http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/McClish/Henry/WardenJr/1938/THE-LORDS-CHURCH-AND-THE-RELIGIONS-OF-MEN.html
THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LORD’S CHURCH
AND THE RELIGIONS OF MEN
By Dub McClish
Introduction
Let us
begin by defining some of the terms in the title:
* The Lord’s church: By the Lord,
I refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, Whom God the Father acknowledged as His beloved
Son, in whom He is well pleased
(Mat. 3:17; 17:5).
By church, I refer to that which the Lord promised
He would build, founded upon the bedrock fact that He was “the Christ, the Son
of the living God” (Mat. 16:16–18). In the immediate context, He identified
this church He would build as “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 19)
* The religions of men: This phrase
acknowledges the obvious and indisputable fact that men have invented, established,
and nourished various religious institutions. From ancient times, men—in their ignorance and superstition—have “sought
out many inventions” in religion (Ecc. 7:29), producing a profusion of
“homemade” religions. This plenitude includes not only the many pagan
religions, which venerate their invented gods, but also embraces thousands of
distinct religious bodies that claim at least some relationship to the Christ.
In common parlance, they are what we know as “denominations.” They view the
church set forth in the New Testament as an invisible body of which all of the
denominations are a part. Our study will mostly concentrate on these man-made
religious bodies.
* The difference
between:
By this phrase the title affirms that the New Testament church and the
religions of men—whether pagan or denominational—are distinct and different in
fundamental ways. Moreover, it is possible
for persons of normal intelligence to perceive this distinction. Further, not only is it possible
to know the difference in these matters, it is mandatory for men to
make this distinction if they would be saved at last.
Depending
upon which Internet source one consults, he will find various figures for the
number of distinct denominations in existence (e.g., 34,000, 38,000, 40,000).
Space limitations obviously prevent notice of detailed differences between even
a few of these religious bodies and the church the Lord built and owns. We must
therefore deal with some broad principles that demonstrate this distinction.
The failure to recognize the essentiality of these principles is at the basis
of the very concept of denominationalism, whatever the specific brand. The
minute peculiarities of the various denominations (including some that falsely
wear the designation, Church of Christ) are but symptoms of this
failure.
It is
not in the purview of this article to set out the case for the fact that Jesus
did build the church as He promised or the how and when of its beginning. I
assume that the reader is sufficiently conversant with the Word of God to know this history.
Further, it is not in the scope
of this discussion to set forth the case that the Lord and His apostles
intended for the church as he established and propagated it through the Gospel
to remain through the ages as it existed in its beginning. Suffice it to say
that every exhortation to abide in the Truth and every warning against
departing from it (of which the New Testament contains hundreds, either in
explicit or implicit terms) is intended to keep the church uniform from its
beginning “unto the end of the world” (Mat.
28:20).
The
following principles distinguished the church in the first century from the
religions then extant, consisting of Judaism and the paganism of Greece, Rome,
Egypt, and other nations. These principles will maintain the church’s purity.
As soon as men abandon any of these principles they will cease to be the New
Testament church. These same principles continue now and will continue to draw
the differential line between the church of the Lord and all its counterfeits.
Respects the Absolute Authority of Jesus
Christ
When
the apostle Thomas exclaimed to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), he
employed the authoritative term, Lord, found almost 250 times in the New
Testament in reference to the Christ. In each usage it is laden with the
authority of a ruler, a master—one who is to be obeyed without question.
Jesus
performed His “mighty works and wonders and signs” (Acts 2:22) not primarily to
relieve human misery. John assigns the principal reason for writing his record
of some of Jesus’ miraculous acts that were witnessed by and affected thousands
of people: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the
disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may
have life in his name” (John 20:30–31). If merely the record of Jesus’
miracles was for the purpose of creating faith in His Divine Sonship (and, by
implication, in His authority), then surely the very miracles themselves had
the same primary purpose.
Immediately
before His ascension, Jesus claimed that His Father had given Him “all
authority…in heaven and on earth” (Mat. 28:18).
A
millennium before Jesus’ birth, David prophesied: “Jehovah saith unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psa.
110:1). On Pentecost, after quoting David’s prophecy, Peter applied its
fulfillment to the Christ: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know
assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom
ye crucified” (Acts 2:36, emph. DM). Jesus’ ascension to glory and limitless
dominion also fulfilled the prophetic vision Daniel saw five centuries before
the fact:
I saw
in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one
like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they
brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13–14).
