"WHAT IS OUR DOCTRINE?"

      From the first page of our tract on "Carnal Warfare" we copy a paragraph that is of wide and general application. The question is often asked, "What does your church teach, on this or that point?" And even Christians who know no better, and have never been able to get away from the church-creed idea of sectarian Christendom, will ask, "What is our doctrine?" and "What does the church of Christ teach about this or that matter?" The fact is the church of Christ, as such, teaches nothing. It is her business simply to voice the teaching of Christ and his apostles. Upon that alone she stands; by that she lives and perpetuates herself. She has not other standards. But here is the paragraph"

      "The church of Christ has no authority or doctrine of her own. The Roman church lays claim to the power of delivering authoritative and even infallible dictums, and infallible interpretations of scripture; and her hierarchy frames the official statement of the church's belief. But the church of the New Testament has no doctrines of her own. The authority is all vested in Jesus, her Head and Lord. The church teaches nothing of herself, makes no laws, and neither originates any truth, nor authorizes any doctrine. In this the [265] truth church of Christ differs from all the human-creed organizations. Her one appeal is to the word of God; her one creed the apostles' doctrine. What she is to believe and promulgate is not hers to decide; it is already laid down for her in the unalterable gospel (Gal. 1:8, 9), in the authoritative teaching of the Lord's inspired ambassadors. She can only accept it. The members of the church may now and then differ as to the import of the apostles' teaching; some may pervert it, some may ignore it and destroy it; yea, even a majority might be thus guilty, without in the least affecting the Standard, or altering the true doctrine. The question then resolves itself into this: not "what does this or that preacher say about the position of the church of Christ" (for that settles nothing); but, "What has Christ, and what have His apostles taught?" As we read on the railroad tickets that "the employees of this road have no authority to alter these regulations"; so the members of the church, individually or collectively, have no right or power to alter "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3.) The apostles themselves had no such power. (Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:24.)

IS IT A SECT?

      A noted Bible teacher and lecturer^* is quoted as saying that "the Church of Christ" are "the most blinded of all religious people" and "the worst of all denominations." If this statement was really made by that teacher, and correctly reported, it represents a case of bad misjudgment, based upon insufficient data due to fundamental misconceptions. Perhaps the gentleman came in contact with various individuals or even congregations of the Church of Christ which seemed to him to deserve such a judgment. That is neither here nor there. He might have met up with such like samples in the apostles' days, and might have drawn a similar false conclusion. It would be as if a man came out with the declaration that "Eggs are the most ill-smelling and repulsive of all foods." You would immediately wonder what kind of eggs he had come in contact with. So is it in this case. There is no religious people in the world of whom one could less justly draw a general judgment, and who less fairly could be sized up as a whole by some of its representatives that that "Church of Christ" of which he speaks. This is an outstanding peculiarity of that body, and in that lies one of the greatest excellencies of their position. Of no people is it more true that "every tub stands on its own bottom." This is due to their fundamental constitution, their congregational independence, and the individual freedom of the members. True their ideals in these matters may not have been realized by many, but upon them they stand, and thus they profess.

      First of all the people of the "Church of Christ" aim to be simply the church of Christ spoken of in the new Testament, non-sectarian, simple in its faith and worship, accepting all the word of God (and naught else) as standard and authority of doctrine, and acknowledging Jesus Christ as only head and Lord. Every member of the body of Christ, as he confesses, belongs to Christ; and each has the right to all the truth of God [266] has given in His word. Each is willing to stand upon the word of God alone and to believe and declare on every point all that God has said on it. Such a common faith, and with it the love of God, is the only bond of union God's people.

      Now it is quite possible, even probable, that some, even many may at one time or another fall short of this high standard; and many may be untrue to the high ground which they profess. Nevertheless the firm foundation of God standeth, and those who will may take their stand upon it and pursue the noble aim of the simple, non-sectarian, New Testament church. And that that is in line with the will of God is beyond question.

IS THERE A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH TODAY?

      Such is the situation in Christendom at large, and such the state of affairs among the churches of the "Restoration Movement" that some have been tempted to conclude that, after all, the simple church of the New Testament has no corporate existence on earth today, nor can have. Following out this conclusion they come to think that the true church consists of all the faithful souls that are scattered abroad among various denominations, or belonging to no special church or congregation at all; individuals who are born again and brought with the Blood, and whom the Lord has added to His church (Acts 2:47). But no denomination as such, no religious sect nor any body or congregation, can (in their view) claim to be the church of the Lord, the right, true, simple church, which is spoken of in the New Testament. They are all different from that original body: they lack this or that identifying mark; or they have added man's ordinances and commandments; or they have departed doctrinally from "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." So those discouraged ones have given up the idea of ever establishing a simple church of Christ, or trying to build up any congregation into conformity with the New Testament ideal and pattern. As a consequence they are willing to fraternize to some extent with all--at least all the "orthodox" and "evangelical"--denominations, because all have some good in them, and some godly men and women among them; on the other hand they will not be identified with any, because none represent the New Testament church. What is wrong with that view?

