THE NAME OF THE CHURCH

Dr. Claude E. Spencer of the Disciples of Christ Historical Society once told me that the name we are to wear is one of the most controversial issues in the history of discipledom, and he added that this is the one subject that has been badly neglected by researchists.

It is common knowledge to our historians that Campbell and Stone had their differences on this issue, Campbell preferring the name Disciples, while Stone insisted that Christians was the God-ordained name. This difference was not resolved in the great union that was effected in 1831, and so both terms were used widely. But the debate has continued. Not only in regard to the name or names the believer is to wear, but as to how a congregation or a group of congregations is to be designated. To this day it is confusing, for the heirs of the Restoration heritage are variously named Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ and often times a mixture of any two of these.

The Disciples of Christ were for a longtime officially so designated, but in recent years they have changed their name to Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), while the second group, commonly called Independent Christian Churches, barely tolerate the appendage and prefer simply Christian Churches, though they often use Churches of Christ. The latter group is the most exclusive of the three, using Church of Christ on virtually every sign, and as an adjective it is used in reference to preachers, colleges, journals, and we even hear of Church of Christ doctrine.

It may as well be conceded that these three groups, heirs of a Movement intended to unite the Christians in all the sects, are now three distinct denominations, however the names are passed around. One evidence of this is that only these particular names are ever used. None of our buildings or literature ever bears such a designation as Church of the Lord, Church of God, or even Christ’s Church, as one denomination prefers to call itself. Being a denomination may not be all that bad, and it is important to distinguish that likelihood from being a sect. But it is folly for two of these groups (the Disciples excepted) to disclaim denominational status. It necessarily follows that if a group of people identify themselves by a particular name, using it exclusively and so separating themselves from other believers (who may also be exclusively denominated), it is indeed a denomination.

To be non-denominational a group of believers would have to have only universal (catholic) characteristics, with nothing in their name, doctrine or practice that would in itself be peculiar to them, thus setting them apart from others.

While we appreciate the problem that Dr. Spencer called to our attention, and while we would welcome a serious study of our history on the name, this essay is intended only to be an approach to the question from a different angle. Suppose someone not of our Movement should argue that the exclusive name that he and his people wear is the proper name for the church, how would he fare?

I am impressed with a tract issued by Gulf-Coast Bible College entitled Did God Forget to Name the Church?,written by Everett I. Carver. Mr. Carver acknowledges that the church is variously designated the family, the vine, the body, and the bride, but these are based upon analogy and are not names. There is but the one name that God gave His church, the Church of God.

He goes on to comment upon some ten instances in which the scriptures speak of the Church of God. In Acts 20:28 it is the Church of God that the elders are to feed; it was the Church of God that Paul says he persecuted, according to Gal. 1:13 and 1 Cor. 15:9; in 1 Cor. 10:32 Paul urges the believers to cause no offense to the Church of God. In 1 Tim. 3:5 Paul talks of how the bishop is to take care of the Church of God and in 1 Cor. 11:22 he shames those who would despise the Church of God.

When congregations are referred to as a whole, or all believers included, the name is still Church of God in the plural, Mr. Carver observes., 1 Thess. 2:14 refers to the Churches of God in Christ Jesus and 1 Cor. 11:16 speaks of what the Churches of God practice and do not practice.

In both of his letters to Corinth the apostle addresses them as “the church of God which is at Corinth.” That such was indeed the name of the church at Corinth is strengthened by the non-canonical Epistle of Clement, who was a bishop in Rome, writing to the Corinthians. Says Clement: “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth.”

All this should be persuasive to anyone who is searching the scriptures for a name for the church. Surely if anyone name is to be chosen, based on frequency of use in the scriptures, it would have to be the Church of God.

How about the three names our folk have adopted? Alexander Campbell preferred Disciple for the individual believer, for this is the usual term applied to him in scripture. But only by implication do we go from that to Disciples of Christ for the name of the church, and the church is never so designated in scripture. It cannot be proved that Christian was a God-given name rather than a nickname given by outsiders, and it is noteworthy that no believer ever so designates himself or another believer, not even Luke, the church’s first historian. Never did he call the disciples Christians. And to go from there to Christian Church is no less precarious, however appropriate the term appears.

