Archive for September, 2007

h1

Do We Teach Another Gospel?

September 26, 2007

What is required in order to be saved? Do churches of Christ add requirements to the pure gospel message? And if so, what are the implications of that? These significant questions are the topic of an online book by Jay Guin, a third generation elder in the churches of Christ.

My study has led me to a great many observations and conclusions, but there’s one conclusion that troubles me greatly, and I write this in hopes of being proved wrong. I know that’s an odd thing for an author of a religious book to say. Indeed, we church authors just about always write to prove ourselves right and our opponents wrong, but I find myself wishing to be wrong.

You see, I’m of the opinion that Galatians teaches, and teaches quite plainly, that adding any command to the gospel—that is, making any law beyond obedience to the gospel a requirement to be saved—causes one to fall from grace, indeed, to be alienated from Christ. If this is so, many within the Churches of Christ are in jeopardy of their souls, as it is nearly universal in the Churches of Christ to add commands to the gospel as further requirements to be saved.

Jay begins by providing biblical definitions of “gospel” and ‘faith”. Based on passages like Rom 10:9-11, Rom 10: 14-17, 1 Cor 1:17, 1 Cor 1:23-24, 1 Cor 15:1-6, 2 Cor 4:4-5, he establishes that the faith which saves us is faith in the gospel; and the gospel is the message about Jesus being the Son of God, dying on the cross for our sins, being raised again on the third day, and now reigning as our Lord. Those are the truths in which we must put our faith in order to be saved.

He then defines “works” based on Rom 11:6 (KJV), Gal 3:2, Rom 4:1-5, James 2:14-19, and Eph 2:8-10.
From these passages, he argues that “works” refers to anything done in an effort to earn salvation. According to the gospel, our salvation comes by grace through our faith and not from our works. However, if we are saved, that will result in us doing good works. In Jay’s own words:

Now the key is the direction of the arrow of causation. Works do not cause salvation; rather, salvation causes works. We can state this in terms of formal logic. The statement “If I do good works, then I will be saved” is false, because no one other than Jesus is capable of doing works that merit salvation (Rom. 3:23). On the other hand, the statement “If I am saved, then I will do good works” is true. Now, my logic professor at David Lipscomb taught me that any true statement can logically be “double reversed” into the “contrapositive,” and it will still be true: “If I don’t do good works, then I am not saved.” And this is precisely what James says.

Because we have been saved, we love God and we seek to please Him. We don’t merely “love” because it is commanded! And so our good works are a natural, willing and eager response to the grace we have received, because we love, because God loved us first. God’s requirements are written on our hearts through the Holy Spirit so that we want to do what is right.

Jay demonstrates that there are two things that are required to be saved: faith (in the gospel), and repentance (lordship). And there are two things that can remove us from our saved position: abandoning that faith (1 John 4:1-2), or abandoning repentance (Heb 10:26-31).

All this leads to his very important conclusion:

Therefore, I readily accept as saved those within the Churches of Christ who disagree with me on any number of issues. The Scriptures teach that salvation is determined by faith and penitence—not by being right on the fashionable theological issues of the day. I can be entirely penitent and yet disagree on what the Bible says on any number of subjects. Neither the age of the earth nor the scriptural grounds for a divorce are matters of faith, and thus being wrong on those subjects is not a salvation issue—provided that I’m penitent, meaning that I’m trying to honor God in my study and teaching.

Now there are several Scriptures that authorize expulsion of church members who behave divisively (e.g., Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10). But being in error is not by itself divisive—or else we’d all have to agree on every single point of doctrine and practice— and we don’t and can’t. Similarly, a church may disfellowship a member due to unrepented moral sin. But this is to shame him into repentance (2 Thes. 3:14-15) because an impenitent Christian is in jeopardy of his soul under Hebrews 10:26. But a Christian who disagrees with me on, say, the role of women is not thereby impenitent and hence not a subject for disfellowshipping.

