Lee Moses
In this day and age, some might wonder why it is important to continue calling the church “the church of Christ.” The proliferation of manmade denominational designations is both a product of and contributing factor to commonly-held views that what one calls a church is either a matter of personal preference or irrelevant altogether. In recent years, there have been a few instances of former “churches of Christ” choosing to become known by another designation. There are some who insist that there is nothing wrong with changing the name, saying it is judgmental to insinuate otherwise. However, there are very valid and compelling reasons to persist in calling the church “the church of Christ.”
Not any name will do. When a married couple is expecting a child, they often struggle with what name to give him. Although they have yet to see that child face to face, they want to give him a name that will be appropriate, and one that he will be proud to wear. Parents at such a time would assure each of us the importance of a name.
Really, anybody who is honest will admit that names are important. Businesses try to develop a name that will be conducive to business. A restaurant called “Juicy Burger” will probably get more business than one called “Disgusting Burger.” Yet for some reason, many in the religious world downplay the importance of a name.
A preacher one time, in a revival, clapped his hands and shouted, “Thank God, there is nothing in a name! nothing in a name!” When an old woman in that audience, who had been Scripturally taught, jumped to her feet, clapped her hands and shouted, “Glory to Beelzebub, the prince of devils,” the preacher and the congregation were shocked, and he immediately rebuked her for giving glory to Beelzebub. But she said, “You say there is nothing in a name. Glory to Beelzebub, the prince of devils.” The preacher’s mouth was closed.1
We certainly do not condone giving glory to Beelzebub, but this story illustrates that names have meaning. Names are important to us, and that importance should not only be maintained in the religious realm, it should be heightened.
Names are likewise important to God. He changed Abram’s name to Abraham (Gen. 17:5), Sarai’s name to Sarah (verse 15), and Jacob’s name to Israel (32:28). Each of these given names signified the favor of God.
God specified the names to be given to Jesus (Matt. 1:21) and to John, the forerunner of Christ (Luke 1:13). Both Jesus’ and John’s parents understood that they were to name their sons as God had named them, not after their own will. John’s extended family thought the God-given name unreasonable, but John’s parents insisted (Luke 1:59-63). This is because not any name will do, and especially is this true when a God-given name is in question.
The name “church of Christ” is a Scriptural name. If God has provided names for the church, those names must be preferred over any manmade names. God condemns the spirit of division; particularly the spirit of division as manifested through manmade designations:
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? (1 Cor. 3:3-4; compare with 1:10-13).
Since “to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6); we must ensure that we are not calling ourselves “of Paul,” “of Apollos,” or “of Martin Luther.” We must concur with the words of Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon: “I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ’s name last forever.”2 We must call ourselves after a spiritual, God-given name.
The Holy Spirit uses a few different names to refer to the church: simply “the church” (Matt. 18:17; Acts 2:47; Eph. 3:21), “the church of God” (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; 15:9); “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16), and “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23). Other words used for the church are “the body” (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23), “the kingdom” (Heb. 12:28; Matt. 16:19), “God’s husbandry” (“God’s field,” New King James Version, 1 Cor. 3:9), “God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:9) and “the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3).
At this point we merely wish to note that “church of Christ” is among the several designations given by the Holy Spirit for the church. One might object, “Wait, I don’t read anything about a ‘church of Christ’! In Romans 16:16, I only read about ‘churches of Christ,’ in the plural.” But it takes singulars to make a plural—there cannot be churches of Christ without each of their being a church of Christ. If all of them are collectively called “the churches of Christ,” any one of them would have to be a “church of Christ.”
God loves and blesses the church (Rom. 8:28 -39; Eph. 5:25; Rev. 3:9; et al.). As a church accurately identifies itself by a God-given designation, it signifies the favor of God; just as Abraham, Sarah, and Israel’s new God-given names signified the favor of God.
