Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Recently a set of Edgar Dye’s lecture series notes on “Church Discipline” came across my desk and under the heading of “Objections to Disfellowshipping Considered” he covered a point that has given me problems from time to time. It is a prevalent objection that is very common, and I am sure others have had to deal with it too. In this writing I would like to cover this one objection.

The Objection Considered

The objection simply stated is this: “We cannot withdraw from those who have already withdrawn from the church because when one ceases to assemble with the saints, he has withdrawn himself and the church needs no further action.” I have tried to be respectful toward those who take this position even though I believe the position to be fallacious. I believe those who hold this position are sincere and are not. trying to offer a feeble excuse to escape an unpleasant responsibility. But the fact still remains, the church is commanded to withdraw from all who walk disorderly and it is the church that is to do the withdrawing, and not the sinner from the church.

There are several considerations behind this objection:

(1) It forces tine to take the position that cases of withdrawal are to be only coward those who are “still in the church”.

(2) When one stops attending the church, hence, withdraws himself, the church’s ,responsibility to him is over.

(3) Most who take this position feel that’ we should simply drop the names of the unfaithful from the roll of the church and avoid the thorny points of discipline.

This is simply not the case at all. Such positions show a lack of faith in’ God’s word and a lack of conviction regarding what God says about discipline. We must respect what God says and love those who are in sin. As James P. Needham has said: “It sanctions free-lance membership . . . One could decide he no longer wants to be a member of a local church, withdraw. his membership and become a free-lancer. I have not found any authority for free-lance membership. Christians in the New Testament were identified with some local church.”

Perhaps this illustration will help: Israel and Judah forgot Jehovah days without number (Jer. 2:32; 3:6-10). They had.,” forsaken the Lord” (Isa. 1:4). In doing so they did the same thing that brethren are doing today in forsaking public worship. In spite of what Israel and Judah had done, for many years God was patient and longsuffering. Yet, He afterward punished them through the Assyrians and Babylonians. Their withdrawal from God and the long lapse of time did not preclude Divine chastisement from being exercised. I suggest ‘that the absence of brethren today does not excuse them from” being withdrawn from as the Bible directs.

Illustrations Of What We Are To Do

According to John 10 and Luke 15, the good shepherd goes after his wayward sheep. Where there are elders, they stand in the same relation to the congregation that the shepherd does to his flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Where there are no elders, the brethren must exercise the action of seeking the sheep that has gone astray (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20). To say that fellowship cannot be withdrawn from those who have withdrawn . themselves, the purpose being to reclaim them, is to argue that the shepherd cannot seek his lost sheep because the sheep has withdrawn itself from the fold. Furthermore it is in the very context of the shepherd’s leaving the ninety and nine in the fold and seeking the one .that” had gone astray (Matt. 18:12-14), that Jesus commanded corrective discipline (Matt. 18:15-17).

Then again, military terms are used to describe the affairs of the Kingdom of God. Read carefully 2 Timothy 2:3-4; Ephesians 6:10-18; Philippians 2:25. Let us take a look at this relationship to illustrate the fallacy of the type of thinking we are dealing with in this writing.

If a soldier goes AWOL he is not free from any disciplinary action simply because he “withdrew” himself from his company. Likewise, the soldier in the Lord’s army is not free! Action must needs be taken against him.

Note several things that are not accomplished :when the church takes no action against the one who withdraws himself:

(1) The offender does not know that he has, been withdrawn from.

(2) He does not realize that he has been “delivered back to Satan”.

(3) The faithful members of the church do not know he has been withdrawn from and may even disobey. a diving command.

(4) The offended is not ashamed but is usually “puffed up.”

(5) The primary purpose of all discipline is not accomplished.

(6) The church is subject to corrupting influences.

(7) The world does not know that he has been withdrawn from either. So far as they know our silence equals condoning his behavior, and like David of old we have given occasion to the enemies .of God to blaspheme.

