Hello all:
One thing that I find really interesting is that throughout the streams of the Restoration Movement, only two names are used.
In my fellowship, we call ourselves the “Church of Christ.”
In the ICC, they call themselves a “Christian Church” or “Church of Christ”
In the ICOC, they typically call themselves the “Church of Christ,” sometimes with the word “International” tacked on to the front, and more and more now, I am seeing congregations calling themselves a “Christian Church.”
The Disciples of Christ call themselves “The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).”
Furthermore, DOC and ICOC members both refer to themselves as “Disciples” pretty often.
I’m intrigued by this similar system of naming. Of course, because we all come from the same heritage, there is going to be some crossover. I like it. It reminds me that we are all family, and that is important.
I’m also intrigued by the recent use of the name “Christian Church” by ICOC congregations. I think its kinda neat and interesting to see the ICOC using the same names that the Independents use, even though the ICOC came of out a fellowship that had split from the Independents 80 or so years before. I’m sure some in the ICOC don’t like it because it masks the heritage of the congregation, but I think its interesting just the same.
I wish the a capella Churches of Christ had “Christian Church” counterparts like the Independent Christian Church congregations have “Church of Christ” counterparts, but that doesn’t seem too likely. The newer church plants that have removed “Church of Christ” or consciously de-emphesized the COC label seem to stay away from the “Christian Church” label….
One last aside, I’ve seen some websites, mainly Piney I think, bash the name “Christian Church” as unscriptural. I think that’s garbage. If I remember, the bible says that disciples were first called “Christian” at Antioch.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
February 11th, 2006 at 22:54
You gotta have a consistent name and logo. Well, if you can’t have a logo at least you have to have a consistent name. Otherwise,where will you go churching while you are on vacation. You wouldn’t want to wind up in the wrong place. The Lord may return at an inopportune time!
;)
February 12th, 2006 at 5:08
One of the (past) distinctive beliefs of the ICOC was the “one church, one city” doctrine. Each city had one congregation which represented God’s movement. The names of the local ICOC congregations usually followed the pattern of; City Name Church of Christ or Region Name Church of Christ. Some adopted the Christian Church nomenclature because of local culture or law (the word “Christ” is forbidden) or to distinguish it from the Church of Christ in areas where the Church of Christ is prevalent.
Phil Spadaro
RestorationUnity.com
February 12th, 2006 at 14:27
Phil’s right on on the naming convention for the ICOC. Now, sometimes we’d get to a city and there would already be a Somewhere COC. That’s when we’d use the Somewhere Christian Church instead.
The use of the word International pretty much began with Kip’s most recent ‘calling out’. He’s changed his church’s name to be the Portland International COC where it was the Portland COC before, I bet. The only use of International in one of our church names was back at the Indy split where Ed Powers took the Indy COC, so the new church established after the split was the Indy ICOC. Interestingly, the Indy COC wanted to distinguish themselves from the ICOC so they became the Circle City Church.
As far as ICOC members being upset about loosing the connection to our heritage, I doubt that there are many. Unfortunately, we never had any real connection to our heritage. We rarely spoke about where we came from or what we had in common with others. We were separatists, unfortunately. The only history folks knew of was the “Thirty would be disciples ..” speech. History only went back to 1979.
February 12th, 2006 at 15:28
I think the scriptures described the people rather than using a name. Though it is interesting that in 1&2 Cor and 1&2 Thess he was consistent in how he addressed each church. Anyway, here’s how Paul addressed his letters:
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints
To the church of God in Corinth (same in both books)
To the churches in Galatia
To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus
To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons
To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (same both times)
FWIW.
I think the desire to choose a name originates in the desire to distinguish “us” from “them”. Instead, why not just be the Christians in our city, or those who meet at a certain place?
February 13th, 2006 at 10:07
I’m sure hat if you asked the group in Acts 2 they’d reply simply, “We are called Jews!”
February 13th, 2006 at 13:57
Good point Joel. I wish I could recall the source, but I once read that early believers were thought of as a sect within Judaism instead of an entirely seperate movement. I’ll try and find the reference when I get home tonight.
February 13th, 2006 at 17:05
Hi Joel,
I found the source. It’s a book titled, Christian History Made Easy, by Dr. Timothy Paul Jones. Below is the specific quote:
“Who were the Christians?…..For thirty years people in the Roman Empire couldn’t agree on an answer. According to many Jews, Christians were renegades who had abandoned the ancient Law. Christians, however, claimed that they followed the Jewish Messiah. They even called themselves “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). According to the Romans, the church was simply another Jewish sect (Acts 16:20). Because the Jewish faith was legal throughout the empire, the church’s association with the Jews protected the earliest Christian missionaries.”
I know this strays a bit from the posted topic, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Adam
February 14th, 2006 at 7:18
‘Just to complete Phil’s Ophishal ICOC Naming Conventions Primer, some ICOC’s (mostly the ones in Texas) called themselves ” Church of Christ Jesus.”
I was always partial to “The Sector of the Region of the Super Region of the International Christian Church of Christ Jesus”, but that’s just me. Unfortunately, I was in a small super region and our two regions each had only one sector, so I was just in “The Rockland Sector of the Rockland Region of the Great North Super Region of the New York City Church of Christ.” Yes, really.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:20
I did not see any discussion on Rom. 16:16 which seems to have always been a key passage in the discussion of the use of Church of Christ. It think if funny having been raised outside the USA restoration movement (Doing mission work) that most churches in other countries don’t use Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ etc. but pick there own translation or language to depict The Church “Christ’s Church” I have always felt it is a bit petty to try and improve on Jesus own words “I will build MY Church!” Matt. 16:18 If we got back to the simple reality that The church is “HIS” we might be a little more humble toward it’s names and where it is found instead of drawing lines in the sand.
Pijpman.
By the way thanks to Clark for inviting me to join youralls discussions. I find it quite helpful in thinking out different ideas.