CHURCH OF CHRIST CHURCH

In the classified section of a recent issue of Firm Foundation appeared this ad from an enterprising sister:

A Christian widow would like to correspond with a Christian widower or bachelor, 65 or 70 years of age, who must be a member of the Church of Christ Church.-Mrs. A. C. Carter, 217 C. N.W., Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401.

We are not trying to blame the editor of the Firm Foundation for anything in this ad, for it is not of his authorship. We do not intend to criticize the dear sister either. As a matter of fact we rather admire the ad and find it most interesting. We hope she finds her man! It is surely as good a way to shop as any, and we think it would be exciting if romance bloomed as a result of an ad in the Firm Foundation. Perhaps a re-run of the ad in this journal will enhance our sister’s chances all the more.

She is, of course, somewhat unorthodox in the terminology she uses, and one who is in on the know might wonder how she made her way into the columns of the Firm Foundation with such language as “Church of Christ Church”. Suppose such terminology has ever appeared there before?

And is the dear sister implying that one might be a Christian widower or bachelor and not belong to the Church of Christ Church? She says she wants him to be a Christian, and then stipulates the church he must belong to. That is unorthodox too. She must be a liberal. If he is a Christian, then he would have to be a member of the Church of Christ Church! She could have saved a line in her ad by simply saying “a Christian widower or bachelor”, for the readers of the Firm Foundation would have understood that if he is a Christian he most certainly would be a member of the Church of Christ Church. Whoever heard of a Christian in the Firm Foundation who is not a member of the Church of Christ Church?

Admittedly the sister is not as definite as she supposes herself to be, for there are numerous kinds of Church of Christ Churches, with lines of fellowship clearly drawn between them. If she began a correspondence with a man in a different kind of Church of Christ Church than the one to which she belongs, they would have to resolve the problem of fellowship before the romance got very far. She might have said “loyal Church of Christ Church”, bur this too is ambiguous, for we have at least a dozen different kinds of loyal Church of Christ Churches in Texas alone.

Well, that matter can be worked out once the correspondence is under way. She can check on the preachers he knows and the papers he reads and the college he supports, and find out if he is in the right one. It is a problem, we know. This is one of the lesser reasons why we are working for one great brotherhood of disciples. Our lord’s prayer is the main reason, of course, but it may also help matrimonial opportunities. This sister might well find just the man she is looking for among the premillennialists or the non-Sunday School brethren, but as of now this would hardly work our.

We realize that those who are of pure speech within our party would criticize the sister for such inexcuseable language as “Church of Christ Church”. Those who know how to use perfect party lingo might seldom, if ever, speak of the church as “the Church of God”, but they surely would not say “Church of Christ Church”. Horrors! This calls for a sermon on the language of Ashdod.

We wish to defend the sister. Her terminology is most consistent to the condition that exists. The term “Church of Christ Church” is as correct as “Assembly of God Church”. Both are, of course, sectarian appellations, but they both refer to sectarian bodies. If we all adopted the sister’s terminology it would help to clear the air, and it would give us a better image in the Christian world. To say “Assembly of God” is to refer scripturally to all the children of God, for they indeed compose God’s congregation or assembly. But to say “Assembly of God, Church” quite properly refers to but one party within the church at large. This is to assume that some of those in the “Assembly of God Church” belong to the Assembly of God, which we hope is not presuming too much.

So with the Church of Christ. It denotes all Christians everywhere. But “Church of Christ Church” refers to only one group or perhaps several similar groups within the Church of Christ. Again we suppose that there are those within the Church of Christ Church that truly belong to the Church of Christ, which we trust is not taking too much for granted.

Language should denote what one means, and it should be unambiguous. When a man tells me he belongs to the Church of God, I am tempted to tell him that I do too. If he should say, “Church of God Church”, it would help to clear the air. For this reason the people who designate themselves the Assembly of God Church are communicating better. We are persuaded, therefore, that the sister who wants to meet a boy friend who belongs to the Church of Christ Church is speaking more forthrightly. Otherwise a Christian Church brother or an Episcopalian might starr writing to her, insisting that he belongs to the Church of Christ. But no one will answer her ad except the ones she has in mind when she lays it on the line and says “Church of Christ Church”.

Now if our brethren are serious about not wearing any denominational name, and if they really want to avoid any sectarian appellation, then let them drop the name Church of Christ as their exclusive title. They will then erect signs that simply identify the meeting place of Christians, or the assembly, or the church. They will use Church of God, which occurs 12 times more frequently than Church of Christ in the scriptures, or Christian Church, which appears in some versions, or Assembly of God, or Church of the Firstborn as frequently and as meaningfully as Church of Christ. We have done to “Church of Christ” precisely what others have done to “Church of God”. It is just as easy to sectarianize a name that is in the Bible as it is one that is not in the Bible. This is to assume that “Church of Christ” is in the scriptures, which can be questioned.

The truth is that the Church of Christ of the scriptures has no name, certainly no one name, if we make “name” merely mean designation and not a title. The body of Christ is called various things, and each designation has its own special meaning. We therefore lose something when we take but one of those designations to the exclusion of the others.

Well, we hope the good sister finds her man, whether he belongs to the Church of Christ or to the Church of Christ Church. He might, of course, belong to both. We would caution her, however, that one is not necessarily a Christian just because he belongs to the Church of Christ Church. But she is apparently aware of that, for she insists that he be both a Christian and a member of the Church of Christ Church.

I would like to meet this sister. She is surely an astute and insightful woman. I think I’ll help her find a husband--one that belongs to the Church of Christ Church!