Confused
By Lee Carter Maynard
[Page 90] |
I suppose you heard of the fellow who attended a convention and heard so many conflicting reports and arguments that he put a tag on his lapel containing the letters-- BIAK. Someone asked what they meant and he replied. "Boy am I Konfused?" He was told, "But you do not spell confused with a K." He said, "That just shows how badly I am confused."
I read scores of papers and church bulletins and I admit that I also get confused. I do not believe I am confused with what the New Testament teaches but the arguments and doctrines of the brethren really confuse me.
When brethren talk of the visible and invisible church in the same breath, and then preach there is one church, I wonder. They talk of the church organic and the church organized, and I wonder if they mean there are two. I have always believed that when a person who believes in the gospel of Christ is led by the Spirit into godly sorrow, repents of his old life, and is buried with his Lord in baptism, he becomes a member of the one church.
I have always believed that the same thing which put a convert into Christ also put him into the body of Christ, the church. I am confused when one who becomes a member of the church is then asked to become a member of the local congregation. Does God add to His church and the preacher add to the congregation? This is confusing because I have never found it in the scriptures.
I am confused because from the beginning of the restoration movement we admit that there are Christians in all groups, yet we have often refused fellowship with them as brethren unless they join our group and subscribe to our particular teachings. I have just heard of a fellow trying to prove that the new name (Isaiah 62:2) to be used by the church is "Christian." The text plainly says the new name is "Hephzibah." I love the name "Christian," but I doubt Isaiah had it in mind.
Paul wrote about half the books in the New Testament and never used the name. Agrippa used it. Somebody called the disciples "Christians" first in Antioch, but it does not say who did the calling. The disciples were suffering at the hands of enemies and being accused of being thieves, murderers, busybodies, and evil-doers, as Christians. It was a hated and despised name. I love the name, and am proud to be called a Christian, but it is confusing to hear people try to prove a point by warping the prophecies to fit their notions.
It is confusing to know that we, the people who preach unity are divided into more than twenty competitive groups. It is more confusing when we remember that we have never divided over the inspiration of the scriptures, the one true creator God, the virgin birth of Jesus, or the necessity of faith and baptism. We
[Page 91] |
To contend for running water, a pool, or a baptistery, makes confusion. There may be several ways in which the Lord's Supper can be served, and one may be as scriptural as the other. It is obvious there was one loaf on the table and they all ate from that loaf. No doubt there was one pitcher with the fruit juice and it is likely that each had a cup at his plate much the same as we have tea cups. It is contention over these things which confuses and divides.
The Bible has little to say about the order of the services of the early church. There is no mention of congregational singing or of instrumental music, but the contention over one and the silence about the other has led to confusion. Martin Luther used the word "Adiaphora," which means, "It makes no difference." Why make mountains out of molehills?
There was an elder who believed in soul-sleeping, another believed in pre-millennialism, another that those once in grace were always in grace, another that it made no difference if we sing with or without musical accompaniment, and each of these was told he would have to give up his erroneous belief, or fellowship would be withdrawn by the congregation. This is confusing. Only God adds, but it seems the congregation can subtract.
No denomination has a more exacting creed than that written into some of our by-laws. Most by-laws are patterned after an original from some large congregation. They make interesting reading as they reflect the fusses of past generations. They usually specify a plurality of elders and at least seven deacons. It is confusing to hear them say, "No creed but Christ," and then read the by-laws.
The seven men appointed to serve the complaining old women in Acts 6 were never called deacons, but that is no real reason for argument. Men have insisted on a plurality of elders in each local group, but "if a man desires the office of a bishop," does not mean there must be more than one shepherd or overseer. One good successful business man is better than a half dozen poorly qualified men. The group is better off with no elder than with several poor ones.
I saw a sign which read, "Church of the Firstborn," and below were the words, "Founded in Jerusalem, A.D. 33." Of course, they did not mean that this particular group began in A.D. 33. The church that began then would not take one of them as a member. Their members were circumcised, they met on Saturday, they abstained from certain meats, and they held on to many customs of the law.
They had no buildings, boards, budgets, choirs, by-laws, church papers, or even the New Testament scriptures. They had no signboard with a distinguishing name, or with the name of their "minister" or "resident evangelist." It has been a long jump from A.D. 33 to A.D. 1968. There have been many confusing inventions. Let us pray that we may learn to meet together in Christian unity as those who believe in and love God and one another. If any man has a strange or extra-curricular doctrine that will confuse others, let him have it to himself.