Is the Church of Christ a Denomination?
In the April, 2018 issue of The Christian Chronicle, a liberal publication associated with churches of Christ, space is devoted to a discussion of whether we are a denomination or not. Of course, members who actually read and study the Bible know that the answer is, "No." We are the kingdom prophesied of in 2 Samuel 7:12-13—the one Daniel foretold when interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar's dream (2)—the one of whom John said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:1-2). Denominationalism did not begin until the 1500s: We have never claimed to be one, nor have we had any desire to be one.
The Christian Chronicle, consistent with its usual lack of spiritual wisdom, says that "some church members" see the churches of Christ as a group "born of the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement, that functions as a denomination in everything but name" (3). Those who would make such a claim are as ignorant as they are disrespectful of the truth. Those who utter such nonsense have probably been imbibing from Leroy Garrett's The Stone-Campbell Movement—or someone of such ilk, such as ACU professors.
The idea of "restoration" did not begin in the 1800s; it was first tried in the days of Hezekiah in order to get Israel back to the commandments of God given in the Law of Moses (2 Chron. 29-32). Once again, the nation departed from God's ways under the evil King Manasseh (2 Chron. 33), and once again restoration was attempted under the righteous King Josiah (2 Chron. 34-35). Keith Sisman wrote about more modern restoration attempts (which can be found in England predating what occurred in the United States in the 19th century by several hundred years) in Traces of the Kingdom. The concept of restoration was not invented in America; rather it is Biblical in its nature.
What Is Denominationalism?
Anyone who would make a statement like the one above (in the second paragraph) not only holds a deplorable sense of history, he apparently does not know what denominationalism is. The first characteristic of it is not minding that "Christians" are divided. How can one read the tender prayer of Jesus in John 17:20-21 and not be moved to seek unity? On the night of His betrayal, Jesus prayed for His disciples:
"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."
Do we somehow think that Jesus, in these words, is providing authority for Christians to be divided into several hundred religious groups and cults? How does this message make anyone smug about division?
The plea of the churches of Christ (ever since this writer can recall) has been, "Let's go to the Scriptures for an answer to every Bible question." Those who continue in the words of Christ (including John 17:20-21) shall know the truth (John 8:31-32). If all are devoted to the truth (which we certainly should be—2 Thess. 2:10), then how can we not be united?
Yet denominationalism is satisfied with division. Second, most religious groups list a founding other than the time the church is described as beginning in the New Testament—about 29 or 30 A.D. The Mormons, for example, claim 1830. Many religious groups admit they were formed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Churches of Christ have always claimed their origin in the first century.
Third, most religious denominations have an earthly headquarters which possesses authority. They probably have an authorized creed, catechism, manual of discipline, or some equivalent. Why? They do that to maintain uniformity—so that all who call themselves by a particular name have all pretty much the same set of beliefs. The churches of Christ have usually stated: "We have no creed but the Bible." Why would we need one? Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18); would it not therefore be presumptuous to set up headquarters down here? How does that not usurp His power? And that does not even get into conventions that uphold immoralities expressly condemned in His word, such as unscriptural divorce, fornication, and homosexuality?
These three characteristics of denominationalism are not found within the church of Christ. How dare anyone suggest that we function as one! This claim is an insult to all sincere brethren everywhere, and, worse, an indictment of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Whose ways we are doing our best to follow.
"Don't You Love Farce?"
Sure, farce can be hilarious—but not when the target is our Holy God, His Divine will, or the devout followers of Jesus. "Don't you love farce?" is a line from the song, "Send in the Clowns," which could apply to some of those The Christian Chronicle interviews. The paper offered a survey, to which 645 people responded, including Alex Ritchie of Woodbury, Minnesota (12). He claims that, if we are "unified by a set of values and practices," they "serve the same purpose as a formalized creed," even though they are unwritten (3). Really? So, if our brethren in the first century were "unified by a set of values and practices," then they had a creed? No. They had the New Testament (whether taught orally or by epistle), which is where they obtained their values. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word, and that is what they gave their allegiance to. Can't we do the same?
To the outside, the Churches of Christ have drawn clear lines on most theological and cultural positions, so we can no longer reasonably claim to be nondenominational (3).
