What Makes A Church a Denomination?
Part 2
Quote: The Evangelical theological dictionary
defines "denomination" as: "anything distinguished by a name …
such as Baptists and Methodists.” Second, “Associations of congregations that
have a common heritage.” There is no doubt that there exists a "church of
Christ" denomination that belies the claims of those within it to local
autonomy. And, the unwillingness to consider changing a sign outside a building
is an indication of a sectarian attachment - not an attachment to Christ but to
a denomination. (Jeff Young)-Unquote!
TB: If the above definition really gives the
scripturally-based definition of a “denomination”, then the early church was a denomination. They were “distinguished by a name”, “Christian”,
and there was a “common heritage” of associated congregations (Rom.16:16). They were associated together with their
common heritage of hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ. There is something very lacking in the above
definition when it makes the early churches of Christ a denomination by
definition while only really wanting to make modern “churches of Christ” out to
be a denomination. Was there “local
autonomy” in the early churches? We
could easily argue that they shared a common heritage that made them tend to
share common practices. Does sharing a
common heritage make a denomination? I
think that is not really a good argument to make. If it makes the early churches of Christ a
denomination then it is probably not a good, sound argument to make.
Since I am unwilling to change the sign outside because I
really think “church of Christ” is one of the best ways of describing the Lord’s
church, the above writer says I MUST be willing to change the sign or I will be
in a denomination or possess a “sectarian attachment” to the name on the
sign. But, think about it. Isn’t it
sectarian to be so set on changing a sign to something else that only
sectionalizes brethren into smaller sections?
What will a different description on the sign accomplish? Will it prevent people from thinking you are
a denomination? It never has. It never
will. As we pointed out in part 1, the
sign does nothing. A person with only
denominational concepts will still have denominational concepts. Teaching the
TRUTH and believing the truth is the only way to get concepts corrected.
A person or group of people may have an “unwillingness to
change the sign” because they think the sign is an adequate description of what
they are, a church belonging to Christ, not a denomination. Think about this carefully. The above
argument says that unless you are willing to change the sign from “church of
Christ” to something else, you have a “sectarian attachment” to a “denomination”
instead of to Christ. Hold on a
minute! How often will we need to change
the sign to make sure we don’t have a denominational attachment? Is there a schedule of sign changing that
will avoid this? I doubt very seriously
that changing the sign is crucial at all.
In fact, could it not also be the case that one can have a factious and
denominational spirit that says in essence that “the nature of this
denomination will be our devotion to changing the name on our sign”? This will be our common denominator with
others who are also willing to change their signs often.
I knew of a case where the preacher was so set on changing
the sign that he divided the brethren. His accusation was that they were too
denominational in wanting to retain the name on the sign and their accusation
was that he was too denominational in wanting to change a legitimate sign. Who
was really denominational in this case?
To me, the preacher was trying to create a denomination that would be
known for sign-changing as the key issue of his new denomination. It was not devotion to Christ that demanded a
change on the sign. It was a divisive
spirit that would ultimately make sign-changing the key doctrine of those he
would associate with.
Those brethren who would not make that THE issue would be
mentally assigned to a different denomination while they think only they have
captured “undenominational” status.
Brethren and outsiders would take note that this new denomination will
make changing descriptive signs THE distinguishing feature to this new
denomination. If it is really so that a
church becomes a denomination if they keep “church of Christ” on their sign,
then it is still a denomination if they change the sign. Changing the sign is not out of devotion to
Christ. Christ has no interest whatsoever in brethren pushing for a change on
the sign out front from “church of Christ” to “the church at ________” . It is out of devotion to their denominational
marker of making sign-changing their distinguishing doctrine. If they are a denomination if they describe
themselves as a “church of Christ”, then they are a denomination if they call
themselves “the assembly of Christ”.
The definition our brother offered above is very inadequate
and applies just as well to his own local church. There is a “distinguishing name” involved and
his church is still associated with a common heritage of churches. If he succeeds in changing the church till no
other church feels a common heritage with his church, he has created a new
denomination that is starting a new heritage.
You see the definition our brother gave of a denomination still fits his
church and church heritage. He has not
escaped the parts of the definition he offered.
That is because his definition is wholly inadequate. He gave a partial
definition that indicts his own church that changed the sign out front, and his
partial definition indicts every local church you read about in the Bible.
I cannot look at the early churches of Christ (Rom.16:16) as
a denomination, nor can I believe that describing local churches today as “churches
of Christ” is any more a denominational indicator than it was in the first
century. Thus, we need to quit bashing
brethren and calling them a denomination if they are only imagined to be a
denomination. Imagining the local church
I attend as being a denomination or part of a denomination does not make it so.
There is inadequate definition and a lot of imagination at play here. I don’t accept our brother’s definition or
his imagination. We need to understand
what the universal church was in the first century in order to know what it is
now, and we need to understand the local church in the first century in order
to know what is should be today. We also
need to know that the early churches did not form denominations and
denominations are not supported now. The
Bible does not support divisions, seditions, and heresies (1 Cor.1:10;
Gal.5:19-20). We need to challenge people who do not teach the truth and
mischaracterize churches of Christ.
(to be continued)
Terry W. Benton
