|
|
"Honest to Self"
An Open Response to Henry Kriete's
"Honest to God" Letter
Samuel G. Dawson
In February 2003, Henry Kriete, London evangelist in the International Churches of Christ, wrote "Honest to God," a widely circulated open letter to members of the ICOC around the world, in which he discussed many disturbing problems within that body of believers. This open letter is a response to Kriete's letter from a concerned evangelist and author.
My dear friend and brother Henry Kriete,
I recently read your "Honest to God" letter, and found it very interesting, to say the least.
I appreciate and admire many things about your movement, but with all due respect, with all the opposition to denominationalism that you folks set forth, I don't believe you actually fully appreciate what a denomination is. The title of your letter gives you away when you address it to a "fellowship of churches." I suggest that the denominational nature of the ICOC is at the root of a lot of the complaints in your letter.
I know a person can be an extremely sincere and dedicated Christian and not fully understand denominationalism; I didn't understand it myself for many years. I've opposed denominationalism my whole adult life, and debated a number of denominational preachers, all before I learned what a denomination actually is.
I implore you to read this short study of what denominationalism actually is. If you find the material Biblical and interesting, I'll be glad to discuss further applications along this line. Also, if you have any questions concerning the concepts set forth herein, I'd be glad to hear from you. Any improvements you might suggest would be welcome, even if "improving" means wadding it up and throwing it away.
I should tell you I was an evangelist in what you folks refer to as "non-institutional or 'anti' churches of Christ" for twenty-two years, yet I see the same misunderstanding concerning denominationalism in those churches as well.
I see you're in Vancouver, BC now. Although I was raised in Texas, most of my work was in the Seattle area. Vancouver is surely one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I hope you and your family prosper there.
Thanks for reading, and considering, I wish and pray for you only the best in your desire to serve our Lord.
Samuel G. Dawson
2028 S. Austin, Suite 906
Amarillo, TX 79109
a-samd@att.net
Even among those opposed to denominationalism, and those striving to be just Christians without denominational allegiance, sufficient attention has not been paid to the use of the word "church" in the Bible, and comparing that with how we use the word "church" in our conversation.
We all know that in the original language of the New Testament, the collective noun "church" comes from the Greek word, ekklesia, which means "called out," used of a group of people called out of one relationship into another. It is important to note that the word church is not necessarily related to religion, even in the Bible. For example, it is used of a mob of silversmiths in Ac. 19.32, a group of people called out of Ephesus. They gathered in opposition to the apostle Paul's teaching against idolatry, which was sure to impact their incomes if it caught on. Seven verses later, the town clerk broke up the riot, telling the group their concerns could be settled in the regular town assembly, again using the word ekklesia, or church. These uses of "church" were not even religious. In Ac. 7.38, Stephen referred to Moses as "he that was in the church in the wilderness" of Sinai, a reference to the Israelites "called out" of Egypt into a covenant relationship with God.
When speaking of Christ's church, the Bible uses the word in two senses, the universal church and local churches. By way of review, the universal church consists of all those in fellowship with God, whether in the Old or New Testaments, alive or dead; this church began with fellowship with God. One enters the universal church by the forgiveness of his sins. God enrolls us in the universal church, and he is never fooled by hypocrites, for he knows them that are his. Death doesn't affect one's membership in this church. The universal church began when men began to be saved. There is only one of these, it has no earthly organization, no address, and no phone number. It is indivisible, composed of only those in fellowship with God, and it was founded by God. One must be a member of the universal church to please God. The universal church does not assemble regularly.
In contrast, local churches consist of those in fellowship with each other in a particular location. They are entered by "joining" as Paul sought to do in Jerusalem (Ac. 9.26). Local churches make mistakes in their membership, such as in the case of Jerusalem when they were afraid to accept Paul. A local church, which conceivably may only have been started a week ago, consists only of living people, has local organization, has a physical address, a phone number, may be easily divided to smithereens, and is composed both of those in and out of fellowship with God. A local church is founded by human beings, and the possibility exists that a person may not be a member of a local church and still be right with God. Again, when Paul was rejected by Jerusalem, he had no problem with God. Those ejected from the local church by Diotrophes in III John 10 were still in fellowship with God. When the Ethiopian eunuch obeyed the gospel, he was in fellowship with God, yet not a member of a local church. Local churches assemble regularly, have collective work, and are working units.
