The Churches of Christ & Good Works

WHY WE DIFFER

 

Our Common Beliefs

 

First, let’s consider what we have in common with most “churches of Christ” and then, how and why we differ. We do preach:

• That Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-4);

• That this gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation (Rom 1:16) and, when preached, those who believe it, repent, confess their faith, and are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will be saved from their past Sins (Matt. 16:16-18; 28:18-20; Mk. 16: 15-16; Acts 2:38);

• That these saved individual Christians are added to the church by God (Acts 2:47) and serve Him in the churches (assemblies) by worshipping in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) through prayer, singing, teaching, the Lord’s Supper, and giving (Acts 2:42; 20:7; Eph 5:19; 1 Cor. 16:1-2);

• That Christians are to do that which is good for all people, especially to those who share our common faith (Gal 6:10).

 

We are of the opinion that these basic beliefs and practices are shared by those of us who are called “churches of Christ” and that no divisions are among us over these matters, as it should be (1 Cor 1:10).

Three Ways We Differ

 

Our differences can be expressed in three basic concepts: (1) NEW TESTAMENT PATTERNS of authority and congregational cooperation; (2) the concept of EQUALITY; and (3) CHURCH and INDIVIDUAL responsibility.

 

Pattern or Example?

First, we believe there are, in the New Testament, patterns, which are as important and binding upon us today as the “form of doctrine” (Rom 6:17) by which we are saved. Further, that such “forms” and “patterns” are to be CONSERVED, unchanged and unadulterated, to this present time.

There are many examples of ladies dresses, but if one wants to preserve a style for future restoration and duplication, one needs a pattern. As the Lord said to Moses,

And you shall raise up the tabernacle according to its pattern which you were shown on the mount” Ex 26:30 NKJV

 

In the New Testament, we have patterns of conduct, as:

‘join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” Phil. 3:17, NKJV

and, patterns of teaching or doctrine, as:

“Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” 2 Tim.1.13 - NKJV

Although we recognize that we may “ride in a car” rather than “ride a camel” or “join a chariot,”

we believe this can be done without changing the essential, timeless truth of a pattern of authority or work.

 

That is the “conservative” attitude toward the scripture, which we believe to be divinely inspired words of God. A more “liberal” (free) attitude toward the scripture sees these patterns as merely examples of methods and activities of the early churches, open to change and improvement today. An even more liberal attitude is that of most denominations, who see immersion in water for the remission of sins as one way to be saved, but not a binding example today. For the conservative view, specific Bible authority is stressed and required for every “word or deed” of the individual (Col 3:17) arid collective work of the church (Eph 4:11-12). For the more liberal view, less specific authority is required and many activities are authorized under the umbrella of “good works.”

 

We believe that scripture is inspired of God in order to furnish the individual everything necessary to please God unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Therefore if an activity, “good work,” or “ministry” is not authorized by scripture, IT IS RULED OUT as a means of pleasing God. Even though it may appear to us to be a good work, it may not be; such as the “wonderful works” of Matthew 7:22-23, which Jesus called “lawlessness.”

 

Patterns of Authority

Perhaps an example of how Jesus used Bible authority would help. In John 2:13-16, Jesus went to Jerusalem, into the temple, and found the moneychangers and sellers of animals for the sacrifices. He angrily drove them out of the temple and justified His actions by the statement, “make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.” Where, in the law or prophets, did God say for them NOT to use the temple for their businesses? Especially for such a “good work” as providing banking services and sanctified animals for the worship of God?  Mark 11:17 records why it was wrong for them to add these activities to the temple:

 

“Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called the house of prayer?” (Isa 56. 7).

 

So Jesus was saying that when the temple was authorized as the place of worship (prayer, teaching, sacrifices), that RULED OUT all other uses.

 

Another example: Let’s say a church (or group of churches) wants to operate a K-8 private school. It appears to be a “good work.” it could also be used to teach Bible classes, the instructors would be Christians; and, besides, Matthew 28:20 authorizes the churches to “teach them.” Under the general authority to “teach,” the expedients of administrators, faculty, buildings, classrooms, chairs, boards, lights, heat, etc., would seem to be authorized, wouldn’t they? We believe they are NOT, because the specific injunction, “Teaching them...whatever I have commanded you” rules out the churches adding the teaching of general education classes, physical fitness, team sports, sewing and cooking classes, etc.

