"How" The Church Divides

Several years ago a fellow-preacher assured me, "If the church divides I will be with the sound minority!" Meantime, (while "the church" is trying to decide what to do, I suppose) he is right in the fat middle of the liberal camp. Another party asked, "If the church divides, who will get the name?" Neither of these parties showed a working knowledge of the church, either united or divided.

THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH is the whole body of saints, world wide; and has no organizational entity. It grows as individuals obey the gospel; and it "divides" every time a member leaves Christ. This fluency has been characteristic of the church since its beginning, and will continue to the end.

A single LOCAL CHURCH is the largest (and only) organized body of Christians authorized in God's word. Any "dividing" in the sense of one group of members becoming two groups, would have to take place here. Paul foretold such divisions in the church at Ephesus. (Acts 20:29-30)

But men have invented a new conception of "church"---a "CHURCHHOOD" or "hood" of churches, which they erroneously call "brotherhood." They speak and write of this churchhood as though it were a functional unit; assigning it a work, a doctrine, and institutional adjuncts ("our" homes, "our" hospitals, etc.) which carry on "churchhood" (they call it brotherhood) functions. This is the "church" they think may divide; and sometimes it seems "churchhood" pride outweighs concern for alienated brethren. Denominational concepts prevail among "us".

But even if we accept an accommodative manner of speech, and discuss a division in "the church" as that caused by the missionary society and mechanical music in the past; we need to read our history with greater care. Such divisions do not take place on a certain date---prior to that time all are one---the next day, divided. We do not flip a coin for "the name" nor line up on "sides" at a bugle call.

There are multiple shades and hues of "soundness" at all times; and the color of "the great body" or majority of churches has nothing to do with being acceptable in God's sight. The "middle of the road" philosophy has blinded some otherwise good preachers on this point. Our adherence to God's word, both in individual and collective (congregational) matters, is the only true rule of soundness. (2 Cor. 10:12-f) Congregations "come and go" with respect to "soundness"---one here, one there. Through a sort of radiational influence, the churches in one section may be ultra-liberal; while another section may be ultra-conservative; but neither extremes nor general consensus are safe divine guides. Taking consolation in such is a sure sign of denominational thinking, and can only lead us away from the truth.

If the church of which you are a member is not NOW encouraging sound preaching: warning of the rapid encroachments of the social gospel and "churchhood" projects such as Herald of Truth, Campaigns for Christ, Inc., "churchhood" benevolent societies, and the like, that church has already separated itself from the truth, and you are encouraging its waywardness.

Robert F. Turner

Plain Talk, vol. 3, no. 6, p. 5---July, 1966