The Description 'Church of Christ'A sign is erected to say something to the general public. But the impression conveyed may be one we have given to the words used, rather than the literal meaning of the words used. As an example, what do you think when you see a church building with the sign: "Church of God"? Do you not think "Pentecostal," "Holiness," or whatever connotations your section of the country gives that designation?
If "church of Christ" does not convey the idea of the saints who serve God through Jesus Christ, who gave it the different meaning? "WE" did!! And don't you forget it!! By that, I mean people who have used this designation have given it the connotation now assigned it by the public. If it "says" "Promoters," "Fun-and-Frolic," "Just Another Sect," or "Stubborn Antis," it is the fault of those who use it. Changing the "name" (or leaving off "names" all together) (the public can say "those nuts that won't use any name") will not answer the need to so live and teach that the public will think of us as the people of God.
Too much has been made of designations. I suspect that earlier concern for the "name" was spawned by a subconscious desire for institutional image; but it must be admitted that our society demands some sort of means for public recognition. If we used only "the church" (or "assembly") the term would take on special meaning in the public's eye. A different designation every week (an actual proposal), would only add to the confusion.
I'm afraid we are stuck with the difficult task of teaching, living, demonstrating that we are truly children of God, members of the church one reads about in the New Testament. Now isn't that just awful?