206 About that Name
Apologies to many of my readers: this question will either amuse or bore those outside of my religious tribe, but it is important enough to spend a column on.
I’ve been trying to get my leadership to get rid of the whole “Church of Christ” label. We’re not the old traditional CoC anymore and that name links us with all the super traditional congregations around us. People don’t want to visit because they think they’d be judged or yelled at. How can I convince the elders that we need to move on away from that name and the baggage it carries?
Let’s do some history first. When the Spirit moved so many people in so many places to jettison their creeds and denominational names and to unite as Christians only (beginning around 1780), the question of what name to wear came up many times. By the 1830s there were some who just called themselves Christians while others — most notably those who came from Campbell’s wing of the movement — preferred the name “Disciples.” The Disciples referred to their whole segment of the unity/restoration movement as the Disciples of Christ while Barton Stone’s people (almost as numerous) called themselves the Christian Church. So where did we get the name “Church of Christ”?
I wish I could go into detail here about how the separation occurred (read Ben Brewster’s “Torn Asunder” available at Amazon for the story) — especially during and after the Civil War — resulting in the northern churches, most of whom called themselves Disciples of Christ, being recognized officially as a separate religious tribe from the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches by the first decade of the 20th century… but that is not my remit this evening. If we get questions about the history of our movement, I’d be happy to address that. (in fact, you can hear the “Identity” series we are presenting if you go to www.rochestercoc.org. It deals with a lot of this) The churches in the Restoration Movement (aka the Stone-Campbell Movement) south of the Mason-Dixon line generally called themselves Christian Churches or Churches of Christ. How they got that latter name is actually a rather cool story.
There were two reasons that name was chosen. The first reason is the one most in that religious tribe know: there was an insistence that those in this movement “call Bible things by Bible names.” They believed in the Trinity, for example, but they refused to use that term; instead preferring the rather odd translation rendered in English “Godhead.” When it came for a name for their church, they couldn’t find it called The Disciples of Christ or The Christian Church but they COULD find “the churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16. But there were other names such as “Church of God” or “Assembly of the Saints” or “Those Called Out”… so why choose this one?
Because it best reflected the intentions of those who began this movement. The first reformers were very, very interested in uniting believers in Christ by stripping away all the intervening centuries of cultures, traditions, creeds, etc. calling all to come to Jesus as Christians only. As this was a church that welcomed all who would come, they needed a name that showed how open their doors and hearts were. There are two ways of saying “all believers everywhere.” One of them was already used — “Catholic Church.” “Catholic” means universal and before it became a brand name of the Roman and Orthodox set of tribes, it meant “all believers.” The other way to say that was — throughout history — “The church of Christ.” Note that many churches of Christ still prefer to put a little “c” on “church” to indicate that this was never intended to be regarded as a denominational or brand name, but as a way to say “simply believers” or “Christians only.”
Over the years — and endless debate could ensue on when it started and when the idea really took off — the name became something different: an exclusive brand name. At least… it did in our eyes. In the religious world at large, the term “church of Christ” still refers to the larger body of believers — aka Christendom. Everyone from Catholics to Mormons refer to themselves by that term in some of their literature. The name isn’t copyrighted (nor can it be — religious body names are like book titles, exempt from copyright law) so there is also the United Church of Christ, the most liberal denomination in all Protestantism (the Unitarian/ Universalists are arguably more liberal, but they don’t consider themselves Protestants). The UCC has zero history or connection with The Church of Christ. Likewise, the World Council of Churches of Christ have nothing to do with the Stone-Campbell movement or Churches of Christ. The WCCC sees itself as the voice of all believers — and that is why it uses a name for itself that we would rather we, alone, held title to.
Some Churches of Christ abandoned the goal of unity and focused entirely on restoration of the singular faith and practice they believed existed in the pristine, ancient, New Testament church. That quickly turned the “Church of Christ” into a brand name. Rather than being an open door/open heart church, it formed its own conclusions about what was acceptable in worship and doctrine and enforced strict conformity to those conclusions via debates and, most notably, widely circulated, powerful publications. In recent decades many Churches of Christ have stepped away from that exclusivity and provincialism and returned to the goal of uniting believers (or at least questioning some of the conclusions reached by restoration leaders a century ago). Some of them wonder whether they should change their name. They don’t want to be associated with the worst excesses of some in our tribe (I believe that most in our tribe have been and continue to be gentle, sweet believers — at least they have been in my experience). So… should they change their name?
I’m not convinced that they should go that route. My small group on Monday nights is made up of almost entirely non-members. All are now attending — at least sometimes — but they are not from our religious tradition and have not moved to become members, but they like our church and the way they are treated there as well as the way we keep Christ and the scripture right up front all the time. I floated this question to them a couple of weeks ago and asked them what name might better describe us. To a person — unanimously — they wanted to keep the name “Church of Christ.” To them, up here in the north where the name doesn’t carry some of the baggage it does in some regions of the country — it meant an open and loving group of people who really, really knew their Bibles and loved Jesus more than their own traditions. They were firmly against any name change!
And so am I. At least for us. The neat thing is: each congregation is free to make their own decision. If you are in a congregation that makes a decision you don’t like… it is up to you to love them anyway. If I leave a church because of their name or song selection or Bible school curriculum, I am saying that is more important to me than answering Jesus’ prayer in the Garden (John 17) where he pleaded that we would all be united as he was with his Father. I would be careful about that.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I’ve taught restoration history in our congregation (and will do so again in the winter quarter). It’s interesting to see our members struggle with the (perceived) choice between unity and doctrinal purity.
Many in our tribe would insist that doctrine is more important than unity. And such is the explanation for our sad history of arguing and division over many things that probably mattered much more to us than to God.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The signage issue is never going to go away. If it could, there’d be too much of a possibility that all the CofCs in one location would actually join forces and indeed become one body.
With that said, I visited two CofC when I moved to my present location this past Spring. In the end, I decided to attend a Christian Church. It wasn’t necessarily the signage that attracted me, but noting its advertisement which indicated it served communion weekly. It was a matter of noting something I thought was Biblically important and then drawing my conclusions upon visiting.
Signage is nothing more than – signage.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head when you wrote “. . .here in the north where the name doesn’t carry the baggage it does in some regions of the country . . .”
I rather suspect we will drop the name “Church of Christ” in the next few years. I don’t know if that’s good, bad, or indifferent, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Here in the south, we do have a lot of that baggage.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Maybe if we contribute a few good names it will hurry the progressives along.
#1 Argumentative angels
#2 Saints of salvation
#3 Pious progressives
#4 Turmoil of the trinity
#5 BYOB– bring your own belief
#6 The one true church — opps I do believe we already use that one.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I have lived in Texas and Tennessee for the last 12 years. One thing I have noticed is that people who know much about the Churches of Christ know how different we are from one congregation to another. If people don’t know that, then they probably don’t know enough about the church for this to be a problem.
One lens I always run inconsequentials through (including the name on the building) is division. I am not sure that the name on the building could be changed without causing division in the church. At that point I don’t think God would look down and smile on us and say “Well, they lost a third of their members, but at least they got the sign changed.”
I personally am loving Patrick’s series on identity. My favorite book on the subject is “The Stone-Campbell movement” by Leroy Garrett. I think if we try to be that church then it won’t matter what the name on the door says. If we are doing what Jesus wanted us to do then we can quickly change the perception of the church in the local neighborhood. So we also must ask, is it better to change the name to make a quick fix, or is it better to restore the name to what it meant and hopefully will mean again.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I must agree that the baggage in the south is extensive. I worked at my job in Texas for a year or two when my boss found out that I wasn’t just a believer, but I attended a Church of Christ. She immediately asked me, pointedly, if I thought she was going to hell, and filled me in on her terrible experiences with people at Churches of Christ. That’s just one example of such a reaction — I could give others.
Clearly, the local church should make its own decision about what name to go by, and in the north there may be no issue whatsoever, but I for one am thankful that our leadership changed the name of our church. I’ve had people tell me that they never would have stepped in our doors had they known that our name USED to be CofC.
May we all be willing to lay aside whatever would be a stumbling block to introducing the world to Jesus.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I just call myself a disciple of Jesus. I say I have been moved into His church – a church that is His body, whose address cannot be found anywhere. You can’t say “here it is” or “there it goes”, since this church is within you. Only God knows those who are His. Changing names and looking for names is merely another way to add to the human denominational problem.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“Church of Christ” as a brand…very bad; “Church of Christ” as a unity movement…very good.
In the South (Texas), I’ve dealt with baggage from the name as well, and some of it quite ugly. BUT, things are changing, and so much for the better. Just this week I was sharing with someone that I actually feel “proud” (not prideful, mind you) to be a member of the church of Christ, b/c I’ve brought some visitors recently who were very pleasantly surprised at what they’ve found: grace, love, and acceptance.
One other note: I’m finding very consistently that the [especially the unchurched] 18 to 30 year old set have no clue about our divisive heritage. To many of them, we’re just another Christian group. That has it’s downside of course, in that they don’t know too much about us, but the baggage of the name is drifting away in our rearview, and rather rapidly at that.
I would be none-too-hurried to dismiss the name, though I certainly wouldn’t hang my hat of salvation on it either.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Oh, and one other thought…very often, someone’s impression of a “church of Christ” is ME (i.e. YOU). If they can’t get past that, then the sign on the door doesn’t matter.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
When I was preaching for a church of Christ in Long Beach, it was very frustrating to have to almost always add some type of explanatory comment to someone just after telling them I was with the “churches of Christ.”
They almost always made a connection to (1) a local Filipino cult that used the name Iglesia Ni Cristo (very close to the more familiar Spanish spelling); or the Boston / International churches of Christ, itself basically a cult; or (3) Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints. It would have been a good move on our part to change the name but the resistance from one elder was not to be overcome!
