|
|
|
|
 |
>>homepage |
        
|
If They Could, Why Can't We? Since the 1940's, when churches of Christ began to "reach out" into the world with ministries other than preaching the gospel, concerned brethren have pleaded for "book, chapter and verse" for such ever-increasing activities. Numerous debates were held to give brethren opportunity to defend their non-scriptural works. Alas, the best efforts of some of the soundest Bible scholars among us did not avail. Brethren even faced with the inability to produce scriptures that would authorize their ever-expanding "social gospel" tendencies kept on in error's way. Having once left the way of truth the breach became ever broader until there is little similarity between these churches and the church of the New Testament; conversely, there is a growing affinity for secular denominationalism and a tendency to identify with manmade religious groups while castigating those who stand firm on the word of God, branding them with the hateful epithet, "antis." The concerned Christian wants to be right with God, both as an individual and as part of a congregation of God's people. In matters pertaining to our work for, and our worship of, God we must do only that which the New Testament (Col. 3:17) has authorized. All else must be rejected or face the consequences of being withdrawn from by God and Christ (2 John 9-11). Some may regard the plea, "book chapter and verse" as outdated a disposable appeal of the Restoration Movement. But long before the Restoration Movement Christians were commanded to "speak as the oracles of God," that is, to speak only what God has delivered to us (1 Pet. 4:11). Many brethren make the argument that we cannot do all that God has ordained unless we set up separate organizations into which individual congregations can pool their resources. That was the defense of the promoters of the missionary society in 1849. In spite of scriptural teaching on the autonomy of the local church, they "reasoned" that congregations were too small and poor to carry on the work of evangelizing the world as Christ had commanded. In spite of countless appeals, their "logic" won over the word of God. The same "logic" prevailed in the case of church supported orphans' homes, "crusades," hospitals, schools and numerous other well-intended but unscriptural works. How did the early church provide for carrying out our Lord's commands? The churches of the first century were under the same commission as churches today. There were small, poor churches in that day. Was she able to do what many consider impossible today? Did she fail because the local churches were too small, weak and poor to carry on a program of work by themselves? Did they find it necessary to pool resources of many churches under a single eldership? If so, where is the record? The faithful churches have always followed the Divine principle of practicality: "according to that a man hath, and not to that he hath not" (2 Cor 8:12), understanding that "responsibility equals opportunity plus ability. There are some things that are lost in the sophistic and emotional arguments over the work of the church. In this we must "go all the way back to Jerusalem' even as we must for learning what we must do to be saved. There were orphans in the first century but we have no record of a church or group of churches building, maintaining, or contributing to an orphan's home. How did they manage? Apparently as individuals obeying the command to "visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27). Can individuals care for orphans today? If these early Christians could do it, why can't we do it today? There were poor people in New Testament times but we cannot read of the church becoming a welfare agency to provide for their needs. The church did not set up benevolent institutions but, as provided by Divine guidance, cared for her own. There is no record in the New Testament of the church providing unlimited benevolence. In every reference to such care, the receivers are identified as Christians(1). Each congregation provided for her own poor; if unable to do this, they were assisted by other churches If the first century church could do this, why can't we who surely have much fewer poor among us. People had need of the gospel in the first century and Christ had commanded that the gospel be preached to the whole world. Their means of carrying out this commission were certainly less impressive than they are in this electronic age but in spite of their limitations they turned the world upside down" as the gospel was preached to "every creature which is under heaven" (Acts 17:6; Col, 1:23). These first Christians had no inferiority complexes! They did not think they were too small and poor to do what the Lord had commanded. Without super organizations supported by many churches; without one congregation relinquishing its autonomy to the elders of another church; they were able to accomplish Christ's will. Why can't we do this today? There was a great need for education in the first century but the church did not build, support or maintain schools and colleges. The first Christians could have made all of the arguments for the need of "Christian education" that is made today: "How can we raise godly children in such an ungodly environment"? "Where will we get our preachers if we don't have schools to train them?" Somehow, without "Christian education" these first century saints managed to bring children up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4). Education, especially religious education, was the responsibility of the parents, as Timothy exemplifies (2 Tim. 1:5). Today, as we see so many of our "brotherhood schools" teaching such ungodly doctrine as Organic Evolution, the New Hermeneutics, and leading students away from basic Bible doctrines, we can see that "Christian education" is not necessarily "Christian" in content, nor true education Children (and adults) in New Testament times enjoyed
entertainment (Matt. 11:16-17) but the church never provided
entertainment. That was, and still is, the responsibility of the
family, not the church. The church is the "pillar and ground of the
truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), not the "giver of fun and games." Yet, today
we read of churches having athletic teams, playgrounds, plays,
parties, and almost every form of entertainment that can be
imagined. Where is the authority? |