The Church Of Christ Versus Churches Of Men
Many people, otherwise well informed, still labor under the delusion that the Church of Christ is a denomination — and a rather narrow-minded, uncharitable denomination at that. Through personal conversation with some member of the church, or perhaps through well-meaning but uninformed statements about the church from non-members, they have accepted the idea that the Church of Christ is only one of a great number of "Protestant sects," somewhat more conservative and "Bible-bound" than sister denominations, but still bearing all the characteristics and qualities of any major denomination.
Let it be said, at once, that there is on the surface a great deal of justification for this idea. After all, there are regularly scheduled services, in organized congregations, with preachers, buildings, members, contributions, Bible classes, evangelistic programs, and all the outward marks of any of the larger Protestant denominations. And if one turns to the encyclopedias or other authoritative reference works, there will be listings of the "Churches of Christ" with glowing statistics given as to membership, growth, colleges, orphanages, denominational religious publications, missionaries in foreign fields, national radio and television programs, and practically everything one would find listed under any growing denomination — give or take a few "peculiar" doctrines and practices.
Why The Claim?
How then, in view of all these facts, can any objective person claim that the Church of Christ is NOT a denomination? What would it take to make her one if she is not one already? How does she differ in any real sense from the other great churches — churches which frankly admit (or even proudly proclaim) their denominational status? And why does the Church of Christ object to being called a denomination? Do her members think they are better than other people? Do they have some special claim on God's favor that makes them of a superior sanctity or holiness?
These are fair questions. They deserve an honest answer without evasion or equivocation. The rest of this tract will be an attempt to give such an answer. Whether the answer is satisfactory or adequate will depend in a measure on the attitude and disposition of each reader. But, at least, let this writer, as a member of the church, present the case for "the church of Christ" and contrast it with "the churches of men."
In The Beginning
Going right back to the very first days of Christianity, it is freely admitted by all that there were no denominations. There were, in a few instances, contentions and internal strife and divisions within local congregations; but denominationalism, as we know it today, did not exist. When Paul wrote to the Christians at Corinth, Philippi, Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, or elsewhere, his normal way of referring to them was simply "the church." Everybody knew what he meant. There was no need to distinguish which church; there was no necessity of naming one church, as differentiated from another church, because there was but one church. Christians traveling, or moving, from one community to another would look up "the church" in their new location and "join themselves" to it. This was what Paul tried to do when he came from Damascus (where he had been baptized into Christ) to Jerusalem. "And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing he was a disciple." (Acts 9:26.)
Each local congregation was made up of "believers" — those honest and dedicated people who had become convinced beyond all peradventure of doubt that Jesus Christ was in very truth the Son of God, and who had gladly and without reservation accepted him as their absolute Lord and Master. His every word became for them the ultimate law; his will became their will. All those who "gladly received" the word were baptized immediately, and from that instant forward were recognized by both God and men as a part of "the church". (Acts 2:41, 47.)
But Today — Divisions Galore!
Whence, then, came divisions? If there was only one church in the days of the apostles, and all Christians were members of that one church, why do we have many hundreds of churches today? One can find nearly any kind of church he may be looking for — churches old or young, big or little, Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, each with its own distinctive name, creed, organization, customs and traditions. Some of these denominations are extremely "literalistic," contending with adamant and unyielding firmness for an exact, strict, and undeviating acceptance of their customs, traditions, and doctrines; some refuse to eat meats on certain days of the week; some insist on clothing of a certain kind and pattern; some reject and prohibit medical attention for their sick; some follow one custom, some another. Other denominations are ultra "liberal" in both their beliefs and their practices, regarding Christianity more as a philosophy than as a religion. They accept into their fold any man who wishes to join them, regardless of whether he does, or does not, believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, does, or does not, accept the Bible as a revelation from God, does, or does not, believe in a personal God, life beyond the grave, or any or all of the concepts traditionally associated with "Christianity."
How It All Began
As we study the history of those early disciples, it does not take us long to realize that almost from the earliest days there began to be differences — certain men arose in the church who either did not understand, or did not believe, the things taught by the apostles. These men began to "speak perverse things to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:28-30.) They sought to build up a personal following, retaining in their practice and in their teaching many of the things they had believed and followed in their pagan religions; they sought to trim and cut the doctrine of Christ to fit their own feelings, prejudices, and preferences. Thus began the great "apostasy" (a departing or falling away from the truth) which the apostles had foreseen, and of which they had warned the faithful disciples to beware. (Titus 1:10-16; II Tim. 4:3-5; II Thess. 2:1-12; I Tim. 4:1-5, etc.)
