Truth Magazine – Page 1666 – Taking His hand, helping each other home.

The Social Gospel of the Churches of Christ (1)

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

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

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

Ring Out The Good News!

By Ron Halbrook

Paul commended the church at Thessalonica because it had “sounded out the word of the Lord” both locally and in other regions (1 Thess. 1:8). The church at Thessalonica had grown out of the efforts of other men who loved the Lord and loved the lost. Paul had received repeated encouragement from the church at Antioch of Syria as he pressed forward in evangelistic labors (Acts 13:1-3; 14:26-28; 15:3, 30-35). During his second major journey, a messenger pled with Paul in a vision, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us” (16:9). As a result, the Good News of Christ was proclaimed at Thessalonica and a church was planted in spite of stormy opposition (17:1-9). These new converts had received the gospel “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” and that word continued to work in them. That word worked in them so mightily that they sounded out the word of the Lord even in the face of scorn, hatred, and persecution from enemies of the gospel (1 Thess. 2:13-16). “To sound forth” means “to trumpet, thunder, announce, proclaim, or ring out.” Freely did these saints receive the gospel, freely did they give it!

We need to hear the Macedonian call today – the call of the lost – and need to follow the Thessalonian example today -the example of sounding forth the gospel of Christ. As the song by Charles H. Gabriel says,

There’s a call comes ringing o’er the restless wave,

“Send the light! Send the light”

There are souls to rescue, there are souls to save,

“Send the light! Send the light!”

The song by James Rowe, Ring Out the Message, shows the gospel message is such good news that its proclamation must be accompanied by a spirit of celebration. The message of salvation and its joyous spirit must be passed on from one person to another in an unending chain.

There’s a message true and glad

For the sinful and the sad, Ring it out, ring it out;

It will give them courage new,

It will help them to be true; Ring it out, ring it out.

Tell the world of saving grace,

Make it known in ev’ry place, Ring it out, ring it out;

Help the needy ones to know

Him from whom all blessings flow; Ring it out, ring it out.

Let us examine this glorious mission of the church by a brief study of the following: (1) So Great Salvation, (2) The Local Church Sounds Out the Word, and (3) Perpetuate or Pervert the Mission?

So Great Salvation!

Christians are “to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard,” knowing that our destruction will be awful “if we neglect so great salvation” (Heb. 2:1-4). Among the things which we must not neglect is the happy duty of sharing the gospel with friends, neighbors, relatives, and even teeming thousands of souls in distant lands. All have sinned and are doomed unto spiritual and eternal death. But there is hope of repentance wherever men hear about “the goodness of God” – the gift of “eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 3:23; 2:4; 6:23).

This great salvation was embodied in God’s promise to Abram: “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3). Out of a prepared people in a prepared land, God would bring forth one who could save men of all nations from their sins. According to the message of the angel who spoke to Joseph, this One was to be named Jesus at birth “for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The deliverance and salvation which God prophesied was “the remission of their sins” (Lk. 1:77). Simeon announced by the Holy Spirit shortly after the child’s birth that Jesus was the long-awaited Savior which God had “prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel” (2:25-32).

When Peter confessed Jesus saying, “Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God,” Jesus said that upon that confession as a foundation of rock, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:13-19). Not even the gates of death could keep Him from accomplishing so great salvation. This promise to save all men in Himself is confirmed and explained further by the commission that He gave to His apostles after He arose from the dead:

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Those who obeyed the gospel, Jews and Gentiles alike, were saved in Christ. All were added to the same thing, to the one body, to the church, which He had purchased with His own blood (Acts 2:47; 10:47-48; 20:28).

