Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

The fact of the existence of the church of Christ seems to be sufficient to satisfy some to the point of expressing no interest in any specifics concerning its establishment. While on the other hand others place stress on its origin but have little interest in its present condition. We are, however, interested in the prophecies, promises and facts given in the word of God concerning the Lord’s church. Many problems are extant in the churches because an appreciable interest and understanding of the origin of the church does not exist. Holding a position that the church was established before the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2) or a premillennial view that the kingdom is yet to be founded will inevitably cause problems within churches. The evil ramifications necessary to these false positions have in the past and will in the future divide churches and, in some instances, destroy them completely. This study is then vital and essential to the life and well-being of any congregation.

Prophecy

Though some are adamant that it makes no difference when and where the church was founded, the word of God stresses both the time and place. Isaiah wrote, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (2:2-4). With added dimension Daniel foretells the establishment of God’s kingdom, the church, in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the interpretation of it (Dan. 2). Isaiah and Daniel prophesied near the same time (Isaiah during the Assryian empire and Daniel during the Babylonian – about one hundred years apart) and of the same people. While Isaiah called it the “house” of the Lord Daniel called it the “kingdom”. They were not speaking of two different things, but one and the same thing – the people of God while Jesus is on the throne ruling.

These two prophets prophesied some six-hundred to seven-hundred years before Christ. Isaiah’s prophecy covers some four phases of the church: time, extent, place and nature. The time would be in the “last days”; the extent embraces “all nations”; the place would be “Jerusalem”, and “peace” would be the nature of the kingdom. The church was a part of the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:10, 11). It was not an afterthought of God to bridge the gap when the Jews rejected the Messiah, thus preventing Him in the establishing of the kingdom, as falsely claimed by the modern millennialists. God eternally planned the church and caused the prophets to tell beforehand of its beginning. Isaiah specifies the time when this would happen. The last days remove forever the possibility of the church beginning prior to Pentecost of Acts 2. It could not, therefore, have been established during the Mosaic dispensation. This was, the time Jesus lived. John the Baptist also lived at this time. However, John did not found a church and neither did Jesus during his personal ministry. Baptist preachers used to contend that Jesus founded His church during the days of John the Baptist’s ministry, but they could never prove such by the scriptures.

The prophecy of Isaiah 2 demands that the church of Christ be founded in Jerusalem. No other city in all the world can serve as a substitute. The man of God specified Jerusalem. Acts 2 gives a perfect and total fulfillment of this prophecy.

The prophet shows that the provisions of the reign of the Messiah would be extended to man universally. The “house of the Lord” would be made up of all nations. During Moses’ time it was to the Jew; but the last days would bring God’s blessing to all men through Christ in the church. The commission Jesus gave to the apostles was world-wide in scope.

The church would be the sphere and relationship in which peace would obtain. Peace with God is established through Christ in His body (Eph. 2:16). It is in this house that all peoples have peace with each other; it is in the church we find the barriers removed.

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had a dream but in the passing of the night shadows forgot it. He was sore troubled and called the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans to reveal unto him this dream. These men were unable to tell Nebuchadnezzar anything about the dream and openly declared unto him, “there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh” (Dan. 2:11). Daniel the prophet of God was called and he both told the dream and the interpretation of it. The dream was one of an image whose brightness was excellent, but whose form was terrible. The image consisted of a head of gold, breast of silver, belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron with feet of part iron and part clay (Dan. 2:31-33). Nebuchadnezzar further saw in his dream a stone cut out without hands that smote this image, and became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Daniel revealed this entire dream unto the king and then gave him the interpretation of it. He tells the king that the head of gold represents himself and the Babylonian empire; that the second kingdom, the Medo-Persian empire, is represented by the breast of silver; the third kingdom represented by the belly and thighs of brass was the Grecian empire with Alexander the Great; and the fourth kingdom, the Roman empire, was represented by the legs of iron. This fourth and last kingdom consisted of the Caesars and Herods, and it would be during the fourth kingdom that the God of heaven would set up the kingdom (Dan. 2:44). It was during the reign of the Herods and Caesars that John the Baptist began his work (Matt. 3:1) saying, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus was born in these days (Matt. 2:1 ff; Lk. 2:1 ff). Jesus began His own ministry in those days preaching “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14, 15).

Isaiah said the house of the Lord would be established in the last days and Daniel says the kingdom of God would be set up in the days of the Herods and Caesars. Daniel shows that God can change the times and seasons, remove kings and set up kings (2:21). God’s word being true the world could expect God’s kingdom to be established while the Herods and Caesars were ruling. This not only rules out the possibility of the church being established prior to Pentecost of Acts 2, but it demands that the church be set up before the so-called millennial period.

Promise

Jesus promised to build His church and give the keys of the kingdom to the apostles (Matt. 16:18, 19). When the Lord was confessed by the apostle Peter to be the Son of God, Jesus gave the promise to build upon that rock – the rock of truth couched in the confession – “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the only foundation the church of Christ can possibly have (1 Cor. 3:10, 11). Paul emphatically says “other foundation can no man lay” than the one already laid – Christ Jesus. Jesus is the tried and precious foundation stone (Isa. 28:16). “Will build” is future tense. So, during the personal ministry of Christ, He was promising to build His church. He spoke of it as “at hand” or “nigh.” It was to come soon, but it was not at that time in !existence. Jesus taught the disciples to pray for it to come (Matt. 6:9-10). He sent the 12 to preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7), and the 70 to preach “that the kingdom of God is come nigh” (Lk. 10:10, 11). Jesus told some that “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mk. 9:1). This kingdom which Jesus promised had to come into the world during the lifetime of the disciples to whom He then spoke, yet, the millennialists say the Christ had to postpone the establishment of the kingdom because He was rejected by the Jews (John 1:11, 12) and just set up the church to bridge the gap! Pshaw. The church and the kingdom are one and the same people. The people who make up the church and the kingdom of Christ are the same people. They both are blood-bought (1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7). To be a blood-bought member of the church is to be a blood-bought citizen of the kingdom of God.