In his
remarkable “resurrection chapter,” Paul stated: “For he [the Christ] must
reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy is death” (1
Cor. 15:25–26). When He ascended on High, He presented to the Father His
Calvary blood through which He “made purification of sins,” whereupon He “sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). He thereby became
“The blessed and only Potentate the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim.
6:15).
While
His authority is universal, it particularly applies to His church. Paul wrote
of the incomparable power God gave His Son “...when he raised him from the dead, and
made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule,
and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only
in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in
subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the
church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph.
1:20–23).
As its
builder and owner (He purchased it with the awful price of His blood [Acts
20:28]), He has absolute authority over the church. Since His ascension and
heavenly enthronement, He has reigned over His kingdom, which, as earlier
noted, is a figure for His church (Mat. 16:18–19; Heb. 12:23, 28; et al.). This
authority means that Jesus, the Christ, alone has the right to determine every
feature and facet of the church.
Recognition
of and reverence for Jesus’ absolute authority is patently absent in the
religions of men, including the denominations that are filled with professed
believers in Him. They will all give lip service to this authority, but when
their unauthorized practices and false doctrines are challenged, they will
revert to their threadbare slogans: “Doctrine doesn’t matter,” “We can’t all
agree,” “All of the churches get their doctrines from the Bible,” “We’re all
going to Heaven; we’re just taking different roads,” or the real clincher, “It
makes no difference what one believes as long as he’s sincere” (a precursor to
postmodernism). All such banalities are but advertisements of failure to bow in
submission to the Lord they profess to believe in and serve. That same Lord
they confess, but refuse to obey, made the fate of all mere “verbal disciples”
unmistakably clear: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in
heaven” (Mat 7:21). On another occasion, He asked the piercing question: “And
why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).
Failure
to honor or rebellion against the authority of the Christ is the fundamental
difference between the Lord’s faithful church and every other religious body,
including apostate “Churches of Christ.” It is for lack of this crucial
commitment to the authority of the Christ that men go astray into their endless
varieties of religion. This fact is no less true of errant brethren who have
led hundreds of congregations into quasi-, if not full, denominational status.
Some of them have strayed through outright rebellion, though others, while
apparently desiring to submit to the authority of Christ, are totally clueless
concerning the way to ascertain scriptural authority for any given practice.
All such have abandoned the apostolic precept that will keep the Lord’s church
just that—the Lord’s church: “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all
in the name [i.e., by they authority, DM] of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to
God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17).
Recognizes that the Christ Exercises His Authority Only
Through the New Testament
Those
who truly honor the absolute authority of Jesus Christ understand that he
exercises this authority through His inspired Word, and though no other medium.
The Lord’s church has continued to exist since its inception only because godly
men and women have sought New Testament authority for all that they do—and from
no additional source. This fact explains why they—and no others—are the Lord’s
church. When the Lord referred to those who refused to do “the things which I
say” (Luke 6:46), He indicated that He exercises His authority through the
words He spoke while on earth.
The
Father decreed that the authority of His Son should be exercised through His words, when at the Transfiguration scene
He thundered from Heaven, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased;
hear ye him” (Mat. 17:5b). The Hebrews writer declared that God’s Son is His spokesman
for all remaining time: “God,
having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in
divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son…” (Heb. 1:1).
While
both the Old Testament and the New Testament are God’s inspired revelation, the
authority of the Old Testament ceased with the death of Christ, whereupon He
symbolically “nailed” it to His cross (Col. 2:14). Those who try to combine
parts of the Old Testament with the New Testament produce man-made churches.
God no more gave the law of Moses to govern men since the cross than He
gave the law of Christ to govern men before the cross.
Our
Lord returned to His Father two millennia ago, so we shall never hear the
powerful and gracious words as they fell from His human lips. However, in God’s
perfect providence, He arranged for a written record of those very words to be preserved. On the matchless authority of Jesus,
those words—collectively called “the gospel”—are to be proclaimed “even unto
the end of the world” (Mat. 28:18–20; Mark 16:15–16). The stress on the
authority of His Word is unmistakable when He says, “If ye love me, ye will
keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and “He that loveth me not keepeth not my
words (v. 24a). His words will be the standard of Judgment at last for all
those who have lived since the cross: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge
him in the last day” (John 12:48).
