Is the Church of Christ a Cult? #1
The death of Matthew Winkler has shaken me like few deaths I have ever known. I have had
difficulty sleeping. I have wept over his death. The Winkler family is well known
and highly respected among faithful members of the body of Christ. My Molly and
I entertained in our home Matthew's grandfather and grandmother while
brother Wendell Winkler was preaching in a meeting at the West Fayetteville Church
of Christ. Wendell Winkler and Matthew's father, Dan Winkler, have done outstanding
work in writing and in preaching among churches of Christ. I continue to
struggle in dealing with Matthew Winkler's death.
I had not known Matthew Winkler very long. In the late fall of 2005, I
stopped by his office at the 4th Street Church of Christ in Selmer.
We visited for a short time. During the Freed-Hardeman University lectureship in
February 2006, I preached at Selmer on a Wednesday evening. I almost always visit the 4th
Street Church of Christ at Selmer
either on Sunday night of the lectureship or on Wednesday night. Through the years, I have preached in two gospel meetings
at Selmer. I not only had an opportunity to visit with Matthew; I also met Mary and the girls. I was impressed
with the Winkler family. If I had not
met the family, I might not have grieved so much.
I have
no intention of speculating about the tragedy involving the Winkler family. I have no
idea why this violent act occurred. But some of the discussions on radio, in the
newspapers and on television have caused me great concern and sadness. So today and next
Lord's day I am going to address the topic, "Is the Church of Christ a Cult?" This
topic relates to a Nancy Grace program on CNN. I did not see the program, but I have a
transcript of the discussion between Nancy Grace and a Baptist preacher by the name
of Tom Rukala. If you have questions about our lesson today, I shall be more than
glad to hear from you.
For a
number of years, Nancy Grace worked in the Atlanta Fulton County District Attorney's
office. She served for a decade as special prosecutor compiling a perfect
record of nearly one hundred felony convictions at trial. On Monday night, March 27, 2006,
Nancy Grace introduced Tom Rukala, a Baptist preacher, and asked him about the church
of Christ. She said she did not know much about the church of Christ and asked
him to tell her. Was Tom Rukala the only person she could find to ask about the
church of Christ? Almost any preacher among churches of Christ would have been
delighted to speak with her about the church. Apparently she could not find anyone who knew what
he was talking about. She could not have done worse.
Personally,
I sometimes enjoy Nancy Grace's program. I bought and read Nancy Grace's book, Objections!:
How High-Priced Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Hijacked Our
Criminal System (New York: Hyperion, 2005). I profited by reading her book
and plan to refer to it when I discuss the ethics of prosecutors,
defense attorneys, judges and law enforcement officers.
On her program March 27, 2006, she asked Tom Rukala to provide some information about the
church of Christ. The sad fact is that Tom Rukala showed his bias and ignorance
in his discussion. He made several points—all of which are inexcusably false.
Let me outline what Rukala said and then respond to his accusations. Rukala
asserted that the church of Christ is a relatively new church. He insists that
Alexander Campbell started the church about 150 years ago. He calls the church
a very legalistic sect. He says churches of Christ employ intimidation and
pressure tactics. According to Rukala, members of the church of Christ believe
they are the only one going to heaven and all others are condemned to hell. I
shall respond to these charges in the order I have listed them.
I have
no idea who Tom Rukala is or where he obtained his information about the churches of
Christ. I have difficulty believing anyone could be so prejudiced or ignorant or both. Is
the church of Christ a relatively new church? I suppose it depends on how you define "relatively."
The church of our Lord began almost 2,000 years ago on the day of Pentecost in
the city of Jerusalem. There is no church in the universe that is older than
the true church of Christ. Ignorance of that fact does not excuse the foolish statements
Tom Rukala made to Nancy Grace.
I must
ask you to think about the Great Pyramid for a few minutes. If we possessed the
blueprints and specifications of that magnificent building, could we reproduce it in
modern times? If we strictly followed the blueprint, would we not have the same
building the Egyptians constructed more than 4,500 years ago? By the same
token, since we possess in the New Testament the pattern God gave for the
church of our Lord, is there any reason we cannot replicate the same church in
the 20th century or at any other time in the history of the world?
I shall not take the time today to outline the pattern God gave for his
church, but I do want to mention a few elements of that pattern. God arranged
for men who are called "elders" to direct the affairs of the local church.
