Some folks seem to be laboring under the idea that we manifest love by overlooking and tolerating error. Candid thinking, however, will reveal the absurdity of such thoughts. Error or sin, left unattended, causes spiritual death (Romans 6:23). Is it showing love for one whom we believe to be in error by refusing to tell him about it? Some who boast the loudest about their "love" for their brethren and fellowman are the last ones to muster the requisite courage to point out error. Thus, their pious mouthings of "love", brotherly or otherwise, are seen to be nothing more than hypocritical claims. True love transcends personal concern for offense or loss of friendship. True love recognizes that only the truth can make us free from the bondage of sin and prompts us to speak in spite of the circumstances. Principle #1 – Error needs to be exposed; real love accepts the challenge.
At the same time, we need to be very careful about how we approach our criticism of others. We need to be sure of the facts. Human beings are so prone to misunderstand one another. (Remember the Abbott and Costello: "Who's On First Base" routine?) There is far too much of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, even among Christians, when we have not taken the time to investigate all the facts. Jesus said, "Judge not according to appearance, but judge ye righteous judgment" (John 7:24). There has been so much doctrinal infighting and rebuking when either or both "opponents" do not even completely understand the other's position – yet all kinds of judgments and accusations are made. Remember Proverbs 18:13: "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him." Principle #2 – Be sure we understand the other person.
We need to watch our attitudes in the way we administer correction to others. Paul told Timothy, "And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." (See also Galatians 6:1.) Reproofs are hard to take in any case. But when correction is administered in a harsh, anything-but-gentle manner, its effectiveness is drastically diminished. What might have resulted in the restoration of beloved brethren is thus provoked into all-out warfare. Principle #3 – Watch our attitudes in our efforts to correct.
Let us all apply these three important principles in our loving efforts to deal with error. -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, February, 1997
Return To Messenger Menu
Again we emphasize that you need to read the previous articles in this series if you wish to make sense of this one. Briefly summarized, we defined a “religious denomination” and then showed that the church which Jesus predicted in Matthew 16:18 does not meet that definition. We further showed that the denominational concept of the church originated in a corruption of local church organization which culminated in what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church.
In the last article we demonstrated that this flawed concept was carried over into the Protestant Reformation as well as into the American Restoration Movement of the 19th Century. We pointed out that many of the popular “Restoration” preachers continued to promote the view (learned from their Protestant roots) that “the church” consisted of a group of congregations that needed be tied together somehow. But such “tying together” needed something in addition to the congregations themselves. This view was implemented by the formation of organizations like the American Christian Missionary Society. This was merely a perpetuation of the Catholic/Protestant concept of the church as an organization of congregations; i.e., a denominational body.
Many of the leaders of 20th Century congregations, even to this present hour, have been influenced by the writings of these “Restoration” leaders. While much of that influence may be good, their erroneous denominational concept of the church, traced back to Catholicism, has been readily absorbed. Statements and practices continue to be witnessed that indicate the old denominational concept of “the church” is “alive and well.”
Just a casual reading of a wide variety of books and papers by brethren reveals the commonly-held concept that congregations calling themselves “Churches of Christ” constitute a “religious body.” For example, in 1965 William Banowsky wrote in the preface of his book, The Mirror of a Movement (p. ix): “It deals in depth with the genius of the religious body known as churches of Christ. What are the churches of Christ? Where did they come from? What do they believe? In answering these questions, this book provides a theological and historical interpretation of what is now the largest communion claiming a Restoration heritage and, hence, the largest church body indigenous to America.”
In 1983 there was published a written discussion on the subject of church cooperation and church support of institutions, by brethren Gaston Cogdell and Robert F. Turner. Throughout the book, bro. Cogdell repeatedly used the expression, “congregations of the church.” Notice this typical statement: “The word of Christ creates one church, comprised of many congregations.” – Cogdell-Turner Discussion, p. 38. Such language is endemic in church bulletins and other publications by brethren.
Colleges, benevolent institutions, and inter-congregational combines called Sponsoring Churches have been defended on the basis that “the church” (meaning a group of congregations) must somehow be tied together in these works. I affirm that this has not only provoked division and strife among brethren, but is the end result of thinking of the church in “denominational” terms. It is not our purpose here to discuss the issue of whether a congregation can scripturally support a human institution of any kind. But we do wish to challenge brethren on both sides of that issue to abandon this ancient and erroneous denominational view of the church.