In the promise made by Jesus that some of the disciples would not die until they had seen the kingdom come with power (Mk. 9:1) is the Lord’s veracity. In Luke 24:44-49 Jesus told the disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait until they were endued with power from on high. Luke further shows they were not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4). All of this was just before Jesus ascended back to heaven. The promise of the Father was the coming of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Holy Spirit would give the power – the power as promised by Jesus in Mark 9:1. The Holy Spirit came on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:1 ff). Pentecost was an annual feast of the Jews (see Lev. 23:16). It was 50 days after the Passover. Jesus had gone to Jerusalem for the Passover feast (Matt. 26:1ff). The disciples made ready for the Passover and, as they sat together, Jesus announced to them that one of them would betray Him. On this occasion He instituted His supper, they sung an hymn and went out into the Mount of Olives. After this the mob took Jesus away. Mockingly He, was tried and condemned to die. He was crucified then buried in Joseph’s new tomb, but God raised Him from the dead the third day. He walked among men for forty days teaching them things concerning the kingdom of God and proving Himself to be the resurrected Christ with many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). When the forty days were over He ascended and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Pentecost was some 10 days away. While they waited in Jerusalem these ten days God made ready the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. The Spirit came on Pentecost and the power came with Him (Acts 2:1-4). But remember, the Kingdom was to come with power! When the power came the kingdom would be there, too. The power came at Pentecost; therefore; the kingdom came at Pentecost. No, the kingdom was not in existence during His earthly ministry. Luke 22 shows the church and the kingdom are one and the same people. Here Jesus said, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” Mark’s account says, “. . . until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (14:25), and Matthew says, “. . . until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (26:29). When the “disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7) such was the church and the Lord’s supper was in it (1 Cor. 11:18-34). Either the Kingdom and the church are one and the same or the disciples stole it from the kingdom and put it in the church. Who can believe it?

From the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the kingdom/church has been in existence and Jesus has all this time been the king over the kingdom and the head of the church. Let no millennialist deceive you in this matter! Furthermore, let none of the middle-of-the-roaders influence you to compromise such fundamental Bible doctrine.

The church could not have been established before the resurrection of Christ. God would use David’s seed (Christ) in fulfilling the prophecies and promises made through the prophets concerning the building of the church (2 Sam. 7:12; Psa. 132:11; Acts 2:29ff). In the synagogue at Antioch, Paul used these scriptures to prove to the rulers and others that God had kept His word in raising the ion of David from the dead, that He saw no corruption in the flesh, and through Him “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” The kingdom/church could not be established until after Christ’s ascension into heaven (Lk. 19:12; Dan. 7:13, 14; Acts 1:11). When He ascended heaven received Him (Psa. 24:7-10) and He was seated on David’s throne over His kingdom (Lk. 1:32, 33). So, Pentecost was the beginning (Acts 11:15) of the last days (Acts 2:17); the reign of Christ (Acts 2:34, 35); the first gospel sermon (1 Cor. 15:1-5; Acts 2:23, 32); and the kingdom of Christ (Mk. 9:1; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4).

The various passages dealing with the establishment of the church before Pentecost point to Acts 2, and the passages after Acts 2 point back to this Pentecost identifying the church as an established fact. After the preaching of Acts 2, Luke tells us the Lord added to the church the saved (Acts 2:47). No more do we read of promises that the church will be established; rather, they affirm its existence. The tense on the verb “are built” in Ephesians 2:20 shows its existence at that time was a fact. Various apostolic letters were addressed to the churches (see 1 Cor. 1:2 for example).

Conclusion

We can rejoice in having the facts which inform us of the Lord’s doing concerning the establishment of the church. We rejoice to know that the church is a product of prophecy and divine promise (not an accident or afterthought); that Jesus built His one and only church; that it was established in Jerusalem; that it came into existence on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; that the Lord adds the saved to it (yea, translated into it, Col. 1:13), and live with the promise that He will deliver it up to the Father when the end comes (1 Cor. 15:23, 24).

Questions

1. Name two false positions taught as to the time of the church of Christ being established.
2. Why is it necessary for us to know when the church was built?
3. How could men foretell accurately when the church would be established?
4. In what city did Jesus build His church?
5. How many churches did Jesus promise to build?
6. Does the Lord add unsaved people to the church?
7. Can one join the church (1) universally (Acts 2:47) ___________________ (2) locally (Acts 9:26) _______________?
8. How do you prove the church and the kingdom are one and the same?
9. With what did Jesus purchase the church?
10. What will happen to the church when Jesus ceases to reign on the throne at the right hand of the Father?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 40-42
January 10, 1980

By Bob Buchanon

More and more I am amazed at the colossal ignorance of, and unconcern for, the purpose of Christ’s blood shed on the cross! Liberal-thinking preachers for many years have been making efforts to eliminate the blood of Christ from man’s need of coming to God and some even look upon the blood as repulsive. Many work hard trying to separate the church from salvation saying that the church has nothing to do with salvation.

