"Ggoing"

DOES "THE CHURCH" EXIST?

Recently, a member gave a relative the book, Why I Am A Member of the Church of Christ, written by Leroy Brownlow several decades ago, thinking that it would explain the church better than she could. She was rather overwhelmed by the response; so, I asked her if she would like me to reply, and she consented. Thus, this article will answer the questions posed by the relative, whom we shall just designate as Rel.

Rel begins by saying that the book provoked many questions, which is usually a good sign that someone is interested in learning. However, in this instance it proved not to be the case. The entire response reeks of hostility, and combativeness literally leaps off the pages that Rel wrote. Nevertheless, these points will be answered in a kinder manner than they were asked.

In the brief preface to the comments made, Rel says that the questions "are for the denomination known as the 'Church of Christ.'" In Brownlow's first chapter, the main point is that Christ built His church (Matt. 16:18) and that mere men have constructed denominations. No one can possibly miss this point; so Rel has simply refused to believe that any body of believers could simply be the church that Christ built. He steadfastly insists that the churches of Christ are a denomination though neither Brownlow nor we claim to be. Rel is either dense or dishonest, which is a blunt, but truthful assessment, as the reader will see.

Reason One

The first reason given to be a member of the church of Christ in the book Rel is critiquing is: "Because it was founded by the Scriptural builder—Christ." After stating that this sentence is factually incorrect, Rel asks: "Is Brownlee [he means Brownlow, GWS] actually suggesting that Jesus founded the religious denomination known today as the "Church of Christ"?

No, he is not claiming we are a denomination, period, Rel. Is there no other way you can think about things? Jesus said He would build His church. Why are you surprised that it therefore exists? If you want to say that the churches of Christ do not follow the New Testament, fine. Show where we are in error. But we do not regard ourselves as a religious denomination.

So, how does one define a denomination? Almost all of them, if you read about their history, will give a date for their beginning. Hiscox' Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, traces some of their history through different religious groups, but then states:

The first regular organized church among them, known as such in England, dates from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth, previously a clergyman of the established church (126).

Not only do denominations usually cite a date of origin and specify a name not used of Christians in the New Testament, such as Lutheran; they also have a body of beliefs called a creed, a "discipline," a Baptist Manual, or a Catechism that tells their members what to believe. Members of the churches of Christ cite the first century as their origin, since that is the time in which Jesus died for the church (Acts 20:28), was resurrected from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, where He was given His kingdom/church (Acts 2:29-30). The names we use are Biblical; we call ourselves Christians. We have no need for a "manual" because the New Testament serves that purpose. Since Jesus is the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18), we are the church of Christ. Individual congregations comprise the churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16).

We have no more need of denominationalism than our brethren in the first century had. Paul strictly condemned the concept when those in Corinth tried to divide into different groups (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:1-4). Christians ought to be united, which is precisely what Jesus prayed for (John 17:20-21). We would like to know what Rel's defense of denominationalism is, in light of these passages. Perhaps he can elucidate.

Many denominations have a national or international headquarters; our headquarters are in Heaven. They also have national conventions in which they debate whether or not to have women ministers (contrary to 1 Timothy 2:11-14) and homosexual ministers (Rom. 1:21-28). Churches of Christ have no such conventions voting on whether to follow God's teaching or not. The New Testament furnishes our doctrine.

All "Churches" Are Built by Christ?

Next Rel asks if Brownlow is implying that other "spiritual bodies" are "NOT 'spiritually' built by Christ." No, he's not implying it; he's stating it as a fact. If Rel thinks all churches are built by Jesus, let him make the case for it. He is on record as saying that Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses were not built by Jesus. So, how are we to know what ones were and what ones were not? Rel will have to enlighten us. Then he can tell us how he knows which churches were built by Jesus and which ones were not.

We do not have this problem because every church that has an origin later than the first century was not built by Jesus. Perhaps instead of being indignant at the thought, Rel should consider the consequences of his theology. Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and most Methodists all practice sprinkling in place of baptism (immersion). Baptists believe immersion only is valid. Did Jesus build all of these churches and give them opposing theologies? Why do they contradict each other in a crucial point? God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

Rel seems offended that Brownlow includes Mormons along with Calvin and Wesley, pronouncing that they are not spiritual equivalents. The point in common is that they all were founded by a human being; does he not actually see that? Sure, Mormons are worse in many respects, but none of the three have Biblical authority to exist. If so, where is it?

Then Rel complains that some groups were omitted and wants to know why? Hey! It's only page one of the book! Give Brownlow time. But every group originated by man instead of God is under scrutiny.

Founders of the Church of Christ?

One of the most amazing statements is Rel's attempt to list the "'human founders' of ideological dogma held by of the [sic] Church of Christ denomination," and then he lists some names we will look at shortly. But first, the question needs to be asked, "Where did he get this information?" He does not say. He did not get any of it from any of our writings because the only human founder we have is Jesus (Who is also Divine). He cannot quote anything written by us; therefore, he cites something written by someone unknown attempting to smear us. It's even in blue and underlined, indicating that it came from the Internet, but he does not say who the source is. This approach lacks honesty.

What about the men? Rel listed first Jacob Arminius from the sixteenth century. He is probably most noted for opposing Calvin. According to Wikipedia, the source for all our descriptions, Pelagius lived from A.D. 360 to 418. He believed in free will, which the Bible teaches (Gen. 4:7). One wonders how Arminius and Pelagius conspired to start the church of Christ when they lived more than 1,000 years apart.

Thomas Campbell lived from 1763 to 1854. He and Arminius were 200 years apart. At least Barton Stone and Walter Scott were contemporaries of Campbell in the United States; Robert Haldane was a Scottish theologian who shared some of the same beliefs, such as baptism by immersion and weekly communion—both of which the Scriptures teach. The things the reader should keep in mind is that none of these men claimed to be founders of the church of Christ.

Rel cannot get outside of his two misconceptions. He refuses to see what Henry VIII and Joseph Smith have in common with John Calvin and John Wesley. It is doubtful that the following words will help Rel, but here they are once again. They all founded churches hundreds of years after the first century. None of them was authorized by Jesus to begin a denomination or a cult. This is not a hard point to see. Did Jesus mean what He said in Matthew 16:18 or not? Is Acts 20:28 correct—that He gave His blood for the church? Did Paul mean what he wrote in Ephesians 4:4—that there is one body (church)? How can anyone believe the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, and Methodist churches were built by Him? Would Rel like to change Ephesians 4:4 to say 5, 20, or 100 churches?

Why does he refuse to see that the Bible does not teach denominationalism? Can he not read the Bible for what it says instead of through 21st-century eyes? Rel grew up with denominationalism, but no one in the first century did. Only one church, Jesus', existed. Why can't that one church still exist? Just because Rel continually refers to us as a denomination does not make us one. People today can still be Christians and still be part of the church Jesus established. We have the same Word they had in the first century (2 Thess. 2:15).

Churches of Christ do not have human founders. Just because Rel insists that we do proves nothing. He has furnished no evidence that says we are following men. We follow the Scriptures—not men. If we are following men, prove it. Just reiterating something ad infinitum ad nauseam does not constitute evidence. In fact, if he had any, he would have offered it. All he has are wild accusations he keeps hurling—like an automatic pitching machine that has run out of baseballs.

But Rel rants on: "Early coverts [sic] to this new denomination were known as the Haldanes, Campbellites, or the Stone-Campbell Movement." Question: By whom were they known as these names? They did not call themselves that. Rel might want to note that the church in the first century was called a "sect" (Acts 28:22), which was everywhere spoken against. Was it a sect? In fact, Paul was called "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). Did that make it so? How about what Paul said?

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets (Acts 24:14).

The New King James uses sect for heresy. The point is that name calling will not change anyone's mind. In fact, it is a logical fallacy, an ad hominem attack. But it is the height of folly to continually pretend that Christians who despise denominationalism (as being unscriptural) are actually a denomination. We are not one and have never claimed or desired to be one. Rel can call names and misrepresent us until the cows come home, but when all the huffing and puffing is over, the church of the Lord will still be standing on the solid rock of the Deity of Christ (Matt. 16:16-18). One may rail and blaspheme loud and long, but truth is still truth.

If the churches of Christ did present themselves as a denomination, did have a creed, did have a date of origin in the 1800s, did have a national headquarters, then Rel would be correct that it would be arrogant to claim to be better than the various denominations, but we do not, have not, and will not ever claim to be that which the Scriptures condemn. As the story goes, a teacher asked, "How many legs does a cow have? "Four," the students correctly answered. "What if we call the tail a leg?" "Five!" shouted the students. "Wrong!" the teacher responded. "He still has four legs. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one." Calling the church of Christ a denomination doesn't make it one, either.