Jay develops these ideas further by examining the concepts of faith, hope, and love, in contrast to law. He shows from the book of Galatians that whoever adds any legal requirements to the gospel falls from grace. He further develops this idea from Romans 14 – 15, concluding with the following comment on Rom 15:7

In short, and it’s quite unambiguous in the Greek, we must accept as fellow saved people all those who’ve met the terms that we had to meet when we were first saved. “Hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized” defines not only who becomes saved but whom we must treat as still saved. More precisely, someone who’s become a Christian and who remains true to his original faith and repentance is still a Christian, and we must treat him as such.

He then turns to the disturbing implications for legalists in the churches of Christ:

You see, in teaching that certain doctrines other than the gospel are essential to salvation, we’re effectively saying that to be saved, you not only must hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized, you must also join a congregation with a scriptural name, with a scriptural organization, and with a scriptural pattern of worship. Thus, if your home church has an elder who might not be properly qualified, or your church does something in worship that might lack authorization, you must change congregations or else lose your soul! I know Christians who have left their local congregation and take communion weekly at home rather than risk damnation by joining an unscriptural Church of Christ.

I fail to see how insisting on these rules as conditions to salvation is any different from insisting on circumcision as a condition to salvation. Either way, you’re insisting on obedience to a law in addition to the gospel.

Jay then offers a word of hope. Paul had not yet deemed the Galatians church as a whole to have fallen from grace — though he apparently felt that the false teachers had done so. So perhaps the churches of Christ are in no worse condition today. But Paul did address the Galatians with some of the most urgent warnings in scripture. They were in great danger of falling from grace. Adding requirements to the gospel is a perilous path.

There is much more to be gleaned from this online book. I heartily recommend it. May we all gain a better understanding of grace, faith, and the gospel of Christ!

h1

Unity in the Faith

September 20, 2007

Eph 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

The Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostle Paul, teaches us that the maturing of the church should lead to unity in the faith. There is only one faith on which we are to build unity (vs 5). What is that faith?

Often we find Christians failing to be unified because of differing understandings of scripture. They may believe different things about instrumental music, or predestination, or the resurrection, or a thousand other topics. It is often argued that we cannot share the same faith if we do not share the same doctrinal understandings, even on such issues as music. Is this what the scriptures mean by “unity in the faith”?

Faith [Gk pisteuo] is fundamental to salvation:

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes [Gk pisteuo] in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe [Gk pisteuo] in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes [Gk pisteuo] and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe [apisteo] will be condemned.

Note however that two of the above passages link salvation to faith plus something (confess Jesus is Lord; baptism). In the Romans passage, our salvation is conditional upon making a sincere and legitimate commitment to obey Jesus as Lord. In the Mark passage, salvation is made conditional upon a particular case of obedience. This is consistent with what Paul wrote in the introduction to Romans:

Rom 1:5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

We are called to the kind of faith that produces obedience.

But does unity require complete agreement on every matter of obedience? Romans 14 answers that for us:

Rom 14:2-4 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Note that the two people described do not agree on what it means to obey in the case of eating meat. Each one is responsible to obey what he understands. They share the same kind of faith in Jesus, but that faith produces differences in obedience in the two men, because they have different understandings on the subject of eating meat.

So, what is the faith on which we are to be united? From John 3:16, we are to have faith in Jesus. Rom 10:9 further clarifies that we are to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. And Mark 16:15-16 tells us that we must believe the gospel that has been preached. Paul made it clear in 1 Cor 15:1-11 what makes up the gospel, which must be believed: the facts about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus on our behalf, because of our sins. These are the facts that one must believe to be saved. These facts define the faith (belief) that in turn defines the boundaries of unity.

Many other matters that divide Christians fall under the category of obedience, rather than faith. Take instrumental music as an example. One person believes singing in worship must be a cappella. Another believes it may be accompanied by instruments. As long as each is practicing according to his conscience, they are to be accepted by one another, just as the two men in Romans 14 were to accept one another despite different views on eating meat.

Note, the fact that each is following his conscience does not necessarily mean each is accepted by God:

Rom 14:22-23 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Either, or both, may be condemning himself by what he approves. Even so, if the two cannot come to agreement on what is required for obedience, they must not quarrel nor judge one another, but instead they must keep their convictions to themselves, and leave the matter in God’s hands. (The few limited exceptions to this are spelled out in scripture; for example, 1 Cor 5:9-11 ) It is before God that each stands or falls. And God is able to make both of them stand.

