RF-23 — How Did a Movement for Christian Unity Become Separate Church Bodies?
SECTION 3 · THE REFORMATION
Can Christians reject denominational divisions and still develop divisions of their own?
The early Restoration Movement called Christians to leave behind allegiance to human religious parties and return to the teaching of Christ and His apostles.
Its leaders hoped Christians could recognize one another as members of Christ’s church rather than remain separated by inherited denominational boundaries.
Yet the movement itself eventually developed into distinct church bodies.
Some congregations accepted missionary societies; others rejected them. Some introduced instrumental music; others continued singing without accompaniment. Over time, disagreements about biblical authority, congregational independence, and fellowship became connected with these practices.
That presents a difficult question for anyone who calls for Christian unity:
HOW CAN A MOVEMENT BEGIN BY OPPOSING DIVISION AND EVENTUALLY DEVELOP SEPARATE GROUPS THAT DISAGREE ABOUT WHO MAY WORSHIP AND WORK TOGETHER?
We will follow the history without assuming every congregation or individual followed the same path.
Then we will bring the question back to the New Testament.
1. WAS THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT EVER ONE DENOMINATION?
Not in the usual sense of a denomination governed by one central authority.
The movements associated with Barton W. Stone and the Campbells developed separately before many of their followers entered into fellowship in 1832.
They shared a desire for Christian unity and a return to New Testament teaching, but they did not create one headquarters with authority over every congregation.
That distinction helps explain both their union and their later separation.
Congregations could recognize one another.
They could exchange preachers.
They could cooperate in evangelism.
They could share the Lord’s Supper.
But if congregations later disagreed about fellowship, there was no bishop, council, or denominational headquarters that could settle the matter for everyone.
A movement can divide without ever holding a meeting at which everyone votes:
“WE ARE NOW DIVIDED.”
Separation can develop gradually through patterns of fellowship and cooperation.
2. WHAT HELD THE EARLY MOVEMENT TOGETHER?
Its members shared several important convictions.
They wanted Scripture rather than inherited religious customs to determine their faith.
They emphasized faith in Christ, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the responsibility of Christians to follow apostolic teaching.
They also wanted to leave party names behind and recognize their common allegiance to Christ.
But agreement about the goal did not guarantee agreement about how to reach it.
What happens when two Christians both say:
“LET’S FOLLOW THE BIBLE”
but interpret a passage differently?
How much agreement is necessary before congregations can worship and work together?
May one congregation practice something another believes Scripture does not authorize?
Those questions were present even when the movement appeared united.
And they have never been easy questions.
3. DID THE UNION OF 1832 REMOVE EVERY DIFFERENCE?
No.
The Stone and Campbell movements came from different backgrounds and did not agree about every doctrine or practice.
Their union at Lexington, Kentucky, in 1832 expressed a willingness to recognize one another and pursue their shared aims despite unresolved differences.
That is worth remembering.
They did not first produce a list showing that everyone interpreted every biblical passage exactly alike.
They had to decide which disagreements could remain while they continued studying and working together.
Later generations faced the same question.
Read Ephesians 4:1–3.
Paul tells Christians to walk:
“With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.” — Ephesians 4:2, KJV
Then:
“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” — Ephesians 4:3, KJV
Why would Christians need lowliness, meekness, longsuffering, and forbearance?
Because unity involves real people.
And real people do not always agree.
4. WHY DID THE MOVEMENT BEGIN TO SEPARATE?
There was no single cause.
As we examined in RF-21 and RF-22, congregations disagreed about missionary societies and instrumental music.
Behind those visible disagreements were deeper questions.
How does Scripture authorize?
What does biblical silence mean?
How may congregations cooperate?
Which disagreements can exist within fellowship?
Which practices should Christians refuse because they believe them contrary to apostolic teaching?
The Civil War and regional differences also damaged relationships and made existing disagreements more difficult.
