Sawdust
So, yes, the other denominations make serious mistakes regarding baptism, too. But everyone teaches baptism, although imperfectly. I’m aware of no denomination that doesn’t require some sort of baptism for its members.
Now, the errors made by most denominations other than the Churches of Christ generally deal with the “water” part of baptism, not the “Spirit” part. And the Spirit part is vastly more important.
(Mar 1:8 ESV) 8 “I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
(Rom 8:9-11 ESV) 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. … 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
None of this is to trivialize the errors of those outside the Churches of Christ. They are very serious errors.
The sinner’s prayer
I really don’t have much sympathy for the whole “sinner’s prayer” thing. It’s only been taught since the days of Billy Sunday. As Ed Stetzer and Philip Nation wrote in Compelled by Love: The Most Excellent Way to Missional Living
Praying a prayer isn’t what makes a person a Christian. Committing one’s life to Christ in repentance and faith, being covered by His atoning sacrifice, receiving his forgiveness — that’s when the transformation of new birth takes place.
Stetzer and Nation write from within the Baptist tradition. You see, like us in the Churches of Christ, they are beginning to see problems with revival-style conversions that beg for people to be saved but don’t bring them to true repentance. Being afraid of hell isn’t quite the same thing as being in love with Jesus. Or to borrow from Greg Koukl,
I fear we’ve inoculated a whole generation of people who got a partial injection of Christianity and are now resistant to the real thing. They prayed the sinner’s prayer, got their “fire insurance,” and then disappeared, never to be seen again. When confronted with the Gospel anew they shrug, “Been there, done that. Now leave me alone. I have a life to live.”
Here’s the antidote: The goal of an [evangelist] should never be getting someone to pray a prayer, but rather to follow Jesus. When we emphasize deciding for Christ instead of living for Him, we often get spiritual miscarriages instead of spiritual births. Our sense of safety can’t come from simply saying a prayer.
None of this is to suggest that all sinner’s-prayer conversions are invalid, only that some of them are because people are often told to pray the sinner’s prayer with little idea of the commitment they are making. Of course, this deficiency is sometimes corrected later, but not always.
I’ve attended gatherings where hundreds were present to see a play or program and the preacher urged those present to say the sinner’s prayer with little more instruction than to pray the prayer and then fill out a response card. If anyone was new to Christianity and prayed the prayer, they’d barely know who a “Jesus” is, much less what inviting him into their heart might mean. These kinds of “conversions” are way too cheap.
But some of the strongest, mightiest Christians I know came to Jesus this way. It can work and work very well — bad theology and all. God is awesomely powerful. But the notion that people are ready to commit themselves to Jesus by saying a prayer after hearing a five-minute devo talk cheapens Christianity.
Inherited faith
The biggest problem with infant baptism, to my way of thinking, is the same problem John the Baptist confronted —
(Mat 3:7-10 ESV) 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
John protested the notion that God’s election is inherited and so he demanded personal repentance — a repentance leading to a visibly changed life. Evidently, John thought the Jews’ inherited faith needed to be made real through repentance and baptism.
Have you noticed how some denominations insist that Christians be “born-again Christians” whereas others don’t really care for the “born again” idea? The Wikipedia says,
Within evangelical Protestantism, the term “born again” has come to be associated with a new concept, an experience of conversion, defined as mental assent to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal Saviour.
As opposed to what? What kind of Christianity doesn’t require a mental assent to Jesus as personal Savior? Well, a Christianity received by birthright rather than decision and commitment. And that’s a problem — and we see the fruit of the problem when missionaries work in countries where nearly everyone is baptized as an infant and very few are born again. Big, ancient, dead churches echo in their emptiness on nearly every corner.
That doesn’t mean all infant baptisms lead to a dead, inherited, ineffective faith — but the evidence is in the hundreds of millions that it often does. There is something profoundly wrong when we have nations filled with baptized people who consider themselves Christians but never attend church or otherwise manifest their Christianity except in the most superficial ways.
Sold as a "first communion" dress. Yes, really.
If you are baptized as an infant, when do you personally commit to Jesus? When do you say that “Jesus is Lord”? Well, in many denominations, at confirmation (or chrismation, in some traditions). Confirmation practices vary quite a bit from denomination to denomination and even congregation to congregation. And there are serious dangers here.
