FACING UP TO WHO AND WHAT WE ARE

      I noted with interest a short article in Preacher Talk (Kosciusko, Ms) titled "I Am A Christian" by Cecil May, Jr. It set forth an entree common to our people since the days of Alexander Campbell. Looking at it once more after all these years, I can see that it would strike a "denominationalist" as odd, probably more intriguing than offensive.

      It goes like this, as Cecil May puts it:

      "I am a disciple of Christ. . . but not a Disciple of Christ."

      "I am a methodist. . . but not a Methodist."

      "I am a catholic. . . but not a Catholic."

      "I am an episcopalian . . . but not an Episcopalian."

      On it goes down the page, even including, "I am a member of the church of God . . . but not the Church of God." And he had to go out of his way for this one: "I am a member of a congregation which is Christian and independent . . . but I am not of the Independent Christian Church."

      As I made my way down the page I presumed he would not likely include his own church in this dubious lineup, but he surprised me with: "I am a member of the church of Christ. . . but I am not Church of Christ."

      Then I ask myself, is that really the case with Cecil May or any of the rest of us in Churches of Christ? I wrote to our good brother and told him that we only play games and are less than honest when we talk that way. I admitted to him that I certainly consider myself a part of "the church of Christ" (Church of Christ with a capital "C" suits me as it did John Locke and Thomas Campbell, both of whom used it in a nonsectarian way!), which is the catholic Body of Christ the world over, made up of all those in Christ.

      But I am also a member of the "Church of Christ" which began about a century ago when it separated from the Disciples of Christ. To put it another way, I am a member of the "Yellow Pages" Church of Christ, and in particular the Singing Oaks Church of Christ in Denton, Texas.

      I am persuaded the same is true of our well-meaning Mississippi brother. Since he is a Christian he is certainly a part of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church of Christ upon earth. But is that all he belongs to? He knows very well that "where he goes to church" is listed in the Yellow Pages as the "Church of Christ" or perhaps "Churches of Christ" in a way that distinguishes it from other churches or denominations on the same page. In his same little mailout brother May lists some of his speaking appointments, such as Gulf Coast Christian Camp and Lubbock Christian University Lectureship.

      Brother May, are not that camp and university associated with "Churches of Christ" and not simply the universal church of Christ?

      He and I both belong to a denomination known as "Churches of Christ." The difference is that I admit it and he doesn't. That doesn't mean that we are sectarians or that we approve of denominations as such. It may only mean that we can't help belonging to some religious body in addition to that invisible community of Christ in heaven and on earth, the makeup of which is known only to God himself.

      I suppose one could be an "Independent" or "Bible Church" or "Non Denominational," all of which also are listed in the Yellow Pages as distinct religious groups. They are on their way to being denominations, "from sect to denomination" as H. Richard Niebuhr put it. Or one might have no affiliation at all, "just a Christian" one might say. But where would she go to church? If she at last identifies herself with other believers, some church down the street, would she not then belong to something beside "the church of Christ" at large.

      It is high time that we be honest and quit playing our little church games that say that we and only we are "the church of Christ," meaning of course the one and only true church, while all others are "denominations." We in Churches of Christ have such connections as Lubbock Christian U., Gulf Coast Christian Camp, the Gospel Advocate. and Herald of Truth. Other denominations are not associated with these agencies, but have colleges, camps, journals, and cooperative efforts of their own. We have our own "Directory of Churches of Christ," while other churches have their directories, which, incidentally, is the surest mark of denominational status.

      It would be interesting to see how brother May would distinguish between the directory of "the church of Christ," which he describes as "purchased with Christ's own blood," and the directory of "the Church of Christ" affiliated with Lubbock Christian U. Is the listing of God's universal church upon earth the same as the listing of Churches of Christ?

      What is so bad about being a disciple of Christ and a Disciple of Christ, or a member of the church of Christ and the Church of Christ? It is simply accepting where history has brought us. There was first the primitive churches, then the widespread catholic church, then the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, then the Protestant Reformation, then the many denominations, then all sorts of efforts to reform the denominations, which led to still more denominations. We are victimized by history. We have inherited denominationalism. We can hardly help being where we are and what we are.

      But we don't have to be sectarians, and we can have a spirit of unity that transcends denominations even in a denomination. We can even be a denomination in protest, which means we can long for that unity that will one day make us all truly one in Christ, surpassing denominationalism. God will do this in his own way and in his own time. In the meantime we have to be realistic and work within denominational structures, which is where all meaningful reform takes place. No one yet has ever reformed a religious body from without.

      I hasten to concede, however, that there is merit in brother May's argument about being a presbyterian but not a Presbyterian, etc. It points up a fallacy that the human family has long been heir to, which might be called the fallacy of imbalance, or emphasizing a truth or an idea to the degree that it is no longer valid, such as being a laissez faire advocate to the degree that allows for no government controls whatever. A church might so emphasize an effective method that it becomes its hallmark, such as Methodist Church. Or an ordinance that leads to an imbalanced emphasis as in Baptist Church, or a particularly polity, as in Episcopalian Church. All are sound ideas in themselves, but err through overemphasis.

      I mentioned that brother May's argument is as old as Alexander Campbell himself. But notice that when Campbell argues in a similar way he doesn't draw the same inference that May does.

      I am a Baptist, a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, a Congregationalist, a Methodist, a Catholic in the proper unappropriated sense of these words. But not one of them, nor all of them, express my views, my profession, or my practice as a disciple of Christ. In other words, I am an immerser; I believe in a presbytery or eldership in every congregation, and in overseers of the flock. (Mill. Harb., 1839, p. 339)

      Campbell goes on to say he is Methodist because he is methodical in his arrangements, and he is a Catholic in his view of the gospel. But none of these names fully represents the truth as he sees it, he says, so he chooses to call himself simply a Disciple or Christian. He has no aversion to capital letters!

      There is one important thing that brother Campbell doesn't do that brother May does do: he doesn't imply that all the others are denominations while his group is not. I don't think he would include in his list "I am a disciple but not a Disciple of Christ," or "I am a member of the church of Christ but not the Church of Christ."

      Campbell was well aware that he had created another denomination, even if that was not his intention, and in his day it wore three names, not just one: Church of Christ or Christian Church (favored by the S tone movement) and Disciples of Christ (favored by the Campbell movement). Once the movements united they wore all three names. But they realized they were denominational (not sectarian) names in that they constituted still another distinct religious community, which is what denomination means.

      Now and again Campbell would use such language as "our denomination" or "we as a denomination," as in his 1840 Millennial Harbinger (p. 556): "We, as a denomination, are as desirous as ever to unite and co-operate with all Christians on the broad and vital principles of the New and everlasting Covenant." He wanted to be a non-sectarian denomination working with other churches for unity.

      It would be beautifully liberating if the Churches of Christ, and the Independent Christian Churches as well, could accept this simple truth. We would be less isolated from other Christians, and it would position us to take part in meaningful dialogue and cooperative efforts with the church at large. All this of course without any compromise of vital truth. I dream of our Churches of Christ joining the Christian world rather than presuming that they are the Christian world!- the Editor