Is the Church of Christ a Cult?

I’m regularly asked about the beliefs of particular groups of people, like Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists. When I respond, I try to be very careful in my assessments. My goal is to compare beliefs (any beliefs, including yours and mine) with what we find in the Bible. I do not feel comfortable saying whether anyone in particular has been saved, let alone an entire group. Many people are born again in spite of bad theology, and many people are bound for Hell in spite of good theology. In this article, I simply explain some of my experiences and thoughts about Churches of Christ.

My goal here is not to offend. My goal is simply honesty, fair-mindedness, and grace. This is a real question from a real reader. If what I’ve written here offends you, I can’t say whether that’s good or bad. That would depend on whether what you believe matches or contradicts what God has said in Scripture. If you’re a born again member of a Church of Christ, you are my family.

First, what is a cult? The word simply suggests a specific set of beliefs that spring from another set of beliefs. In that sense, Christianity is historically and technically a cult of Judaism. The word is neutral, even though most of us use it in a negative sense. There’s no question that those in the Church of Christ share many beliefs with traditional, historic Protestant Christians… but there are some distinctives that separate them. That makes them a cult of Christianity in a technical sense, but that should not be considered a negative without addressing their actual beliefs.

It’s important to distinguish here between different movements with similar names:

• There’s the United Churches of Christ, a theologically and socially liberal group with roots in the Puritan movement and Lutheranism. Generally speaking, these churches have – in my opinion – abandoned the gospel.
• There’s the Church of Christ Restored, also known as The Church of Christ – Temple Lot, a splinter group that broke from the LDS church after Joseph Smith’s death. They didn’t go to Utah with Brigham Young, opting instead to follow Joseph Smith, Jr. This group is clearly non-Christian.
• There are several groups in the so-called Restoration Movement, including the Churches of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the non-institutional churches of Christ. While these all come from the “Campbellite” movement, this last group is our focus here.

Theologically, the Church of Christ is a mixed bag… some parts great, some parts not so great. Because each congregation is independent, it’s impossible to speak clearly about all of them. What you read here is generally what they have in common.

I’d like to point positively to a few things they believe that are worth considering, in light of Scripture:

• They identify themselves simply as Christians. This is, in my mind, as it should be. I’m bothered when people put descriptors on their relationship with God, like “I’m a Presbyterian Christian” or “I’m a non-denominational Christian.” People who follow Jesus don’t need to create ways to be distinct from other people who follow Jesus. Yes, it’s okay to be part of a like-minded group… but I don’t believe it’s healthy to identify FIRST as something else.
• They usually practice open communion. That is, any follower of Jesus may take communion with them. This is a good thing, recognizing that anyone who follows Jesus is welcome. I don’t believe that it’s a good idea to keep believers from taking communion on the basis that they’re not part of your particular group.
• They teach that the Bible is our only source of doctrine. This is good. Too many people identify their beliefs in other ways, like “I’m a Westminster Confession kind of Christian” or “I’m a Nicene Creed kind of Christian.” The creeds are, when done well, taken directly from Scripture… and the source material is better than its derivatives. It’s better to simply identify the Bible as our guide.
• They don’t put pastors on pedestals. They recognize that there’s no meaningful spiritual difference between people who get paid to lead at church and people who don’t. As a former pastor, I see this as a very important issue. According to the Bible, every believer is a priest.
• While lots of people call for unity among believers, those in the Churches of Christ tend to point to the source of our spiritual unity: the Bible. If we don’t believe the same basic truths of Scripture, we can’t actually have spiritual unity. I appreciate their efforts in pointing people to God’s Word.
• It’s not an official position, but I’ve heard this from many… and I like to use it as well: “we speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.” That’s a helpful point of view, and it’s one way to spot bad theology and false teaching.

There are, of course, differences. Some are inconsequential, some are simply in conflict with my understanding of Scripture.

• They believe we must be baptized to be saved. This is in direct conflict with Scripture. Every conversation I’ve ever had on this topic with Church of Christ folks has been an exercise in bad logic. The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized, but “he was an exception.” God can, they say, break His own rules if He wants. They highlight the few passages that mention both faith and baptism, but seem unwilling to talk about the passages that describe salvation without any mention of water at all. It seems clear to me that one can be wrong about this topic and still be saved, but that doesn’t mean we should overlook such an obvious error.
• They claim to not be a denomination. That’s silly, when we ask “what is a denomination?” To ‘denominate’ is to give something a name so you can tell things apart. The Churches of Christ have a name, and they use that name to distinguish between their group and other groups. That’s actually a textbook definition for denomination. Unfortunately, some of them go so far as to say that denominations are from the devil, that they’re the mark of the Beast from Revelation, that associating with a denomination is a sin, and so on.
• They don’t use musical instruments in worship. I find this inconsequential. They say it’s because there’s no mention of the early church using them in the New Testament. While I appreciate their desire to strictly adhere to what the Bible says, I can’t agree with those individuals who claim that doing so displeases God. There are generally two camps when it comes to these things. One says that we can do anything in worship that’s not prohibited in Scripture, the other that we should do nothing that’s not found in Scripture. In light of passages like Romans 14, where it’s clear that we are not to judge one another over disputable matters, it seems ill-advised to criticize people over musical instruments. Also, there’s a bit of hypocrisy involved here, as virtually every local Church of Christ congregation engages in things not found in Scripture… from using microphones to leasing buildings and more. To distinguish themselves by this standard and then to ignore it doesn’t help their cause.
• This brings me to the ‘legalism’ part of your question. Yes, Churches of Christ – in my experience – do tend toward legalism. That’s unfortunate, but common among those who consider personal holiness to be an important part of following Jesus. Having grown up in a tradition that values holiness, I’ve seen this legalistic leaning in person for many years. While legalism goes too far, it’s also true that many who aren’t legalistic also fail to uphold any standards at all. Following Jesus doesn’t include legalism or license.
• As for not being able to know whether you’re saved, this is a break from Scripture. For example, we see this in 1 John 5: I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. It’s common for them to teach that we must be sufficiently obedient to be saved (or to remain saved), and Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats would lend that view credibility… but the idea that we’re judged as saved or unsaved by our works does fly in the face of other, obviously clear passages. We must take each passage in context, and this teaching suggests that we’re saved – at least in some sense – by works, which directly contradicts Ephesians 2:8: … it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works… When questioned, I’ve been told that “baptism isn’t works.” I agree, but it’s added on top of belief and repentance, so this is an aberrant teaching.

I’ve had friends who attended (and led) Churches of Christ that I consider brothers and sisters in Christ, with no real questions about their salvation. I’ve also met some that I would definitely not consider followers of Jesus. This is true of every church I’ve ever attended (or studied). Most congregations have a mix of saved and unsaved people, so that’s not a surprise.

When I’m assessing whether any group is “Christian” or not, I ask this question: Are people in this group saved BECAUSE of what they teach, or IN SPITE OF it? Mormonism, for example, includes many false teachings. I believe that some Mormons have been saved… not because of Mormon doctrine, but in spite of it. God can draw anyone to Himself, and that includes those who are simply wrong about Him. When I think of the Churches of Christ, I wouldn’t put them in the same group as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Unity. I would put them in the same category as Seventh-Day Adventists: right about a lot, wrong about some things, not recommended, but not to be condemned outright.

In my opinion, in spite of their seemingly obvious errors, I would suggest that a person attending a Church of Christ could be saved because of what is taught, rather than in spite of it.

I hope that answers your question, my friend.

Join me on Substack!