Browsing Through Papers

By Lee Carter Maynard

[Page 166]

     I get a lot of church papers and bulletins each week and find something good in all of them, as well as a lot of things that could be left unsaid. I can tell in a minute which denomination a Church of Christ preacher belongs to if he will tell me what church paper he subscribes to. They each have their own points of emphasis. One fellow is so strongly opposed to the Herald of Truth that he gives plenty of space each week to detailing its shortcomings. Another fellow has been trying to prove that the Holy Spirit never works separate from the Word.

     When a pie is cut into several pieces each piece is a sect or section. Each portion written below the line in a fraction represents a section, or is a denominator or denomination. When the church of our Lord is divided up into pieces and parties, each with its own papers, literature, orphanages, schools, and loyal brethren, why are they not also sectarian and denominational?

     Each has a name over its door to distinguish it from all other sections of the church. I like what you said, "One can be in a party without being partisan; he can be in a sect without being sectarian." Our Lord did not create sects, but men have done right well at it, while at the same time denying it!

     I smile at tracts titled, "Why the Church of Christ is not a denomination." I always want to ask, "Which Church of Christ do you mean?" The Church of God has a similar tract out, and they use the very same arguments as those used by the Church of Christ. Someone sent me a tract called "Why the Christian Church is not a denomination." He used the same arguments the others use. The fact that they are all different and have no fellowship with each other shows plainly that a couple of them are mistaken.

     Did not our Lord say that where two or three are gathered together in his name he would be in their midst? The true church does not require a building, trustees, choir, Sunday School, orphanages, instrumental music, colleges, church papers, etc. I reckon there may not be anything wrong about all of this extra curriculum unless it causes division among the brethren.

     The little group that meets in a brush arbor is as much a true church as one with every kind of modern innovation. I once knew a fine group of folk who met in a skating rink. The only name over the door was "Skating Rink." I learned that the name over the door did not matter as much as some would like to have us think.

     I liked what you had to say about baptism. Surely no one can misunderstand your position. Probably none of us know all there is involved in Christian baptism. A young preacher once asked me if I thought anyone could be saved without being immersed. I shocked him by saying "Yes" and added that if he were only immersed he would drown, because Bible baptism is emersion as well as immersion.

     I further told him that I believed little babies and idiotic persons will be saved without being baptized, and he agreed. I said, "For me personally, I could not be saved without being baptized because I have a firm conviction from plain Bible

[Page 167]

verses that I cannot escape. However, there are others who have not had the same access to these truths that I have had, so I do not know what God will do with them. I'll stay on the love seat and allow the Lord to occupy the judgment seat."

     It is a little presumptuous for me to say what God may or may not do. I know what he has done under certain conditions but I do not know how he may act under other circumstances, so I am willing for him to have his own sweet way. I do know that the Lord Jesus did not always handle every case exactly alike. He could take the twelve into a field on the sabbath and pluck the grain, even though the religious rulers thought he should not. It was plain that he was not governed by the status quo. He has not changed.

     One time Jesus met a couple of blind men who cried, "Thou Son of David, have mercy on us." The poor fellows confessed their faith in his ability to heal them. "Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you." They were instantly healed and his fame was spread abroad, even though he charged them not to tell. It would be difficult to keep such a secret for the people would see and know.

     Another time Jesus came to Bethsaida, and the people brought a blind man for him to touch and heal. He took the poor man by the hand and led him out of town and spit in his eyes, then laid his hands upon him and asked him if he could see. The man said that he did see something that looked like trees walking, which could have been a farmer carrying a great shock of hay on a fork that draped down to his feet, which might have been taken for a tree walking. Then the Lord put his hands on him again and he was completely healed of his blindness.

     Once when Jesus was about to enter Jericho, a blind man heard the confusion of the multitude and asked what it all meant. When told that Jesus of Nazareth was going by he cried, "Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me." When brought to the Lord, Jesus simply said, "Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee." His sight was immediately restored and all of the people glorified God for what they had seen and heard.

     In the ninth chapter of John there is the story of the poor boy who was born blind. Here Jesus mixed up some mud with spittle and filled those empty sockets with the mixture. Then Jesus commanded the man to go to the pool of Siloam and wash. He obeyed the word of the Lord and came back seeing. All four of these cases where Jesus healed the blind were genuine and none could doubt, but it only made the religious leaders more envious and hateful.

     I like to think of these four miracles and wonder what would be our reaction if they had happened in our time. I believe that many would rejoice and give God the glory through Jesus Christ our Lord. Others probably would be like the Pharisees of Jesus' day and do everything to prove it all false. No doubt some would be so busy with the cares of life they would pay little if any attention.

     Let us suppose the four men got together and discussed what had taken place. One would say that Jesus healed him by touching his eyes and saying a word. The second man could say, "I too was healed, but he touched me, led me out of the city, spit in my eyes, and then his touch healed me." The third man could say, "I cried to him for help, confessed my faith in him as the son of David, and he merely said my faith had saved me, and I received my sight immediately." The fourth man could question the words of the other three for their testimonies did not agree with each other and certainly were not in line with what Jesus had done to him in order to give him sight. He could question any person receiving his sight without having his eyes filled with clay spittle and washing in the pool of Siloam.

     If all of this happened in modern day society I think I can hear voices loud and long in religious controversy. The debates would stir the whole community. The final result would be four parties, or sects

[Page 168]

or denominations. One would be called "The Touchers," another "The Spit-Healers," another "Faith Only," while the last would probably be "The Mud Daubers." They all told the truth but each tried to confine the Lord to his own experiences. Each enjoyed a liberty and healing in Christ, but did not want others to claim it unless done exactly as they saw it. We strain at gnats to make our own way the equivalent of The Way!

     This last week I have a clipping from a church bulletin where the preacher is trying to prove church order, liturgy or ritual, as his group practices it, from certain scriptures of his own selection. First there is preaching and teaching of the apostolic doctrine. Next comes the fellowship, which he interprets as meaning the offering. Then comes the breaking of bread which is, of course, the communion. This was done from house to house and accompanied the common meal and was not confined to Sunday. The only cases mentioned were at night and associated with their meals.

     The preacher established congregational singing from the Ephesian and Colossian texts, although he surely must realize these had nothing to do with corporate worship. He also used 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 to prove Sunday offerings when he surely should know that this was only a missionary offering, not in a church gathering, and could only be used for the purpose for which it was taken. Brethren, please let us try to keep silent when the Bible speaks!

     (Editor's Note. Lee C. Maynard resides at 523 Forty-first Avenue, North, in St. Petersburg, Florida 33703).