The Church of Christ Is Not a Denomination, But It Became One Again and Again!
by Floyd Chappelear
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 31, 1989
There are certain axiomatic truths (that is, statements so certainly correct that none will deny them) concerning the church of our Lord. One is that the "Church of Christ is not a denomination." Even the most jaded among the liberals will admit that. (Of course, there may be some exceptions.) He did not plan one nor forge one. That being true, one may go back in time and say that the "Church of Christ in the first century was not a denomination."
The latter statement is obviously accurate because denominations did not exist 2,000 years ago. When the Lord said he would build his church (Matthew 16:18), he did not mean that He would build one among many. On the contrary, the divided state of the spiritually alive would be removed. He would take his separate flocks and make them one (see John 10:16 and Ephesians 2:14-16). The peace in Christ would swallow up the alienation of the Jew and the Gentile. (As an aside, I always marvel that men would so readily accept that which was obviously displeasing to God. That is, a state of division or alienation among those who would serve Him.) Indeed, the "Church of Christ was not a denomination." But we would be fools if we did not recognize that "the Church of Christ became one." Perhaps it became many.
Paul, by the Spirit, warned Timothy that a falling away would occur (I Tim. 4:1f). The apostasy resulted in the denominational mess we see everywhere today. Remember, the denominations around us did not, like Topsy*, grow out of nothing. They grew out of the perfect work which began in the Creator's hands.
As saints fell into an apostate state, perhaps beginning with the Ephesian elders (cf Acts 20:29), a new concept of Christianity began to take shape. The brethren, or their spiritual descendants, began to form new alliances, unlike the undenominational body fashioned in the death of Christ. This new federation became the Roman Catholic Church, and in time, all of the denominations grew out of her. Thus, the church of Christ became a denomination, although she was never intended to be one.
Because of the apostasy, New Testament Christianity became largely unknown to the world. In the age of darkness following the Protestant Reformation, a few searchers wanted to see on the earth again that non-denominational Christianity which existed 1800 years before. Some of these successfully restored New Testament Christianity in the Americas. When they were "finished," it could be said with no fear of contradiction, "The Church of Christ [restored] is not a denomination." But brethren, was it a static organization that did not suffer from the pangs of human desires? Of course not. And those who made up the church in the 19th century were as subject to the pressures to apostatize as were the saints of 1700 years earlier. As a result, "The Church of Christ became one." Several, in fact. The influenced brethren in New England became the Congregational Church; some in Pennsylvania formed the Christadelphian movement; saints in Ohio became part of the nucleus of the Mormons; many throughout the Midwest became the Disciples of Christ; and we can see that the Conservative Christian Church is well on the way to denominational status.
A lesson is to be learned here.
As we moved away from the falling away of the nineteenth century and got to the halfway point of the twentieth, we saw the same forces at work again. While ever subtle, the push to forge a denomination was present nonetheless. As a result, brethren began another move to apostasy, resulting in the painful alienation wrought since the 1940s. Like it or not, the result is not merely institutionalism (bad as that might be), but a large portion of brethren are much closer to becoming a denomination than they would have any desire to be.
Now, let us try to pick up on that lesson to be learned.
What Makes For a Denomination?
As has been pointed out in the past, there are essentially three steps to denominational development. They are
- Thinking like a denomination,
- functioning like one, and, finally,
- organizing like one.
It is easy to see that the Disciples of Christ have gone the whole route. They have freely admitted to being one by not only taking on the denominational trappings (national headquarters, etc.) but by courting others of her kind to form a newer and larger one. What is not so readily apparent is that institutional brethren have clearly reached the second stage. That is, functioning as one. The sponsoring church and the human institutions have provided the apparatus so that the "Church of Christ" can function as a unit. Through the allegedly independent bodies, the church may become a non-independent collectivity. The second stage has been reached.
What we are terrified to admit, however, is that many among the conservative brethren have adopted quite happily the first stage. Some of us think of ourselves exactly as the denominational world thinks of itself. Oh, sure, we deny that we are a denomination. After all, "the Church of Christ is not a denomination." But, brethren, we have the seminal concepts that will result in our becoming one if we do not stand guard against the wiles of the evil one (see I Peter 5:8; Ephesians 6:10-20). In the balance of this treatise, I would like to point out four areas of danger that suggest that we are becoming denominational in our thinking.