God Chose Blood

Since man’s first sin in the Garden of Eden, God has required the shedding of blood for the atonement for sin. God instructed Cain and Abel concerning the kind of sacrifice He wanted. It is said of Abel, that by faith he “offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). This blood sacrifice must have been precisely what God wanted since faith comes by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). The first thing Noah did after he came out of the ark was offer a burnt-offering (Gen. 8:20). When Israel was delivered out of the slavery of Egypt, blood was used in their deliverance (Ex. 12:7-13).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “The rite of circumcision is an Old Testament form of blood ceremony. Apart from the probably sanitary importance of the act is the deeper meaning in the establishment of a bond of friendship between the one upon whom the act is performed and (Jehovah) Himself. In order that Abraham might become `the friend of God’ he was commanded that he should be circumcised as a token of the covenant between him and God, Genesis 17:10-11” (see “Blood,” p. 489). The patriarchal age was marked by sacrifices and rites of blood by those desiring to please God.

In Abraham’s covenant, his own blood had to be shed. Later an atoning animal was to shed blood, but those who did appropriate the blood of animals were only ceremonially, and temporarily clean, because it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Heb. 10:4). In all ages, however, there must always be a shedding of blood. The covenant under Moses was dedicated by the blood of animals. Moses took the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all .the vessels of the ministry, and almost all things by the law are purged with blood and without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:20-22).

Since there is no salvation but by blood, and since the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, it naturally follows that some blood of greater merit must be applied. As the first covenant was sealed by the blood of animals, the New Covenant was sealed by more precious blood, the blood of Jesus.

The Individual Is Bought With A Price

Each child of God has been purchased. Paul wrote, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirits, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). This was accomplished by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7), something of far greater value than silver and gold (1 Pet. 1:18). Each child of God has the same hope, having been purchased by the blood of Christ.

Unto the saints in Galatia, Paul wrote, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). Paul would not be found guilty of minimizing the cross of Christ, and what it had done for him. He would never equate the cross of the Lord, as some do today, to some $2 ornament worn as jewelry about the neck. To Paul, the cross was the symbol of the blood which Christ had shed thereon, and this gave it the fullest meaning.

It is only when we find what the blood of the cross did for lost men that we have an appreciation for it. The view of Paul is far different from those who claim such love for the blood of Christ, and sing loudly of the “Old Rugged Cross,” yet spurn the very thing which the shed blood of the cross purchased for us. To fully appreciate the cross of Christ, we must look much further than the shape of the tree on which Jesus died.

The Church Purchased By The Blood

Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 6:20 shows that every member of the church has been bought with the price of the blood of Christ; the church is composed of members; hence, the church has been purchased with the blood of Christ. He has given for it His own most precious blood, thus making it His own by the dearest of all ties. The transcendent sacredness of the church of Christ is thus made to rest on the dignity of its Lord and the consequent preciousness of that blood which He shed for it. We must maintain that, had not this Lord been God, His blood could have been no purchase for the souls of a lost world and the promise of redemption in His church would have been impossible. Since the church has cost heaven its dearest treasure, we ought to value it very highly indeed!

When Paul met the elders from Ephesus at Miletus, he discussed many important things. Included in the discussion was this thought: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Paul wanted them to know that the body of Christ owed much to the blood of the cross! This cannot be emphasized enough. Jesus Christ gave His blood to purchase the church and it should be remembered by all that He has never complained of being defrauded in the deal.

It was by this sacrifice that the church was bought and sanctified. When Paul wrote back to his friends and brethren at Ephesus, he said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). This divine institution was the spiritual body of Christ. Nothing is like it is in the world, and nothing else like it in the Bible. Now, if Jesus had promised to build a multiplicity of churches, then we might have the option of choosing one to our liking. But since He promised to build only one (Matt. 16:18), and added the saved to only that one (Acts 2:41-47), then no option is extended!

Since Jesus Christ loved that church so dearly that He gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:23), God “gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). You just cannot afford to down-grade any institution so important to the Lord, that it was purchased with His own blood! To belittle the church of the Lord is to belittle the very blood of the cross which bought it. Unto the saved in Christ, Peter said they were redeemed with “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19).

The Highest Price

The word, “purchase,” as used in Acts 20:28, occurs but in one other place in the New Testament – 1 Timothy 3:13: “For they that have used the office of deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith.” The word properly means “to gain or get for oneself, purchase” (W.E. Vine’s, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 231). This may be done by a price, or by labor.

No verse in the New Testament, or any other statement that could be imagined, could possibly exceed the power of Acts 20:28 in declaring the eternal importance and necessity of the Church which Christ established. Here the heretical notion of salvation by “faith alone” is shattered and counter-manded forever. By any definition, salvation by “faith alone” means salvation without the church of Jesus Christ; and in such a view the crucifixion of our Lord is reduced to the status of a senseless murder. As James Coffman said, “If men are saved, in any sense by the blood of Jesus, they must be saved through the church of which that blood is here declared to be the purchase price” (Commentary On Acts, p. 395).

That the church is, therefore, of peculiar value – a value to be estimated by the price paid for it – is clearly taught. This fact should make the purity and salvation of the church an object of special solicitude with the elders. They should be deeply affected in view of that blood which has been shed for the church; and they should guard and defend it as having been bought with the highest price in the universe. The chief consideration that will make elders faithful and self-denying is that the church has been bought with a price. If the Lord Jesus so loved it, if He gave Himself for it, they should be willing to deny themselves, to watch, and toil, and pray, that the great object of His death – the purity and the salvation of that church – may be obtained. Too many men like the title of elder, but do not like the work that is required; they like to see their name on a piece of stationery or bulletin, but do not want to put in the hours of labor that is required.

The Shepherd

Paul’s figure of speech to the elders is directly connected with a reference to the church as a flock; to the officers as overseers, or shepherds; and to their duty of feeding the flock. The figure as used by our Lord in John 10 should be compared with the expression in Acts 20:28.

How does a shepherd purchase his sheep with his blood? Pulpit Commentary noted, “The shepherd may actually give his life in fighting and killing the wolves. If he kills the wolves he saves the sheep, though he may himself die of his wounds; and then he plainly purchases the safety of the flock with his blood. These figures may be applied to the work of the Lord. He imperilled his life for our defence. He met our great foe in conflict. He overcame sin and death, and plucked death’s sting away. He died in the struggle, but he set us free; and so he has purchased us by his own blood. He has won, by his great act of selfsacrifice, our love and life for ever” (Vol. 18, p. 168).

Implications

It is easily seen that some count the blood unholy when they have little regard for the church of the Lord and see it as just another denomination of no importance in God’s scheme of redemption. Such say by their lack of respect for the church that the blood was wasted in purchasing the church.

Let it be said, in teaching and in practice, that the purchased church was not purchased to be a social club, but it has business second to none – that of saving souls. The borders of the kingdom must expand yet at the same time purity must be maintained within the church for it is Christ’s desire to present it a glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

Questions

1. How long has God required the shedding of blood as the atonement for sins?
2. How do we know that God Instructed Cain and Abel concerning the kind of sacrifice He wanted?
3. What was the first thing Noah did after he came out of the ark?
4. Explain why those who offered animals for atonement were only temporarily clean.
5. If the first covenant was sealed by the blood of animals, by what was the New Covenant sealed?
6. The cross was a symbol of what, to Paul?
7. Quote several scriptures in which Paul mentions the purchase of the church by Jesus’ blood.
8. What is the chief consideration that will make elders faithful and self-denying?
9. Discuss how a shepherd could purchase his sheep with his blood.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 37-39
January 10, 1980

By Mike Willis

In my last article, I gave a brief history and explanation of what the social gospel is. After doing that, I tried to demonstrate wherein the social gospel differed from the gospel of Jesus Christ. In that section, I showed that the social gospel (a) was borne in infidelity, (b) perverts the nature of the mission of Christ, (c) perverts the nature of the gospel, (d) perverts the nature of the mission of the church, and (e) perverts the one hope of the gospel.

Yet, these articles are entitled “The Social Gospel of the Churches of Christ.” They are so named for a reason. I firmly believe that the churches of Christ have become involved in the social gospel. This article is designed to prove that thesis. I shall present evidences to demonstrate that churches of Christ are involved in the social gospel.

Let us begin by remembering what the thrust of the social gospel is. It is involving the church in the work of improving the quality of life in this world. Hence, it is the work of building hospitals, orphan homes, colleges, recreational facilities, and any other number of works pertaining to life on this earth beneath.

Incidences of Churches Involved in the Social Gospel

Those who have lived through the split of the church over church support of orphan homes do not need to be reminded that the church is involved in supporting such human institutions. However, we may need to be reminded that this is one phase of the social gospel. Involvement of the church in the building and maintaining of such facilities was the first step, historically, which the churches of Christ took in the social gospel. Rather than allowing social ills of this nature to be taken care of as a by-product of New Testament Christianity (i.e., through those who were converted to Christ personally adopting the orphaned children), some were bent upon perverting the mission of the church into involvement in the social gospel through church support of orphan homes. This, however, was just the beginning of a major movement in the churches of Christ which is taking them deeper and deeper into the social gospel. Here are some other incidences of the social gospel among the churches:

1. Church support of education. When the orphan home issue raged, Batsell Barrett Baxter, well-known speaker for the Herald of Truth and Chairman of the Department of Bible at David Lipscomb College, wrote a tract entitled Questions and Issues of the Day. In this tract, he wrote the following words:

Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphan’s home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphans’ home and the Christian school must stand or fall together (p. 29).

Brother Baxter was right in stating that the two stand or fall together. He and I differ, however, on whether they stand or fall, he holding to the former and me to the latter. However, in keeping with his belief, he sent out a form letter dated November 29, 1971 on David Lipscomb College stationary, appealing for church support of colleges; he wrote:

Back in the summer I wrote you concerning our pressing and continuing need for congregations to help us in our program of teaching. the Bible to each of our students every school day. We deeply appreciate the way in which many congregations across the land are concerned that this program of teaching the Bible – the most extensive program undertaken anywhere in the world so far as we are able to determine – may continue. We are grateful for the number of contributions received since this request, and we are hopeful that; as you make you financial plans for 1972, you will include this effort in your budget. In a very real sense, this is one of the most extensive mission efforts being undertaken anywhere.

There are currently on our campus 3361 students from kindergarten through college, with 2196 of these in college. The Bible itself (not books about the Bible) is being taught to each of these students every school day by faithful, consecrated Christian teachers. The toal cost of this effort is about $700,000 each year. The students pay less than half of this amount in tuition. We are asking churches to pay the other half, over $350,000 each year.

