Those of you on Facebook may have noticed a new quiz going around: “How Church of Christ Are You?” Written tongue in cheek, it got me to thinking about the name we use on the sign in front of our buildings. That led me, of all places, to the Bible. I compiled a short list of descriptions and/or names of the church in the New Testament. There are others, like body of Christ, bride of Christ, etc. But here’s some that sound like church names:
Church of God (Acts 20:28; 1Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1Th 2:14; 2Th 1:4)
Church of the living God (1Tim 3:15)
Church of the firstborn (Heb 12:23)
Churches of God (1Cor 11:16)
Churches of Christ (Rom 16:16)
Churches of the saints (1Cor 14:33)
Those, of course, are descriptions, not names. The only term I could think of that is used as a name is:
The Way (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22)
Can you think of others to add to my list?
Tim,
If we will accept that the word “church” is a simple term for “those assembled” could names such as Church of Christ could just as correctly be Assembly of Christ?
Church names are definitely one of my pet peeves.
At least arguing over them anyway!
Scott,
I got in trouble once by pointing out that “Assembly of God” is as biblical a name as “Church of Christ.” I’ve never been good at saying what people want to hear.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Trey,
I was at a church that was about to put up a new sign. I told them that I had absolutely no problem with using the name Church of Christ… as long as we didn’t have to. If someone tells me we have to use that name, that’s where the problems begin.
Grace and peace,
Tim
There is certainly something in that name when the phrase “Church of Christ / Churches of Christ” is used as an adjective of identity to desscrie a specific noun such as university, campus-ministry, childrens-home, etc… When the phrase is used as an adjective of identity, it definitely becomes a denominating term (meaning, to name). I know that in our history we do not want to be a denomination in any sort of way but as long is one phrase/term is almost exclusively used to identify congregations and para-church ministries associated with our fellowship (denomination?) then I see no way around this reality.
That itself does not bother me as much as when people use the phrase “church of Christ / churches of Christ” (note the lower case “c” in church), a description phrase of the entire universal body of Christ both geographically and historically, to refer to our fellowship alone. Such usage reduces the body of Christ to a very small number of people in light of the larger body of Christ (again, both geographically and historically) that have been in existance as a movement for a relatively short period of time when one considers the entire history of God’s people. This usage stems from our secterian past which I both reject and believe is as unbiblical as rather modern form of denominationalism that we have raised so much protest against.
I have much more I could say on the use of a name and what it is that we are identified with but I will stop with one plea: that we never lose sight of Jesus Christ who gives us our real identity.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
I too fear a denominational use of the terms like Church of Christ. The phrase should always be descriptive, but we’ve used it to designate who is and who isn’t a part of Christ’s church.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Rightly or wrongly, I’ve come toaccept that the realityis that weneed to use a “denominating” label(Sign out Front) to help those who have a similar set of beliefs and practice find a group they will be “comfortable” assembling with. Without that reason I would rather simple use a sign that says “The church that assembles (meets) at .. (say) 5th & Vine.
Regretably, using a sign for the first reason tends to degenerate into a label that says “we are THE church of Christ” which by implication means that any group with a different sign are NOT “THE” church. Sad — In my personal usage in teaching when refer to to the local congregation I try to say something like “this church family” or “group of Christians that assembles here” and deliberately avoid the “sign” name.
However,I know that many of those I tryto shepherd have a different view of the importance of the name and to “exclusiveness” of who really is a Christian. Sometimes I weep over this type of what I consider arrogance and lack of understanding of the grace of God in accepting those who diligently seek him (regardless of how much they have discovered or what they have understood about the details of God’s will for our lives (how we should behave individually and what we practice together in our assemblies)
God Bless
Charlie
BTW – I don’t think FB should be used for this type of things – satirical or otherwise (unless it is restricted to a specific group that people subscribe to)-
I agree with Richard Mansel at Forthright that families shouldn’t “air their dirty laundry in public”
God Bless
Charlie
Charlie,
Thanks for the comments. I agree about the dirty laundry part. Remember the Oklahoma churches that took out a newspaper ad to criticize the congregation that chose to use instruments? Sad.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
People in other parts of the US, including me, never read an ad such as you mentioned. Is that “criticizing” other congregations by doing that, or spreading a little gossip? Help me understand this. Since each congregation, or fellowship of believers, is supposed to be autonomous, I don’t see the scriptural basis for groups “banning” other groups, unless there is another scriptural basis for the ban, not just a preference. Why do we have to pick at inconsequential things, when there is a world lost in sin we need to be teaching? And I have used the term “church of Christ” to mean that the church is not more important than the one who established it. I do wish we could somehow just be known as Christians, followers of Christ, but K. Rex Butts is correct, in that we need some method of locating fellow believers when traveling or moving to another area. The denominational world considers us to be a denomination, and probably the main reason is because of our “signs.”
