|
"...Shepherd the flock of God which is among
you, serving as overseers..." (1 Peter 5:2)
Elders
Morris Bass, Rick Holt , Joe
Price |
"...let them serve as deacons,
being found blameless..." (1 Tim. 3:10)
Deacons
Aaron Bass, Rich Brooks, Mike Finn
John Hague, Dan Head |
"And take...the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17)
In this issue:
Church Succession Makes
Right?
Liberal or
Conservative?
The Only Thing Worse
Than... (Larry Ray Hafley)
Church Succession Makes Right?
Joe R. Price
Some allege
the “church of Christ” did not exist through the dark ages and as a result,
is illegitimate. Is church succession necessary to prove Biblical
legitimacy?
This
assertion certainly reveals a sectarian view of the Lord's church, and
indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the church and its authority
that leads one to conclude the church of Christ is illegitimate unless it
can establish a historical lineage back to Jesus. This sounds strikingly
similar to the Roman Catholic view of papal succession from Peter for its
papacy.
Our
authority for organization, doctrine and practice is established in Christ
and conveyed through His word of truth (Matt. 28:18; Acts 4:12; Col. 3:17; 2
Jno. 9; Gal. 1:6-9; et al.). The planting of the seed (the word of God or
“word of the kingdom,” Matt. 13:19) into good and honest hearts will always
produce the same fruit (Lk. 8:11-15; 1 Pet. 1:22-25; Jas. 1:21-25). The
prophetic kingdom described by the prophet Daniel, established on Pentecost
in Acts 2, “shall never be destroyed” but “shall stand forever” (Dan. 2:44).
Either we believe it or we don’t.
The “word of
the kingdom” that produced kingdom citizens in the first century will
produce the same fruit in the twenty-first century – not because of historic
succession of the church, but because the word of God saves souls the same
way today as it did then. We are not compelled to provide uninterrupted
historical progression of churches from the present back to Acts 2 in order
to validate divine approval of the church of Christ. God’s word is
incorruptible, and its call to enter the kingdom has been continuously
available to sinners since the gospel was first preached by the apostles
(Matt. 16:18-19; Mk. 16:15-16; Col. 1:13). What we are compelled to do is
show divine approval from the inspired Scriptures for what we teach and
practice – and so is everyone else who claims divine approval. Those who
demand uninterrupted progression of the church as proof of legitimacy must
show similar proof for their legitimacy. If they cannot produce it for
themselves, why do they demand it of others? Jesus called that hypocrisy
(Matt. 23:3-4). Furthermore, even if such a succession is established it
does not prove God’s endorsement.
When the
Spirit expressly said “that in latter times some will depart from the faith”
did He mean to suggest that once some fell away they (and all subsequent
generations) could never be restored to faithfulness (1 Tim. 4:1)? That is
what this demand for historical progression tacitly declares. Or, does one
who demands proof of succession reject that there was a falling away as the
Spirit expressly said there would be (see also, 2 Ths. 2:1-5)? Either way
you slice it, the notion of needing historical progression of the church of
Christ to prove its legitimacy rests on a false premise, and hence, its
conclusion is also false.
Top
Liberal or Conservative?
Joe R. Price
Earlier this week I was asked what is meant by
“liberal” and “conservative” when describing Christians and churches of
Christ. While the words “liberal” and “conservative” are not found in the
Scriptures, they do describe a mindset toward the word of God (and its
corresponding practices) that is found there.
One
definition of “liberal” is to be broad-minded; to be “tolerant of different
views and standards of behaviors in others” (Encarta Dictionary). The
liberalism we address here describes going beyond the revealed pattern of
God’s word; that is the standard of faith and practice we must follow (Matt.
7:21-23; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Jno. 9). Liberalism describes a mindset that leads to
practices that are not restricted by the standard of truth. Liberalism
accepts and tolerates teaching and practice that violates the word of God.
Nadab and
Abihu acted liberally, going beyond the word of God, when they offered
“strange fire” that the Lord had not commanded (Lev. 10:1-2). Moses acted
liberally, going beyond the word of God, by striking the rock for water when
God told him to “speak to the rock” (Num. 20:8, 11). God said Moses had
acted in unbelief (v. 12). King Saul acted liberally, rebelling against God,
when he did not kill all of the Amalekites as God commanded him (1 Sam.
15:1-3, 7-9, 20-23). When a person does not do what God tells him to do, he
sins. When a person changes what God says to do, he sins. When churches of
Christ teach and do things the gospel of Christ does not teach, they sin.
“Conservative” is defined as “reluctant to accept change, in favor of
preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against
abrupt change” (Encarta Dictionary). Here we are addressing a mindset that
leads one to abide in the pattern of the New Testament (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13).
