WHEN A CHURCH OF CHRIST CHANGES ITS NAME

Ours is a world of change, and that includes the churches, including Churches of Christ. Oddly enough, we have a number of churches that are concerned about the name we have always worn, the Church of Christ. Being strongly biblical as a people, we have insisted that the church of the New Testament has many names, but we have nonetheless, as a group separated from others of our heritage, the Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ, denominated ourselves by but one of those biblical names, the Churches of Christ.

I presume that makes us a denomination since that is what denomination means, to be denominated, but that is not the point of this essay. I am writing about those changing Churches of Christ who have grown uneasy over their denominational appellation.

Some have long since dropped the name Church of Christ and are simply known as “chapel” or “church,” such as Dunn Rd. Chapel in St. Louis and Random Rd. Chapel in Arkansas City, Ks., and Southwest Church in Dallas and Brook Valley Church in Atlanta. Some of these might now have only marginal interest in any connection with Churches of Christ, if any at all. This would surely be true of one of the oldest Churches of Christ in Nashville, the Belmont Church, which is now also “instrumental,” for they would probably repudiate any connection with what they once were.

On the other hand, one of the “most changed” of our churches, the Arcadia Church of Christ in Arcadia, Ca., also now “instrumental” (only a guitar!) is pleased to remain a Church of Christ. So with our congregation here in Denton, Texas, though we use the device of naming our facility the Christian Fellowship Center, so if one of our members does not want to be “Church of Christ,” she can simply say she attends the Christian Fellowship Center. We are also acappella in our corporate worship, so our Church of Christ visitors are comfortable enough. The other name on our sign does not disturb them so long as “Church of Christ” is there, and they adjust fairly well to our more “open” type service.

An interesting case of what might be called “the name change trauma” is the Quail Valley Church of Christ in Houston, which only recently became simply Quail Valley Church (though their sign will also bear some such motto as “Lifting Up Christ”). Since this step was a painful one for them, an ordeal stretching over many months of discussion and prayer, it might prove helpful to the rest of us to know some of the facts of the case, whether we are bothered with the name we wear or not.

Jim Bevis, a minister in that church, was for many years with the Brook Valley Church in Atlanta, so he has been out on the growing edge of change for a long time. I have listened to his one-hour tape that tells the story of how the Quail Valley Church of Christ became the Quail Valley Church, and it is a story that deserves a place in the history of our people. It may be a story that will be repeated many times by other of our churches in years to come.

The thesis that challenged the leadership at Quail Valley was whether or not being a “Church of Christ” best represented the mission of that church. Since they were longtime Church of Christ folk (Jim Bevis himself a member for 40 years), it was with agonizing prayer and study that they finally broke this connection. And that is the way to put it, for they have not simply repainted a sign but no longer want to be affiliated, however loosely, with the Churches of Christ. Still they claim to be a church of Christ after the order of the New Testament, but not a part of what Jim chooses to call “the denominational Church of Christ.”

Speaking for the church and the elders, Jim Bevis gave the reasons for this change, and if the rest of us are interested in “getting our act straight” we will heed the reasons for this wholesale walkout. Is it sectarian to say that we have lost a church? Perhaps not if we admit that the Lord has not necessarily lost one.

I noted ten charges against the Churches of Christ from the tape, and I will list them with a brief description. If they are serious enough to lead a Church of Christ to cease being a Church of Christ, should they not demand our attention?

1. The Church of Christ believes in a domesticated God. This was named as “a very serious difference” between Quail Valley and Churches of Christ, for they see the rest of us as believing in a God who is no longer active in people’s lives, while they believe in a miracle-working God.

2. The Church of Christ believes in a limited Christ. He is not the same yesterday, today and forever in that he can’t do what he did then.

3. The Church of Christ is wrong in its teaching about the Holy Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament and then retired, while they believe he dwells in the heart and is active in the life of the believer.

4. The Church of Christ believes in salvation by works. We may deny it, but still we teach it. Jim sees the Church of Christ failure to distinguish between the gospel and doctrine as responsible for this, for even being right about instrumental music is made part of the gospel, so we must be right even in these things to be saved.

5. The Church of Christ believes it is the only true church and that they are the only Christians. Jim concedes he believed this for many years and insists that it is the “general” belief of our people, though there are now many exceptions. This radical exclusivism that disfranchises other Christians seems to be reason enough why Quail Valley wanted out. About one-half of their members are non-C of C in background, and when they visited other Churches of Christ they would bombard the leadership with “Is that what we are supposed to believe?”

