The Title of the Church

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     Have you entered into a covenant with God? Are you "a letter from Christ, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts?" Are you a participant in "a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit?" realizing that "the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." If your answer is in the affirmative, you can truly say, "For the love of Christ controls us because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised." And it can be said of you, "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship."

      Those who have received the spirit of sonship are thereby proven to be the children of God. "When we cry, 'Abba! Father!' it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Those who have the same paternal origin are brothers. "For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren." We are not brethren because we agree on all matters of opinion or interpretation, but because we are born of the same parents. Brotherhood is the result of a common fatherhood. Fellowship is the result of sonship.

     Every person on this earth who has entered into a covenant relationship with God is my brother. All such have been "chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling by his blood." Of them it can truly be said, "He has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." This is the criterion by which the covenant relationship is determined. Those who sustain that unity with Deity are indwelt of the Spirit. Those who have not the Spirit are not his. "By this we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit." "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

     The children of God constitute a fraternity of those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Every person in whom the Spirit abides is in that brotherhood. It is obvious that we can no more choose our spiritual brethren than we can those of our physical families! We enter that relationship irrespective of previous national or social differences, through agency of the Spirit. "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit." "For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father." We are kept together in that one body by that one Spirit. Our unity is the unity of the Spirit. "Eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond

[Page 2]

of peace. There is one body and one Spirit..."

     We come now to study the designation of this one body, composed of all those on earth who "were made to drink of one Spirit." We approach the subject with mingled emotions. There is the thrill of probing God's revelation for truth, and searching with unveiled face, knowing that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." But there is reluctance to grieve the brethren whom we love. Experience has shown that no teaching is calculated to arouse more unbridled resentment and unjust accusation than that which we now propose. Were it not for the far-reaching spiritual implications involved one might be tempted to stifle his own conscience and be persuaded to allow the brethren to go their inconsistent and illogical way. But the consequences of the sectarian spirit are so frightful to contemplate, and the damage to the one body is so terrible, that we must speak, with faith that the Lord will again say, "You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it."

     That there may be no misunderstanding of the views we hold, let us summarize them at the very outset. Briefly stated they are as follows. The covenant people in the aggregate have no official name or title. The terms used by the Holy Spirit to describe them, are merely common nouns. To select one of these as the exclusive title, discarding all others given by the same authority, and to elevate that one as the recognized designation of a group is to sectarianize that term. To denominate simply means to name. To choose a title such as "The Church of Christ" makes of those doing so a denomination as certainly as such terms as "The Baptist Church" or "The Methodist Church" designate denominations. Any religious group wearing a specific name is a denomination in the true meaning of that term.

     The very multiplicity of sects in the modern Christian domain intensifies the problem of remaining unsectarian. Many who claim to be so, only deceive themselves and seek to decoy others by claims which are easily proven to be absurd in the light of profession and practice. The intensity with which men rise in defence of a special name or designation shows how very "denominational" they are in their thinking. It is easy to become so in the midst of the complexities of our current religious scene. I speak from my own experience.

     A good many years ago, while working in Nebraska, with a beloved younger brother in the Lord, I succumbed to the urge to show the fallacies of "the sects" by producing a folder entitled "Whose Name Shall The Bride Wear?" Some twenty thousand of these were eventually printed and given wide distribution. As a result of subsequent study and maturing judgment I am thoroughly convinced that my venture was about as sectarian in nature as were the actions of those in other groups whom I sought to "smite hip and thigh." In these latter days I have come to analyze my former errors, and I seek to determine the background factors

[Page 3]

which contributed to them, so that I may not only correct my thinking, but also eliminate the basic elements which produced the fallacies. I list herewith a few of the items which seem to me to have prompted my mistaken ideas.

