The Anti-Denominational Denomination

by Floyd Chappelear
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 4, December 1994

Jefferson Davis Tant used to finish articles with the line, "We are drifting." He could see in the thirties and forties what would happen in the fifties and sixties. Not by any divine gift of inspiration, of course, but because his prescience was born of wisdom acquired through the years.

Part of this wisdom came from seeing what had occurred in the past and using that knowledge as a template to measure the future. After all, scripture says that the thing that has been done is that which shall be done, for "there is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

While the past can hinder progress and thus should be forgotten (see Philippians 3:13), we should also remember the experiences of those who have gone before us so as to learn to avoid their mistakes (see I Corinthians 10:1-11). To do otherwise is to repeat their follies and find ourselves separated from God.

When it comes to apostasy, we do not have to go as far back as the first hundred years to examine the falling away then predicted (I Timothy 4:1-5), nor do we have to journey into the nineteenth century to focus on that one. Actually, it would be sufficient to go back to the thirties and forties to see what forces were at work that led to the institutional apostasy. If those circumstances exist today among conservative brethren, then we would be wise to heed the warning to guard against the drifting that will be an inevitable part of our future.

The First Thing to Watch For

I think the dominant force of those decades was that produced by an unscriptural attitude toward the church. In the thirties and forties, brethren allowed the distinction between the local church and the universal church to be somewhat blurred, if not totally forgotten. G. C. Brewer wrote a book about the New Testament church that pretty much set the tone for how many would think about the church in generations to come. While Brewer’s tome has fallen into disuse, the book by Roy Cogdill on the same subject has taken its place among the elect. Cogdill copies many of his predecessor's mistakes, if not the actual words of the earlier book. Too often in the latter book, the scriptural teaching concerning the universal church is applied to the local church. (This is particularly evident when one looks at chapter X and notes that the author claims, "Congregations were...the only missionary organization of the New Testament church." In chapter XVI, it is asserted that one cannot be in "full fellowship with the Church" unless one is a part of a local assembly. Such fuzziness and blurring are found throughout the book.)

It is clear that brethren viewed the church universal as a collection of congregations in those decades. Since there was a fervor to get the church to "do its work" (primarily evangelism), there had to be, of necessity, an activation of the "church universal." The Missionary Society had already been deemed wrong, so in its place, the "sponsoring church" was conceived. This was an attempt to activate the church universal by combining the activities of the separate congregations. It is evident that "conservative" brethren were operating from the same mindset because such activities were nearly always described as attempts to activate the universal church. Brethren, we didn’t seem to know then, and many do not want to acknowledge it now, but the universal church is not made up of local churches. Even if all of the congregations were merged into a super-organization, the church universal would still not be involved. The general assembly and church of the firstborn (ones) consists of those whose names are written in heaven (Hebrews 12:23). It is not made up in a listing of congregations. If we had not thought of the universal church as a collection of congregations, the sponsoring church would not have been born, and the apostasy attending it would not have occurred.

Brethren, that same kind of thinking predominates in some quarters among the faithful. Many of the articles written and sermons preached betray an abecedarian misunderstanding of what constitutes the Lord’s eternal body. When Jesus declared that the "gates of Hell" shall never "prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), he most certainly did not have the local church in mind, nor any aggregation of local churches. After all, what provincial church of the first century continues today as faithful to Him? All of the forces of Hell have prevailed against them, but have not touched that assembly of God whose names are written in the book of life (Philippians 4:3). In fact, the second and third chapters of Revelation are about the gates of Hell prevailing against certain local congregations.

Into What Are We Called?

All will agree that we are called into the grace of Christ (Galatians 1:6); called into his marvelous light (I Peter 2:9); and we are called to be saints (Romans 1:7). In all of this, we are called into Christ, or into His church. However, there is a certain ambiguity inherent in terms such as "called into the Church of Christ" [upper-case "C" on church], or in the claim that we are members of the Church of Christ. The denominationalizing of a scriptural expedient suggests that we cannot think about the Lord’s church without distinguishing it from the "other" denominations.

Nowhere in scripture is anyone called a "Church of Christ" anything. Saints are Christians and are so designated (I Peter 4:16; Acts 11:26). Yet some conservative brethren continually refer to the elect as "Church of Christ members." Apparently, the denominational thinking of the thirties and forties has not been discarded. Why not, for the sake of clarity and accuracy, simply say, "Now that you are Christians" rather than "Now that you are members of the Church of Christ"? We are called into Christ, not into some quasi-denomination known as the "Church of Christ."

Often, the most vocal in opposition to denominationalism are the most ardent advocates of a brotherhood that would submit itself easily to the control of a few. This is the worst kind of denominational thinking, for those who foster it do not recognize it for what it is. I can say without equivocation or fear of contradiction that a few prominent brethren are nurturing a fledgling denomination while protesting the trends toward apostasy that they imagine taking place among the elect. The assemblage will be an anti-denominational denomination in much the same way that the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses are "anti-denominational denominations." What troubles me especially is that so many cannot see where they are headed and will be taking a few of the elect with them.

My final concern is this: What is there about simple New Testament Christianity that bothers some of us so? What could possibly be wrong with allowing each local church to operate truly independently from all others? Why do the elders or leaders of one group feel they must intrude on the affairs of other congregations? What is wrong with the idea of permitting each church to establish its own bounds of fellowship? If others disagree, fine. If others want to send out warnings and scriptural admonitions, fine. However, when one starts to tell others whom to fellowship or what congregations can be considered faithful, then it appears that ״loyalty״ is what is sought, not faithfulness to the Lord. In this case, it will be fealty to the party and not to Christ, which will be paramount. When this happens, we would be wise to recognize that we have become a denomination, albeit the "anti-denominational denomination.״

Brethren, think on these things.