So it would be misleading to say:
“THE MOVEMENT DIVIDED OVER A PIANO.”
It would also be misleading to say:
“THE DIVISION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.”
For many Christians, instrumental music and missionary societies represented deeper disagreements about biblical authority.
We should take those convictions seriously without assuming every conclusion drawn from them was correct.
5. HOW CAN CONGREGATIONS DIVIDE WITHOUT A CENTRAL AUTHORITY?
Imagine two congregations that have recognized one another for years.
They exchange preachers.
Their members worship together.
They cooperate in evangelism.
Then one congregation introduces a practice the other believes Scripture does not authorize.
The first congregation says:
“THIS IS PERMISSIBLE.”
The second says:
“WE CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN IT.”
They stop exchanging preachers.
Then they stop supporting common work.
Their members worship together less often.
Other congregations begin associating more closely with whichever group shares their conclusions.
Eventually two recognizable networks of fellowship exist.
No pope announced it.
No bishop ordered it.
No council voted to divide the churches.
Yet the separation is real.
That is largely how division developed within the Restoration Movement.
CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE CAN PREVENT A CENTRAL AUTHORITY FROM ORDERING A DIVISION.
It cannot prevent congregations from separating themselves.
6. DID RELIGIOUS NEWSPAPERS HELP FORM SEPARATE GROUPS?
Yes.
Nineteenth-century religious journals were enormously influential.
They published sermons.
Bible studies.
Reports from congregations.
Debates.
Arguments about disputed practices.
The Gospel Advocate, associated especially with David Lipscomb, became influential among congregations opposing missionary societies and instrumental music.
The Christian Standard, associated with Isaac Errett, became influential among congregations that accepted those practices.
These publications allowed Christians hundreds of miles apart to read the same arguments and identify others who shared their convictions.
That could encourage serious Bible study.
But it could also strengthen separate camps.
People naturally tend to read writers with whom they already agree.
Does that sound familiar?
The printing press did it.
Radio did it.
Television did it.
The internet does it.
YouTube does it.
And a Bible-study website can do it.
Including this one.
So remember:
TEXT B4 TRADITION HAS NO APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.
Read the argument.
Then read the text.
If the argument does not follow the text, reject the argument.
7. DID THE 1906 CENSUS CREATE A NEW CHURCH?
No.
The United States religious census for 1906 listed Churches of Christ separately from the Disciples of Christ.
That did not create the separation.
It recognized a distinction that had developed over many years.
Some congregations had already stopped cooperating.
Some had ceased exchanging preachers.
Some no longer recognized one another in the same way.
Others maintained personal relationships across the developing boundary.
So 1906 is useful historically.
But we should not imagine everyone belonged to one church body in 1905 and woke up in two different ones in 1906.
The census recognized a separation.
It did not cause it.
And certainly:
A GOVERNMENT CENSUS CANNOT DETERMINE WHERE CHRIST’S CHURCH BEGINS OR ENDS.
8. WHAT WERE THE THREE MAJOR STREAMS THAT EVENTUALLY DEVELOPED?
Historians commonly identify three major North American streams from the Stone-Campbell heritage:
Churches of Christ
Christian Churches/Churches of Christ
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
They share historical roots.
But they are not three departments of one governing organization.
Their differences include approaches to worship, congregational cooperation, organization, biblical interpretation, and fellowship.
Even the names can be confusing.
A congregation called Church of Christ may belong historically to the fellowship commonly known as Churches of Christ.
Another congregation using a similar name may be associated with the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.
So never assume you know everything about a congregation because you read its sign.
THE NAME TELLS YOU SOMETHING.
It does not tell you everything.
9. WHAT CHARACTERIZED THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST STREAM?
Congregations commonly identified as Churches of Christ retained unaccompanied congregational singing and rejected missionary societies as a means of organizing congregational evangelism.
They generally emphasized local congregational oversight, baptism by immersion, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, and New Testament authority for church teaching and practice.