Thus, little by little, the organization, worship, practices, doctrine, and life of the apostolic church began to be changed. These changes were so slight and gradual as to be all but unnoticed by the people of any one generation. But their cumulative effect was enormous. From the primitive simplicity of a faithful band of disciples, ruled by a plurality of men known as "elders" (also called "bishops," "pastors," "overseers") there developed a form of church government in which one man, called a "bishop" had the ultimate authority and rule over each congregation. Then as the apostasy developed still more, a new office evolved, that of a "metropolitan bishop," in which one man ruled all the churches in a metropolis. From this grew the "diocesan bishop," an ecclesiastical official who had authority over all the churches in a diocese. He was given a respect, a deference, and finally an authority over and above that of the metropolitan bishops. Through the centuries these terms were sometimes interchanged, so that in some places, and in some centuries, the "metropolitan" took precedence over the "diocesan" bishop. But the logical and inevitable fruition of such a tendency toward ecclesiastical centralization was the ultimate development of a "pope" who was recognized as having the epitome of authority — one man to rule, govern, and direct the affairs of ALL the lesser bishops, and of all the churches.
Other Changes
While this evolution was taking place in the matter of church government, other and equally startling changes were occurring in church work and worship and teaching. The primitive and apostolic practice of baptism by total immersion gradually began (in the third and fourth centuries) to be replaced at times by a sprinkling or "effusion" of the candidate. It took more than a thousand years for this practice to gain any general acceptance, but it has gradually worked its way into many of the larger Protestant sects, and is universally practiced by the Roman Catholics (but wholly rejected by the Greek Catholics, who still practice total immersion). The worship of relics, the gradual adoration and adulation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, belief in inherited depravity, these and many, many other things, unknown to the apostles, developed in the Christian communities. Pagan festivals were generally brought into the "Christian calendar" and given a new interpretation, Christmas and Easter (both pagan seasonal festivals) being the most prominent of these. Celibacy began to be required of the clergy. The simple memorial of the Lord's Supper took on the mysterious and "magical" atmosphere of a miracle in which the bread supposedly was instantaneously changed into the actual flesh of Christ and the fruit of the vine was miraculously changed into his actual blood.
Along with these changes in the organization, worship, teaching, and practice of the primitive church, there came a general decline in the moral structure and standards of the clergy. The common people grew more and more disillusioned and disgusted with the corruption and cynicism which they observed in many (not all!) of their priests and leaders. Drunkenness, debauchery, and general immorality of the priests became topics of general conversation among the laity.
This growing unrest, developing all through the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, led finally to what is known as the "Protestant Reformation" — a mighty upheaval extending over a period of two full centuries, and very nearly putting an end to the Roman Catholic Church in many countries of Western Europe and in England. Indeed, church historians believe that had it not been for the tremendous activities of the Jesuits (Society of Jesus, founded by Ignatius Loyola) and the Catholic "Counter-Reformation," the Catholic Church might have ultimately perished completely from any place of influence at all in the religious world.
Birth Of The 'Protestant" Denominations
Growing directly out of the epochal work of Martin Luther and his contemporaries, each with its own special point of emphasis or historical "reason" for coming into existence, the modern Protestant denominations began to emerge. Precise dates for their beginnings may vary a bit according to the point of view or particular reference of the historian, but the most generally accepted data are as follows: the Lutheran Church, under the mighty reformer himself emerged in the year 1521; the Presbyterians, under the leadership of John Calvin are dated from about the year 1535; the Episcopal Church (Church of England) sprang from the rebellion against Rome led by Henry VIII, and developed between 1535 and 1539; the Baptist churches as we know them in history began with the organization of a Baptist congregation by John Smyth in 1608; and the Methodists date from the time and work of John Wesley in the first half of the eighteenth century, the year 1729 being usually given as a beginning point.
The four centuries that have passed since the days of Martin Luther have seen hundreds of new churches come into being — some of them to last for only a few years, and to attract only a few hundreds (or thousands) of members; others to gain adherents by the millions and to develop into powerful, tight-knit, highly organized ecclesiastical bodies, wielding tremendous influence over the lives of great multitudes. Mormonism, Christian Science, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are among the best known modern denominations of American origin and background.
The "Scandal" Of Christendom
As the denominations began to multiply, disputes and differences among them began to assume awesome proportions. Intense bitterness and rivalry developed; even the slightest differences in understanding or interpretation of some single verse of scripture sometimes led to the development of an entire new denomination, fanatically bent on promoting and pushing its own peculiar views and tenets. Religion was the most serious concern of life; it was the sacred duty of each believer to seek to bring all others to his way of thinking! The result: bickering, tension, endless disputations and the promotion of factionalism and jealousy. The divided condition of Christendom presented a sorry spectacle to the world, and was an open disgrace and scandal to all who had any feeling of compassion at all for the confused people of these bewildered, fighting, sectarian bodies.
The Move Toward Unity
Then came the first rays of light to penetrate the darkness of denominational quarreling. The most godly and most pious element in many of the churches, realizing the evils of division and estrangement, began to seek some way for unity, some formula, some plan, some agreement by which all those who sincerely wanted to serve God could do so — and without denominational affiliations and denominational prejudices arising to alienate them from other sincere and faithful servants of God.
Be it said to their credit that some of the earliest efforts in this direction came from among the Baptist churches in Vermont and New Hampshire. Led by Dr. Abner Jones, a prominent preacher and physician, some twenty congregations of Baptists were influenced to lay aside their human creeds, human names, and denominational practices, and take the Bible only as their rule of faith and practice. They became convinced that (1) the Bible contained all they needed to know or to believe or to practice in order to be faithful Christians; and that (2) it would forever be impossible to unite all believers on any human creed, no matter how scholarly or how pious the men who had formulated the creed. Dr. Jones and his followers began their historic effort in the 1790's — during the presidency of George Washington.
This action by the Baptists of New England had its counterpart among the Methodists by an almost simultaneous resolution on the part of a great number of Methodist churches in the State of North Carolina. Led by a man who was generally considered the most influential Methodist preacher in America, James O'Kelley, these congregations disassociated themselves from the general body of Methodism, and announced that they would henceforth be known simply as "Christians," and would take the Bible as their only and all-sufficient rule and guide. They would accept no denominational tenets or rules separating them from other group of Christians in any way.
The Presbyterians were not long in developing their own brand of "enlightenment" and seeking a solution to the horrible nightmare of division and sectarian alienation. Under such great leaders as Barton W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and others, they renounced all allegiance to any denominational ties, and announced themselves simply as "Christians," vowing that the Bible would be their one and only rule of faith and practice.
The Situation Today
There are in the world today many thousands of sincere people who are the spiritual descendants of these pioneering spirits of the early days of our nation. These are the people who make up what the world mistakenly calls the "Church of Christ denomination."
But is this truly a denomination? Certainly the general public can hardly be blamed for regarding it as such. For on the surface it would seem to be simply another of the great historic denominations of Christendom. But those who are members of the church of Christ are vehement (often, sadly enough, even belligerent) in their denials of being a denomination. They insist that the church of Christ has no peculiar denominational features and characteristics; that it wears no denominational name or names, has no denominational doctrines, engages in no denominational worship, and has no denominational organization, agencies, or other ecclesiastical machinery.
What, Then, Is "The Church Of Christ"?
1. The church of Christ is "the body of Christ." (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18;24.) Christ is the head of this body, and each individual member of the church is a "member" of the body — comparable to an eye, an ear, a hand, or a foot of one's physical body. (See I Cor. 12:12-31.)
2. The church of Christ is the kingdom of God or of Christ. (Matt. 16:13-20; Col. 1:13.) Christ is the king over this estate, and each individual Christian is a citizen in the kingdom.
3. The church of Christ is the family (or house) of God. (Eph. 2:19; I Tim. 3:15.) God is the Father; each Christian is a child, and Christ is the elder brother. (Rom. 8:16, 17.)
4. The church of Christ is composed of "the saved." Christ is the "savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23) but that "body is the church." (Eph. 1:22, 23.)
"But Cannot One Be Saved Outside The Church? Is The Church Absolutely Essential To Salvation?"
Alas! how often we hear the question. And it's surely obvious to all who have carefully studied the scriptures cited above, that the one asking this question is usually thinking in terms of a denomination. The answer to the question, of course, is that a denomination is NOT essential to one's salvation; and the querist is fully justified in his surmise that one CAN be saved out of the church — as he is thinking of "the church."
But, in the Bible sense, there is no such thing as salvation "outside the church" for the church IS "the saved." While it is true that one can be saved without belonging to a denomination, it is simply axiomatic that one can NOT be saved without belonging to the family of God, the body of Christ, the kingdom of heaven.
