In our
experiences of life we are often confronted with certain things that
demand acceptance or rejection. Not only is this true in the normal
affairs of life where religion is not concerned, but it is also true in
the realm of religion. And many times to accept a certain thing would
require me, because of the principle involved, to accept a number of
other things that exist upon the same basic principle. The things are so
parallel that I could not accept one without accepting the other, and,
at the same time, remain consistent. I do not subscribe to the idea that
I want to be right whether I am consistent or not. If I am right, I am
consistent; if I am not consistent, I am wrong somewhere. I may be
charged with inconsistency when it is not so, but if I am actually
inconsistent, then somewhere I am out of harmony with divine truth, for
truth is always consistent with truth. At one time I may have held to
one position, and at another time I may hold to a position entirely
different, but I am not to be charged with inconsistency in the matter
unless I try to hold both positions at the same time.
Saul of
Tarsus, at one period of his life, opposed Christianity with all the
power that he possessed. Yet at another time he was one of the strongest
proponents of Christianity the world has ever known. But Saul was not
inconsistent for he did not hold the two positions at the same time. To
hold two conflicting positions at the same time would justify the charge
that one is inconsistent. Or to accept one thing as a practice of my
life and religion, but at the same time to reject a number of other
things that are exactly the same in principle, would also warrant the
charge of inconsistency. Consequently, when certain things are presented
to us, we often say, "I'll go all the way, or I'll not go at all." In
other words, I will accept all the things that are the same in
principle, or I'll not accept any of them. A course of this kind is
certainly consistent, for if some of the things are in harmony with
divine truth, the others, based on the same principle, are likewise in
harmony with the same.
This idea
of "going all the way, or not at all", is well presented in the
following article selected from CHRISTIAN WAYMARKS, the bulletin of the
Church of Christ at Campbell, Missouri, for which Bro. Christian A.
Lyles is the preacher. The article was written by Bro. Lyles. The
article is as follows:
Misdirected Zeal
"Regarding
the children of Israel Paul said, `I bear them record that they have a
zeal for God but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of
God's righteousness and going about to establish their own
righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of
God.'
"There was
no question here regarding the sincerity of these Jews but simply a
statement regarding misdirected zeal. We need to be impressed with the
fact that good intentions and zeal are not evidence that a course of
action is right.
"There is
no organization authorized in the New Testament except a local
congregation of the church of
Christ. In the early days of the
church there quickly arose the opinion that a larger association was
needed, and, as a result, we see the establishment of a district or
diocese and, naturally, an office of corresponding dignity to rule over
it. This, of course, led to other changes and addition until, by the
close of the fifth century, the church had completely fallen away from
the faith.
"A little
more than three centuries ago leading men began to discover that the
Bible and the teaching of the church were not always in harmony and
started what we know as the reformation. This movement met with success,
and finally a plea was made that men go all the way back to the
apostles, teaching and practicing exactly what they did. From that time
on there has been a body of believers who insist on being just
Christians and being guided by what the New Testament authorizes.
"The road
of this people has not been altogether smooth. Within the same
generation leading men again entertained the notion that just the church
is too small to meet the Lord's needs, and it seemed to them wise to
establish another organization to fill this need. Thus the missionary
society arose to take over from the church the work of preaching the
gospel. Of course, the opening that will admit one digression will admit
another. Therefore, we see the admission of instrumental music in the
worship and other things not mentioned in the New Testament. As you
know, the result was a divided church and finally two separate churches.
"Regarding
both of these cases it could be said, "They have a zeal for God but not
according to knowledge.' It seemed to these people that God's revelation
did not provide for the conditions that they faced. So the thing to do
was to attend to the necessity according to their own best judgment. We
should already know that what seems good to us is not always that which
is good.
"We have built much sermon material
around the digression of a century ago. If we should do now the same
things they did then, what is the difference? Even if we call it by
another name, it remains the same. If the time ever came that I felt I
could support an organization other than the church to do the work of
the church, then I will have to be consistent and go all the way,
supporting the missionary society and denominational schools. However,
any argument that I can think of that bars one or more of these bars
them all."
The above
article I commend to your thoughtful consideration. I have never had any
doubts about where Bro. Christian A. Lyles would stand on the issues of
institutionalism that confront the church today. I have been so closely
associated with him through the years, and I have known his stand for
the truth on many other issues, that I felt sure he would not be swept
away with the trend toward great "brotherhood projects" and toward human
organizations to do the work God assigned the church to do. I have for
many years believed and taught that the church was adequate to do the
work God assigned it to do without turning it over to human institutions
to do for them. The question posed by Bro. Lyles' article is one that I
have never yet seen answered, but one for which I have looked for an
answer for many years. That question, stated in different terms, is
simply this: What is the difference between the benevolent work of the
church being done through a human organization and the evangelistic work
of the church being done through a human organization? Or if the church
has a Scriptural right to do its work of benevolence through an
institutional orphan home, why does it not have the same Scriptural
right to do its work of evangelism through a human organization known as
a missionary society? A simple, sensible, reasonable, Scriptural answer
to this question will go a long way toward resolving the difficulties
before the church today. Who can give the answer? Who will do so? --
Gospel Guardian - June 16, 1955
Other Articles
A Letter to a Son Going to College
If We Believed What They Believed
Winning Last Place
Would you like
others to read this article?
Please share!