"Is There Any Mercy in the Church of Christ?"
In the November 4th Spiritual Perspectives (2018), the idea of women not working at all outside the home (full or part time) was refuted. Jack (a nickname) sent nine pages of handwritten material to the church's address. The above eye-catching title could not be ignored, as it was written in large letters across the top of another of those pages. Underneath it followed these words:
Having been a member of the church of Christ for over 20 years, I know it is a good well-meaning church. However, far too many congregations have never obeyed the Lord's command in Mt. 9:13 (NKJ): "But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice (the emphasis is his).
The first thing one notices after reading the entire page is that Jack has not been taught very well in twenty years—or he would know that the Lord's church, established on the Day of Pentecost, is not a denomination. Yet he speaks of it as though it were. How can he not know that we do not believe in denominationalism because the New Testament does not believe in it? Jesus promised to build only one church—His (Matt. 16:18). He is the Head of the body (singular), the church (singular) (Eph. 1:22-23). Furthermore, Paul affirmed that there was only one body (church) in Ephesians 4:4. Jesus is the Savior of that one body (Eph. 5:23). Has Jack never heard sermons that teach on this subject?
Notice he says that the church of Christ is a well-meaning church. No kidding? Established by the Lord Jesus Christ, what else could it be? But Jack is just comparing it to manmade religious institutions such as Pentecostal Holiness and the Baptist Churches—as if they are all valid (which they are not). And then he is going to criticize the church of Christ for failing to be merciful. Assuming that he does not find fault with the Lord, then his claim must be that the followers of Jesus are not practicing mercy.
However, there is more to it than that. Since Jesus is addressing the Pharisees on the two occasions when He talks about the value of mercy over sacrifice, then Jack implicitly accuses "far too many" congregations of being Pharisaical. One wonders how he achieved such marvelous insight to know so many congregations so well as to make such an accusation. Unfortunately, he does not list his qualifications.
Context
This charge concerning a lack of mercy was originally made by God to Israel and Judah in Hosea 6:6. God was angry with both kingdoms, proclaiming their faithfulness to be like a morning cloud (v. 4), which disappears not long after the sun comes out.
God next says He has slain them in the street by the words of His mouth (v. 5). Then Hosea writes: "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (v. 6). The people had not ceased to give offerings to God, as He had required of them, but what they were doing involved just a form of religion. They were, in their offerings, obeying what God had said to do, but they did not even know Him. They were not giving their offerings out of love and devotion to Him. Their religion had become formalistic. They knew nothing about His attributes—especially His mercy, which accounted for them not having been taken captive—yet. They did not practice mercy with one another because they did not understand this quality of God—even as it was extended toward them.
How did Jesus apply this principle? The first time He cited the verse was in connection with the criticism of Him for fellowshipping tax collectors. Jesus told them that those who are well have no need of a physician—only those who are sick. At this point He cites Hosea 6:6 and adds: "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance" (Matt. 9:13). One can picture the Pharisees saying, "Oh, well, sure. Tax collectors are sick and really in need of a spiritual cure. Yes, that makes sense. We Pharisees are the healthy ones."
These Pharisees had some things in common with those in previous generations who were taken captive. They thought they were spiritually fine—in fact, among the best. They undoubtedly knew God better than their previous counterparts, but they still missed seeing an important part of their character. Rejoicing in their own close relationship with God, they came to despise those who were not as wonderful as they were. Tax collectors? They could not hold a candle to the Pharisees. So they felt free to discount and despise them—to write them off as being of no account. Jesus reached out to them to lift them up and give them hope.
The other time Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 was after the disciples plucked heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath day and were criticized for it (they had not actually broken the Sabbath). Here the Pharisees found fault for the disciples violating a tradition—but not an actual law (Matt. 12:1-8). They were so zealous for their traditions that they condemned the guiltless.
In these two instances the Pharisees demonstrated that they did not comprehend God's character. They lacked compassion for a fellow Jew, counting him of no worth, but God did see value in him. Then they elevated their traditions above the truth with respect to the disciples. In both instances they lacked compassion. Extending mercy toward others was more important than keeping traditions. Human beings deserve opportunities to repent.
What's Our Problem?
So, according to Jack, what exactly is our lack-of-mercy problem? He says that he thinks the church of Christ "is basically correct in its position on water baptism," but "too many people…exclude mercy in this area" (emphasis his). First of all, the church does not have "positions" on doctrinal matters; we only take positions on matters of opinion. Members of the body of Christ adhere to the Scriptures and what they teach. "We" don't take votes on what we think the Scriptures teach. The doctrines we set forth are not ours. God put them in the Word, and that's what we declare. We don't originate them. So we are not excluding mercy from anyone.