Such Failure Creates A Loophole

It has been suggested that if we cannot withdraw from the withdrawn (the one who withdraws himself from the church), the church could never withdraw from this type of disorderly person (2 Thess. 3:6). The reason being, the disorderly always beats the church to the draw! All they would have to do to avoid being withdrawn from is to say, “You can’t withdraw from me, I have already withdrawn from you”. The church would be helpless to carry out the command to withdraw from the disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6).

Brethren, think about it!

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, 25-26
January 13, 1977

By Olen Holderby

Of course, where there is Bible unity there is Bible fellowship. Fellowship is much more than relationship, though it includes the proper relationship. Fellowship in the Bible applies to spiritual matters-God, Christ, Holy Spirit, and fellow-Christians (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Jn. 1:3, 6, 7). The fellowship of Christians derives from what they have in common with God, through His Word (1 Jn. 1:3). The Word is always the basis of union with God (obtained or maintained). Carl Ketcherside once said, “The body of truth is like the human body, in that it has many members. Not all these are essential to being, some are essential only to well being.” I would like to see these two lists! Which ones are essential to being and which ones are essential to well-being? Who is the potentate that shall supply these lists?

Further, fellowship in Christ is the same as being one in Christ (1 Cor. 1:9-10). This being one in Christ involves speaking the same things (1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet. 4:11), and practicing the same things (2 Jn. 9-11). Fellowship between fellow Christians is a direct result of walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:7) of God’s Word. Ignore this perfect system of Divine truth and neither unity nor fellowship (in the Bible sense) will be achieved.

Jesus ushered into the world a system of truth designed to save souls (Jn. 1:17; 17:17; 1 Pet. 1:22). A failure to follow this system of truth results in being lost (Jn. 7:17; Lk. 6:46; Mt. 7:21). We are under obligation to proclaim that truth (2 Tim. 2:2; Mt. 28:18-20), to defend that truth (Jude 3; Phil. 1:16), and to call in question the teachers of error (1 Jn. 4:1). Let us not forget that this same truth may be misused, to our eternal sorrow (Mt. 7:21-23). Notice 1 Jn. 2:5-How much of God’s Word is meant in this statement? If not all, then what part is left out?

It may be argued that unity is not to be equated with uniformity; which is an apparent effort at saying we can have unity is spite of our differences. However, outside the doctrine of Christ one is without God and without Christ (2 Jn. 9; Mt. 10:16; Lk. 10:16, NAS). To attempt “unity in diversity” in matters of faith is to compromise or forsake God’s truth; and this invites the marking and avoiding of Rom. 16:17.

When man agrees with God (Amos 3:3) by believing and obeying God’s Word, he will be in fellowship with all other men who do the same. Unity or fellowship on any other basis is dead wrong. To walk by faith is to walk in the light of God’s Word (Rom. 10:17; 1 Jn. 1:7).

God’s Grace

God’s grace teaches both the alien and the erring (1 Cor. 1:21; Tit. 2:11-12). Just as the alien must have faith (Mk. 16:16), the Christian is to walk by faith (Rom. 1:17). Both have a choice as to whom they obey (Rom. 6:16). God’s grace teaches the alien to believe, repent, and be baptized to come into a covenant relationship with God. Why is it not just as important for the erring to repent and pray (Acts 8:22) to maintain his favorable relationship with God? Christ’s blood cleanses both, but on the condition they obey (Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Jn. 1:7). 1 am aware that salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), but only in the same way that God’s Son is a gift (Jn. 3:16). All did not receive Christ (Jn. 1:11), thus He was not a gift to them. Hence, salvation is no gift until it is received. Receiving this salvation is done by obeying His Will (Heb. 5:9).

Where has God promised to save the erring short of his repenting and praying? In the absence of such scripture, will someone play God and affirm that He does? The conclusion is inescapable-if man wants God’s grace to cover his sins, he must obey God’s instructions. Since a previous article dealt more fully with this topic, we leave it here.Fruits of “Unity In Diversity”

Brother Ron Halbrook, in Truth Magazine, quoted Bro. Ed Fudge as saying, “I believe it is—sinful, to travel around disrupting the peace of the brethren, to create suspicions and hinder the work of the Lord.” Amen, Bro. Fudge! I do wish all these “unity in diversity” preachers would apply this to themselves.

Example # 1, Polson, Montana: I refer the reader to Truth Magazine, Sept. 26, 1974, for the details of this example. I mention it here simply because I had some familiarity with these brethren while they were at peace and long before the “unity in diversity” ideas were found in the congregation. Now, just who caused division in this case? It would really take some conscience salving for the innovaters to excuse themselves from blame in this case. This is a good example of the type of “unity” that “unity in diversity” offers.

Example # 2, Concord, California: One Saturday night in October, 1973, I received a telephone call from one of the brethren from the small but “sound” congregation meeting in that city. Difficulties had developed over the ideas involved in the “unity in diversity” movement. Some had already been lost to liberalism. I was asked to teach a series of Saturday night lessons to the congregation, and I began such lessons Oct. 27, 1973 and continued them, with little interruption, until Jan. 19, 1974. The local preacher had espoused some of the erroneous ideas and had been preaching them. About two-thirds the way through this series of lessons, I was informed that a member of the large liberal group in Concord was to follow me with a series of his own. My series dealt mostly with the subjects of authority, the original New Testament church, limitations of the Gospel, work and worship of the church, the subject of fellowship, and the fact that truth is absolute and attainable. Questions upon which there was considerable discussion dealt with the imagined difference in Gospel and doctrine, authority (especially as how to establish it), worship, and fellowship (the who of fellowship). Jn. 4:24 was called in question as offering the standard of worship; and, 2 Jn. 9 was used only in reference to the Deity of Christ.

Hal Hougey, of the liberal group in Concord, was the one to follow me, but for a much shorter period of time. I have a copy of the material which he discussed, in outline form. Considerable space is taken up in an effort to show that 2 Jn. 9 makes reference only to the Deity of Christ. On page two of that outline it is said, “Since no one has perfect knowledge, and therefore may almost certainly have ignorantly committed sins of omission or commission, and not even know what to repent of, we are all dependent on God’s grace to save us.” Does this sound familiar? Under the title, “Whom Should We Not Fellowship,” are given unbelievers, those guilty of moral sins, and those guilty of factious behavior. It is argued that 1 Tim. 6:3-5, “Does not condemn the one who holds views different from or in addition to that which was taught by Christ and inspired men, but the one who persists in causing division by advocating such views to the point of causing quarreling, suspicions, and constant friction.” It is said that Rom. 16:17-18, refers “to the teaching regarding the unity of the body of Christ, not to the whole body of Christian teaching which is found in the New Testament.”

The local preacher was fired, but it was slightly too late for the small congregation to absorb this shock and survive. After a few weeks they simply dissolved and went elsewhere. To my knowledge there were no further loses to the liberals, but the over-all loss is obvious. I have purposely refrained from naming the local preacher involved, because I have been more recently informed that he is moving in the right direction, working with a sound Gospel preacher, and may someday be able to preach the pure Gospel once more. It is commendable that he recognized that he had a problem, and is not now spending any time in the pulpit. Now, what caused this division and dissolution of the small church? Is anyone so blind as to affirm that the “unity in diversity” doctrine had nothing to do with it? Again, this is the type of “unity” which such doctrine has to offer.

Example # 3, Arlington, Texas (Pioneer Parkway): A little background is in order. Shortly before Brother Hubert Moss moved to the Pioneer Parkway church, I held a Gospel meeting there. In general I would say the congregation was eagerly looking forward to his corning and anticipating a good work with him. However, less than a year after his arrival I began to receive comments from some that were listening to him, to the effect that they understood him to be doing some “loose” teaching, but could not at that time put their finger on just what it was. My response was that my informants should not be so critical and try to work more closely with Brother Moss. I had absolutely no idea that their observations had any foundation in fact whatsoever. I simply thought that they were mistaken. A few months later, however, quotes from his peaching and class teaching : made a different .impression. I ask that some tapes be made and sent to me that I might hear; but unfortunately this was not achieved. I urged those concerned to boldly stand for the truth and continue at Pioneer Parkway as long as there was any hope at all of saving the church from what they understood to be error. I also had a few talks with some that had known Brother Moss in college and since, and I urged them to get in touch with Brother Moss and try to find out what was really going on. Whether they ever did this or not I do not know.

