Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDuff
Their contention they have no name is very misleading. The denotations “the Recovery” and “the Local Church” are names. They don’t, indeed can’t call themselves “the churches of Christ” because that name has already been taken. So they intentionally give the wrong impression. If “the Local Church” isn’t a name, why do they use the phrase as a name in contradiction to the above?
As a Church in the universal sense, they have two names: “the Recovery” and “the Local Church”. They aren’t even right in saying each local church has no name. They definitely do have a name through association with the universal community. And by their own admission are insulting Jesus Christ.
|
Then you got "Living Stream Ministry", "The Lord's Move to Europe", "Continuing Steadfastly", "Bibles for America", "Christians on Campus", "Defense and Confirmation Project", "Affirmation and Critique" etc etc.
The idea of no names is good. I like it, as well. But in our christian practice it seems that we can hardly get through a sentence without some new name popping up, and insinuating itself into the discussion.
But at least let's not be hyporcritical and pretend "no names, please." That's just baldly specious.