Only One Church

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     I have been preparing the material for this article or preparing myself for the material for many months. In the article I shall say some things which are long overdue. It is not my intention to be sensational yet much of what is said will appear challenging to our former concepts and expressions. The casual reader laboring under the curse of unconcern will not take the time nor make a real effort to grasp the significance of what is written. The traditionalist and partisan will bristle with resentment at what is read. But the eager student of revelation, maintaining an open mind and motivated by a sincere desire to know the will of God, will critically examine our thesis in the light of the language of the Spirit. It is to such we must look for honest criticism and we invite all such to express themselves to us freely so that we may examine what they say and eliminate the flaws and fallacies which show up in our thinking.

     I never write to create controversy but to express honest conviction. "Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, 'I believed, and so I spoke,' we too believe, and so we speak" (2 Cor. 4:13). Still when varied views are presented research is stimulated and this encourages statement of divergent ideas. This is good for thereby we learn from each other. It is our desire that all who cannot in good conscience share our views write us the reasons why such is the case. We promise to scrutinize carefully all that is offered. With the preliminaries disposed of we now propose an examination of the nature of the church of God. It would be more factual to say that this is a re-examination since the subject has been so frequently discussed in the past.

     The word "church" is the term employed by translators of the sacred scriptures to express in English the idea contained in the Greek ekklesia. In every instance but one in which "church" occurs in the King James Version it is a translation of ekklesia. The single exception is Acts 19:37, where a more literal rendering would be "plunderers of temples," rather than "robbers of churches." The Revised Standard Version is more nearly correct in its employment of the term "sacrilegious." "You have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess."

     The word ekklesia is a combined form of two words: ek, out; and kaleo, to call. The term signifies those who are called out and by that very same act are gathered or called together. In the old covenant scriptures two Hebrew words were employed to signify the gathering together of the people of God--the Israelites. The word edhah which in a secular sense was used to refer to the harvest which was a gathering of the sheaves or vintage and to recruiting of the people for a specific task such as war, is from a root meaning "gathering."

[Page 2]

In the Septuagint which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures made some two hundred years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, edhah is translated by sunagoge, bringing together. In the Revised Version this is generally rendered ''congregation.''

     The other Hebrew word tahal is from a root form meaning "to call or summon." It is understood that those who are summoned will come together; that is, gather at the place and for the purpose for which they were summoned. The Greeks had a term akin to this and applied to an assembly of citizens of a city-state. Such an assembly was not a mere collection of inhabitants in the agora, or marketplace, nor a casual convening of a group for discussion or debate. It referred to a proper assembly of qualified and accredited citizens possessed of credentials and the right of franchise, called out or summoned to meet for decision on matters of state. The Greek term for such an assembly was ekklesia.

     Where the word tahal occurs in the Jewish scriptures the Septuagint uses ekklesia as the Greek equivalent. And where this word occurs in the ancient oracles the Revised Standard Version employs the term "assembly." It is noteworthy that the King James translators never once employ the word "church" in the old covenant scriptures although once in the new covenant writings they do refer to Israel as "the church in the wilderness." The reason is obvious. Stephen was quoting from the Septuagint Version as most students realize, so used the word "ekklesia." Of even greater interest is the fact that the RSV drops the word "church" at this place and says, "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). Yet, wherever the word ekklesia occurs, relating to the assembly of the saints, the same translators used the word ''church'' instead of ''congregation."

     Pursuing this study of linguistics in order to lay a foundation for our principal theme, it must lie mentioned that the word "church" is not an adequate translation of ekklesia at all. There is nothing in it which signifies a calling out or calling together. It has no connection with either an assemblage or a congregation. It came into our English language as an abbreviation of a wholly different term, kuriou oikos. This originally referred to a manor house owned by a feudal lord. It thus means literally "the house of a lord." While it is true that the ekklesia of God is "the house of the living God," the word for house does not translate ekklesia. A recognition of the inappropriateness of the word "church" prompted Alexander Campbell, in the version Living Oracles to substitute the word "congregation" wherever the word "church" appears in the Common Version. Hugh J. Schonfield, in his Authentic Version uses the word "community." This is probably the best translation of the word.