The Lord has always called on His people to “stand in the ways and see, and
ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it” (Jer. 6:16).
But today, as in the days of Jeremiah, there are those who say, “We will not
walk in it” (Jer. 6:16).
Many
Christians have moved away from the Bible authority of what a local church
has the right to do. This departure into liberalism has shown itself in
different ways. When local churches support human organizations (like
missionary societies) from the treasury of the local church, use
instrumental music in worship, support orphan homes and other benevolent
organizations from the treasury, provide recreational and social activities
for members and arrange themselves as sponsoring churches, they show a
liberalism toward the word of God that has taken they away from the revealed
pattern of truth.
Christians
who oppose these things are sometimes referred to as “conservatives.” Some
even use the derogatory, prejudicial and uninformed term “anti” to describe
those who will not participate in these things for which there is no Bible
authority.
Today, as in
the times of the New Testament, any church of Christ that does not follow
the Bible pattern for its organization, its worship or its work, is showing
a liberal attitude toward the word of God.
One way to
understand the difference between a conservative and a liberal approach to
the Bible has to do with the silence of the Scriptures. A conservative
viewpoint says that when the Bible is silent (when it does not speak on a
subject) we do not have the right to act. That is, silence restrains, it
does not give consent. For example, we cannot say, “Because the Bible
doesn't say ‘not to’ use instrumental music in our worship, therefore we can
use instruments.” No, the Bible tells us what God wants – singing - so, in
the absence of God’s word mandating it, instrumental music is not approved.
We cannot add playing to singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Gal. 1:8-9).
A liberal
viewpoint says that when the Bible is silent we are left to do what seems
best to us (for example, play instruments as well as sing songs in worship).
But the Bible says “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is
the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). We cannot go beyond what is written and
please God (1 Cor. 4:6).
Here are
some examples to help tell the difference between liberal and conservative
churches of Christ:
1) The New
Testament teaches the work of a local church is to preach the gospel (1 Ths.
1:8), edify its members in the faith (Acts 11:26), and relieve the needs of
saints (Acts 4:34-35). We cannot add new works to this Bible pattern of the
work of the local church -- like medical missions, language schools or
orphan homes -- without adding to God’s word. Churches of Christ that do so
are acting liberally by going beyond the word of God. Churches of Christ
that do the work revealed in the Scriptures without adding to or taking away
from the New Testament pattern are acting conservatively toward the work of
the local church.
2) One
church may not become a “sponsoring church” that solicits and receives money
from other churches to fund its own work. The New Testament pattern for the
organization of the local church is that each church is independent and
autonomous, with oversight being limited to each local church by its own
elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-2). They did not assume work beyond
their means and then solicit other churches to help them do their work.
Churches of Christ that use the sponsoring church arrangement are acting
liberally in the matter. They have gone beyond the word of God. Churches of
Christ that maintain their independence and autonomy as it is revealed in
the Scriptures, without added to it or taking away from it, are acting
conservatively toward the organization of the church.
3) In the
New Testament, churches sent financial support directly to the preacher they
supported (Phil. 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8). They did not send money to a church
that in turn sent that money on to the preacher; such a pattern is not found
in the Bible. Churches of Christ that send money to other churches who then
send that money to preachers are acting liberally in this arrangement. They
have gone beyond the word of God. Churches of Christ that send preacher
support directly to the preacher are following the pattern; they are acting
conservatively on how to support preachers of the gospel.
These are
just some of the examples of liberalism among churches of Christ today. All
of them have one thing in common: a wrong attitude toward and application of
Bible authority that goes beyond what the Bible says. We must respect the
silence of the Scriptures and not add to or change what has been written, (1
Cor. 4:6). Remember Nadab and Abihu, Moses and King Saul.
Are we wrong
to use “liberal” and “conservative” when discussing mindsets and conduct
among brethren? Jesus was not wrong to identify such sin and rebuke it
(Matt. 15:1-14). Neither are we.
Top
The Only Thing Worse Than...
Larry Ray Hafley
--a terrible war is a bad
peace.
--division in truth is unity in error.
--fooling a fool is to be a fool’s fool.
--flying high is living low.
--not having a Bible is having an unopened one.
--sleeping in church is being awake in sin.
--fool’s gold is a fool with gold.
--a noisy sinner is a silent saint.
--love alone is hatred with company.
--a humble sinner is a proud saint.
--sin is rejoicing in it.
--a bold infidel is a cowardly Christian.
--being in debt is thinking you do not owe anyone anything.
--immodest apparel is feeling modest in it.
--being ignorant is having a bad education."
--an open mouth is a closed mind.
--rejecting a roomer is to receive a rumor.
-Larry Ray Hafley
Guarding of Truth, XXXIX: 7 p. 15
April 6, 1995
Top
|