Jeanne,
You can see the ads here:
http://jayguin.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/oklahoman_ad_red1.pdf
http://jayguin.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/oklahomanad2.jpg
(Thanks to Jay Guin’s blog for this info — http://oneinjesus.info/2008/03/23/quail-springs-church-of-christ-disfellowshipped-more-of-the-same/)
I too do not believe our fellowship is a denomination in the classical sense such as the Lutheran Church (Missourie Synod) or the United Methodist Church. Does that mean we are not a denomination and instead just a fellowship of congregations with similar theological values? Some of the church groups (e.g., Assemblies of God) that we would describe as a “denomination” would refute that claim and counter it with the claim of being a non-denominational fellowship of congregations with similar theological values? We would counter by saying “don’t you have a national conference gathering?” And they would respond “don’t you CoC’s have your regional lectureships? We would then counter by saying that our churches have no governing authority beyond the local congregation. And they woud say “just like our congregations too.”
Here is my point: I think the words “fellowship” and “denomination” is more just a matter of semantics. People all over the world gather around a shared set of values. And in the 21st century where there is so much confusion regarding what it means to be church among Christians, I see no way of being a Christian that is part of the body of Christ without gathering around those whith whom we share the same basic theological values. Without any criticism of the Assemblies of God, I would certainly not fit well into their group with my understanding of scripture and church. Somewhere in the Restoration Movement, Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches, is where I belong. However, being identified with a certain group does not prevent me from affirming and blessing those outside of my group who also confess the name of Jesus. That is perahps one way to practice non-secterian and non-denominational Christianity in a reality such as ours.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Thanks, Tim, but I really don’t want to read the ads. Does that make me a turtle pulling into its shell or an ostrich hiding my head in the sand? I keep praying that the brotherhood that I love will come to love without the criticism and division that I sense in some places. I go to lectureships, I go to seminars, but I don’t “swallow” everything that is taught. Jim McGuiggan, when asked why he used the NIV Bible, said something like, “I have learned to chew and spit out what is not true (paraphrased).” I read lots of blogs, but don’t agree with everything written therein. I just learn something from them all. I attend a fellowship with the name “Church of Christ” on the building because that identifies who worships inside, but I don’t “go to church” as some say they do. If there were a way to distinguish where to worship with believers without a title, that would be wonderful. Paul made it a practice to go to the synagogue, if there was one, but he managed to find worshippers, such as in Philippi, when there was no synagogue. In our large cities, how would we do that? This is the only reason I believe we use some title, because as you started this blog, God didn’t give a definitive ONE name for Christ’s body – the church.
Tim said “(Thanks to Jay Guin’s blog for this info )” Just my opinion, but maybe, just maybe we should think twice before we pass on this “gossip” to those who haven’t heard. I believe that is the definition of gossip. “Have you heard what he said”? why no!! Well let me tell you! Please do!! ( just thought I would get my gossip in there) :)
” did anyone hear what Tim said”?
Laymond,
I disagree. Relating something that was done in public media is not gossip. This became public when the ads were purchased.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, that is what makes the world go-round I believe one thing, you believe another. anyone you accuse of gossip, can use that same excuse. “Well I didn’t start it” or ” if it is true , it ain’t gossip” . :)
Funny, though, I didn’t use either of those arguments.
If you quote to someone else what I have posted on this blog, I don’t consider it gossip. I’ve published it publicly, thereby subjecting my ideas to the scrutiny of others. The reporting of public speech (or in this case, printed material) isn’t gossip. Otherwise, the gospels and the book of Acts are nothing but gossip.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Gossip is idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.
You are probably right, Tim, but sometimes the spreading of known and personal truths can be damaging to the Church, sometimes the hurtful truth is best left alone, to die a natural death, instead of being resurrected to live again and again. Just my opinion.