Is the church of Christ the closest to being non-Denominational?

[Stinker]

Does a church have to have corporate headquarters with a chain of command in order for it to qualify as a Denomination? Do all the congregations have to mirror each other in order to qualify? Does each congregation have to be identified by the same name in order to qualify?

As far as the church of Christ is concerned, not officially. Each congregation is on it's own. This is implied in the New Testament and maybe it is because if one congregation succumbs to false teaching, no other congregation is forced to follow suite.

The only thing keeping congregations uniform in the church of Christ are church news publications, church College Lectureships, and Schools of Preaching. These are in no way official corporate HQs of the church. No congregation is under obligation to contribute to, or, take orders from these institutions.

They follow the pattern of the New Testament church in that each individual congregation is self-governed. Each individual congregation (if possible) is led by 2 or more Elders. The deacons take care of the Sunday worship arrangements, Lord's Supper, lead in singing, and the Sunday collection.

So far as I can tell, the church of Christ comes closest to actually being non-Denominational.

[New_Wineskin]

If "the Church of Christ" is a title for all of the groups combined , the term itself shows that it is a denomination . If the groups have a list of qualifications to be considered a part of the association that include certain things that would seperate them from most other denominations , they are a denomination . That doesn't mean "mirror" . For instance ... if none of the local groups are allowed to have musical instruments during a meeting , they show that they are a denomination due to that unique requirement . The AOG recognizes itself as a denomination even though its member groups are independant .

The question would be if this is a loose association of groups that vary greatly from one another or there are key doctrines that they *must* have to be a part of the association and the combination of doctrines have a noticeable uniqueness to them .

[ischus]

It is hard to say...because of the 'non-creed' creed of the CoC, there are not many that are uniform anymore. The church of Christ is really split into three or four sub-denoms now. But as N_W said, the CoC is a denomination by definition.

[fiveinjuly]

I also think of the CoC as a denomination. I didn't know that it was nondenom until I joined this forum. There are truly non-denominational chruches. My best friend goes to one. It is non-denominational in the sense that it doesn't belong to any king of group or anything like that. Its pretty cool.

[ischus]

That is cool, fiveinjuly :) I wish that all churches could be like that to some extent. I guess I am just an idealist...But as long as we all stay with Augustine I think we are on the right path:
"In essentials unity,in non-essentials liberty,in all things love."

[New_Wineskin]

That is cool, fiveinjuly :) I wish that all churches could be like that to some extent. I guess I am just an idealist...But as long as we all stay with Augustine I think we are on the right path:
"In essentials unity,in non-essentials liberty,in all things love."
That would be FANTASTIC !!!

The main thing that prevents that idea is that people can't agree on the limitations of the "essentials" . Something new always comes up .

[Toms777]

If "the Church of Christ" is a title for all of the groups combined , the term itself shows that it is a denomination . If the groups have a list of qualifications to be considered a part of the association that include certain things that would seperate them from most other denominations , they are a denomination . That doesn't mean "mirror" . For instance ... if none of the local groups are allowed to have musical instruments during a meeting , they show that they are a denomination due to that unique requirement . The AOG recognizes itself as a denomination even though its member groups are independant .

The question would be if this is a loose association of groups that vary greatly from one another or there are key doctrines that they *must* have to be a part of the association and the combination of doctrines have a noticeable uniqueness to them .
True. Even the word "denomination" indicates that a key factor is a common name or "nom". If a group of churches goes under a same common name, then there are a denomination, some are less centrakuized, others moreso, but they are still a denomination.

[Theophorus]

In the sense of the word non denom, not meaning name but being autonomous, yet holding to core doctrines that define Christianity, I believe that the CoC is the closest in that regard. Each congregation is self ruling. This has its benefits and downsides.
There can be many divisions because of this, but to their credit, when communion and fellowship exists between the congregations (which it has for the most part in the past) it is solely on mutual doctrinal agreement on the interpretation of scripture. No other criteria is involved.

[Toms777]

In the sense of the word non denom, not meaning name but being autonomous, yet holding to core doctrines that define Christianity, I believe that the CoC is the closest in that regard. Each congregation is self ruling. This has its benefits and downsides.
There can be many divisions because of this, but to their credit, when communion and fellowship exists between the congregations (which it has for the most part in the past) it is solely on mutual doctrinal agreement on the interpretation of scripture. No other criteria is involved.
Actually, the closest to be non-denominational are churches which truly have no common organization or allegiance other than being members of the body of Christ (which is not an organization).

[Theophorus]

Actually, the closest to be non-denominational are churches which truly have no common organization or allegiance other than being members of the body of Christ (which is not an organization). Yes but the sticky point becomes who is constituted as being members of the body. Christ determines this membership, but how do we mere mortals fellowship with our fellow brethren with out some litmus test. The CoC uses only scripture (as much as possible) and congregational leadership for this.

They are, along with their other incarnations, Christian church and at one time the United Church of Christ, the pioneers of this application of scriptural interpretation, to my knowledge. It was known as the restoration movement, and the original goal was ecumenical, the uniting of denominations by the removal of man made creeds and a return to scripture as truly the sole guide of faith, and as a consequence, the autonomous congregations adherence to God's creed.
A noble idea, but the original dream of unity as a result of this approach never being realized.

[morrowasted]

My "home congregation", you might say, is a Church of Christ. However, I'm not sure I'd consider it entirely non-denominational, since it is a group of churches under the same name (and, believe it or not, we have conventions and such as well), however, it's less denominational than say, the Methodists. The elders at my church (we have 5) have told me that we're non-denominational because we're simply contunuing the church that was started 2000 years ago, which wasn't denominational, instead of making our own.

