WHAT’S IN A NAME?

In former days, as an orthodox Church of Christ (non-instrumental, Bible class, multiple container, pro-orphan home, located minister, kitchen and potluck dinner Church of Christ, that is) preacher, I had a favorite “canned” sermon entitled “What’s In A Name?” It consisted of argument for the name “Church of Christ” as the one proper name for the true church, local or universal. Many reasons were given such as references to the church as Christ’s bride, its belonging to him, etc.

When, later, I became aware of the fact that the church of apostolic times had been given no name at all, my parroted arguments began to look a little absurd. After much subsequent study and thought, I am now fully convinced that not only is such teaching unfounded, but it is also harmful.

What is in a name? I’m afraid that the use to which we have put the Lord’s name involves more that is detrimental than that is helpful. In theory, the designation of the church as “of Christ” has a certain significance. But a sense of this meaning is not conveyed by the day to day use of the name. To see the name “Church of Christ” on a sign does not assure the traveling church member that he will be among his own kind if he enters there, for there is a variety of factions wearing the same name but having little to do with each other. A member of another denomination, seeing the name, does not apprehend the meaning intended, but sees it as a denominational label which excludes him, and he does not venture to enter there. It takes more than a name to impress upon a man the place of esteem held by the Christ in our hearts.

Besides the fact that the use of the name fails to make the intended impression, the name is misused. The insistence upon the name “Church of Christ” is supposed to be a mark of loyalty to Christ which is lacking in others, Those who set store by the name use it to distinguish themselves from other Christian groups. We would do well to study again the account of division in Corinth, revealed in Paul’s first letter to those saints. In the church at Corinth (called “the church of God” in both letters) brothers were dividing themselves into factions and using names for purposes of distinction. Paul rebuked them all, saying, “It has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ’.” Why did Paul include those who said they belonged to Christ? Were they not the “faithful” brethren, and the rest the “digressors”? But Paul rebuked them all for quarreling. In chapter three he speaks of their prevailing carnality. Those who said “I belong to Christ” were not expressing an untruth, but it is possible that they were in error, just the same. If they were using His name to distinguish themselves from their brethren, they were misusing that name. In a very real and important sense they were “taking His name in vain.”

Most informed members of the “Church of Christ” today realize that the first-century church had no proper name, but they say that it is necessary now because of the plurality of denominations. What they do not realize is that to adopt a proper name for the purposes of distinction now both violates Paul’s teaching in I Cor. 1 and compounds the problem of denominationalism by making another denomination. Then when we consider our named (denominated) group as an exclusive group, and when we to any extent equate true Christianity with membership in our group, we are guilty of the most offensive sort of sectarianism.

What does a name on a sign signify? It says to all, “This church is denominated.” It says to the member of another group, “You do not belong here.” Often, in contradiction to the theory preached from the pulpits, the sign would seem to refer to the building instead of to the saints; otherwise, why should a building located in the center of town have a sign saying “Central Church of Christ”? In what way are the members “central”? Or why should the building located in the Rocky Heights or Pinewood sections have signs which read “Rocky Heights Church of Christ” or “Pinewood Church of Christ”? In practice, if not in theory, we have accepted the use of the word “church” in reference to the building. We speak of meetings, singings, youth rallies, etc. as being held “at” the Central Church of Christ, etc.

Hence, much of what we say about the church’s not being a building, sect, or denomination does not sound very convincing to anyone but ourselves. Would we not do better to abandon such petty, “carnal” (II Cor. 3:1-4), and hypocritical tactics? Would we not do better to put down this and other barriers to unity? We might actually live down some of the contempt we have earned and regain some of the power possessed by the apostolic church to overwhelm nations with the force of their testimony.

LETTERS

Editor:

To those who think that the Negro is greatly blessed by living in Christian America, may I suggest a test that might open your eyes to the real truth of the color problem — black up your face and hands and spend a day or a few days in some American city (Birmingham would do) and see how it feels to be black. You might try attending church among the brethren. A variation of this theme is to black up and attend church in your own congregation. If your preacher appeared in the pulpit in black face it might have such an emotional impact as to cause some people to see for the first time the problem that we are dealing with. To our colored brethren who would like to rise above this problem I suggest that there are great opportunities in the new nations of Africa. These countries are crying out for teachers, doctors, and engineers — in fact, all sorts of trained workers. You could help these nations so much if your services were put to use there.

— San       

Editor:

By what authority do you dispense with the prophets and apostles and yet retain the pastors and evangelists? (Eph. 4:11)

The Search for Truth

P.O. Box 162

Plano, Texas

Editor:

I read with interest the Truth Seekers’ Forum each month. Thus far it seems that there have been more questions than answers or comments. I will not be conceited enough to say that I have any answers, but I would like to make a few comments on reader A. A. D.’s question concerning Acts 20:7 which appeared in the March issue of Restoration Review.

In answer to the question, “For what Sort of breaking of bread did the disciples assemble?”, I will say that it is the bread of the Lord’s Supper, and not that of a common meal. The Lord’s Supper is to be eaten by Christians when assembled together as indicated by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:20.

I believe that the disciples regarded the observance of the Lord’s Supper as being primarily intended for the first day of the week. If not, then why did Paul and those with him tarry in Troas seven days? Why did not the disciples partake of the Lord’s Supper immediately upon Paul’s arrival so that he could continue on his journey sooner?

I would in no wise say that the breaking of bread mentioned in verse 11 of Acts 20 was that of the Lord’s Supper. The reason I say this is that this meal was eaten by Paul alone. Inasmuch as Paul was going to be traveling, this meal was for his Physical nourishment.

Insofar as stating the specific hour in which the disciples ate the Lord’s Supper, the scriptures do not. But by faith I believe that the disciples did what they gathered together to do. They ate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Christ and this was done upon the first day of the week.

A part of the confusion upon this scripture (Acts 20:7) comes from the very poor and inaccurate rendering of the New English N.T. which says, “ . . . on the Saturday night.” I do not believe the Greek will allow this wording. The verse says the disciples gathered upon the first day. Not the seventh!

As concerning the way time was counted in those days, consider the following verses: Mark 16:1,2 “ . . . the sabbath was past . . . very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun.” John 20:1 “the first day of the week. . . when it was yet dark.” John 20:19 “the same day at evening . . . “ Luke 24:1 “ . . . very early in the morning.” Luke 24:13 “ . . . that same day.” Luke 24:29 “ . . . it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.”

From these verses I believe we can see that Luke, when recording the history of the church, was referring to the Roman method of keeping time. From sun-up to sun-up. Therefore, after midnight (of Acts 20:7) was still the first day of the week and the bread that Paul broke was that of a common meal as the rest of the disciples did not join with Paul in the eating of it.

I join with Paul in saying, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Rom. 14:5. — D. E. C.