The purpose of this FORUM is to provide a medium for the free exchange of views by Christians. We invite you to share your thoughts with us. They need not be sympathetic with or a reflection of our own views in order to be printed. Pen names or initials will be used with all submitted materials unless I am specifically requested to do otherwise. Material appearing without either name or initials may be ascribed to the editor.

Articles submitted should be typed, one or two pages, double spaced. Send all material to me at 1703 Loop 288 So., Denton, Texas, 76201.

WHAT IS A DENOMINATION?

Last month some questions which were submitted by a reader were presented for your consideration. They referred to the nature of denominationalism. Assuming that you have given them some consideration, perhaps you are ready for the subject to be taken up again. What, indeed, is denominationalism?

Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary gives, as the primary meaning of the word denominate, “to give a name to.” To the word denomination is assigned both of these meanings: “ 1. the act of denominating or naming. 2. a general name for a class of like individuals.” While the modern dictionary is not a reliable reference for definition of Bible terms, the words under consideration, being non-Biblical and modern, are subject to such definition. So, it is evident that for a group to adopt a name for the identification of their members is for that group to denominate themselves, and make of themselves a denomination, in the truest and most literal sense of the word. For those who do so to deny to their denominational character as a group is like a mother and father with children denying that they are a family. Contrary to a prevalent notion, denominational status is not determined by the degree of a group’s conformance to scripture in teaching and practice, but by their own use of a proper name as a group distinction.

Of all the denominations with which I am acquainted, only one consistently and emphatically seeks to disclaim its denominational status, and this group, ironically, possibly makes more of their chosen proper name than any other group. The members of this denomination typically believe that their brotherhood (the circle of their fellowship) is identical with the body of Christ, or at least that part of it which is whole and healthy, spiritually. They teach, in effect, “This is that which was spoken by the Apostle Paul in Eph. 4:4, saying ‘There is one body’ (church); this is that one true church, the Church of Christ.”

Members of the Church of Christ are members of a denomination (according to the definition of the word) by choice. By their insistence upon the use of that name as a means of distinction, they are insistently denominational. Further, according to the New Testament definition of the true church, the Church of. Christ (denomination) is not to be equated with that true church in any unique or exclusive way; it no more represents that great body than does any other denomination. I refer you to the accompanying diagram.
 

 

The genuine church of Christ, the catholic body, the assembly of saints enrolled in heaven, the family of God consists of all the saved. It contains all the saved and none of the unsaved. It is represented in the diagram by the dotted line (because the complete scope of its membership is unknown to men). The small spots represent human souls; the black are the unsaved, the white the redeemed children of God. Note that there are no white spots outside the dotted line, and no black spots within. The circles arranged around the dotted line are religious organizations, or. denominations. It is not necessary to identify them all, and the total number shown has no significance. These circles contain both black and white spots, as, I believe, various denominations may count as members both those who are regenerated and those who are not. Who will deny that there may be true children of God on the membership rolls of various denominations? Who will deny that . there may be some make-believe Christians (insincere or non-serious church-members) on the same rolls? If both these possibilities are conceded, the diagram presents a true picture in this respect. It “is evident, then, that what is characteristic of the universal church of Christ is not true of anyone of these distinctively named groups; that is, inclusion of all the saved and exclusion of all the unsaved. Whether Group A or B names. itself “Church of Christ” or not, it cannot claim to encompass all the redeemed and none of the unredeemed; therefore, it cannot claim (with validity) to be “the true church.”

There are some Christians (see center of diagram) who are not affiliated with any denomination. They may be organized as congregations, but if they do not attempt to distinguish themselves from other Christians by “denominating” themselves, they remain literally “non-denominational.”

At another time we will give consideration to the concept of “sectarianism,” as an extension of this theme.

--- FORUM EDITOR

John and Joe Again

“John and Joe are both Christians, sharing a common hope and faith. But they differ on some matters: John believes in infant baptism while Joe does not believe in any water baptism at all; and Joe objects to the idea that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, and holds to what some call the “Unitarian” concept of Jesus, though he attends worship with John. Moreover, Joe partakes of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, while John objects to this. While neither endorses everything the other does they can nonetheless enjoy fellowship with each other.

Is there anything unscriptural about their relationship or anything wrong with this view of fellowship?

--- J. M.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Readers are referred to TSF for February of this year, in which “M. Friendly” posed the original “John and Joe” question The above version has been submitted by a reader who apparently feels he has described a parallel situation. What do YOU think? What is YOUR answer?