In any case, I feel if you're doing what's right it doesnt matter if your church denominational or not.

[Stinker]

I would very interested if there were found other congregations that followed the same pattern as the churches of Christ, but went by a different name or names. I wonder if any congregations of the chrurches of Christ would fellowship them despite the name difference. Personally, I would have no problem having fellowship with them as long their name or names were identifing them as a body of Christ.

[Toms777]

Yes but the sticky point becomes who is constituted as being members of the body. Christ determines this membership, but how do we mere mortals fellowship with our fellow brethren with out some litmus test. The CoC uses only scripture (as much as possible) and congregational leadership for this.

I could argue the point, but it is a moot point as to whether the CoC does or does not since Christ did not create or want to create an organization. We are in no position to judge the hearts of others, and thus since we cannot do so, and are comamnded not to, we should nto made any claim to be able to do so. On the other hand, we are to judge actions and doctrine and that we can certainly do. But the organized church will always be a mix of believers and non-believers and that is the way that it should be for two reasons - (1) so that we have non-believers who are drawn to hear the gospel, and (2) as Paul says to show who is is approved of God.

But God neither condemns nor endorses denominations.

They are, along with their other incarnations, Christian church and at one time the United Church of Christ, the pioneers of this application of scriptural interpretation, to my knowledge. It was known as the restoration movement, and the original goal was ecumenical, the uniting of denominations by the removal of man made creeds and a return to scripture as truly the sole guide of faith, and as a consequence, the autonomous congregations adherence to God's creed.

Uniting denominations has always, from what i can see in church history, resulted in compomising and diluting of God's word. Nothing stops people from fellowshipping in different denominations with each other, but the standard must always be solely the word of God, and not the doctrinal statement of a denomination.

A noble idea, but the original dream of unity as a result of this approach never being realized.
Unity in the body of Christ has already been achieved and always has been. Unity within a denomination or denominations will never been fully realized,

[viperblue72]

I would very interested if there were found other congregations that followed the same pattern as the churches of Christ, but went by a different name or names. I wonder if any congregations of the chrurches of Christ would fellowship them despite the name difference. Personally, I would have no problem having fellowship with them as long their name or names were identifing them as a body of Christ.

I believe one of the "requirements" would be a name Christ used for his church in scripture...church of God church of Christ churches of Christ etc.

[morrowasted]

My mom came in here and explained to me pretty well why the church of Christ is not, in fact, a denomination at all. Paraphrased:

Denominations were formed when people reformed the church, and de-nominated (named, whatever), the church. The church of Christ never reformed the church, it restored the original church.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

[Toms777]

My mom came in here and explained to me pretty well why the church of Christ is not, in fact, a denomination at all. Paraphrased:

Denominations were formed when people reformed the church, and de-nominated (named, whatever), the church. The church of Christ never reformed the church, it restored the original church.

Makes sense to me, anyway.
The church was never lost.

[morrowasted]

The church was never lost.
Well, I'm no historian, and there probably always was a remnant "original" church. No argument. You can always restore something that's only gone in part.

[Toms777]

Well, I'm no historian, and there probably always was a remnant "original" church. No argument. You can always restore something that's only gone in part.The original church is the body of Christ. It was never lost in any way, shape or form and man could not restore it if it was.

The word translated as "church" is "ekklesia" which means the "called out ones", and scripture says:

1 Cor 12:26-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

the body is Christ is made up of individuals - it is not a physical organization that could be lost and restored.

[Stinker]

What other 'church' comes together every Sunday and partakes of the bread & fruit of the vine which both symbolize the flesh & blood of the Lord? 1Cor.11:24-26

[ischus]

It really doesn't matter what the name on the sign is (as so many have said). The 'names' which Paul assigns to the churches to which he writes are theological, not meant to designate a church name. All of those 'names' (churches of Christ, church of God--which can just as well be translated 'assembly of God' btw) are applicable to every church, not just the ones with their names on the letter.

It is true that Campbell was trying to create unity rather than another doctrinally distinct group...but when you differ in Theology and Ecclesiology you are a new denomination. What he was attempting to do (wrongly, IMO) is restore the form of the 1st centry church, rather than its function. No Western church of the 19th, 20th, or 21st century is going to look anything like the 1st Century church. Even if we have 'biblical' elders and deacons, they will not be the same as they were back then.

My whole point is that we can't avoid 'denominations' anymore in the strictest sense of the word. What we can avoid is the elitism that comes with saying that you are the best or closest church to the first century model--especially when that is just an ignorant statement.

(Btw, I am Church of Christ, so please know that I say this out of love).

ischus

[Stinker]

I do not see it as elitism at all by saying that a church is scripturally closer in practice to the church of the New Testament. I think God wants everyone to follow the New Testament as close as they can. What too many make the mistake of is try to mainly focus on the order of the assembly, and the worship functions, how things are done. If too much focus is on those things, the other things such as love, weep with those that weep, rejoice with those that rejoice, become forgotten.

[ischus]

I do not see it as elitism at all by saying that a church is scripturally closer in practice to the church of the New Testament. I think God wants everyone to follow the New Testament as close as they can. What too many make the mistake of is try to mainly focus on the order of the assembly, and the worship functions, how things are done. If too much focus is on those things, the other things such as love, weep with those that weep, rejoice with those that rejoice, become forgotten.
I agree. I think we are saying the same thing here.... :)

ischus