Jesus
also exercises His authority through the words of other selected and qualified
men, principally His apostles. To these men He promised that, upon His return
to the Father, He would send to them the Holy Spirit Who would “guide you into
all the Truth” (John 16:13).
Through
these men and a very few other first-century saints the Lord revealed the
fullness of His will. These men first “spake from God, being moved by
the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21, emph. DM), then wrote the revealed Word
that comprises the New Testament. That which Paul wrote is therefore as
authoritative as the words that our Lord spoke, for the Lord is speaking
through him. Paul reminded the Corinthians: “If any man thinketh himself to be
a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write
unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). So it is
with all of the New Testament writers—their words are the will of the Christ, through
which He exercises His authority.
The
exertion of His authority through the New Testament alone excludes all extra-
Biblical sources. The revelation of His will was completed when John laid down
his pen on Patmos. The Holy Spirit has not revealed any additional Truth since.
All of the denominations that claim affinity with Christ claim to honor the
Bible. However, they all accept other authorities in addition to the Bible. It
is these additional authorities that make them distinct denominations, built by
men, rather than by the Savior of men. The following few examples illustrate
the way varied sources of authority produce the thousands of varied religious
bodies:
* The Roman
Catholic Church relies upon the “traditions of the fathers”
plus the “ex cathedra”
rulings of the councils and popes.
* The Church
of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints has its Book
of Mormon (which it claims is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”), Pearl
of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, plus its President and apostles.
* The United Methodist Church
has its Book of Discipline, plus its annual
conferences.
* The Presbyterian
Church USA has
its Constitution (containing ten historical creedal statements, the
backbone of which is the 1647 Scottish Westminster Confession of Faith) plus its annual synods.
* Baptist Churches
have their
Baptist Standard Manual, by Edward Thurston
Hiscox, plus their annual conventions.
Every
attempt to make the Lord share some of His absolute authority—executed solely
through the New Testament—with any other authority source will invariably
result in a church of a man or men rather than the church of Christ. Herein
lies a principal difference between the Lord’s church and all the religious
orders of men.
Recognizes that Obedience to the New
Testament Plan of Salvation Is the Only Means of Becoming a Member of the
Lord’s Church
Inspiration
inseparably intertwines salvation and the church Jesus built. He began adding
those who are saved to His church on Pentecost and has not ceased doing so “day
by day” (Acts 2:47). His church is His “depository” of saved people. He will
save “the body” (Eph. 5:23), which is His church (1:22-23). At His coming, He
will “deliver the kingdom [His church, DM] up to God” (1 Cor. 15:24; cf. Mat.
16:18–19; Heb. 12:23, 28). Men are redeemed/forgiven of sins/saved by the blood
of Christ (Eph. 1:7), which explains Paul’s declaration that the Lord
“purchased” the church with His blood (Acts 20:28). If Christ will save only
His church and if He adds one to His church
only at the point at which one is saved—forgiven of his sins by the blood
of Christ—then the most profound and far-reaching question of all time is,
“What must I do to be saved?”
Directly
contradicting the foregoing Scriptural evidence is a fundamental misconception
held by most, if not all, Protestant denominations: Salvation and church
membership are entirely separate matters, realized at separate times and upon
separate actions. One is saved at point “A”; he becomes a member of a church—if
he chooses to do so—at point “B.” The Roman Catholic and Mormon Churches (and
perhaps others) correctly teach that salvation and church membership are
inseparable, however they both corrupt this Scriptural Truth by their numerous
and egregious errors concerning both the church and the plan of salvation.
Now,
back to that day when those first saved ones were added to the church: What did
those sinners do so that Luke, the inspired historian, might call them “saved”?
Having learned this, we shall at the same moment learn the means of their
becoming members of the Lord’s church. We shall also at once learn what men
must do—from that time forward—to be saved and to be added to the church, for
that same Pentecost gospel is to be preached and practiced “unto the end of the
world” (Mat. 28:20). The Lord’s “day-by-day” adding will not cease until time
is no more (Acts 2:41, 47).
The
thrust of the first part of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost was aimed at convincing
unbelieving Jews (many of whom had cried for Jesus crucifixion fifty days
earlier) that “God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye
crucified” (Acts 2:36). The powerful application of prophecy and eye-witness
testimony stirred heartfelt conviction in some, causing them to interrupt Peter
with the question, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (This is obviously an
elliptical statement, which, if fully stated, would have been, “What shall we
do to be forgiven of this heinous sin?”) Their question was tantamount to a
confession of their faith in the One Peter had set before them as “both Lord
and Christ” (infidels do not ask what they should do to be saved).