The Ephesian letter shows that the eternal purpose of God for salvation in Christ and in His church is one purpose. Salvation in Christ and in His church is not a human speculation or expedient but is a Divine creation. The Divine Author is glorified “in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages” (3:21). Every divine feature manifests “the manifold wisdom of God” (vs. 9). “As the heavenly firmament declares the glory of God and His creative handiwork (Psa. 19), so the spiritual institution manifests, by exhibition, its divine origin – that it is the manifold wisdom of God, comprehensive of the various features of the divine plan, making perceptible to men (verse 9) the unfolding of an eternal purpose” (Foy E. Wallace, Jr. comment on Eph. 3:9-10 in “The Identity and Perpetuity of the Church,” Torch, April-May 1951, pp. 3-4). It is the church’s mission as “the pillar and ground of the truth” to proclaim the revelation of so great salvation: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Tim. 3:15-16). The gospel of Christ is the one message that can save lost sinners and it is the preeminent mission of the church to proclaim that message.

When souls are saved, they are not to be left to neglect so great salvation by returning into sin. God provided that saints should come together in the local church to worship, study, and grow. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). They were instructed to teach and admonish “one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). In assemblies “upon the first day of the week,” the disciples shared the Lord’s Supper and gave into a common fund for the work of the church (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-20). All assemblies of the saints had the purpose of “edifying” – “provoking one another unto love and good works” (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:23-25).

Those who shared so great salvation shared also material necessities with those among them who were destitute, by means of the common fund or treasury (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32 – 5:11; 6:1-7). But the church is not a mere benevolent aid society and the apostles told the Jerusalem church where the primary emphasis must be placed: “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables” (Acts 6:2). Individual saints had broader benevolent tasks than did the church (1 Tim. 5:16). But for the church, sounding out the good news-of forgiveness in Christ was always the imperative and preeminent task.

The Local Church Sounds Out the Word

“The apostolic age was emphatically the missionary age of the church. Then every new convert to Christ was a new element of strength to the missionary cause” (Robert Milligan, The Great Commission, p. 45). The godly lives of early Christians shone as lights, pointing the way to Christ (Acts 2:47; Phil. 2:15-16). Even when scattered from their homes by severe persecution, the “men and women” who made up the church at Jerusalem “went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:1-4). Christ must be seen in the lives of Christians every day in every thing they do. When each Christian seeks and seizes each opportunity to tell each lost soul about Christ, the gospel spreads through the most powerful and effective medium there is. God’s plan is simple and direct.

As the pillar and ground of the truth, the local church must do everything in its power to propagate and defend the gospel. The church at Jerusalem was directly interested in the spread of the gospel, as was the church at Antioch. God “ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). How does the church have fellowship in that ordinance? As for the church’s work in edification and benevolence, so for the church’s work of evangelism God ordained an all-sufficient organization. That organization is the church itself, scripturally organized, without appendage or addition by the devices of human wisdom. In all the work of the church, elders are to oversee, guide, and guard the flock (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Special servants are provided as deacons (Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1). All the saints in a local church are to participate, contribute, and cooperate in harmony (Phil. 1:1). This simple organization is sufficient for the church to sound forth the gospel – providing and distributing tracts, holding gospel meetings for a specified period of time, arranging home Bible studies, financing radio or television programs, offering Bible correspondence courses, and supporting gospel preachers to labor locally or in fields far away.

The church is not Scripturally fulfilling its mission when it forms or supports human organizations, boards, societies, and denominations. Nor is one local church to plan, oversee, and coordinate the work of other local churches. The church at Philippi with its divine organization of bishops, deacons, and all the other saints repeatedly supported Paul in preaching the gospel (Phil. 1:1-5; 2:25-30; 4:14-20). On another occasion, Paul said that several churches gave him the support necessary to preach at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8-9). He commended the Thessalonian church as exemplary for sounding out the word both locally and in regions beyond (1 Thess. 1:7-8). C.R. Nichol well said,

It is my persuasion that the church should be the church, and that the local congregation is the largest organization ordained by the Lord for the accomplishment of all the work he has commanded at the hands of congregations. I am not in sympathy with the statement I often hear: “We need a twentieth century church; that the church the Lord established was quite adequate for the first century, but we have come a long way since then, and the way work was done then in antiquated, outmoded, and there is now need for larger organizations, and different methods than those of the first churches in the first century, when churches labored under the direction of the elders in local congregations” (“Let the Church Be the Church,” Torch, April-May 1951, p. 12).