So we are to be united based on our faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and on our mutual commitment to obey Him, beginning at baptism. Given those things, we are to accept one another, to live according to our own consciences, and leave judging up to God. May we all learn to accept one another as Christ accepted us.

h1

A Proposal for Unity: Conclusion

September 13, 2007

Over the past few weeks I have posted a series of articles proposing an approach for achieving unity among Christians;

Introduction
Part 1: One Body
Part 2: Congregational Relationships
Part 3: The Bible
Part 4: Silence of the Scriptures
Part 5: Authority of the Scriptures
Part 6: Accept One Another
Part 7: Freedom to Grow

Acts 2:38-39 contains a promise of forgiveness upon repentance and baptism. The passage clearly states that the promise applies to “all whom the Lord our God will call.” Gal 3:26-28 confirms that those who respond to this promise become sons of God, and are “one in Christ Jesus.” On that basis, we become part of the body of Christ. Therefore each of us should accept all the other members of the same body.

While we assemble in various separate congregations in different places, Christians should accept one another even across those congregational boundaries. Yet we should respect those congregational boundaries when it comes to matters of judgment and differing convictions on peripheral matters. God places leadership in the local congregation, and God will hold that leadership accountable for that flock. We can encourage one another across those congregational lines, urging one another to live lives worthy of the calling we have received. But we must not draw lines of fellowship excluding people who have been adopted by God according to the scriptures, even if they do some things differently from us, and even if they understand some things differently from us. It is before their Lord that they will stand or fall, and we are not to pass judgment on them (Rom 14:4)

As people move back and forth between congregations, we must accept them on the same basis that God did. If they were adopted as sons of God according to the scriptures, we are to accept them accordingly. Likewise, those entering a new congregation are to respect the leaders God has placed in that congregation, even though they may do some things differently from other congregations.

Matters on which the scriptures are silent must not be permitted to divide Christians. Such topics have been the root of innumerable divisions over the past five hundred years, and that needs to change. We should not insist that silence is prohibitive, nor that it is permissive. Silence by itself is not sufficient grounds for prohibiting a practice, because silence does not tell us anything about God’s will. Silence is silent. Prohibiting a practice requires other sound biblical reasons based on what the scriptures actually say.

The scriptures are the only source of divine instruction available to the church today. It is the duty of each Christian, and each church leader, to seek to understand and to follow the will of God revealed in the scriptures. In doing so, we must recognize our own fallibility as well as that of our fellow Christians. Unless the scriptures explicitly make a certain matter essential to salvation, we must not presume to do that ourselves.

It is not just a good idea for Christians to accept one another. It is the clear command of God. Failure to accept those whom God has accepted is direct disobedience to our Lord’s command. Therefore, no division is permissible which is not explicitly commanded in the scriptures.

The Christian church must be a safe place to learn and to grow. So we must protect those who understand some things differently from us. Everyone must be given time and space so the Lord can work. Remember, the Lord is able to make each of us stand.

My hope is that this series of articles will start a new conversation leading to humility, gentleness, and peace among Christians. Our Lord is still at work in the church. May we have faith in God who will make us all stand united together!

h1

Church Autonomy

September 7, 2007

I still owe you a concluding article in the Proposal for Unity series. But today I am going to write about a different matter.

Two years ago, a group of prominent leaders from the former ICOC congregations began an effort to re-unite these churches on the basis of a doctrinal statement, a system of delegates, and regional discipleship groups. The response has been mixed, as some congregations questioned the wisdom of having a doctrinal statement other than the scriptures, as well as the biblical validity of the proposed organizational structure. The difference in the two perspectives centers on creeds and church autonomy.

Recently, a member of the group that drew up the proposal wrote an article about the current status of the proposal. One statement in the article spotlights the issue of autonomy:

We are not a movement of autonomous churches. We interact, encourage, correct, and love one another. While it was obviously time to put aside the structure of the 1990’s where one man was in charge world-wide, most of us did not want to revert to total separation and autonomy. We have functioned for years as circles of churches. The current arrangement of a brotherhood of churches looks promising.