A Professionally Trained Clergy
The signs of a clergy system growing among us are unmistakable.
First, we have men afraid to speak out against the evil that may exist among elderships. Because of the elders' impending departure, Paul specifically warned Timothy of the dangers of failing to cry out against the excesses of God's beloved Shepherds (I Timothy 5). Preachers today are often so fearful of losing their livelihoods that they will keep silent, show partiality, and compromise the truth. They are the kind Paul mentioned in II Timothy 4.
When we look upon preaching as a way to make a living rather than a way of living, we are in danger. I believe that we can see in the examples of some who have departed from the faith a "clergy-consciousness" that left them groping helplessly in the secular world. One brother, for instance, departed the faith and moved from the conservative brethren in Texas to the liberals. After a while, he left even them and formed a small collectivity of like-minded mavericks who took to speaking in tongues, etc. In this, he never abandoned the role of a professional clergyman, even as he moved farther and farther from the truth. Being a clergyman is what he knew; and was probably all he knew, thus, he never stopped for any lengthy period his occupation of choice even while leaving the warmth of God's embrace.
For this reason, I encourage all young men who want to preach to either finish their education or learn a trade so that they will not solely depend on a preaching position to make a living. Such dependence breeds the kind of compromise characteristic of a clergy class.
Remember, brethren, we are in this to win souls to Christ — not to earn a living. Yet when I see men making shipwreck of the faith through criminal sexual immorality and who still try to occupy a pulpit or return to one after a very brief respite, I grow distressed for the future of God's people. When a man, whether young or old, labors as a preacher as an occupation rather than because of the terror of the Lord, from which he is trying to save the lost, he labors for the wrong reason. Still, we see many men working full-time as preachers who rarely labor in the vineyard, seeking to harvest souls for Christ.
We Have an Identity Crisis
In the same way that secular men have problems figuring out who they are, we have trouble identifying ourselves. In this article, I have been talking about the "Church of Christ" in the same way a sectarian would talk about the "Methodist Church." You might not have picked up on the irony or sarcasm, but I have been using the term in the one way I have argued for years that it should not be used -- as a denominational name.
The term "church of Christ" is not the proper name for God's people, nor even "a" proper name. Yes, it consists of nouns (church and Christ), and nouns are "names." However, it is not used in the Bible as a proper name but as a descriptive. That is, telling "who" this church belongs to — it belongs to Christ. Actually, the term never appears in the Bible at all, but the plural "churches of Christ" does appear once. Anyone who thinks that "Church of Christ" is the proper name or even "a" proper name ought to see the folly in such a concept since the specific term never appears in the word of God! I don't know how to say this any other way, but to argue that "Church of Christ" is either a proper name or the proper name of the church is downright dumb.
What we have done, or some of us are doing, is arguing for a scriptural description as if it were the name God gave us to wear to distinguish us from other churches that are not the Church of Christ. We do not need to make this distinction. Furthermore, in the process, we argue against equally scriptural terms as if they were unscriptural. For instance, you might ask the group of which you are a part this simple question: "When on vacation, how many of you have ever worshipped with a church of God?" Chances are not a single hand will be raised. What that really means is that not one has ever worshipped with a group of brethren in another place. After all, "church of God" is not only just as scriptural as "Church of Christ" but also has the redeeming benefit of actually appearing in God's word! (See I Corinthians 1:1-2).
Now, don't get the wrong idea here. I am not advocating that we discontinue using the acceptable term "church of Christ" but that we quit elevating the term to the status of a denominational name. Frankly, most of us would find it more pleasant to stick our tongues to the side of a frozen school bus than to abandon the term "church of Christ." Besides, it would be unnecessary.
Let us deal briefly with another little problem.
We seem to fail to see the inadequacy of these two statements: "All of the saved are in the church of Christ" and "In order to be saved, one must get into the Church of Christ." Brethren, they simply don't work. The reason is obvious; one of them is true, and one of them is not.