Whatever mission God gave to the local church, He also gave it the necessary and all-sufficient organization to accomplish that mission.

Perpetuate or Pervert the Mission?

If we are to perpetuate rather than pervert the church’s mission, we must perpetuate Bible teaching on the concept of the church as supernatural not natural in origin and design. The church was purposed by the Father, promised and paid for by the Son, and revealed by the Spirit. Its pattern is divine not human, whether for its mission, organization, doctrine, discipline, worship, name, or treasury. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. commented on Ephesians 3:9-10, saying that the church is “not a natural institution” but exhibits the Divine Architect in the salvation of souls. “The comprehensiveness of the church is here made to be co-extensive with the whole scheme of redemption (Eph. 1:10-11, 20-23).” Thus Ephesians presents the dignity and grandeur of the church “as the building and habitation of God” by a foreordained plan from eternity. The church belongs “to the highest sphere of divine knowledge and wisdom, beyond the prudence of men to devise or the power of the human mind to plan” (“The Identity and Perpetuity of the Church”). The church conceived as a natural device of man becomes pliable to human pride and passion. Some current members of churches of Christ have no higher conception of the church than to think that it should adopt as part of its work the job of convincing people that homosexuality “is a gift of God.” “I should think that the goal would be that homosexual Christians should be able to function in all capacities just as everyone else, and that there would be no attention paid to that particular aspect of one’s life” (“Coming Out in Houston: The A Cappella Chorus,” Mission Magazine, October 1979, pp. 61, 63).

If we are to perpetuate rather than pervert the church’s mission, we must perpetuate Bible teaching on the concept of the church as spiritual not secular in nature and work. The kingdom of Christ is not political in nature and not designed to mobilize political pr military force (Jn. 18:36). Political ambiguity, diplomacy, and craftiness are not its methods and carnal weapons are not in its arsenal. But the preaching of a crucified Savior is God’s power to save man from sin,-from-vain imaginations, and from “every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.” The spiritual force of the gospel is all-sufficient to bring “every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4-5). The Pope of Rome with his political trappings, national and international councils of Protestant churches with their political pronouncements, and brethren who want to activate the church in political campaigns are all equally unbiblical. All pervert the spiritual mission of the church.

Secular education, recreation, business enterprises, and social renovation have their place in the world in which we live but have no place in the work of the church.

The mission of the church is not social. Christianity is not a “social religion.” The Gospel of Christ is not a “social gospel.” The church of the Lord is not a “social institution.”

Preachers who make a specialty of love, courtship, marriage, parent education, and counseling those who are having difficulty in domestic relations and in social problems should do such work in some other way than through the church and should not deceive themselves into thinking that such work is the work of a gospel preacher (Roy E. Cogdill, Walking By Faith, pp. 8-9).

Yes, when a person becomes a Christian, it will change all his attitudes and relationships for the better in this world, but the mission of Christ and His church is not to build a better world but is to save us from our sins so that we may spend eternity with God. It is a shame and disgrace that churches build gyms with ladies slimnastics, ceramics classes, macrame classes, bowling leagues, volleyball leagues, cardiac pulmonary resuscitation courses, basketball officiating classes, jogging classes, and picnics (see Madison, Tennessee, Church of Christ Marcher August 22, 29, and September 5, 1979). Schools tied to churches, as in Dayton, Ohio, pervert the mission of the church.

Let us ring out the Good News of Jesus Christ! That, very simply, is the church’s mission.

Questions

Why did Paul commend the church at Thessalonica?
What is the “Macedonian call”? How can we follow the Thessalonian example today?
Why is it important to share the gospel with friends, neighbors and relatives?
Who announced that Jesus was the long-awaited Savior? How could he know this?
What commission did Jesus give to His apostles after He arose from the dead? How is it distinguished from the commission In Matt. 10?
What is the one message that can save lost sinners?
How has God provided for a Christian to worship, study and grow?
How can each Christian help spread the gospel?
What is the Church’s mission?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 1, pp. 22-24
January 3, 1980

The Church and Salvation

By O.C. Birdwell, Jr.