But notice the word generally.
Churches of Christ have never agreed about every question.
They have disagreed over congregational cooperation.
Support of institutions.
Methods of evangelism.
Fellowship.
The work of the church.
And other matters.
There is no worldwide Church of Christ headquarters that issues binding decisions to every congregation using the name.
That means we must distinguish between the historical characteristics of the larger stream and the teaching of a particular congregation.
And there is another lesson here.
CALLING OURSELVES A CHURCH OF CHRIST DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT EVERYTHING WE DO CAME FROM CHRIST.
We must examine our traditions too.
10. WHAT CHARACTERIZED THE INDEPENDENT CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST?
These congregations generally accepted instrumental accompaniment in worship and various forms of organized cooperation in evangelism.
At the same time, they continued to emphasize congregational independence and resisted becoming part of a centrally governed denomination.
Their identity as a distinct stream became clearer during the twentieth century as disagreements increased over the organization and theological direction of the Disciples of Christ.
But independent does not mean isolated.
A self-governing congregation may cooperate with other congregations.
It may support missionaries.
It may participate in educational or evangelistic projects.
That takes us back to the questions we asked in RF-21:
Who makes the decisions?
What authority is being exercised?
May a congregation participate voluntarily?
May it decline?
Does cooperation require surrendering the congregation’s own responsibility?
Those questions matter more than the label placed on the arrangement.
11. WHAT CHARACTERIZED THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (DISCIPLES OF CHRIST)?
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) gradually developed a more formally organized denominational structure while retaining significant congregational responsibilities.
Its history continued to emphasize Christian unity, the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and cooperation with other Christian traditions.
In 1968, the Disciples adopted a major restructuring plan. The new structure defined congregational, regional, and general expressions of the church more formally.
Congregations retained important responsibilities, including decisions about property, membership, and ministers.
So we should not describe the Disciples structure as though it simply created a pope or a diocesan bishop with the same authority found in some other church systems.
It did not.
But the structure does raise the question we have followed throughout this series:
WHAT AUTHORITY MAY A REGIONAL OR GENERAL CHURCH BODY EXERCISE OVER OR ON BEHALF OF LOCAL CONGREGATIONS?
Different Christian traditions answer that question differently.
The New Testament must still be examined.
12. DID THE 1968 RESTRUCTURING CAUSE ANOTHER SEPARATION?
It marked an important stage in a separation that had already been developing for decades.
Some congregations disagreed with theological developments, missionary policies, or organizational changes associated with the Disciples.
Many continued as independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ rather than participating in the restructured denomination.
Again, the disagreement cannot be reduced to:
COOPERATION OR NO COOPERATION.
Both sides cooperated.
The question was what kind of organization and theological relationship they were willing to accept.
This illustrates something we have seen repeatedly in church history.
An organization may begin as a voluntary means of cooperation.
As it develops, participants may disagree about its policies, teaching, public statements, or authority.
Then comes the difficult question:
CAN WE CONTINUE WORKING TOGETHER?
And if so:
ON WHAT TERMS?
13. DID THE THREE STREAMS DEVELOP DIFFERENT VIEWS OF UNITY?
They developed different emphases and practices, although there is considerable variation within each stream.
The Disciples became especially active in broader efforts toward cooperation among different Christian traditions.
Churches of Christ generally placed strong emphasis on recovering what their members understood to be apostolic teaching and practice.
Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ commonly combined an emphasis on New Testament teaching with voluntary cooperation among self-governing congregations.
But be careful.
That does not mean:
ONE GROUP CARED ABOUT UNITY.
ANOTHER CARED ABOUT TRUTH.
Christians in all three appealed to both.
Their disagreement concerned how truth and unity fit together.
And that is not merely their problem.
It is ours.
How do we stand firmly for what Christ taught without making every disagreement a reason for separation?
And how do we seek unity without pretending Christ’s teaching does not matter?
14. IS UNITY THE SAME THING AS UNIFORMITY?
No.
