by Stan Mitchell

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene ii, line 43).

Remember the country song about a "Boy Named Sue"? Names matter! If you don't think so, then why didn't you name your daughter "Jezebel"? Or your son "Judas"? We used to say that we should call Bible things by Bible names. This is still important. In spiritual matters, if you attach a non-Biblical name to something we do, chances are you are describing a non-Biblical phenomenon.

Thus we call the church by names only found in the Bible. The "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16), the "church of God" (Acts 20:28) and any other name the Bible calls the church is a name we can wear with pride and gratitude. Any name for the church found in scripture describes a Biblical reality; any name not found in scripture must describe something not found in scripture.

Phrases such as "Accept Jesus as your personal savior," (was he previously an impersonal savior?), "The sinner's Prayer" and "Look forward to the Rapture" are not found in scripture. Whatever these terms describe, they don't describe a Bible truth. They must surely describe something more, or something less than the Bible describes. And that would be to describe too much, or too little.

"I warn everyone who hears the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. If anyone takes away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life, and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (Revelation 22:18,19).

Names have always been important to God, from the time he named the first man "Adam," to the time he will read our names from the Book of life. On that day, the name God chooses to call me will be very, very important.

(Thoughts on being a restorationistic people)

by Barry Newton

Why do we immerse in water those who wish to rely upon Jesus for salvation? Because the early church baptized those who responded to the preaching of the gospel? Or do we practice this for the same reason the early church baptized - namely, the gospel calls for this obedience of faith?

Why do we gather on the first day of the week, appoint elders to shepherd a congregation, lift up sacrifices of praise from our hearts, or strive to teach the same doctrine which the church of the first century also taught? Is it because our goal is to imitate the first century church (with all of its problems?) or is our doctrine and practice driven by the same reasons for why they practiced and taught as they did?

The first time I stumbled onto criticism rejecting a restorationistic goal was about sixteen years ago in a small college’s library. I remember a deriding sentiment along the lines of: “which flawed New Testament congregation does a restorationistic goal seek to reproduce?” Perhaps the author thought his analysis was brilliant. I evaluated it’s weight to be as relevant as a red herring. Maybe some of my brethren are merely trying to reproduce a culture and time-bound manifestation of God’s people. Who knows? But even if this were the case, would not such a cultural misfit in our age fall within the scope of being acceptable to God?

As for me, to embrace the intended message of a divinely-guided biblical author charts the path toward a worthy and reliable goal. What security before the Lord is there in following an interpretation cut loose from the moorings of the author's intention? Will not a culture-driven or a reader-centered message tell you more about the reader than God's will?

Incidentally, to whatever degree our current doctrines and practices and those of the first century church successfully fulfill God’s intention, will not one be a reflection of the other? Why? Because the same reasons shaping doctrine and service will have led both of us to practice that same message in our respective contexts.

Can not such an approach handle the cultural and contextual issues? If the command to greet one another with a holy kiss was intended to clothe first century greetings in a holy manner, should not this same reason drive our greetings? Our cultural manner to greet one another may not be a kiss, but our greeting can certainly be wrapped up in a holy motive.

Will not such a method also establish biblical parameters for a godly-driven understanding today? Worship and doctrine guided by the author's intent would not engage us in a slavish devotion to incidental aspects of a first century model, thus necessitating the elimination of Sunday school, multiple cups, etc.. Rather, our focus would be to live out within the biblical parameters the same instruction our earlier brethren had received. Accordingly we will preach the word, gather together to partake of the Lord’s Supper and so forth. May God bless you in your study of his word.