     The King James translators use the word "church" because it has acquired a certain ecclesiastical meaning. It is a professional term sanctioned by the clergy. It did not have such a connotation in the days before the rise of the so-called "Christian clergy" so the same translators never use it in the old covenant scriptures. There they faithfully render the equivalent Hebrew terms by "assembly" or "congregation." Such reasoning as this will be lost upon many of our contemporary religionists. They are not so much concerned about the rightness of things as in defending what they have whether it is right or wrong. Instead of "searching the scriptures daily to see whether these things be so," they invest their time in condemning those who dare to question their traditions.

     It is from a recognition of this mental bias that we herein use the word "church" which has become sanctified by repeated usage despite its inappropriateness. We must "speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of the flesh." We have no desire to wound the conscience of the weak nor drive from us those who cannot concur in our findings. But in our discussion of "the church" we have our own mental reservations regarding the term even

[Page 3]

though we defer out of regard for the brethren to their opinions on the matter. Let us, then, in this thesis use the word "church" as a translation of Ekklesia.

     That original term in the new covenant scriptures designates all of the called of God without a single exception. Every person on this earth who has responded to the divine call is by a divine act constituted a part of the ekklesia. It is impossible to conceive of one of the elect being outside the ekklesia. Every person who has been called out of darkness has by the same token been called into the light. One cannot be called out of darkness and not be called into light, for otherwise he would still be in darkness. "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are God's people" (1 Pet. 2:9, 10). The ekklesia is composed of God's people. All who are numbered among God's people are in the ekklesia of God, the called of God. There is not one of God's people on this earth who is not a part of the ekklesia.

     This being true there is only one church on earth now, there never has been more than one since Jesus died on the cross, and there never can be more than one. If we are to use the word "church" as the rendering for ekklesia it must embrace all of the called, all of God's people without a single exception. If we talk about "other churches" we imply that there are other called out people and since we can only become one of the called or elect by an act of God this is an admission that he has more than one body, a direct contradiction of what the record says.

     In every instance in which the sacred oracles speak on this matter it is affirmed that there is one body. "For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ" (Rom. 12:4, 5). The "many" includes all who are in Christ. It is inconceivable that any should be members and not be attached to the head and thus be members of the body. If the body is "the church," there can never, while Jesus is head, be more than one church. "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12). The expression "so it is with Christ" forever precludes the thought of more than one church. It is absurd, in the light of the sacred oracles, to ask a man with what church he is affiliated. If he is one of the elect he is in the church; if he is not one of the elect he is not affiliated with the church at all.

     It is equally ridiculous to talk about ''uniting with the church of your choice." In order to have a choice there must be more than one item from which to select. A man has a choice as to whether he will respond to or reject the call of God. If he rejects it he is not one of the called out; if he accepts it he has no choice of churches. He is added to the only one there is, the congregation of the "called out ones." One has no more freedom to accept the church of his choice than he does to accept the God of his choice or the Lord of his choice.

     "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). There were congregations made up of Jews and others made up of Greeks, but in the very nature of things there could be no such thing as a Jewish church or a Gentile church. It took a long time for some of the early Christians to get this through their heads. In the same way there may be some congregations composed of white people and others composed of colored people, but there is no such thing as a colored church or a white church. In Jesus Christ there is no color line. His body is not divided by a median line with all of the members on the right side being white and those on the left being red, black or yellow.