Thus, we see that the universal church and local churches are vastly different, and since God made them different, we ought to respect those differences, especially in our efforts to teach our fellowman. A few minutes' reflection shows that these two concepts are generally mixed. Many say "local church" when they discuss the religion of Christ with their friends, when they ought first to tell about the universal church and all that is involved in becoming a part of it by first teaching what they should do to be in fellowship with God in the universal church. After that, we can then teach them what their responsibilities are in working together with other Christians in a local church.
For example, we write articles talking about "How to Find the Right Church," yet the universal church cannot be found! It has no organization, no address, no collective work, and no collective action. The only church that can be found is the local church, for it has all those things.
Likewise, when we speak of the name of the church, we refer to Rom. 16.16 and I Cor. 1.2, using passages that deal with local churches. When we talk about the age of the church, we're concerned with the universal church. We know we really don't care how long a specific local church has been organized. When we speak of the organization of the church, we switch to the local church again. When we speak of how to become members of the church, and talk about faith, repentance, and baptism, we're again concerned with the universal church. Those are things people do to enjoy fellowship with God. No one was ever baptized into the local church in the New Testament. When we talk about worship, and we mention prayer, singing, preaching, the Lord's Supper and giving, that is worship that takes place in the local church, not collectively in the universal church.
Mixing these two concepts together demonstrates a lack of clear thinking about these two churches as taught in God's word. Thus, we need to give the matter serious consideration.
The most popular view in our time is that the universal church, the body of Christ, is composed of denominations. Yet, certainly no one believes all these denominations existed in the New Testament! Denominations often use Jn. 15.5, 6 to wrongly indicate that the body of Christ is composed of denominations. Let's look at Jesus' words more closely:
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Jesus' own words show he did not speak of a tree composed of branches that are themselves denominations, for the branches he spoke of are "men." So the body of Christ, the universal church, is not composed of denominations, but of individuals.
Many in churches of Christ view the body of Christ as composed of local churches. Alexander Campbell, a leader in the restoration movement in America in the 1800s, apparently held this view of the body of Christ for quite a lengthy period of time, perhaps even dying with it. In the Millennial Harbinger of July 1834, he wrote:
The church...is not one congregation or assembly, but the congregation of Christ, composed of Christ, composed of all the individual congregations on earth.More than 20 years later, Campbell still held this view, for he said in the Millennial Harbinger of June 1853 (p. 303):
Every individual church on earth stands to the whole church of Christ as one individual man to one particular church.
Such views should not surprise us. The only churches Campbell had been exposed to were churches composed of churches.
However, is Campbell's "church of churches" view of the body of Christ any more biblical than the denominational view? Again, Jn. 15.5-6 shows the body of Christ is not composed of congregations or local churches, but rather of individual Christians. The branches in Christ are men-not congregations, and not denominations. The basic issue is simply this: is the universal church a church of churches, or a church of people?
In I Cor. 12.12-13, Paul said:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Evidently, Paul viewed the body of Christ as composed not of denominations (which were foreign to him), nor churches, but of individual Christians. In verse 27 he said:
Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof.
This may seem like a trivial matter, but whether the body of Christ is composed of individual Christians or of individual congregations affects many of our fundamental beliefs about the nature of the church. It also affects our foundational attitudes toward each of the people who compose it.
Let's think briefly about the different relationships in these two groups: (A) a single Christian, a plurality of Christians, a local church, and (B) a local church, a plurality of local churches, and a plurality of local churches acting collectively.
In the above chart, we begin by illustrating the difference between a single chain link, several separate links, and a chain. The difference between several links and a chain is the functional relationship between the links. A chain is more than just several links. It is several links that function as a unit.
Some see no distinction between an individual Christian and a local church, but Jesus made the distinction. For example, in Mt. 18.15-18, he said:
And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church:
Jesus made clear a distinction between an individual acting, several individuals acting, and the church acting. One who says, "Anything the individual can do, the church can do," fails to recognize the distinction the Lord himself made. Likewise, in I Tim. 5.16, Paul said:
If any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened: that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
This passage makes clear a distinction between an individual Christian acting, a plurality of Christians acting in their individual capacity, and a plurality of Christians acting collectively.