So we were always explaining or defending who we were. For most of my 14+ years of ministry there, I would never refer to us from the pulpit as a church of Christ, rather as simply the Long Beach Church. I would not have “of Christ” put on my personal business cards. I think that was a source of irritation to some people, but that particular elder and I always got along well and are still good friends who love and respect one another. Just don’t agree all the time.
These days we are worshiping with a community church and not having to deal with the baggage has been a wonderful blessing.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
It’s true that the Churches of Christ have a bad reputation for all the wrong reasons in many areas. In some cases, a name change may be appropriate. However, more importantly, Churches of Christ should strive to live up to our name. We should be churches that are totally dedicated to Jesus Christ. That’s a goal worth pursuing.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:20 am
This past weekend, I worshipped with a group of very conservative Christians. The speaker wondered “when we stopped being fishers of men, and started being keepers of the aquarium.” My thought was that not only have we stopped trying to spread the message and unity, but we have focused on keeping trash out of the aquarium (doctrinal purity).
I always thought (was taught) we got the name “Church of Christ” because the Church was the Bride of Christ, and the bride takes the name of the groom.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I too have often wondered about dropping the “Church of Christ” from our name as well, and I am dyed in the wool CoC, for many of the reasons you mentioned. But a few years back my mind was changed by a Ukrainian woman who was in the US on a work visa. She was looking for something that had real meaning and substance in her life, and she felt like she could find it in church. She had been a part of the Orthodox church in Ukraine but said it was only done because a friend wanted to join, and that it was more about social status. But now she realized that something was missing in her life, and so she began seeking out God. As she was driving through our city she passed churches of every kind (as we live in the Bible belt.) Then she came across our church, the Church of Christ, and had this thought. “I am looking for Christ, here is a church that belongs to Him, this must be the place I am supposed to be.” In this case, it was the simplicity of the name that intrigued her she knew nothing of the history or the sometimes negative baggage that we carry. She wanted Christ and she found Him in the Church of Christ.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
My first trip to LA 20+ years ago found me in an upscale store in the Beverly Center in Beverly Hills that sold historical memorabilia (original Disney sketches, letters from Lincoln, etc.). They could search inventory on computer, so we asked the curator if there was anything by Alexander Campbell or Barton Stone. She searched and found nothing… and then asked who they were. So we gave her the short explanation. When we were done, she looked at us and said, “Church of Christ? Aren’t you the people who think you’re the only ones going to heaven?” Beverly Hills! I can see why some churches in areas where that is our rep on the street (BTW, the curator grew up in Nashville) might want to rebrand.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Curious why we want to take “Christ” out of our “name,” rather than change to something like “Christ’s church” or “Christ’s followers.” Part of the problem comes from designating who we are on our buildings and in our publications, thus we may have made ourselves into a denomination. It was so much simpler when there was just Jew, Christian, and pagan, don’t you think?
When I moved to Boston area in 1967 with an Exodus group, the attorney we used for purchasing property told us “Church of Christ” was already used by his church – “United Church of Christ/Congregational.” We continued using the name, Church of Christ, and had many opportunities to teach the difference in the two groups. Now here in the south (NC), I have the opportunity to teach that we don’t have the right to judge who is going to heaven or hell, but let the Bible speak for itself, and they can make their own decision – about themself, not others.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
As a managing editor for New Wineskins e-zine, I have received two e-mail inquiries (from different people) this year asking why we don’t publish a directory of progressive churches of Christ.
I was tempted to reply that I wouldn’t call that progress, but I just left them unanswered.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Great response Pat. I could share some stories about being a Church of Christ Chaplain in the US Army. This is the first and only place that some actually ref’d me as a “Campbellite” I am very proud of our roots and proud to be a member of the churches of Christ.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Chad – a Church of Christ Chaplain? So good to hear that. They exist so few and far between.
I knew Chad back when he was a young boy in southern Ohio. It has been amazing to see his development in the Kingdom. And God bless him for his service!
September 16th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
In my office I keep a picture of Jesus walking through a post-pogrom village. His pierced hands are outstretched as He views the broken and weeping people around Him and the caption says “This is not My teaching.”
We have created many broken and weeping people with our own versions of pogrom. It is not our name that should be changed but our hearts.
Truly love those around us and we will again deserve our name.
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 am
First, the pious elitism of the first paragraph is saddening. You’re all better than the rest of us because you’ve moved on… whatever. And people having those preconceptions of the Churches of Christ left in the 80’s. I can’t remember the last time I encountered the phrase. It was way back in high school, maybe college. Today, people don’t even know who we are….
One point of history: The Churches of Christ in America predate the Mormons. Joseph Smith’s brother (sorry I forget his first name) had been recently baptized in the Church of Christ. He was the one who suggested to insert Jesus into their name to keep themselves distinct from us.
Lastly, a bit of grammar: big C’s vs little c’s really don’t matter at all. It doesn’t prove a thing and is grammatically incorrect. It’s a title, it’s a name, and the C should be capitalized. The attitude found among those assembling inside a building with that name on the outside is what makes the difference, whatever the sign.
Thanks for straightening us out!