Featured Name A Church

I don't imagine there are too many Christians in San Fransico to fit into a single building, firstly . Secondly, I said there is an argument to be made, which is my way of not being terribly dogmatic about this, yet I do think we should think more about it, and look to biblical examples for guidance.

The gospel is what unites Christians, not secondary issues of doctrine. We are never told to separate over anything other than gospel issues, quite the opposite, in fact.

Finally, cities have sections/neighborhoods, and those would be fine names for churches once a church is maxed out.

 

Manhattan has 53 neighborhoods, so that's a start. . .

The point is, a geographic name is best because the Church is united be Christ and His gospel, not denominational markers, and I say that as a Reformed believer.

 

Glad to hear it. I live n the other coast, so I was only guessing at the lack of Christians (I mean evangelical Christians, BTW) in SF, so, out of curiosity, I looked for some actual numbers.

Here's what I found: San Francisco Bay Area Least 'Church Going' Metro In America

 

No. I am not. Perhaps it was not stated well, though.

I understand your shock over my post because we are all accustomed to the way things currently are, but I ask you one thing before you dismiss what I said, please show me from scripture that churches were planted for any other reason than geographic area. Show me that three churches existed within close proximity because of theological distinction.

Does the scripture every say, "To the Baptist church at Ephesus"?

 

That completely misses my point.

 

Guys, your discussion brought to mind thoughts of Watchman Nee's teaching on the "city church". This seems somewhat related, but rather than distract the thread here, I have created a new one:
The City Church.