The lawyer whose doctrine we examined on February 23 and March 1, 2020 in Spiritual Perspectives said he chose not to reply, but he was having someone else send me some materials. They were about what one would expect—slanted, illogical, liberal propaganda. A person can only hope these fellows will wake up and quit playing games before they face the Lord in judgment, but don’t count on it.
One of the materials was an article by Wayne Newland, a member of the church in Maine. He sent a copy of his article, “We Can and Should Remain Together,” that appeared in The Christian Chronicle in September of 2018 on page 31. Like so many other writers of his ilk, he opens up the subject by talking about the way things used to be and how they are now—with no objections to the changes. Then he poses the question we have in the title—What is a church of Christ in modern times?
That’s one of the easiest questions there is to answer. The church today is the body of Christ, just as it was in the New Testament when it was established. It is still founded by Jesus (Matt. 16:18-19), and it exists because He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). (This is already one more Scripture than appeared in Newland’s entire article.) The church is still not a sect though it has been called such even in the first century (Acts 24:5), and denominationalism remains unauthorized. Of course, no one expects Scriptures to prove anything to Newland or the Chronicle.
The Infamous Progressives
The usual slant shows up in the third paragraph where the battle seems to be between conservatives and progressives. Those who are labeled progressive are actually digressive because they do not want to abide by the Word of God. According to Newland, those in this latter group have “reexamined our traditional understandings and have adopted some new worship practices and attitudes toward other faith groups.” Translation: They have given up following what the Scriptures teach and will accept those who have never obeyed the gospel as “brethren.” What he specifically means he does not further define.
Next, Newland says that “progressives may see their ‘conservative’ brethren as short-sighted and unwilling to study.” Whoa! Undoubtedly, conservatives are seen as “short-sighted” since they cannot quite see their way to depart from the Scriptures. Just to clarify this point, “conservatives” are not opposed to genuine progress. We use computers, PowerPoint, and the Internet—all the latest forms of technology. Older members do not share the same objections as the Amish have. Even the most “conservative” brethren have tremendous websites. We object to false teaching—not innovations in communicating the Word.
However, Newland really blunders when he claims that conservatives are unwilling to study. Unwilling to study what—the wisdom of man or the holy Scriptures? He goes on to talk about our past debates. We have not changed; we remain willing to do so—if the “progressives” can find a liberal to represent them. They are the ones who don’t want discussions. Then he has the gall to say the progressives refuse to allow conservatives to hold them back. Anyone who knows “progressives” at all knew that wasn’t going to happen. How many “progressives” in the early 1900s were willing to do without the instrument—even though they had no Biblical authority for using it? Who refused to study? No, the “progressives” refused to be held back!
The Stone-Campbell American Restoration Movement
How can liberals be identified? Sooner or later they will refer to “our heritage.” What nonsense! How many Christians today ever said when baptized, “I’m becoming a member of the Stone-Campbell Movement”? No one. We never mention it because we don’t obey the gospel because of those men. We owe gratitude to them because they determined to leave denominationalism behind and return to what the New Testament teaches. Do “progressives” ever praise them for that? No. They only think they see “unity” when they look back 200 years.
They did think that division amongst professing Christians should be done away with and did deem as important what Jesus said in John 17:20-21. They believed that when the truth was known concerning what the Bible said on a subject, people would give up their religious parties and become one. And many did. But then, as today, the amazing thing is that some people have no interest in the truth—just as Newland does not (proof is forthcoming).
The reality is that truth and unity can only exist together when the latter is based on the former. On the Day of Pentecost and for a time thereafter, brethren “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). They experienced unity because false doctrines had not as yet had time to be introduced. All twelve apostles preached the same truth; therefore, the whole church was united.
Why did those in the restoration movement fail to achieve unity? Because people were more interested in retaining their sects than truth. In the past 500 years, by and large, few have committed themselves to following the New Testament. Few believe in the authority of Jesus (Matt. 28:18). And liberals (like Newland) think unity is more important than truth. They believe that fundamental teachings should be laid aside to have “unity.” Man has, on this basis, only ever achieved union, which is not what Jesus prayed for.