Ritchie has set forth gobbledygook2. So, call us unreasonable, then, but we are still not calling ourselves a denomination because, in truth, we are not. Had Peter and Paul "drawn clear lines on most theological and cultural positions"? Yes, Peter taught baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Paul was baptized in order to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16) and later explained that we are buried with Christ that the old man of sin might be done away so that we can rise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-5). He also wrote that baptism is the operation of God, in which sins are removed (Col. 2:11-14). Since they agreed on the theological position regarding salvation, then the Lord's church in the first century could not deny being a denomination, according to Ritchie. Does this make sense to anyone else?
Paul denounced adultery, fornication, and homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). So did Peter (2 Peter 2) and Jude. Does agreement on those moral issues prove they were a denomination? The apostles agreed on the way women were to conduct themselves (1 Peter 3:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:9-11). Does this cultural unity imply they were a denomination? In fact, the New Testament does not contradict itself, but how on earth can anyone claim that such unity makes the Lord's church a denomination? If they could be unified and not be a denomination in the first century, why can't we in the twenty-first century?
Correct Interpretation Is a Reason for Decline
Equally insipid are the remarks of Erinn Harris, who works with the Capital City Church of Christ in Sacramento, California. In explaining our decline in members (nationwide), he avers that our "identity was based on concepts that are not true" (12). Really? So what concepts are not true? We need to know. Here is his explanation.
For example, (some) people believe things such as Churches of Christ are the only true churches. … Some believe that we are the only ones with the correct interpretation of Scripture (12).
It must be interesting to hear this fellow speak. "Hi, I'd like to discuss the beatitudes this morning, but of course, when we talk about the poor in spirit, we don't want to exclude anyone who is proud." Humph. Or, "Now we are going to offer the invitation so that people may repent of their sins and be baptized, but, hey, we don't know if we're right about this. Other people have different interpretations, and we would not want to say we are right and they are wrong." With this kind of attitude, perhaps he should say, "Good morning, I'm Erinn Harris, and I'm going to speak this morning, but I want to warn you first that I don't really know anything, and I might be wrong about anything I say."
No, that's not the way Jesus or His apostles approached any subject—unless it was a matter of indifference. But why doesn't Harris tell us which churches besides some of ours are true churches? Of course, we would ask: "Why did they select the name they call themselves? Is it Scriptural?" Then we will want to know what they teach about salvation: How does one become a Christian? Third, is their worship Scriptural, or have they added the innovations of men to what the Lord commanded? What does Harris regard as a true church? Will he tell us?
To say that we regard ourselves as the only ones with a correct interpretation of Scripture surely sounds like we are egotistical—until one remembers that Jesus said those who continue in His word shall know the truth (John 8:31-32). "Oh, come off it, Summers," some might respond. "Many denominational scholars know the word, also, and they disagree with you." They also disagree with each other, but that does not invalidate what Jesus said. Some are committed to various doctrines for emotional reasons—not because the Bible actually teaches them. Some lack humility. Some are stubborn.
The question is, "Who has subjected their teachings to scrutiny time after time after time?" The answer is that churches of Christ have done so by debating various topics. How often do you see Mormons debate? Jehovah's Witnesses? Catholics? Lutherans? But we have put our views up to public scrutiny on salvation numerous times, as well as on worship. If anybody has demonstrated a willingness to be certain that the things we believe are true, we have. Never have we just assumed we are right and others are wrong, as arrogant souls might do. We have studied diligently and presented what we believe in both oral and written debate. We set those views out for the public to see on videos, the Internet, and in publications. And yet despite all of that, if it can be shown in the Scriptures that we are mistaken in any point of doctrine, we will yet attach ourselves to the truth. If Harris or anyone else wants to challenge a fundamental truth we teach, he is free to confront brethren concerning it. He will have to do more than assert that we are wrong, however. He will be obligated to demonstrate it logically.
A Denomination
A few of those surveyed presented the truth on the matter, but others kept chipping away at truth's foundation. One said that in many ways we conform to the dictionary definition of a denomination. That claim is true because their definition is broad—people who are united in their beliefs and practices. Yes, by that definition the church Jesus established is a denomination, which it most certainly is not. What characterizes denominationalism is their satisfaction with division, having an origin other than the first century, and their having established earthly headquarters. The dictionary does not mention these, but they are characteristic of what denominationalism is all about. A further point is that, while God authorized the church-kingdom of Jesus, He never authorized one single denomination.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: