Is the Church of Christ a Denomination (Part 2)

The April issue of The Christian Chronicle, a publication associated with churches of Christ, took a survey to find out whether members regard us as a denomination. Fifty years ago, everyone knew we were not, but (thanks to the influence of liberalism) some now advocate that we are. Apparently, they have not read the Old Testament prophecies recorded in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Isaiah 2:2-4, or Daniel 2:44 and 7:13-14, or they would know that God planned to establish a kingdom, which is the church. None of these passages implies anything like the denominationalism we see around us today. If some wish to call themselves a denomination, okay. People go out from us all the time because they are not of us (1 John 2:19), but most of us are sticking with the Biblical concept of the church.

Several people s comments were incorporated into this article; a few more of which are now considered. Some do not make a great deal of sense. One person said that we fit the standard English definition of a denomination (12). Admittedly, this is the case because dictionaries provide only a very sketchy definition. Why did he not point out, as this column did last week, the characteristics of denominations that churches of Christ lack amnaman earthly headquarters, which determines what each group believes and practices, an origin other than the first century, and an attitude which accepts division (see last week s article for more information on these points)?

Then he says that he considers himself a non-denominational Christian because the idea resonates with him. How about, instead of saying that, he would say: \"The Lord did not establish denominations\"? It matters not if the way the Lord designed the church \"resonates\" with him (or any of us) or not. The fact is, establishing the church was what God had in mind in the prophecies cited earlier.

We Are, But We're Not?

Another individual says that \"legally and technically\" we \"are not now and never have been a denomination\" (although he erroneously attributes our origin to the Stone-Campbell movement). Then he immediately capitulates: \"Practically and spiritually, we have often acted and thought like (a denomination)\—though we have not often been willing to admit it.\" That sounds sophisticated and generous, but what does it mean?

Have we established a headquarters on earth? Have we developed a creed? Do we count (as he seems to suggest) our origin beginning with the Stone-Campbell movement? How do we think like a denomination? And how is it, by the way, that they think? Many of them no longer care what their teaching is. Many have become attracted to entertainment hours, which they refer to as \"worship.\" We need, therefore, an explanation of their thinking that we are imitating.

But this person is not yet done. He goes on to say how happy he is that \"we never organized into a denomination,\" but when we boldly claim, \"We are not a denomination,\" we are disingenuous in spirit, though technically correct (12). Does anyone understand this Mr. Kimball style of equivocation? Perhaps someone knows what he is saying, though technically confused. An explanation of clarity would be appreciated.

Fellowship

Another person opined: \"As we continue to fuss, fight, split and grow smaller, we will become irrelevant and invisible to the world around us\" (13). Several things are wrong with this statement. First, if we are fussing and fighting over things that are matters of opinion, shame on us. We have not developed the Christian character enjoined in the Scriptures, which includes the concept of loving our brethren (Matt. 22:37-39; John 13:34-35; 1 Cor. 13:4-7; Col. 3:15; Gal. 5:22-23; 2 Peter 1:5-7). Christians who love one another seek the best for each other. We support and encourage one another.

However, no one has the right to introduce things into the worship or the teaching of the church that cannot be found authorized in the Scriptures. For example, if some members of the congregation wanted to introduce instrumental music, would the writer consider that just fussin' and fightin'? Most of us would say the Scriptures address this issue in Colossians 3:16-17 and in other places.

Second, some churches are losing membership due to the deaths of older members; it has nothing to do with anyone being disagreeable. Third, some congregations that have lost members are as peaceful as can be; they are just not being evangelistic. Fourth, if we are preaching the gospel, we are no more irrelevant than Noah, a preacher of righteousness (1 Peter 2:5).

Fifth, if being sound is a cause of division, we still have the obligation to stand firm (Jude 3-4). We did not originate the church; we did not invent the teachings found in the New Testament; we did not design worship. God did all of those things; we simply obey Him, and we have the obligation to present the whole counsel of God regardless of the consequences (Acts 20:20, 26-27). In doing so, we should be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

The Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures tell us that at times we must withdraw fellowship from the immoral (1 Cor. 5:10-11). Heretics must be rejected (Titus 3:10)\—and marked before they ruin people spiritually (Rom. 16:17-18). Paul himself did so concerning Hymenaeus and Philetus who had made shipwreck of their own faith and were overthrowing the faith of others (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Was Paul guilty of splitting the church?

\"Jesus Knows Who His Sheep Are\"

Daryl Beatty was kind enough to share his interesting insights about \"boundaries\" in this article. He thinks they should be murky, hazy, and ill-defined. Is that an overstatement? His precise words follow:

I believe that Jesus knows who his sheep are. And we do not have to delineate where the boundaries of his kingdom reach\….

Jesus prayed for unity in John 17, and the modern Church of Christ was born as a unity movement. Let it not become focused on division and delineation of exactly who is a member (13).

Perhaps the reader is wondering exactly when \"the modern Church of Christ\" was born. The original church came into existence when Jesus sat down at the right hand of God after ascending into Heaven. New converts were added to it on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:47). So, did the church go out of existence at some point only to be re-created in the 19th century? When did Jesus vacate His throne, and when did He return? Was the original church antiquated, necessitating a modern version? Jesus purchased the original kingdom with His blood? What was the price paid for the modern church?

So we're not to be concerned about exactly where the boundaries are or exactly who the members are? Seriously? The New Testament tells us how to become a member, beginning with the gospel that Peter proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). Those who gladly received His word repented and were baptized. As a result, they were added to the church, the kingdom of Christ (Acts 2:47). Everyone knew where the boundaries were in the first century. By whose authority do we now not need to know?

Oh! Daryl Beatty worships with the Hope Fellowship. A church in the Houston area, that boasts a Lead Pastor and other assorted staff members. Below are some of their beliefs. The Holy Spirit convicts sinners, imparts spiritual life and gives a true understanding of the Scriptures. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He indwells all believers, brings assurance of salvation and produces increasing likeness to Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church.

We believe that the true church comprises all who have been justified by God's grace through faith alone in Christ alone. They are united by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, of which He is the head\…. The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means to salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer (emph. GWS).

Is it any wonder he wants to relax the borders of the kingdom? Few, if any, of those he is worshipping with were baptized in water for the reason specified in Acts 2:38 or Acts 22:16. They erroneously and vociferously teach that water baptism is not the means of salvation (cf. 1 Peter 3:21). Does that mean Daryl had to renounce his baptism to become a member there? Did he have to receive \"Holy Spirit baptism\" as well? Does anyone think this group does not use instruments of music in their worship? Why did The Christian Chronicle care what Daryl had to say? If he ever was, he is certainly not now a member of the body of Christ.

Where Is Our Focus?

Carl Royster is the official data collector for the directory of \"Church of Christ in the United States.\" While he speaks well of the concept of restoration, he then adds that today too many people have the attitude that the Great Commission says: \"Go and prove yourselves worthy by making sure you get every minute detail right\" (13). He postulates that we have gotten so caught up \"in the fine details that we have missed the big picture.\" He has a point: some, in their zeal to be accurate, have demanded conformity on matters of opinion rather than on matters of doctrine. However, it's not a flaw in thinking the way Paul commanded in 1 Corinthians 1:10.

So, what is the big picture we have missed? Royster suggests it is showing the love of Christ to each other and the world around us. Also bigger is teaching a lost world about Christ and Him crucified (13). Are congregations missing that? Even the denominations speak on these subjects. Have people today never heard that we are to love one another? Do they not know that Jesus was crucified for them? Have they never seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ or one of two dozen other movies? Of course love and the crucifixion are important and need emphasis, but just about every religious group does so. What sets the churches of Christ apart is our commitment to the truth.

Royster says \"all congregations\" do not \"have to do everything exactly the same\" (13), but why wouldn't they (substantially, not procedurally)? We believe in the same God, have the same Lord, read the same Word, and have the same acts of worship. In what ways should we therefore differ?

In the last paragraph on page 13, Royster tips his hand when he defines what he means by missing the big picture. Insisting that everything is about Christ, he lists (among other things) as optional \"a cappella or instrumental.\" Really? That's optional, and we have lost our focus if we can't accept either one? Why then doesn't his directory for churches of Christ include those who use instruments? Everything is about Christ, and He is the One Who taught about true worshippers worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24).

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: