KASPARS OZOLINS | Assistant Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary |
The well-known church historian Carl Trueman has recently penned a striking opinion piece for WORLD Magazine reflecting on the Church of England’s continued compromise on matters of biblical sexuality. The title echoes his frank prescription for the historic denomination: “It’s time for a change of name.” Trueman argues that the Church of England no longer has any right (or argument) for retaining the designation “church” and should therefore drop it for the sake of honesty. Such a shocking conclusion might be jarring to some, even offensive.
Yet this does raise an important question. Which organizations have the right to call themselves a “church”? More fundamentally, which religious groups are entitled to call themselves “Christian”?
…what credence should be given to any group that claims it is “Christian” and forms a “church”?
Of course, people are free to call themselves whatever they like in democratic societies that have freedom of religion (and lack a state religion). But what credence should be given to any group that claims it is “Christian” and forms a “church”?
Secular critics of Christianity regularly point out the doctrinal disagreements among Christians and scoff at anyone who would even attempt to exclude a group from qualifying. The famous “No True Scotsman” fallacy is often cited in this discussion. According to this perspective, one can be ever shifting the goalposts of acceptability in order to exclude any group or groups from counting. Against this, modern society has deeply rooted identity and meaning in what the individual or group states about itself, regardless of any external objective facts (witness, for example, the transgender movement).
Yet language still bears meaning, and definitions are valuable and necessary in order to communicate in society. So the terms “Christian” and “church” are not simply up for grabs (nor should they be).
How Restorationist groups use the terms “Christian” and “church”
It is fascinating to consider the various differences and similarities between the three major Restorationist movements arising in the wake of the “burned-over district” in early 19th century New York: Mormonism, Adventism, and the Bible Student movement (from which the Jehovah’s Witnesses arose). The way that these groups relate to the designations “Christian” and “church” is complex.
Restorationism, by definition, is the claim that one has “restored” the beliefs and practices of the early New Testament church. In order to support this endeavor, Restorationist groups have needed to distance themselves in some way from modern Christianity in order to substantiate their claim that they are engaged in the restoration of original, primitive Christianity. Part of the problem is terminological, however. New Testament religion is popularly and universally called “Christianity,” while modern denominations also call themselves “Christian.” Therefore, one must either challenge the claim of modern denominations to be truly “Christian,” or else adopt a different name with which to describe New Testament religion in order to distance it from the “errors” found in churches today.
Between the two approaches, both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses appear to have adopted a mediating strategy (though in different ways).
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Jehovah’s Witnesses stand out as an organization that quite clearly eschews the term “church” in its official name. Furthermore, they go to great lengths to explain on their official website why they do not call either their group or their individual congregations a “church.” There they argue that “the Greek term that is sometimes translated ‘church’ refers to a group of worshippers, not to the building they meet in.” For this reason, they prefer the term “kingdom hall” to describe their meeting places.
The more one thinks of this, the more striking their admission is. The Jehovah’s Witnesses appear to be acknowledging that their kingdom halls are simply meeting places for local congregations gathered “to worship Jehovah.” That is to say, none of the marks of a local, biblically constituted church apply: eldership, membership, the preaching of the Word, and the biblical ordinances (for Jehovah’s Witnesses, only those of the 144,000 may partake of the Lord’s Supper).
To give but a simple illustration, consider the weekly chapel services that take place at many Christian institutions of learning, such as my own, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although the people who are gathered worship and hear sermons, although they are believers and meet in a building whose architectural look is indistinguishable from that of a church—this is not a church gathering, but rather a chapel service.
On the other hand, the JW organization argues quite strongly that they are “Christian” and deserve to be called as such. Their website explains that this is because they “try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.” Yet even here, they must put some distance between their definition of Christian and “other religious groups that are called Christian.” The first thing that distinguishes them, they freely acknowledge, is that “we believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, not part of a Trinity.” Because of this dynamic, Jehovah’s Witnesses must inevitably undermine the legitimacy of other groups using the term “Christian.” We have fairly quickly arrived at the nub of the issue: the usage of the term “Christian” depends fundamentally on the meaning and understanding of the term it is derived from: “Christ.”
Mormonism
Quite obviously, the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes the designation “church.” Yet while all orthodox Christians deeply embrace and cherish both the term and their identity in the “church,” they do not use it in quite the same way as Mormons do. Notice that the term is given an article (“the”), front-loaded, and qualified with multiple additional words (“Jesus Christ,” “Latter-day Saints”). When one thinks about it, relatively few orthodox Christians include the term church in such an overt way in their official name. There are Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, to name just a few, but none of these groups flout this word (as though they needed to compensate for something).