It is my opinion that this perspective is an overreaction to what was seen in the mainline churches of Christ. But I think that overreaction illustrates a misunderstanding of autonomy.

Churches of Christ do not have a corner on the market of church autonomy. Baptists also have a strong conviction on this topic. We can gain a valuable perspective on the meaning of autonomy from them. Quoting from baptistdistinctives.org:

Autonomy means that each Baptist church, among other things, selects its pastoral leadership, determines its worship form, decides financial matters and directs other church-related affairs without outside control or supervision. Baptist denominational organizations such as associations of churches and state and national conventions have no authority over a Baptist church. For any one of these organizations to attempt to exercise control over an individual church is to violate a basic Baptist conviction about polity.

Comparing this Baptist concept of autonomy to the stark denial of autonomy quoted previously raises concerns. Under the Unity Proposal, who chooses leadership of the local congregation? Who determines the details of the worship service? Who decides financial matters? What church-related affairs would be controlled or supervised by someone outside the local congregation? Is it the goal of the Unity Proposal to take control of these decisions away from the local congregation?

As far as I can tell, based on this definition, even the congregations who ratified the Unity Proposal are actually operating autonomously, as much as they hate that word. Nobody outside these churches is making decisions for them. Although they deny it, these churches are clearly autonomous, by the generally accepted definition of the term.

And wherever that is not the case, it should be.

Act 20:28-31 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Note that the Holy Spirit appointed the Ephesian elders as overseers of the church in their city. Paul charged them to care for the flock, and to protect the flock from wolves. Notice the conspicuous absence of any organizational authority outside Ephesus. Even the apostle Paul himself would never see them again. These elders must give an account to God for the flock (Heb 13:17) They were under the authority of God, not some man-made worldwide federation. And so it should be today.

Part of the controversy over autonomy among the former ICOC is semantics. There certainly is a widely held desire to work together on world missions, to exchange visiting preachers, to maintain unity of doctrine, and to urge one another to live lives worthy of the calling we have received. Along with that, there seems to be an unhealthy desire among some to exert undue influence over other congregations. Those who seek that undue influence should redirect their energies toward the flock that God has placed under their care. All of the healthy goals of the ICOC Unity Proposal can better be achieved (and are being achieved in many places) without ratifying a man-made doctrinal agreement, and without organizing a man-made federation of churches.

h1

A Proposal For Unity Part 7: Freedom to Grow

September 4, 2007

Both as individuals and as congregations, Christians must give each other the freedom to learn and to grow.

In Thomas Campbell’s twelfth proposition, he laid out what he believed to be the way “to the highest state of perfection and purity of the church upon earth.” To Campbell the way seemed simple: accept everyone who meets the biblical requirements for conversion, and who continue to show evidence of their conversion commitment; and lead the church exactly according to the teachings and pattern of the New Testament church. The fallacy implicit in that approach is the assumption that sincere people under the lordship of Jesus would actually come to agreement upon every detail of that teaching and pattern. The impact of that fallacy is painfully evident in the divided church today.

It is evident that Christian unity will not be attained by calling all believers to immediate and perfect agreement on all subjects. Instead, the path to unity must accommodate sincere differences of understanding. These differences must be explicitly permitted and protected, rather than being rejected and purged. The path to truth is not a straight line. Not all people travel at the same rate, and not all learn truths in the same sequence. The church must be a safe place for a person to change his or her mind, and perhaps to change it back again. Without that safety, real search for truth does not occur. Instead, people seek to comply with the norms of the group, whether those norms are true or not. Errors of the group go unchallenged and even unexamined. Both the truths and the errors of the group become calcified. Real learning is blocked, and unity is thwarted. Instead, factions form, drawing battle lines over every difference.

So, here is the seventh proposal for unity:

Proposal #7: Both as individuals and as congregations, Christians must give each other the freedom to learn and to grow. It is the duty of church leaders to make the local congregation a safe place for people to grow in their understanding truth, recognizing that this growth does not always occur at a steady pace, nor always in a straight line. Likewise, relationships between congregations must accommodate differences in understanding as each community matures in its knowledge of the Word. Only those understandings that are essential to conversion may be held as prerequisites for Christian fellowship.