Loyalty Tests

By F. L. Lemley


[Page 108]

     In Matthew 7:20, Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." In the description of the judgment (Matthew 25) not a question is asked concerning what one believes. The emphasis is on what had been done. The hungry were fed, the thirsty given drink, the naked clothed, and the prisoners visited. When John sent to know if Jesus was the Messiah, the answer of Jesus said nothing about doctrine. "Go report to John the things you see and hear, the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them" (Matt. 11:4,5). In spite of all the evidence of good fruit the Pharisees could not see who Jesus was. He did not meet the loyalty tests they had set up. Their two most common tests were circumcision and the sabbath, their "sacred cows."

     When one says the scriptures teach this or that, what he is really saying is "According to my understanding the scriptures teach..." All want doctrine and conscience to be determined by God's word, but the word has to be understood, and each will understand it according to his pre-conditioning. This means all language (even that from God) has to be interpreted, and someone has correctly said there is no such thing as one being truly unbiased or objective. God understood man would have this problem and made allowances, by giving some latitude in which to understand and obey. There may be a wide variation in the understanding and performance of obedient hearts, for each obeys according to his understanding and ability. All have to be saved by grace, there is no alternative. And grace makes allowances for human defects.

     Failure to measure up to the Pharisaical tests of circumcision and sabbath-keeping was enough to disqualify Jesus as loyal in their sight. Paul attacked their exclusive view of circumcision in Romans 2:24-29. There was no problem with Jesus on this score. He was circumcised. The Pharisees could tolerate almost any sin in a person who was circumcised.

     But to them Jesus fell short on sabbath-keeping. The rabbis had so refined the sabbath law they knew exactly how many figs one could carry without breaking it. When Jesus and the disciples went through the fields on the sabbath, rubbing out heads of grain and eating, the sentence was quick and automatic. Jesus was a

[Page 109]
sabbath-breaker so could not be the Messiah. Regardless of how many dead were raised, lepers healed, blind eyes opened or lame made to walk, anyone who rubbed out grain on the sabbath ought to be killed. Not fruits, but doctrine according to their interpretation, was their standard of judgment. No wonder Jesus said their traditions made void the word of God (Mark 7:9).

     We must take care lest we develop fixations based on our peculiar interpretations and traditions. Our doctrinal yardsticks are no better than those of the Pharisees. Go through our list of divisive issues and note that not one conclusive argument can be produced for or against them. God has not spoken on them. They all result from human interpretation or misinterpretation. They are all products of human judgment or misjudgment. Those for as well as those against every issue must follow their consciences. For example, those who believe it is required to worship with an instrument must do so, while those who are against its use must worship without it, lest they sin against their consciences.

     This is interesting in view of the fact that "worship is what man offers to God...Instrumental music performed by someone else cannot be what I offer" (A Capella Music, Ferguson, p. 87). There is not one verse in the New Testament scriptures about instrumental music in worship. We prove the wrong thing on this question. We prove conclusively that the first century saints did not use the instrument in worship. So what? Neither did they use a hundred other things we take for granted like Sunday Schools, a professional clergy, and large intercongregational projects. Does the silence of the scripture render these sinful? It does not ring quite true when you say, "If you use the instrument you do not respect the silence of the scriptures, but when I use the Sunday School I do." We err in making matters of personal faith a yardstick by which to determine the loyalty of a brother. We should give more attention to fruit (Galatians 5:22,23).

     Our peculiar baptismal formula (I did not say "baptism") is another of our loyalty tests. Dr. Thomas, a contemporary of Alexander Campbell, was the first to require this formula, reasoning that baptism was not valid if the candidate did not know it was for the remission of sins. So to make sure we intone the phrase "for the remission of sins" as we put the candidate under the water. There is no command, approved example or necessary inference for intonation of such a formula as we bury the candidate. While faith and repentance are both for the remission of sins, no formula is required for these. Do we ever tell a prospect he must know specifically that his faith and repentance are for the remission of sins? We are not so careful on these for we assume he is trying to obey God. Babies need not know much to be born nor do they need to be fully instructed in the process of reproduction in order to be born and live.

     We use the word "denominational" and its derivatives to infer that everyone but us is a denomination and therefore damned. The fact is we are denominated, that is, given a specific name, whether we like it or not. The early church was a sect (Acts 28:22; 24:5). The problem is to recognize our denominational status without being sectarian. The body of Christ is not a denomination in the sense that it is composed of only part of God's children. The body includes all of God's children but they are divided into many sectarian factions which do not recognize one another as brothers.

     The only way to be truly undenominational is to recognize all of God's children as brothers. Some who avow they speak of the body of Christ have in view only the loyal ones of their sect. This is as denominational as you can be. The restoration movement had its beginning in an effort to unite the Christians in all denominations, but many of us have decided there are no Christians there and have turned to conquest and absorption. Some count as converts to Christ those who come from other segments of the restoration movement and have been children of God for years. This kind of spiritual cannibalism should cease. As long as

[Page 110]
everyone is denominational but ourselves, we are probably the most denominational of all. This is difficult to comprehend. God may just ignore the sectarian lines which we draw through the body to segment it.

     (Editor's Note: F. L. Lemley labors with the brethren at Bonne Terre, Missouri and may be addressed at 422 North Division Street in that city. The zip code is 63628.)


Next Article
Back to Number Index
Back to Volume Index
Main Index