For example, it could be that confirmation will mean very little to the child. After all, in some settings, confirmation is just what one does at a certain age. You attend class, you buy a suit or a new dress, and you get confirmed. It’s a coming-of-age event — with videos, parties, cooing parents, and the whole works.
Now, as I said at the beginning of this post, we in the Churches of Christ are guilty of this error, too. We often baptize the unconverted and uncommitted by teaching a baptism that is a mere rite and involves no submission. And we sometimes emotionally manipulate kids into making a false commitment, because we feel the baptistry is where they get saved — ignoring the greater necessity that their hearts be voluntarily submitted to Jesus. (This free will stuff is very hard to accept when it comes to our own children!)
I remember the 1970s, when it was fashionable in the Churches of Christ to preach on “the Lordship of Christ.” The result of such sermons was a string of young people asking to be re-baptized because they didn’t understand that they were to “make Jesus Lord” when they were first baptized! How could we have taught “repent” in the Five-Step Plan and not have mentioned that repentance means submitting to Jesus as Lord? Well, we evidently managed to do just that. Of course, when the preaching of the Five Steps focuses almost exclusively on baptism, we just might have overlooked something important along the way.
Nonetheless, confirmation remains a palpable problem because in some locales it’s more a social event than a decision. Despite the problems we have in the Churches of Christ, at least we’ve had the wisdom not to specify an age for baptism, figuring a free will decision to follow Jesus comes whenever the child makes that decision — and our girls don’t go shopping for baptism dresses, whereas in many confirmation traditions, the girls go shopping as a precursor to receipt of God’s Holy Spirit. I find that absurd beyond words. (Do a Google image search for “confirmation dress.”) And we don’t throw baptism parties.
It’s not that it would be wrong to celebrate a baptism. It’s just that there should be no incentive to be baptized other than Jesus. And while I’m sure it would never be intentional, if all the other kids are getting new dresses and having parties, it would be awfully tempting for a 7- or 12-year old to get confirmed or baptized out of social pressure. And I’m opposed to all forms of manipulation into the baptistry or confirmation ceremony, intentional or not. No hellfire-and-brimstone sermons, no fear-of-death-on-the-way-to-the-baptistry sermons, and no new dresses or parties.
Yes, I’m a total curmudgeon on the topic. I like the way we in the Churches of Christ have managed to avoid letting baptism become a ritual that means nothing but that you’re old enough for your parents to take some more pictures of you (like birthdays and preschool graduation). There comes a point when we have to stop turning our children into little performers and let them do this one thing just between themselves and God. No parties. No new dresses. No set age for deciding to follow Jesus. And no scaring kids into the baptistry.
Catechism
Oh, and while I’m on the subject, we should think long and hard about catechism classes. Of course, in the Churches of Christ, we call them something else, but we all have classes designed to indoctrinate kids on the elements of the Christianity we hope they accept. For centuries, these classes have focused on doctrine and denominational distinctives. We in the Churches of Christ tend to emphasize the frequency and correct day for the communion, Five Acts of Worship, Five Step Plan of Salvation — that sort of thing.
I’d like to suggest that such classes are good and necessary but that they should focus on Jesus of Nazareth. Kids finishing such a class should have an elementary grasp of the story of the Bible — God’s redemptive plan fulfilled in Jesus. They should understand the mission of the church as a continuation of the mission of Christ. They should understand the elements of the work of the Spirit. If they understand the work of God, the work of Jesus, and the work of the Spirit, they’ll have no trouble with the Trinity, a lesson that can come later (as it did in church history).
Is it really necessary to expose the kids to terms like “modalism” and “unitarianism” just to teach them to fall in love with Jesus and submit to him as Lord? Not that those are bad lessons, just that they aren’t where we should begin. Teach positively, not negatively. Christianity is not centered on the Nicene Creed or why the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong, wrong, wrong! It’s centered on Jesus. There’s a difference.