The name “church of Christ” most clearly expresses the Biblical nature of the church. While there are numerous designations for the church in the New Testament, the principle of its being the church of Christ rings throughout. Looking to its impending establishment, Christ called it “my church” (Matt. 16:18, emph. LM). Although the words “church of Christ” are not explicitly stated in this passage, for us to refer to the church as did Christ we cannot call it “my church.” Changing the first person “my” to the third person, as we must from our perspective, “my church” becomes “Christ’s church” or “the church of Christ.” The body, which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24), the Holy Spirit calls “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27; emphasis mine, LM).
While Scripture sometimes calls the church “the church of God,” it implies at the same time that it is the church of Christ:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28; emphasis mine, LM).
While it is called the church of God, obviously it was not God the Father Who purchased it with His own blood. It was specifically Christ Who purchased the church with His own blood (Eph. 5:25; Rev. 1:5); thus, here “the church of God” means not “the church of the Father,” but “the church of Christ.”
“Church of the firstborn” or “church of the firstborn ones” alludes to the relationship those in the church have with Christ (Heb. 12:23). He is truly the Firstborn with all the attendant blessings thereof (1:6; Psa. 89:27); however,
…it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:10-11, emphases mine, LM).
All these children of God and brethren of Christ, those who compose the church, receive the blessings of the firstborn: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). This reference to “the church of the firstborn” underscores the church’s relationship to Christ, the true Firstborn.
To the church at Colossae, Paul wrote that they were,
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son (Col. 1:12-13).
Although Paul was previously discussing God the Father, he distinctly states that the church is “the kingdom of his dear Son,” Jesus Christ. He elsewhere avers that “[Christ] must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:25-26). So until death is finally vanquished at the Great Resurrection, Christ is to reign over His kingdom, the church (verse 24).
In whatever figure is used for the church; whether kingdom, body, flock, or bride; Christ is portrayed as having the preeminent position: “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). If in all things Christ is to have the preeminence in His church, why would His name not be included in the name of the church?
As the New Testament refers to the church, it continually reinforces that it is the church of Christ. “Church of Jesus” or “church of Jesus Christ” might just as clearly express the Biblical nature of the church, but because “church of Christ” is found in the Bible, should it not be preferred?
In this day and age, some might wonder why it is important to continue calling the church “the church of Christ.” The proliferation of manmade denominational designations is both a product of and contributing factor to commonly-held views that what one calls a church is either a matter of personal preference or irrelevant altogether. In recent years, there have been a few instances of former “churches of Christ” choosing to become known by another designation. There are some who insist that there is nothing wrong with changing the name, saying it is judgmental to insinuate otherwise. However, there are very valid and compelling reasons to persist in calling the church “the church of Christ.”
Not any name will do. When a married couple is expecting a child, they often struggle with what name to give him. Although they have yet to see that child face to face, they want to give him a name that will be appropriate, and one that he will be proud to wear. Parents at such a time would assure each of us the importance of a name.
Really, anybody who is honest will admit that names are important. Businesses try to develop a name that will be conducive to business. A restaurant called “Juicy Burger” will probably get more business than one called “Disgusting Burger.” Yet for some reason, many in the religious world downplay the importance of a name.
A preacher one time, in a revival, clapped his hands and shouted, “Thank God, there is nothing in a name! nothing in a name!” When an old woman in that audience, who had been Scripturally taught, jumped to her feet, clapped her hands and shouted, “Glory to Beelzebub, the prince of devils,” the preacher and the congregation were shocked, and he immediately rebuked her for giving glory to Beelzebub. But she said, “You say there is nothing in a name. Glory to Beelzebub, the prince of devils.” The preacher’s mouth was closed.1
We certainly do not condone giving glory to Beelzebub, but this story illustrates that names have meaning. Names are important to us, and that importance should not only be maintained in the religious realm, it should be heightened.
Names are likewise important to God. He changed Abram’s name to Abraham (Gen. 17:5), Sarai’s name to Sarah (verse 15), and Jacob’s name to Israel (32:28). Each of these given names signified the favor of God.
God specified the names to be given to Jesus (Matt. 1:21) and to John, the forerunner of Christ (Luke 1:13). Both Jesus’ and John’s parents understood that they were to name their sons as God had named them, not after their own will. John’s extended family thought the God-given name unreasonable, but John’s parents insisted (Luke 1:59-63). This is because not any name will do, and especially is this true when a God-given name is in question.
The name “church of Christ” is a Scriptural name. If God has provided names for the church, those names must be preferred over any manmade names. God condemns the spirit of division; particularly the spirit of division as manifested through man-made designations:
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? (1 Cor. 3:3-4; compare with 1:10-13).
Since “to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6); we must ensure that we are not calling ourselves “of Paul,” “of Apollos,” or “of Martin Luther.” We must concur with the words of Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon: “I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ’s name last forever.”2 We must call ourselves after a spiritual, God-given name.
The Holy Spirit uses a few different names to refer to the church: simply “the church” (Matt. 18:17; Acts 2:47; Eph. 3:21), “the church of God” (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; 15:9); “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16), and “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23). Other words used for the church are “the body” (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23), “the kingdom” (Heb. 12:28; Matt. 16:19), “God’s husbandry” (“God’s field,” New King James Version, 1 Cor. 3:9), “God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:9) and “the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3).
At this point we merely wish to note that “church of Christ” is among the several designations given by the Holy Spirit for the church. One might object, “Wait, I don’t read anything about a ‘church of Christ’! In Romans 16:16, I only read about ‘churches of Christ,’ in the plural.” But it takes singulars to make a plural—there cannot be churches of Christ without each of their being a church of Christ. If all of them are collectively called “the churches of Christ,” any one of them would have to be a “church of Christ.”
God loves and blesses the church (Rom. 8:28 -39; Eph. 5:25; Rev. 3:9; et al.). As a church accurately identifies itself by a God-given designation, it signifies the favor of God; just as Abraham, Sarah, and Israel’s new God-given names signified the favor of God.
The name “church of Christ” most clearly expresses the Biblical nature of the church. While there are numerous designations for the church in the New Testament, the principle of its being the church of Christ rings throughout. Looking to its impending establishment, Christ called it “my church” (Matt. 16:18). Although the words “church of Christ” are not explicitly stated in this passage, for us to refer to the church as did Christ we cannot call it “my church.” Changing the first person “my” to the third person, as we must from our perspective, “my church” becomes “Christ’s church” or “the church of Christ.” The body, which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24), the Holy Spirit calls “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27; emphasis mine, LM).
While Scripture sometimes calls the church “the church of God,” it implies at the same time that it is the church of Christ:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28; emphasis mine, LM).
While it is called the church of God, obviously it was not God the Father Who purchased it with His own blood. It was specifically Christ Who purchased the church with His own blood (Eph. 5:25; Rev. 1:5); thus, here “the church of God” means not “the church of the Father,” but “the church of Christ.”
“Church of the firstborn” or “church of the firstborn ones” alludes to the relationship those in the church have with Christ (Heb. 12:23). He is truly the Firstborn with all the attendant blessings thereof (1:6; Psa. 89:27); however,
it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:10-11, emphases mine, LM).
All these children of God and brethren of Christ, those who compose the church, receive the blessings of the firstborn: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). This reference to “the church of the firstborn” underscores the church’s relationship to Christ, the true Firstborn.
To the church at Colossae, Paul wrote that they were “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:12-13). Although Paul was previously discussing God the Father, he distinctly states that the church is “the kingdom of his dear Son,” Jesus Christ. He elsewhere avers that “[Christ] must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:25-26). So until death is finally vanquished at the Great Resurrection, Christ is to reign over His kingdom, the church (verse 24).
In whatever figure is used for the church; whether kingdom, body, flock, or bride; Christ is portrayed as having the preeminent position: “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). If in all things Christ is to have the preeminence in His church, why would His name not be included in the name of the church?
As the New Testament refers to the church, it continually reinforces that it is the church of Christ. “Church of Jesus” or “church of Jesus Christ” might just as clearly express the Biblical nature of the church, but because “church of Christ” is found in the Bible, should it not be preferred?
