"Going"

TO LEAVE OR NOT TO LEAVE

A new book was reviewed in the June issue of The Christian Chronicle: Why We Stayed: Honesty and Hope in the Churches of Christ. The title itself indicates that something is wrong with the men who wrote the various chapters, or they wouldn't have even considered leaving or staying. In fact, one is reminded of the occasion when Jesus asked His apostles, "Do you also want to go away?" Peter immediately answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (John 6:67).

If someone were to ask a faithful preacher, "Will you stay or leave the churches of Christ?" most of them would probably respond by asking, "Leave for where?" That is not to say that problems do not exist. It is true that some preachers have been ill-treated, under-supported, and maligned by church members in the community. But despite bad behavior on the part of some and an occasional Diotrephes insisting on his own way, there remains but one church, which is the body of Christ—over which he is the Head. [Mistreatment runs both ways. Some preachers have run roughshod over the church (including elders).]

So where would someone go? To quit altogether would be to abandon the Lord. Whatever else happens, it is still the case that Jesus died for our sins and made salvation available to us all. Can we possibly discount such a loving sacrifice?

To forsake the Lord's body for some manmade denomination is unthinkable—since it would be an unimaginable insult to Jesus. He did not sacrifice Himself for a manmade institution. He did not build a denomination, nor is He Head over one. Furthermore, would not anyone who defected to a denomination look hypocritical when for centuries we have decried them because their very existence fosters division contrary to the unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20-21)? Is not the division they imply contrary to what Paul commanded (1 Cor. 1:10)? Would anyone dare attend a denomination when not one of them is authorized?

Surely, no one would leave Jesus for Buddha or Muhammad, Vishnu, or some other world religion, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). So to whom or to what would anyone go? Unfortunately, the review does not provide an answer.

But there is a clue. Similar to Why We Stayed, the author of the review says, is a blog written by Richard Beck in 2011 where the Abilene Christian University Psychology professor provides: "Four Reasons Why I'm Church of Christ." This title reveals that he thinks the Lord's church is a denomination, or he would have never expressed himself in such a sectarian manner. We are not Church of Christ; we are members of the body of Christ.

That much could be deduced without reading the contents of the blog. When one does go to the article, the charge is easily verified. Beck calls himself a member of the ecumenical Church of Christ, as though there was such a thing described in the New Testament. He wrote:

If the people in a church love you and you love them I don't think it matters much if that church is Catholic, Church of Christ, Baptist, or Episcopalian.

Does anything more need to be said about Beck's view of the church? He believes it to be a denomination, and probably most of the writers of the book under review do, also, which is a sufficient reason not to read it. So, while true Christians could not consider leaving the Lord's church for a denomination, men like these have no qualms in doing so because they believe they are already part of one anyway.

The Attack

Of course, men like the thirteen authors and Richard Beck have no use for those seeking to please God by following the New Testament. He refers to all such as "sectarian churches," which he defines as those who:

feel that they are the true and only apostolic church. All other churches are forms of heresy and disobedience, a willful refusal to worship according to the New Testament pattern. Consequently, it is widely believed in sectarian Churches of Christ that all Christians outside of the Churches of Christ are in a state of rebellion against God. Thus my label "sectarian."

Nothing judgmental in that, was there? Well, that's okay. We've been called worse names by better men. The reviewer of the book wrote similar words. He was grateful that no one had said, "We're right, and everybody else is wrong" (32). Theoretically, if we all admitted that we don't really believe anything distinctive, these men would be happy. If we said, "We really don't know what truth is, and therefore we can welcome anyone who believes anything with open arms," they might become delirious.

This is not, however, the day faithful brethren are going to sign up for Adventures in Gobbledygook Land. The fact is that we don't believe everyone is a Christian just because they say so. There is one gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and people have either obeyed it or not. If they have not, they are not Christians. If they have, they are. This is not so difficult that it requires a degree at ACU to comprehend it. In fact, it might be easier to understand without one. Let's say that one goes to a family park like Six Flags. One is allowed to leave and re-enter provided that a hand is stamped.

