Ben F. Vick, Jr.
There seems to be a small minority among us who has the odd notion that the name “church of Christ” evokes a sectarian spirit. Thus, in order to dispel such an attitude, the words “of Christ” are deleted and supposedly counted “but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.” But is the appellation “church of Christ” unscriptural? Is the usage a portrayal of a sectarian attitude, or simply good judgement in harmony with God’s holy word?
Some who think that there is nothing in a name would consider this article a waste of time, paper and ink. But those who have this opinion do not follow such reasoning in any other realm but in religion. When it comes to receiving their pay check, they recognize the importance in a name. In giving their children their names, they recognize a difference. The change in names at the marriage altar also emphasizes the importance of a name. The New Testament tells us there is something in a name (Acts 4:12).
There are a number of scriptural names by which the church is called. It is called simply “the church” (Acts 2:47). It is referred to as “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Paul called it “the church of God” (I Cor. 1:2). The same also refers to it as “the body of Christ” (I Cor. 12:27). It is called the “temple” or “house of God” (I Cor. 3:16; I Tim. 3:15). The Hebrew writer speaks of the “church of the first born” (Heb. 12:23). The beloved John calls the church “the bride of Christ” (Rev. 22:17). The apostle Paul says, “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16).
Contrary to the reasoning of a few, the name “church of Christ” does not denote a sectarian attitude. If so, then, Paul was guilty of expressing the same when he wrote, “The churches of Christ salute you.” He used the same term but only in the plural.
The institution which Jesus built is the church of Christ. He said, “...upon this rock I will build my church,…” (Matt. 16:18). He paid the purchase price for it by shedding his blood. “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). “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold…; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (I Pet. 1:18-19).
No husband in his right mind wants his wife near another’s name. The church belongs to Christ. She is “his wife” (Rev. 19:7).
Someone might retort, “Well, in the first century the term ‘the church’ was used.” Yes, but there was only one at that time. Now, all claim to be the church or a part of the church which Jesus built. To simply and only refer to the institution which Jesus built as “the church” on our signs and stationary does not distinguish us from the denominational world. The view the world has of the word “church” could be any of ten definitions with none giving the true meaning. For instance, today it is defined as: (1) “an edifice consecrated for public worship, especially one for Christian worship”; (2) “the collective body of Christians, composed of three great branches, the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Eastern”; (3) “a particular body of Christians united under one form of ecclesiastical government, in one creed, and using the same ritual and ceremonies; as, the Greek Church; the Anglican Church; the Roman Catholic Church”; and (7) “any group of worshippers.” (Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary, p. 324.)
Certainly, it is agreed that the name “church of Christ” alone may not distinguish us from the denominational world. There are a number of Christian Churches in this neck of the woods which refer to themselves as churches of Christ. They ought to change their name, because they have a name that livest and art dead. But the same can be said of the name “the church.” I received a paper called Mailbox Minister from “The Church at Mt. Gilead” from Mooresville, Indiana. It is a conservative Christian Church.
In the words “the churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16, the phrase “of Christ” (τοῦ χριστοῦ) is in the genitive case in the Greek language. “The genitive case,” according to Machen, “expresses possession.” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 25.) The English Sentence by Jonathan Rigdon, Ph.D., states, “The idea of possession may be denoted by the possessive sign, ‘s, or by the objective case following the preposition of; as,—The history of America (America’s history) is interesting.” Rigdon continues by saying, “Which method is used is merely a matter of euphony.” (p. 205.)
On the matter of which of the two is the better, brother N. B. Hardeman says, “Someone asks, ‘Why don’t you call it Christ’s church?’ There wouldn’t be a thing in the world wrong with that, except in English that’s rather hard to say. Many people just can’t say ‘Christ’s church.’ They want to say ‘Christes.’ If they were to see one fence post on the ground, they could easily say ‘one post.’ Put three more down and what have they? ‘Four post-es.’ They can hardly say ‘posts.’...So instead of saying ‘Christ’s church,’ we just change the form and we have the ‘church of Christ,’ which is exactly the same.” (One Dozen Sermons, p. 105.) Maybe that is one reason the translators of the King James Version and the American Standard Version translated it “churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16.
Brethren, we must not fear using the name “church of Christ” due to the fact that a few have odd notions. It is both scriptural and in good judgement. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore will confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33).