In short, get away from systematic theology and instead teach about the work of each person of the Trinity, not in order to get to the Nicene Creed but to explain who God is, his character, his love, his sacrifice, and his continuing help. Teach the kids to have a relationship with Jesus by teaching them who Jesus is (and God and the Spirit). Teach so that the idea of imitating Jesus and being reshaped into the image of God are powerful, life-changing concepts.
Rather than discussing the errors of Calvin or Pelagius, find some older members of the congregation to hold up as examples of Christian living — imperfect but worthy of emulation. Let them visit the students and tell them how following Jesus has affected their lives.
And so rather than having a class on “meet the doctrine of the Churches of Christ,” I’d teach “meet God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” Just an idea …
Now you are getting to where the rubber meets the road. Excellent post! In my view there are two major problems in churches of Christ and others, you alluded to one of them.
First, we have not preached the gospel consistently and completely. In our tradition there has been much teaching about the errors of others and about the purity of our doctrine and worship but far too little about the life and dying of Jesus and the implications those facts afford and demand of anyone who would follow him.
When Jesus gave the great commission he said more than baptize. In fact he said more than "make disciples". Where we (coc) are sorely lacking is in "teaching them to observe all I have commanded you". Jesus never commanded us to be superior to the Baptists or Methodists. He did command us to love them as He loved. He never commanded that we have a ministry of condemnation. He called for a ministry of reconciliation, to bring people to God, not to a tradition.
In my limited ability, as I observe churches of all kinds, it is clear to me that those who actually do a good job of discipling new converts, teaching them the great doctrines of the historic Christian faith, and then call them into service in kingdom work, are churches that are growing by the addition of new converts and old converts who had never been taught the "all I have commanded you" stuff.
We are churches of Christ. Have we worn our name well? Oh how I want us to be Christ centered and driven by grace. It is the preaching of the cross, the worth and work of Jesus, that God uses to draw sinners to himself.
Jay is it still possible to get an email when comments are added? I have not since the change to theobloggers.
Thanks
Your points are understood and I do not deny the merit of them. Indeed I affirm them.
On the other hand, I see no danger of the CofC focusing too much attention on systematic theology, the Nicene Creed, Calvinism and Pelagius etc. In my 60 years I recall systematic theology being mentioned at church only twice, both times to ridicule it. I doubt 5% of the members of the CofC could readily tell you what is addressed in the Nicene Creed or what the 3rd council of Nicea was about. The hypostatic union? fugedaboudit! Could even 10% of the members (same is probably true for the Baptists) pass a 20 question quiz on the doctrine of the Trinity? maybe so, maybe not.
Should we begin with the basics? Yes, of course. Is is okay to move beyond that sometime before we die? Yeah, that might be okay too.
Hesed,
Randall
Jay,
Are you convince that the only church that you read in the New Testament, the Church that belong to Christ and was establish in Jerusalem at 33 D.C is a denomination?
since when have you change your view about the church of Christ?
Great post Jay…rather transparent I might add…
Royce stole my thoughts right out of my head about the teaching part of the Great Commission…I was in Wales a few years ago and bought a book on the Welsh Revival of the early 20th century. The equivalent of the New York Times had headlines about the Holy Spirit and God and wonders and miracles. The moment was so spectacular that the secular media was forced to write about the social change and impact…Imagine that today !! and then, over time it disappeared. People hardly go to church at all in Europe. The churches I attended were noticeably absent of any "youth"…they say that the lack of teaching allowed even some of the most incredible signs and wonders to dissipate into what once was…
One thought I had is that in the Great Commission, Baptism is FOLLOWED by teaching..I'm not sure there should be any significant measure of what one knows before He/She is allowed to make a commitment to place their faith in Jesus.. The Ethiopian was surely taught by Phillip for more than 5 minutes but it wasn't much longer than that. To start from no understanding at all to commitment in baptism in just a few hours would suggest that the Lord doesn't need much faith to get started. Maybe just a mustard seed…Besides, while from my point of view I may see quite a bit of spiritual growth and understanding from when I was first baptized as a child, the Lord must surely see me as a nearly spiritual illiterate based on what He knows that I don't know….yet.
I spent a lot of time reading and studying from Wayne Grudem's book Systematic Theology…interestingly enough the first few chapters start off with the character of God… Can there be any better place to start, any better place to remain?
