Denomination - an excerpt from "Reviving the Ancient Faith"

Richard Hughes writes in "Reviving the Ancient Faith":

Second, Churches of Christ began as a sect in the early nineteenth century and evolved into a denomination during the course of the twentieth century.  This fact would hardly be striking, or even very interesting, were it not for the fact that Churches of Christ have passionately rejected the labels "sect" and "denomination" as pertinent to their own identity.  Indeed, their resolute rejection of these labels has been central to what Churches of Christ have been about for almost 200 years.  Since their denial of these categories flies in the face of social reality, their story is one of deep irony and absorbing interest.

Often, these people have argued that they have restored the primitive church of the apostolic age and are therefore nothing more or less than the true, original church described in the New Testament.  For this reason, Churches of Christ generally have denied that they had a defining history other than the Bible itself and have expressed little or no interest in their particular history in the United States.  Many members of Churches of Christ remain to this day virtually ignorant of Alexander Campbell, the early 19th-century leader who helped give shape and texture to this movement in its founding years.  What is more, many of these same people studiously avoid learning about Campbell or any other important leader from their past:  they fear that to acknowledge dependence on any human leader would make them a denomination with a human founder rather than the true, primitive church founded by Christ.  This unique self-understanding has served to create institutional identity out of a denial of institutional identity, and it has shaped the history and character of Churches of Christ in countless and often paradoxical ways.  The material I present in this book substantiates the assertion a colleague and I have made elsewhere that churches that root their identity in efforts to restore ancient Christianity are susceptible to the illusion that they have escaped the influence of history and culture altogether.

It seems to me that the only thing that you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."

It's hard arguing with Church of Christ people.

I really don't even need to continue that sentence, but it is especially hard to argue with them when it comes to the issue of whether or not they are a denomination.

See, "denomination" is a really, really bad word to them.  Being in a denomination, to a Church of Christ member, is much worse than being an atheist.  When they speak of them, they say the word "denomination" in the same way that you or I would say "pedophile rapist Nazi."  And they absolutely do not consider 

a member of any other denomination to be a Christian.  Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, Mormons, Catholics...they're all "non-Christians."  Almost every Church of Christ has an unwritten policy about people outside "the church."  You don't marry a Baptist, because they're a "non-Christian."  They wouldn't let a Presbyterian preach in their pulpit.  They wouldn't invite a Lutheran to lead a prayer.

Church of Christ ministers, especially, get very picky about the word "denomination."  They claim that the word "denomination" means the same as "division."  However, as many have pointed out, that's not only meaning of the word.  The etymology of the word specifically addresses "naming," and that would clearly apply to the Church of Christ.

But clever boys that they are, the Church of Christ has come up with an ingenious way to get around being named.  They have decided that they will no longer make the title above their door a proper noun, and they will accomplish this by failing to capitalize the "C" in "Church."

Throwing all grammar rules to the wind, the Church...oops, sorry, church of Christ has clearly aced us all, and can in no way be called a denomination!  No sirree, boy.  

Except it doesn't work that way.

Even amongst themselves, they call it "the Lord's church," and they are "members of the church."  Never ever should you say "I'm Church of Christ," when someone asks you where you attend.  That's denominational, even though they're referring to themselves.  Somehow.  In some world.  You should call yourself a "New Testament Christian," as opposed, I suppose, to an Old Testament Christian.  Or simply "Christian," but don't put the words "Christian" and "Church" together in that order, because that's a whole different thing.  

It really boggles the mind the way logic bends in the Church of Christ.

"I just spent hours proof-texting from the Old Testament and the epistles!  I wish we could drink!"

They try to further get out of it by saying that they have no hierarchy, and that the highest power in the Church of Christ is the local congregation...

...unless of course, you count all the various Christian colleges associated with the Churches of Christ.  They will, of course, claim that they are not beholden to them, although most congregations will only hire graduates of certain schools.  The non-institutionals will only hire from Florida College, the sectarian conservatives will only hire from "approved preaching schools," the conservative mainline will only hire from Harding or Freed-Hardeman, possibly Faulkner.  The slightly liberal will hire from Lipscomb or York.  I've been part of churches that would only hire from the Memphis School of Preaching.  (And how...just HOW does a "loosely connected body of believers" manage to have so many institutes of higher learning, anyway?)

Oh, and let's not forget the editors of the various journals that have great power and sway over Churches of Christ.  There are entire magazines devoted to calling down congregations and members that are in error, congregational autonomy be hanged.  Publications such as Seeking the Old Paths, Contending for the Faith, and The Spiritual Sword are constantly serving as de facto bishops within the Churches of Christ.

So, like it or not, there is a hierarchy to be followed within the denomination.

They also claim non-denominational status because they don't have a creed.

No, not this Creed.  Nobody wants this.

Except that they totally have them.  Granted, they are not designated as such, but books like Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ by Leroy Brownlow definitely serve as such.  Then there are the aforementioned journals, which serve as on-going, ever-updated monthly mini-creeds.  And then there's the "unwritten creed," which any former member of the Church of Christ can describe to you.

They also claim to have no allegiance to Alexander Campbell or Barton W. Stone, even though key parts of their denomination were shaped by these men.  

So how to argue against all this?

The answer is simple.  You can't.

I thought for a week about what I would write to counter the Church of Christ's claim to non-denominational status, but I realized that there is effectively nothing that will convince them of this, since it is such a key feature of the church.  If this pillar falls, then their whole church may crumble around them, so Church of Christ people will not budge on this one, and there is pretty much no convincing them.  You're wasting your time trying to do so, is what I'm saying.

Unfortunately, this also gives them a bullet-proof shield when you criticize anything about their denomination.  Say anything that is not praise and you are "slandering the Lord's church," or "mocking the bride of Christ."  They are unable to separate the two, because in their mind the Church of Christ is the one and only true church, and no other denomination can lay claim to it.

Cognitive dissonance runs very deep.  They have convinced themselves that they are not a denomination, and you, little man or woman, are not going to disabuse them of that notion.

So let's talk more about this one later...