1. A false concept of the elect of God which led me to defend the segment of which I was a member as the kingdom of God on earth to the exclusion of all other immersed believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. A partisan or factional spirit engendered and sustained by sincere and consecrated men in the group with which I was allied, men who mistook loyalty to the group for loyalty to Jesus, and who imbued me with that philosophy.
3. Reliance upon sermon outlines handed down through several generations of those who had hallowed certain views and interpretations and invested their errors in reasoning with the sanctity of tradition.
4. Study of God's word from a slanted viewpoint. I can readily see how I once investigated the sacred oracles to prove what I believed, rather than to believe what I could prove. The result was a misuse and misapplication of many scripture texts wholly unrelated to the application I made of them. Of course, I did this sincerely believing that it was "contending for the faith once delivered to the saints." I just did not know it all, and I was mistaken.
5. Insufficient data on which to base conclusions on matters of such grave import. One needs to pursue to the end every avenue of research and be certain he has all the facts before he passes judgment.
6. An attitude of dogmatism which generally accompanies the belief that one is a spokesman for "the loyal brethren" as opposed to all others who are regarded as unfaithful and unworthy. While one feels a sense of personal shame because of his own past ignorance, and the littleness and factional tendencies produced by it, he can rise above these, and serve God with greater humility. He can be more charitable and tolerant toward those who pursue the same course in which he once walked. I have only the deepest sympathy for any who put their trust in "church names" and titles, for salvation. I know exactly how they feel. I am fully aware of the interests which motivate their reasoning.

      Not only has this movement completely forsaken its original intent, but it adds to the confusing and confounding tendencies of the sectarian world about it. We have long been of the opinion that the root of our difficulty lies in confusing the restoration movement sparked by the Campbells and their contemporaries, with the church of our Blessed Lord. They are not the same, and by the same token there is a difference between "The Church of Christ" and the church of God referred to in the new covenant scriptures. At the risk of being repetitious, we wish to note some things we have said before, but which need to be recalled by all of us who love the Lord.

     The church existed before Alexander Campbell was born. It lived in the days of John Wycliffe, John Huss, John Calvin and John Wesley. There was no separate party in their day known as "The Church of Christ" but the church of Christ was on earth. There has never been a time when Jesus was a shepherd without a

[Page 4]

sheep, a king without a subject, or a head without a body. When the dragon persecuted the woman until she was forced to flee into the wilderness where God nourished her for twelve hundred and sixty years, he was "angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus." Yet there is not one line of history that even suggests there was a separate party known as "The Church of Christ" to which these belonged.

     When papal Rome, described as the great harlot, arrayed in purple and scarlet, bedecked with gold, jewels and pearls, was seen by John, he declared, "And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." To what church did these saints and martyrs belong? There was no group calling themselves "The Church of Christ" such as we have today in Nashville, Dallas and Lubbock. The truth is that members of the modern "Church of Christ" would not recognize these saints and martyrs as brethren. They would have to be re-baptized by a "Church of Christ preacher" before they could even "take membership" with this twentieth century party which grew out of the nineteen century restoration movement. But if God had saints and martyrs in the tenth century scattered among the various sects of Christendom, on what ground can we conclude that he does not have such in the twentieth century? If some of the saints in the tenth century had adopted the exclusive title "The Church of Christ" would that have automatically removed the others from the church of God? If not, how can we reason that it does so in the twentieth century? Has God altered his purpose in the last ten centuries?

     Alexander Campbell did not think so, for he wrote:

"A deep and abiding impression that the power, the consolations and joys-- the holiness and happiness of Christ's religion were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculations and conjectures, in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting the sects, or rather the Christians in all the sects, upon a clear and scriptural bond of union..."

     Today the heirs of restoration have created their own party or parties. They deny that there are even Christians among the sects. They have all the Christians united in "The Church of Christ" but have split these whom they have gathered into twenty-five splinter parties. This is the sad and deplorable state to which the narrow, exclusive party spirit has brought us. There are those who think that the name "Church of Christ" has been the one proven and approved designation of God's people ever since Pentecost. Candor and honesty forces us to admit that as an exclusive party title, as now used and defended, it stems from 1906, when, in a letter to the Director of the Census Bureau, David Lipscomb called for a special listing under this heading. There was a considerable discussion between leaders of the restoration movement in an earlier day as to how they should designate themselves and their co-laborers.

     It is noteworthy that in the Septuagint Version of the old covenant scriptures, the term is generally used as the Greek equivalent of kahal, and the King James translators render this by congregation or assembly. Not once do they use the word "church" in the old covenant scriptures. It would appear that if the Greek ekklesia was a proper rendering of the Hebrew kahal, and if ekklesia was rendered "church" in the new covenant scriptures, its equivalent would be so rendered in the old, where, instead, the rendering is uniformly "congregation" or "assembly." The student becomes suspicious of the translators when they show such decided disparity. and that suspicion is justified when the following truths are known.