Peter’s
inspired answer is crucial, completing Heaven’s universal, age-enduring plan
whereby alien sinners may be forgiven, redeemed, and saved: “Repent ye, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of
yours sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). He continued
preaching and exhorting “with many other words” (v. 40), at the conclusion of
which, “They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added
unto them in that day about three thousand souls” (v. 41). Luke then states
that “the Lord added to them [“the church,” KJV] day by day those that were
saved” (v. 47). Let us analyze and summarize:
1.
Peter commanded
confessing believers to repent (i.e.,
turn in mind and deed) of their sins.
2.
Peter told confessing, penitent
believers to be baptized (i.e.,
immersed in water).
3. Peter explicitly
stated the end of their baptism: “unto the remission of your sins”—he obviously thought it necessary
for them to understand its purpose, as we also
must.
4.
Peter issued
these commands, not upon his own authority, but “in the name [i.e.,
by the authority, DM] of Jesus Christ” (cf. Mat. 28:18–20;
Mark 16:15–16; Luke 24:47).
5. Those who have
receptive hearts to Scriptural teaching do not argue the necessity of baptism; those who argue the necessity
of baptism do not have receptive hearts
(Acts 2:41).
6.
Remission of sins is interchangeable with salvation; when Peter told them the way to receive
remission of sins, he told them the way to be
saved.
7.
When
the 3,000 obeyed the commands of Christ, including baptism, they were thereby saved by the sin-sacrifice of blood He
shed on Calvary and offered in the heavenly Holy of Holies (Acts 22:16; Rev.
1:5; 7:14; Heb. 1:3; 9:12–14).
8. When the Lord saved
them, He simultaneously added them to His church (vv. 41, 47), and He
will continue to do so until He returns to take His faithful ones home.
Standing
in stark contrast with the foregoing information are the answers that men in
their man-made churches have been giving to this question for centuries. Common
answers include such things as “Pray the sinner’s prayer,” “Invite Jesus into
your heart,” and “If you believe in Jesus, He will save you.”
With
few exceptions, Protestantism subscribes to Martin Luther’s sixteenth-century sola
fide (solely by faith) dictum: One is saved by faith alone—at the time he
intellectually accepts the truth that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. This
dogma rules out any human “works” or actions whatsoever (with the necessity of
baptism as its specific target). The sinner, thus pronounced “saved,”
may or may not be admitted for church membership upon profession of his
faith, depending on the denomination.
This faith-only/no-works
doctrine not only contradicts Scripture; it is also self- contradictory.
How shall others know one believes in Christ without the “work” of confessing
“with the mouth,” which is an entirely separate operation (“work”) from
believing “with the heart” (Rom. 10:9–10)? For that matter, Jesus said that
belief in Him is “the work of [i.e., ordained by, DM] God” (John
6:28–29). If salvation is apart from any and all human activity, faith itself
is thereby eliminated.
Ironically,
the denominations separate salvation from church membership, which is correct
with regard to all of their churches. One who obeys the Lord’s plan of
salvation will never be in a denomination unless he joins one through apostasy.
Since God and His Son had no part in building the institutions of men, there is
no salvation in any of them. Jesus left no doubt about it: “Every plant which
my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up” (Mat. 15:13).
Simply
put, one cannot be saved without being a member of the church of Christ, and
one cannot be a member of the church of Christ without being saved. The only
means of being saved is by obedience to the plan of salvation first heralded in
Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, which all of the denominations despise and disallow.
Thus not only may men be members of the church of Christ to be saved at
last, they must be, for membership in the Lord’s church and those
who are saved are simply two ways of describing one outcome: the company of
those who have been reconciled to God through His Son. Herein lies a clear
distinction between the church Jesus built and all of the religions and
churches men have founded. Woe be unto the person who would dare blur this
distinction, as so many, even among those claiming to be the Lord’s people,
have done and are doing.
Recognizes that the Lord’s Church
Possesses Unique Characteristics by Which It May Be Identified
Every
religion or denomination of men has its peculiar characteristics that make it
distinct and distinguishable from all others. These include such things as
their organizational structures, worship practices, and membership requirements.
One of the most of obvious of these is the name a group chooses, which may
relate to a founder (Lutheran), a practice (Baptist), a type of polity
(Presbyterian, Episcopal), an event (Pentecostal), a place (Church of England),
or others.