My next direct contact of the situation Yin Arlington came Jan. 24, 1975. I arrived at the airport before daylight that Friday morning, to be informed, “we have a new church in Arlington.” Of course they were making reference to a new congregation. “Since when?” was: my reply, and, “last Sunday” was the answer. I did the preaching at both services Jan. 26, for this new group, I have written statements and quotes from these brethren, which explain why they determined to leave Pioneer Parkway.

A little information on the new group may here be of interest. They had twenty-eight people present for their first service, with the promise of more to follow soon. They began with six to eight men on whom they can depend. I was informed that the new work was a result of error being taught in the Pioneer Parkway church. There had been several things to which they objected, but the “straw that broke the camel’s back” “was the “grace-fellowship” and “unity in diversity” error. The ,new group meets at 1203 E. Abram, in Arlington; and they are presently looking for a “full-time” man to work with them.. Several preachers in the general area have spoken for the new group, thus familiar with their efforts. Contacts with this new church may be made through Brother Billy Dollar, 1817 Larkspur Dr., Arlington, Texas.

Back to the trouble itself. During the summer of 1974, Ronnie Compton was with the Pioneer Parkway church, and was used in their teaching program. My niece presented me a copy of the book which Brother Compton used in a young people’s class-Stott’s “Basic Christianity.” From what I have read in various papers I conclude it is not necessary to comment on this book. It is, nonetheless, filled with ideas that are foreign to God’s Word; and, if followed would destroy faith in God’s Word. During the fall (Oct.), 1974, Brother Edward Fudge was in a meeting at Pioneer Parkway. During this meeting Bro. “Fudge used Heb. 10:5-10 in an effort to prove that Christ lived a perfect life (kept the law perfectly) for us and that takes care of ,our deficiencies” (From a letter from Bro. C. Floyd George). During this same meeting Bro. Moss called on a Brother from a liberal church to lead in prayer. When asked to explain this; “he claimed that they had talked to each other and thought alike, (Bro. George’s letter). Here is another statement from Bro. George’s letter “Bro. Moss preached a number of sermons on works, grace, and fellowship, based mostly on Rom. 3, 4, 5, and 8. He uses Rom. 3:20 in such a way as to reach the conclusion that law keeping is unimportant. only trust in Christ is important-he applies it to the law of Christ.” One more, “Bro. Moss and Edward Fudge have the Bible teaching that God’s grace permits him to substitute the perfect life of Christ for obedience on our part, and without his doing so we could not be saved.”

Here are some quotes that Bro. Billy Dollar attributes to Bro. Moss. In discussing 1 Cor. 1:10-“Not dealing with Gospel uniformity, though ideal. Demands purpose, oneness of mind, intent and aim.” On 2 Jn. 9-11, “involves Deity of Christ, not the doctrine of Christ.” “It is not true every time I commit a mistake I fall from grace.” And, Bro. Dollar adds, he “preached Jesus the man, not a plan.”

I have additional statements along this same line from Bro. O.C. Chick and Bro. Virgil Holderby. I shall not take up space to quote them; nor, have I quoted all written by Brethren Dollar and George. Now, if Brother Moss does not believe what these statements suggest, I would be most happy to hear him say so, a pleasure that I am sure would be shared by the brethren mentioned above. 1 do not know Bro. Moss personally; and so far as I can recall have never met him. I have no “axe to grind” with him, nor anyone else. I am concerned only with the purity of the Great Cause that I trust we mutually espouse.

What, brethren, caused the division in Arlington. The brethren that left say it was the ideas connected with the “unity in diversity” doctrine. Once again, we have an example of the kind of “unity” offered by such doctrine.

