what think ye?

[gordon.annan]

Having read quite a lot about the church of the bible, I find figurative expressions for the church. E.g the house of God, the flock,the bride, the church of God, the house hold of God, the church of Christ etc. My understanding is that these are not actually names. I do know that christians make all these expressions. Iam I right? If WE SHOULD SPEAK THE SAME THING, WHAT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT ONE IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST- a fair experssion for the called out belonging to Christ knowing that then commeth the end, when Christ shall hand over the called out and all authority to God the father. Do THIS THOUGHT CARRY ERROR? what think ye?

In his vine yard,

gordon.annan

[Butch]

I have begun a habit of refering to a body that I believe not to be in error as "The Lord's church." Any name that gives ownership to our heavenly Father, is Scriptural. There are several names in use that would be fine, if only the doctrine taught inside were correct.

I do believe, knowing what I know about current events, that to call the congregation with whom I meet anything other than church of Christ would be equivalent to hiding who we are.

[broSonnie]

I have actually suggested changing the name from "church of Christ" to "The Lord's church" (specifically... "A CONGREGATION OF THE LORD'S CHURCH MEETS HERE" on the sign out front and anything identifying that congregation - using "The Lord's church for general conversation) simply because there are soooo many liberal and/or denominational congregations using "church of Christ" in their name now.

Of course it probably would not take long before the same problems started happening with "The Lord's church".

[Steven Rasberry]

I would not suggest going by various designations, acceptable or not, because it would cause too much confusion.

But if the congregations of the Lord had much study on this and in a "mass movement" decided to go by a different designation/description, in efforts to be holy and not confusing, to those that have hijacked the church of Christ designation, it could be a good thing.

It has been done twice that I know of in history, once in Antioch when they went from being known as those of "the Way" and went with the description, "Christian", but since so many these days go by Christian and have so many denominations, our brethren 100 or so years ago started going by Christians, who make up "the church of Christ".

To be unified in this movement would not be a divide because "they" already did the dividing, causing the sound congregations to need to consider such a thing.

I am NOT for giving ourselves descriptions such as "Love church", "Grace church" etc because it dilutes us into the mass.

All along we have called ourselves the Lords church, so I think this would be a fine description of our brethren.

I have heard encouraging news that some brethren are going into apostasy strongholds and are teaching the Truth and trying to bring back the lost and restore some of the lost sheep of the fold, so maybe not so many will be lost into the tidal wave of apostasy that has taken such a devastating hit on the body.

I know this is a pretty controversial post I have just made so if anyone has issues with it, I would be happy to respond to an email if they want to discuss it further.

[broSonnie]

It would seem to me that as part of remaining autonomous and not forming any type of association, that it should be left up to the elders and/or members of a congregation to scripturally name their meeting place.

I have not ever studied this... is there specific Scripture that commands that we use a certain name?

I do realize that no matter what we call ourselves as a congregation, we are still all members of the church that belongs to Christ.

[Steven Rasberry]

No there is no specific name for the people of God but in the beginning, it was easy to tell who they were because no one was like them. Eventually, as we see from the scriptures, more and more came in and were false and things progressively got worse.

If it were not important to identify each other we would not go by anything. But we have bible pattern shown that they went by Christian publicly but among themselves they called themselves various things.

We do the same today when talking to each other. Today we also face melting into the mass of falsehood if we do nothing so we can find each other.

These are difficult and trying times we live in today. We must walk with real caution with respect to not only autonomy but to the church universal in Christ, since we are all in Christ and must consider how we as congregations of the body are joined into the body world wide. Although the hand is separate from the ear, they still are attached into one body.

1 Corinthians 12

12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into[c] one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?
20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.


Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

[Tim Hester]

Brother Sonny since God is not a God of confusion (I Cor. 14:33) and since He wants all things to be done decently and in order (I Cor. 14:40) would it be proper for congregations to take on different names causing confusion and disorder among the saints. Although we are autonomous we are still united as one body and the single name helps us to show our unity.

Also if a fellow Christian is travelling or moving into a new community would it not cause confusion for them if they don't know how to search for the Lord's church by not knowing what name to search under? It is already hard enough having those who are not true congregations of the Lord's church using the name church of Christ and it would make it even harder if the church in one town goes by one name and in the next town goes by another.

Their is nothing wrong with using the designation on the building the Lord's Church and it is a decision which the local congregation has to make for themselves. Although they do need to ask themselves is it expedient for us to use some other name other than church of Christ.