Uniformity means everyone does everything the same way.
Biblical unity is deeper than that.
Christians may speak different languages.
Live in different cultures.
Meet in different kinds of buildings.
Sing different melodies.
Arrange their schedules differently.
Paul compares the church to a body:
“For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.” — Romans 12:4, KJV
He develops the same picture in 1 Corinthians 12.
Different members perform different functions, but they belong to one body.
However, we cannot turn that truth into:
“DOCTRINE DOESN’T MATTER AS LONG AS WE LOVE JESUS.”
Paul also warns about another gospel.
He warns about false teaching.
He tells Timothy:
“Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine.” — 1 Timothy 4:16, KJV
So unity does not mean every difference is harmless.
The question is:
WHICH DIFFERENCES MAY EXIST WITHIN CHRISTIAN UNITY, AND WHICH CONTRADICT WHAT CHRIST REQUIRES?
That question cannot be answered merely by our desire to stay together.
Nor by our desire to separate.
We need the text.
15. DID JESUS PRAY FOR UNITY WITHOUT TRUTH?
No.
Read John 17:17–23.
Jesus prayed:
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” — John 17:17, KJV
Then He prayed for those who would believe through the apostles’ word:
“That they all may be one.” — John 17:21, KJV
Notice what appears in the same prayer.
TRUTH.
And:
UNITY.
We should not use Jesus’ prayer for unity to dismiss questions about His teaching.
But neither should we use our concern for correct teaching as an excuse to ignore His desire that His people be one.
Jesus did not give us a list in John 17 identifying every disagreement Christians may have while remaining united.
But His prayer makes one thing unmistakable:
DIVISION AMONG HIS PEOPLE IS NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD TREAT LIGHTLY.
Neither is truth.
16. DOES EPHESIANS 4 REQUIRE CHRISTIANS TO AGREE ABOUT EVERY PRACTICAL DETAIL?
No.
Paul writes:
“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” — Ephesians 4:3, KJV
Then:
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” — Ephesians 4:4, KJV
And:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” — Ephesians 4:5, KJV
Continue through verses 11–16.
Paul describes teaching and equipping Christians so that they mature and are no longer:
“tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” — Ephesians 4:14, KJV
Then he says:
“speaking the truth in love.” — Ephesians 4:15, KJV
There it is again.
Truth.
Love.
Unity.
Teaching.
They belong together.
Ephesians 4 does not require every congregation to have the same meeting time, building design, teaching schedule, or method of communication.
But neither does it make apostolic teaching a matter of indifference.
We must distinguish what Christ requires from the practical arrangements Christians make while obeying Him.
17. WHAT DOES 1 CORINTHIANS 1 SAY ABOUT RELIGIOUS PARTY NAMES?
Read 1 Corinthians 1:10–17.
Some Corinthians said:
“I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 1:12, KJV
Paul responds:
“Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you?” — 1 Corinthians 1:13, KJV
His argument directs their loyalty away from human personalities and back to Christ.
But notice something easily overlooked.
One group was even saying:
“I AM OF CHRIST.”
The right name did not automatically produce the right attitude.
That should make us think.
A person can say:
“I AM JUST A CHRISTIAN.”
A congregation can say:
“WE ARE SIMPLY THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.”
Those may express a sincere desire to belong to Christ alone.
But the words themselves prove nothing about every conclusion we have reached.
We can even turn the name of Christ into a party label.
A BIBLICAL NAME DOES NOT MAKE AN UNBIBLICAL ATTITUDE BIBLICAL.
18. CAN A CONGREGATION BE NONDENOMINATIONAL AND STILL DEVELOP ITS OWN TRADITIONS?
Absolutely.
Every congregation develops customs.
What time do we meet?
How long is the sermon?
When do we have Bible classes?
How are songs selected?
Who makes announcements?
How is money collected?
How do we support missionaries?
Customs are not automatically wrong.
