The Way We Were
Back on September 6, 2021, Michael Hatcher re-published an article written previously by Ken Chumbley (date unknown), titled, " The Church and Change." In this article he mentions a book written by a former president of the Southern Baptist convention. His name was Wayne Dehoney, and the book he wrote, published in 1971, was Set the Church Afire. What is unique about this book is that, unlike several others that could be named, the author of this work offers a fair analysis of the churches of Christ. Everything he writes was true at the time. His description follows below with a few sentences at a time.
A closer look at the churches of Christ would hardly reveal that their brand of religion is on the downgrade! This fast-growing group is one of the most potent missionary and evangelistic forces in the country. Their congregations are flourishing, and new churches are continually being established.
In the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, this is the way we were. Neither Mr. Dehoney nor any of us would describe ourselves this way any longer. To be sure, some congregations are still growing, but many are no longer meeting or just barely hanging on. Some continue preach the gospel in other nations, but some missionary families report that congregations have cut back on their support and that they are in need of additional help.
A detailed analysis for the change is not the purpose of this article—except to mention that possible reasons would include a combination of an increasingly materialistic society with a lack of evangelistic fervor on the part of the members of the body of Christ. Interest in spiritual truths is not highly rated in society; where does it rank among us? While it is true that we probably have fewer prospects to share the gospel with, is it also true that fewer of us are willing to do so? But let’s consider the next section of Dehoney’s assessment of us in 1971 (picking up where we left off).
A profile of faith and practice contradicts practically every “solid conclusion” by the authorities of the mainline denominational establishments about the renewal the church must experience to “survive.”
This allegation is both humorous and ironic, as well as correct. In “Christendom,” as in every other area of life, one finds “experts” who know just how everything should be done. If churches are to survive, they must do items one through ten on a list that various “authorities” have put together. The churches of Christ ignored those items and somehow wound up succeeding better than just about all other religious groups in terms of church growth. “How is that possible?” some wonder. Taking the following approach is the wrong way to go about it, say the intelligentsia.
The churches of Christ are anti-ecumenical in their relationships; conservative in their theology; autonomous and democratic in their congregational practice without any semblance of a denominational super structure; they make moral and ethical demands on their members in such matters as social drinking; they are not “social-action” oriented; they have a “messianic complex” of being true people of God and the true church!
This is quite a mouthful, but it is true. Let’s investigate each of the claims. Are we anti-ecumenical? We are if it involves unity based on the wisdom and thinking of men. We do not believe unity can result from anything except faithful adherence to the Scriptures. Paul stressed unity to the Corinthians; they were not to form parties or sects based upon the Christian leaders with whom they were familiar. One reason is that they all taught the same message. Can anyone honestly imagine that Paul preached something different than Peter? A close examination of what they both taught on salvation reveals they preached the same gospel. Paul even said that anyone who preached a different gospel was to be accursed. Anyone who reads the letters of both men will discover they taught the same precepts of Christian living.
In fact, we encourage fellowship with those who believe and practice the truth. But what if someone preaches a different gospel? Should we have fellowship with someone who is accursed? Now it is the case that most denominational preachers teach “faith only” as the gospel? Are we expected to have fellowship with those who have a different gospel? When people ask us, “What shall we do to be saved?” we begin with faith, like everyone else does—but we don’t end there. The apostle Peter did not even mention faith because he knew the Jews already believed. He did inform them that they needed to believe that Jesus is the Son of God; that was the substance of his sermon—to prove to them that He is risen from the dead and that He is the Son of God.
So, when they asked what they should do, he answered, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). How many denominationalists preach that message? Billy Graham never did. Imagine all the crowds of great size that he stood before; yet he never once gave a Scriptural answer to the question found in verses such as this one. Omitting repentance and baptism from the gospel of Christ means that someone is preaching another gospel. What basis of unity can there be with error? John declared a principle which applies in this and other instances. Not only must one’s teaching concerning salvation be right; the Christian doctrine he teaches must also be accurate.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).
Can anyone picture John having fellowship with false teachers? With those who exclude baptism from God’s plan of salvation? We are willing to be just as ecumenical as John and Paul were.