[Page 4]

     One cannot choose whether he wishes to be affiliated with a church which receives colored people or refuses them for there is no such thing. There is one body, one church, and only one, and to it God adds the called ones, regardless of color. If you do not choose to be in a church with colored people the only other altemative is to be out of the church. Unfortunately, there are colored people out of it so your only spiritual choice is whether you'll be in the church with colored people or be out of the church with colored people. One can no more choose his spiritual brothers than he could select his physical brothers. In both cases brotherhood results from fatherhood and we must welcome those begotten by our father whether we wish to do so or not. The other members of my physical body did not select my right arm or left foot, and the members of the one body do not select each other. "But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose" (1 Cor. 12:18). He did not arrange them as you chose because in this matter you have no choice. We should thank God for that!

     No one who was ever baptized by the Spirit was baptized into other than the one body. "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." Of course, the Spirit could not baptize one into any other body, for there is no other. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to that one hope that belongs to your call" (Eph. 4:4). "Just as you were called." Note how the one body and one Spirit are tied in with the calling. The called ones constitute the one body. Anyone not in that body is not one of the called or elect. One might as well talk about choosing which Spirit will give him life as to talk about which church he will embrace. "Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Rom. 8:9). It is also true that "Any one who is not a member of the body of Christ does not belong to him." You have no more choice of bodies than you do of Spirits. "There is one body, and one Spirit."

     We are told that God ordained one church but men have created other churches. This cannot be for men have no power to call other men out of the world and save them. To make such a statement necessitates a shifting of terms and definitions to get from "church" to "churches." It is true that men have brought into existence institutions which they call "churches" but these are not and cannot be churches. Men have also made other gods which are really not gods. "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods...But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him" (1 Cor. 8:4-6). By the same reasoning a sect is nothing and there is no other church than one, consisting of all the elect of the earth. The same authority which declares there is one God asserts there is one body, the church. Notice that it is not said that there should be, or ought to be, one body. The record says, "There is one body." One could as consistently affirm that there is more than one Lord as to assert there is more than one church.

     We are asked what we propose to do about The Methodist Church, The Baptist Church, The Presbyterian Church, The Reformed Church, and a host of others. My reply is that not one of these is a church. "There be that are called churches," just like "There be that are called gods," but a man can no more

[Page 5]

create a church than he can create God! What are these? They are sects or parties within the realm of Christendom, that domain which includes all who confess that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and God's Son. They are not an ekklesia of God, nor the ekklesia of God, so they are not churches. They exist without divine authority or approval.

     The Methodist Church is a party subscribing to the opinions and interpretations of John and Charles Wesley. The Baptist Church is a party subscribing to the opinions and interpretations originally embodied in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The Presbyterian Church is a party crystallized around the teaching and opinions of John Calvin. The Reformed Church is a party addicted to the opinions announced by Ulrich Zwingli and other reformers. There may be, and no doubt are, children of God scattered among all of these. They are not God's children because they are attached to a sect, but in spite of it. God adds no one to a sect. He added them to the church and they joined a human party. In this they erred just as God's children err in many things. The church is not, and by its very nature cannot be a sect, and no sect can be the church of God. The very word "sect" is exclusive and indicates that there are others not of it who are Christians, but the word "church" as used by the Spirit, the ekklesia, is inclusive. It embraces all of the saved. There can be and there are many parties or sects, but there is only one body, one church.

     Lack of understanding of this point betrays many of the good brethren who oppose my thinking on fellowship, into ridiculous positions. They go to Webster's Dictionary for a definition of fellowship. Apparently the inconsistency of using a twentieth century American dictionary to define a term employed by Anglo-Saxon translators to render a word used by the Holy Spirit in addressing the Greek-speaking world of the first century never occurs to them. By consulting Mr. Webster they deduce that fellowship is a relation ''existing between members of the same church." They emphasize and dwell upon this phrase as if to make it appear that I advocate that fellowship is a relation between members of different churches.

     Such brethren deserve pity more than censure. They imagine they see a fire-breathing dragon attacking all they revere. They unsheath their trusty traditional sword and dash forth out of their castle, widely swinging right and left, more frequently hitting themselves than anyone else. These brethren have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. They want to do what is right but they should take out a little time and think before they speak. They understand neither what I suggest nor what the Bible says about fellowship.

