The Word Abused . . .

“CHURCH OF CHRIST CHURCH”

Billie Sol Estes got back into big time news media once more. On the “Update” page of a recent Newsweek there is an account of Billie Sol’s life in Abilene since his parole four years ago. Among other things it says, “He attends services at one of Abilene’s twelve Church of Christ churches.”

A reporter can be excused for using language that is a bit unorthodox in our own ranks. After all, in Abilene there are Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Church of God churches, and Church of Christ churches. The syntax is sound and it fits the facts of the case. But most of us are reluctant to say Church of Christ church since that so obviously makes Church of Christ a denominational title.

In moments of unguarded candor it does, however, appear. There was the widow who wrote in the Firm Foundation some years ago that she 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.” The frankness is admirable. She recognizes that he might be a Christian and still not belong to the “Church of Christ church,” and so she makes her stipulation clear. Nothing wrong with that. But many of our folk would insist that it’s enough to say Christian, for in being a Christian he would have to belong to the Church of Christ. But this sister was taking no chances. I’ve always wondered if she found her man, right there in the columns of the Firm Foundation.

A more recent article in the same journal, written by Leonard Mullens, longtime preacher in Dallas, writes in a similar vein to that of the widow and the Newsweek reporter. Explaining why it has been difficult to get a retirement plan for preachers off the ground, he writes: “We have found that we are really having to make our way over some ‘unplowed ground’ since each congregation of the church of Christ is independent.” To say “each congregation of the church of Christ” is the same as saying “one of the Church of Christ churches.” And they are both terribly abusive of the scriptural concept of the church.

It would indeed sound strange for Paul to write to the Corinthians and say: “to the church of God church which is at Corinth” or “to the congregation of the church of God which is at Corinth.” Or if Ro. 16:16 read: “the congregations of the churches of Christ salute you.” This would sound odd because “church of God” and “churches of Christ” in the scriptures are not names. They are not denominational designations. The church in the scriptures has no name, but is rather described in many different ways.

Church itself means assembly or congregation. To say, therefore, Assembly of God Church, is to say Assembly of God Assembly, which is to denominationalize. To say “congregation of the church of Christ” is to say “congregation of the congregation of Christ.” To say, as the apostles did, “the churches of Christ salute you” is to say “the congregations of Christ salute you.” It would therefore be tautological to write “the congregations of the congregation of Christ salute you.”

It would be normal to hear “Baptist Church congregations” or “congregations of the Baptist Church,” for the Baptist Church is admittedly a denominational appellation. That is their name, and for them to say “congregations of the Baptist Church” is a concession that there are other congregations (of Christ) that are not Baptist.

When we say “congregations of the church of Christ” or “church of Christ congregations” we are saying the same thing, even if it is not with the same candor. We are saying that “Church of Christ,” or “church of Christ,” if you like, is our name. Our Dallas brother would never have said to the Firm Foundation or elsewhere: “since each congregation of the church of God is independent,” for “Church of God” is not our name. It is already taken!

Paul had occasion to refer to all of the churches of his acquaintance, but notice how he did it: “If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). He did not say “nor do the congregations of the churches of God,” for that would have been ridiculous. Surely one could say “each Church of Christ” or “every Church of God” and be within scriptural province, for we find the apostles using such language, such as “I teach them everywhere in every church (of Christ)” (1 Cor. 4:17). But he would never have written: “I teach them everywhere in every congregation of the church of Christ,” for congregation is what “church” means. So 1 Cor. 4:17 could be translated: “I teach them everywhere in every congregation.”

We abuse the scriptures with our sectarian names, whether Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Roman Catholic Church, Church of God, Assembly of God, Christian Church, or Church of Christ. It would be awkward to say, “Christian Church church,” but it would be consistent since that description of God’s community is made into a denominational title. Just because a term is found in scripture does not justify us in making a sectarian name out of it. To use “Church of God” or “Christian Church” or “Church of Christ” in such a way as to imply that only we, only our own crowd, make up the Church of God or the Church of Christ on earth is to play the sectarian game with scriptural language.

In the light of scripture there is no such thing as all these denominations, including our own “Churches of Christ” and “Christian Churches.” The church is the Lord’s congregation, his body, his family, his community. There is only one such congregation, consisting of all those who are his children and none else. That family may be scattered throughout denominationalism, but they are his, not because they are Baptists or “Church of Christ” or whatever, but because they have been washed in “the bath of regeneration.” There ought to be no Baptist Church of Methodist Church or Church of Christ Church, but only the Body of Christ, which, while it bears no particular name, is ever calling upon the Name that is above every name. —the Editor

Was Uncle Dave a “Liberal”?

There are some in nonsectarian churches who are sectarians, who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sectarians. They are sectarians in their opposition to sectarians. There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the sectarianism of the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches who were baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike. —David Lipscomb, Questions and Answers, p. 592.

Was Brother Sewall a “Liberal”?

In teaching the office of baptism and the blessings secured, it does violence to the word of God to select one out of a number of blessings to which baptism brings the person and say this one must have been understood and have led to baptism, while ignoring all others. We find that Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, or to submit to God’s whole law for making persons righteous. This was to honor and obey God, the highest and most acceptable motive. —E.G. Sewell, Question.5 and Answers, p. 46.