Abuse of the Name Christian – Part 2
In regard to the use of the term I have no hesitation in saying that, as a people, we have fallen into error. This I well know has not been intentionally done. Still it has been done; and the circumstance should make us feel how extremely necessary it is that, while detecting small motes in other’s eyes, we do not overlook the large ones in our own. The word ‘christian’, according to the New Testament, is applicable to nothing but a ransomed human being. It is there never applied to things, but only to persons. To us this should be a suggestive thought. If it be true, and this we shall assume, that nothing but a human being can be a Christian, then it follows that whatever the term denotes is limited to man; and from this again, that to apply the term to any thing else is an abuse of it, and inexcusable. If these positions be correct, they will certainly suggest to our brethren the necessity for some curtailment and reform. I need not tell the reader that the term occurs but twice in the New Testament, but this is enough to determine the extent to which it may be applied. No use but that there made of it is tenable. Every other is unauthorized and dangerous. We shall now proceed to point out some of the applications of the word to which we particularly object:
1. The Christian Scriptures.
We shall not be accused of an inclination to depreciate the word of God, or of a willingness to see its power in the least impaired. Neither do we wish its distinctive character to be in any sense affected. Why, then, it may be asked, do we object to prefixing the term ‘Christian’ to the Scriptures a qualifying epithet? I object to it, first, because it is useless. The expression, ‘the scriptures’, is now the appropriate designation of the sacred writings. No epithet we can use can render it more intelligible or more definite. It is clear and enough, and for more than this there is no necessity.
I object to it, second, because, even allowing the term to be applicable, it is not correct. In no view could it apply to more than the New Testament; yet it is generally understood to embrace the ‘old’ as well as the ‘new’ sacred writings. While the Christian accepts as profitable all these writings, yet it is the ‘new’ which embraces the matter of his faith, and constitutes his rule of life. This therefore is peculiarly his book; hence to this alone could the term apply, if to either.
It is proper to add that popular usage certainly sanctions the expression ‘Christian scriptures’. This we well know; but in this, as in many other things, we think popular usage wrong. In matters purely worldly the decision of popular usage is generally final, but not so in matters of religion. Here usage is no standard.
2. The Christian Church.
With us a people this is certainly an ambiguous expression. Whether it denotes a meeting-house, or a congregation of disciples, the phrase itself, as used by us, does not determine. Indeed it may mean either or both. This is an evil imperiously demanding correction. I respectfully, then, submit to our brotherhood that we adopt it as a universal custom never to apply the word ‘church’ to a meeting-house. Let us apply the word ‘church’ only to the whole body of Christ, and to the individual congregation. This will remove a serious blemish in our present speech. I would further suggest that our houses of worship be called by the modest and becoming title of ‘meeting-houses’. This is free from all ostentation, and to my taste faultless. Purity and simplicity are characteristics of the gospel, and should be of every thing connected with it.
But I shall be asked what epithet I would use to distinguish the church of Christ in a given place from the other churches meeting therein. The expression other churches raises a new question, one whose correctness I am free to say is with me by no means settled. Certainly I should first require a case of other churches to be clearly made out by the New Testament before I should feel under the least obligation to provide an epithet which would amount to a virtual recognition of them as of the Lord. Confessedly Christ may have two or more churches in the same place, is in a large city, but the phrase other churches is not designed to denote these. It applies to the sectarian organizations of the day. These we do not recognize as churches of Christ, but as fragments of the great apostasy. Hence we feel under no obligation to provide a name which shall distinguish the church of Christ from them. But the New Testament furnishes us epithets, the only ones we should use; and if any distinctions exist which these do not mark, then we must insist that such distinctions are unrecognized by the New Testament, and hence should have no name.
Suppose, now, that Christ has a church in a given place. How shall we appropriately designate it? Call it simply the church of God, or the church of Christ. These are Scriptural names; no others are. But it will be asked: What is the distinction between the expressions church of Christ and Christian church? I answer: that is Scriptural and always will be; this is not Scriptural and never will be. Purity of speech requires that we speak of Bible things in Bible language. Church of Christ is Bible language; Christian church is not. Can we, then, as a people, hesitate as to which we shall use? But it may be said: this is becoming unnecessarily nice; there is no necessity for the observance of such minute and trivial distinctions. I shall not deny that the distinction is minute; but I trust no brother in our ranks will call it trivial; and as to whether we should observe it or not-this depends upon whether our speech should be pure or not. We have for some time labored under the belief that our popular vocabulary would be the better of revision; and not merely of revision, but of thorough revision. The work had just as well commence with the word Christian as with any other. Let us remember that this term applies only to persons, never to things, not even to organizations when composed of Christians; and we shall have no difficulty in [286] knowing how to use it. But in thus speaking, do I not pass sentence against many a line of mine own? Perhaps so; but is that a reason why I should not thus write? With me my own blunders can never become a plea for repeating them. When we complain of a fault we complain of it for self as well as for others. It matters not who may have practiced the abuses of which we speak; they are not therefore right, and should be corrected.
But we have other abuses of the word Christian besides the preceding. We have Christian Universities, Christian Colleges, Christian Academies-how many we can not tell. That a people claiming to be reformers, to have returned to the faith and practice of the New Testament, and to great extent even to its pure speech, should have fallen into this flagrant abuse of one of its most important personal designations, proves that even the most watchful have need still to watch and be watched. That a disposition to mark every thing in our ranks as consecrated to Christ, and to render even our institutions of learning subservient to this cause, has contributed to the abuse in question may be readily admitted. But this does not justify it. The thing is wrong and should be abandoned. A college or seminary, no matter by whom owned, or how governed, or for what end conducted, can never be Christian in any sense save a wrong one. There is just as much philosophy and as good sense in a follower of the Saviour calling his horse and his cart respectively Christian horse and Christian cart, as in calling the bricks and mortar which compose a house a Christian seminary, merely because it happens to be owned and managed by Christian men. We have grown familiar with the thing; hence its absurdity affects us but little.
– Moses Lard