The Church of Christ: Yesterday and Today . . .

INTRODUCTION

Our special study for 197 3 will be “The Church of Christ: Yesterday and Today.” This will involve us in a consideration of the nature of the church as the body of Christ. The church is being challenged as never before, challenged to prove its role in God’s plan and to verify its mission in the light of its present concerns. We will be accepting the challenge in part by entering into the dialogue.

What is the church’s name or names, if indeed it has such? How is it to be organized; What is its worship, if there is any set order? Are there “five acts of worship” as our people have long claimed, or do we need to restructure our whole concept of the saints in assembly? What are the church’s ordinances, if any? What was the role of baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the primitive assemblies, and what does this say to us today?

What were the terms of membership? What was the nature of the unity of the early churches? Was there a “divine pattern” that was followed, thus making churches virtually identical, or was there extensive diversity? What was their practice in reference to the sabbath (Saturday) over against Sunday? Was Sunday the Lord’s day and did they “break bread” only on this day? What is the mission of the church in reference to the poor, the orphaned, and those deprived of social justice? Is the church today under “the Great Commission”?

These are some of the questions we want to deal with, and we intend that our inquiry be objective, free from any sectarian consideration. So, of course, in the use of the term Church of Christ we are not referring to any sect or denomination that may use this term as the name of their party or parties. We refer to the body of Christ and only to that, to the congregation of believers revealed to us in the New Covenant scriptures.

We use the term church in this series with some reservation for we are aware that it is not a good translation. When the Authentic New Testament by Hugh Schonfield renders Mt. 16:8 “Upon that rock I will found my Community,” it employs a better term for ecclesia than church. So does Campbell’s Living Oracles in rendering ecclesia “congregation.” such as in Eph. 1:23: “He appointed him head over all things to the congregation, which is his body.”

We use “church” because it is so commonly employed, and it is likely to remain with us. What is important is that we give the term no institutional meaning. The church of the New Covenant scriptures is nothing more than the body of Christ, consisting of all those who are “in Christ,” irrespective of the claims of sects and denominations. The church is not the sum total of many congregations, for there are some “in Christ” who are in no congregation and there arc some in congregations that are not “in Christ.”

Neither is the church many congregations plus their agencies, as modern Disciples have concluded in their restructure program. The agencies may be made up of those who are in the church, which is Christ’s body, but the agencies per se are not the church. Neither is the church the hierarchy, as Roman Catholicism has so long supposed, a claim they are not reexamining. Again. the pope and his clergy may be in the church, but they are not the church. Neither is the church some “loyal church,” which is the claim of many a sect, for the simple reason that the body of Christ cannot be divided. By its very nature the church is one.

This is why the Methodist Church or the Presbyterian Church, or the Christian Church or the Church of Christ, or any sect or denomination is not the church. Indeed they are not churches at all, but parties within the church that ought not to be, for the body of Christ is one and indivisible.

It is noteworthy that every reformation effort has sought to restore the integrity of the nature of the church. Luther challenged the hierarchy’s claim to be the authoritative church, insisting that the church is the people of God and not simply the clergy, thus restoring the concept of the priesthood of all believers. Thus emerged “the reformed tradition” which has seen the church as the fellowship of all believers, which has been the historic distinction between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Recent changes in Roman Catholicism, which critics say has made them “more Protestant,” are really changes in the doctrine of the church.

Barton W. Stone, in leaving sectarianism, moved by degrees. Once out of Presbyterianism, he had his own synod which he finally decided was but another sect. So, in stating his case in the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, he bade all sectism adieu once and for all: “We will that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large.” It was thus a recognition of the true nature of the church that gave force to the Restoration Movement.

Alexander Campbell also sought to lift the true concept of the church out of the morass of sectarian confusion: “There is but one real Kingdom of Christ in the world, and that is equivalent to affirming that there is but one Church of Christ in the world. As to an invisible church in a visible world, schoolmen may debate about it till doom’s day, but we know nothing of an invisible church in our portion of creation” (MH, 1853, 106). Again he insisted: “There is but one kingdom of Christ, one body of Christ, or one church of Christ on earth” (MH, 1853,303). And so he attempted a definition: “The true Christian church, or house of God, is composed of all those in every place that do publicly acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah, and the only Saviour of men; and, building themselves upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, associate under the constitution which he himself has granted and authorized in the New Testament” (Christian System, 77).

But it was his father, Thomas Campbell, that bequeathed to us that great definition: The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and none else can be truly and properly called Christians.”

That is why the Campbells and Stone had no notion that they were involved in restoring the true Church of Christ in the world, for they realized that the church has always been, that by its very nature it is composed of all those who are children of God. Their task was, therefore to restore to the church things that were wanting. This is why they spoke of uniting the Christians in all the sects.

One of our chief concerns in this series should be an examination of the implication in Thomas Campbell’s famous definition that the church is made up “of none else” but those that manifest “by their tempers and conduct” that they are followers of Christ. How easy it is for us to try to identify the church by its doctrines rather than by its fruit. Can carnal, worldly, insensitive people really be the church, however conformed they are to doctrinal soundness? It was belief in the holiness of the church that inspired that part of the Apostles’ Creed (4th century A.D.) that read “I believe in the holy catholic church.” Something is seriously wrong if modern believers are indifferent both to the holiness and catholicity of the body of Christ.

The reformers were concerned for a free church, free to be itself in Christ, and free to be diverse, The confession of Augsburg in 1530 included an article by Luther on the nature of the church to the effect that “the one Holy Church will remain forever,” and that its unity does not depend upon conformity of doctrine so long as it is true to the gospel and the sacraments. And the Magna Carta of 1215 included the statement: “We have in the first place granted to God, and confirmed by this our present charter, for us and our heirs forever that the Church of England be free and have her rights intact, and her liberties unimpaired.”

A free church is what reformation and restoration has been all about. Freedom from sin first of all, made possible by Jesus its head as the sin-bearer. Freedom from conformity to this world, which is the idea of ecclesia which is the church “called out” of the world. But also freedom from political and ecclesiastical pressures and coercion. Freedom from sectarianism and party strife, Freedom to serve, each according to his own capacity.

This is the church of the New Covenant scriptures, Paul taught that each member of the body was free to be his own man in the Lord, Even if wine is lawful, one is free not to drink wine: even though circumcision is neither yea nor nay in the Lord, one is free to be circumcised. “Each one should make up his own mind,” the apostle teaches the Romans, for “It is before his own master that he stands or falls,” and this is surely at the very heart of what the church is all about.

The church is the atmosphere and climate in which God’s children are nourished and thus become what their Father wills for them, This is why Paul could write: “The heavenly Jerusalem is free, and she is our mother.” (Gal. 4:26) —the Editor