Paul and Barnabas confirmed the souls of the church members in Asia Minor. They
then ordained "elders in every church" (Acts 14:23). The apostle Paul
left Titus in Crete so that he would set in order the things that were
lacking, "and ordain elders in every city," as Paul had arranged (Tit. 1:5). Just
because churches have elders does not make them faithful to the New Testament
pattern, but that is one essential feature of the Lord's church. Using men who are called "deacons"
or "stewards" to lead the church does not harmonize with the New Testament
pattern. God gave a pattern for the government of the church. Churches of Christ
strive to follow that pattern.
If churches of Christ teach the same
gospel, engage in the same worship activities and go into all the world to preach the gospel
of Christ just as the first century Christians did, would they not be the same
as the church the Lord established on the
day of Pentecost? The assertion that the church of Christ is a relatively new church was intended to create doubt
about the church of our Lord. It is an inexcusable appeal to prejudice.
Tom Rukala asserted that Alexander Campbell started the church of
Christ about 150 years ago. Differences over doctrinal matters are excusable, or at
least, understandable, but factual errors are inexcusable. There are two
factual errors in Rukala's assertions. There were many churches of Christ in
existence—both in Europe and in the United States—before Alexander Campbell and his father
Thomas Campbell
came to America. If Rukala did not know that, his ignorance is inexcusable. But
did he want to be correct in making these observations? Besides, Alexander
Campbell came to America from Scotland 200 years ago—not 150 years ago. Is it possible Rukala had
already made up his mind and did not want to be bothered by facts?
Rukala described the church of Christ as being "a very legalistic
sect." How did he reach that conclusion? No one should have any
difficulty answering my question. Churches of Christ maintain that we must have
scriptural authority for the work and worship of the church. For example, churches
of Christ do not use mechanical instruments in worship because the New
Testament does not authorize them. Is that a reasonable approach? I wonder if Tom
Rukala knew that many of the founders of modern denominations registered the same
objections to instrumental music faithful churches of Christ do. That list includes
John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther, Adam Clark, and a host of others.
England's most influential Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, strongly
opposed the use of instruments of music in worship. Does that make Calvin,
Wesley, Luther, Clark and Spurgeon legalists?
The students of Columbia Theological Seminary in Columbia, South
Carolina, asked their professor, Dr. John L. Girardeau, why he opposed the use
of instrumental music in worship. His response was an outstanding book with the title, Instrumental
Music in Public Worship (Fayetteville, TN: International Gospel Hour,
n.d.). I shall read only the introductory paragraph to Dr. Girardeau's book.
"Attention, at the outset, is invoked to the consideration which serves to
establish the following controlling principle: A divine warrant is necessary
for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is,
whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either
expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is
forbidden" (p. 15).
If
Rukala calls that "legalistic sectarianism," he does not understand
or care about
the teaching of scripture. After all, the apostle Paul told the Colossians: "Whatever you
do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God and the Father
by him" (Col. 3:17). Do you remember the many false accusations the
enemies of Christ made against Paul and how he responded? Paul said to Felix:
"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy,
so worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things that are written in
the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). If carefully observing all the teachings
of God's word is legalism, I confess to being a legalist. And would I not rather be a
legalist than an illegalist?
Rukala
accused churches of Christ of using methods of intimidation and pressure tactics. Is
it possible that some churches of Christ use methods of intimidation and
pressure tactics? It would be unusual if that were not the case. Do some Baptist
Churches, some Methodist Churches, some Presbyterian Churches, some Assemblies of God and
other churches sometimes use methods of intimidation and pressure tactics? I
know there have been instances when all religious groups have employed intimidation
and pressure tactics. Does that justify such tactics? Absolutely not! There have been
groups among churches of Christ—as there have been among most religious
groups—that have used intimidation and pressure tactics. Faithful churches of
Christ have strictly opposed such groups. I have spoken out against those
groups. I have been a member of the
church of Christ more than sixty-five years and have preached the gospel for more
than sixty-two years. Faithful churches of Christ do not use force or
intimidation on anyone. Any charge that they do is based on ignorance.
Rukala
deliberately appeals to prejudice when he asserts: Members of the churches of
Christ believe they are the only ones going to heaven and all others
are going to hell. Do churches of
Christ really teach that? I hope Tom Rukala is listening so he will learn what churches of Christ teach
and will no longer make such foolish blunders.
Please listen carefully and with an open heart. Faithful churches of Christ
teach that we must hear the gospel to be saved. Paul teaches very plainly.
"I am not ashamed of the gospel
of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first and also to the
Greek. For therein (that is, in the gospel) is the righteousness of God
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:16-17).
