Cover, T of C, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Shakespeare’s Romeo asks an appropriate question: “What is in a name?” Why is the question of identity so important to the “Continuing Congregationalists” of the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches? Frankly, to many it is not important.
There are a number of our sister churches in the NACCC who have dropped “Congregational” from their name in favor of “Community” or some other descriptor. Still others have never had it there at all. The term “Congregational” was not widely used by the early followers of our Way either. They simply referred to themselves as “the Church of Christ” in a particular location. The question of name, denomination literally means “of the name,” only becomes an issue as other approaches to church life are introduced on the American scene.
We live now in a what is being called the “post-era.” We are post-modern, post-Christian, and post-denominational. So, what is in a name? Why does identity—at least in terms of name-brand—matter?
Our identity emerges from our self-understanding of who we are and what we are about.
Our retiring editor, Joe Polhemus, asked me to do this piece because almost four years ago I raised questions on the future of Congregationalism in the pages of this journal (“What’s the Future of Congregationalism?” The Congregationalist, December 2000/January 2001, pp. 14-17). Little or no discussion ensued from the points that were raised in that piece. In it, I reminded us of the core values that animate the Congregational Way of being and doing Church and pointed out that we have steadily forgotten—or ignored—them. Our identity emerges, or at least should emerge, from our self-understanding of who we are and what we are about. Truly, a name means little if it is attached to something it obviously is not.
“A rose by any other name . . .” We could call a “rose” an “onion,” but because we’ve smelled each, we’ll know the difference. If we’re truly Congregationalists, we’ll function in covenant relationship under the headship of Christ, recognizing the autonomy and completeness of the particular church. If our name is true then we will reach out to our sister churches—the ones we recognize by both name and life—in constructive fellowship becoming a covenant community of covenant communities. What is in a name? Plenty.
The covenant is at the heart of what makes our Way of doing and being Church.
Those first followers of Jesus were called “Christian” because their lives and actions mirrored those of their Lord. The first Congregationalists took this name simply because it described who they were and what they were about. The issue to me now becomes whether we continue to be worthy of the name that so many are so quick to drop; and if we are worthy, what are we doing to continue it?
There are denominations and associations of churches that are doing serious study about the nature and the currency of their identity. Some are looking at focus groups and marketing ploys to help identify themselves and get the word out as to who they are. We have an historic identity ready-made, if we’re willing not only to claim it, but to live it. We already have the identification as the people committed to religious liberty and reasoned faith within a classical Christian framework. We have something to offer because at the core of our theology of Church is relationship—articulated in the covenant concept.
Other groups are promoting and embracing the covenant concept. Wonderful. However, the covenant is one of our core values. The covenant is at the heart of what makes our Way of doing and being Church. We were doing small groups long before “small group ministry” was all the rage. After all, the Cambridge Platform clearly states that our churches should not be so large that we could not conveniently meet together. We’ve been oriented to covenant relationship and small groups, formally, since 1648. We have an identity and it is represented in the name: Congregational.
We simply cannot keep running away from our heritage, using the freedom that our Way gives us as a license to ignore who and what we are. If the name does not have the currency or the appeal that it once did, we need to do something about it. As Dr. Arvel M. Steece, long-time NACCC Historian, is fond of saying, “There was a time when they didn’t call us ‘the Congressional Church’!”
Our identity isn’t about preserving the Pilgrim mythos and celebrating the glories of the past. We are called to be far more than an antiquarian society or a polity interest group. Our identity is found and articulated in living out fellowship through covenant relationship in the challenges of the present. What is in a name? Our heritage . . . and our future.
Revitalization for our churches and our association(s) will come only with the rediscovery and embracing of the core values which have spawned us.
To be Congregationalists means that we need to get beyond the unpleasantness of the merger years. What is done is done; the time to wonder “what if?” is long past and is neither productive nor charitable. Realizing that, we can no longer simply say that “we aren’t the United Church of Christ.” The time for negative identity is at an end if we are to thrive, because it should be patently obvious that being the “anti-UCC” no longer works—neither will dropping our identity as Congregational. Rather, we have to identify ourselves positively. Not as continuing, but simply as Congregationalists. What we are is the Lord’s free and gathered people—people of the covenant—people in relationship.
To be Congregationalists we need to take a long, hard look at our associational structures, both nationally and regionally. We have expected the NACCC structure to do things for which it was never designed. There is no reason for us to continue to complain: Let’s do something about it. We should make the necessary changes that reflect our identity as people of the covenant and that reflect the reality of the fellowship that makes us truly Congregational. We are not lone rangers, we are not ‘independents,’ and after almost fifty years, it is high time that we reclaim the identity, the structures, and the living fellowship that will allow us to be Congregationalists.
As I’ve worked in the archives of the NACCC and read through past issues of The Congregationalist, I’ve come across many articles on ‘renewing’ or ‘discovering’ our identity. Our favorite expression of late has been ‘revitalization.’ I will say again what I said four years ago, that revitalization for our churches and our association(s) will come only with the rediscovery and embracing of the core values which have spawned us. I pray that four years from now I’m not writing yet another piece that asks, “What’s in a name?” or even “What is the future of Congregationalism?” Rather, I pray that we will have claimed our birthright and will not be ashamed to bear the name that describes who we are and what we are about: Congregational Christians. There is something about that name, because in it is a Biblical, historical, practical, relational way of being and doing Church. That’s what’s in a name and it is important.
Rev. Steven A. Peay, Ph.D., is the senior minister of the First Congregational Church of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. He teaches the theology and polity section of the Boston Seminar for CFTS and is the co-author, with Rev. Dr. Lloyd M. Hall, Jr., of the article ‘Congregationalism’ in the new Encyclopedia of Protestantism, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand.
Cover, T of C, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20