“WILL ONLY MEMBERS OF
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST BE SAVED?”

A lengthy article with this title appeared recently in the Gospel Guardian, which might be called a Church of Christ publication of the far right wing. The article itself, however, is typical of the kind of argument with which most of us are so familiar, and which some of us have begun to question.

The author begins by observing that “The report has been widely circulated that members of the church of Christ think they are the only ones who are right, the only ones going to heaven, and that all others are bound for hell.” You will notice that an orthodox Church of Christ member never uses the capital “c” for church as I have done in this sentence. I have already written on this rather strange notion (Restoration Review, Vol 5, No.2) and will not repeat it here except to point out that what people really think is that members of the Church of Christ (with the capital “C”) believe they are the only ones who are right, the only ones going to heaven, and that all others are bound for hell.

The idea that the general public has of the group (or groups) known as “Church of Christ” is that they claim to be the only true Christians, the only ones that are right, the one true church. The public is not saying that “the saved” and “the church of Christ” may not be equated. Surely everyone who professes Christianity would agree that those who are saved and those who compose the church are the same.

This is not the point. The point is that there is a modern religious group, commonly denominated as Church of Christ (a name incidentally that can be traced back no further than the 19th century, and which at the outset was not even used by the Restoration pioneers) that supposes that it is the church of Jesus Christ, and that it alone is the true church. It is this that appears arrogant to so many people.

Our neighbors will not protest our saying that the Church of Christ embraces all the saved of earth and heaven, as the Bible plainly teaches; but they may justly object to the claim that we (our own congregations which are so distinguishable from the others) and we only are the Church of Christ. The Guardian article illustrates this fact clearly in a most interesting quotation from Adam Clarke, the noted Methodist scholar:

The Church of Christ was considered an enclosure; a field, or vineyard, well hedged or walled. Those who were not members of it were considered without; i.e., not under that especial protection and defense which the true followers of Christ had . . .As to be a Christian was essential to the salvation of the soul, so to be in the Church of Christ was essential to being a Christian; therefore it was concluded that “there was no salvation out of the pale of the church.”

We will have to excuse Adam Clarke for using the capital “C” - perhaps on the grounds that he didn’t get to attend Freed - Hardeman College. (When I was a student there under the renowned N. B. Hardeman I learned to keep my C’s straight, if not my p’s and Q’s!)

The Guardian writer appreciates this remark by Clarke. He asks: “Was this a narrow-minded attitude for them to take?” He means was it narrow for the members of the New Testament churches to see themselves as the only Christians. Surely all Christendom will readily admit that it certainly was not narrow for the early church to suppose that they were the only Christians. Our dear brother is missing the point, or, to be nearer correct, he is begging the question.

If Clarke should insinuate in such a quotation as the one above that his own Methodist Church is the Church of Christ, and that all the saved are in that church, I would think him to be narrow.

People feel the same way about us. If we spoke of the Church of Christ in a non-sectarian way, as did Adam Clarke, referring to all Christians, there would be no quarrel. But we equate our own movement, our own part of the universal church, with the Church of Christ of the New Testament. To this people take exception, and justly so, mainly because it just isn’t true. I pointed out in my earlier editorial, referred to above, on “To ‘C’ or Not to ‘C’‘’ that the so-called sectarian writers speak of the “Church of Christ” in a non-sectarian way, while my non-sectarian brethren loyally write of “church of Christ” in a sectarian manner. The Clarke quotation is another instance.

The Guardian article goes on and on about the quality of the church founded by Christ: the church is God’s eternal purpose, it is the body of Christ, the fulness of Christ, etc., with such attending questions as “Was membership in that church essential?”

This whole thing — “Will Only Members of the Church of Christ Be Saved?” — appearing in a Church of Christ journal as it does, is a gross case of what logicians call equivocation. This fallacy occurs when one uses the same term in two different senses, either explicitly or by implication, taking advantage of the most acceptable understanding of the term to one’s own purpose.

Suppose, for instance, that the question read: “Will only members of the Body of Christ be saved?” Or let it read: “Will only members of the Church of God be saved?”

Our brother equivocates by employing a reference to a particular religious group (“The report has been widely circulated that members of the church of Christ think they are the only ones who are right, etc.”) , and then equating that group with the church of the New Testament, which is viewed as something entirely different by people generally. If our good brother wishes to see himself as others see him, he might imagine a Church of God minister writing just as he has done, only substituting Church of God for Church of Christ.

In such a case our brother would likely say to the Church of God man, “Yes, but the point is that there is a big difference between what you are calling the ‘Church of God’ and the Church of God of the New Testament.” And that is precisely what I wish to say to my Guardian brother in this article.

Certainly one must belong to the church of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, once these terms are all understood properly. But one does not have to belong to what the Gospel Guardian usually refers to when it speaks of “the church of Christ” in order to be saved. There was no such church for 1800 years of Christianity!

That this “church of Christ” that the Guardian speaks of is part of the great Church of God on earth I doubt not, and I readily concede that within its context there are many of the great Christians of the world. I also believe that it has an important role to play in mending the walls of a crumbled Zion. As part of the Restoration Movement it can have a significant mission within the church at large. This should be enough. When it claims that it is Christianity, the only Church of Christ there is, it largely negates the good it could otherwise do.

The idea that one must belong to the Church of Christ in order to be saved can be an embarrassing proposition, for someone just might ask, “Which Church of Christ is it that one must belong to?” The Guardian wing of our brotherhood is currently engaged in starting “loyal” churches in towns that have long had a bona fide Church of Christ. Is the implication that people must come out of the older church into the new one in order to be saved? Is the new congregation the true Church of Christ while the older one is not?

The embarrassment is intensified by the presence in the same city of upward of a dozen other kinds of Churches of Christ, all of which are anti-instrumental music and otherwise similar in doctrine and practice. Are all of these Churches of Christ? How much difference do disagreements over premillennialism, cups, classes, lodges, etc. count? When the Guardian writes of one’s having to be in the Church of Christ to be saved, what Church of Christ is it talking about? The answer, to be sure, is the New Testament church! Yes, I know, but which of the several congregations is the New Testament church?

The Guardian article makes some effort to solve this problem, and really it is quite simple once one has all the answers. It is a matter of identifying the right church in the light of the description given of it in the New Testament. This is risky business, for the congregations referred to in the Bible are by no means identical. Someone might ask, “Which congregation is it in the New Testament that you are using for a pattern?” It might be bad business to pattern it after Jerusalem with all its racial discrimination, or after Corinth with its carnality (and tongue-speaking of all things!), or after Ephesus which was told to repent under the threat of having its lamp-stand removed. After all of them together? But is there a composite pattern? And who is to be the infallible interpreter in such matters?

Our good brother says in the article from Lufkin that a church whose “organization is not described in the Bible” can scarcely be the true church. Can we be so sure about the organization of the primitive churches? Is there a monolithic structure? The most careful students of the New Testament assure us that there is no such precise, definitive organizational pattern. But granting for the moment that there is such a pattern, does the Guardian writer really believe that what he is calling “the church of Christ” is an exact reproduction of the organization of the primitive church?

Take, for instance, the salaried minister who serves as an officer in the congregation along with elders and deacons, which is a typical arrangement in the Churches of Christ. This hired functionary is actually the most important figure in the congregation since most of the services feature him. His role is so paramount that when he resigns another must be hired to take his place. Are the Church of Christ ministers, including our Guardian brother, going to tell us that this practice is patterned after the New Testament churches?

Another characteristic of the true, apostolic church, we are told, is its unity; therefore, the divisiveness apparent in “modern denominationalism” rules out all the denominations as the true church of Christ.

I am surprised on two counts that my brethren keep making this kind of argument, puerile and naive as it is. First, the primitive churches were anything but united, if that means they were alike in doctrine and practice, or even if it means that they got along well with each other. Second, we are the last people in the world that should issue warnings against “factions, divisions, parties,” quoting Gal. 5:20-21 as the Guardian article does. If disunity, such as may be found among “the denominations,” nullifies a people as being the true church, then all of us who claim any connection with the Churches of Christ are nullified on the first roll call, for we are the most divisive people in the whole Christian world.

This assumption that we are right and all the others are wrong is both cruel and stupid. I suggest we stop thinking in such terms here and now.

The position taken by Restoration Review along this line we believe to be sane and responsible, as well as true to the scriptures and to the history of the Restoration Movement. It may be summarized this way: the Church of Christ consists of all those who believe in the Christ as Lord and who lovingly obey him in all things according to their understanding, which assumes that they will be baptized believers who are spirit-filled. These saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sorts of sects and denominations. They are Christians, not because of their affiliation with any particular sect, but because of their relationship to Christ Jesus. They are in the sects, but they are not sectarians. They would like to see all God’s people together, but because of the confusion and division they know only to serve the Lord the best they can, despite the deficiencies.

This thesis further affirms that no religious communion of our day can claim to be the one true church. The true church is indeed a reality, as it has always been, consisting of the saints of God everywhere; but the church is divided and splintered so badly that much agonizing prayer and labor are necessary before it will achieve any semblance of oneness.

Our mission in the Restoration Movement is to restore to the church the unity that has always been the intention of God for his people, as it was the prayer of the Christ and the plea of the apostles. There is no indication that such unity has ever characterized the church to any substantial degree. Its history is one of strife and division, not excluding the primitive church itself.

The thesis of this journal, moreover, distinguishes the Restoration Movement from the church itself. We are a movement within the church, working for peace and brotherhood. This is different from saying we are the church, or that we have already restored the true church, and that it remains only for others to discover that fact and join our ranks. We must understand that the church is already among us, divided though it be, and that it is peace, love and fellowship that is to be restored to the church. This must be our mission if we are to be useful to the Christian world.

What then are we to say about the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches and all the others? Is this to admit that they are Christian congregations or Churches of Christ? The answer is both yes and no. It is hardly proper to describe them as unchristian! They meet to worship the same Lord that we serve, and they rejoice in the victories for the Christ around the world, lending their support to those victories. They most certainly are Christian. They assuredly are not pagan or heathen or Moslem. It is they, rather than ourselves, who have composed the great hymns that we sing, translated the Bible that we study, written the important volumes that make up our Christian libraries. Yes, they are Christian, and we should be thankful for the great service they have been to the cause that we love.

And yet the answer is no. I cannot believe that the Baptist Church is the Church of Christ, or that the Presbyterian Church is the Christian Church. They are rather sects; they are divisions within the body of Christ. But this does not mean that they are necessarily made up of sectarians. A congregation of Presbyterians may unwillingly be part of a divided Christianity. They did not create such a condition; they inherited it. They might be ever so willing for their own sect within Christendom to be dissolved into the one great Church of God on earth, and may be eagerly working to that end. Such ones would not be sectarians even if within the context of a sectarian Christianity.

Are these churches “in error?” — a term with a peculiar connotation among our people. Well, I would suppose so, just as we all are. The point about being “in error” is in what respect one is erroneous. Is he right about the Christ? Is the Lord dear to him? Is he dedicated in heart and soul to do the will of God as he comes to understand that will? He may be “in error” about any number of things (as surely we all are) and still be right in attitude.

What I have said about Baptists and Presbyterians would likewise be true of the “Church of Christ” or “Christian Church.” These also are sects within the divided church. We are sects like the others because we too stipulate conditions for fellowship that separates us from others who are children of God. When we say that one must believe and practice as we do about singing (instrumental music) or preaching methods (missionary societies) in order to be within our fellowship, we are sectarian. But we are not all sectarians even if we be within the context.

This means that all of us who love Jesus and who truly desire the fellowship of every child of God must work and pray together for the unity for which our Lord prayed. To do this we must defy the party lines that separate us. This can be done only by love.

“Above all things put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” (Col. 3:14) — the Editor.