And that is what we mean when we use the expression "church of Christ." We are not thinking in terms of a denomination, but are thinking in terms of "the saved ones," "the children of God." You see, it is impossible to be "saved" in the Bible sense of that term without "belonging to the church" (in the Bible sense of what it means to belong to the church); for they are one and the same thing. One man says, "I am among the saved of God;" another says "I have been born again"; and the third says, "I am a member of the church of Christ." And all three, as faithful Christians, are saying exactly the same thing!
How To Be "Saved"
But how is one "saved"? How does one become a member of this church of Christ, this body of the saved ones? Does the Bible give us teaching on this — plain teaching that the man in the street can understand?
The solution to this problem is a simple one. When a man hears the gospel of Christ, believes it with all his heart, turns in repentance from every sin of which he is conscious, he is "baptized for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38.) He turns his back on every wrong and evil way, and resolves with all his strength to follow completely the way of Christ. In the very act of obedience, as he is "buried with him through baptism" (Rom. 6:1-4), the penitent believer is "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:1-5) and is constituted a member in the body of Christ (the church), a child in the family of God, and a citizen in the kingdom of heaven.
If he does no more than this, he is not, and never will be, a member of any denomination on earth. He has subscribed to no denominational creed; obeyed no denominational doctrines, wears no denominational name. In obeying the gospel he is in precisely the same relationship with God as were the thousands of people who obeyed the gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), or the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), or the Philippian jailor. (Acts 16) He is a Christian — simply that, only that, and nothing else. If now he should join any denomination, even the best and greatest on earth, he is in error; he is doing something that he ought not to do. He is attaching himself to a party, a sect, a distinctive group.
Saved People In All The Churches? "But Are There Not Good People, Faithful Devoted Servants Of God, Saved People In All The Churches? And How Can The Churches Of Christ Claim That They Are The Only Ones Who Will Be Saved?"
There it comes again! The same question, bare, stark, and plaintive. For, once again, our querist is thinking in denominational terms. The question has to do with "the Church of Christ denomination." Until one's mind can be free from this "denominational concept," it will be virtually impossible him to grasp the true beauty, the sublime simplicity, and the eternal blessedness of being "just a Christian — only that and nothing more."
But to answer the question: Yes, there are certainly good people in all these denominations of men and there are many fine people — people of moral integrity, noble ideals, and impeccable character — who belong to NO church of any kind. Mohammedans, Buddhists, and atheists of true nobility may be known to all of us. But there are no SAVED people outside the Lord's own body — the church for which he died! It is quite possible, (indeed, it has happened on occasion) that one of these SAVED persons, might join himself to some denomination. But in doing so he has sinned against God, and should sever that association as quickly as possible. God wants no "divisions," parties, sects, or denominations, separating his people from one another. And the "saved" ARE "the church." It is that simple.
It is a tragic and regrettable thing that so many "churches of men" have arisen to becloud and confuse the beautiful simplicity of God's plan for all his people to be united in the one body of Christ. In those agonizing hours immediately preceding his crucifixion, Christ prayed fervently for the unity of his followers. (John 17.) For many years they were united; there was, indeed, "but one body" (I Cor. 12:20); there were no denominational lines, barriers, or schisms. It was a simple choice that honest souls had to make — either the church of Christ or the idolatry and paganism of the Greek or Roman gods. But modern denominationalism has complicated the choice and obscured the realities. It has offered to sincere people not one simple choice as between the church of God and the false religions of men, but has forced also that a choice be made as between the church of God and some three hundred "churches of men," each of which is in many significant and important characteristics identical in teaching, organization, worship, or practice with God's church!
No wonder men are bewildered and perplexed by it all!
But, basically, the alternatives are the same — the fundamental choice between the simplicity that is in Christ and the traditions and customs of men. That the denominations for the most part were begun by men who were sincere and honest is not questioned. Through the centuries there have no doubt been a few who were like the "perverse men" whom Paul warned against (Acts 20:28-30); but, by all odds, most of the leaders who are responsible for great "churches of men" were dedicated and devout in their lives but mistaken! And their errors have been perpetuated to sadden and delude and confuse the generations that followed.
So What?
Well, there is the picture. It is brief, sketchy, and leaves many serious things blank and untouched. But we hope it will be sufficient to whet your desire to know more — to explore more fully (in your Bible) the true and thrilling story of "the church of Christ." Will you do that? Any member of that great body will be immensely pleased to do all he can to answer your questions, and to help you in every way possible.
For "the saved of Christ" have a compulsive desire to bring others to know the full joy which they have found in Christ. It is something that must be shared. It is a compelling drive that motivates the heart of every faithful disciple. These followers of Christ truly WANT to help you. Will you not let them?