ARE WE A DENOMINATION?

A recent full-page ad on books in the Gospel Guardian appears innocent enough. It is a list of 25 or 30 commentaries, arranged under two headings, one by "Denominational Authors" and the other "Written by Brethren." This is, of course, common practice among our folk, but I happen to believe that we should now and again call into question that which is common—if not unclean!

This business of the other guys being "the denominations" and we "the true church"—or the brethren—is but one more expression of our cruel exclusivism. We are sectarians when we carve ourselves out of the Body of Christ at large and claim to be the sum total of that Body. We may not intend it, but we leave the impression upon our neighbors of being self-righteous and haughty, for we see ourselves as the church, while they are way down below us somewhere, mere "denominations."

This notion that all others are denominations beside ourselves is a curious hangup. How can we really expect the Christian world to take us seriously when we make such claims? We have Church of Christ papers, Church of Christ colleges, Church of Christ preachers, Church of Christ publishing houses, Church of Christ orphanages, and even Church of Christ church builders, who finance "only for Churches of Christ" as per their ads. But still we are not a denomination, when, by definition, a denomination is that which has its own special name of identity!

In the same issue of the Guardian there were 96 ads of churches, the "Where to Worship when Traveling" bit. I have noted carefully that every one of them—without a single exception—gives its name as "Church of Christ" if it's named at all. Ninety-three read "Church of Christ," while three give no name at all, only the address.

Well, there is no need to belabor the point. We all know that we have "our" name and we don't want anybody else horning in on it. And that includes those "Christian Church" folk up north who presume to call themselves "Church of Christ," which really fouls up our folk, for the only way they have of telling the difference is when they spot an organ over in the corner—then bang!, out the door they go like a shot out of a cannon, lest they be contaminated. Thomas Campbell, that genial Presbyterian who started this thing in this country, suggested that you identify "the Church of Christ upon earth" by its Christ-likeness. That's not bad, but why bother with a little thing like that when the matter can be solved by the presence or absence of a music box!

This "name" business is an interesting thing in our history. James O'Kelly, who walked out on Bishop Asbury and became a "Republican Methodist," finally decided on the name Christian, and he started the first "Christian Church" in the country. Through the influence of Rice Haggard, an O'Kelly follower, the Barton Stone churches took the same name. Thus came the slogan "Christians Only." Somewhere along the line we converted that saying and thus perverted the spirit that inspired it, for "the only Christians" is sectarian, When the Campbells came along they preferred Disciples. So, through most of last century our folk were known by three names: Christian Church, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ. It is as sad as it is interesting to note that as the Movement divided, each group took unto itself one of these names, generally speaking. The Church of Christ (non-instrumental) is the only one of the three that insists only upon that name and does not use the other two. The Disciples are the only ones who still use, more or less, all three names.

But it was a little more difficult to tag our pioneers as a "denomination" since they had several names that they interchanged rather loosely. But when we, in the Churches of Christ, use that name doggedly and exclusively, it borders on the ridiculous for us to claim to be undenominational. It is game-playing. No one takes it seriously, including our own folk. It is something we are supposed to say now and again, and we keep on dividing the church at large into two parts, one very large and one very tiny—"the denominations" and "us", the true church! But we are maturing with the years. In a few decades our editors will not have to write articles like this, urging us to come down off of it and face facts.

The real issue in all this is not whether we are a denomination, for the facts make that clear enough, but whether we are a sect. A denomination accepts the fact that the church is divided and seeks to be a responsible part of it, recognizing other denominations as Christian also. But a sect arrogates to itself the claim of being the only true church, setting all others at naught. I want us to move from sectarian to denominational in our attitude—then we can get down to the business of sharing truth and making our contribution to the reformation of the church at large, along with others.

But back to the Guardian ad. Barclay, Hendriksen, Barnes, Clarke, Wescott, Bruce, Lenski, Henry, Lightfoot, Thomas, along with scores and scores of authors of the Interpreter's Bible, the Pulpit Commentary, and the New International Commentary are not honored as brothers by the Guardian. How can the Guardian, and all the rest of our folk who so commonly do this sort of thing, make such a judgment? How can we walk into a seminary library and move along the stacks judging who is our Christian brother and who isn't? No wonder some folk see us as a narrow little Tennessee-Texas sect! We don't have to be this way.

There are signs of progress, however, so I want this piece to encourage you and not discourage you. The Guardian has a rather wide view of brotherhood after all, at least for the Guardian. One commentary is by a premillennialist (Milligan). One believed in societies (McGarvey). One is now a "liberal" (Foy Wallace, believe it!). One believed there are Christians in the sects and that Baptists were his brothers (Campbell). Both sides of the "college" question is represented (Zerr and Woods). Even a renegade "conservative" made the list (Fudge). So did numerous Christian Church writers (Restoration Library), which is confusing since these fellows are usually "denominational" and not brethren. This is surely fellowship of sorts, so we should count our blessings.

Anyway, I'm encouraged more than discouraged. The "middle wall of partition" may still run through the Guardian and other such places, but it appears to be a little lower than before, so that "brothers" and "brothers in error" can scamper back and forth in such a way that it is hard to tell the difference between them. And even "denominational" Christians are getting in through the back door, scores of them, and out through the front, all packaged up and posted, ready for "the brethren" to read. It just shows that "false teachers" have something to say to the faithful Christians after all!

I conclude by expressing my appreciation for the new image the Guardian has projected under its new owner, Theron N. Bohannan, and its new editor, James W. Adams. It is a handsome, well-edited journal. In this same issue there is a thoughtful piece on the degrees of sin by Vaughn Shofner, and the eulogy to the late Luther Blackmon by the editor is a tender and moving tribute. It is published twice each month at 7.00 for the year. The address is Box 1586, Lufkin, Texas 75901.  —the Editor