Fact and Fiction

By F. L. Lemley

[Page 147]

     In the painful process of learning we find it necessary to pause frequently to evaluate objectively and re-check our direction. We must examine ourselves to be sure we are telling it like it is. It is helpful to try and see ourselves as others see us lest we harbor inflated misconceptions of ourselves as a church in relation to the Restoration Movement. We seek God's truth as it is, we are not concerned with consequences to ourselves, our previous beliefs or our system of theology. Let us then review and reconsider the concept of a new testament pattern.

     We are frequently accused of believing that we are saved and all others in the denominations are going to hell. We sidestep this crude accusation and turn it back upon our accusers by insisting that it is God who is the judge, and it is he who affirms that the church of Christ is the only one fitting his divine pattern. This is somewhat of a cop-out, and our friends know it. We must face the fact that no matter how we phrase the message it always comes out the same--the segment of the Church of Christ of which the speaker is a member is the only church that fits the divine pattern. But this is not the end of it.

     To further confuse the message, our friends know there are numerous sects of the churches of Christ (perhaps more than twenty), all claiming to be fashioned by the divine pattern, but having no fellowship with one another. There is also another branch of the Restoration Movement springing from the first great schism that has also resulted in a number of sects. Many of these believe that they, and not us, constitute the true church established by Christ. This is an ungodly situation and friends are sure to ask, "Which Church of Christ is the true church?" This ought to bother us all, but some are so tragically blind to this condition because they see themselves as true and all other sects or divisions of the church of Christ as apostate, without hope and without God in the world! This is a deplorable situation and we ought to be ready to do something about it.

     It is quite obvious the pattern is not as clear as we pretend, else there would not be these numerous sects of the Church of Christ originating from the Restoration Movement, each claiming to have the true pattern, and each trying to cut all others according to their concept of the pattern.

     The attitude of prayer, the hour of worship, the chemical nature of the wine, the necessity of an Amen, the holy kiss, the number of deacons--all of these were hotly discussed. So it is today! One gets part of his pattern from Ephesus, another part from Troas, another from Corinth, another from Jerusalem, and when he has finished his divine blue print, he finds that he still lacks a pattern for a Sunday School, a budget, a paid clergy, a song director, a youth minister, congregational singing, orphan homes, and cooperative television programs. And so the debate continues while each rationalizes his situation to suit himself.

     This is like employing a builder to erect your house and telling him to take the foundation plans from the White House, the kitchen plan from the neighbors across the street, the living-room plan from the Jones home, the bedroom plan from Washington's Mount Vernon on the Potomac, and to use his own judgment on the garage, basement and den. What a mess! The Jewish church differed a great deal from the gentile churches (Acts 15:19; Acts 21:17). No two congregations were identical, which they would have been if all had been organized by a "pattern" arrangement.

     One brother in debate argued that the dismissing of the mob by the town clerk in Acts 19:41, was the authority (a pattern) for a dismissal prayer in church services. Some congregations had elders, some did not. Who is to decide if this meant there were two patterns, one true and the other false, or if there was no pattern? Congregations today look about as much like those in the first century as Herod's temple favored the tabernacle in the wilderness. Those two did have some things in common and modern congregations have some things in common with those of the first century. Who decides which congregation is to be the pattern?

     It is to be noted that liberty is granted the individual Christian in the formation of his conscience. God allowed differences in individual consciences, else Romans 14 had as well be torn from the Book. The individual conscience may involve doctrines developed through a process of human reasoning. God does not execute his own commands. He relies upon human minds and hands. Many assume that because it is so clear to them that their conclusions are true, they must be bound as the Word of God. No matter how true they are, so long as they result from human reasoning they are not God's Word!

[Page 149]

     God does not give a fig about our differences in this area because he allows us to form our own conclusions and bind ourselves with them. But such are not to be bound upon our brethren, or be made conditions of salvation (Romans 14:21, 22). Doctrines plainly declared and conclusions that are plainly God's own, fall into a different category. We do not have these in view here. We are talking about conclusions and doctrines which result from human reasoning. We, along with other Bible-believing peoples, accept the scriptures as the divinely-inspired word of God and our authority in all matters of faith. Our differences come, not over what the Bible says, but over what we think it means. God allows us to differ in this department else Romans 14 has no meaning for us.

     Ernest T. Campbell, in an interview reported in the June issue of Mission said in his comments on the non-denominational stance of Churches of Christ, "Well, let me speak in candor and say that I think the interdenominational puts you in touch with some reality, whereas to say that you're non-denominational is fiction. As soon as you say that, you're another denomination that believes in non-denominationality." Mr. Campbell expressed an objective view of our stance. He sees our non-denominational claim as fiction. I have yet to meet a "denominational" preacher who does not believe in the one church concept. Many of them would agree with our sermons on the one body to the point where we imply (and sometimes plainly state), "And the Church of Christ is that one church!" The switch we do here is interesting. We preach about the one body which is the church, then we switch to a denominational concept, and try to imply that the segment of the Church of Christ to which we belong is synonymous with the body, therefore, the segment of the Church of Christ to which we belong is that one body!

