Articles
"One True Church" Messaging
There is a mantra used by churches of Christ that is often used for evangelistic and edifica-tion purposes, that is: “the one true church.” Many sermons, books, tracts, and class book-lets have been written which follow this ap-proach. Early on, I preached some of these sermons myself. (It was me thumbing through a class workbook which was recently taught to my children which prompts this article.)
I don’t wish to abolish this approach because I think it is untrue; its premise is undeniable. There is only one true church, and one is ei-ther in it (saved) or he is not (lost). I oppose it because our argumentation is misleading and often does more to convert someone to an institution (or way of doing things) than to Christ. I know, because I lived it, and coming out from this way of thinking is very difficult. It has been imbedded in our way of thinking.
Where is the scripture showing any N.T. evan-gelist using “the one true church” argument to convert the lost? Does “the one true church” approach sound like something you would have heard in 50 A.D.? Or, does it sound like an approach that arose after de-nominations began to spring up as a way of distinguishing us from them? (question is rhe-torical as answer is self-evident.) Can you im-agine this as the apostle John’s response: “Don’t those Nicolaitans know that there is only one true church and that it is the Church of Christ, not the Nico-laitans for Christ?” That, to me, sounds like a pretty weak, and might I say lazy approach to defending the truth. What we see from them in-stead is contending for the truth of the gospel, one doctrinal point at a time, not simply a wholesale dismissal because someone is not a part of the right group, which sounds an awful lot to me like: “We forbade him because he didn’t follow us.” (Luke 9:49-50)
Instead of a “how to find the right church” approach to salvation, con-sider the following excerpt from Dawson’s: “Fellowship with God & His People”: “We cannot use the word ‘church’ as God does in the Bible, and continue to use such an approach. If by the right church, we mean the universal church, that church cannot be found. It has no address, phone number, area code, or zip code. It has no earthly headquarters or collective work. A person cannot do anything to find the universal church. If by the right church, we mean a local church, then not just one right one exists. Many local churches pleased God in the New Tes-tament, and the same is true now. The local church we are joined to does not match the universal church as far as its founder, date of be-ginning, city of beginning, and terms of admission are concerned.
Rather than suggesting to someone that he must find the right church, using the term in the universal sense, and then showing him a local church, or even more confusing, a mixture of characteristics of local churches and the universal church, why not approach him with the con-cept of fellowship? In other words, teach someone what he needs to do (1) to be in fellowship with God, and then (2) to be in fellowship with other Christians? This approach will do a better job of converting the individual to Christ instead of to an organization. And, it will also help him understand his responsibilities in a local church.” (p. 172) (Note: This author’s writings on hell and MDR cannot be recommended.)
I’m calling for a better approach (and to stop using these resources) not just because our argumentation becomes confusing as we attempt to make points about the church without regard to the sense in which we are using the term, but also because it is ineffective to those we’re trying to reach. I learned this the hard way after dutifully preaching: “Why I’m a Member of the Church of Christ, the One True Church” for a preaching internship tryout 24 years ago. After the lesson, Berry Kerche-ville asked me: “Did you know we had a Baptist in the audience?” I had-n’t, but I was thankful he was; what more needful message could he have heard? It was then explained to me that Dan Hash did not object to anything I had to say about the one true church. He too believed there is only one. And, he believed he was a part of it. I was confused! I still re-member the dismissive thought of my heart—“he must not have been listening very well!” Looking, back, I’m glad he did miss my point be-cause if he had understood what I was trying to say, he would have come away thinking that “Church of Christ” churches are the only brand of Christians who will be saved. (Please understand, I’m not saying that faithful congregations of churches of Christ are just one of many ac-ceptable brands, but that is certainly the way he understood things at this point.) He would have charged, “You think you’re the only ones who are saved,” and he would have been justified to do so. We hate that charge, but we have earned it! Interestingly, I came across Wikepedia’s definition of “one true church”: “The expression ‘one true church’ refers to an ecclesiological position asserting that Jesus gave his authority in the Great Commission solely to a particular visible Christian institutional church—what is commonly called a denomination. We profusely object, but if this is how we are being understood, how can we say it?
Thankfully, Dan Hash was later saved (in spite of me) and added to the one true church (by God—Acts 2:47). Thankfully, he joined the Old Wire Road church of Christ (one of many faithful churches) and enjoyed spir-itual fellowship with them for years after which he took on a small preaching work of his own in Texas.
In short, the sin of denominationalism cannot be solved with the plati-tude “there is one true church” when their members agree and perceive of themselves as a part of the whole. If we must then further explain how their doctrines and practices don’t align with scripture to prove that they have perhaps not even yet been added to His church, then what was the point of the original argument in the first place?