     Certainly fellowship is limited to those affiliated with "the same church," for that is all there is in existence. No one has advocated a state of fellowship between members of "other churches" for there are none. My whole contention on fellowship has been that it is a divine relationship existing between all members of the one body. I have never advocated fellowship with or between sects or sectaries, but with the Christians in all sects. The Christians are all in the same church by an act of God. They are members of one body. I am sorry that a lot of them put themselves into something else where God did not place them, but I'll not help get them out by denying they are Christians.

     The real contention is not now and never has been on fellowship. The question is whether we shall recognize all of God's children as composing the ekklesia, or limit His family to the constituency of a faction, fraction, or fragment. I insist that I must regard all of God's children as my brethren. Because we have the same parents I am not ashamed to call them brethren. I am sorry that we are divided and that we have been betrayed into sectism by the party spirit but I shall not allow this tragedy to sever me from God's children. All of my brethren are members of the church

[Page 6]

--all who are members of the church are my brethren. And the church is bigger than any faction which men have created. God pity it if it is not!

     Recently a couple of brethren whom I esteem highly, and who are elders of a congregation in the midwest, tried my case in absentia, and without even talking to me concerning my position reached the conclusion that I was a heretic. When I questioned them as to the basis for such a conclusion I found that they charged that my teaching would "lead to fellowship with the denominations." These are fine brethren and I love them but they no more understand what I advocate than the man in the moon. Fortunately the latter does not make false accusations against me and in this respect sets an example for some of my brethren who are on this planet.

     I am opposed to denominationalism. Sectism is sinful, condemned of God and deplored by all good men who understand the divine will. Instead of advocating "fellowship with the sects" I am dedicated to the destruction of all sects and the uprooting of all factions by killing the taproot which sustains and nurtures them--the party spirit. He who suggests that I am favorable to "fellowship with the sects" is wholly ignorant of my position and in no sense qualified to judge of its merits. Sectism must be defeated. It must be overthrown. It is inimical to the Christian concept and nullifies the purpose of God. It creates the false impression that there can be more than one ekklesia (church) in defiance of the plain statement, "There is one body."

     I have suggested that the real bone of contention is the constituency of the church of God. It is evident that no one is a part of the ekklesia who was not added to it by God; it is equally evident that every person so added is part of the ekklesia, or church. As I view it, all of those who are saved from their past sins and are reconciled to God are added. Jesus declares that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." I take it that the salvation here mentioned is from past sins. The fact which one must believe in order to be baptized is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. I conclude, therefore, that any person who believes this fact and validates his faith by being immersed is added to the church and thus is a member of the one body. Since, as our opposing brethren mentioned above have said, fellowship is a relation existing between "members of the same church," I conclude that I am in fellowship with every sincere baptized believer on the face of the earth, seeing that all such are in the same church.

     If it be argued that some of these baptized believers are in different "churches" I deny it. There is only one church, the ekklesia, the called of God. True, some of them may be in different parties or factions but if they are in a church at all they are in one church; if they are not in it they are not in a church. Can a man be in a faction or belong to a schismatic group and be a part of the church of God? Certainly so, although his attachment to the party is condemned of God. The first letter to the Corinthians points out that the called saints (1:2), the brethren (1:11), those who had been "called unto the fellowship" (1:9), had divisions among them. They were divided into parties consisting of Paulites, Cephasites, Apollosites and Christites (not Christians). Yet they composed "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1:2).

     God formed the church but men created these parties. The parties were composed of those whom God had added to the church but neither of these parties nor all of them together, constituted the church of God at Corinth. The church of God existed at Corinth before any of these parties came into being. The apostle did not deny that those affiliated with the parties were in the church of God. He affirmed it! But they were not in the church because they were in the party. They were in the church by the grace of God and in the party by the mistake of men.

     The tragedy at Corinth was that those

[Page 7]

who claimed to be of Paul thereby separated themselves from those who claimed to be of Cephas, Apollos, or Christ. Each splinter no doubt thought it was the tree, and each party thought that it was the church of God. In this they were all wrong. No party among the brethren in Corinth while Paul was on earth was the church; no party in the United States today is the church. God's people are divided among themselves now as they were in Corinth then. The remedy of the apostle then was the utter elimination of the schismatic spirit. That is the only remedy now. It will avail little to have meetings to talk about uniting so long as the narrow, exclusive, bitter party spirit is imbedded in the hearts of those who meet, for it will germinate and produce other divisions and factions tomorrow. Until we are able to regard and respect each other as brethren, as part of the church even though divided by opinions into divergent parties, we will get nowhere except into deeper trouble!

     All attempts at recapture of the concept of unity of the Spirit must start with the view that there is only one church and can never be another; that the ekklesia is a divine institution formed according to an eternal purpose and that man can no more create a church than he could create God or the Holy Spirit. Men may evolve heresies or sects and they do. These are the result of a carnal nature. They are, all of them which are in the spiritual realm, works of the flesh. But there is as much difference between being in the church of God and belonging to a sect as there is between being a citizen of the United States and belonging to a political party. A citizen may join a political party but he is not a citizen because he does so. In the political and social realm there is nothing inherently wrong with formation of a party based upon a certain political philosophy. In the spiritual realm sectism is inherently wrong because it is dangerous to the welfare and preservation of the divine organism which is maintained by mutual love and always adversely affected by sectarian rivalries. The spirit of competition and rivalry is opposed to the very nature of the church of God.

     Still it is wrong to assume that the church will fail if factions are not foiled. The church is the body of Christ. It is not subject to corruptions or decay. No body is dead while the head still lives and Jesus has been raised from the dead to die no more. He ever liveth and because he does the church, the one body, ever lives. Men may wither and die upon factional vines and partisan plants but the one body will continue. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is for that reason I am no longer concerned with sectarian rivalry, with the struggle for the supremacy of this insignificant faction, or that. I am content to be what God has made me through His Spirit, to remain where He has placed me, and to regard all others whom He has received as my brethren.

     No faction now existing is the church of God in its fulness. There is no such thing in these days as "the faithful church" or "the loyal church" with reference to any party. Not one of these has gathered all of God's children into its corral. To speak of "the faithful church" is to imply that there is an unfaithful ekklesia. We do not believe that! There is only one ekklesia, one church. Men may betray its best interests and become traitors and deserters. They may form human parties composed of their own kind, but these are factions and not "churches." The ekklesia is the body of Christ. My body cannot be unfaithful to me, although some of its organs or members may become diseased.

     Those parties whose partisans refer to them as "the faithful church" are simply narrow and exclusive segments of a divided disciple brotherhood which have certain points of emphasis and regard as faithful those who parrot "the party line." They are not the church, although many in them may be attached to the church. Frequently those of their number whom they count as least worthy

[Page 8]

because they refuse to be bitterly factional are closest to the ideal of God. Their ranting, rampant, shouting public proclaimers are often farthest from the ideal of the Spirit.

     Very humbly do I implore all of my brethren to pray for me regardless of the tragic circumstances which now separate and segregate us. Intreat for me before His throne that I may conquer and soar above the natural inclinations of the carnal man with its factional spirit. I do not consider that you need to be personally affiliated with the particular faction in which I grew up to have your petitions acknowledged and your prayers answered. It is enough for me that He has added you to the church, where the Holy Spirit can help your infirmities in prayer as He does mine. I am not interested in seeing you added to anything larger or smaller than the church. May all of us catch again the majestic vision of one body composed of all of God's dear children and our beloved brethren. I am happy that there is only one church. I am glad that there can never be another!