How about Church of Christ? This name has been contended for on the ground that the church is the bride of Christ and so should wear his name. But that would call for the Church of Jesus, since the Bible makes it clear that “his name shall be called Jesus.” He is called the Christ in that he was the anointed one of God, but that was not his name.

Even so the name does not appear anywhere in scripture. Rom. 16:16 refers to Churches of Christ in the plural, a fact that has to be overworked in making Church of Christ the name for the church. Mr. Carver is aware of Rom. 16:16 and comments as follows.

“This single usage is inadequate to offset the many texts where church of God and churches of God are used. In addition to this, the universal church is never called the church of Christ, no, not once.”

I respectfully submit to you that Mr. Carver has made a good case for his contention. In the light of the scriptures it would be folly to argue either for Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, or Churches of Christ in preference to Churches of God. Should the leaders of all denominations assemble in an effort to agree upon one name only, one would suppose that they would be hard put to bypass the Church of God for any other designation.

To those of us who use Church of Christ not only exclusively but almost demandingly (It is after all our name!), Mr. Carver’s thesis should be especially provocative. If we are going to say that the church has a name, one that we will use exclusively, we have a weak case in contending that that name is Church of Christ over against the array of scriptural testimony given by Mr. Carver.

Now Mr. Carver is not just saying that Church of God is more frequently used in scripture, but that this name is the name God gave his church. Here his case weakens, for it cannot be proved that the church has any name at all. One problem is in the term church, which is a poor translation of ecclesia. So Mr. Carver’s first concession would have to be Congregation of God or Community of God instead of Church of God, which would foul up as many signboards and sermon outlines among his folk as among ours.

Too, if God had actually named His church, the evidence would be more abundant and that one name more pronounced in scripture. After all, the term church (granting the questionable translation) occurs 112 times in the New Covenant scriptures, usually simply as the church, which dwarfs the few times that Church of God occurs.

Mr. Carver’s thoughtful tract is asking if God forgot to name the church. The answer to that could be that He did not forget to name it, but that He simply did not choose to name it. Why should He name it? Was His community on earth to be in competition with others of a similar nature that it would have to be distinguished by a name? Argue as he will, Mr. Carver’s knowledge of scripture will force the admission that God nowhere names the church anything. He has given the church numerous descriptive designations, depending upon the function or relationship, but never anyone name, If He did so name it, then He denominated it and it is a denomination.

Mr. Carver needs to realize, just as my folk do, that even a scriptural designation of the church can become a sectarian title — even when one has more “Brownie points” than the other fellow in terms of occurrences in scripture. A party name can be lifted from the Bible as well as outside the Bible. Paul was as much distressed over the party of Christ (or God if you like) at Corinth as he was the parties of Cephas or Paul.

If we erect meetinghouses, they might well be named whatever we choose, whether Truett Memorial Church, Park Street Meetinghouse, or Brooks Chapel, but the Body of Christ should be given no name and its members should have no party labels. The church, whether in a catholic or local sense, should be referred to as God’s assembly, the community of Christ, the fellowship of saints, the congregation of the first-born — or, if we must use the word church, then the Church of God, the Church of Christ, etc. But never one name to the exclusion of others.

More important is what we think when we identify the church. If in using Church of Christ I have in mind less than all those who are in Christ, then I am fostering sectarianism. So with Church of God or any other scriptural description. You can have a “Church of God” sect as well as any other sect.

But still more important is that we be the church, however we identify ourselves. If people call themselves Lutherans, they are obviously wearing a human name, but if they behave as the Body of Christ is this not better than wearing a scriptural name and living unexemplary lives?

In Eph. 1:23 the apostle not only sees Jesus as head of the church, which is his body, but identifies the church as “the fullness of him who fills all in all.” The church then is to be filled with Jesus, and it is to be his likeness in this world, When this is realized, there will be no problem in naming the church. Even the world will see us for what we are and will identify us accordingly, as disciples of the Prince of Peace. —the Editor