AUG 15, 2006 --
|
The Plaque of St. Saviour
It has been said that Anglican’s are People of the Book. I’ve never been quite sure if this refers to The Bible or to the Book of Common Prayer, now the Book of Alternative Services. Certainly, we rely on following set forms; and it does seem that we closely follow what is written down and sometimes are very critical when someone changes a prayer or prays extemporaneously, which is ironic for a church that is at the same time extremely liberal, as far as doctrine goes. We are a very complex lot!
This leads me to consider an issue that I’m almost afraid to raise: the name of our local church, St. Saviour’s. Are we ‘St. Saviour or ‘St. Saviour’s’? A plaque on the church placed by Heritage Trust says: “The Cathedral Church of Our Saviour.”
People identify with nomenclature. But sometimes we don’t know where names come from; however, common usage is everything. The point in question: who is St. Saviour?
The “Lives of the Saints” does not record such a saint ever existed. And when you think about it. Actually, “St. Saviour’s” is a possessive form of “The Church of our Saviour” and not the name of a saint. The question is: does the church belong to our Saviour or to us? The notion that “We are the Church” is a different perspective, rightly or wrongly, of our relationship with the church as a building or as a body of believers. At least since the 20th century, it has been less popular for it to be our relationship with Christ as our Saviour.
Regardless, this change in name reminds me of an ice breaking exercise where a message is passed from one person to another and gets distorted as it goes along; not very comforting when it comes to large issues such as doctrine.
Is it important? Some say yes and some say no. Most people are adamant about spelling their name correctly, so why not the name of the church?