When we contemplate this concept on a local congregational level, we read of instances where a single local church acted in the New Testament. For example, in I Cor. 1.2, Paul spoke of the "church of God which is at Corinth," obviously speaking of a single local congregation. When Paul wrote Galatians, he addressed it "to the churches of Galatia," a plurality of churches, each acting independently. After the apostles died, man invented the concept of a plurality of congregations acting collectively. A modern word describes this arrangement, although it isn't a Bible word: the word is "denomination." This is precisely what a denomination is: a plurality of churches acting collectively. For example, the Methodist denomination consists of all the churches that function collectively in that denomination. The Episcopal denomination is a collection of local churches that function collectively to do the work of that denomination. On and on the list goes. Collective action of local churches is denominational action!
For an institution that has been among us for so long (approximately five hundred years), it is surprising how little many have reflected on just what a modern denomination is. Even among those who oppose the division and unbelief produced by denominationalism, few have stopped to analyze exactly what a denomination is.
Webster defines a denomination as "The name of a class of things; a class or kind (especially of units) having a specific name or value." Thus, we speak of currency consisting of several denominations: fives, tens, etc. Each denomination of money consists of a category of bills.
A denomination then is more than something named. I have two children, both of whom have been named, but I am not the father of two denominations.
Donald G. Tinder, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gave the following definition of a denomination in the religious sense:
Denominations are associations of congregations-though sometimes it might be said that congregations are localized subdivisions of denominations-that have a common heritage. Moreover, a true denomination does not claim to be the only legitimate expression of the church. (Donald G. Tinder, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing House, 1984], p. 310.)
Thus, a denomination is a collective of congregations. When congregations function as a unit, they function denominationally. Tinder admitted our naivete concerning the rise of the denominational concept:
Even though denominations within Protestantism have come to be the largest expression of organized Christianity beyond the level of the congregation, there has never been much theological reflection on denominationalism. A look at theological textbooks or church creeds confirms this. Probably the simplest explanation for this omission is the Bible in no way envisages the organization of the church into denominations. It instead assumes the opposite, that all Christians-except those being disciplined-will be in full fellowship with all others. Any tendencies to the contrary were roundly denounced (I Cor. 1.10-13). Paul could write a letter to the Christians meeting in various places in Rome or Galatia with every assurance that all would receive the message. Today, for any city or country, he would have to place the letter as an advertisement in the secular media and hope. (Ibid. p. 310.)
In view of such widespread lack of understanding concerning the origin and rise of the denominational concept, we now want to notice its origin. We know it is intimate with the rise of Roman Catholicism.
In the New Testament, Christians joined themselves to local congregations that were self-ruling and independent (Ac. 9.26). They were overseen by elders, bishops (overseers), or shepherds whose authority was limited to that local church (Ac. 14.23, I Pet. 5.1-2).
However, as the simplicity of organization of New Testament Christians deteriorated, local leaders began to exercise authority over other local congregations as bishops and metropolitans. Later, regional church councils arose to coordinate the activities among the churches. By the end of the fourth century, metropolitans of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria had assumed oversight of churches in several provinces. The concept of collective action of churches was now in place-a coalition of churches that constituted a denomination. The whole form of the church had been changed. This change was critical to the concept of a denomination, although modern denominations did not arise for at least another twelve hundred years!
The first "universal" (Ecumenical) Council was held at the order of the Roman Emperor Constantine in Nicea in 325 AD. Mark it well, the Apostles of Christ and first-century Christians never attended a conference of congregations. In only five centuries, the transition from the simple organization of the autonomous local church to the universal coalition of local churches now seen in Roman Catholicism was completed. Rather than the body of Christ consisting of Christians, the concept now was the body of Christ consisting of churches, which themselves consisted of Christians. This is the essence of denominationalism.
The European Reformation Movement
In the reformation movement of the sixteenth century and beyond, this denominational concept was carried over into Protestantism. Leaders like Luther, Wesley, and Calvin, while they courageously fought many of the excesses of Roman Catholicism, unfortunately retained many other doctrines and concepts of Catholicism. While they rejected the Pope as the visible head of a universal collection of congregations, they kept the concept that the universal church was composed of congregations. Thus, the denominations that resulted from the work of these men and their followers simply added more collections of churches!
The American Restoration Movement
In the early mid-nineteenth century, this same denominational concept was carried over into the restoration movement in America. While the restorationists of this period did a tremendous amount of work to persuade people to renounce their denominational creeds and use the Bible as their only standard, their concept of the body of Christ was still that of a church of churches, not a church of Christians. Such a concept was bound to produce still more collections of churches!
Alexander Campbell
As we've already seen, Alexander Campbell, a leader in the restoration movement in America, apparently held this view of the body of Christ for quite a lengthy period of time.
Another extremely influential leader in the American Restoration Movement, Robert Milligan, apparently subscribed to this same concept:
...for the sake of order, convenience, and efficiency, this one body may be divided into as many churches or congregations as may be thought necessary; each one of which, when fully organized, should have its own corps of Elders and Deacons. (Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption [Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1868], p. 509.)
Missionary Society Controversy Wracks American Restoration Movement
We ought not to be surprised that since men had labored under the denominational concept of the body of Christ for 1600 years, the American restoration movement resulted in still more collections of churches: the Christian Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the churches of Christ. In the beginning, some in these groups had the concept of independent local congregations of Christians, as was expressed by David Lipscomb, one of the most influential of their leaders:
All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses are wrong...A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a more faithful discharge of their duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. (David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate [Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1890], p. 295.)
Thus, the issue of the Missionary Society (an organization through which local churches could work collectively in evangelism) was fought on the grounds that it violated the autonomy of the local church. Among most adherents to the restoration concept, the "coalition of churches" view still held sway.
Sponsoring Church Controversy Among Churches of Christ
To the degree these restorationists conceived of the body of Christ as a coalition of congregations, the united movement in which they were involved became increasingly splintered. Churches of Christ have been specially wracked by controversy concerning "sponsoring churches," that is a concept by which collective action of churches is realized.
William S. Banowsky, author of a history of the American restoration movement from the viewpoint of the Abilene Christian College Lectures, made the following statement concerning the thrust of those lectureships that led directly to the formation of the sponsoring church:
The lecturers came to desire a missionary procedure which would more effectively involve the hundreds of small congregations. But they also sought a program whose scope would be more far-reaching than even the best, but isolated efforts of any one large congregation. They could not resist the temptation to shop about and contrast their plight with the obvious strong points in denominational machinery. Thus, they sought for some practical, scriptural means of brotherhood-wide co-ordination without creating an agency for brotherhood-wide control [emphasis mine-SGD]. (William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement [Dallas, TX: Christian Publishing Co., 1965], p. 313.)
Such restoration efforts were doomed to undergo denomination-type splits because they labored under a denominational concept of the body of Christ all along. It was the same concept we traced from the first quarter of the second century, and as ever, the concept produced even more coalitions of churches!
"Restoring the Restoration Movement"
Among so-called heirs of the American restoration movement, significant calls arise from time to time to re-unite the various segments of the movement. For example, the title of one prominent book with this thrust is Leroy Garrett's The Stone-Campbell Movement, An Anecdotal History of Three Churches, (College Press Publishing Co., Joplin, MO, 1981). Garrett's use of "churches" in his title shows he's not talking about three universal churches, for he certainly doesn't believe in such. Neither is he concerned with the unity of three local churches. Rather, he concerns himself with the unity of three coalitions of congregations-i.e., three denominational groups in one grand coalition of congregations made up of the coalition of churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ congregations. Such a coalition is unknown in the New Testament; the three coalitions that arose from the restoration movement came from the denominational concept of Campbell and others. Should anyone now strive to put those many congregations back into one denominational group?
The "Crossroads, Boston or International Churches of Christ Movement"
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a new movement (Crossroads) among churches of Christ originated from one congregation in Gainesville, Florida. In the late eighties it became dominated by a group known as the Boston Church of Christ. Later, it was called the International Churches of Christ (ICOC or ICC).
Many concerns have been expressed regarding the arrangements and teachings of the "Crossroads, Boston or ICOC Movement." The issue is not whether it is scriptural to have one congregation under one eldership in a city. It is not whether a congregation can use a private home as a meeting place for worship. Nor is it whether a congregation can have only one meeting a week on Sunday. The real concern is not whether a congregation may meet in separate groups in private homes during the week. The issue is not whether one Christian can ask another for advice about sin in his life, nor whether one Christian can ask for another to pray for him about his problem. The issue is not whether one who is older in the faith can help a new Christian in his spiritual growth, nor whether the strong is to help the weak. The issue is not whether a Christian is to teach as many people as possible.
The real issue and concern is that the Crossroads, Boston or ICOC movement still labors under a denominational view of the body of Christ. The Boston Church and later the Los Angeles Church is, in a very real sense, the "Mother Church" of a coalition of churches who, in their literature, is composed of "Pillar Churches," "Capitol City Churches," "Small City Churches," and "Countryside Churches." Kip McKean, evangelist in the Boston Church explained in the Boston Bulletin of January 4, 1987:
These are churches established in the mega-population centers of the world. These cities, and correspondingly the churches built in them, influence more than the country in which they are located. Their sphere of influence is over several countries. It is upon these "pillar" churches that the world brotherhood [more accurately "congregationhood"-SGD] will be built. (Kip McKean, Boston Bulletin, January 4, 1987.)
McKean, in the Biblical Discipleship Quarterly, Spring 1987 said:
Let me begin by saying that every congregation should be involved in some way. One concept that we must stress more is that of the one brotherhood. I believe in the individuality of the local church and the local eldership over a local congregation. However, we have so overreacted to Catholicism and denominationalism that we have failed to realize that we need to be one brotherhood. What the Boston leadership has done during the 1986 seminar is to bring together all the churches which have planted another church or have church planting plans. My personal desire is to harmonize all the discipling church ministry efforts by mutual agreement to guidelines for targeting a city.
In the bulletin of the Mission Church in San Diego, California, one of the "Pillar Churches" of the movement, Gordon Ferguson wrote concerning the church in the New Testament:
A study of leader training in Acts underscores some vital issues. 1. All of the congregations were really one Body rather than highly independent segments. 2. Leaders were appointed for the purpose of maturing the Body, and not just members of one congregation. (Gordon Ferguson, Bulletin of the Mission Church of San Diego, CA.)
These quotations establish that these men are not working to build a brotherhood of Christians, but rather a sisterhood of congregations, that is, just another denomination. Rather than overreacting to denominationalism, the thesis of this letter is we're not quite out of it yet if we still have a denominational concept of the body of Christ. One does not have to be much of a student of the history of similar endeavors, from the second century to the present one, to confidently know that this movement, too, is doomed to produce even more coalitions of churches. This is not because of a lack of sincerity in those involved, but because they labor under a denominational concept of the body of Christ. We know that no one claims to oppose denominationalism more than Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses, but their coalitions of local churches give them away: the Watchtower Society, with its Regions, Districts, Branches, and Zones, as well as the International Churches of Christ, with its World Sectors, Geographic Sectors, etc., as they say, to "establish a global network of control over every last congregation."
Once one realizes what a denomination truly is, there is a multitude of applications where we may see that our behavior is inconsistent with our plea. Our basic conclusions will drastically affect many important topics related to the New Testament way of Christ. First, our language should change because words are vehicles of ideas. Healthy language depicts healthy concepts concerning the nature of the church of our Lord.
Once in a while, someone asks, "The Lutheran Church teaches such-and-such; what does the church of Christ teach?" The universal church doesn't teach anything collectively. Since the time of the apostles, it has had no spokesman to tell what the universal church teaches. On the other hand, no one really cares what the position of a local church is on a specific point. Most often, this question comes from a person who thinks of the body of Christ as a coalition of churches, just like the denomination he may belong to. Again, we don't want to perpetuate the denominational concept.
Just about every time the term church of Christ is used as an adjective, it's used in a denominational sense. If one is said to be a "church of Christ preacher," no one really believes he preaches as an agent of the universal church, for the universal church has no spokesman. No one seems to care if he speaks only for a local church. Most likely, the thought is that he preaches for a coalition of congregations, a thoroughgoing denominational concept.
