The Name

By E. M. Zerr

[Page 6]

     An outgrowth of the compromise movement which I have been reviewing, is the tendency to minimize the importance of certain items which have hitherto been regarded as essential for the identification of the true church of our Lord. In truth, these items were considered so fundamental that any group that lacked them was at once classed as human and unscriptural. But it has been learned by unpleasant experience that trying to dissuade the denominational groups from their errors is a fruitless task. Yet the demands of the "restoration" impetus will not listen to the idea of abandoning them in their heretical shortcoming (which should be done on the principle of Hosea 4:17), but instead they are to be incorporated as integral parts of the one great scheme. This is to be done, not by brazenly swallowing the errors for the sake of "unity," but by changing base and declaring that such items are not required or essential anyway. Among the ones to be thus treated is the name of the church.

     Many errors have arisen among religious speakers and writers through farfetched inferences. Such errors are often a result of the indirection of the means relied upon for the conclusions. But even such errors are to be opposed in the interest of human souls. Much patience needs to be exercised in treating them in deference to the indistinct nature of the subject matter. But when a man plants himself squarely across the pathway of truth, it will require all the patience that has been cultivated by a long life of Christian living to deal with it very gently. Some months ago I read a statement made by one who professed to love the truth, that "the Lord never gave his bride a name. If I should assert that "Adam never named the beasts or birds," you would say that I was accusing Moses of falsehood. You would point me to Genesis 2:20 which declares that Adam did name them. Well, Ephesians 3:14, 15 says, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." In this article I am merely considering the question whether the church has a name. Paul says it has; the modern advocates of "restoration" say it has not.

     In order to avoid such a dilemma they resort to quibbles. They ask if the church has an official name. Just what would be required to make it official? When Adam named the animals the book says "and that was the name thereof." That would certainly make it official. And when the second Adam named his bride, that would surely make it "the name thereof" and official. Another quibble is a reference to more than one name applied in the New Testament to the divine institution. But it is also known that many animals that Adam named have more than one name. A man may give the members of his family more than one name, yet in practice he will use only one of them. And the advocates of the movement I am reviewing will not reject the name "elder" for a ruler of the church, even though he is also called "bishop" and "overseer" in the scriptures. I do not know of any person who tries to reject the latter two in favor of the first one to be used exclusively. Neither should it be complained that one name is used most of the time for the church, when there are others recognized in the scriptures.

     The following is a sample of some of the deceptive reasoning that is being used concerning the name. It will be asserted that the words "church of Christ" is not a name, but only shows ownership and not official designation. For instance, my name is Smith and I own a car. It is parked on the public parking lot not far away. I wish a friend to use it in making an important errand. I say that he may ask the attendant to show him Smith's car in order that he be legal in his errand. Pointing, the attendant says "that is Smith's car." But that only shows which car Smith owns and not its name. Such

[Page 7]

is one of the strong arguments of the "restoration" proponents. That the car might be a Chevrolet or Ford as to its real name. This is a specious illustration and calculated to deceive the unwary. In order for it to be a fair illustration, it must first be shown that Smith is the only man who has the right to make and own a car. Then when being directed to the proper car for lawful transportation, it would be necessary only to point out the one having the ownership. Strange to say that even though it would be admitted that Smith was the only man with authority to make and own a car, yet if the friend chose to enter and use a Ford or Chrysler or Haynes, he must not be condemned since the Smith car does not have all the gadgets that are in the field of mechanics.

     The importance of a name for everything condemns the late notion that the blood bought institution of the Lord has none. And whether we are impressed more by the idea of ownership, or by the truth that the owner thought enough of it to name it, in either case we will be afraid to say it has no name when the inspired apostle declares that the Lord Jesus Christ gave it one.

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR

     Our brother has not understood our plea. He deals with what he thinks we mean rather than with what we have said. He believes that because of our inability to dissuade denominational groups from error, we are changing base and expect to incorporate these groups "as parts of one great scheme." We oppose all sectism. It is in contravention of our Saviour's prayer (John 17:20, 21). It is opposed to apostolic doctrine (1 Con 1:10-13). It is a manifestation of carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-3). It is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:20). But there are thousands of honest, sincere believers in Christ among the sects. God's sheep have been smitten by men, and scattered by creeds, over the hills. We feel a compulsion of spirit to seek them out and show them the way. We cannot do so by creating another sect. Bro. Zerr feels we should "abandon them in their heretical shortcomings," but I cannot do that. My eyes fill with tears, and my heart with compassion, when I see our divided state. I must try and reach these before nightfall. Jesus loved them and died for them. I must love them, seek them, and go find them.