Divisive Tendencies
Newland opines: “Churches of Christ have inherited the divisive tendencies that developed later in the 19th century from the desire to restore detailed traits perceived in the epistles.” Whatever this gobbledygook means is not explained. But the questions can be asked, “Were there no divisive traits before this time? Why did so many divisions exist in the first place?” Those who doubt that such division exists should take a look at Frank Mead’s Handbook of Denominations. Who can explain why there are 26 different Baptist groups listed? Just about all major groups are divided. It was to try to attain unity that many were willing to give up their creeds in the first half of the 19th century. But too many could not bring themselves to do it.
So, yes, we too have had divisions. But they do not arise from “tendencies”; they exist because some have departed from the faith, just as the New Testament prophesies (1 Tim. 4:1). Either instrumental music in worship is authorized, or it is not. Perhaps the “wise” Wayne Newland can explain how those who are convinced it is not authorized can worship with those who insist on having it. This is not a tendency; it is a matter of Scriptural principle. Over time, those who became part of the Boston-Crossroads movement have proven they were not of us in that they went out from us (1 John 2:19). And though we have had frequent debates with non-institutional brethren, with few exceptions, we have not doubted their sincerity.
How We Grew
This next assertion would be hilarious except Newland probably really means it: “Our fellowship grew for more than a century, but mostly from persuading believers in denominations to accept our inferences and deductions and less from building faith in non-believers.” Really? Does anyone see this as a judgmental statement, which impugns motives and alters history? Can Newland prove that the majority of our members come from denominations? Sure, many have attended one, but they were not members. Marshall Keeble baptized thousands. Were they all from other religious groups? But if every one of them was, so what? Did they obey the gospel because they liked our inferences or because they learned what the New Testament teaches about salvation?
Many of us have made apologetics a key element in our teaching and preaching; we are not just looking for denominational folks. Of all the religious groups there are, we are one of the few emphasizing reasons for faith. Many religious groups just answer Bible questions put to them by their own people by saying, “That’s just the way we have always done it,” or, “That’s our tradition.” We are the ones who set forth why people believed Jesus in the first century and why people ought to do so today as well. We do not ask anyone to believe what we believe just because we believe it. We teach the New Testament; people can make up their own minds what is true and what is not.
Biblical Standards
Newland says we are caught in “a constant controversy as to what God requires of us, what is permissible.” Okay, so we re-evaluate what we believe. If we did not, we would be less than honest. Everyone ought to know what he believes—and why.
He adds: “When you’re sure you are right, it’s not easy to seek unity.” Hogwash! If you’re not sure you’re right, there’s nothing to be united about. We are always willing to study open-mindedly any Bible subject.
“We need to recognize our differences and live with each other or else. Or else we will fragment further, becoming merely sects or splinter groups that once were part of a vibrant, noble movement.” The soap here is so soft it is just about liquid. Did Paul just ignore differences between him and Hymenaeus and Philetus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim 2:16-18)? Did Peter characterize the men influencing some brethren as being like “natural brute beasts” (2 Peter 2:12) but fellowship them anyway? Why did John say to not fellowship those who do not have the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11)? Forget about what a few people in the American Restoration Movement said or thought; what does the
New Testament teach?
He laments the possibility that we might fragment further. It’s possible, and the more “brethren” depart from the teachings of the Bible, the more likely it is going to happen. Can we fellowship churches who accept membership from those who have never obeyed the gospel? From those living in adultery or fornication or homosexuality? From those who have no respect for 1 Timothy 2:11-14? From those teaching that the resurrection is already past?
Nearly no one desires division. Why would we not all want every other brother and sister to succeed spiritually and be saved in the end? Jesus did, also, but it did not keep Him from pointing out error and condemning the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Admittedly, your congenial editor criticizes men like the lawyer previously and Wayne Newland here, trying to show as clearly as possible the errors involved. This approach is primarily to help others not be fooled by the reasoning used in what they write. It needs to be shown as the error it is, but it is also for their benefit. At one point, both men probably knew the truth, but for various reasons they have departed from it and have become digressive.
But truth and error are not equal. Those in error can fellowship each other all day, but those who follow truth cannot enjoy such liberty. One either is or is not baptized to have his sins forgiven and those who believe the former cannot fellowship the latter. Despite not coveting division, the fact is that if we have to fragment and fragment and fragment—until only eight of us are left—then at least a few of us will enter the safety of the ark (figuratively speaking) while the rest of the world drowns. Noah chose truth over error. Unity should be everyone’s goal, but it will only occur when based on truth.