That all of the saved are in the church of Christ is found in the Bible. The Lord added to the church all who were saved (Acts 2: 41, 47). All who were saved were added; thus, all who are saved are in the church. However, one does not get into the church to be saved. That thinking makes something of the Lord's church, which He did not want. Furthermore, it makes people seek ties to the Church of Christ as the means to salvation rather than loyalty to Christ as the means. Remember, we are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not by faith in the sanctity of the Church of Christ.
Church Ordinances
There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, that man, Jesus Christ (James 4:12). What he has taught is our only guide and rule of practice. However, we will occasionally alter some of his teachings so that they are no longer exclusively his but take on the appearance of being one of our ordinances. Among these is the ordinance of baptism.
Some teach that one must be baptized by a "Church of Christ" preacher to be saved. In so arguing, we make the believer's salvation dependent on his ability to track down a "Church of Christ" member to be saved. Nothing in the gospel makes baptism a church ordinance, and we should not so regard it. The rebaptism controversy of the last century had its roots in the idea of baptism as a church ordinance.
Today there are rumblings of discontent over whether or not we may receive someone from a liberal church as members. Why? Well, they were baptized by something other than a conservative "Church of Christ" preacher. This is frightening to me. Akin to this is the idea that one may be received from a liberal church only if he "confesses the sin of liberalism" in making the transition. This makes "public confession of sins" (which isn't even found in the Bible) an ordinance of the church, which, in turn, makes acceptance with God dependent on our acceptance. Additionally, it creates the need for perfect knowledge as the grounds for fellowship. Frankly, when someone from a liberal group wants to leave liberalism and take a stand with faithful saints, we should have cause for rejoicing rather than an opportunity to create new church ordinances. The one leaving liberalism should be regarded as a babe in Christ with all the flaws any babe is apt to possess. No, one shouldn't be immediately taken from a liberal church and made an elder or Bible class teacher, but neither should they be denied fellowship merely because they have not learned about all of the evils of institutionalism!
Brethren, someone may be acceptable to God whom we have never heard of! That is the lesson of Mark 9:38-39! Additionally, one may be acceptable to God who has not learned all the truth about idols (see I Corinthians 8:1-5), even the idol of institutionalism. If one may serve God in the first century who did not know that idols were nothing, one may faithfully serve him today in the same state. The key is giving opportunities to grow and learn, not forming barriers to growth.
Control of the Brotherhood
The efforts of some to "run him out of the church" grow out of a denominational concept of what the church is. The church of our Lord is not a monolithic organization that we can govern from an office in the continental United States.
The church, in the universal sense, has no form at all. The church, in the local sense, is just that — local. Attempts to create fellowship among churches or the grounds for the same are all misguided attempts to get the non-denominational church of Christ to function like a man-made body. Obviously, we try to get it to function denominationally because we first think of it that way!
As a young preacher, I often heard brethren say, "Anything larger than a local church is too big, and anything smaller than a local church is too small." Today, I see men trying to fashion fellowships larger than the local church and dividing the local church into units smaller than the whole (zones). What are we coming to when we so readily accept what we just twenty years ago abhorred?
In Conclusion
There is that axiomatic truth, "the church of Christ" is not a denomination. But let us never lose sight of the fact that it became one again and again. Worse, it is becoming one even now as we see brethren becoming increasingly denominational in their concepts and terminology. Brethren, let us paddle hard against the tide as we recognize the truth of another axiom: "We are drifting."
Finally, we need to realize two things: First, many brethren who have defected in recent years may have done so because of the inconsistency we evidence when we decry the evils of denominationalism on the one hand yet adopt the concepts of it on the other. Even the least perceptive can see this inconsistency and may throw away the baby with the dirty bath water because their faith is in the Church of Christ instead of in Christ Himself. Secondly, as we wage a righteous war against the sin of institutionalism, it would be a real tragedy if we lost the church to denominationalism. This appears to be happening.
Footnote:
*Topsy was a character in the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, who, when asked where she came from, replied that "I didn't come from nowhere, I just growed."