Second, how can one be basically correct about baptism? One either teaches the truth regarding it, or he advocates error. He goes on to explain that he sat at the feet of G.K. Wallace "in his classes at Freed-Hardeman College." That is interesting—because G. K. Wallace retired from there in 1967 or 1968. That makes it all the more mysterious that he claims to have been a member of the church for over twenty years. Was he not a Christian while attending Freed-Hardeman College? It is now 50 years after Jack left the school. Was he only baptized twenty years ago? An explanation of the thirty-year gap might be interesting.
At any rate, he remembers what Brother Wallace taught him all those years ago, which was that the Bible does not tell us any specific words to say when someone is baptized. That's correct; there is no formula that the Bible states, but nevertheless we usually say, for the benefit of all, that we are baptizing the person in the name of (or by the authority of) Jesus (or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) for the forgiveness of their sins. It is not a Divinely-inspired formula for baptism, but it does describe what we are doing.
Jack makes a pitch to consider those from the Pentecostal Holiness Churches as brethren because they are baptized for the forgiveness of sins just the way we are. He says we lack mercy because we refuse fellowship to them because they say "the wrong words" when they baptize someone. However, Jack says the words they say reflect their "Jesus only" doctrine. He does not say what those words are, but he is simply wrong. It's not the words they say (only); it's the fact that they only believe there is one person in the Godhead. Baptism will not do anyone any good if he is in error on the nature of the Godhead (John 1:1-3; 14).
Then he adds: "The same can be said of Baptist baptism." Once again, he errs. The reason we cannot accept Baptists as Christians (besides the fact that they believe in denominationalism and worship incorrectly, with instruments of music) is that they have no intent when they are being baptized of having their sins forgiven. They are generally baptized to join the Baptist Church—not for the forgiveness of sins. And they believe they are already saved when they are baptized, which rejects God's reason for it in the first place.
A person is either baptized to have his sins washed away, as Peter taught on Pentecost (Acts 2:38; cf. Acts 22:16), or he is not. If he is not baptized for the reason God specifies in the Scriptures, no amount of words will help. It is not a matter of mercy; it is a matter of truth.
He relies on a legal concept that "substance prevails over form, at least in some cases." However, this legal concept is not a Biblical principle, and that is not what Hosea wrote or the way Jesus applied it. God used it to reject formalism, and Jesus used it to promote the worth of the individual and to show that legalistic opinions cannot override such principles of compassion.
Jack claims that all people should be saved who obey the command of baptism. Really? Five-year-old children can obey the command. Are they saved? Someone telephones me and says, "I read in the Bible that John baptized people, and so did Jesus. I want to be baptized, also." Am I allowed to ask them how they view God? Are they pantheists, Arians, or "Jesus only" folks? Can I ask them if they have repented of their sins? Is the person a homosexual who is going to continue to practice that sin? Is he in an unscriptural marriage? Do they know that Jesus is the Son of God, or do they think He is just a good man? If Jack has been a member of the church for twenty years, asking questions like these can scarcely be a surprise. Yet he writes:
If a Holiness person or a Baptist is going down in baptism because of their faith in Jesus Christ, does it really matter that they do not understand the full implications of what they are doing? … Obedience to the command would still have been met. Even if a Baptist thinks he is only being baptized to join the Baptist Church, he would not be doing it unless it was part of the Christian faith.
Yes, a person must know why he is being baptized. The alternative is salvation by ignorance. Jesus said that truth was gained as a result of knowledge (continuing in His Word—John 8:31-32). It is truth rather than ignorance that makes one free of sins.
Joining the Baptist Church is not part of the Christian faith. If Jack thinks it is, perhaps he can point to the Scripture in which Jesus or the apostles talked about being part of the Baptist Church. For someone who claims to have studied under G. K. Wallace fifty years ago and been part of the church for more than twenty years, he certainly does not seem to know much about these fundamental matters. One wonders how much Bible study he has done in all those years.
Which is more merciful—to tell someone the truth regarding salvation—or to let him remain in ignorance? Just recently three individuals questioned whether or not they had sufficient knowledge when they were baptized decades ago. They chose to be baptized again in order to remove any doubts about their salvation. Why are some so keen on insisting that those baptized for the wrong reason are saved? Wouldn't the merciful thing be to present them the truth and let them decide?