Progressive Churches of Christ: Sinking into union with the Body of Christ at large

progressiveBack in 1804, the churches that made up the Springfield (Illinois) Presbytery decided to leave behind the then-sectarianism of the Presbyterian Church.

Among their leaders was Barton W. Stone. The events at the Cane Ridge Revival had persuaded him that salvation wasn’t found only in the Presbyterian or Reformed Church. As a result, he and others were tried for heresy. And so the church leaders signed “The Last Will & Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,” saying,

Imprimis. We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.

Item. We will that our name of distinction, with its Reverend title, be forgotten, that there be but one Lord over God’s heritage, and his name one.

Item. We will, that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

Item. We will, that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy Scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Item. We will, that the church of Christ resume her native right of internal government,—try her candidates for the ministry, as to their soundness in the faith, acquaintance with experimental religion, gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of their authority but Christ speaking in them. We will, that the church of Christ look up to the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into his harvest; and that she resume her primitive right of trying those who say they are apostles, and are not.

Item. We will, that each particular church, as a body, actuated by the same spirit, choose her own preacher, and support him by a free-will offering, without a written call or subscription—admit members—remove offenses; and never henceforth delegate her right of government to any man or set of men whatever.

Item. We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into hell.

Item. We will, that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up, and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh.

Thus began the Restoration Movement. And so these congregations cut themselves loose from the Presbyterian Church. But they joined with each other for mutual edification and support, effectively creating a new denomination of “Christian” churches.

In 1816, at a quarterly communion meeting of the Redstone Baptist Association, Alexander Campbell preached his famous “Sermon on the Law.” As a result, he was tried for heresy, which resulted in the separation of the “Disciples” churches from the Baptist Churches, resulting in the creation of yet another denomination.

In 1832, in Lexington, Kentucky, the Christian or Stone-ite church merged with the Disciples or Campbell-ite church. Soon, Christian and Disciples congregations merged across the landscape of Illinois and Kentucky, resulting in a new denomination with two names.

A few churches in this Restoration Movement decided to call themselves Churches of Christ, insisting on a name found in scripture, and these churches tended to be more conservative than the others.

So this strange thing happened. A movement begun with the noble words “We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one body,” became yet another denomination. Many congregations rejected the word “denomination,” but the congregations acted in every way like one more denomination.

The usual response is to suggest that the Restoration Movement churches are an unwilling or unintentional denomination. After all, the other denominations kicked them out.

More recently, the argument has been that “denomination” means a subset of the true church, and since the Churches of Christ are the true church, they are not a denomination. Which is sheer foolishness, because that’s not what “denomination” means and because those in the Churches of Christ aren’t the only ones going to heaven.

No, we can’t define our way out of our sectarianism. Nor can we pretend that our separation from the rest of God’s church is unintended. We go well out of our way to be separate from the other denominations, and it’s quite intentional.

Now, it’s also true that there are plenty of other denominations that do the same thing, which is, of course, utterly beside the point and no excuse at all for our behavior.

So we need to ask: what would happen if we really and truly sank into union with the Body of Christ at large? What if we refused to allow other churches and other denominations to treat us as a denomination separate from all others? What would that look like?

Well, we’d have to be in active, regular fellowship with churches in other denominations. We’d have to refuse to let them withdraw from us. We’d just have to love them so much that they couldn’t treat us as separate.

Sit down with any group of elders or preachers and suggest regular joint worship services with other congregations, and someone in the crowd will express his fear that we might lose members to these other churches once we begin to treat their members as saved. We are insecure enough that we imagine the only reason our members don’t leave and attend elsewhere is their fear that salvation is only found in the Churches of Christ. Take away that fear, and then everyone leaves. Except in most churches, most people stopped worrying about that decades ago.

Besides, if the only reason to stay is fear of damnation arising from bad theology, well, how is that justification for bad theology? Is it really okay to lie to our members — or to let them believe a lie — just so we can make budget?

If we were to be more concerned with the health of the Kingdom as an institution and less concerned with our own denomination or even our own congregation, I imagine that people would appreciate their congregations more — and yet there’d be a few mergers. A few churches would close their doors. But the Kingdom would be much better off. The church in a given city would be stronger if there were fewer congregations and more churches with larger memberships — memberships large enough to have the resources needed to serve the community, to operate jail ministries, to support more missionaries, to plant new churches … you get the idea.

So it’s not so much about the denominational name as it is an insistence on active, regular fellowship with other churches in town.

How is this done? Well, I would think we’d start with joint communion services. We’d actively invite the other churches to join us regularly. We’d accept their reciprocal invitations. And we’d manage to work out the details on how communion is served and how we sing and all the rest. It’s not that hard if you really want to do it.

And then you merge outreach activities when it makes sense. A given town only needs so many soup kitchens and free clinics. But every soup kitchen and free clinic needs volunteers from multiple churches.

And then you’d merge efforts to preach the gospel across the city. You’d have a “missional alliance” where leaders coordinate and train and recruit on a cross-denominational basis.

And you’d do so much of this stuff that it becomes second nature to work with your brothers and sisters of differing denominations in the same town. And if a few churches merge as congregations consolidate in order to become more efficient, freeing more resources for mission, well, that would be a very good thing.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Progressive Churches of Christ, The Future of the Churches of Christ, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Progressive Churches of Christ: Sinking into union with the Body of Christ at large

  1. laymond says:

    Amen Price, talk does not take the place of action. Jesus blazed the trail with his action. Pick up your cross and “FOLLOW ME” not “this is the way I think you should do it” .

  2. Monty says:

    Jay, the Restoration Movement started by calling folks out of creeds(denominational beliefs that divided the church). As you have mentioned from the outset this was not accepted by the denominations(these early leaders were “kicked out’ from denominations very early on). Would it be acceptable today? I think not. At some point there was no going back to being acceptable or get alongable with those outside the movement. Perhaps this was an unintentional consequence of what they were promoting. So, what followed was an appeal for others to leave their creeds(denominational ties) and “come join us.” “Come just be a Christian with us.” And people from different denoms did by the droves.

    From what I can tell, your solution is “We’ve realized our mistakes and now we desire to be a part of you”(whichever group-Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc you are appealing to for fellowship). But I don’t believe that was the early “restorationist’ mindset, if it was, they would have just joined in and blended in with the groups they were kicked out of(different denominations)by conceding their beliefs. No, it was their plea for laying aside creeds and things taught that differed from things expressly taught( i.e. believers baptism, not for infants) in scripture that got them ostracized. How have things changed since the early 1800’s where now “our desire” is to blend in with “them” (not that they are lost, but holding to various names and creeds that separate the body) instead of “us”(those with a restorationist desire) calling “them” out to join our undenominational plea? Isn’t the plea still valid? If Alexander Campbell were alive today would he see things differently? How do we uphold whatever it was they upheld and thought was important enough to get themselves kicked out of by laying down our plea and just blending in. Maybe an Alexander Campbell or a Barton Stone would rollover in their grave at how sectarian we’ve become but they also might do the same if the plea now is to just dissolve into the greater body at large and abandoning the earliest principals of the RM.

    At some point “sink into union” became untenable, and the cry became, ” Come be what we are, Christians only.” It was a plea for denominations to dissolve themselves. But if they weren’t willing to do so, then you individuals in those churches “come join in with us” . Not, “we’ll blend in with you guys”. What sounded very indecisive at first, became very divisive, a thing by which thousands upon thousands left their friends, family perhaps, and fellow brethren in the Lord, to be part of something they perceived as being more right or else more Biblically centered.

  3. Jim H says:

    Monty’s post describes my initial thoughts as I thought about Jay’s post. It seems to me that the old axiom of “you can’t see the forest (i.e., denominational unity) for the trees (i.e., our theological doctrines). Denominational biblical theology at best brought agreement or unity on communion, baptism, and salvation is only found in grace through faith in Jesus as our sin bearer (I.e., the forest), whereas our systematic theology on communion, baptism, and soteriology brings some disagreements on the mechanics of just how these doctrines should be performed. How many of Jay’s excellent systematic theological posts on these “agreed topics,” and other systematic theological topics have initiated some disagreements among his subscribers. If the “kingdom is within us,” regardless of our denominational traditions and theology, and falls under the “guidelines” of Romans 14 are we not in some respects in “kingdom unity?” (I typed this on my iPhone and my thoughts may not conveyed very well).

  4. John F says:

    At the very least, the churches of Christ in a given community could / should host often a city wide worship to which the entire city-wide community of believers is invited to come. It would not be heresy to ask someone outside “our” fellowship to participate.

  5. John F says:


    The churches (of Christ) in Portland, OR have for some 30 years an annual TLC (Together w/ Love in Christ) gathering in a rented facility. I served on the “organizing” group for the first few years. While it did not /does not “reach out” beyond coc fellowship, it has been a unifying and uplifting time. It could do better in reaching out . . . . . . .

  6. Jay Guin says:

    John F,

    Thanks for the note. I think I’ve seen articles on TLC in the Christian Chronicle. Sounds like a great work.

  7. Jay Guin says:


    I’ve written a response that will appear as a post in a couple of days. Thank you very much for your questions. They push me deeper into the word.

  8. Jay Guin says:


    Thanks for your note: “The Protestants and Catholics came together. Yes, the cofC minister and Catholic priest took a part of the service.” We want to excuse our refusal to cross denominational boundaries because we know the other side will refuse. Not necessarily. The Spirit is on the move.

  9. Jay Guin says:


    I respond to your thoughtful, excellent questions in the next two posts. Also to Zackary’s comment. Let me know if I’ve failed to answer anything after you’ve read them both.

  10. Royce says:

    In our neck of the woods, the coc congregations get together once a year at a high school building to show our unity by singing some songs together and listening to some scriptures read and some prayers. My guess is that if this same meeting was announced at any one of the several congregations buildings in town many would refuse to come. I have noted that there is no preaching, only singing and reading scriptures. Now we can officially declare we have unity. What?

    In my view, only when we recognize the other Christians in town can we begin to claim unity. Oh, interestingly the only Christian church in town is not invited to my knowledge.

    The bottom line is this fact. People who believe that only they have the right truth and are the only ones right with God will never recognize others who claim Christ as Lord as equals. It isn’t going to happen.

  11. Keith says:

    Everyone in our community, including members of denominations, are always invited and welcome in our assembly every Sunday. We are a friendly, humble, and earnest group who are not perfect, but search and study the scriptures together to find out what God wants us to do.

  12. Dwight says:

    The problem is that we have a team mentality. We are we and they are them. We have our identity and they have theirs. Sectarianism based on denominationalism keeps the gap wide open, while we jockey for position in our doctrinal differences.
    What did Paul argue to the Corinthians who were dividing and being contentions over names, unify in Jesus. When you put away names, then you put away a dividing point and identifiers that mark you as you and them as them. The only thing left is to discuss doctrine on the same level.

  13. Pingback: The Progressive Churches of Christ: Sinking into the Body of Christ, Part 3 | One In Jesus

Comments are closed.