     The King James Version was a revised version, diligently compared with previous translations. Among the earlier translations was that of William Tyndal, who translated the word ekklesia, by "congregation," a non-ecclesiastical term. This brought down upon his head the wrath of the clergy. The reason is given by Campbell:

"It was with these old ecclesiastical words that the clergy succeeded in preserving the fascination of priestcraft. When Tyndal issued his translation of the Bible, because in it he had disregarded the words which the clergy esteemed sacred, they condemned it. He had for instance, changed charity into love; church into congregation; priest into senior; grace into favor; confession into knowledge; penance into repentance; and a contrite heart into a troubled heart."

     Now the king of England is titular head of the church as the Established Church in Great Britain views it. There is an unholy combination of royalty and clergy as the ruling power. If the clergy "preserves the fascination of priestcraft" it must do so with a vocabulary of its own. In the eyes of commoners it means much more to say that the king is the only supreme head on earth of the church, than to say he is the head of the congregation, for the word "church" has certain connotations not shared by the latter word. Therefore, when the translators were commissioned to bring out a new version, King James actually forbade them to translate certain terms. He specified fourteen points to be scrupulously observed, number three of which reads:

The old ecclesiastical words are to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, etc.

     However, the word church is not a translation of ekklesia at all. There is nothing in it which signifies a being called out and called together. It is an abbreviation of a wholly different expression, kuriou oikos, the house of the Lord. A realization of this fact caused Campbell in his translation called "Living Oracles" to use the word "congregation" consistently. He says, in a note:

"Wherever the word church is found in the common version, congregation will be found in this. We shall let Doctors Campbell and Doddridge defend this preference: for, although they have not always so rendered it, they give the best reasons why it should always be so translated."

     The passage relied upon to sustain a party title, Romans 16:16, appears as, "The congregations of Christ salute you." We have no doubt that if Alexander Campbell were alive today, he would be dubbed a heretic and accused of "denying the name of the church." This accusation would be made by the very ones who owe so much to his untiring labors for restoration of a pure speech.

     But it was not only men like Philip Doddridge, James Macknight, and George Campbell of Great Britain, and Alexander Campbell of the United States, who made such careful distinctions in terms. In 1955 The Authentic New Testament by Hugh I. Schonfield, was published. Dr. Schonfield is the only Jew ever to bring out a version of the new covenant scriptures. In his most interesting preface occurs the following:

Perhaps it should he stated again with every possible emphasis that his is a nonecclesiastical version, the work of an historian and man of letters, not of a theologian, and is not therefore binding on anyone's

[Page 6]

conscience. The translator has felt it to be important for his purpose not to employ in his rendering familiar ecclesiastical terms where they should be avoided, since the use of them would give the impression that they were peculiarly Christian in origin and association. This relates to such words as baptism (immersion), church (community), apostle (envoy), bishop (supervisor), and deacon (administrator), but also sometimes to words like 'salvation', 'righteousness', 'faith', and 'grace', which occasionally do not accurately represent the sense of the original."

     I am certain that many of the brethren would rejoice with the Authentic Version rendering of Acts 2:38. "Repent," Peter told them, "and let each of you be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins in the name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit."

     I am just as certain that some who rejoiced would turn to scoffing when they read Romans 16:16, "All the Christian communities send their regards." or Matthew 16:18; "Upon that rock I will found my Community, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It would destroy the significance of many outdoor signs and indoor pulpit drapes if they were changed to read "The Christian communities send their regards"--Romans 16:16; instead of "The Churches of Christ salute you"--Romans 16:16. And it is that very significance attached to the title and quotation which is sectarian.

     There is a grave doubt that much impact will be made upon the thinking of this generation with regard to the matter at hand. Most of us are so accustomed to borrowed expositions of scriptural passages, and so steeped in tradition, that we feel secure behind the fences and barriers that have marked our sectarian boundaries of the past. Too, a great many view this matter from a purely emotional, rather than a rational standpoint. They feel safe behind a sign board that has the proper words on it, or in a house with the right slogan over the door. They would feel out of place and insecure if the sign read "The Church of God."

     For example, I know an aged sister whose gossiping and meddling ways had kept the community of saints in turmoil for years, and the members of whose family were frequently a source of difficulty to the brethren, who declared, almost in hysteria, "If they take down the sign, Church of Christ, they can take my name off the record. I joined the Church of Christ and I'm going to die in the Church of Christ." Such irresponsible outbreaks show that many have not even begun to grasp the impact of what is being said. They are aided by preachers whose sermon outlines would have to be abandoned if they caught the significance of what we urge and conformed their teaching to the revelation of God instead of to the party standard.

     Since so many prefer the King James Version and its language, let us employ it for our purpose. What is the title of the ekklesia of God? What one name is used as the exclusive designation of the covenant community? Is the body of believers known as "The Church of Christ"? The answer is obvious to all who can read English. Nowhere did the translators capitalize the word "church." It is simply a common noun. It is never used in any combination of words as a proper title. The saints, in a corporate sense, are most frequently designated simply "the church."

1. From the standpoint of ownership the church is called the church of God (1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; Gal. 1:13, etc.). He purchased it. The Authentic Version renders Acts 20:28, "See to it that you tend God's community, which he has acquired with the blood of his own Son." I am persuaded that this is correct, although for years I just about left God out of the church. The Lamb "didst ransom men for God...and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev. 5:9, 10).
2. From the standpoint of constituency it is a church of saints (1 Con 14:33). It is composed of the holy ones, those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus.
3. From the standpoint of heirship, it is the church of the firstborn ones whose names are enrolled in heaven (Heb. 12:23).
4. From the standpoint of divine rela-

   [Page 7]

   tionship, it is the church of God in Christ Jesus (1 Thess. 2:14).
5. From the standpoint of its head, it is the church of Christ (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 1:22).
6. From the standpoint of government it is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19). We remind our readers that it is called the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of the Son of man, and the kingdom of God's beloved Son. Is it not strange that someone has not settled upon one of the these as the name for the kingdom and sought to establish it to the exclusion of all the others?
7. From the standpoint of organization and unity it is called the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27).

     The church, church of God, churches of the saints, church of the firstborn, churches of God in Christ Jesus, churches of Christ, kingdom of heaven, body of Christ--which one of these is the official designation or title? Who will dare to choose the one and say "This is it" and defend that one as the name of the church? Who will be so rash as to capitalize one of these as the scriptural designation to be used on all the road signs, and in all advertising mediums? Do you realize that one of these has become the stereotyped trademark of a modern party to the extent that if a congregation made no change in doctrine, practice or worship, but simply erected a sign reading, "A church of God meets here," they would be avoided like the plague and assailed as "unfaithful"? Yet the expression "church of God" is found in the scriptures, whereas the term "the church of Christ" appears not once in that form. In spite of this, the latter is "the scriptural name of the church" in the contention of modern party defenders.

     But you may ask what I propose to call the church, and how I would refer to it. My reply is that, like the Holy Spirit, I would use the term that described the phase I had in mind at the time. If I refer to its nature, I call it the church; if to its owner, the church of God; if to its constituency, church of the saints; if to its government, the kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God; if to its head, the church of Christ.

     The ekklesia of God has no special name. The only designation given to it was in the form of a simple noun. It is the church, the congregation, the assembly, the community, composed of all those who have been called by the grace of God. To give it a special title for the purpose of separating, segregating, and dividing it off from other believers is to make of that portion so titled a sect, and nothing else! The expression "The Church of Christ" is used by its adherents today exactly as others talk of The Baptist Church, The Presbyterian Church, The Lutheran Church, or the Methodist Church, and for the same reason.

     We should notice the objections made to my position and discuss them fully, freely and frankly. The first is that the church is the bride of Christ and the bride should wear the husband's name. This argument breaks down on several counts as do most arguments arranged to defend a pre-conceived notion. First, the church is now betrothed unto Jesus. The apostle says, "I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor. 11:2). The marriage of the Lamb, when his bride has made herself ready is yet to come (Cp. Rev. 19:7).

     The idea that the bride wears her husband's name is part of our western culture, and of recent origin. In the times when the Bible was being written in the Near East, such was not the case. We read of Sarah, the wife of Abraham; Rebekah, the wife of Isaac; and Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth. In every instance the wife wore her own name. The relationship was signified by the term wife. The word "church" is not a proper name at all, but a common noun. We say "The church is the bride of Jesus Christ," exactly as we say, "The church is the body of Jesus Christ." It would surely be improper to follow our modern method of designation and call the church, "Mrs. Jesus Christ," which we would have to do if the name of the husband, as it is commonly regarded were applied.

[Page 8]

     Actually those who propose to call the covenantal community "The Church of Christ" do not use the name of the bridegroom. His name is Jesus. "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). "He called his name Jesus" (Matt. 1:25). "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil. 2:10). The word "Christ" actually is ho Christos, the Christ. Jesus is the Christ. The word Christ, anointed, signifies his office. "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you have crucified" (Acts 2:36). If brethren wish to be consistent in their argument, even to a slight degree, let them call the saints in the aggregate, "the church of Jesus." This would still only show possession, but if they wish to create a name to match their argument, this must be it. You would not call the wife of John Doe, a mechanic, Mrs. Mechanic; nor the wife of Richard Roe, a janitor, Mrs. Janitor. It would be as logical to say "Church of Lord" as "Church of Christ" because Jesus was made both Lord and Christ. The truth is that a certain designation has been created and invested with such authority, that if some people drove by a meeting-house with the label "Church of Jesus Christ," they would not go in, for it would not have "the right name." They would be suspicious of it. My own reasoning in the folder I mentioned earlier has proven to be childish, absurd and without scriptural warrant. I had to prove something, and in my ignorance, I forced the sacred scriptures into a false pattern. I am sorry and ashamed of my reasoning, but at the time I just did not know any better.

     The words of our Lord in Matthew 16:18, "Upon this rock I will build my church" are frequently cited. These words merely indicate possession. They do not create a title by which the church must be called. If that were the case, the apostles should have invariably used the designation. Actually they never once used the term "the church of Christ" in that form. If I say "Upon this lot I will park my car," it signifies to whom the car belongs, but does not give the name of the car. You do not know if it is a Dodge, Chevrolet, or Ford. Manufacturers of automobiles give their products names as means of distinction. Others are engaged in producing cars. But there is only one church, never was more than one, and never will be. The church contains all of the saved upon this earth. There can no more be another church than there can be another God, another Lord, or another Spirit. The argument that the church must have a name to distinguish it from other churches is an admission that there are others. This is not true! The people of God need only to be distinguished from those who are not his people. For this the noun "church" is sufficient, since it designates all of the called out ones.

     But do we not have The Methodist Church, The Baptist Church, The Christian Church, The Presbyterian Church, etc., and must we not be distinguished from these? In its essence, this question literally means, shall we not create another party with its special brand name as these have done? To do so is to defeat our announced purpose of attempting to unite the Christians in all sects, by merely becoming another sect. The term "church" is misused when applied to sects. It is impossible to have more than one church as the Holy Spirit employs that term. The Methodist people do not constitute a church, but a party in Christendom crystallized around the views of John and Charles Wesley; as the Presbyterians constitute a party that has crystallized around the theological speculations of John Calvin; and the Friends Church a party crystallized about the teachings of George Fox.

     The party spirit is a sin. It is subversive of the divine purpose. The church of God is not a sect. No combination or coalition of sects constitutes the church of God. There may be many now in the various sects, who have entered into covenant relationship with God, and have been added to the church, but are now involved in the human parties with which

[Page 9]

they are currently allied. All such need to heed the appeal to be just Christians and Christians only, instead of some brand or special party of believers. We need to create congregations where all of God's dear children can meet together about his table without being subjected to creeds, written or unwritten, as the basis or test of fellowship. It is just as sinful to create a party wearing the title "The Church of Christ" as any other. It is the party spirit that is a sin. Giving it a scriptural label does not sanctify it. Let all who are members of the body of Christ receive and respect all others who are members of the body of Christ, and we can begin to restore the concept of the one body for which Jesus died and the apostles labored.

     But did Peter not say, "There is none other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"? Certainly so, but he was not talking about a title of the church. When Peter healed the lame man he said, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk" (Acts 3:6). When the multitude convened he said, "And his name, by faith in his name, has made this man strong whom you see and know." When arrested, he said to the Jewish rulers, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well...And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:10, 12).

     We are not saved by the church. It is the community of saved ones, those who have heeded the call, and thus constitute the ekklesia, the called out. The church, or body, must be saved. It is not a Saviour. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour" (Eph. 5:23). You cannot be saved by a name adopted by the called out ones, but the called out ones must be saved by faith in the name of Jesus. The miracle of healing was performed in Jerusalem. The apostle Paul referred to the congregations in that region as "the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea." This demonstrates that Peter was not holding out salvation upon the basis of a specific church title.

     Those who are hard pressed to preserve their sermon outlines sometimes resort for comfort to Ephesians 3:14, 15, which, in the King James Version, reads, "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." Because they find "Christ" and "named" in the same context, they eagerly seize upon this as proof of their thesis. In doing so, they manifest their ignorance of the text and the weakness of their position. Actually, the expression "of our Lord Jesus Christ" is not in the best manuscripts at all. The word "Father" is from patera, the word "family" from patria. The thought is that every family is derived from the Father.