A Final PleaBrethren, let us not be deceived by fair words and speeches! Obedience is the only route to heaven, even if no meritorious works are involved. To achieve heaven by our obedience is one thing, to earn it is quite another. All of us know we cannot merit or earn that great reward; but we can obtain it by walking obediently with the Lord. When we cast our lot with those in error, we are casting a vote against the plan of the Almighty. When Christ was raised from the dead to sit at God’s right hand (Acts 2:29-33), and when we confessed that precious name before men, we were swearing allegiance to the “King of kings and Lord of Lords.” Let us lay aside those things that can so easily detour us (Heb. 12:1), and, “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, pp. 22-24
January 13, 1977

By Philip S. North

If you were to walk into a house and visit a family who had a fifteen year old son sitting in the corner with diapers on, wearing plastic pants, and drinking milk out of a glass bottle, you would most definitely conclude that something was desperately wrong with that teenager, would you not? Why doesn’t he wear adult clothes? Why can he not feed himself? Why does he still look and carry on like an infant newly born? The only logical conclusion is that he is lacking in maturity for his age. How pitiful and hideous such a scene would be for one to view!

And yet you find the same thing so true of many Christians today. They are so much lacking in maturity as children of God. Maturity is a noun form of the adjective, mature, which means: “full grown; ripened; perfect; completely developed.” Once a faithful gospel preacher, after completing one of his sermons in a meeting, was approached by a short, elderly lady who was two seconds off of crying. She sniffed and she said, “you shouldn’t be so hard and rough on us babes in Christ that way!” Upon hearing this statement, the preacher then asked the elderly lady, “how long have you been a Christian?” Her answer came back: “32 years!!” What was wrong with her? Where was her maturity? What under the good name of heaven had she been doing all those years? Spiritually speaking, we are very able to see that she was no better off than that fifteen year old, mentally retarded teenager. If you are a member of the Lord’s church, I would like to ask you this question: “How much have you spiritually grown since your baptism?” A little? A lot? None at all? Not certain? Don’t know? Perhaps this writer may be of some help to you.

1 Peter 2:2 tells all new Christians to desire “the sincere milk of the word.” But is that all, friend? Can a physical baby grow on just milk alone? Such is not possible, anymore than it is for a babe in Christ to grow on simple milk (spiritual) alone. Look at Hebrews 6:1 if you please will: “Therefore leaving principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God . . . .” God wants us to grow as much as we possibly can in an abundantly good quantity of grace and knowledge (2 Pet. 3:18). How do we do that, gentle reader?

First of all, we mature by starting at the beginning-that is to say by finding out what God wants us to do, and that is by studying (2 Tim. 2:15; Jas. 1:21; 5:13,16). Then, after studying, we are to obey what God tells us to do in His Word. We should “be doers and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22). We are to both hear and listen (and there is a vast difference between the two). But let us not forget to pray for strength and wisdom (Ac. 8:22 1 Thess. 5:17; Jas. 5:13,16). But then someone asks “Well, how do I know if I am growing and therefor maturing as a Christian or not?” Note these question, and answer them to yourself: (1) Are you just a little bit smarter on the Bible now than you were a year ago? (2) Do you feel a desire and need to study at least a half hour a day each day of the week? (3) Do you always seek to better your life a more pleasing one to Jesus? (4 Do you pray every day to God? These are but a few o the signs of constant growth and maturity. If you are doing these things, then you are showing signs of growth. If you are not doing any of the above, then the odds are 10 to 1 that you are stunted as a Christian, and it would be in the best interest that you take heed in what you need to do to grow, because you are spiritually retarded!

Looking at maturity in the negative, I wish to show you what I have personally witnessed as signs of in maturity. Does the following apply to you? God know the answer already. Here are the signs: (1) member who will pout (elders, deacons, preachers includes when they do not always get their way concerning activities of the church, (2) a person(s) spreading malicious gossip about someone instead of going to his face about the matter, (3) becoming angry with the preacher when he preaches the truth, and holding grudge when he steps on your toes, (4) disorder in business meetings, (5) the preacher refusing constructive criticism and not admitting his mistakes-especially those made in the pulpit, (6) members leaving threatening to leave, and worship elsewhere every tin a problem arises, (7) forsaking the assembling of any, service-and also making it a habit to do such, (8) members seldom or never getting their Bibles are examining what the preacher says-and seldom or never studying at home either, (9) being nosy (busybody) about the preacher’s work and how many hours he do, this and how many hours he does that, etc., (10) never at all speaking to visitors-or even their own fellow members, for that matter. Whether we appreciate being confronted with these things or not, these are all signs of immaturity! Do you see some warning signs among your own congregation, friend? What about a lack interest in cottage meetings, Bible classes, and person work? This is serious, reader! I am speaking here about your soul-about a home in heaven with the redeem when you leave this world.