      1. Those who take this attitude have given up the fight. They evidently know (or, at least, think they know) what the New Testament church is and ought to be. But the difficulty of attaining this ideal, and the opposition that would be encountered in the attempt to realize the vision seem too great. So, though "soldiers of the cross" they surrender to the enemy's greater power.

      2. It is self-centered. Because those who, professedly at least, have stood for the simple church of the New Testament have been found wanting--because some, or all, have failed [267] and erred, and will not agree with you in some matter--because you can not find among them the "fellowship" and the "congeniality" you naturally crave--therefore, what? You would wash your hands of them and consign them to their own course? That is certainly easier than to "endure all things for the elects' sake," and to take up the cross. You can thus sidestep many of the burdens and sorrows that are incident (and always will be) to the building up of a true work of God--but is it the way to Christ?

      3. It is irresponsible. Having cut loose from the best you have thus far had and known, you begin to drift about. Like the moth that flits from flower to flower you would suck the nectar from every blossom while leaving whatever poison there may be behind. You find good things, here, there, and yonder. You fraternize whole-heartedly with none, half-heartedly with many. You close your eyes to the manifest errors and departures among your new affiliations--perhaps persuade yourself that they are not very important--and for that matter the brethren of the old way had their defects, so one cannot be critical about the faults of others: it's after all an imperfect world that we live in, and we cannot be over-particular. Ultimate outcome of that course is general interdenominationalism, with its broad compromise and wide acceptance of everything.

      4. It is mistaken. Because there is no perfect church to be found it does not follow that the simple New Testament church has not, and cannot have, a corporate existence. It had such existence in N. T. time. The church of the New Testament was not perfect. Corinth had failed badly; Galatian churches were wobbly on fundamental truth; Philippi had internal dissension; false teachers and teachings harassed the churches Paul had established; and one Diotrephes had disfellowshipped even the apostle John and his helpers. But none of those things moved the servants of God. The church was built on the true foundation, inclusive and exclusive; and the building and repairing and restoring must go on despite all hindrance and difficulty. If any today have moved off the foundation, let us lead them back to it. So long as there is a congregation which, professedly at least, is committed to Christ alone, and to His word, and you can agree with them on what it takes to make a man a Christian and how to work and worship together in accordance with the New Testament, that is a congregation to work with. If on any account they draw human lines against you and throw you out, the responsibility is theirs. But even then it does not follow that we must fall in with denominationalism, and that we cannot have the New Testament church. Go forth and preach the simple word of God, and meet with those who accept it and are willing to stand as simply Christ's people, holding fast the Head from whom all life and increase come. [268]

"SO WALK IN HIM"

      To be "in Christ" designates a man's standing and position given him by virtue of his union with Christ, and whereby he is a new creature. (2 Cor. 5:17.) This position, however, is not a stationary one; but being in Him we are to walk in Him. (Col. 2:6, 7.) Nor is this "walking in Christ" a marking of time, or a going round and round in aimless circles, but a progress, an advance. Forgetting what is behind, we press on to things that are before. (Phil. 3:14.) Leaving first principles we press on to perfection. (Heb. 6:1f.) The Christian must evermore go on, pressing forward, abounding more and more in knowledge, in spiritual likeness to Jesus Christ his Lord.

      But this very thing seems irksome to some Christians. Many seem to think of being in Christ as having come into a possession in which thenceforth to rest. To go on seems difficult to them--even perilous. They find their rest and assurance and satisfaction in what they already have and know, and fondly hope to get through on that, without bothering their minds about things that lie beyond. That course inevitably leads to spiritual death and fossilization. The very manna which they had hoped to hold and keep breeds worms for them and decays. There are leaders and teachers and preachers who (as one fitly described it) have "learned what they learned, once"; who have no room in their minds for further truth; who can see nothing more than what they have always seen (which, they think, is eminently safe and sound, and all-sufficient for every purpose): who want nothing more than what they always had. Yet they wonder at the deadness of the churches to whom they minister. The only semblance of interest they can stir up is by some controversy, about no matter what, and by fighting something. But that too soon plays out. The deadly scurvy due to lack of fresh food, and diseases that result from perpetual mental inbreeding, are manifest. There is coldness, indifference, lovelessness, powerlessness, worldliness; or perhaps the plague appears in bitter disputes about little minutiae, about small tithes of mint and anise and cummin, from which spring factions, parties, alienations of brethren.

      "If I accepted such and such a teaching," said one brother, "I would have to revise my whole conception of the Bible." Which would in his view have been a first-class disaster. So he would rather save his old wine-skin than to risk putting new wine in it. We must indeed hold on to the truth we already have and on no account cast it away. But we can only really hold it as we walk onward and forward. You must by all means abide in it, and not for anything forsake, the Word; yet it is only as ye continue (i. e. go on) in it that ye shall know the truth that shall make you free. (John 8:30, 31.) [269]

["Words in Season." The Word and Work 38 (December 1944): 265-269.]

      The electronic version of R. H. Boll's "Words in Season" has been produced from microfilm of The Word and Work for 1944.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 27 January 2003.
Updated 22 June 2003.