What is
true regarding these traits of identity for the institutions of men is no less
true of the church Jesus built. It is utter folly to deny this premise. In the
face of liberals who have expressed remorse that they ever emphasized these
marks, I stress the necessity of never ceasing to do so. Only by recognizing
what they are can one distinguish the Divine institution from the plethora of
human counterfeits. This distinction is the very thing the liberals despise,
for it hinders their goal of carrying the church into the fullness of the
denominational maelstrom.
They
neither believe in the necessity nor the possibility of maintaining the church
in its primitive purity.
One can
as well identify and locate a stolen car without knowing such things as its make,
color, body style, model year, and license number as to identify and find the
church of Christ without knowing its unique characteristics. The New Testament
writers reveal these in the Acts and the epistles that follow.
Our
Lord “built” His church according to His own infallible plan, which flowed from
the “eternal purpose” of Deity (Eph. 3:10–11; cf. John 18:36)). God gave Moses
a blueprint for the tabernacle in the wilderness, strictly enjoining him to
“make all things according to the pattern” (Exo. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5).
Just so, the Lord, through the Holy Spirit, gave His apostles His pattern for
the greater institution (Heb. 8:6), His church, to which they faithfully
adhered.
By
studying the direct statements, accounts of action, and implications of the New
Testament writers, we can know these marks of distinction. Through the
providentially preserved written records of these inspired men we learn the way
people enter the church (per our prior discussion of the plan of salvation). We
also learn of its organizational structure, its worship activities, the way it
finances its work, and the designations used in reference to it.
The
church exists in both a universal and in a local sense, as determined by
context. All of the churches of Christ in various localities all over the world compose
the “universal” church. The Lord thus referred to the
universal church in His promise to build it (Mat. 16:18). The Bible frequently
mentions local churches (e.g., Jerusalem [Acts 11:22], Antioch [v. 26], Ephesus [20:17],
Corinth [1 Cor. 1:2], et al.). At times we read of the churches
in a geographical area (e.g.,
“the churches of Galatia” [1 Cor. 16:1; Gal. 1:2]; “the churches of Asia” [1
Cor. 16:19; Rev. 1:4]; et al.).
Scripture
reveals no church polity relating to the church universal, such as would
provide for a superstructure of universal headquarters, officers, or
assemblies. Rather, all “government/structure/organization” is at the
local-church level. Each church has its own plurality of elders/bishops/pastors
when men therein meet the Holy Spirit’s qualifications.
These
men are charged to rule and lead the church so that it remains faithful to its
Head (Acts 14:21–23; 20:28; Phi. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; 5:17; Tit. 1:5–9; Heb.
13:17). No local
eldership or church
has any authority over any other eldership or church. To assist the elders and
serve the church, each church appoints deacons, who must also meet Scriptural
qualifications (Phi. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8–13).
1. The church’s
specified day of assembly is the first day of the week, the day the Lord arose from the dead (John 20:1; Acts
20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; Heb. 10:25).
2.
The
Lord’s day assembly is characterized by specified and/or exemplified worship
activities, including eating the Lord’s supper (unleavened bread and fruit of
the vine) as a memorial to the slain body and shed blood of Jesus for our
sin-offering (Mat. 26:26–28; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17–34). Worship also includes
praying to the Father in Jesus’ name and singing hymns of worship and exhortation (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19–20; Col.
3:16). In these assemblies a free will offering, according to one’s income, is
collected to finance the work of each local congregation (1 Cor. 16:1–2), and a
man, so appointed and prepared, delivers a message from God’s Word (Acts 20:7).
3.
The
church of Christ has only one way to acquire the funds necessary to execute the
will of its Founder. Paul set forth this means in his apostolic order to the
Corinthians: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to
the churches of Galatia, so also do
ye. Upon the first [on every first, Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible]
day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper,
that no collections be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1–2). We note that this
command is not limited merely to Corinth, but it had already been delivered to
the Galatian churches. The universality of this practice (and those previously
noted) is certified by Paul’s earlier statements to the Corinthians, reminding
them that he delivered the same doctrine “everywhere in every church” (1 Cor.
4:17; cf. 7:17; 14:33). We note also that such collections are never solicited
from any but members of the churches.
The New
Testament does not specify an exclusive “name” for the church. The most frequent tern used in reference to the church
is just that: “the church,”
for there was only one. No one in the first century asked “Which
church?”—made necessary only by the emergence of the babel of denominationalism
Since
the Christ built His church, it follows that the church of Christ would
serve as a Scriptural and logical description of and designation for it.
However, Paul’s statement to the Romans, “All the churches of Christ salute
you,” takes us beyond implication (Rom. 16:16b). “Churches of
Christ” cannot exist apart from the individual “church of Christ” in various
locations. Other designations in Scripture include “the church of God” (1 Cor.
1:2; et al.) and “the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). These are
likewise warranted because the Father and the Son are one (John 17:9–10). All
of these terms are therefore authorized to designate the church.
However,
to avoid confusing the Lord’s church with denominations that have chosen such
names as “the Church of God,” “the Churches of God,” and “the Church of the
Living God,” expediency dictates consistent use of churches of Christ in
reference to the Lord’s church. Please observe that merely affixing a
Scriptural designation to a religious body (e.g., Church of God or Church
of Christ) does not thereby imply that it is a Scriptural body. One may put
lipstick on a pig, but it remains no less a pig.
Men,
not content to submit to the authority of Christ, have altered and adulterated
His church in every one of its identifying characteristics. Their very concept
of the church is a disgrace. As earlier noted, to them, “the church of Christ”
is the “invisible church” that encompasses the thousands of bodies professing
belief in Christ in any degree, regardless of variegation. They have invented
acts and implements of worship in a thousand ways. They have substituted
ecclesiastical hierarchies and headquarters for the Savior’s simple blueprint.
The churches of men are often little more than business enterprises, raising
revenues by whatever means works
(raffles, parking lot sales, fairs,
merchandise sales, solicitation from non- members,
et al.). The variety of names that human religious orders have had to invent to
distance themselves from all others is nothing short of amazing.
The
unique marks of identity for the church, discernable in the New Testament, set
it apart from all of the innovations of men. If these peculiar characteristics,
set forth and practiced under apostolic tutelage, are unimportant, why did
Divine Providence preserve the record of them? If these details concerning the
identity of the church are unimportant, why is the church itself important at
all?
Recognizes that the Foremost Task of
the Church Is Spiritual in Nature
The
church Jesus built and died for is a spiritual institution. He so stated
explicitly to Pontius Pilate: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:
if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should
not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John
18:36). Jesus did not establish a political, philosophical, commercial,
recreational, benevolent, entertainment, or social institution, but a spiritual
one. The work of any institution proceeds from its nature, that is, the “kind”
of institution it is. All this, if we had nothing more, tells us that the work
of the church pertains to spiritual matters and aims.
Jesus
had one all-consuming passion and work to accomplish in coming to our earth—
“For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).
These words are but a rewording of “the Bible in miniature” we so well know:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Paul
understood fully the work His Lord came to accomplish: “Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). All of His work had this singularly
spiritual aim.
Some
might ask, “But what about all His works of compassion to relieve suffering?”
None other ever possessed so much compassion for human woes as our Lord had.
While He relieved untold physical and emotional misery through His miracles,
signs, and wonders, these ills did not compel His earthly sojourn; they might
even be termed “incidental” to His real work. He had been doing these
merciful acts (including raising the dead) for centuries through some of the
prophets. He could have continued doing such through His apostles and other New
Testament saints without setting foot on earth. No, He came to accomplish a
spiritual work beyond the ability of man nor angel.
His
wonders and signs had a far deeper and more far-reaching end than relief of
physical suffering, as welcome as that was to its recipients. John states it
plainly (as noted near the beginning of this article): “Many other signs
therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in
this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name”
(John 20:30–31; emph. DM). I re-emphasize: If the purpose of John’s record of
Jesus’ signs was in order to prove His Sonship, how much more must this have
been the purpose of the signs themselves? Thus His marvelous miraculous
displays were principally aimed at proving that He was Who He claimed to be and
that He could therefore do what He promised He could/would do. Jesus came to relieve
all mankind of the worst
malady and handicap
of all—sin, with all of its terrible consequences in this life and its unutterable consequence in eternity. This stated purpose of His miraculous
activity further underscores the fact that Jesus’ work was spiritual in nature.
Further,
ought not the work of His spiritual body coincide with the work of His physical
body? We should not then be surprised that the principal work Jesus gave His
church to do is to save the lost, or at least make available to them that which
will save. Through His thrice-stated charge to the apostles, He set forth the
work of His church:
Go ye
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto
the end of the world (Mat. 28:19–20).