Many do not understand what the church that Jesus built is, and often have no concept of the nature of the church. Because of this there is much misunderstanding about the relationship of the church to salvation. We, therefore, hear such statements as, “The church is not the Savior,” and, “The church is not essential to salvation.” Let us give some serious study and thought to this important subject which is vital to our salvation.

When we discuss the church and salvation, we do not have in mind the many churches in the world that have been built by men. Such churches are not “of Christ,” they are “of men.” They were built by men. They are named after men. They teach the doctrines of men. They belong to men. If they promise any salvation, it is merely man’s promise. Worship offered to God by such churches is in vain. Of similar bodies Jesus said, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). We are not, therefore, affirming that salvation is in any of these churches. On the other hand, we even deny that they are essential to salvation. We do affirm, however, that the church Jesus built, the church that is in existence by his authority, the church one reads about and finds described in the New Testament does relate to salvation.

Is This Your Question?

Recently this writer was asked a question with a request made that it be answered on our local radio broadcast and in Bible Facts, a monthly paper we publish. The question was, “Where is the passage that says one must be a member of the church of Christ to be saved?” Since a Bible passage was requested, the following one was given: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). This statement by the inspired apostle is in every properly translated New Testament. Yet, it is generally overlooked and disregarded. Christ is head of the church and savior of the body. There is one body (Eph. 4:4), and that one body is the church (Eph. 1:22, 23). These passages make no mistake about the importance of the church to our salvation. Christ is the savior of the church. We, therefore, must be a part of the church to be saved.

How the Church Relates to Salvation

(1) The church is God’s family. Paul wrote, “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14, 15). The word “house,” as used here, means “family.” Paul is not expressing concern about conduct in a church building; but rather he is speaking of one’s conduct as a member of the family of God. The church is that family.

(2) Christ is a Son over. God’s house. He is called by the writer of Hebrews an Apostle, High Priest, and Son over God’s house (Heb. 3:1-6). The Father gave Him to -be head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:23). He has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18).

(3) Reconciliation to God is in the church. The mystery of the salvation of the Gentiles and their reconciliation unto God was revealed by Paul. How God planned to save the Gentiles was a mystery until it was fully revealed by inspired men. In Eph. 2:11-22, Paul tells how both Gentile and Jew are presently reconciled unto God. “But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even -the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself on the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (vs. 13-16). Notice that reconciliation to God of both Gentile and Jew is “in one body.” We have already shown that this body is the church.

(4) The church is a habitation of God. Paul speaks of the “household of God” and calls it a t “holy temple” and “a habitation of God” (Eph. 1:19-22). Again, we note that he is not talking about a material building, but those whom he calls “fellow-citizens he saints.” These are the household of God. They are the church. This is where God dwells.

(5) The Lord adds those who are being saved to the church. “And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved” (Acts 2:47, ASV). In the KJV we read, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” When one repents, is baptized, and receives remission of his sins, he is immediately added by the Lord to the church. The Lord does His job daily. He does not get behind. He adds people who are being saved to his church, not to the churches of men. Hence, there are no present day, accountable, saved people outside the Lord’s church.

Modern False Concepts

With many, decisions are made and minds molded by human concepts and worldly wisdom rather than by the word of God. What they know about the church comes from human creeds. The same is so with their understanding of salvation. Consequently, their attitude toward the relationship of salvation to the church depends on their concept of the church and salvation as taught by men.

Theory: The Church is an Afterthought

Some hold the position that the church is merely an afterthought of God and never in His plan for man. Many premillennialists believe the church to be no more than a filler, to fill in a “gap” or a “parenthesis” in God’s plan for national Israel. They affirm that Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom, but being rejected by the Jews, the church was established instead. There is no wonder that so many of these people have such a low estimate of the church. Contrary to this theory, the church is the spiritual kingdom of Old Testament prophecy. It is that kingdom which was “at hand” during the days of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1-3). It is the church Jesus said, “I will build” and then called the kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19). Rather than being an afterthought, the church reveals the “manifold wisdom of God,” and is in His “eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10, 11). The church was purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). One should not disregard or take lightly such a high-priced institution.

Theory: There is a Subjective Body With Many Objective “Christian Communions”

There are many who affirm that all who believe that Jesus is the Christ make up the church of Christ. The idea is that there is a universal, subjective, church of Christ, made up of those who give mental assent to Jesus as the Christ. These people then, according to the theory, make up different objective bodies with divergent beliefs and traditions.

In a book called What Present Day Theologians Are Thinking, Daniel Day Williams, the author, has a chapter on “The Church.” He presents the theological concept of the church as a universal subjective body with many objective communions. He makes the following statement: “Within nearly every existing Christian communion there is a growing challenge to complacency with existing forms and traditions. Each communion is actually only a fragment of what the full Body of Christ should be. The question being asked from within the churches is, `How can the universal church of Christ be more adequately expressed in our particular tradition.”‘ If these people believe in any salvation they relate it only to this concept of the universal church to which they affirm one belongs only by a specific faith that Jesus is the Christ. One then may, or may not, become a member of what they call a “Christian Communion” as being of human origin. This is indeed the truth, and it is of these we have already said, “we deny that they are essential to salvation.”

Their concept of the universal church is also incorrect. They church universal is God’s family. It is made up of those who are born of water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5). “Faith only” does not constitute the new birth. A part of it is baptism as commanded in the Great Commission (Mk. 16:15, 16), and as taught and administered by the apostles and early disciples (Acts 2:38, 8:38). One comes forth from baptism a new creature in Christ (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; 2 Cor. 5:17). He has been baptized into Christ, entering the body of Christ, the church (Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:47). This is where there is salvation for those who are faithful.

Conclusion

Those who have thus obeyed the first principles of the gospel of Christ are called Christians. They take on no human religious name. They assemble with others who have obeyed the same gospel. They teach only what. the Holy Spirit has revealed in the Bible. They worship Gad as the New Testament directs. Congregations of such people in different places are called “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Dear friend, we encourage you to do only what the New Testament asks you to do; be only what the New Testament asks you to be; and worship God only as the New Testament dictates that you worship. When this is done glory will be given unto God in the church (Eph. 3:21). This is the church Jesus purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28); which He will save (Eph. 5:23); and which kingdom He will deliver up to God the Father (I Cor. 15:24). The church does relate to salvation.

Questions

Is the church God’s appointed dispenser of salvation? Can you think of any church which believes that it can give or withhold salvation to a man?
What affect do human additions to worship have on that worship being accepted by God?
Must one be a member of the church to be saved? Prove your answer.
If the church is compared to a family, does God have children outside His family?
Can one “Join” the church? How does; one get into the Lord’s church?
How does premillennialism undermine the biblical doctrine of the church?
Does the word “church” refer to an invisible group of those good, honest, sincere people in all of the denominations? Prove your answer.
Can one be reconciled to God without being in the church? See Acts 2:47 and Eph. 2:16.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 1, pp. 19-21
January 3, 1980

Is This Your Question?

How the Church Relates to Salvation

Modern False Concepts

Theory: The Church is an Afterthought

Theory: There is a Subjective Body With Many Objective “Christian Communions”

Conclusion

Questions

Is the church God’s appointed dispenser of salvation? Can you think of any church which believes that it can give or withhold salvation to a man?
What affect do human additions to worship have on that worship being accepted by God?
Must one be a member of the church to be saved? Prove your answer.
If the church is compared to a family, does God have children outside His family?
Can one “Join” the church? How does; one get into the Lord’s church?
How does premillennialism undermine the biblical doctrine of the church?
Does the word “church” refer to an invisible group of those good, honest, sincere people in all of the denominations? Prove your answer.
Can one be reconciled to God without being in the church? See Acts 2:47 and Eph. 2:16.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 1, pp. 19-21
January 3, 1980

Unity in the Church

By Irvin Himmel

“. . . I would rather be the man that walked out and injected the sword into the body of Christ on the cross than to be responsible for having injected into the spiritual body of Christ that which has torn it asunder.” These words were spoken by N.B. Hardeman in 1922. He was referring to the division resulting from the introduction of mechanical music in the worship (Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 269).

Obviously, some disciples do not think that it is such a serious thing to invent injections that tear the spiritual body asunder. Since Hardeman spoke those words in 1922, many new practices have been injected. The tearing asunder has continued.

Unity Is Desirable

Before the establishment of the church, Jesus announced, “. . . And there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 10:16). The Master does not desire that some sheep find shelter in one sectarian setup, others in another denominational detachment, and additional ones in a different partisan pen, while the remainder roam the wild hills of hidden heresy.

Just a few hours before going to the cross, Jesus prayed while with the apostles, “Neither pray I for these alone,” said the Lord, “but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one is us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20, 21).

To the Corinthians, Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). It is possible for Christians to be of one mind, speaking the same thing.

The saints at Ephesus were urged to walk in a manner worthy of their calling, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3). The unity of the Spirit cannot be maintained without earnest endeavor.

Contrasting Examples

The church at Jerusalem exemplified remarkable oneness. The disciples in that city were “together,” “had all things common,” and continued daily “with one accord” (Acts 2:44-46). They were “of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32). When a murmuring arose because certain widows were neglected in the daily ministration, the problem was solved quickly under apostolic supervision. The recommendation of the apostles “pleased the whole multitude” because the authority of the apostles was respected. Today, many congregations are plagued with discord and dissension due to lack of respect for apostolic authority.

In contrast to the church at Jerusalem, God’s people at Corinth were torn with strife. They had a factional spirit. They were saying, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul charged that their envying, strife, and divisions furnished evidence of carnality. This brand of carnality often overshadows true spirituality among Christians.

The Corinthian brethren were going to law with each other before unbelievers (1 Cor. 6:6). They had differences over whether or not it is right to eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols (1 Cor. 8). They were abusing the Lord’s supper, making it a feast for satisfying bodily hunger (1 Cor. 11:18-34). They needed to learn that there should be “no schism in the body”; all members should have “the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25).

Requirements for Unity

How can we attain the kind of oneness for which Jesus prayed? On what basis can we be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment? The following are some of the essentials for the unity revealed by the Spirit:

1. We must stand on God’s platform. Paul outlined the seven planks in this platform in Eph. 4:4-6. (1) There is one body. That body is the church (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18). It is not a denomination or a mystical union of man-made religions. (2) There is one Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives life and direction through God’s word. (3) There is one hope. The desire and expectation produced by the gospel is eternal life (Tit. 1:2). (4) There is one Lord. Jesus is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). He is the head of the church. There is no human head. (5) There is one faith. That is the faith for which Christians are to earnestly contend (Jude 3). It is the revealed faith. (6) There is one baptism. That baptism is in water (Acts 8:36-38; 10:47), is a burial (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12), is in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5; 10:48), and is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). (7) There is one God. He is described in contrast to idols in Acts 17:24-29.

2. We must walk by the same rule. The word of God must be the standard for our faith and practice. Amos asked, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Amos was in agreement with God and walking with God. The people of Jeroboam’s kingdom were out of step with God. The New Testament is the revelation of God’s will for us today. Do people really want unity in Christ? “Let them all agree to walk by the same rule, the New Testament. Could they for this be blamed by the candid of any party? Does not every party confess that its own rules are fallible, and that the Bible is the only infallible rule? Do they not act wisely then, who give up the fallible for the infallible?” (B.W. Stone, Christian Messenger, Nov. 25, 1826, p. 16).

3. We must reject all that the Bible does not authorize. Moses E. Lard, writing in the first issue of his Quarterly (Sept., 1863), attempted to summarize the plea of such men as Campbell, Stone, and others. “. . . The reformation consists in an effort to induce all the truly pious in Christ to become perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, by accepting as doctrine, precisely and only what is either actually asserted or necessarily implied in the Bible; to speak the same things by speaking what the Bible speaks, and to speak them in the language of the Bible; and to practice the same things by doing simply the will of Christ.

4. We must differentiate between faith and opinion. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Nothing should be urged as a matter of faith unless it is backed by divine testimony. Alexander Campbell once noted: “A person’s faith is always bounded by testimony; his knowledge by observation and experience, and his opinions where both these terminate, and may be boundless as God’s creation or as human invention” (Christian Baptist, Feb. 6, 1826).

Many times brethren form a personal judgment about something, and that opinion is preached as if law and gospel. We ought to avoid preaching human opinions, and we must never elevate them to the high level of divine revelation.

5. We must have the proper attitude. We may preach loudly about the importance of walking in the old paths, and we may guard against unscriptural practices with the sharp perception of a good sentinel, and we may stress one Lord, one faith, one baptism, only to fail to keep the unity of the Spirit. Paul mentioned lowliness and meekness, longsuffering, and forbearance in love (Eph. 4:2). Some gospel preachers have never learned to show patience. There are brethren who seem to have a divisive spirit. At the slightest disagreement or provocation, they are ready to draw away disciples after them. Humility is a missing ingredient in a lot of men. The desire to rule, or to have one’s own way, even if it means splitting the church, has crippled the good cause in many localities.

6. We must endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirt. The unity into which the Spirit leads is based on truth, not error. A million people can be united in the practice of error, but that unity does not transform their error into truth. It is the unity of the Spirit that is to be preserved in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

Some people have the idea that if we preach the truth unity will result automatically. Paul knew that more is involved. He wrote of “endeavoring” to keep the unity of the Spirit. We must make careful and painstaking effort. This necessitates crushing unholy and selfish ambitions. It includes keeping down strife, seditions, and heresies. It involves the application of Phil. 2:3.

Most of us deplore division in the church. We plead for unity based on the Bible, but in practice a lot of us insist on unity based on our personal whims. Although we dare not compromise principles of right for any purpose, we must be willing to compromise in the realm of human judgment. Many congregations that have been ripped apart with bitterness and turmoil could have remained united if certain people had swallowed their pride, shown willingness to admit wrong, extended forgiveness, learned to keep their mouths shut, tended to their own affairs, shown brotherly love, exercised patience, and talked about staying together instead of “starting a new work” (a pretense for leaving).

Summary

God’s word teaches that unity is desirable, and it reveals how such unity can be attained. Through the ages many have caused divisions and hindrances by teaching what is contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Rom. 16:17). As David Lipscomb well expressed it, “All human teachings, inventions, and institutions are occasions of discord, stumbling, and division . . . . The hearts of those who add human inventions are not right in the sight of God” (Comment on Eph. 4:3).

Each Christian can make his contribution to the unity of the church by walking according to God’s pattern, teaching others to walk by the divine rule, rejecting everything contrary to the Scriptures, maintaining the right attitude, and humbly endeavoring to promote and preserve the unity of the Spirit.

Questions

What did N.B. Hardeman say about division resulting from the introduction of mechanical music in worship?
Is Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:20, 21 compatible with the denominational divisions and divisions among us? How might some people’s attitude toward modern denominationalism be compared to a religious smorgasboard and how does it affect unity?
How is it possible for Christians to be of one .mind, speaking the same thing? Give at least one verse to prove this.
Name six things that are essential for the unity revealed by the Spirit.
What are the seven one’s named in Eph. 4:4-6. Discuss each of them.
What seems to be the missing attitudes in some men whose doctrinal soundness is unquestioned but who divide churches?
If a million people are united in the practice of error, will that unity transform their error into truth?
Discuss what Paul meant by “endeavoring” to keep the unity of the Spirit.
How can each Christian make his contribution to the unity of the church?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 1, pp. 17-19
January 3, 1980