Not all of those who accept the church involvement in the social gospel of church support of orphans homes are ready to accept the church support of colleges. Yet, the effort to involve the church in the support of secular education is a subtle foe to fight.

When churches refused to become involved in sending contributions to colleges, the church began to become involved in “Christian education” on another level. All over this country, brethren have been building day-care centers, kindergartens, and eventually full elementary schools.. Brethren have been deceived by the promoters of this aspect of the social gospel. They have been taught that so long as the church does not write a check from its treasury to send to this secular educational enterprize that it is not involved in the work. However, these secular education facilities are housed in the buildings owned by the churches, they are promoted through bulletins published by the church, and any activities held by these secular educational enterprizes are promoted in the church. Brethren, do not be deceived. The church is being yoked to another plow of the social gospel!

2. Church support of medical missions. Even as the church has become involved in supportig orphans homes and colleges, it has become involved in “medical missions” as well. The 29 May 1979 issue of Christian Chronicle carried an article entitled “Medical Missions Increasing.” It reported,

Christian medical professionals and students from around the world will gather in Atlanta October 19 and 20 for the annual Medical Evangelism Seminar, hosted by the Decatur Church of Christ and Medical Outreach, Inc ….

The Decatur congregation has long been active in medical mission work. But, in the last three years, members of the congregation have organized to focus on solutions to the personnel problems that have hampered mission clinics and hospitals in the past.

As early as 24 May 1963, the Christian Chronicle was reporting the church being involved in medical work in foreign countries. In “Money Buys Medicine For Korean Endeavor,” written by A.R. Holton, the following report was given:

Our Lord gave some great promises in relation to the sick. In the 25th chapter of Matthew, He tells us that to visit the sick is to visit Him. It makes a contribution to the growth of a Christian to be closely associated with Jesus. You will see to do this is to visit the sick.

The church of Christ clinic in Seoul, Korea offers such an opportunity. We have reached over three thousand families by this medical service in Korea. It is a service to enable the people to care for themselves in illness and to teach them to care for their children

Our medical clinic on the mission ground in Seoul, Korea is in continual need of money for medicine and equipment. This appeal is made in order that churches may make such a contribution and that individuals may make such a contribution.

The groundwork has been laid for a “Church of Christ Hospital,” similar to the Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic hospitals all over this country, right here in America. Although I know of no plans to begin construction on one, I have no doubt that such lies ahead for the churches of Christ who have accepted the concept of the social gospel.

3. Church care of the aged. The October 4, 1968 issue of the Atlanta Journal reported that the Decatur Church of Christ was constructing a 12-story apartment building for senior citizens. The article included a picture of the proposed structure attached to an article announcing the building of Christian Towers under the direction of the Decatur Church of Christ Senior Housing, Inc. This project was to cost a mere $3.8 million.

4. Church sponsored recreation. I do not have the space to report the numbers of articles which I have in my files reporting church sponsored recreation. It ranges from church sponsored ball teams to church sponsored talent shows. The church buildings are already using their property for playground areas; soon they will be building gymnasiums and other recreational facilities. One church purchased land and erected a lodge for a place of recreation for its members. What began as an innocent basket lunch in one of the classrooms of the church building has blossomed into full involvement in church sponsored recreation. “Youth ministers” are hired by those involved in these activities; their primary work is to be is sure to keep a full calendar of social, recreational activities going for the young people.

One Baptist preacher with deep insight into the dangers of church sponsored recreation wrote a tract entitled The Devil’s Mission of Amusement: The Church’s Task Entertainment or Evangelization? (by Archibald Brown, available from Tabernacle Baptist Church, P.O. Box 3327, Lubbock, TX 79410). He made the following penetrating comments:

The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church of Christ that part of her mission is to provide entertainment for the people with a view to winning them into her ranks. The human nature that lies in every heart has risen to the bait. Here, now, is an opportunity of gratifying the flesh and yet retaining a comfortable conscience. We can now please ourselves in order to do good to others. The rough old cross can be exchanged for a “costume,” and the exchange can be made with the benevolent purpose of elevating the people.

Even denominational people are able to see what some of the brethren cannot see. The church’s involvement in sponsoring recreation is’ a perversion of its mission; it involves the church in the social gospel.

5. Full program of the social gospel. Some churches have simply accepted the totality of the social gospel rather than individual specific programs alone. For example, Good News From Chicogaland (Vol. I, No. 6, August 5, 1979), the bulletin published by the Downtown Church (P.O. Box 49333, Chicago, IL 60649), reported their receipt of a service award for their “Evangelism Chicagoland” program in the following words:

Evangelism Chicagoland recently received a service award from the Chicago Boys Club, Kiwanis Unit. The award was presented for services rendered to the Boys Club in the area of printing . . . .

Evangelism Chicagoland has been involved in training a number of young people since inception. fifteen high school juniors and seniors have received specialized training in printing, office management, addressing, folding, darkroom and shipping through the Evangelism Chicagoland printing facility. A few of the youth have police records and have received vocational and personal counseling as well as training . . . .

Evangelism Chicagoland has cooperated with various high school occupational study programs as well as city, state and federal training programs . . . .

My brethren, one would have to have his eyes closed to fail to see that some among the churches of Christ have totally accepted the social gospel.

Time and space would fail me if I cited documentation of the erection of church of Christ reform schools, church of Christ unwed mothers homes, a project to take cows to Korea, and other activities too numerous to even mention in passing. However, each of these provide further documentation that churches of Christ have become involved in the social gospel. However subtly it has happened, one cannot doubt that it has happened!

What Does The Future Hold?

I make no pretensions to being a prophet; hence, comments under this section should be simply considered as one man’s opinion. However, I think that I can judge what is going to happen so far as the church being involved in the social gospel is concerned. Every congregation has just so many dollars with which to work, so many volunteers willing to donate their labor to the works in which they are involved, and other limited resources. It takes dollars and time to operate the social gospel, just the same as it takes to do the scriptural works authorized of God.

When a congregation’s limited resources are completely expended upon its God-given mission of saving souls, the work progresses slowly at best. However, when these resources are subdivided in order to give a portion of those resources (money and labor) to promoting the erection and maintenance of orphan homes, schools, and other human institutions, to sponsor recreation, to erect hospitals, to build kindergartens and grade schools, etc., the number of resources which can be used to evangelize the world, edify the saints, and relieve the benevolent needs of Christians is diminished to the degree that a given congregation is involved in these activities. Therefore, just so much as brethren chase after the social gospel, they cannot accomplish their God-given mission.

The result will be that the soul winning work of the church will be destroyed. Brethren who have already seen this happening are fighting back with reward motivation programs to persuade people to come to their services. So long as these reward motivation programs are continued, large crowds will be in attendance, but few will be converted. (Do not make the mistake of thinking that all public responses to the gospel are conversions.) Those who are baptized will have little knowledge of the truth, so the church will move more and more toward the mainstream of modern Protestant denominationalism.

Unless something happens to change this trend, I am confident that this is what lies ahead for our brethren who are becoming more and more involved in the social gospel. The question which remains is this: How far are you willing to go with these brethren?

Some Have Had Enough

There are countless brethren among those congregations which have opted to depart from the revealed work of the church in following the humanly devised hope of establishing a heaven on earth who are sick and tired of seeing the church chase after earthly goals. Brethren, there is an alternative to what you are witnessing and experiencing. There are brethren all over this country who are dedicated to letting the church be the church. Our brethren who are following the social gospel call us “anti’s.” That is all right with me. Both of us recognize that we are heading down different paths at a fork in the road. We who are branded as “anti’s” are simply committed to following the revelation of God as it pertains to the mission of the church. We shall not consent to involving the church in any activities for which there is no Bible authority. We find no Bible authority for church support of human institutions (whether they be evangelistic, benevolent or educational in scope), for church sponsored recreation, for church sponsored hospitals, and any number of other works in which some of our brethren are involved.

We invite you to join with us in working to let the church be the church. We have no interest in pursuing the mundane goals of the social gospel. Rather, our citizenship is in heaven where Christ is seated on the right hand of God (Phil. 3:20). We are interested in the salvation of souls. We, therefore, understand the mission of the church to be to save the lost, edify the saints, and relieve the benevolent needs of our members. If you would like me to help you get in contact with some who have no sympathy with the social gospel, fell free to contact me.

Questions

1. Is church involvement in support of human institu tions a phase of the social gospel?
2. Rather than involving the church in support of orphan homes, what would have been an acceptable means of taking care of the orphans?
3. Name and discuss some other incidences of the social gospel among the churches in your area.
4. What two issues did Batsell Barren Baxter say would “stand or fall together”?
5. What are the dangers of church sponsored recreation?
6. What happens when the resources of a church are divided in order to give a portion of them to promote the social gospel?
7. What happens when reward motivation programs are carried out? Are all public responses to the gospel conversions?
8. What is the mission of the church?
9. What can the congregation with which you worship do to lead people out of liberalism?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 34-37
January 10, 1980

By Mike Willis

The history of denominations has a rather clearly distinguishable period in which these churches became involved in attempting to improve the society around them. This movement has been identified as the “social gospel” and began to show itself in American denominations in the late years of the nineteenth century. During these years, a new era of social consciousness was developing. These were the years during which major labor movements were organizing into unions for strike potential and other forces were being organized to deal with social injustices.

The names of Washington Gladden (1836-1918) and Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) stand at the head of the list of men who led American denominations into the social gospel. Their concept of the kingdom of God differed from that of those around them. Those who opposed the social gospel movement treated the problems of the society through converting the individual; when the individual was converted to Christ, he would conduct himself as a proper employer or employee, be a statesman rather than a politician, act properly toward his landlord or tenant as the case may be, etc. The social gospel movement involved the corporate body, the religious denomination, in correcting these problems through organization of city missions for relief, rescue missions for homeless men, and other programs to care for the poor and unfortunate in life.

Early nineteenth-century Protestantism had expressed its social concerns largely in individualistic terms, stressing charity and moral reform, but the social gospel focused attention on the corporate aspects of modern life and on the achievement of social justice. Great attention was devoted to the relations between capital and labor, and the movement influenced the shortening of the working day. Dedicated to the building of the kingdom of God on earth, the social gospel was especially prominent in the life and work of the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists of the North, and among congregationalists and Episcopalians. Courses on social ethics were added to seminary curricula, and denominational departments of social action were founded under social Christian influence. A number of social settlements in underprivileged areas were founded under Protestant auspices, and many institutional churches to bring social services to the urban masses were erected. The social emphasis was strongly felt on the mission field, where agricultural, medical, and educational missions were expanded (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 518).

The difference in approach to social problems between those accepting the social gospel and those not accepting it can often be related to the difference in their concepts of the kingdom of God. Many, but not all, of those who were involved in the establishment of the kingdom of God on this earth had already given up any hope for everlasting life in heaven; they threw this out the window at the same time that they denied the inspiration of the Scriptures. Other denominationalists with more conservative theological moorings got caught up in the enthusiasm for social reform and by means of this here-and-now emphasis eventually became the victims of liberal theology.

The problem of social ills produced a confrontation in Protestantism. Different methods of handling these problems of society were taught.

To return to the mainstream evangelical churches, the tensions between conservative and liberal trends within evangelical Protestantism were further heightened in this period by varying reactions to the many social problems that were coming into prominence. The individualistic laissez-faire social philosophy that seemed so familiar and right to Protestants reared in rural and small-town middle-class America offered few resources for dealing with the social ills of the spreading slums or with the needs of the swelling ranks of inadequately paid working people. Confronted with the reality of human suffering, many Protestants became aware that there were serious maladjustments in the society they prized so highly . . . .

Many Protestant leaders attempted to deal with the social question in essentially conservative terms. They urged cautious reforms of a voluntary type and resisted socialism in any of its forms. Characteristically, they sought to help the victims of social maladjustments as individual cases, especially through the development of the relief programs of city mission societies, the founding of rescue missions where homeless men could be fed and cared for, and the shaping of extensive parish programs in which the poor and unfortunate could be aided . . . .

The social gospel was developed by those who felt that such remedial measures were simply not enough. For the most part the proponents of the social gospel came from the ranks of the evangelical liberals, and they challenged the individualistic `clerical laissez-faire’ perspective by emphasizing the social concerns they found in the prophets of the Old Testament and in the Savior of the New Testament, and in the various Christian reform movements over the centuries. Washington Gladden (1836-1918), a Congregational minister who had been much influenced by Horace Bushnell, became an outspoken advocate of the right of labor to organize during a long pastorate in Columbus, Ohio. He was also a champion of liberal theology, advocating the historical approach to the Scriptures and preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God in history in the near future. Often called `the father of the social gospel’, he developed a Christian version of progressive economic and social views that by the turn of the century was a rising force in the churches (Robert T. Handy, A History of the Churches in the United States and Canada, pp. 299-302).

Hence, a change in thinking was occurring within Protestant denominationalism in the early years of the twentieth century. More and more, the church was becoming involved in matters pertaining to this society. There was both a logical and a historical relationship between the doctrinal beliefs and the involvement; those who took a more liberal approach to the Scriptures were more inclined to involve the churches in the social problems. And, visa-versa, many with conservative backgrounds who involved the churches in social programs found theological liberalism increasingly attractive.

As a matter of fact, those who accepted church involvement in the social gospel considered anything else as being less than the kind of church which God demands that one be. Some interpreters tried to tie their ideals to the Bible picture of the church. Others – more honest – admitted that social work cannot be found in the Bible picture, but claimed that God had revealed a new demand for social work through the circumstances of experiences of modern society. Hence, both interpretations contended that the church ought to, not can be, involved in remedying the social ills around us. Walter Rauschenbusch defended his beliefs along this line in the following quotation:

The contributions made by Christianity to the working efficiency and the constructive social abilities of humanity in the past have been mainly indirect. The main aim set before Christians was to save souls from eternal woe, to have communion with God now and hereafter, and to live God-fearing lives. It was individualistic religion, concentrated on the life to come. Its social effectiveness was largely a by-product. What, now, would have been the result if Christianity had placed an equally strong emphasis on the Kingdom of God, the ideal social order? (The Social Principles of Jesus, pp. 73-74).

Rauschenbusch continued to argue that Christianity would have had a more potent impact on the life of man if it had been active in trying to establish an ideal social order, i.e., to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Hence, he stated that the church should have been involved in shaping the workings of industry and trade.

What the world of Christian men and women needs is to have a great social objective set before them and laid on their conscience with the authority of religion. Then religion would get behind social evolution in earnest (Ibid.).

The kingdom of God on earth, according to these people, was not the restoration of the New Testament church; rather, it was the removal of all the problems of earth-life in order to make this earth a heaven-on-earth.

One of the points which needs to be made pertains to categorizing those who accept or reject the social gospel. Though the social gospel originated in modernism, it is by no means confined to modernists. It is impossible to tell whether a man is a proponent of the social gospel simply by determining whether he is theologically conservative or liberal. The critical point is whether or not one involves the church in social works. If the church is involved in social works, it is preaching the social gospel to the extent that it is involved in these activities. They conceive of involvement in social works as an avenue to doing spiritual work. Yet history has repeatedly shown that social involvement is a transitional sign of a movement toward liberalism, even among those who have vigorously denied any inclination toward liberalism.

Doctrinal Errors of the Social Gospel

1. It was borne in infidelity. Though not implicating solely of itself, the fact that the social gospel was borne largely in infidelity needs to be noticed. Those who had lost faith in the Bible as the all-sufficient revelation of God to mankind, in Jesus as the all-sufficient and only Savior of the world, and in man as created in the image of God (rather than as an evolved being) were the men who most fully developed the social gospel. They had ceased to believe in a heaven; consequently, they turned to make heaven on this earth. Although good things can be done by infidels, one should notice that much of the social gospel’s origins are rooted in unbelief.

