CHURCH OF CHRIST CHURCH

Back in January of 1966 I wrote an editorial in this journal with the above title, drawing my inspiration from a notice in the Firm Foundation, written by a woman who sought to correspond with a man “who must be a member of the Church of Christ Church.” My comments were in the woman’s defense, not only in terms of her social courage, but of the appropriateness of her terminology. There is indeed a Church of Christ Church, just as there is an Assembly of God Church, both of which are different from the Assembly of God and the Church of Christ of the scriptures. Just as “Church of God Church” would be more appropriate than “Church of God,” as used by that denomination, so would “Church of Christ Church” be a proper description by those who exclusively employ “Church of Christ.”

I was recently reminded of that editorial and of the good sister in the Firm Foundation (wondering too if she ever found a man!) when I was deluged by that admirable term “Church of Christ Church.” Again it was a woman, but this time one who was a guest in our home and a lifetime member of the Church of Christ, whose father is an elder in the church and all of that. She was a bona fide cat, truly one of us, but she used “Church of Christ Church” all evening. It was refreshing to hear it. It was one more way that she was admitting that the church of her fathers was indeed another denomination, which within itself was nothing so terrible but only the result of the confused state of religion she had inherited. She had not left nor was she declaring war, but was simply facing facts as they are.

A few days later I was reading Sentinel of Truth, edited by that old war horse, Charles Holt, a delightful Christian and a Church of Christer from way back, and of the most conservative persuasion. He threw this at me in one of his editorials: “It is apparently becoming increasingly harder for the members of the Church of Christ Church to do this kind of studying.” He went on to use the term again in the article. Church of Christ Church! And that coming from one of our editors who a few years ago would insist that we not only be addressed as Church of Christ, but church of Christ with the lower case c.

That lower case c business is still a shibboleth that is observed meticulously, and continues to be in my view the most asinine of all our asinine ways. A few editors outside the Church of Christ wing are trying their best, Out of deference to our wishes, to keep their c’s straight. They’ll write things like: “Representatives were there from the Baptist Church, Disciples of Christ, churches of Christ . . . “ which leaves me cold in embarrassment. How ridiculous can we get! As I have observed in several editorials, Church of Christ is a fitting reference to the congregation of Christ, and has been so used by many writers, with or without the capital C.

Are we really trying to kid ourselves that all the others are denominations while we are something special? We outdo the Pharisees with this bit about the small c, and along with it we reveal an unnecessary ignorance. There is nothing improper about referring to the congregation that Christ built as the Church of Christ or the Church of God with the capital C. In previous editorials I have pointed out that the most august of religious writers, including the great historians, have employed the term Church of Christ in ways obviously unsectarian. We stiffen ourselves and use “church of Christ” in a sectarian fashion (by applying it to only one part of God’s people), while they relax themselves and use “Church of Christ” in an unsectarian way (by applying it to all God’s people).

While perhaps unintended, the most orthodox among us use terminology that is equal to “Church of Christ Church.” A recent full-page ad in the Denton paper read “The congregations of the Church of Christ welcome you.” This is the same as saying “The Church of Christ Churches welcome you.” Does not church mean congregation?

But the point of these remarks is to say that I am gratified and encouraged by this frank and honest admission, on the part of some at least, that we too have our sectarian ways. The first step toward reform is an admission that we are in need of it.