesting, but majorly overlooked and ignored principle of Biblical churches, is that not even one church had a formal or official name; as can be seen in the following verses. In addition, there are a number of examples of unnamed house churches in the New Testament (see article “The house Churches”).
Some might argue “yes, it might be true that in Bible times they didn’t have church names, but that was because they were the only true church in their time; people who weren’t believers wouldn’t call themselves Christians because they were at risk of being persecuted.
The answer to this is threefold:
(1): God, in His infinite wisdom and knowledge, knew back then that the term “church” would eventually be used to describe not only the true church, but also all the other false “churches” and religions of today. So why didn’t He endorse or ordain that the early Biblical churches be given a formal name to identify themselves? If He had done so, it would have paved the way for TRUE churches (bodies of believers in any certain area) to distinguish themselves from the rest of the false religions. The reason is, if the bodies of believers in different physical locations had different names, then Christ would be divided; and you cannot divide a body. If you do, it ceases to exist. You can’t divide the head from the legs, or the arms from the hands. It is all one body that functions together under the same HEAD (the head, which includes the brain, that tells the body how to live and what to do – which spiritually is Christ, through God’s Word). If you divide the body because of different beliefs or doctrines, then those members who are being divided have a false doctrine and are not obeying the head.
For example, if you had the church of East Sydney and the church of West Sydney, that just identifies a gathering of believers by physical location, purely because you can’t say “I gather with the church of all the world”; but you can say “I gather with the church of East Sydney to worship the Lord”. They are, however, both the same church that belongs to Christ, and they are both part of the church that exists all around the world (remember, all the “members” are part of the one body and have the same head). If you had the “Sydney Church” and the “Sydney Other Church”, you can suddenly see that there is a difference of belief, practice, or doctrine (whatever that may be). This is division and is not God-ordained.
Not once in the New Testament is there a reference made to a church as a “Church” with a capital “C”, which would indicate that that was its actual name – see the verses referenced below. This is again because believers are followers of Christ (a Christ-ian), and the church is the body of believers or members of the body of Christ. The church is what we are; not where we go, not an organisation, not who rules, not what doctrine we believe.
(2): What is the difference between our modern times and Biblical times in terms of false religions vs the church? None; whilst the early church did begin in all purity and singleness of heart, as seen in Acts 2:22-27, there were eventually false doctrines and heresies that arose just like we have today (Acts 20:30; Ephesians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galations 1:6-9; 2 Timothy 4:14-17; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18-19; 2 John 1:7; Jude 1:3-4). Did this cause the apostles and believers to begin giving themselves names to distinguish themselves from those false doctrines and heresies? No. Right through the New Testament, churches (gatherings of believers) remained “nameless”, in the sense that they had no official “name”, even in Revelations. Gatherings of believers remained nameless because the church was what they were, not where they gathered nor what they ‘stood for’. They simply stood for Christ, and Jesus Himself had named believers the “church”.
(3): Why give yourself a name? To distinguish yourself as the “true church” in your area? If we give ourselves a name, then we lose our testimony for Christ, because we are following the practices of all the other false religions – giving ourselves a name. When preaching the Gospel to unsaved people, if you tell them that you are a “Catholic”, or “Protestant”, or “Brethren”, or “Baptist”, or “Jehovah’s Witness”, or “Presbyterian” etc.; then their interest is immediately lost. They close their spiritual ears and eyes, and why? Because they put you into a “box”, and think, “so you’re one of them”. And can we really blame them? How are they to know who is the TRUE church? On the other hand, if you preach the Gospel to them and tell them you’re a Christian, or a believer who fellowships with other believers, but aren’t from a “Church” (as in a building with an official name) or religion, or cult/sect/group/organisation; then they will often gladly listen, because they are now curious to know what you are and what you believe. Is this possibly the reason God never gave the early churches “names”? By not following false religions in naming their church, Christians do stand separate from the other “religions” as the church (church meaning ‘body of believers’). There are so many doctrines, denominations, and religions today, that people don’t know who or what to believe. People don’t trust them all because their attitude is, “how do I know that YOU are the TRUE church (and what is the true church anyway??), and that you believe the truth, especially when my eternity hangs in the balance depending on whom I choose to believe?” Furthermore, people lose their trust because of divisions within a denomination or name or religion itself. Here is one of many examples (I will use the name “English” instead of the real name, so as not to point fingers at anyone). You have the “English Union church”, then you have the “Independent English church”, and then you have the “English church”, that isn’t a part of the “Union”, but also isn’t part of the “Independents”. Finally, you have the “Independent Fundamental English church”, which stand separate from the rest. And it doesn’t end there, because the “Independent Fundamental English churches” often don’t all agree and aren’t the same as each other; some even disagree on quite serious issues. Yes, they are all ‘different’, yet carry the same name; hence the confusion to those who don’t know any different. God’s Word is not an opinion or a view. As believers, we should not spread confusion. The question to ask is, why don’t all these different denominations agree? Does God’s Word disagree or contradict itself? Does God’s Word spread confusion? If there is a difference or disagreement over a Scripture or issue, then one or both parties have a misunderstanding, because God’s Word never contradicts itself. God is not a God of confusion. Again, as an example, if there are two Independent Fundamental English churches who have “different views or opinions” on Scripture, then who is right and who is wrong? How are unsaved people meant to know? If all churches took the Word of God exactly as it is written, there would be no differences. The problem is there are differences.
When a nonbeliever asks you “so what are you?”,
If you say “If I told you I’m Catholic, what would that mean to you?”, they answer “You pray to Mary”.
If you say “If I tell you I’m a Seventh Day Adventist, what does that mean to you? they answer “you rest on the seventh day.”
If you say “If I tell you I’m Charismatic, what does that mean to you?” they answer “you’re a happy clappy and dance.”
If you say “If I tell you I’m a Baptist, what does that mean to you?” they answer “you believe in baptism by full immersion.”
If you say “If I tell you I’m Presbyterian, what does that mean to you?” they answer “you believe in the presbytery and predestination.”
But, if you say “If I tell you I’m a Christian, what does that mean to you?” they answer “you believe in Christ.”
I have personally tested these questions on people at my workplace who are unbelievers, so I’m not just making all this up.
The following rhetorical question answers anyone who would try to argue any reason for calling oneself anything other than after the One Who they follow because He saved them. Which of those names (Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Christian etc.) tells people what you believe and is a testimony of what can save them?
I will bear the name of the One Who saved me, and His name will I honour. Calling yourself a “Christian” acknowledges Christ, whereas none of the other “names” do. To say it is not enough to call oneself a Christian in today’s world, is blasphemy and is a form of denying Christ.
Can Mary save you? Can keeping the sabbath save you? Can being baptised save you?
Yet many are willing to carry names that don’t even represent salvation or Christ but rather an action or belief other than Christ Himself.
1 Corinthians 1:11-31 says, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
May God be praise for the one true church, His body of believers.
Comments