(There are two articles on this page)
Is Denominationalism Necessary?
by Micky Galloway
Modern denominationalism is generally accepted but wholly unjustified. The Scriptures teach that there is one body (Ephesians 4:4) and that the body is the church (Ephesians 1:22-23). Our study will prove that denominationalism is unjustified because it is unnecessary. When we speak out against denominationalism, we have reference to the system (its principles, organization, aims, etc.), and certainly not to persons who are in it. It must be remembered, though, that if the system is wrong, it is wrong to be a part of it. Much time, money, work, and interest are freely exercised in denominational efforts. All of these could far better be spent in promoting Bible unity because denominationalism is utterly useless and defenseless.
Is denominationalism necessary to be a Christian? The possibility of being a Christian depends upon the existence of the seed of the kingdom which is the word of God (Luke 8:11). This is the teaching of Christ (II John 9); the gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16); the truth of God (John 17:17). The existence of the seed of the kingdom does not depend upon denominationalism, because it existed long before modern denominations, and would continue to exist if every denomination ceased to exist (I Peter 1:25). The actuality of being a Christian depends upon the propagation and acceptance of the seed, the word of God.
Is the proclamation of the word dependent upon any one denomination? If so, which one? If any one denomination ceased to exist today, would the privilege of being a Christian cease? The answer is obviously NO! Multiply this by ten. If ten denominations became extinct tomorrow, would it cease to be possible to be just a Christian? NO! Then why not the whole of denominationalism? It must be obvious that much that is taught by denominations is not the truth, because truth is not contradictory. The very existence of denominationalism is evidence of contradictory teachings and practices.
Is it possible for one to examine various doctrines and to accept the true ones and reject false ones? If one accepted only the truths and rejected the errors that are preached, what denomination would he belong to? He would be a member of no denomination, but he would be a Christian! Isn’t that simple? Must I accept denominational error to be a Christian?
Denominationalism, then, is not necessary to be a Christian. People were becoming Christians long before the first denomination was started. Paul and Peter were Christians, but they were not a part of any denomination. If there were Christians 2,000 years ago, but no Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc., why can't it be true today? It can! Every truth can be preached and all of it practiced if every denomination ceased to exist tomorrow. If these truths were taught and practiced we would be only Christians. The Bible only makes Christians only!
Is denominationalism necessary for any spiritual blessing? Spiritual blessings are as necessary to the spirit as physical blessings are to the body. We receive many spiritual blessings. We receive: forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7), salvation (Ephesians 2:8); we become: children of God (I John 3:lf), Christians (I Pet. 4:16). Denominationalism is not necessary for the enjoyment of a single spiritual blessing. When one joins a denomination, does he receive: forgiveness, salvation or does he become a child of God, a Christian? Is he united with Christ and put into covenant relationship with God as a result of joining a denomination? No one will affirm this. In the denominational world all of these are taught as prerequisites to membership in the denomination. If one may enjoy all spiritual blessings outside of denominations, then why have denominations?
However, membership in the Lord's church IS necessary for these spiritual blessings. Only those in the Lord's church have been redeemed by blood (Acts 20:28). Only those in the Lord's body (cf. Colossians 1:18) are saved (Ephesians 5:23). Only those in the Lord's church are in God's family (I Timothy 3:15). Only those in the Lord's church are “in Christ” (cf. I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27). Only those in the Lord's body are reconciled to God (Ephesians 2:16). If all these spiritual blessings were enjoyed before denominations, then denominations are not necessary.
Is denominationalism necessary for the Christian to work and worship? Christians must work (cf. I Corinthians 15:58; I Thessalonians 1:2f; Galatians 6:10) and worship God (John 4:24; Philippians 3:3; Revelation 22:9), if they find favor with God. Did Christians work for Christ and worship God before the existence of denominations? Certainly! If they could 2,000 years ago, why can't they now? Saved people in the New Testament did not join denominations. What work or act of worship does a denomination do that is authorized of God that one undenominational Christian or a group of undenominational Christians cannot do?
The Lord's church, however, is the place for Christian work for it is His vineyard (I Corinthians 3:9); the Lord's church is the place for Christian worship for it is His temple (Ephesians 2:21). But we can work and worship in the Lord's church without ever belonging to a denomination. Indeed, the Christians of the first century did!
There is all the difference in the world between so-called “denominational Christians” who make up denominational churches and first-century, undenominational, nondenominational, even anti-denominational Christians who belong to the Lord’s church. The essentiality of membership in the Lord's church is taught throughout the New Testament, while the essentiality of denominational churches cannot be upheld successfully in the light of God's word. It is my prayer that honest people in denominations who have never seen the church exist without denominationalism may see it, appreciate it, and accept it.