Are you careful or careless? Just how mature are the members (as a whole) of your congregation? How mature are you? I love your soul and I earnestly pray that you love mine. Now let’s get in there and mature brethren! Let’s get out of our infancy!

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, pp. 21-22
January 13, 1977

By Mike Willis

In recent years, the charge has been more and more frequently made that the churches) of Christ are just as denominational as any of the other religious groups in America. During the Memphis meeting with the Herald of Truth representatives, the charge was made that Lynn Anderson, preacher for the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, had said, “You know, the church of Christ is a big, sick denomination, and I meant exactly every one of those three words, big and sick and denomination” (Memphis Meeting With The Representatives of the Herald of Truth, September 10, 1973, p. 36). The writings of men like Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and the contributors to Voices of Concern repeatedly make similar charges that the church of Christ is just another denomination among the many which presently exist. Hence, I raise the question, “Is the church of Christ a denomination?”

What Is a Denomination?

Although the New Testament knows nothing of a denomination, twentieth century religions have accepted the situation of a multitude of churches as if they were approved of God. Several years ago, the different denominations used to fight among themselves over their distinctive doctrines; now, the denominations, being filled with the spirit of ecumenism, have agreed to quit fighting among themselves. Any denomination which continues the warfare with the other denominations is considered a disrespectable sect whereas those who have quit fighting with the other denominations is considered a respectable denomination.

Because modern man accepts denominationalism, many have concluded that God also accepts denominationalism. However, there are two charges against denominationalism which prove beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that God disapproves of it. (1) God disapproves of modern denominationalism because He disapproves of religious division (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-15; Eph. 4:1-6; Jn. 17:20-21). (2) God disapproves of modern denominationalism because He disapproves of the false doctrines taught by the various religious organizations (cf. Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Jn. 9-11). These two charges make it clear that God disapproves of modern denominationalism.

Recognizing that God disapproves of denominationalism, we all must be concerned with avoiding becoming a part of it simply because it is sinful. Hence, we need to know exactly what denominationalism is that we can avoid it. I know of no better way to describe what denominationalism is than to use as an example the religious organization instituted by Jeroboam. God had revealed the pattern of worship which He desired; when Jeroboam broke away from Israel and started an independent kingdom, he instituted a system of worship in Bethel and Dan which was in competition with the God ordained worship in Jerusalem. He tried to make the system of worship which he instituted as nearly like that which existed in Jerusalem as he could. Yet, his system of worship was one which was not divinely ordained worship. Just as God had revealed a pattern for Israel to follow in her worship, so also He has revealed a pattern for us today. Denominationalism is the rejection of God’s revealed pattern in order to establish a system of worship which one personally approves; it is the rejection of divinely ordained worship in order to establish a human system of worship.

How does one recognize a denomination? One must know the characteristics of a denomination before one can positively identify any religious group as a denomination. Hence, before we can answer whether or not the church of Christ is a denomination, we must know the characteristics of a denomination. The situation is the same as if I asked you, “Is the church of Christ a snark?” Before you could answer that question, you would have to know what a snark was. Until you knew the characteristics of a snark, you could not tell whether to classify the church of Christ as a snark or not to so classify it. Hence, one needs to know the characteristics of a denomination before he can tell whether or not to classify the church of Christ as one.

Here are some of the characteristics of a denomination: (1) It does not teach the divine plan of salvation; (2) Usually wears a sectarian name; (3) Has a creed in addition to the Bible; (4) Has organizational arrangements not characteristic of the New Testament church; (5) Practices items of worship not authorized in the New Testament; (6) Engages in unauthorized programs of work. Perhaps there are other characteristics of a denomination which might be cited but these should prove sufficient to test whether or not the church of Christ is a denomination.

Is The Church of Christ a Denomination?