We need practical arrangements.
The problem begins when:
“THIS IS HOW WE DO IT”
quietly becomes:
“THIS IS HOW GOD COMMANDS EVERYONE TO DO IT.”
Read Mark 7:1–13.
Jesus rebuked religious leaders who allowed tradition to displace God’s command.
Now turn the question toward ourselves.
When someone asks for the biblical reason for something, do we answer:
“WE’VE ALWAYS DONE IT THAT WAY”?
Do we treat every change in a custom as though someone were changing the gospel?
Or do we introduce a new practice and insist everyone accept it without showing why Scripture permits or requires it?
A church does not stop having traditions merely because it refuses to call itself a denomination.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR TRADITIONS AND GOD’S WORD.
19. DOES A SHARED NAME PROVE THAT CONGREGATIONS HAVE THE SAME BELIEFS?
No.
Two congregations may both have Church of Christ on the sign and disagree about cooperation, worship, fellowship, or other questions.
Two congregations may both be called Christian Church and differ about organization or doctrine.
A name can tell us something.
It cannot tell us everything.
Read Revelation 2–3.
Jesus addresses seven churches.
They are all churches.
But He does not say the same thing to each one.
Some receive strong commendation.
Others receive serious warnings.
Sardis had:
“a name that thou livest, and art dead.” — Revelation 3:1, KJV
A name does not settle faithfulness.
So rather than asking only:
“WHAT KIND OF CHURCH IS THIS?”
ask:
“WHAT DOES THIS CONGREGATION ACTUALLY TEACH AND PRACTICE?”
Then compare that with Scripture.
20. CAN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITHOUT CREATING A NEW CHURCH BODY?
Sometimes.
Romans 14 shows Christians disagreeing about food and days.
Paul does not tell them to form separate congregations.
He says:
“Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.” — Romans 14:3, KJV
But not every disagreement belongs in Romans 14.
Read Galatians 2:11–14.
Paul publicly opposed Peter because Peter’s conduct was:
“not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” — Galatians 2:14, KJV
So the New Testament gives us both.
There are disagreements Christians must bear patiently.
There are errors Christians must confront.
The difficult part is determining which kind we are facing.
We cannot solve that by saying:
“EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION.”
And we cannot solve it by saying:
“EVERY DISAGREEMENT REQUIRES SEPARATION.”
We have to examine the issue.
21. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN A CHRISTIAN BELIEVES A CONGREGATION IS WRONG?
Begin by making sure we understand what the congregation actually teaches.
What is being practiced?
What passage is offered in support?
Have we read that passage in context?
Have we listened carefully to the people with whom we disagree?
Or are we arguing against what we assume they believe?
Acts 18 gives us a helpful example.
Apollos was:
“an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures.” — Acts 18:24, KJV
But Priscilla and Aquila:
“expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” — Acts 18:26, KJV
Correction occurred through teaching.
Paul also says:
“restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.” — Galatians 6:1, KJV
A Christian may need to challenge a practice.
A congregation may need correction.
A Christian may even decide that continued participation would violate conscience.
But disagreement does not give us permission to misrepresent people.
The goal is not:
WIN FOR OUR SIDE.
The goal is:
FAITHFULNESS TO CHRIST.
22. CAN CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE PREVENT DIVISION?
No.
It can limit the ability of one congregation or outside organization to impose its decisions on another congregation.
That is significant.
But it cannot guarantee unity.
Self-governing congregations can still develop separate networks.
They may support different schools.
Read different publications.
Attend different lectureships.
Use different preachers.
Support different mission works.
Eventually Christians may know exactly which congregations are considered “with us” and which are “not with us”even though no denominational headquarters drew the boundary.
That does not prove congregational independence is wrong.
It proves something else.
NO ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENT CAN CREATE THE HUMILITY, PATIENCE, TRUTHFULNESS, AND LOVE CHRIST REQUIRES.