     Our brother uses two scriptural references. It may be presumptuous for one of my limited knowledge to dissent from the interpretation of such a venerable and experienced expositor as is Bro. Zerr. But I am driven by conscience to do so in this instance. I do it very humbly. Hosea 4:17 is cited to prove we should abandon denominational groups to their errors. The passage reads, "Ephraim is joined to his idols, let him alone. A band of drunkards, they give themselves to harlotry; they love shame more than their glory." I do not believe honestly mistaken religionists are in this category. I do not think the expression, "Let him alone," means to abandon to their fate such errorists as we confront in the modern religious realm. They are not idolaters, drunkards or whoremongers as was Ephraim.

     Ephraim was joined to idols. An idolater is one who worships another god. Our denominational friends worship the same God as Bro. Zerr. They read the same Bible, employ the same songs of praise, and pray to the same God. They are not idolaters. They are mistaken about some of the things the one God requires. If we abandon them they may never learn better. My heart yearns for them.

     The expression "Let him alone," in the passage cited, does not mean the prophet was not to work for reformation of Ephraim. Hosea 10:8, 9, proves this. "How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel!... My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come again to destroy." I cannot give up or hand over my brethren and friends, and abandon them. My heart too recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. It is

[Page 8]

the way of man to abandon and destroy. It is the way of God to seek and to save.

     Then what did God mean when he said leave Ephraim alone? He simply meant that the prophet was not to engage in his idolatry, drunkenness and immorality. He did not mean that Hosea was to abandon attempts at reformation, for the very book itself is a message to Ephraim. It would be strange if God told the prophet to abandon a group and then sent him with a message to them. Moreover Hosea 10:10, 11 is a prediction of the eventual restoration of this very people.

     Bro. Zerr also misunderstands our position relative to the name. We are not so foolish as to deny that God employs a noun, or nouns, to designate his people as a group. In the A. V. they are called the church, the body, the flock, etc. A noun is the name of something. Just as Adam used names such as horse, cow, sparrow, and eagle, to designate birds and beasts, and just as these are common nouns, so it is with the designation of the saved ones by varied terms. They are all common nouns, and should be employed as God uses them, to indicate various relationships. Our objection is to selecting one of the terms indicating relationship, and exalting it to the one recognized official title, for the purpose of separating and segregating baptized believers from each other. This is sectarian.

     We gather that Bro. Zerr feels that Ephesians 3:14, 15 teaches that "the Lord Jesus Christ gave the church a name." We contend that instead of giving the church a name, one name He gave was "church." The expression "church of Christ" is not the name of a church; it is a name of the church. But even here, we do not believe the passage sustains his contention. Here it is. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named."

     Was Paul seeking to prove in this passage what our brother seeks to prove by it? It is probable the expression "of our Lord Jesus Christ" should not appear in the verse. Johnson, in People's N. T. with Notes, says, "The words, 'Of our Lord Jesus Christ,' are not found in the best manuscripts, and are omitted in the Revision." The American Revised Version reads, "I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." The Revised Standard Version reads, "I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." The Centenary Translation renders it, "I bend my knees before the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named." J. B. Phillips translates it, "I fall on my knees before God the Father (from whom all fatherhood, earthly or heavenly, derives its name)." This passage is not proof that "the Lord gave his bride a name." That is not the subject under consideration by the Holy Spirit, and we must be careful not to get out of a passage what God did not put in it!

     God used, among other names for his people in a corporate sense, church, flock, temple, family, body. These are all official, from the standpoint that they were authoritatively bestowed. Our brother is correct in his reasoning here. But when we say that God did not authorize any specific designation as the official title of the church, we simply mean there is no exclusive term applied to the body as a means of distinction. "The United Church of Christ" is the official title of a recently formed religious sect. "The Methodist Church," "The Presbyterian Church," "The United Brethren Church," -- these are all official titles. The church established by our Lord has no such official title. It is just the church. As to origin, it is the church of God; as to possession, the church of Christ; as to constituency, the church of saints; as to heritage, the church of the firstborn ones.

     I am happy to see that our brother writes of the "church of Christ." There is a difference between the church of Christ, and "The Church of Christ." The former is composed of all the saved on earth. Not one of God's adopted children is outside of its environs. The latter may embrace only a portion of the saved ones, and use the very title to exclude some whom God has added to his body. That is why we say such a usage of a scriptural term is sectarian. It takes an expression inclusive of all God's children and uses it in an exclusive and discriminatory fashion.

     We thank God for our privilege to read the writings of Brother Zerr. He is a member of the church of God just as I am. We are both members of the same body, for "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). Just as "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you," so Bro. Zerr and I have need of each other. "That there be no schism in the body, we must have the same care one for another." I am grieved that I cannot share all of my brother's views, but this does not in any way affect my respect or regard for him. As I continue to study his writings and to pray for light and knowledge, I may come to see

[Page 9]

he is right. But in the meantime I shall nourish and cherish him as God's child and my brother, and I trust we may continue to labor together in setting forth our respective positions. Remember, that if you conclude I am wrong in my statements of conviction, I will still love all of you. You need not agree with me on these things to be regarded as my brethren in Him. May God bless and help all of us!