The Gospel Advocate Creed, Part 3

The last three months, the Gospel Advocate has been blessedly free of declarations that those who disagree with the editors are damned, and I’m thankful for it. I hope this trend continues. If we could just get over the habit of making every emotional issue a salvation issue, we may well be able to have a truly thoughtful conversation about the issues that so divide the Churches of Christ and gain some common ground.

But we must also become more intellectually honest. We have to learn to give words the same meaning that our listeners expect the words to have. If we wish to claim not to be a “denomination,” then we have to use that word in its ordinary sense. If we give the word such a peculiar meaning that no one could possibly understand us, then we are wasting our and their time. In fact, we make it nearly impossible to discuss what we believe with those outside our fellowship (and we have trouble even discussing these things among ourselves!)

In the May 2007 issue of the GA, Matthew Morine writes an article, “Non-denominationalism–What Does It Mean?” This is an excellent question. He begins with a definition of “denomination” taken from Edward C. Wharton’s book The Church of Christ—

A denomination can be defined as a doctrinally distinct body of professed Christians, but not the only Christians, who believe that they have been saved by grace through faith in Christ apart from any other requirement and who have denominated themselves with a distinctive name by which they distinguish their characteristic doctrine and practice from other denominations.

Now, this is just so far removed from reality! No one outside the Churches of Christ uses “denomination” in this sense. In fact, even we don’t use it this way!

One supposed characteristic of a denomination is a claim to be less than all the church. By this definition, the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are not part of a denomination, as they claim salvation comes only within their communions. Of course, countless other smaller denominations make such a claim.

And we don’t pass this test. After all, we’ve said for 200 years, “We’re Christians only but not the only Christians.” Of course, many of my brothers now expressly reject this principle, but it’s still commonly taught and believed by many within the Churches of Christ.

The supposed definition also states that a denomination believes it’s saved only by grace through faith. We, of course, understand the necessity of baptism–but so do the Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, and countless more. Historically, it’s been the Calvinist denominations that have rejected the necessity of baptism. Our disagreement with these non-Calvinist denominations is largely over infant baptism or the use of sprinkling or pouring (although some of these denominations immerse adults for remission of sins! We are not as unique as we sometimes think.)

Finally, the definition requires a distinct name, which the Churches of Christ certainly have (whether or not we capitalize the “c”!) In the 19th Century, Restoration Movement churches called themselves Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, or Churches of Christ. All three names were commonly used. Now, the a cappella churches use “Church of Christ” exclusively.

We frequently recite a list of acceptable alternative names, but we never use a name other than Church (or church) of Christ. Worse yet–we list ourselves in the phone book under “Churches of Christ,” not under “Non-denominational”! And much worse yet–when some congregation tries to use another name, such as “Westside Church,” which is perfectly Biblical, the sister congregations pitch a fit and condemn the practice.

Br. Wharton’s definition does not come close to the meaning of “denomination” as used by anyone–even within the Churches of Christ. To meaningfully ask whether we’re a denomination, we have to consult the true meaning of the word.

Merriam-Webster Online defines it as a “religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.” Well, we certainly meet that definition.

WordNet, sponsored by Princeton University, say, “a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.” That’s us, too. WordReference.com says the same.

The RandomHouse Unabridged Dictionary (2006), says, “a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect.” That’s certainly us.

Encarta says, “a religious grouping within a faith that has its own system of organization.” Again, we’re included.

I think the mistake we make is due to confusing being a denomination (which we certainly are) with being guilty of “denominationalism.” This is defined by RandomHouse as “denominational or sectarian spirit or policy; the tendency to divide into denominations or sects.” In principle, we oppose denominationalism, although we’ve often been guilty of it. But we recognize and teach that any division within the body of Christ is wrong.

Despite wrongly arguing we are not a denomination, Br. Morine ultimately comes to a profound conclusion: “The churches of Christ are not so much non-denominational in character as anti-denominational.” Now, this is very well said. We do oppose the notion that it’s fine for the Christian world to be divided into denominational camps. This attitude goes back to the “Last Will & Testament of the Springfield Presbytery” and Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration & Address.”

I believe the Churches of Christ could uniformly agree with Thomas Campbell’s plea,

Oh! that ministers and people would but consider, that there are no divisions in the grave; nor in that world which lies beyond it: there our divisions must come to an end! we must all unite there!–Would to God, we could find in our hearts to put an end to our short-lived divisions here; that so we might leave a blessing behind us; even a happy and united church.

But to get there–to make this really happen–we have to give up our vain notion that we are somehow superior to the denominations that surround us because we aren’t one. We are one, too.

Rather, we need to talk about the issues that really matter–what are truly salvation and fellowship issues? and what will God accept as a sufficient baptism?–and get past empty sloganeering. Of course, if we can’t figure a way to be united within the Churches of Christ, how will we end the divisions of denominationalism that surround us?

Br. Morine’s prescription is to unite on the “standard of truth.” He then quotes Eph. 4:13-14, which calls us to the “unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” He’s right to turn to this passage, but he misunderstands Paul. “Faith” in Paul’s vocabulary is not a system of doctrines and practices, but faith in Jesus. “Knowledge of the Son of God” is not knowledge of how to worship or organize, but knowledge of Jesus! (See Eph. 1:17; 3:4; Phil. 3:8,10).
Properly understood, this is precisely the solution to denominationalism. We can unite on faith and Jesus! (And, obviously enough, we can’t unite with those who deny either.)

In Eph. 4:15, when Paul urges us to “speak the truth in love,” he is referring back to 1:13a: “you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.” The “truth” in Paul’s vocabulary is the truth of the gospel, the gospel we have to hear, believe, and confess to be saved: “Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit … .” (Eph. 1:13b). The key to breaking down the walls of denominationalism is found in the very passages my brother quotes, understood correctly.

Of course, Paul in no way denies baptism, but he builds his argument for unity on faith and the gospel. And so must we.

For a more comprehensive discussion, see The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace.