[Editor's Note: Bro. Doy Moyer has a question and answer page on his website, here are two Q and A's that I thought would be of interest.]
Who Made up the Church? Answered by Doy Moyer
(http://www.focusmagazine.org)
Question: The restoration movement began in the early
1800's. From that came the Church of Christ. Before that who made
up the church? I am a devout member of the Church of Christ and
I just want to know how to answer this question in line with the
Word. Thank You.
Response: First, I want to comment on the first couple
of sentences in the question. "The restoration movement began
in the early 1800's. From that came the Church of Christ."
May I kindly say that this is not a correct way of stating the
point; and once we understand something about the church of Christ,
the answer to the question will be obvious.
To say, "from that came the Church of Christ" is to put the church into the framework of a denomination. It is to imply that the church of Christ had its beginnings in the restoration movement. If one is looking at a denomination called the "Church of Christ" (and such does exist), then perhaps the point would be legitimate. However, if a denomination called the "Church of Christ" does now exist as a result of the restoration movement, then it is unscriptural and ought to cease to exist, for we can find no biblical support for the existence of a denomination, no matter what name it uses.
Biblically understood, the "church of Christ" is simply a group or body of people who belong to Christ. It is not a title, and the Bible nowhere uses it as such. Though "churches of Christ" is used (Rom. 16:16), it is not used exclusively, and then is simply descriptive of congregations that belonged to Christ. Other descriptions are used also: church of God at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2); church of the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 1:1); church of the firstborn ones (Heb. 12:23), etc. Clearly, there is no one single title given for all congregations. Therefore, to use the phrase "Church of Christ" as a denominational, exclusive title is without authority and should be abandoned. I cringe when I hear terminology such as "Church of Christ preacher" or "I'm a Church of Christer," etc. It is patently unbiblical and reveals a denominational mindset.
It should be noted that the efforts in the "restoration
movement" were not intended to create a new denomination
known as the "Church of Christ." My understanding is
that they were trying to get away from that kind of thing so that
they could just be Christians. This should be our goal always.
To the bottom-line question: Who made up the church before this?
The same ones who have always made up the church: those who, by
faith, have committed themselves to Christ through obedience to
His will (Heb. 5:9). Just because we do not have a historical
record of Christians throughout the centuries does not mean they
didn't exist. I would like to think that there has always been
a "remnant" of God's people, even during the years that
Catholicism had a strangle-hold on the populace.
The requirements for salvation did not change with the American restoration movement. Anyone, living at any given time this side of Christ, could have been or can be just Christians by going to the Scriptures to be and do what first century Christians did under the guidance and oversight of Jesus and the apostles. When one obeys the gospel, the Lord adds this person to His body of saved people who make up this "general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Heb. 12:23). Then, God desires that we join ourselves to a local group of Christians as we carry out His will (cf. Heb. 10:23-24). In doing this, we should make sure that such a group is practicing truth according to the Bible, working and worshiping in line with the scriptural guidelines. This is the way that we, as individuals, can worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).
Just because a local group calls itself a "Church of Christ" does not guarantee its faithfulness, and this is demonstrable. So, that phrase is not some kind of biblical litmus test for soundness. I do not believe that a congregation that is committed to God's word will call themselves something foreign to Scripture, or identify themselves with some peculiar man, denomination, or doctrine. But ultimately, a congregation is recognized as faithful by the Lord through her holding fast to Him and His will (cf. Rev. 2:8-11; 3:7-13).
Today, if we will hold fast to Christ and His will, He will judge us as faithful. In the end, this is all that really matters.
How Do You Separate the Church And the Individual?
Answered by Doy Moyer (http://www.focusmagazine.org)
This question was submitted from our web page. It is important
because it touches upon matters of authority. Sometimes the argument
is made that "what the individual can do, the church can
do." Thus, if the individual can be involved in social and
recreational functions, so may the church. If the individual can
support a college, so may the church. On and on the list can go.
There is no doubt that individual and church responsibilities overlap at places. The individual should try to teach others the gospel, but this is also the work of the local church. The individual has benevolent responsibilities (Jas. 1:26-27), and so does a local church (2 Cor. 8-9). There is overlap in these areas, but this is not proof that therefore anything the individual does is approved for the local church to engage in. That logic would require a huge leap. We know that certain responsibilities overlap because the Scriptures show just that.
The Scriptures show a distinction between individual activity and church activity. Though the church is composed of individuals, the individual alone is not the church. The term Ekklesia (i.e., "church") indicates a group or assembly, and is not properly applied to a single person (just like the term "flock" would not be applied to a single goose).
Several passages show this difference. Before the church, as set up by Christ, existed (either universally or locally), the individual existed and had functions to perform in relation to marriage. Marriage, as an example, is something for individuals. The activities in marriage are honorable (Heb. 13:4), but would be dishonorable and absurd in a "church" context. The instructions concerning marriage are applied to individuals acting in that capacity; and though instructions regarding marriage are given in assemblies of God's people, only the individuals can carry out the responsibilities and share in those blessings. Try arguing that "what the individual can do, the church can do" in this context.
Being a Christian affects every relationship in life. We are to strive to do God's will at home, in business, in relation to civil government, and in social activities. Nothing from life is exempt. So to distinguish the two is not to say that there are some things we do as Christians and some things we don't do as Christians. We are always Christians, no matter what arena of life we are discussing. However, there are some duties we engage in as individual Christians, and some intended to be carried out in congregational action (the local church, not universal). For example:
1. Working to provide for a family (Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 5:8, 16). Note in 1 Timothy 5 there is a clear distinction made between the individual's responsibility and what the church is to do. It is only when the individual cannot meet the needs given in this context that the church is to "be burdened" (vs. 16). If they are the same, this passage is meaningless.
2. Engaging in business and occupation (1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:10; Jas. 4:13-17). The individual may "buy and sell" and make a living. What passage ever indicates that such is the work of the local congregation?
3. Parents and children in the home (Eph. 6:1-4). The individual has the right to discipline his/her child. Will anyone argue that such discipline is the church's work?
4. As noted, the individual may have a spouse and fulfill the responsibilities to that spouse (1 Cor. 7).
5. An individual may engage in exercise to care for his/her body. Should the church then sponsor calisthenics classes or operate a gym?
6. Common meals are for individuals. Note that in 1 Corinthians 11:18-34, Paul distinguishes what they were doing "as a church" and what they should be doing at home. This would show that there are some things we may do "at home" that are simply not meant for us to be doing "as a church."
7. Secular education is the work of the home. I may send a child to school, but this does not make it the church's reponsibility.
8. The home is responsible for recreation and social activities. When the church, "as a church," gets involved in these matters, it is acting out of its place.
The individual has greater freedom to act in various areas of life than what God has permitted for collective action as a local church. Further, there are individual decisions and actions that should not affect the church as a whole (e.g., Rom. 14). We must be careful not to confuse the individual with the church. Let the individual fulfill individual responsibilities, and let the church be the church.