Sun 9:30a Class; 10:30a Worship; 11:35a Communion
Bible Bites
Misuse of "Church of Christ"
The following an honest attempt at balance, and done, with God as my witness, out of love for God and the brethren. I am disturbed by divisive rhetoric, and while I know this has the potential to offend because I am calling out what I believe to be abuses, my effort is to work toward a better understanding and unity. I ask for patient consideration of what follows.
The misuse of the phrase “Church of Christ” comes in at least two ends of the spectrum:
Misuse #1: Using the phrase as an exclusive title and demanding that it alone will suffice.
This sees the phrase as a title to be used on everything, not just as a descriptive term. Thus there are “Church of Christ Preachers,” “Church of Christ practices,” and “Church of Christ doctrines.” Those who use the phrase this way may believe that this is the only acceptable designation. If a congregation does not use “Church of Christ” on its sign, then it is ashamed of Christ and therefore not really His church. “I’m Church of Christ” is even more significant than, “I’m a Christian.” Even though there are other scriptural descriptions of the church, that doesn’t matter. “Church of Christ” is the only name to use, and those who don’t use it cannot be sound or are, at least, treading on dangerous ground and drifting. They believe that this is the only way to really identify a congregation that stands for the truth.
Misuse #2: Using the phrase pejoratively as a label.
This second misuse is the on the other end of the spectrum, perhaps even shunning the phrase altogether as a biblical idea. Sometimes it is used sarcastically or out of some level of scorn. We might hear negatively of “Church of Christ” (or “CoC”) traditionalism, legalism, hypocrisy, or some other perceived problem. The “CoC” is depicted as a single conglomerate, and all who attend a “Church of Christ” fall under the judgment as being those who try to issue mandates where God has not. Some denigrate the perceived “CoC” method of interpretation (CENI = command, example, necessary inference), and speak as if all “CoC-ers” just want to restrict God’s people and force them to be part of a denomination. Sometimes those who speak this way have themselves been wronged or hurt by a congregation or by those who attend a “Church of Christ.” Some have grown up with the hypocrisy and are now very critical of “CoC” arguments or practices. Accordingly, there is, therefore, something inherently flawed about “the Church of Christ.”
Why are both misuses a problem? Because both fall prey to speaking of that which is neither biblical or real.
Regarding Misuse #1: There is no exclusive title given in the Bible for the church. There are several descriptions that are all perfectly acceptable, but no titles. Yes, the church does belong to Christ, but to insist that “Church of Christ” must be on every sign and must be the terminology used is to press what the Bible never presses and betrays a highly denominational and institutionalized concept of the body of Christ. Scripture, for example, speaks of the “church of God which at Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2), the “church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess 1:1), the “church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb 12:23), “churches of Christ” (Rom 16:16), and so on. The only time “church of Christ” is used is in the plural, and it was simply describing more than one congregation that was sending greetings. There is nothing wrong with the phrase in itself, but it is never used exclusively or denominationally. To choose an option found in Scripture is not being ashamed of Christ or the church, but is still falling under biblical authority and acceptable biblical practice. Therefore, to condemn a congregation for not going by that exclusive title (Church of Christ) is to go beyond Scripture (ironically) and assume a position of judgment God has not given. Sadly, this very problem can help give rise to misuse 2.
Solution: Use the full range of biblical terminology, and insist only on being a Christian according to Scripture. Don’t make titles out of descriptions. Avoid denominational rhetoric that comes from exclusive naming. Go to the Scriptures and make sure that whatever traditions, practices, or terminology being used truly is biblical and not based upon mere preference or man-made tradition. It is one thing to insist on truth as found in Scripture; it is another to insist on an exclusive title that is never given as such in Scripture.
Regarding Misuse #2: This misuse can arise due to a faulty view of the church and poor terminology. Yet, the reaction can also betray other misconceptions and leave faulty impressions. The problem here is overgeneralization. With one swipe some will knock out just about anyone and everyone who has ever been a part of a “Church of Christ.” To critically say that “the Church of Christ teaches...” is to imply that there is a single, unified teaching that comes from the institution known as the “Church of Christ.” There is not. But, when the critique is made, what exactly is meant by “the CoC” or “the Church of Christ”? Is there is some universal earthly institution so called being referenced? Who runs it and who belongs to it? Who decides the doctrine? Are they critiquing one congregation, many, or all? Are they opposing a few Christians or all Christians who attend a congregation with such on the sign of the building? Are they speaking of those involved in papers or colleges? Just calling out “the CoC” is a failure to work at making proper distinctions between universal and local, assembled or not. It further fails to distinguish between differing attitudes among Christians. As such, it is too vague to be helpful. Instead, this misuse oversimplifies, mischaracterizes, and caricatures the church without fairly representing the many who have avoided much of what is being criticized.
Solution: Avoid sweeping generalizations and pejorative sarcasm. If an attitude or practice needs to be critiqued, then kindly refer to the “some” who need the attention without indicting everyone else who attends a group featuring a “church of Christ” sign, for not every Christian thinks or acts the way that is being criticized, and not every building with such a sign houses a group that does everything identically. If speaking of “the Church of Christ,” then be specific about whether a local church or the universal body is under examination because no other institution actually exists in reality that controls the “CoC.” If “CoC” refers neither to a local congregation or the universal body (according to Scripture), then it references something that does not actually exist. The critique then has little credibility and fails to build any bridges. Otherwise, be more particular. “Some Christians teach” (particular) is very different from “the CoC” (general) teaches.
Using “Church of Christ” either exclusively (1) or as a label (2) will foster division, not unity. Instead, all need to seek the unity that is found only in Christ, insisting upon Scripture as the standard and submitting to the Lordship of Jesus. “Love one another” needs to be heard loud and clear. Being true, biblical Christians is the goal. None of this is to say that one side should deny doctrine (1) or that the other side should never critique unscriptural ideas (2). It is to say, however, that any critique, and any dogmatic stand, will be counter-productive when it is not truly biblical. Hold each other accountable to God and Scripture, and do it out of love for one another. The cross of our Lord can accept nothing less, for He died for all. May God bless us all as we strive to follow only the Lord Jesus.