The Case Of The Unidentified Exorcist
by Warren E. Berkley
“And John answered and said, ‘Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us’” (Luke 9:49-50; cf. Mark 9:38-40).
In this passage, inspiration documents the Lord’s reply to a statement made by John. This is one of those passages that seems to be plain and clear enough, even simple. Yet, it has been twisted, stretched and perverted far beyond its contextual intent. It is even advanced as a reason for gospel preachers to refrain from exposing false teachers and telling people they are in religious error.
Here’s the kind of argument you might hear: “This man was not following Christ with Peter, James, John, and the other apostles. He was working independent of ‘Christ’s group,’ yet the Lord said: ‘Do not forbid him.’ Hence, even though someone may not be with us (in the Lord’s church); even if they happen to be in a denominational body, or teaching some things that are wrong; so long as they are not against us, and so long as they ascribe the name of Christ to be their work, we should not forbid or criticize them.” This is the “practical lesson” some have derived from this text.
I think we should begin this study by recognizing the tone of this argument and the motivation behind it. There are some in the churches of Christ who have grown weary of what they would regard as “intolerant militancy.” They do not want gospel preachers to expose false teachers or speak against denominational doctrine. They desire to broaden the base of fellowship to embrace anyone and everyone who claims allegiance to the name of Christ. Those with this perspective, when they hear strong, plain preaching against denominational religion and will not endure it, may try to misuse Luke 9:49-50 to restrain the contender for the faith. But, the case of the unidentified exorcist needs to be studied with these points of observation in mind:
1. Attention must be paid to what Jesus said about this man. The student who wants to understand the text must carefully consider what Jesus said about this unnamed man. It is clear he was not a false teacher! Had this man been a false teacher, what would Jesus have said about him? He would have called him a “ravenous wolf,” and compared him to a bad tree that bears bad fruit; a tree worthy of being “cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 7:15-20). But Jesus said of this man, he is “not against us.” In Mark’s account, Jesus said of this man, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me” (Mark 9:39). Based on these recorded words of Jesus, I am certain this man was not a false teacher! To use this passage in an effort to restrain gospel preachers from exposing false teachers and false religions is to misuse the passage and ignore the commendable words of favor Jesus had for this man.
2. Consider just exactly what John’s objection was. John didn’t say this man was guilty of some wrong. He didn’t say the unidentified man was teaching false doctrine. The only thing John said was, “he does not follow with us”! Carefully note: John made just the one objection. All we know about his man is what we can gather from John’s statement and the Lord’s reply. All John says is he was not with them!
3. Those in the immediate company of Jesus were not the only faithful disciples! In addition to the apostles, many who heard Him were receptive, noble listeners. Yes, “the multitude pressed about Him to hear the word of God,” and in the response of some to Him, He “saw their faith” (Luke 5:1, 20). “And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John” (Luke 7:29). The notion that the apostles were the only faithful disciples is not only assumption; it is in error. Those “with” Him were not the only faithful disciples. This unidentified man, based on every indication we have, was a faithful disciple of Christ, though not in the physical company of the apostles. (Just a few verses beyond our text, you’ll read of Jesus appointing and sending out 70 disciples, and they had the ability to cast out spirits (See Luke 10:1-20)!
So, whatever this passage means, we can be certain it doesn’t mean that gospel preachers are to refrain from exposing false teachers and false religions. The text affords no ground for that whatever. Gospel preachers are to charge false teachers “that they teach no other doctrine” (I Timothy 1:3). Their duty is to “rebuke” and “exhort” (II Timothy 4:2). Every gospel preacher and every Christian must imitate the attitude of Paul who was “set for the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). In regard to those religions not divinely authorized, Jesus said: “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matthew 15:7-14). Hence, Jesus never endorsed the rationale of the modern compromisers.
What Does The Passage Mean?
The context is always important. What had been going on before John made this statement? Did he just make this remark “out of the blue?” I think not. I believe John’s statement is connected to what had been going on. John and the others had been fussing among themselves about who was the greatest (Luke 9:46-48; Mark 9:33-37). In these early days with Christ, these men were immature spiritually; so, they said and did things that called for correction. I believe John was simply asserting their loyalty, the only way they knew how. They had done something they thought would merit the Lord’s praise, and, perhaps, some great position in His kingdom. Too, they felt that keeping personal company with the Lord made them “better” than others and qualified to “forbid” those who weren’t so privileged.
The passage reflects the early immaturity of the apostles. And it teaches that those who are living and working in the name of Christ (i.e. by His authority) are not to be forbidden, even if they are unknown to us.