I Am of Christ - Glenn Conjurske
“I Am of Christ”
Introduction: Sectarianism and Division at Corinth
We are all familiar with Paul’s rebuke of the divisions at Corinth. We all know that this is properly applied in a broader way, as a rebuke to sectarianism of all sorts. But after observing the state of things in the churches over the years, it seems to me that the most sectarian usually miss the point of the passage. They freely apply it to others but find no application to themselves.
Paul’s Condemnation of Sectarianism
The text says, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (I Cor. 1:11-13). Now it is perfectly plain here that Paul condemns not three things, but four. He condemns those who say,
- I am of Paul,
- I am of Apollos,
- I am of Cephas, and
- I am of Christ.
Those who say “I am of Christ” are as wrong as the rest. But this is not all, for I have observed over many years that those who say (or think) “I am of Christ” are usually a good deal more wrong than the rest. The worst sectarianism always appears in those who think themselves the adherents of Christ. They condemn those who say, “I am of Wesley,” and those who say, “I am of Luther,” and those who say, “I am of Calvin,” while they themselves say “I am of Christ,” and say it with a good deal more of sectarian pride than any of the others whom they condemn. I suppose that in the nature of the case this must be so. Men may say “I am of Wesley,” or “I am of Luther,” with very little of sectarian pride, but those who say “I am of Christ” are taking the very highest ground of pride.
The False Exaltation of “I”
But there seems to be some subtle enchantment on this ground, which blinds those who stand there to the real evil of it, and to their own actual spiritual state. It would seem so very proper to be of Christ, rather than to follow the banner of any mere man, that they never perceive the evil of this. Yet is it not perfectly obvious that Paul condemns those who say “I am of Christ,” as much as ever he does those who say “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos”? This is evident on the face of the text.
The Evil in “I Am of Christ”
But what evil can there be in saying, “I am of Christ”? Ought we not to be so? Ought we not to do his will, to exalt his name, to follow his banner, to stand for his truth, rather than adhering to any man-made system, or gathering to any man-made center?
Surely we ought. The evil lies not in “Christ,” but in “I.” This is the language of the spoiled child, who says, “I am Daddy’s girl,” meaning of course that none of her brothers and sisters can share the distinction. These folks do not say, “We are of Christ,” nor “We all are of Christ,” so as to embrace the whole church of God. This is the very reverse of their thoughts. They say rather, “I am of Christ,” so as to exclude the rest of the saints. Here lies the evil. If they say “We are of Christ,” they do not refer to the whole church of God, but to their own sect only.
The Double Evil of “I Am of Christ”
There is usually a double evil in such thinking. It assumes that we in fact are of Christ, while it assumes that others are not—and both of these assumptions are commonly false. It may be that some who take this ground actually are of Christ, but if so, they are no more so than the others to whom they deny the distinction. They rate themselves too high, while they rank others too low, and in reality do no more than take the name of “Christ” as a shield and a sanction for the evils of “I.” They exalt some particular ordinance or system of doctrine—as often as not a false or distorted doctrine—to the place of “the truth,” or the place of “New Testament principles,” and judge all by that doctrine, supposing that adherence to that system of doctrine or practice is the grand qualification for spirituality, the great sine qua non of true Christianity. Yet if they were to judge objectively and righteously, they would generally find as great or greater virtue and spirituality among others, who do not hold to their distinctive system of “truth,” as they find among themselves. Whatever they may have of truth and of Christianity, they have more of pride and self-importance. It is not so much of “Christ” after all, as it is of “I.”
The Danger of Sectarian Pride
Well, but to whom do I refer? Few indeed will have the hardihood to say in so many words, “I am of Christ”—not with this scripture staring them in the face. But the fact is, “Actions speak louder than words.” They may not say these very words, but they imply them by what they do, or by the other things which they say.
Two Categories of Sectarian Pride
Now there are two sorts who take this ground. This high plateau of pride has two levels. On the higher level stand all who suppose that they alone are saved. On the lower level stand those who suppose that they alone are spiritual. Those in the former category are generally cultists, ungodly themselves, while they suppose that they alone are saved. Those in the second category are usually evangelical Christians, generally carnal themselves (as Paul says all are who are sectarian in spirit), yet supposing that they alone are spiritual, or that they alone are right with God in some essential matter.
Examples of Sectarianism: The Church of Christ
But to whom do I refer? Standing on the highest level of pride is the Church of Christ, whose very name says in essence, “I am of Christ.” These suppose themselves alone to be the true church of Christ, all others being man-made systems, and by their doctrine of salvation by baptism, they generally suppose that they alone are saved—for they will allow none to be saved but those who have been baptized for the purpose of the remission of sins. Peter Cartwright and Sam Hadley they must consign to hell. I spoke once with a man of this sect, who told me with the coolest confidence that he would not give a straw for any man-made church on earth—failing altogether to perceive that his own church had not a whit more of claim to be “the Church of Christ” than those other churches which he despised.
Examples of Sectarianism: Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church stands, of course, on essentially the same ground, supposing itself to be the only true church, outside of which there is no salvation. Most other cults take generally the same ground. This is, in fact, the primary ground of their appeal, and it is in reality nothing but an appeal to men’s pride.
Examples of Sectarianism: Baptists
But there is a lower plateau of sectarian pride, which allows that others besides themselves might be saved, but which yet arrogates true spirituality to itself. Others may be saved, but they are not right. Those who stand on such ground are generally guilty of the folly of judging by one issue, and it may be an issue as insignificant as the pronunciation of “Shibboleth.” But who are these?