     Unquestionably, the translation should be "every family" rather than "the whole family." The apostle has been showing that principalities and powers, i.e., the various ranks and gradations of angels in heaven, as well as the Jews and Gentiles on earth, all have a common origin. All came from one creative source. All have the same Father.

     The Revised Standard Version reads, "For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named."

     J. B. Phillips renders it, "When I think of the greatness of this great plan I fall on my knees before God the Father (from whom all fatherhood, earthly and heavenly, derives its name)."

     James Moffatt has it, "For this reason, then, I kneel before the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name and nature."

     My personal view of the situation created by the multiplication of the sects in our day can be summarized in three simple sentences.

1. It is scriptural to designate the community of saints by any term employed by the Holy Spirit in the sacred writings.
2. It is unscriptural to designate the

   [Page 10]

   community of saints by any term not employed by the Holy Spirit in the sacred writings.
3. It is anti-scriptural to seize upon one term and make it the designation of a community of saints, to the exclusion of all other terms used by the Holy Spirit.

     A few comments are in order on each of these. It is scriptural to refer to the communities of saints as "churches of Christ." I have never said that it was not. I only say that it is not scriptural to do so in the attitude and for the purpose for which it is commonly done among those with whom I am associated, for their attitude and purpose are born of partisanship.

     As to the second point, a term may be unscriptural and not be anti-scriptural. Because a specific word is not found in some version of the scripture is no indication that such English term is opposed to the scriptures. We tend to confuse the word "scriptural" with the King James Version of the scriptures. If one quotes from another version, there are some who think his language is not "scriptural."

     As to number three, it is certainly opposed to the tenor of the sacred scriptures for men to arbitrarily select and settle upon one term to the exclusion of all other terms given by the same divine authority, and attempt to justify partisan status by exaltation of that one term or title.

     It is very difficult for a community of believers to remain non-sectarian. None of us are wholly free from the blight of the party spirit. The very complexity of the present Protestant situation militates against us. Satan continually strives to drive congregations into exclusivism and narrow partisanship. The pressures from brethren within are great. Few men can withstand the temptation to conform, to keep silent, and just go along with the current drift and trend. It is my personal conviction that the following points will help us to furnish leadership to a confused and distressed religious world which seeks for guidance.

1. A proper evaluation of our own status. The work of restoration has not been completed. We have not yet arrived." As a covenantal community we are striving to recapture the nature and spirit of the ancient order. This will necessitate changes in life and thought as we learn more of the will of God.
2. A recognition that God has children scattered over the hills of sectarianism. We have not yet gathered all of the scattered sheep into one corral. That is an ideal for which we should strive. We have brethren in the Lord who have not yet seen the wrong or error of the party spirit. We must prayerfully and patiently teach them.
3. A rejection of the idea that the restoration movement is identical with the church of God, and resistance to the attempt to create a new sect under the label "Church of Christ." We should be content to be simply Christians, members of the one body. We need not wear a sectarian label of distinction, for we should not be sectarian. There is only one church. There cannot be more than one. The church consists of the called of God--all of them. There are none left over to be in anything else. If there are those who are not in the body of Christ they are not the called out, and therefore, not "a church."
4. Communities of saints may be designated by the location of their meeting-houses, as was done in primitive times. There was the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila; the church at Cenchrea; the church in the lecture hall of Tyrannus; the church in the upper room at Troas. Today we may have the church which meets in Oak Hill Chapel; the Manchester Avenue church; the Broadway Avenue church. In all congregations of the saints the table of the Lord should be set for all immersed believers whose moral behavior is in harmony with the code of ethics pronounced by Jesus of Nazareth. All such should be welcomed and received to the table. True, some of them may, by accident or unfortunate circumstance of environment or previous instruction, be allied with a human party or sect, but we will not unite them by our own

   [Page 11]

   partisan or sectarian tests of fellowship. We should all seek to be Christians only and persuade others to be. We should not try to make Baptist Christians, Christian Church Christians or Church of Christ Christians--or any other type, kind, brand, or condition.

     We dare not compromise the will of God, or water down his sacred requirements, to achieve a greater degree of oneness. Such union would be worthless. We can only be firm in our convictions, faithful to the revelation of God, and labor in love and kindness, for a better day. We must uphold the truth, as God gives us to see the truth, and we must plead for the authority of Jesus to be respected and regarded. In the midst of a sectarian world we must keep ourselves free from the sectarian spirit. Then the Holy Spirit can use us as powerful instruments of God to achieve the divine purpose.