One Church

By E. M. Zerr

[Page 1]

     Not long ago I sat down at a lunch counter on my way to services. Seeing my Testament, the woman taking my order asked "where do you go to church?" It should not have been necessary to ask such a question. Even had the city been large enough to require more than one meeting place, she naturally would have thought I would attend the one nearest the restaurant, seeing I was walking. Or again, suppose she were a victim of the compromise movement misnamed "restoration," then whether it was the Baptist or Methodist or Christian Church I was attending, she might have asked the same question. She would have considered them all as parts of the "one church" that the New Testament recognizes. But even at that, the question would seem unnecessary, since a man walking to his place of worship would naturally attend the one most convenient.

     But this woman did not ask the question from any of the foregoing standpoints. She was not a member of the church of Christ, nor did she know me personally. From appearances she concluded that I was a religious man and that I was on my way to some assembly. Her question "where do you go to church" was equivalent to asking me about what church I belonged to or attended. She regarded the various denominational groups as so many different churches, and she would not for one second have questioned my right to attend "the church of my choice." One was just as good as another in her view, and it was only a matter of simple information that she was seeking.

     But all this causes me to revert to a statement in the beginning of this article. "It should not have been necessary to ask such a question." Christ established but one church, and never placed the name of any man with authority at the head of any part or parts of it. The "churches" among the denominational groups were started by uninspired men, and all have been brought into existence many centuries this side of Christ and the apostles. To maintain that such a heterogeneous brood can be considered the "one body" for which Christ died is as ridiculous as to say that black and white are the same color.

     One of the commonest yet most unfair forms of argument is the appeal to prejudice. It is unfair because its fallacy is hard to detect. It is somewhat like a misleading cartoon. There is not much that can be said directly in reply to the impressions created by such a picture. It is said that about the only way to answer a cartoon is to form another cartoon. But to use such tactics in the case of appealing to prejudice would be on the principle of one wrong justifying another." For years it has been a common quirk among the

[Page 2]

masses to ask "do you think that you are the only one who is going to be saved?" It would seem so selfish for any man to assume such a claim that the very question poses a challenge. But now we have the same principle resorted to by the advocates of the new "look" in the field of "restoration." They will ask "do you think that you or we have all of the truth?" It is implied that since evidently no one will claim that he has or knows all the truth, and will admit it, that such admission surrenders any claim to being identical with the scripture pattern. But here again "what proves too much proves nothing." If a group must "know all the truth" in order to be the true church, then the Lord has never had a true church.

     One direful result of the false reasoning treated in the last paragraph is the loose attitude that is being taken on the subject of "fellowship." We are warned against being too exclusive in our associations with other religious people. If a man has been baptized then he is a child of God and hence is our brother. This is supposed to open up the way for our joining with him in his church activities. The argument is made that by thus working with him we may be able to show him the true way of life and thus lead him out. But why wish to lead him out? If he is a child of God, is in a saved condition, and the Lord has already added him to His church, why disturb him? What could we offer him that would be any better than what he has? Since we "do not know all the truth," this man may know as much of it as we, and hence we just as well "leave him alone in his glory."

     It is on the above principle that we are urged to be "openminded" and give the other fellow the benefit of the doubt. When we are called upon to deal with the various items that have long been regarded as unscriptural, we are told to make an examination of the arguments that have always been resorted to. It might be we will find that some of them have been as illogical and unscriptural as the "evils" we are trying to correct. In view of such a possibility, it ill becomes us to be too "conservative" in our conflicts with those who differ with us. It is maintained that in the interest of "restoration" we should be somewhat tolerant towards the things that we have formerly considered as sectarian or innovating; that such toleration would constitute real restoration. If I believed such a theory I would join the Methodist or Christian Church, where these activities have already been in force a half century. In this way I would climb upon the wagon that is already that many years ahead in the movement of restoration.