 

The same principle would apply to the churches supporting other, human, institutions such as societies to oversee missionaries, boards of elders of churches to ordain ministers, homes to care for fatherless and widows, etc. The church of Christ was built by Jesus (Matt 16:18), who is the only head of it (Eph 1:22). The church shows the wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) when it functions as the pillar and ground (foundation) of the truth (1 Tim 3:15); utilizing its peculiar resources of apostles and prophets (written), evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11) to build up itself in love (Eph 4:16). No other organization in heaven or earth has the church’s mission, resources, purposes, or authority!

 

So, we differ over the matter of patterns of authority and sometimes over certain methods and plans for doing the work of churches being called “good works.” We do agree, however, that churches need to be doing the work of the Lord.

 

A New Testament Pattern

We believe that certain patterns of congregational cooperation also need to be conserved unchanged from the New Testament time. In Acts 11:27-30 is described a need for assistance by the churches of Judea, because of a drought. Churches like Antioch of Syria, where Paul and Barnabas were worshipping, responded with benevolent gifts. Again, in 2 Corinthians 8:1-15, the churches in Macedonia sent benevolent gifts to the needy saints (vs 4). There is a pattern seen here and a REASON for the pattern, in recent years the New Testament Pattern was “improved upon,” or ignored, by a plan known as the sponsoring CHURCH.

 

 

In the New Testament pattern, the “gift” or “benevolence” was always sent to where the need existed; delivered into the congregational elders’ hands for oversight and distribution. In the case of a “sponsoring church”, (1) a large, self-sufficient church usually informs several smaller churches that they have a need the larger church is going to meet. All the smaller congregations have to do is send money to the large church’s elders, and, under their oversight, the large church will run the “plan,” “program,” or “ministry” and then provide it to the smaller churches. Or, (2) a large church will “sponsor” a plan to meet a need elsewhere that is too great for any one church to shoulder; so, many churches will join together in the “good work,” send money to the “Sponsoring Church,” which then oversees the funds and responds to the need. What is wrong with this arrangement and WHY DO WE DIFFER?

 

Equality

First, we have the pattern given in the New Testament history of the churches, and we be1ieve it should be followed and maintained by the churches today. Second, we believe small churches giving oversight of any part of their work to elders of another church is not authorized by the scriptures. Third, it begins a practice which could lead to greater oversight and ultimately, to borrow a phrase from Iraq, to a “mother of all churches” located in Texas, Rome, or wherever.

 

Finally, the apostle Paul gives a REASON for the New Testament pattern of benevolence described in 2 Corinthians 8:14; “...by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want, that there may be an equality.”

 

Following the severe earthquake in the Bay Area of California, churches in the Valley received inquiries from churches on the east coast as to whether there were saints or churches in need, to which they might send assistance. Similarly, churches in the Valley sent assistance to a church in Florida following Hurricane Andrew. As natural disasters occur over a large geographical area, it is possible for each church to respond according to its ability and a kind of balance or equality result. If you “follow the money” in the sponsoring church arrangement, it is difficult to see how any such equality could result. These, then, are the main reasons why we differ over patterns of authority. There are other examples, of course, to which we could refer, and other situations about which you may have questions. If so, just let it be known and we will arrange to sit down together and discuss these things in the spirit of mutual respect and love for the church of Jesus Christ.

 

The church and the Individual

The last concept we would like to discuss is church and individual responsibility. Part of the reason we are not in complete fellowship with some churches lies in the distinction and separation of certain “good works” authorized for individual Christians from those authorized for a church. The very thought of such a distinction seems strange to our denominational friends, who have operated so long under the “social gospel” idea that they cannot see the difference between the individual and the church at all. It’s like trying to explain the three personalities of the Godhead to a follower of Islam. But most of us in churches of Christ are familiar with the distinction made in 1 Timothy chapter 5 between the individual Christian’s responsibility to provide for his own family (vs 8) and the conditions under which a church may care for a faithful and destitute widow (vs. 9-10); concluding, “If any man or womant that believes has widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged... “(vs 16). An example may make this distinction clearer.

 

We all probably enjoy a good meal, especially among fellow-Christians. It’s such a great way to show hospitality, to get to know one another, and to give something of value to our friends. But do these things justify a “church dinner?” We agree that there is nothing wrong with individual Christian families getting together for a meal, clean recreation, and social fellowship. We agree that Acts 20:11 states that Paul enjoyed a common meal in the same “upper room” where the church had met for worship before the unexpected dismissal. We all know how the pioneer disciples in our own country used to come from miles away to the meeting house on the Lord’s Day, have worship services followed by “dinner on the grounds,” an afternoon worship, and then drive home before sundown.

 

On the other hand, Acts 2 shows a distinction between the church gathering for “doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (vs 42); and individuals “breaking bread from house to house” (vs 46). Also, a distincton is shown in Acts 20 between “the disciples came together to break bread Paul preached to them”

(vs 7); and “When he...had broken bread, and eaten, and talked...” (vs 11). We all agree we are not to COMBINE the eating of a meal with the worship of God and the Lord’s Supper, for Paul chided the Corinthians,

“What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of God...shall I praise you in this? I praise you not” (I Cor. 11.22).

 

So, where do we draw the line between individuals enjoying a meal together and the “church potluck?” What makes a meal a “church function,” anyway?

 

What if you worked for a large company and next Friday evening invited two other families to your house for a barbeque in the backyard, and they happened to be fellow-workers with you at the same company. Would you be having a “company barbeque?” No, you wouldn’t, would you? Because, YOU are providing the place, buying the food and no official association with the company is made or intended. The whole purpose of the evening is purely social and for the benefit of the individual families involved.

 

Now, if the company plans a barbeque, inviting all the employee/families; providing the place, the plates and service, tables and chairs; announces the “company barbeque and pot1uck;” and it is seen as part of the BENEFITS of the company for its employees… is something entirely different is happening, isn’t it? All of us can see the difference, can’t we?

 

When churches put into their building plans and gospel fellowship plans for ALL the members; a place, arrangements, supplies and furniture for potlucks, parties, and recreation; and announce such events as a work of the church; and thus provide and benefit the members (and non-members) with such resources and activities, it no longer is an individual activity. We believe the church is then engaging in a work not authorized by the word of God.

If an individual Christian decides to visit (provide care, benefit) fatherless children or widows as a personal good work (Jas 1:27); or if a group of Christians decides to host a meal and invite non-Christians to a “get-together” (Gal 6:10); these, we believe, are authorized as INDIVIDUAL good works, but, again, are not part of the purpose of the churches. Denominationalism seems to feel, more and more, that the purpose of a church is to collect money from its members (and the general public through fundraising), and distribute money to non-members through social programs. It’s good for non-members, but does that perfect or fit the saints for serving one another to the edifying, building up, of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)?

 

“Jesus Fed the Poor”

 

We hear a lot about how Jesus fed the 5,000 “homeless poor,” so the churches should follow His example. A careful reading of the facts reveals the multitude was not made up of homeless or poor (Matt 14:15; Lk 9:12), and the disciples realized the futility of trying to buy food for 5,000 men and their families (Lk 9:13). There is nothing in this story or any other passage, which suggests, infers, or gives authority for a church to provide (even if it could) for the physical needs of the world. Jesus said His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), except in the mission of going into all the world to preach the gospel (Mk 16:16; Acts 8:4). We believe the churches should not be involved in “good works” reserved for individuals, or in activities not authorized at all, such as public solicitation of funds, providing common meals, or recreation and entertainment.

 

Conclusion

These, then, are some ways in which we differ from the churches of Christ around us, and THE REASONS FOR THE DIFFERENCE. We ask that you search the scriptures yourself whether these things are so (Acts 17:11), and then we invite Bible study together to examine ourselves in the clear light of God’s own words. We feel we must judge (discern, discriminate) good from evil (Heb 5:14) and truth from error (John 8:32); but NOT judge (condemn, reject) one another by our own inferences and preferences (Rom 14:10). If reading this information has made you curious to know more about us at the church of Christ in Mary Esther or God’s teaching on these issues, let the person know who gave it to you. He or she may want to study with you and they are definitely interested in your eternal soul.