And he
said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole
creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
disbelieveth shall be condemned (Mark 16:15–16).
And he
said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise
again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem
(Luke 24:46–47).
Significantly,
as earlier emphasized, in Matthew’s account of the Master’s commission He
extended its terms beyond the apostles’ generation, “even unto the end of the
world” (28:20). As long as the world stands and as long as the church exists
among men, just so long will the work of the church be to do its utmost to save
sinful men by declaring to them the gospel, “the power of God unto salvation”
(Rom. 1:16). Paul fully understood this was to be the perpetual, all- consuming
task of the church. With his Roman execution in sight, he instructed Timothy:
“And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same
commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim.
2:2).
None of
the foregoing is to deny that the church of the Lord has the responsibility to
compassionately help the helpless as she has opportunity and ability. The
numerous New Testament examples of and injunctions concerning the kindness and
benevolence that should characterize churches of Christ are summed up in Paul’s
words to the Galatian churches: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us work
that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the
household of the faith” (Gal. 6:10). Even such acts of benevolence, especially
extended to the unredeemed, should have a spiritual motive behind them, as
expressed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “Even so let your light shine
before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is
in heaven” (Mat. 5:10).
Nor
does the principal work of the church disavow its need to strengthen and edify
itself. What Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church he doubtless taught the
other churches as he circulated among them: “Wherefore exhort one another, and
build each other up, even as also ye do” (1 The. 5:11). We know that he did so
admonish the church in Rome: “So then let us follow after things which make for
peace, and things whereby we may edify one another” (Rom. 14:19). Again, the
edification is not from selfish motivation, but that we might “be able to teach
others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
When
one observes the chief work and emphasis of the denominations generally, the
contrast with the Lord’s mandate for His church is staggering. The reasons for
the existence of many of them spring from their adoption of the humanistic
“social gospel” that centers chiefly on man’s life in time far more than in
eternity, on the body rather than the soul. Some churches have become little
more than fronts for left-wing political causes. Some are outspoken defenders
of sodomy and abortion. Their ideas of “church work” are such things as
operating soup kitchens and hospitals. The Bible to them is little more than a
religious relic to display on the altars of their “sanctuaries.”
Even
those denominations that are generally more zealous, evangelistic, and “soul-
conscious” do their work in vain, for they refuse to tell sinners the way to be
saved. Jesus’ description of the scribes and Pharisees well fits them: “Ye
compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make
him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves” (Mat. 23:15).
We
cannot help but observe that over the past few decades hundreds of local
churches of Christ have veered to one degree or another from the work the Lord
assigned to them.
Symptoms
include spending vast sums to build gymnasiums, initiating programs and
“ministries” (and hiring “ministers”) to meet every “felt need,” and offering
classes in such subjects as weight loss, improving nutrition, how to “ask
someone out,” meal planning, clothes shopping on a budget, and on and on the
list goes.
If the
Lord’s church fails to make preaching the saving gospel to a lost world its
priority, it will not be preached, and (for the extant generation) the
pre-incarnate Word may as well have stayed in Heaven. Obviously, the
denominations will not do so, for they do not know what the gospel is. May His
faithful churches redouble their efforts to “go…into all the world and preach
the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). The primacy of this work of
getting the unadulterated gospel into the world to the extent of each church’s
abilities and opportunities represents a major contrast between the church of
the Lord and all of the religious institutions men have originated.
Conclusion
In an
age when “do your own thing” and “have it your way” in religion are running
amok, it is impossible to overemphasize the necessity of seeing the beautiful
simplicity of the church as Jesus built it. Once one catches the picture of the
original, he will see just as clearly the striking contrast between the New
Testament institution and the utter shambles men have made in their
sacrilegious attempts to improve upon it. He will also understand that neither
he (nor anyone else who has lived since the cross) can be saved apart from it. One
cannot remain faithful to the Christ apart from understanding these fundamental
differences between the Lord’s church and the religions of men.
[Note:
I wrote this MS for and presented an oral digest of it at the Contending
for the Faith Lectureship, conducted by the Spring Church of Christ, Spring,
Texas, February 19–23, 2014. It was published in the book of the lectures, What
Must a Christian Do To Remain Faithful to Christ? ed. David P. Brown
(Contending for the Faith: Spring, TX)].