6. The Church of Christ emphasizes externals to the neglect of the heart. While we stress the right name, right baptism, right day for Communion, right way of doing things, we do not stress the mission of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s heart or a love for all Christians. Jim Bevis’ refers often to his long ministry in the Church of Christ when he had nothing to learn from others since he already had all the answers. Referring to his discovery of the Spirit, he made an interesting observation: “If people are weak on the Holy Spirit they are weak on the nature of the spiritual warfare.” Jim indicates that for many years he did not know who the enemy was.

7. The Church of Christ believes in but one baptism and that is water baptism. At Quail Valley they teach the baptism of the Holy Spirit, though they may not be what we would call a “charismatic” church. Even on water baptism, Jim says that only in recent years has he learned that baptism represents what God has already done in the heart.

8. The Church of Christ believes in a “Restoration Movement” that implies that the church ceased to exist and then was restored, and the Church of Christ is that restored church. Bevis believes the church has always existed, as per Jesus’ promise that it would, but that it always needs reformation. Quail Valley now apparently has no interest in a “Restoration Movement”.

9. The Church of Christ does not plead for biblical unity but for sectarian conformity. While we talk about unity we are the most divided church of all, and this is because we equate “understanding alike” with unity. Jim tells how he discovered brotherhood with a minister in the Christian Church and said to him: “Can you believe that an organ has separated us all these years?”

10. The Church of Christ preaches a message that has no power. We may have a form of godliness but we deny the power thereof. Jim said he prayed that the Lord would show him a good illustration of this point for his presentation. That very day the mail brought a copy of an ad run in a Ft. Worth paper by the Churches of Christ offering a $1,000 reward for proof that God works miracles today. That did it! Jim says he wants no part with a people that dares to tell the world what God can and can’t do.

So, the Quail Valley Church of Christ took down its sign and put up a different one, which is the most visible thing a church can do who wants out. We do not even have a Yearbook to which a church can demand, Remove our name! But Quail Valley not only changed signs and letterheads, they called a public meeting and told why. They concluded it would be unfair to Churches of Christ for them to go on claiming to be what they are not, and unfair to their own people for Church of Christisms to be imposed upon them.

They concede that the charges they level do not apply to all Churches of Christ and that many of us see things more or less the way they do. Neither do they say that other Churches of Christ should do as they have done, but only that this is what they believe they should do, their mission being what it is.

I disagree with Quail Valley’s decision in that we all have come from somewhere, and that it is best that we stay where we are and be what we believe our people should be. The “stay where you are” approach is what reformation is all about, whether it be an individual in a stuffy church or a church in a stuffy denomination. A Baptist church that wants for the world the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, a vision that would become us all, could probably contribute more toward that vision by remaining a “Baptist” church, at least in name. This would enable them to minister more effectively to Baptists and thus move them toward a catholic view of the Body of Christ. If enough of this happens in all the denominations, this may be the Father’s way of answering our Lord’s prayer for the unity of all God’s people.

If you leave, where do you go? If to another denomination, what is really gained? If not to another denomination, the only option left is to be an independent church, cut off from one’s roots like a cut flower. I am convinced we lose when we ignore history, when we act as if it does not matter what has happened to the church in past generations. To assume that we can start over from scratch, just like that, is to be unrealistic. We are what we are, good and bad, because of what the church of yesteryear has passed along to us, our own individual denominations, and we should labor to maximize the good and minimize the bad and thus work for the unity of God’s church on earth, where we are.

As for me, I thank God for my heritage in the Church of Christ and I am not about to leave. I know where we have come from and I am convinced that we have betrayed our heritage. I don’t believe in a “Restoration Movement” because Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone did not, and I agree almost 100% with Quail Valley in the charges they make against us, which to me is all the more reason for staying! To me it would be a cop out not to stay and fight for those changes that will make the Church of Christ what she ought to be as a denomination in protest, witnessing to the church at large for that one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

I cannot of course insist that all others in the Church of Christ do as I have resolved to do. But I wish they would, for if all our renewal-minded folk leave where does that leave us in terms of renewal? Renewal, like charity, begins at home. Most will stay, and down the road there will be victory, believe me. If you could read my mail, you would believe me! —the Editor