Years ago, in an announcement concerning a debate between a preacher in a Sabbatarian denomination and myself, it was said he represented the Seventh-day Church of God, and I represented the Church of Christ. Although neither of us represented the universal church, he represented a denominational coalition of congregations. Sad to say, the language of the announcement said I did, too! Even worse, the concept in my mind was denominational as well, as I didn't consider myself as representing just a local congregation of Christians.
The same thing could be said of "church of Christ" songbooks, colleges, etc. Those aren't imagined as belonging to just a local church, and no one believes they belong to the universal church, including both living and dead saints. They are generally thought of as belonging to a coalition of congregations.
These remarks are not given to be picky. We need to appreciate the fact that a great number of people are looking for just simple nondenominational service of God. They may not realize that many others try to be just Christians without the denominational teachings, organization, allegiance, creeds, etc. Let's not hide a nondenominational approach from them with denominational concepts and language. As the maiden told Peter as he stood warming his hands by the fire, "The way you talk gives you away" (Mt. 26.73).
Listen to the following words, that use a scriptural name (church of Christ) in definitely an unscriptural, denominational sense:
My childhood was of the strict and straight Church of Christ variety. As a teenager, I was the moral and doctrinal example of Church of Christ orthodoxy. I memorized all the scriptures that are important to the Church of Christ. I mesmerized myself with the Church of Christ doctrines and vigorously defended the Lord's church! I was proud of my religion. I was conscientious and zealous. I chose to go to a Church of Christ college because of my affection for the Church of Christ doctrines. (Wayne Willis, "The Plight of the Church of Christ Liberal," Mission, June 1973, pp. 9, 10.)
Reflection on this person's use of "church of Christ," reveals he doesn't use it of the universal church that scripturally has no college, no collectively set forth doctrines, etc. Nor does he speak of a local church. Rather, he uses the term in a denominational sense, in other words, the doctrines and colleges of a collective of congregations. Thus, we hear of "church of Christ preachers," "church of Christ songbooks," etc. All similar uses of the term neither speak of the universal church that belongs to Christ nor of a local church, but of an alignment of local churches acting collectively, i.e., a denomination. This is not to say these folks consider themselves a denomination, nor that they are; but they certainly use the term denominationally.
My dear brother, I have no question about your sincerity. I've tried not to say one word in this letter that impugns your love for the Lord. However, if you are to remain true to your stated goal of following the way of Christ without denominationalism, you must reconsider if you're not highly involved in denominational action unknowingly. When you say, "I, for one, refuse to belong to a system; any system that is not clearly of divine origin. I was baptized into a kingdom and into union with the God/Man, Jesus Christ, but not into a system. That is all I have ever wanted. That is all that I need," I'm entirely with you in that desire. I hope you will bring your behavior into line with your desire and the Bible's teaching by extricating yourself from the ICOC system you find yourself in. You can't continue to say "I am deeply in love with our fellowship of churches," if you now understand that a "fellowship of churches" is nothing more nor less than a denomination.
To see further how the universal and local churches are related, I urge you to review my book Fellowship: With God and His People: The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism. It contains many applications of these principles, which you might find fascinating. I'll be glad to send you a copy as a gift if you'd like. I'm sure you can help me find additional inconsistencies in our claim to be non-denominational Christians, and applications arising therefrom.
Thanks again for reading, and considering. Feel free to contact me personally so we may talk and study together further.
Samuel G. Dawson
© 2003 by Samuel G. Dawson. This article may be freely reproduced only in its entirety, including the following paragraph.
[Samuel G. Dawson is the author of several books on the way of Christ without nondenominationalism, including Fellowship: With God and His People: The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism and Denominational Doctrines: Explained, Examined, Exposed; along with Christians, Churches & Controversy: How to Navigate Personal & Doctrinal Differences. His respect for how many New Testament subjects reflect a basis in the Old Testament has given him insight for writing Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: The Uniform Teaching of Moses, Jesus, and Paul, The Teaching of Jesus: A Faithful Rabbi Urgently Warns Rebellious Israel and How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide for Independent Study. All these materials are available at www.gospelthemes.com.]