A central authority can issue a ruling without producing unity of conviction.
Independent congregations can make their own decisions without remaining united.
Organization alone cannot solve a spiritual problem.
23. CAN AN ORGANIZATION CLAIM TO REPRESENT CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED IT TO SPEAK FOR THEM?
That question appeared in the missionary-society controversy and returned in later debates over denominational organization.
A voluntary association can speak for its participating members within whatever authority those members have given it.
But an organization cannot simply assume that it speaks for every Christian who shares a historical background or uses a similar church name.
Neither can a famous preacher.
A school.
A publication.
A convention.
Or a website.
Read 1 Peter 5:2.
Peter tells elders:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV
Paul told the Ephesian elders:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” — Acts 20:28, KJV
So if an organization claims authority over congregations, ask:
WHAT AUTHORITY DOES IT CLAIM?
OVER WHOM?
AND WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVE IT THAT AUTHORITY?
But if an organization merely provides assistance or voluntary cooperation, describe it accurately.
Cooperation is not automatically government.
24. DID THE SEPARATIONS END ALL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THESE CHRISTIANS?
No.
Distinct streams developed, but the historical connections did not disappear.
Christians from the different Stone-Campbell traditions have continued to study their common history, discuss their differences, and sometimes cooperate in various ways.
Historical organizations preserve materials from across the wider movement.
Meetings and conversations have also brought people from the different streams together.
That does not mean the doctrinal disagreements disappeared.
It means separation does not require ignorance.
We can study someone’s position accurately.
We can listen.
We can disagree.
We can explain why.
And we can do all of that without pretending the other person believes something he does not believe.
That principle matters throughout this entire series.
IF WE ARE GOING TO DISAGREE, LET’S AT LEAST DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE OTHER PERSON ACTUALLY BELIEVES.
25. WHAT DOES THIS HISTORY TEACH US ABOUT RESTORATION?
The Restoration Movement began with a call to return to the New Testament and seek Christian unity.
Its history demonstrates that agreement about that goal did not eliminate disagreements about interpretation.
Some Christians believed accepting a particular practice would violate apostolic teaching.
Others believed forbidding that same practice created a human restriction.
Eventually those disagreements helped produce separate church bodies.
Does that mean the appeal to restore New Testament Christianity was a mistake?
No.
It means the people making the appeal were still human beings.
They still had to interpret Scripture.
They still had inherited assumptions.
They could still mistake an inference for an explicit command.
They could still mistake a custom for a biblical requirement.
And so can we.
Read Acts 17:11.
The Bereans:
“received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” — Acts 17:11, KJV
Notice again whom they were checking.
Paul.
If Paul’s message could be examined, surely ours can.
So do not believe something because:
Stone said it.
Campbell said it.
Lipscomb said it.
A preacher said it.
Your parents said it.
Your congregation has always practiced it.
Or TEXT B4 TRADITION said it.
READ THE TEXT.
Then ask:
DOES THE CONCLUSION ACTUALLY FOLLOW?
26. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?
We have now followed the Restoration Movement from its call for Christian unity to the development of separate church bodies.
But before moving on, we need to deal with a question lying underneath this entire series.
We have talked about:
The Roman Catholic Church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Lutheran Church.
The Anglican Church.
Presbyterians.
Baptists.
Methodists.
Pentecostals.
Churches of Christ.
Christian Churches.
And many others.
But now we need to ask:
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT MEAN BY “THE CHURCH”?
Is Christ’s church a denomination?
Is it an organization with worldwide headquarters?
Is it a collection of congregations that agree about every practice?
Is it identified by an unbroken historical succession of bishops?
Is it everyone who calls himself a Christian?
Or does the New Testament describe Christ’s church in another way?
Before we compare one church with another, we need to know what we are looking for.
That takes us to our next study:
WHAT IS THE CHURCH CHRIST ESTABLISHED?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: WHAT IS THE CHURCH CHRIST ESTABLISHED?