First, certain Baptists. It has been customary with many of them to speak of “baptized churches,” and to call themselves “New Testament churches,” relegating all the unbaptized churches to some lower sphere. Some of these have gone so far as to hold that the Bride of Christ consists of Baptists only. Others hold the apostolic succession of Baptist churches—of such of them, at any rate, as are not corrupted by “alien baptisms”—and regard all other denominations as so many daughters of the Church of Rome. To prove their own pedigree they find to be hard, but they prove it by affirming that it cannot be proved—that it would not be true if it could be proved, for the “woman” must be hidden in the wilderness for 1260 years, where her pedigree of course cannot be traced. All this stands directly upon the misinterpretation of both Scripture and history, but its deeper foundation is nothing other than sectarian pride. It judges all by one issue, and that a minor one, a mere ordinance. But that ordinance happens to be the thing which distinguishes them from other Christians, and it is pride which exalts this to the place of pre-eminence.
Examples of Sectarianism: Mennonites
Next, certain Mennonites. These are not so systematic in their sectarianism as certain Baptists are—they may not have made such a doctrine of their sectarianism—yet if the same spirit prevails, it is all the same thing. I have heard some of these Mennonites seriously question whether a Fundamental Baptist church was a church of God at all. And as the Baptists exalt to the place of pre-eminence the ordinance which distinguishes them from other saints, so do the Mennonites also. The ordinance is different (of course), but the sectarian pride is the same. While the Baptists speak of baptized churches and unbaptized, man-made societies, these Mennonites speak of “veiled churches” and “unveiled churches”—referring to the head coverings of the women—and speaking of the “unveiled” churches as though they are the epitome of everything that is wrong. Such judgement is usually as much at the expense of truth as it is of charity, for it must be apparent to those who speak so that there are “veiled churches” in which the people watch television, listen to the world’s music, put their children in the public schools, and are earthly-minded and materialistic besides. True judgement would take into account the whole life, character, and deportment. That judgement which stands on the slender basis of some small thing which distinguishes ourselves from others is really only prejudgement—or, as it is usually called, prejudice.
Conclusion: The Arrogance of Sectarianism
It never occurs to these folks that the unbaptized may in fact be more devoted and spiritual than the baptized, or that the unveiled may stand head and shoulders above the “veiled.” John Wesley, George Whitefield, J. C. Ryle, John W. Burgon, Sam Hadley—all these unbaptized men were spiritual giants, while many of those Baptists who despise them are the merest pygmies. Ann Judson, Sarah Comstock, Mary Slessor, Frances Ridley Havergal—how were these “unveiled” women inferior to their “veiled” sisters? Nay, they were certainly immeasurably above the most of them, eminent in holiness, devotedness, and good works. It is folly to judge the spiritual condition of anybody by one issue, and much worse than folly to do so on the basis of an outward, physical sign. There is something seriously wrong in the heart which judges so. This is not love of the truth, but love of self. It is not holy zeal, but unholy pride.
Sectarian Pride and Its Consequences
A third party which says in effect, “I am of Christ,” is the Plymouth Brethren. Like the “Church of Christ,” these proclaim their spiritual superiority in their denominational title. They are “the saints gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus,” always implying that they only are entitled to this distinction. Even the terminology of the old Bible must be discarded here, for by saying “gathered to” rather than “gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus,” they mean to imply that other Christians are gathered “to” some other name, as that of Wesley or Luther—while they would scarcely dare to affirm that any of their brethren in Christ are gathered in some other name.
Conclusion: False Exclusivity and Sectarianism
We have nothing to say against gathering in the name of the Lord Jesus. The evil lies in the exclusive application of this distinction to themselves, while they hold that no other Christians are so gathered. It is what Thomas Neatby calls “the appropriation by a few of that which is the privilege of all the children of God.” The entire portion in which Neatby’s words appear is worthy of quotation. After describing his happy association with the Brethren, and his firm adherence to the truth which they held, he proceeds, “Years passed away, and amid much weakness and failure my convictions as to these truths were strengthened and my enjoyment of them was increased. But little by little I found that sectarianism had pursued me where I thought myself safe from it, and that it had in some degree taken possession of me. The devil is subtle, and we, alas! are prone to be fleshly and to ‘walk as men;’ an easy prey then to the enemy of Christ, who makes us think we are serving Him in refusing or depreciating those that ‘follow not with us’ (Luke ix.49). John no doubt thought himself jealous for his Master, whereas his fleshly zeal had the ‘us’ for its object. Even after the whole truth as to ‘Christ and the Church’ had been revealed, there were those who emade Christ the head of a rival school to those of Paul and Apollos. Subtle indeed were both cases. For John might have rightly said, ‘He ought to follow Christ with us His chosen apostles.’ eAnd the school at Corinth might have said: ‘Surely it is right to be “of Christ.”’ But the Lord’s answer to John, and the Holy Spirit’s question, ‘Is Christ divided?’ shew that the flesh (and therefore Satan, see Matt. xvi.23) was at work in both cases. So it was when, in 1884, I wrote a paper in which I claimed for those with whom I met for worship that they were exclusively “gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus.” What Corinthian carnality! Some two years later I publicly confessed my grave error. But now that the canker has spread, and that terms which contain it have received in some quarters the sanction of habitual use, I feel that a more categorical retraction is called for, together with an earnest protest against the appropriation by a few of that which is the privilege of all the children of God.”