Some brethren have accepted the consequences of their views and are openly declaring that the “Church of Christ” is simply a loosely-organized, indigenous American denomination. While other brethren attack such “liberalism,” even some among the “conservatives” are heard speaking and acting in terms which indicate that they, too, retain this denominational concept. We hear some referring to “the Pro-Institutional Brotherhood” or “the Non-Institutional Brotherhood.” What do they mean by these terms? I do not believe they are talking so much about a Brother-hood as they are a Church-hood. It sounds like they are identifying a group of congregations which are “tied together” by their sympathy or antipathy for support of institutions. You see – this is denominational thinking! Self-appointed groups of preachers (usually utilizing the influence of a religious paper) seem to think of themselves as “watchdogs” for “the church” and pressure supposedly independent congregations to “line-up” under their particular doctrinal umbrella, or be marked “unsound” and unworthy of “fellowship.” I suggest to you again, this could never happen without this pervasive denominational concept of the church.
The point of this series of articles is simply this: The message of non-denominational Christianity – inviting folks to become simply Christians, and thus members of the one true church you read about in the Bible – is a powerful one. But if we wish to convince the world that we are really serious about this, then we must ourselves quit speaking and acting denominationally. I am happy that this congregation is trying to be truly undenominational, autonomous, and independent, making our own decisions without looking over our shoulder for approval from college, paper, larger churches, or simply an informal committee of influential preachers. May it ever be so. -- Bob West, The Milpitas Messenger, February, 1997
Return To Messenger Menu
The Bible teaches that Christians are, to Christ, “a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds” - Titus 2:14. Zeal or enthusiasm is one of the most easily recognized traits among men. However, it is a trait too infrequently seen among those of us who claim to be children of God.
Those who have the truth ought to be truly zealous in spreading it to others. At least, it would seem that we should be as enthusiastic about truth and righteousness as are other groups about rank infidelity and error. Yet, small bands of men and women teaching the most palpably wicked and false theories have influenced thousands of others merely by the momentum of their zeal.
I call your attention in particular to the zeal of the Communists on the world stage. While it may be true that some of the bastions of this philosophy have crumbled in recent decades, it is instructive to inquire how they were able to succeed. This atheistic and immoral ideology was espoused by an incredibly small percentage of the world’s population. Yet, this small minority was able to influence and enslave some one billion people in less than fifty years! They accomplished this astounding feat largely through sheer zeal or enthusiasm which deceived enough people in the right places, making the final takeover possible.
J. Edgar Hoover, late and famed Director of the FBI, gave us some valuable information concerning the required and accepted zeal of the Communists, in his book, Masters of Deceit. Let us review three points the author made about “life in the Communist party.”
“Life in the Party! For good members nothing is left for life outside the Party. The housewife is doing typing, running errands, Mimeographing, arranging meetings, collecting dues; her husband, even while working at the grocery store, in the shoe factory, or at the service station, is thinking of his Party assignment that night, distributing literature, soliciting money, serving as a courier. The Party is the most important force in their lives.” – Masters of Deceit, p. 139.
Compare this dedication and zeal with the typical church member who attends, at most, only a few weekly services and seldom, if ever, engages in other religious work.
Compare this generosity with some Christians who spend their income on all of their wants and luxuries, then whatever is left, may be given to the Lord.
How does this compare with some “Christians” who do not even know the books of the Bible, who sit yawningly through one Bible class a week (if that), and never crack the Bible at home?!
Communism was and is one of the most evil and diabolical philosophies taught on earth. Yet, through the force of the zeal and dedication of its adherents, it went a long way in achieving its goals of world domination. And, remember, it is still working in the world! Does this not shame you and me, kind Christian reader? We have the everlasting truth of God! The zeal of a meager handful in the First Century struck a blow for Christ from which the world has never recovered. It can be done today! But it will require more zeal on our part. Let’s get busy, brethren! Let’s not be put to shame by the efforts of evil-workers!-- The Milpitas Messenger, February, 1997
Return To Messenger Menu