COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST

We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people; church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about “the church.” This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O’Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church.   There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc. generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ.  Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in tern failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ.  They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches.  They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them.  Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs.  Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:

• It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.

• It would make them appear like other “Community Churches” that were experiencing phenomenal growth.  We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models,  “Non-denominational Community Churches” such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller’s Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith, and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodists, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of “Community Church.” It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.

• Another probably motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.

Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them.  They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors.  Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as  “Community Churches.” Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ.  But for most of these folks, they want the “Community Church” without the “of Christ” designation.  As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement to away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part.  In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ.

Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16) With Jesus he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20).