Royce,
I don't know. As author, I get different emails. I'm running an experiment under a different email address and will let you know.
Guestfortruth,
What is your definition of "denomination"? I use the word in the conversational English sense. Dictionary.com defines "denomination" as —
"a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect"
The Free Dictionary.com defines it as —
"a group having a distinctive interpretation of a religious faith and usually its own organization"
There are various highly technical definitions used by sociologists and such like, but in ordinary conversation, we're a denomination.
In fact, if you check out the Yellow Pages for your home town, I suspect you'll find your congregation listed under "Churches of Christ" not "Nondenominational." If you borrow the "Handbook of Denominations in the United States" from your church library, you'll find the Churches of Christ listed.
And so whether we admit it or not, we walk, talk, and quack like a denomination.
Royce,
At the bottom of each post (and below the comment stream) there's link that lets you subscribe to the comments on that thread by email or by RSS. I can't find a way to subscribe to all comments automatically.
I'll check with Theobloggers to see whether they can help out with that feature.
Is the Church of Christ a Denomination?
Is the church of Christ a denomination? What is a denomination? From whence came all the different denominations?
Denominationalism is the active proponent of Division and a dedicated opponent of the church of our Lord/ The Lord’s church and the denominations are definitely incompatible and have no Christian fellowship with each other.
Church Blood-Bought
A denomination, according to Webster, is “a class or society of Individuals called by the same name: a sect.” A denomination is a fraction or part of the whole. The Lord’s church is not a “sect” of human origin. Webster defines a “sect” in religion: “A party dissenting from an established or parent church – one of the organized bodies of Christians: a denomination.” The church of Christ is the whole, the complete one body of Christ ( 1 Cor. 12:27 ), consisting of all who have been saved by the blood of Christ’s blood(Acts 2:28,Acts 2:47). The Lord’s church has no “parent” church. Christ’s church is THE CHURCH, the only church He ever had (Mt.16:18,Rom.16:16). The word “church” from the Greek word ekklesia means the “ Called out ,” All who have been called out of the world of sin constitute the church (Col. 1:13) . They who have been called into God’s service constitute His Church. In no sense could this be true of denominationalism. The word “denominationalism” itself suggest a fraction or a part of the whole. The church of Christ, The Church that belong to Christ and is found in the New Testament that you read in your bible is not fraction or part of anything! It is not a denomination.
It is hard for many people to imagine only ONE church. They naturally think of “churches” but not of “the church” Imagine how shocked many people would be if they were suddenly transported back to the first century. Imagine how utterly amazed they would be upon finding only one church. No matter how hard or how long they searched, they would find only one. After all, the scriptures present only one church. As we study our bibles, we find only one church planned by God (Eph. 3:8-11), prophesied by the prophets (Isa. 2:2-3;Dan.2:44), promised by Christ (Matt. 16:18;John 10:16), purchase by Jesus (Acts. 20:28;Eph. 5:25), preached by the apostles (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4), presented by the historian Luke (Acts 2:47; 8:1,3), and only one church prepared for eternity (I Cor. 15:24; Eph. 5:23). We should not be shocked that many people today think of the church as a denomination. After all, denominationalism is all that many people know.
As in the first century the church of Christ was wrongly denominated by the religious people. In like manner , many of the Jews thought of the Lord’s church as just another sect (Acts 24:5;Acts 28:22). Most of the Jews belonged either to the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) or to the sect of Pharisees (Acts 15:5). As sectarians, they naturally thought of the Lord’s church in these same terms. However, their calling it a sect did not make it one (Acts 24:14-15). They had to learn of the uniqueness of the church of Christ. In like manner, multitudes of men and women today need to learn of the unique church that we read about in the New Testament.
As I answer the question of whether or not the Lord’s church is a denomination, I will of necessity be pointing out things which are wrong with denominationalism. I want to make clear that I do not question the sincerity nor the intelligence of people in denominational error. However, I know from the study of the Scriptures that sincere, intelligent people can be wrong when it comes to the Lord’s church.
For example, before his conversion, Paul persecuted the church (Acts 9:3). At that time that he persecuted the church, he was both sincere and intelligent. One can not rightfully question his intelligence, because he was trained at the feet of Gamaliel ( Acts 5:34;22:3). In like manner, one can not rightfully question his sincerity (Acts. 23:1). How shocking it must have been for Saul to learn that he was persecuting Jesus (Acts. 9:3-4)! No doubt, many sincere and intelligent people today are shocked when they learn the truth about the Lord’s church.
Although it does not shock me that many religious people in the world today think of the church as a denomination, it does shock me that anyone who claims to be a gospel preacher or a New Testament Christian would speak of the church in such a common way. After all, God has exalted the church “above the hills.” We must not call “common” that which God has cleansed (Acts. 10:15;Acts 11:19).
I have tried seriously to consider why anyone connected with the church would refer to it as a denomination. I believe that they might wrongly speak of the church as a denomination for the following reasons:
(1) They have forgotten the distinctiveness of the church; (2) They are afraid of “offending” someone; (3) They want to open up fellowship lines with the denominational world. Those who have forgotten the nature of the church need to be reminded of it ( 1 peter 2:9). Those who are afraid of “offending” someone need to go over their shame (Rom. 1:16), and those who want to open up fellowship lines need to remember that God determines fellowship (Eph.5:11; 2 John 9-11).
As New Testament Christians, we are not asking men to think of the church of Christ as the best denomination or even as a better denomination ,(1) because the fact is that the church of Christ is not a denomination! God’s wants to get all men and women to think of the church in the same way that Christ thought of it (Phil. 2:5;Acts 20:28).
DEFINITIONS
In order to answer the question of whether or not the Lord’s church is a denomination, we must understand the basic terms of the question that we are addressing. Definition of words and phrases are essential to good communication
We need to notice that the words “church” and “denomination” mean. Contrary to popular belief, the “terms “ church” and “denomination” are not synonyms.
The word “Church” is found 114 times in the KJV of the Bible, The word “church” is translated from the Greek word “ekklesia” and means “Called out”. As used in the New Testament. The word “church” refers to those men and women who had been called out of the world by the gospel ( 2 Tess. 2:14). Contrary to what many believe, the word “church” does not refer to a building. After, all, a building can not hear (Matt. 18:17;Acts 11:22) or fear (Acts 8:3), as the church is clearly pictured as doing in the book of Acts. The word “church” refers to redeemed men and women and not to brick, blocks, or boards. Many arguments about what can or cannot be done in the church building would be settled if people understood that the word “church” does not refer to a building.(2) Further, it is important to understand that the church is not merely a continuation of the Old Testament system. The Jewish hero Saul needed to make a radical change in his life (Gal. 1:11-16; Phil. 3:4-11) and Nicodemus needed to be born again (John 3:1-5). The Old Law which governed the old system was abolished in the death of Christ (Col.2:14;Eph. 2:15).
In contrast to the word “Church,” the word “denomination” is not found in the Scriptures. However, the word “sect,” which is one of the meaning of the word “denomination” is found in the Scriptures. The Word “sect” appears several times in the Scriptures and refers to “ a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets.”(3) In addition to this definition, it is important for us to notice how others have defined denominationalism. Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines a “Denomination” (4) as :
1: an act of denominating 2: a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money) 3: NAME,DESIGNATION; esp: a general name for a category 4: a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of local congregations. The word “denominationalism” is defined by the same dictionary as :
1: devotion to denominational principles or interest 2: the emphasizing of denominational differences to the point of being narrowly exclusive.(5)
With classic conciseness N.B. Hardeman penned the following words :
What is a denomination? It is a religious organization larger than the local church, smaller than the redeemed in the aggregate. Therefore, it comes in between, separate and distinct from the church of the Bible at both ends of the line. How is the Church used? It is either a local congregation or it embraces all Christians. Now a denomination stands between these, and, therefore, it is a thing unheard of and unknown in the Bible; and I say that cautiously, respectfully, and yet firmly.( 6)
As we think of these definitions of “denomination,” we see some thing which clearly identify the church of the New Testament as being distinct from denominationalism.
