-
While
attending the conference for more open Churches of Christ at the
Central Church of Christ of Irving, Texas last January I noticed
that a number of the participants used the phrase “other
denominations” rather than the usual “the
denominations.” This implied of course that they saw
themselves, the Churches of Christ, as a denomination.
-
-
I
saw this as one more indication that we are gradually liberating
ourselves from a debilitating separatism and that we are becoming
more intellectually honest. And perhaps more courteous, for when we
brand other churches as a “denomination,” apparently
something bad, and esteem ourselves as “the one true church”
it is at least in bad taste and it may be arrogant.
-
-
No
one at the conference openly questioned this departure from recent
Church of Christ tradition, but I was ready to defend the
transgressors from both the Scriptures and from our own heritage.
That is what this essay is about. I will show that the New Testament
allows for more diversity than we ‘have recognized, and that
believers do not have to exclude themselves from other Christians
because of differences. Denominations
per
se
are
not necessarily sinful, even if the sin of division may have
produced them originally. It is sectarianism that the Scriptures
condemn as sinful. It is like a divorce, which may be a sin or at
least an evil, but divorced people are not necessarily sinful. I
will concede that denominations are an evil (since the church is by
its very nature one), but not necessarily sinful. But all sects are
both evil and sinful.
-
-
Alexander
Campbell made this important distinction. While he insisted with Mr.
Rice in their lengthy debate that “You can never make a sect
of us” as he pointed to the catholicity of his plea, he
nonetheless in that same debate went on to compare his congregations
with “other denominations” in reference to good sense
and social virtues
(Rice
Debate,
p.
821).
-
-
And
how about the quote from Campbell at the outset of this article? Do
we ever refer to ourselves like Alexander Campbell did?
We,
as a denomination!
And
notice his plea to unite and cooperate
with
all Christians.
It
is evident that he was no exclusivist. In that same reference, which
was a letter to a Baptist leader, Campbell also wrote, “No
Baptist of good character for piety and morality, has ever been,
because of a diverse theory or opinion, excluded from our communion
or communities. If divisions then exist, we presume the crime of
making them will not lie upon us.”
-
-
Does
that sound like the Church of Christ of today where a visiting.
Baptist minister cannot even be called on to address the heavenly
Father in prayer?
-
-
Campbell
frequently conceded that he had started another denomination, as in
the Preface to his 1843
Millennial
Harbinger
(p.
5) where he refers to his efforts as “the necessity of a new
denomination.” On that same page he again refers to the
Baptists and says, “Nothing in their system or ours compelled
separation.” He always regretted that the Baptists forced them
out and that division did come, but even on his death bed in 1866,
he literally wept with joy over the news that his people and the
Baptists were in a unity conference, and he said, “We should
never have separated.”
-
-
This
is the character of our heritage, which began with a passion for the
unity of all Christians. When Robert Richardson, Campbell’s
physician and biographer, wrote an account of “the
Reformation,” with Campbell’s blessings, he said, “This
reformation was born of the love of union, and Christian union has
been its engrossing theme.” He also observed, referring to the
people that became Churches of Christ-Christian Churches: “Nor
did they ever desire to assume a distinct or sectarian name, or to
separate themselves from the denomination to which they were thus
attached.”
(Mill.
Harb.,
1848,
p. 36)
-
-
Our
people were not at the outset separatists and exclusivists.
Richardson knew the story of how the first Campbell churches at
Brush Run and Wellsburg (Virginia) were members of Baptist
associations. Our very first Churches of Christ (they used that
name) were in fellowship with the Baptists! And while they refused
to be a sect, which assumes to be
the
church
to
the exclusion of all others, they admitted to being a denomination,
which sees itself as within the Body of Christ but not the whole of
that Body.
-
-
Neither
do the Scriptures support our separatism. The Bible does urge us to
“Come out from among them and be separate” (Rev. 18:4),
but it is referring to Babylon and the pagan world, not to our
sisters and brothers in Christ with doctrinal differences.
-
-
To
the contrary, when the Scriptures refer to believers separating from
each other it is described as “sensual” (Jude 19), and
“factions, divisions, parties” are listed as works of
the flesh (Ga. 5:20). Since our commitment is to follow Christ, we
must recognize that he had such a broad view of “fellowship”
(or association) that he was criticized as one who was “a
friend of tax collectors and other outcasts” (Mt. 11:19).
-
-
When
our Lord’s own disciples sought to impose upon him a
separatist stance by pointing to one who was doing a redemptive work
“but he is not of us,” Jesus responded with “Leave
him alone, for whoever is not against you is for you” (Lk.
9:49-50). While we seem to go out of our way to
exclude
people,
Jesus appears to have gone out of his way to
include
them,
such as his celebrated visit in the home of Matthew, which caused
irate Pharisees to ask, “Why does your teacher eat with such
people?”
-
Our
neighbors are not likely to ask such questions of us so long as we
will not even join other churches in an Easter program or be with
them in a Thanksgiving service.
-
-
We
are an important part of God’s church upon earth and we have a
glorious heritage, but our impact upon the church at large and the
world about us will be blunted so long as we preserve and perpetuate
these self imposed myths that separate us from other Christians. And
chief among the myths is that
while
all other churches the world over are denominations the Church of
Christ is not.
This
adds up to Christianity being of two kinds, “the
denominations” and us! We presume to be a breed apart,
the
true church.
While
our own pioneers thought of themselves as a denomination of
“Christians only,” we leave the impression that we
consider ourselves the only Christians and not a denomination at
all.
-
-
With
such an attitude we can never be taken seriously as a unity people.
While the Scriptures call for loving forbearance as the prescription
for unity (Eph. 4:1-4), we can only issue a demand for conformity to
our own doctrinal position. This of course is not unity, which by
its very nature implies diversity. When the apostle Paul calls for
forbearance as the way to unity, he is implying that there will be
differences, otherwise there would be nothing to forbear.
Conformity, if it were possible, needs no forbearance.
-
-
Shall
we shame Alexander Campbell for such language as “We, as a
denomination” or shall we praise him as a realist who is
facing the facts. If we could learn from our own heritage and from
the Bible that an exclusivistic attitude among believers is sinful,
it would go far in making us a more responsible people. At this
point I will settle for that one concession that will turn our
thinking around:
admit
that we too are a denomination.
-
-
Now
and again I have asked our leaders through the pages of this journal
to name what the Church of Christ would have to have that it does
not have in order to be a denomination. Or to put it another way,
what is there about us that makes us “undenominational”
while all others are “denominational?”
-
We
can’t say that we are not specifically named, for we use the
name “Church of Christ” exclusively. Do we have a
congregation anywhere that does not have a sign with that name and
that name only? And that is what a denomination is, a
named
religious
body, a name that distinguishes it from other groups.
-
-
We
have our own distinctive set of doctrines as any number of our
tracts and sermons will indicate.
-
-
We
have our own agencies and institutions, whether publishing houses,
colleges, universities, schools of preaching, school systems,
orphanages.
-
-
We
have our own missionary societies even if we do not call them that,
even if some of them are one-man or small group operations.
-
-
We
have our own seminaries even though we call them by other names,
lest we be like “the denominations.”
-
-
We
have our own conventions under the euphemism of lectureships.
-
-
We
have our own clergy, whether ministers or missionaries, even if we
do not use that term.
-
-
So,
why are we
not
a
denomination when these same attributes make all other churches a
denomination?
-
-
It
might be argued that since we have no central headquarters or no
super organization that runs our congregations that we therefore are
not a denomination. But there are numerous churches that are
congregational in polity, all of which we classify as
.denominations. It is not the type of organization that makes a
religious group a denomination, but that it is a distinct group
separated from others by such attributes as listed above.
-
-
We
even have our listing or directory of congregations, a sure sign of
denominational status. My copy reads
Where
the Saints Meet,
1984:
A
Directory of the Congregations of the Churches of Christ.
It
is published by Firm Foundation Publishing House.
-
-
The
title of our directory, which is tantamount to saying “Church
of Christ Churches,” puts us in the same category with
“Assembly of God Church,” the name of another
denomination. If believers were truly “undenominational,”
as with the primitive church, it would be enough to say Assembly of
God or Church of God or Church of Christ —with or without
capital letters! But when you say “Church of God Church”
or “Assembly of God Church” or “Congregations of
the Churches of Christ” it is a dead giveaway that these are
denominations.
-
-
Paul
might write “to the church of God at Corinth” but never
to the “church of God church” at Corinth. He might write
“the churches of Christ salute you,” but never “the
congregations of the churches of Christ salute you.” That is
what ecclesia (church) means,
congregation,
so
if we are “Congregations of the Churches of Christ,” as
our directory reads, then we are precisely like such denominations
as “Assembly of God Churches” and “Church of God
Churches.” This means that the term “Church of Christ
Church” is correct and appropriate once we admit that we are a
denomination. And our directory admits it since its title is the
same as “Church of Christ Churches” or “Church of
Christ Congregations.”
-
While
Alexander Campbell did not have all the marks of a denomination in
his day that we now have, he did have a distinctive, recognizable
religious body that was
named
(or
denominated, which is what denomination means), albeit it had three
names (Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, Churches of Christ),
and so he was honest enough to admit it. And so he would write,
We,
as a denomination…
-
-
I
challenge the Church of Christ leadership to be as honest and face
the facts as candidly. Or do they choose to repudiate Alexander
Campbell? I will applaud any minister, any missionary, any
professor, any elder, any editor, who will address the Christian
world as did Alexander Campbell “We, as a denomination. . .”
Who will be the first to do so?
-
-
As
for me, I realistically accept our denominational status, but in
view of our rich heritage as a unity people we should be a
denomination in protest. The Movement is in fact now
three
denominations,
but let us be “denominations in protest,” which means we
will continue to work for the realization of the one, united Church
of God on earth, a reality that will transcend all denominations as
such. Until then we have little choice except to work in
denominational structures.
-
-
It
is being one or two or three
sects
that
we must avoid. To be a denomination is forgivable and probably in
time unavoidable and maybe even appropriate, but to be sectarian is
inexcusable and sinful. And what really disturbs me is not that we
have those sure marks of a denomination, but we also, some of us at
least, have the marks of a sect. And
that
is
a weighty sin. —the
Editor