Seeking Old Paths --- (IV.)
Seeking The Old Names
The wearing of party names has constantly been a source of division and disharmony in the religious world. People who wear one denominational name are out of harmony with people who wear another name. James O'Kelley, who was one of the first to begin seeking the old paths in this nation, recognized the evil of party names. The movement that was inaugurated under his teaching determined to get way from party names. In a meeting held on August 4, 1794, Rice Haggard said:
Brethren, this is a sufficient rule of faith and practice. By it we are told that disciples were called Christians, and I moved that henceforth and forever the followers of Christ be known as Christian simply. (J. Pressley Barrett The Centennial of Religious Journalism, p. 264)
Then, as the movement began to take form, one of the "Five Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church" was: "2. The name Christian to the exclusion of all party and sectarian names." Here we see men who were seeking the old paths in the name by which they were called. This is not affirming that they were correct in referring to the church as "The Christian Church." But they were on the right track urging individuals to wear the name Christian.
Elias Smith, who advocated a return to the ancient order in New England, realized this same principle. He said:
. . . I found the name which the followers of Christ ought to wear; which was Christians. (Acts 11:26) My mind being fixed upon this as the right name to the exclusion of all the popular names in the world, in the month of May, at a man's house in Epping, N. H. by the name of Laurence, where I held a meeting and spoke upon the text. Acts 11:26, I ventured for the first time, softly to tell the people, that the name. Christian was enough for the followers of Christ without addition of words. Baptist. Methodist, etc. (Elias Smith. The Life and Conversion of Elias Smith, p. 298)
Here again we see men upon the right trail. They knew they must return to the old name in order to be scriptural. Such was the attitude of the Campbells and others of the restoration.
If we are to return to the old paths and walk therein, we must restore the proper names to the people of God. Hence, we ask "What is the name God intended for individuals to wear? What is the term by which the church is called?"
Let us define name: "A word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought, is designated or known (as the name of John Paul Jones; the name of the United States; names of plants, animals, books, churches, tribes, processes, emotions, or diseases)." (New Century Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 1120) Can we find in the New Testament a word or combination of words by which the church is called? If so, it is scriptural.
The Churches Of Christ
This leads us to examine the term the church of Christ. In my debate with Lawrence Crawford, Missionary Baptist, he vociferously denied that it is scriptural for a congregation to be called the church of Christ. The arguments I used to ascertain truth on this subject are as follows:
1) IN Matthew 16:18 Jesus made a promise: "I will build my church." (Jesus Himself said that it would be His "My church." Therefore, it is certainly scriptural to call it what it is — the church of Christ.
2) In Romans 16:16 several local churches are known as or designated as "the churches of Christ." No one can deny that it is right and scriptural to speak of several local churches as "the churches of Christ." They are known as" or "designated" such. But it is impossible to have a plural term without having the singular of that term. If the plural term "churches of Christ" is scriptural, then the singular term "church of Christ" is also scriptural. There is no other conclusion to which one ran come. We are following the old paths when we refer to the church as the church of Christ. Such a designation is sufficient; we need nothing else.
3) Then in the third place Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. This is well expressed in John 3:29: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled." Now since Christ has the bride (the church), it follows that the 'church must wear the name of the bridegroom. She never wears the name of the best man! In the passage above, John is represented as being the best man. Yet, countless numbers wear the title that was given to him. They call themselves Baptists. Why? Is this in honor of the bridegroom or of the best man? There is never a single passage of scripture that refers to God's people ever being called Baptist. John is the only person who ever was called such.
Let us return to the New Testament and be sure that we are using scriptural phraseology in the name we wear.
Christian
As individuals, disciples of Christ in the New Testament days were called Christians. Acts 11:26 is sufficient to show the truth of this statement. "... the disciples were called Christians . . . " Then in 1 Peter 4:16 the term is used again: "But if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name." There is no glory to God manifested if we suffer in the name Baptist, Methodist, ad inf. We plead for all people to forsake every party name and return to the old paths. Wear the name Christian. Doing so brings the greatest honor to the Lord than could ever be brought by any name.
The Church Of The Firstborn
In the course of my debate with Crawford, he asked me the question: "Is the expression 'the church of the firstborn' the true name of the true church?" It is certainly in order to consider it at this time. The expression, "the church of the firstborn" is found in Heb. 12:23. The term firstborn is plural and therefore has the significances of "firstborn ones." This passage is not speaking of ownership but of content. The church does not belong to "firstborn ones" or Christian (as the Christian church), but it contains firstborn ones. (It is not within the scope of this present study to discuss the meaning of "firstborn ones.") The church belongs to Christ (Matt. 16:18; Born. 16:16.) It contains Christians.
To illustrate: my son has a sand-bucket. This bucket belongs to David — the bucket of David. This denotes ownership. It may be empty or may contain some element. But if I say, "My son has a bucket of sand," we all understand that we are speaking of content — a bucket containing sand. Now, "church of the first-born" is speaking of content. To whom does this church of firstborn ones belong? It belongs to Christ — it is the church of Christ.
Let us go back beyond human and party names and wear the name of Christ — herein can we glorify God.