First, denominationalism is a part and not the whole. However, when we read of the church in the New Testament, we find it described as a united body (Rom.12:5; 1 Cor.12:13;Eph. 4:4,Col. 3:5). In striking contrast to the picture painted of the Church, denominationalism does not claim to be united. It claims to be only a part of the saved. It is satisfied with being a part of the whole. Often, denominations wrongfully speak of themselves as branches in the vine of Christ (John 15:1-11). It is clear from the context that Jesus was speaking of His disciples and not of denominations as branches (John 15:6). By claiming to be part and not the whole, denominationalism violates the promise (Matt.16:18), the prayer (John 17:20-21), and the pattern of Christ (Eph.4:3). God condems the division with which denomination are so comfortable (Gal. 5:19-21; I Cor. 1:10-17; I Cor. 3:3; I Cor. 11:18; I Cor.12:25). Can you imagine Paul being a member of one church and peter being a member of another church? The very idea is ridiculous. Neither the apostles nor the early Christians were a part of a denomination. They were all members of the church which Christ built and bought. They understood that those who caused divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of Christ were to be avoided (Rom. 16:17;Psalm 119:104). Second, denominations are devoted to “denominational principles and interest.” However, the church about which read in the New Testament was dedicated to following the apostles’ doctrine (Acts. 2:42;cf. Col. 3:17)
Christ Adds to His Church
The church of Christ is not a denomination because the membership of the Lord’s Church is enrolled in heaven and God does the adding of the members to his church. (Acts 2:41-47). In verse 42 of this quotation Luke records, “then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousands souls.” In the 47th verse he concluded, “ And the lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Those who obey the gospel by believing, repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins were added to the church by the Lord.
All members of Christ’s church were added to the church by the Lord after their obedience to the gospel and their names were enrolled in heaven. How different from denominationalism. Men are accepted or rejected by the respective denomination, according to the human creed of said denominations.
It is know that some years ago in an East Texas oil field community, a denominational church closed its doors for membership. The reason for this unusual action was the fact that oil was discovered on the church property, which meant considerable royalty for the members of that church. Therefore, instead of putting money into the collection plate, they took money out of the treasury. They divided the oil money among themselves. As you might imagine, they began to get many new members. In view of the situation, they decided to “close the doors of the church” – no more new members with whom to divide the “oil money.” I suppose that would be one denomination that a person could not “join” unless he had an oil well. Just too bad if a man didn’t have an oil well! Imagine that being a New Testament church! I tell you, the church of Christ is not a denomination, and denominations are no part of the church. (7)
(1) Pharr, David. “ Not a denomination.” The Spiritual Sword, October, 1994, P. 9.
(2).- Watkins, James, “ The New Testament Church.” The Munford Lectures, August, 1993, Taped Sermon.
(3).- Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan:Baker Book House, 1977.
(4).- Merriam-Webster, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachussetts : Merriam-Webster, inc. 1987.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Hardeman, N.B Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons. Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1922, pp.226-227.
(7) V.E. Howard. Is the church of Christ a denomination? 1970. P. 4-5.
I'll try to be less wordy.
If it walks like a duck and it has feathers like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it is a duck.
Now Randall….you know good and well that is not an adequate description…There are One Quakers and Multi-Quakers…There are those that only Quack on Sundays and not on Wednesday Nights… Some even allow Hens to Quack occasionally… and yes while there does appear to be a growing tendency to Waddle, we all don't walk alike…
Quackers…sorry for the confusion…
I'll try to less wordy, as well, although that is a rare occurrence for me.
The church on Pentecost was not a "denomination;" the intent of the pioneers of the Restoration Movement was to NOT form a :denomination." A major factor in why the Church of Christ is resembling a denomination more and more is the continued combative rhetoric which is well-illustrated in a certain previous post.
In my post, I wasn't referring to you, Price (or Randall). Price, you got your posts in while I was writing. I guess I'm just a "wise-quacker."
The story of the Texas church intrigues me. I think that distributing assets to the members would directly violate their 501(c)3 status. Does the church have a 501(c)3 exemption or is that reserved for denominations? I get lost in the tax code with all of its definitions that don't match other people's definitions.
Steve, I believe that you have good reason to be skeptical. What are the odds that there might be a little more info to be able to verify the information?