That seems easy enough, doesn't it? So here come six girls back into the park. All but one has a stamp. The person in charge says, "I'm sorry. I can't let you back in because your hand was not stamped." She protests, "But I went out with all my friends," and they all agree. The attendant repeats, "I'm sorry. Your hand is not stamped; I cannot let you in." The girl may lament and caterwaul, but it will be to no avail. Without the proper identification, she cannot be admitted. "I didn't have time to get it stamped when I left," she informs the gatekeeper. "I was feeling nauseous and thought I was going to throw up. I'll be more careful next time." "Okay. Pay again, and then be more careful. What you don't realize is that I have no way of knowing whether or not you are telling me the truth. The stamp is the only objective evidence I have, and you do not have one."

Therefore, when the Bible teaches that a person must be immersed in water (baptized) in order to have sins forgiven and washed away (Acts 2:28; 22:16), a person must do precisely that. At that point the sinner comes in contact with the blood of Christ, which washes away sins (Rev. 1:5). Now on the Day of Judgment, someone might ask to be admitted to Heaven. God could say, "I see no blood. Your sins have not been covered." The person might plead, "But I belonged to a prominent and recognized denomination." How dismaying to hear the answer: "But you had water sprinkled on you, and that's not baptism. You are not covered by the blood of Jesus." "But we were taught that being sprinkled as a child was all right; then we were confirmed later on." "However, neither the sprinkling of babies, nor 'confirmation' is in the Book. You were taught the doctrines of men—not the truths of God." At this point Beck would probably tell God He was sectarian!

If the New Testament teaches that all responsible beings are to be baptized in water in order to have forgiveness of sins, then all must be immersed for that reason. The New Testament does teach that doctrine. Then every responsible person must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins in order to be saved. Without it, they are lost. How hard can this principle be to understand? Yet Beck thinks that those who have never been immersed are saved anyway and calls the remainder of us sectarians because we don't agree with his heresy.

Right and Wrong

Was Jesus right about salvation and every other religious teacher in the world (including the Pharisees and the Sadducees) wrong? Did Jesus promise we would know the truth if we continued in His Word? The truth is right—whether only one person in the world admits to it or several million. The majority of people are going to be lost—only few will be saved. Yet liberals like Beck want to throw open their arms to include as many into the fellowship as they possibly can. Why do they do that? The church does not belong to us or to them; it belongs to Jesus (Eph. 5:22-24).

Therefore, we must respect the One Who gave His life. He does not accept into membership those who do not obey the gospel. If He did, what would be the advantage of being obedient? If the obedient and the disobedient are treated alike, what kind of lesson does that teach? We have all loved people that we wished were Christians, but our fervent desire does to make them so. God desires that all be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but He will not ignore the system of salvation that He created.

The Scriptures clearly teach, in addition to faith, that one must repent of his sins (Luke 13:3). This is not an option. Men must also confess that Jesus is the Son of God (He was both human and Divine at the same time) and be baptized for the sins he has repented of so they may be washed away. The blood cleanses that person and continues to cleanse him as he walks in the light and confesses his sins (1 John 1:7-9).

None of the thirteen men in the book, nor Beck, nor any of us designed this plan. And none of us has the right to change it. Have any of these men ever thought that by loosing what God has bound, they are causing people to be lost? The last thing anyone should desire to be is a stumbling block to others (Luke 17:1-2). But if we pretend that the unbaptized are our brothers, that is precisely what we are doing—causing them to be lost.

Why Stay?

Between the book review and Beck's statements, following are some of the reasons that men elected to stay. Some like the fact that each congregation is autonomous, and they prefer our a cappella singing. A few like the free and open discussion that churches of Christ have. Some like the fact that we have no creeds, but some would prefer that we had one—and sacraments, too (32). However, these are preferences. What no one is reported as having said is: "We need to practice this because the Scriptures teach it."

After all, what does it matter what we like? Some have acknowledged in the past, "If it were up to me, I would prefer musical accompaniment. I play two instruments proficiently and love the sound that instruments provide. But the Lord only authorized singing." No one seems to possess this same attitude. It is reported that some desire to see an expanded role for women. Why do they not have the attitude—but the Lord clearly forbade that through the teaching of His apostles (1 Tim. 2:11-14)? Man has no right to sit in judgment on God.

There is a second consideration in the book review besides a lack of emphasis on truth and Biblical authority. Many of these men are not leaving because they hope to change the church from within. Of those who leave, the apostle wrote: "They went out from us, but they were not of us…" (1 John 2:19). Others remain but not because they are of us; they are "change agents," set on ultimately destroying the New Testament pattern for the Lord's church. These men ought to realize that by staying, they are not doing any favors to the Lord or to the faithful members of the body of Christ.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: