(Again I will share with you what I wrote to one of my readers. Ray Downen who has a ubiquitous presence in cyberspace, wrote some things about our being "undenominational." This led me to make some comments to him on that subject.)

Some two generations ago there was the groundbreaking thesis set forth by Richard Niebuhr that religious groups usually begin as sects and gradually evolve into denominations. The "sect to denomination" evolution has been generally accepted as valid. It defines a sect as being exclusive, seeing itself as the whole of the body of Christ, while a denomination is inclusive, seeing itself as only a part of the larger body of Christ.

As for our own heritage on this subject, Alexander Campbell, for one, did not claim to be "undenominational." He in fact conceded that he had started a denomination. If he were in on this discussion he might well ask, "What is wrong with being a denomination?" If one checks his dictionary he will find that a denomination is no more than "a particular religious body with a specific name." But Campbell was adamant about not being a sect. In his debate with Rice he insisted "Sir, you will never make a sect of us, for we are catholic."

A sect is not a denomination and a denomination is not a sect. But a religious body is often, as Niebuhr recognized, somewhere between the two — perhaps still a sect, but taking on denominational traits. The Mormons are a good example of this. They try hard to blur distinctions and be more "mainline," but so long as their dogmas are cultish and exclusive they will never be a recognized denomination, even if they have some denominational marks.

As for Churches of Christ (non-instrumental)), we have virtually completed the evolution from sect to denomination, though we may still have some vestiges of our sectarian past. I presume the same to be true of Christian Churches (Independent). When we claim to be "undenominational" we are not facing facts. The late Al DeGroot of TCU long years ago gave us the sure signs of a denomination: when it has its own list of preachers and congregations, papers, conventions, colleges, missions. Unfortunately, those who claim to be "undenominational" run the risk of being sectarian. Exclusivism again — all others are denominations, but not us.

As for the names by which we have "denominated" ourselves, the Disciples are the only ones who have continued to use all three names. Even in their now official name they preserved two of them: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). They mean by that that there is the body of Christ at large — Christian Church — and we (Disciples of Christ) are part of that church at large — thus the parenthesis. They also still use Church of Christ. Not bad! The rest of us, for the most part, have taken but one name from our heritage — Christian Church or Church of Christ — defining even more sharply what makes for a denomination — a religious group with a specific name.

Your claim that a denomination is a sect is misguided. Take for instance two denominations with which I am fairly well acquainted, the Disciples of Christ and the United Presbyterian Church of U.S.A. I was educated by the latter at Princeton Seminary, which is one of the most ecumenical seminaries in the world, educating ministers for all churches. Sectarian? And the Disciples with their ongoing passion for Christian unity? They are in fact historically recognized for their ecumenical leadership. And you say they are sectarian?

You are to remember that a sect is a division or a faction within the body of Christ that claims to be the whole of that body, the only true church, while a denomination may have great passion for the unity of all Christians, and work to that end, hoping eventually that even its own denomination will die and sink into union with the body of Christ at large. Sound familiar?

Notes

The ACU Lectures start today. I conned a brother in our congregation, who is attending, to take along four boxes of letters (hundreds of them, dated and in folders), gleaned from five decades as an editor, to the ACU library where they will eventually be part of the "Leroy Garrett Papers." And I'm hardly half through! They are about you, my readers for a half century, many of whom, if not most, have gone on. I spent scores of hours getting them ready, and I re-read many in the process, some of which brought the proverbial lump in the throat. For instance, a letter in 1994 from Aleece Gresham, thanked me for writing condolences over the passing of her husband Perry, formerly president of Bethany College. and a dear friend. In the letter she reminded me of one of Perry's toasts:

    May you write a song
        when you are old.
    From the lighting
        of remembered days.

I have been quoting that — a kind of toast — to fellow residents here at the Vintage. One lady took my hand and said thoughtfully, recalling over a half century with her late husband, "Yes, I'll write a song from the remembered years."

Some of the letters are bitterly cruel, comparing me to the man who pierced our Lord's side with a spear. Among the most critical dates back a half century from a brother who now writes me love notes! I don't do any culling of such letters. Generally the letters reflect a groundswell of support from the grassroots, what I've called "the remnant church." They will all be there for future generations to read. They tell quite a story. One is from editors of Newsweek, telling me they would publish my letter to them, thanking them for including our son's picture among the 302 young men who had died of AIDS that year (1987).

We had dinner at the Vintage today and Ouida cleaned her plate. And she's drinking a can of Ensure each day. I'm counting on the doctor's staff applauding when they weigh her this week. But we're not there yet.