I shall
briefly summarize the great truths of this passage. The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto
salvation. There is no other way for human beings to be saved. Some religious
teachers, including Tom Rukala, think of that view as being exclusivistic, but
it is exactly what the word of God teaches. The gospel plan of salvation
applies equally to Jews and to Gentiles. Everyone in the universe—whatever his
race or nationality or station in life—is subject to God's plan as revealed in
the gospel. The expression, "the righteousness of God," does not
refer to the fact that God is righteous. It applies to God's plan for making men
righteous.
What Tom
Rukala and many other denominational preachers reject is the Bible's teaching on
baptism. The Bible specifically and emphatically teaches that remission of sins is
contingent on our being baptized. What else could the apostle Peter have had in
mind when the told the believing Jews on the day of Pentecost: "Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is
unto you, and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call. And with many other words did he testily and exhort,
saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they who gladly
received the word were baptized: and there were added unto them about three
thousand souls" (Acts 2:38-41)?
When we teach that
men and women have to be baptized to be saved—as Peter taught on
Pentecost—are the churches of Christ the ones who are consigning men and women to hell if they
do not obey the Lord's commands or is it the Holy Spirit? Incidentally, Tom
Rukala teaches that those who do not share his views are going to hell. I have never
heard him preach, but I know he does. He teaches, as do all Calvinists with whom
I am acquainted, that men and women must believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of
the living God or they will be lost. Is there anyone who claims to be a Christian who
thinks that people can believe whatever they choose and behave any way they
please and still go to heaven? I do not claim to be an evangelical, but I
do not know any evangelical who thinks everyone will go to heaven regardless of
his beliefs and conduct. Is that not
claiming that they are the only ones going to heaven and everyone else is going
to hell? Fundamentalists and evangelicals are not universalists, are they?
Tom
Rukala says: Churches of Christ "claim that if you're not baptized by one
of their ministers, that you are doomed to hell, even if you're a believer in
Jesus Christ."
I wonder where Tom Rukala learned that bit of information. As I said a few minutes ago, I have
been a member of the church of Christ for more than sixty-five years and a gospel
preacher for more than sixty-two years. During my lifetime I have known
hundreds and hundreds of gospel preachers. Not one time—not even one time—have I ever
heard a gospel preacher argue that people have to be baptized by one of our preachers
to be saved. That is a deliberate appeal to prejudice. Tom Rukala ought to be ashamed
of himself for deliberately perverting the truth.
If churches of
Christ teach that one must be baptized by one of our preachers to be saved,
would that not say that the goodness and faithfulness of the preacher in some
way affected the legitimacy of baptism? What if a person is baptized by a
preacher who is guilty of adultery or who is teaching false doctrine, would that
invalidate the person's baptism? The goodness or faithfulness of the one who does the
baptizing has nothing to do with the efficacy of baptism. The Bible teaches that alien
sinners must be baptized to have their sins remitted, but nothing is said about the
person who does the baptizing. Tom Rukala needs to repent of spreading false information
about churches
of Christ.
I shall
read the entire paragraph that includes what Tom Rukala said about the necessity of being
baptized by one of our preachers. The churches of Christ "claim that if you're not
baptized by one of their ministers, that you're doomed to hell, even if you're a believer in
Jesus Christ, which, of course, breaks completely from the traditional
Christian view that all those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
will be saved because we're saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who
died for our sins and rose again. For the Church of Christ folks, that's not
enough. You
have to be a member of their narrow sect. It's a very exclusive group. And if you're not a member
of their sect, you're condemned."
I do not have the time today to respond to all of Tom Rukala's remarks,
but I do want to say a few words before our time expires. Churches of Christ do
not deny that those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved. But
we do deny that simply repeating the so-called "sinner's prayer" is
calling on the name of the Lord. There is not one example in the New Testament
of anyone's repeating the sinner's prayer. For example, when Saul of Tarsus
asked the Lord, "What wilt thou have me to do?", Jesus Christ told him to go
into the city of Damascus and it would be told him what he had to do.
When the heaven-sent preacher, Ananias, approached Saul, it would have been a
wonderful time for that is not what Ananias said. He commanded: "Arise, and be
baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts
22:16). If Saul had not been baptized, would his sins have been washed away?
My
desire is to preach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Tom
Rukala needs to remember Paul's confession to the Ephesian elders: "I take
you to record this day that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not
shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:26-27).
Winford Claiborne
The International
Gospel Hour
P.O. Box 118
Fayetteville, TN
37334