1. The church of Christ is not a denomination because it teaches the Bible plan of salvation. Unlike the denominations which teach salvation through faith only and pervert the action, subject and purpose of baptism, the church of Christ conscientiously strives to teach the plan of salvation exactly as it is revealed in the Bible. Hence, in obedience to the Great Commission, we teach that faith, repentance, and baptism are all essential to salvation. Those who obeyed this gospel plan of salvation in New Testament days were added to the Lord’s church; since God is no respector of persons, I conclude that those who do the same thing today are made members of the same church-the Lord’s church and not a denomination in competition with that church.

2. The church of Christ is not a denomination because it wears only a Bible name. The names by which the church of the New Testament was called include the following: church of God (1 Cor. 1:2); body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23); Kingdom of God (Col. 1:13-14); churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16); etc. The church of Christ is called by any or all of these names. Not only is that so, but the churches of Christ persistently refuse to wear any name not found in the Bible. Hence, the church of Christ will not wear a name which glorifies a man, honors a religious ordinance, or exalts a type of church government. Hence, the church of Christ cannot be considered denominational because of the names which it wears.

3. The church of Christ is not a denomination because it has no sectarian creed. Whereas the various denominations have confessions of faith, church manuals, creed books, and disciplines, the church of Christ recognizes only the Bible as its statement of doctrine. One is expected to believe only what the Bible teaches in its direct statements, approved examples and necessary inferences; he is not expected to give allegiance to some human creed.

4. The church of Christ is not a denomination because it has no organizational arrangements other than those authorized in the Scriptures. The Bible reveals that the only permanent officers in the New Testament church are elders and deacons. You cannot read of arch-bishops, popes, brotherhood elders, etc. as officers in the New Testament church. (I must add that the liberal churches’ acceptance of organizational arrangements other than those revealed in the New Testament indicts them as denominational.) Hence, the church of Christ cannot be considered a denomination because of our organizational arrangements.

5. The items of worship of the churches of Christ are not denominational. Most denominations have perverted the worship of the New Testament church in more aspects than Jeroboam perverted the worship of ancient Israel. They have perverted the frequency of the observance of the Lord’s Supper, its elements, and its purpose. They have added instrumental music to the singing, organized choirs, and brought in special singing groups to entertain themselves. They have demanded that their members tithe; they pray in Mary’s name or in no one’s name at all. Their sermons are not the public proclamation of the word of God. In contradistinction to these, the churches of Christ are careful to practice New Testament worship. We give as we have been prospered on the first day of every week, we partake of the Lord’s Supper weekly, we sing making melody in our hearts instead of on some mechanical instrument of music, we pray fervently to the Lord through Jesus Christ, and our lessons are taken directly from the New Testament revelation. Hence, if the churches of Christ are denominational, it is not because of their worship!

6. The church of Christ is not denominational because of its program of work. The works in which the New Testament churches were involved included the following: evangelism, edification, and benevolence (relieving the needs of the poor among the saints). Whereas denominations are involved in building hospitals and colleges, establishing programs of recreatic becoming involved in social reforms and political matte the churches of Christ are careful to engage in only tho programs of work which are authorized in the Bible. (The liberal churches of Christ are indicted as denominations on the basis of their involvement in programs of work not authorized in the Scriptures.) Hence, if the church Christ is a denomination, it is a denomination because something other than its program of work.

Conclusion

If the church of Christ does not have any of the characteristics of a snark, how can I say that it is a snark Similarly, if the church of Christ does not have any of the characteristics of a denomination, what right does anyone have to charge that it is a denomination? So long as the church of Christ adheres to the Bible in its worship, work and doctrine, it will be the church which is revealed in the Bible. When and if it ever becomes involved in program of work, items of worship, or doctrines that are not revealed in the Bible, it will then be a denomination. Hence, I demand that those who classify the church as denomination point out the place wherein we are violating the Scriptures. Until a person can demonstrate that the churches of Christ fit the characteristics of denomination, he has no more right to classify them as denomination than he does to classify them as a snark. (By the way, the word “snark” is a fabricated word; you will not find it in your dictionary.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, pp. 19-21
January 13, 1977