The official Mormon website states that their group derives its name from their prophet Joseph Smith’s command: “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Here we see that Mormonism clearly adopts the exclusivist perspective, which is somewhat at odds with their adamant claim to be Christians. The very first question in their website’s Q&A on Mormonism is the following:
Q: Are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christians?
A: Yes! We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, and we strive to follow Him. Like many Christian denominations, the specifics of our beliefs vary somewhat from those of our neighbors. But we are devoted followers of Christ and His teachings. The unique and beautiful parts of our theology help to deepen our understanding of Jesus and His gospel.
If Mormons are truly Christians and one of “many Christian denominations,” they cannot logically claim to be the one true church of the latter days (as implied in their official name). On the other hand, if there really is something unique about the Mormon “church,” they cannot thereby claim to be ordinary “Christians.”
Seventh-day Adventism
The Adventist organization far surpasses either the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons in its embrace of the terms “church” and “Christian.” Even beyond this, Adventists call themselves “Protestants,” something neither of the other two groups have ever claimed to be. On their website, they describe themselves as “a worldwide Christian protestant [sic] denomination with over 20 million members.” (It should also be noted, however, that Adventists do not call or identify themselves as “evangelicals.” This is surely significant.)
Their 12th belief (among the official 28 Fundamental Beliefs) which explains their understanding of the Church is worded so cleverly that virtually no evangelical could recognize that anything was amiss. Yet what Adventism understands (and means by) their 12th belief fundamentally depends on their understanding of the 13th belief, that of the remnant. It is instructive to quote their statement in full:
“The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness.”
Notice the first vital definition: the “universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.” This entire claim, straightforward and simple as it is, is completely undone by the rest of the statement, which speaks of a “remnant” that has been “called out.” One could think of innumerable questions that come to mind:
- Did the committee tasked with writing the 28 Fundamental Beliefs realize that they were describing Seventh-day Adventism as a group that is “called out” from the universal church “composed of all who truly believe in Christ”?
- When one is called out from the universal believing church, does one still belong to the church?
- Does this remnant form a new, separate church?
- Is there something left for this remnant to do besides “truly believe in Christ”?
- Is truly believing in Christ enough?
- If this remnant “proclaims salvation through Christ,” what proclamation does the universal church make? What kind of salvation does the remnant proclaim?
- Which Christ does the universal church proclaim and which Christ does the remnant proclaim?
- When the statement speaks of “every believer” being “called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness,” which group is it referring to?
- If “every believer” refers to the remnant, in what sense can those in the universal church be said to “truly believe in Christ”?
- If “every believer” refers to the universal church, what need is there for an additional message to proclaim to the world?
One can already see from this limited set of questions that Seventh-day Adventism, along with its fellow Restorationist religions, is fundamentally mired in unresolvable contradictions about its identity and claims to being part of the church and a true Christian movement.
Biblical identities
The only person who can rightly claim the title “Christian” is a man or woman who has embraced Jesus Christ by faith, understanding Him to be the eternal Son of God, conceived of a virgin, truly God and truly man. He or she has believed in the gospel, which is the good news that the Son of God died for our sins according to the Scriptures, suffering the penalty due to us. He rose to life on the third day and grants eternal life to all who trust in him.
The author Luke informs us in Acts 11:26 that “in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” They were the earliest among a long line of believers stretching across time and space who stand on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, with Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). They have eternal life and stand firm in their identity as followers of the Lord Jesus, despite the world’s continued misunderstanding: “If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Peter 4:16). †
- Seventh-day Adventism: Neither Christian, Nor a Church - August 14, 2025
- Battle Creek and Nicea - June 12, 2025
- What’s In a Name? Finding the Real Jesus! - April 10, 2025
Excellent article. As Kaspars pointed out, common to Mormons, JWs and SDAs is the deceptive practice found in all cults: undefined terminology. A language barrier. The biblical Jesus–our Great God and Creator of the entire universe–is not the Jesus of Mormonism or JWs. In dialog with such people, Christians need to be aware that they can use the same words as the cultists, but the meaning behind the word can be totally different. In the case of SDAs, I wonder have they seriously given much thought to who Jesus is, as they have to what they think the church is? (2 Cor. 11:4).