WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "THE CHURCH OF CHRIST"? 

A brother in Temple, Texas who is president of an investment company, included this provocative statement in a recent letter: "To me this problem of the one church is the heart of all our divisions, and I believe that if it could be understood all the other related problems would fade away." 

He is referring to the fact that many, if not most, of the heirs of the Restoration Movement, now splintered into numerous segments, presume that their own group, and that group only, is the church. And so "The Church of Christ" or "The Christian Church" in a given town is made to include only those who are of' us and no one else. The brother believes that if we can come to see the church as the Body of Christ, consisting of all those who are in Jesus, it will go far in healing our divisive wounds. Each sect arrogates to itself the claim of being the only true church, which is strongly resented by other believers, thus creating a breach that nothing can span. It is a situation that disgusts the world, thus crippling church growth. 

The brother's concern was expressed by a phone call as well as by letter.   He insists that we must straighten out our thinking on what the church really is if we take seriously any plea for unity. In response I pointed out that what concerns him is what has always been a threat to the church ‑ to make it parochial rather than catholic. It was the case at the outset. The story of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 is about that very problem. The Pharisees in the church wanted it to be a Jewish fellowship, predicated upon law‑keeping, particularly circumcision. They were willing for Gentiles to accept the faith if they first became Jews. Paul had a different idea about it, insisting that fellowship with God is based only upon faith in Jesus as the Messiah, apart from any works of the law. This was the catholic or universal view of the church. 

Well, of course out brother in Temple is right, and we pass his plea along to you for what it may do for you. He is also right when he tells me, commenting upon my piece on "Joining the Church," that one may be part of the Body of Christ who has not yet joined any congregation, and that one is not necessarily out of the Body just because he has been ousted by some congregation. The church is the Lord's, not ours, and it is He who includes and excludes. What He opens none can shut, and what He shuts none can open. Let sectarians beware! 

What encourages me about our Temple brother is that he is but one of many who are coming to see the true nature of the church as the Body of Christ, made up of all God's children everywhere. More and More of our people are coming to realize that the Church of Christ in their town consists of far more than those who assemble on the corner of Fifth and Izzard. We are freer when we can take our seat in the assembly, realizing that other believers who are meeting in scores of places in our same town are also Christians and that we don't have to reckon them as heathen. They, too, are Church of Christ if they are in Christ, and never mind about labels and signboards. 

This truth is hard for some. I was at a retreat up in Illinois recently, made up mostly of Christian Church folk (I am using the term in a sectarian sense, you will observe!). In teaching about the church, I pointed out that the Christian Church in Illinois is made up of all baptized believers in the entire state. Some of these are in Baptist and Methodist churches, and some probably in all the sects. They are members of the Christian Church because they have obeyed the gospel, in spite of being Baptists or whatever, and that surely those that make up the Christian Church are far more numerous than those who elect to use that name exclusively. 

I was in deep trouble and but quick. I began to hear those protests that I've heard so often back home in Texas. One can't be taught wrong and baptized right, I was told. I replied that he might be taught wrong about some things and yet be taught right about Jesus — and that he's baptized "right" if he is baptized as a believer, and I quoted Mk. 16:16 of all things. I was told that the church is the Bride and that the Bride must wear the husband's name, and since the denominations do not wear his name they can't be the true church. I observed that if the first part of that were right then we should call ourselves the Church of Jesus, for Jesus is his name, according to the envoy form heaven that announced his coming, and not Christ, for that is what he is.  Furthermore, I insisted,  the church was given no name, and if it had been given a name then it would be a denomination, since that is what denomination means. But I explained that I recognize no denomination, including our own groups, as the true church. The true church consists of all true believers everywhere, many of whom, are in some sect or denomination, but they are Christians in spite of that association, not because of it. 

Well, it got rather stormy, those "Christian Church" folk and 1. Dr. Elliott Partridge, who was presiding, came to my rescue by getting up and reading from an article in the Christian Standard by Dr. Charles Boatman, who had said the same thing I had said, though he probably said it a lot better. But that is more of our sectarianism. If someone who is "of us" says it, it is more palpable. But Christian Standard or no, there were several who were ready for me to leave the state and never return for suggesting that the likes of Billy Graham are also members of the Christian Church. One sister was so irritated at me that she could not restrain herself. "You are a wolf in sheep's clothing," she charged, and I had come to teach false doctrine and upset the faith of the faithful. I wanted to assure her that I was in truth her best friend, but there was no way. But I did tell her that I loved her and claimed her as a sister in spite of her sectarianism. 

Those who regularly read these columns will note that all the sectarianism that I encounter, and all the abuse, is not in Texas and Tennessee among the non‑instrument brethren. Partyism is both organic and inorganic! 

For us to believe that we are part of the true Body of Christ is proper, for indeed we are. It is something else for us to presume that we and we alone make up that Body. Such sectarian exclusiveness is the grave of the Restoration Movement, and nothing has done more to close the ears of the Christian world that might otherwise be open to us. No one can resent our believing we are right and that we have vital truth to share, but they do resent and should resent our believing that we are right and everybody else is wrong, and that the only answer to division is for everyone else to conform to our way of doing things. 

This came home to me while talking with a brother from Australia, associated with what we would call Disciples of Christ. He had received a bulletin from a non‑instrument Church of Christ minister who had written something to the effect that there are now 38 Christians in Adelaide, or whatever. The brother was asking me what the man could possibly mean, for even the Restoration tradition in Australia reaches back 135 years and involves thousands. Since he was unacquainted with the divisions among us in the States, the explanation was both difficult and embarrassing. We decided that the basis of the brother's problem was a false view of the church. 

That is what our friend in Temple is saying. It is just as well that we listen to him. There is but one church, never was but one, and never will be but one. It is not the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Roman Catholic Church, Church of Christ, Christian Church, or Church of God, for these are all denominations, each being separated from the others by a distinct title and creed. Nor is the true church made up of them all. It is rather the Body of Christ, "consisting of all those everywhere that profess their faith in Christ and who obey him in all things according to the scriptures."  —the Editor