2. It perverts the nature of the mission of Christ. Christ came into this world to save man from his sins (Lk. 2:10; Mt. 1:21; 1, Tim. 1:15; Lk., 24:46, 47). The only manner in which man could be saved from his sins was through the shedding of the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Redemption of mankind refers to saving mankind from his sirs (Eph. 1:7), not saving him from social ills. To save mankind from his social problems does not demand the shedding of Jesus’ precious blood. Hence, the concept of the social gospel, in which the works of Jesus is viewed as God saving mankind from the social ills of the world through Jesus Christ, destroys. the heart of the gospel message. It makes nonsense of the vicarious suffering and death of our Savior.

To consider the kingdom of God as God’s ideal arrangement of society :, proper housing, provisions of education and recreation, abolition of child labor, regulation of women labor, protection of workers from occupational hazards, concern for health, etc.) rather than as God’s spiritual kingdom is also a perversion of the mission of Christ. Christ came to build a kingdom which was not of this world (Jn. 18:36, 37). This kingdom was purchased with His precious blood (Acts 20:28). The establishment of Jesus’ kingdom had nothing to do with giving men jobs, proper housing, relief from material poverty, and other social ills. The Lord’s kingdom is not the vison of a future paradise on earth but is a present spiritual reality in the midst of a sinful and broken world. The redemption which Christ provides for mankind is eternal and not temporal.

3. It perverts the nature of the gospel. The nature of the gospel is spiritual (1 Cor. 9:11). The goal of the gospel is salvation (Rom. 1:16). It makes the justification of man, the freedom of guilt for his sins, possible. It seeks to turn man from sin for righteousness and to purify his heart by faith (Acts 3:25, 26; 15:7-9)..The basic facts of the gospel are the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The promises of the gospel are forgiveness of sins and the blessed salvation of heaven (Acts 2:38; Col. 1:4-5; 1 Pet. 1:4-5). The changing of the gospel into a means of improving society on earth, nothing more or less, distorts the nature of the gospel.

4. It perverts the nature of the mission of the church. The work of the church, so far as I am able to read it in my Bible, is threefold: (a) to evangelize the world (1 Tim. 3:15; M~. – 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-19); (b) to relieve the the benevolent needs of its members (cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 4:1 0; 11:27-30; etc.); (c) to edify its members (Eph. 4:14-16; Acts 20:28-32; etc.). I cannot read of the church being involved in any other works than these in my Bible. I cannot read of the church building hospitals, schools, recreational facilities, or any other work related to life on this earth. Where is the Scripture which demonstrated that the church was responsible for abolishing slavery, cleaning up the ghettos, and marching for racial equality?

The manner in which social problems were affected in the New Testament was through the preaching of the gospel. Helping social problems was a by-product of Christianity, not its primary message. When the gospel sank into a man’s heart and he obeyed it, he became a better citizen in the community, a better employee or employer, a better father, a better neighbor, etc. However, these changes came because he became a disciple of Jesus Christ, not because the work of the church was to become involved in labor/management decisions, in building hospitals, or in politics. Rather, these changes which occurred in the man came as a by-product of him becoming a Christian.

Some brethren among us believe that the fruits which the individual Christian bears justifies the church becoming involved in such social works. They make particular application of this to church support of orphan homes and colleges and appeal to such passages as Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 to prove this. It should be noticed that if individual involvement in these works justifies the church supporting them, then individual activity of any kind which is authorized of God would demand church involvement as well. Hence, we would have just as much Bible authority for a church supported hospital, recreation, and other activities as we have for church supported orphan homes.

It is true that society will be improved as a by-product of the preaching of the gospel in the same manner as saw dust is produced at a lumber mill. This, however, does not justify a lumber mill in sawing timber just to produce saw dust. One man made this following comparison: “A man who made a living for his family as a blacksmith found that, as a by-product, he developed a strong right arm.

Finding a way to sit at home and build up his right arm while relaxing in a rocking chair would not make provision for his family.” Neither does the fact that the by-product of preaching the gospel is beneficial to society justify church involvement in the social gospel.

5. It perverts the nature of the one hope of the gospel. The one hope of the gospel is the incorruptible reward of heaven (Eph.4:4). It is an inheritance which is “incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (1Pet. 1:3-5). It is the “building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1).

The one hope of the social gospel is to make life on earth better. It is not concerned with a “pie-in-the-sky in the sweet by and by.” It wants to make its heaven right here on earth. All of its labors are directed toward this goal. Hence, the hope of the gospel has been perverted by the social gospel.

Conclusion

The social gospel is not the saving gospel of Christ; it is another gospel which cannot properly be called a gospel. As such it falls under the condemnation of God as a perverted gospel. Paul warned, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). The social gospel is another gospel; those who preach it and those who follow it are accursed of God.

Questions

1. When did the movement identified as the “social gospel” begin to show itself in American denominationalism?
2. What two names stand at the head of the list of men who led American denominations into the social gospel?
3. How does converting an individual affect the social problems of a given society?
4. How does the social gospel movement propose to correct these problems?
5. Name and discuss five doctrinal errors of the social gospel.
6. Is the social gospel confined to modernists?
7. Is it possible to tell whether a man is a proponent of the social gospel by determining whether he is theologically conservative or liberal?
8. What is the critical point for determining involvement in the social gospel?
9. What did Paul warn about those who preach another gospel? Is the social gospel another gospel?
10. What is the hope of the social gospel? Is it possible to attain?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 1, pp. 25-27
January 3, 1980