Conservative in their Theology
By this phrase, we assume that Dehoney means that we believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, which is correct. There are many conservatives among Baptists, also, as well as others. But many do not share our view of the Scriptures. In surveys taken among denomination ministers, some do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and the majority do not believe in the Biblical doctrine of hell. If conservative means we believe what the Bible teaches, we will content ourselves to hang our hat there.
Likewise, we will plead guilty to being autonomous. No conference, convention, or human assembly meets to tell us what we believe this year or votes on what is moral or immoral. We get our doctrine and morality from the Bible—not men. We have no denominational hierarchy because the Scriptures do not authorize one. The New Testament did have apostles, whose words were to be respected and obeyed because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13; Acts 2). We no longer have apostles, but we have their teachings, which is all a congregation needs. No verse in the New Testament teaches a hierarchical structure culminating in one man or a council to make decisions for everyone else. Each local congregation is subject to Christ and the teaching of the apostles.
Yes, we do expect members of the church to live according to the moral standings set forth in the New Testament. Otherwise, why do we have one—for decoration on a coffee table? God is our Creator; we owe it to Him to find out what He wants from us. The fact that He gave us His Word shows that He is interested in communicating with us the truth (John 17:17). For the gift of life He gave us, He has commands as to the way we are to live and worship Him. Man cannot discern on his own what is moral and what is not. The current chaos of different ideologies proves that point.
God did not leave it up to us to decide if abortion is all right or not; we are to respect innocent human life. How many people today have decided to live together outside of marriage? Or commit adultery (Heb. 13:4)? And many of these actually know and have been taught better! Some (who know the truth—Rom. 1:18-28) have chosen a life of homosexuality, and others fear saying anything for fear of being politically incorrect. But that’s not the way we were in 1971.
Some may be aghast that we are not “social-action” oriented. But we have a valid reason. Nowhere does the New Testament teach social action. What it does teach us is to preach and teach the gospel to everyone. The more people who obey the gospel, the less social action will be needed because those who become Christians will be taught and will begin to live properly. So, if we are, as Christians, thinking evangelistically, those who are converted will live more morally and improve society by their godly living.
The True Church
Do we think we are the true people of God and the true church? Shouldn’t everyone feel that way? Who wants to introduce himself and then say, “Good morning! I belong to a church you can’t read about in the New Testament—one that was established 1,500 years after Christ ascended into heaven. It’s not the one you can read about in the Bible, but, hey, we have some great folks, and you’ll probably grow spiritually”?
Why would anyone attend worship with people who do not think they are the people of God? This way of thinking is not built on a feeling or a lack of thought and reflection on the matter. We actually believe the Bible means what it says concerning the origin of the church (Jesus built it—Matthew 16:18); the cost of the church (His blood—Acts 20:28); the headship of the church (Jesus is the only head—Ephesians 1:22-23). Paul taught that there is one body, one church (Eph. 4:4). Other religious groups do not believe these fundamentals. Look at their statements; they proudly say they came into existence some time in the last 500 years. That’s way too late. Jesus established His church in the first century. We believe that if we follow the teachings of the New Testament, we are that church! Dehoney concludes his evaluation of us with the following words:
All of these factors combine to give them a high motivation, an unquenchable zeal, and inescapable compulsion to win the world to an acceptance of their convictions and beliefs. And they are growing rapidly!
Does he sound jealous—or threatened? It is difficult to tell with such a short section of the book quoted, but he seems to be correct; everything he says makes sense. Therefore, if we do not bear an equal resemblance to brethren in 1971, we ought to ask, “What’s changed?” The Scriptures have not. Salvation has not. New Testament teaching has not.
Are we, as members of the body of Christ, losing our convictions? Have we come to think of ourselves as just another denomination? Surely not. Do we not have the knowledge comparable to before? Are we weaker in faith? Are we too tied up with worldly concerns? Have liberals persuaded us that we have been too harsh and unloving and that we will win more people with honey than vinegar? Is the truth vinegar? Each congregation should evaluate itself and determine to return to what once got the job done—to the way we were.