WHAT IS DISTINCT ABOUT “THE LORD’S CHURCH”?

One of our Texas readers writes me about a tract that his daughter picked up at a Church of Christ she was visiting. The tract, entitled “The Current ‘Unity Movement,’” referred to me as one “whose sole purpose seems to be to undermine and destroy the distinctiveness of the Lord’s church.” It also charged me with “poisoning the minds of a younger generation.”

The latter charge reminds me of Socrates. He was corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, they charged. The old philosopher was forced to drink hemlock. His last words deserve to live on: “Men of Athens, we depart. You to live and I to die. Only God knows which is better.” To die nonchalantly is the way to disappoint one’s persecutors. Socrates discussed ideas up to the time that they served the hemlock, which he drank without blinking! It is unlikely that I will be executed for “poisoning” the minds of our youth. It is just as well, for I would never be able to think of such an appropriate thing to say as did Socrates.

It is the first criticism that stirred my thinking, leading me to ask, What is distinctive about the Lord’s church? And distinct from what?, I asked myself. From the world? Pagan society? Perhaps the writer meant “distinct from denominations.”

It is the kind of question I like. It is in fact a philosophical question, “ontological” they call it, for it has to do with essence. What makes humankind distinct from animals? What makes spirit distinct from matter? The question asks, what is the nature of the church? Or to put it in Aristotelian terms, what would the church have to lose in order to no longer be the church? Aristotle concluded that a man loses his essence or his “whatness” when he ceases being rational. What is the “whatness” of the church? If I am bent upon destroying the essence or distinctiveness of the church, I would like to know what it is that I am destroying or trying to.

One of the ancient creeds of the church spoke to this: “We believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” I suspect we would all agree that the church is at least these four things. As our own Thomas Campbell put it, “The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.” A divided church can’t be the Lord’s church. But Paul assures us that Christ can’t be divided, and so his church cannot be divided (1 Cor. 1:13). Unity is part of the “whatness” of the church.

The church is holy because it is filled with the Holy Spirit. Its members are saints or holy ones—not perfect but saints nonetheless. The church cannot be unholy and still be the church. Holiness is part of its essence (Eph. 5:27).

It is catholic in that it is not racist, sexist, provincial, or parochial. It is neither east nor west, north nor south. It is universal in that it encompasses all humankind—all races, colors, nations, tribes, and tongues (Rev. 7:9). Catholicity is part of its whatness. A church calculated to be white, southern, middle-class, or male-dominated cannot be the true Church of Christ.

It is apostolic in that it is rooted in the teaching of Christ and his apostles. The earliest church “continued in the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). It is built upon the foundation of the apostles, with Christ its chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).

These are what make the Lord’s church distinctive: oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. There are of course many other things that can be said about the nature of the church, but they can all be summarized in this fourfold whatness. The church is to be pentecostal or Spirit-filled or Christlike, but that is what holiness means. It is to be evangelistic, but that is implied in apostolic. It is to be educational; that too is in apostolic. It is to be God’s family, bound together in fervent love one for another, but that is included in oneness, for only love can unite us.

All this can be said in different ways. When Karl Barth was asked what makes a true church, he answered, “Wherever the power of Christ is at work in the lives of the people.” I’ll buy that, for that too is the church’s whatness.

Back to the tract. It just might be that its author had in mind “none of the above” when he wrote of the distinctiveness of the Lord’s church. Our people are known to refer to “the Lord’s church” in reference to the Yellow-Pages “Church of Christ.” They are not referring to what Alexander Campbell referred to as “the Christians in all the sects” or to what Thomas Campbell meant by “the Church of Christ upon earth.” The reason is simple: all Christians are in “the Church of Christ.”

From this perspective the list of what is “distinctive” is very different indeed. Such as the distinctive name “Church of Christ.” No other name is allowed on the sign out front or on the letterhead. You don’t say you’re a member of the Church of God or the Christian Church. And such methods as acappella singing. If there is any instrumentation anywhere it cannot be “the Lord’s church.” And such as male-dominated services. If a woman takes part in leading the service, even if only reading the Scriptures or leading a prayer or hymn, it cannot be the true church.

So, where are we? What “Lord’s church” is the tract talking about? The Church of Christ of holy Scripture and of the Campbells, or the Yellow-Pages “Church of Christ.” If I am seeking to destroy the distinctiveness of the latter, it is a charge that I might allow, for that is the way to bring an end to sectarianism and denominationalism: Eliminate everything that is distinctive as terms of unity and fellowship. Acappella music, for example, is of course all right when it is preferred, but it must not be made a test of fellowship, nor can it be made catholic.

I do not seek to “destroy” acappella music in the “Church of Christ.” I only say that we are not to reject as equals those Christians who happen to disagree with us, and we are not to make it a test of fellowship.

As for “the Lord’s church” in the broader context, I have, if I know my heart, worked and prayed most of my life for the enhancement of its oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. My first and greatest mission has been to have those virtues in my own life. I have succeeded only in part. The reformation of the church must begin in one’s own life and one’s own heart. Then we can reach out to others with long suffering and teaching, as the Scriptures enjoin, to make the church upon earth all that God wants it to be.

If when it is allover the Lord says, “Well tried, good and faithful servant,” that will be my glory. And it is just as well, isn’t it, that the Lord, who is eager to show mercy, remain on the throne as the judge over us all? Who knows, he might even show mercy to those who have to drink hemlock!—the Editor