Is the church divided into the "Non Institutional" church of Christ, the "Institutional" Church of Christ, the "One Cup" church of Christ, etc.?

Rodger Trimm's commentary, "Reasonable Doubt" in the October issue of Focus Magazine was full of good sense and loving suggestions on how to deal with differences among brethren.

Rodger said that he made the following comment, which he doesn't believe, to a group of preachers to "elicit discussion." "If there is, in fact, a One Cup church of Christ, an institutional church of Christ, and a non institutional Church of Christ, then we have, in fact Church of Christ denominations."

Though Rodger was unsuccessful in getting comments from the group of preachers with that statement, he was successful in pushing my button!

In the letters to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 2,3) the church at Ephesus had left its first love, Peramum had false teachers, Thyatira tolerated "Jezebel," Sardis was in awful shape and Laodicea was lukewarm. The Nicolaitans and those who held the doctrine of Balaam had successfully introduced their errors in several places. In short, there were plenty of problems in Asia in the latter part of the first century just as there are among brethren today!

How were such problems addressed in the scriptures? Do we read of a "Nicolaitan church of Christ", a "Balaamist church of Christ" a "Jezebel church of Christ", etc. Was the Lord's church in Asia divided into 16 fragments? (I was told in a letter that the church of Christ is divided into 16 fragments.) None of that type of denominational terminology, which is commonly heard among brethren today, was seen in the words of the Lord in Revelation 2 and 3.

A true concept of the situation in Asia was that was then, as now, only one universal body of believers (Ephesians 4:4). Within that one body, however, were Christians with different levels of growth and understanding as well as those who had fallen into various degrees of apostasy.

We have few details as to how relationships among brethren from different congregations would have been affected by the differing levels of strength and apostasy seen in Asia. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that faithful Christians would have had difficulty recommending that travelers or contacts in the city of Laodicea or Sardis put much confidence in the local congregations there. The Lord still hadn't removed their candlesticks, but they were in pathetic shape.

Today there is only one church, one universal body of believers. It is not "divided into 16 fragments" with an "Institutional church of Christ," "Non institutional church of Christ," "One cup church of Christ," etc. It is rather a group on individuals, known only in the mind of God, with differing levels of spiritual growth among some and different levels of apostasy among others. Today as in the first century, only God knows when such a level of apostasy is reached that the disloyal are cut off from Him.

Just as the high level of apostasy in Sardis and Laodicea would have made recommendations of those congregations impossible, so the departures from God's simple plan makes it impossible for faithful Christians to recommend congregations today that are contaminated with institutionalism, instrumental music, the social gospel and other worldly currents. This is not to say that we know that those groups have had their candlesticks removed. I am confident that there are some in weak congregations "who have not soiled their clothes" as there were in Sardis, but the bottom line is that such is only for God to determine. I recommend other congregations to travelers and distant contacts simply on the basis of my limited knowledge and best judgment as to what might help or hinder their spiritual growth and not on the basis of whether their candlestick has been removed. That is up to God. One thing is certain, however, Biblical terminology does not include denominational jargon such as "Institutional church of Christ," "One Cup church of Christ," "Conservative church of Christ," etc. Let's erase that kind of speech from our vocabulary.

Thanks to Rodger for his thought provoking efforts to make a blow against denominational concepts and terminology and I hope this short response will help in that battle as well.

Return to articles

Return to home page