     While the body is universal in scope, in our application we include only those Churches of Christ which agree with us in our applications and which fit our concept of the true pattern. Denominational preachers believe in the one body as do we, but they understand that the Body of Christ traverses all denominational and sectarian lines including those sectarian boundaries within the Churches of Christ. They recognize us all as Christians in the one body. On the other hand, we do not allow the boundaries of the body of Christ to exceed our own sectarian boundaries, but many of ours regard some sect within the body as equivalent to the body, therefore, all the denominations are classified as pagan and all other sects of the Churches of Christ are apostate and in need of conversion. Does one require proof of this impossible situation?

     In the March 21 issue of Firm Foundation is a news item about a brother from the conservative Christian Churches changing his views on instrumental music and coming over to the non-instrument segment of the Church of Christ. The caption over the picture of this good man was "Preacher Converted." Three other news items related to three other men who have made the same change have appeared since with milder headlines. Many of our members view such men as these as souls rescued from hell. In our myopic view they were not even Christians, because they were "fellowshipping false doctrine." Not all have this view, thank God! Of course, one false view breeds another. We do not fellowship doctrines, we are in the fellowship with people!

     I do not believe such reports and the caption "Preacher Converted" were accidental. They are the outcropping of a subconscious belief which reveals our true feelings, that we and only we, of the schismatic party of the Non-Instrumental Church of Christ church" constitute the body of Christ on earth with all of its essential doctrines and there is salvation in no other. Therefore, all denominations are classified as pagan and the remainder of our brethren in the Restoration Movement are classified as

[Page 150]

aliens in need of conversion. Each looks forward to the day when all the saved will be collected into his own little fold.

     This is a grave departure from the "unique plea" of the Restoration Movement. We have forsaken the plea and run a legalistic pattern concept into the ground. Perhaps we need to take a good laugh at our stupidity and start over. The great men of the Restoration Movement were not trying to restore the church. It was already here. They were attempting to restore certain things to it. The body of Christ was in existence on earth before the Restoration Movement began. The men of the Restoration viewed themselves as reformers rather than restorers.

     It is interesting how we continue to maintain the illusion that we are a part of a movement whose leaders we repudiate and whose principles we deny. Few of our pulpits would be open to men with the convictions of Stone, Campbell, Lard, Scott, Burnett, Pinkerton, or Lipscomb, to name just a few. As we are progressing in our departure from the Restoration it is but a matter of time until men like Lemmons, Young, Sweet, Goodpasture and others of stature among us will be on the blacklist of someone. In fact, some such lists are already being formed by brethren who feel called to save the church from another "apostasy."

     Campbell at different times embraced the concept of ecumenical membership, closed membership, open membership, and finally ecumenical membership again. Stone was a proponent of open membership. One's views on baptism determine his view on church membership, and while some of his followers preached that only the immersed were saved, Campbell himself never believed this. Moses F. Lard wrote in 1863 that no one was a Christian, including Martin Luther, unless he was immersed. He further said that God might highly esteem him and very certainly save him, but he was not a Christian. Imagine the uproar it would create to have men of these convictions appear on some of the lectureships. Dn Thomas added an additional flourish in teaching that a candidate must know that baptism is "for the remission of sins," else his baptism was void. With this trend grace was completely eliminated from the gospel and the circle of the saved became ever smaller.

     A legalistic view of baptism has led us to an exclusive position that only those immersed with the knowledge of its being "for the remission of sins" are Christians. More recent developments force us to add that such are saved only if they discover the right pattern and join our party. While the proper concept of grace is growing among us many hold we must enter the domain of God's grace by perfect obedience. Baptism is thus made the door into grace, the sine qua non, the validating act upon which all else must rest.

     The scriptures teach that we have access into grace by faith (Romans 5:1, 2), not by perfect obedience. Ours has come to be a "faith-works" system rather than a "grace-faith" system. Obedience

[Page 151]

has a place and no scripture is discredited in this statement. Campbell and others viewed baptism as a command falling within the domain of grace and so allowances were made for sincere surrendered souls whose obedience was not perfect. The legalistic view requires perfect obedience to enter the domain of grace while the other view allows one the benefit of grace while he is in the process of obeying. We have certainly come a long way from the Restoration views of Campbell, Stone, and their contemporaries.

     No, the writer is not "beating the bride of Christ" or persecuting the church in trying to lance some unsightly carbuncles on the body.

     No, the writer is not approving denominationalism. All denominationalism is displeasing to God, and especially ours in the Churches of Christ.

     No, the writer has not repudiated baptism for the remission of sins. Baptism is not the only item connected with remission and it must be seen in its proper place. Paul was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17). This statement should be studied. As a people we repudiate baptismal regeneration, but practice baptismal conversion, which is just as wrong. We do not consider a person a convert until after he is baptized per our formula and joins our party. This should be corrected.

     Yes, the writer accepts the scriptures as the inspired word of God and our guide in all things pertaining to our faith.

     Yes, the writer believes there are Christians in the denominations who, by the grace of God, will be saved even as we. Not all in the denominations are Christians just as not all in the Church of Christ are Christians.

     It is not God's will that his children be sectarian (1 Cor. 1:10-13), but even these Corinthians were addressed as saints in verse one. One may be non-sectarian and yet be associated with a sect. The way to be non-sectarian is simply to ignore all sectarian lines!

     F. L. Lem1ey preaches for the Monmouth Church of Christ, 312 Hance Avenue. New Shrewsbury, New Jersey 07724.