“John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons
in your name; and we forbade him because he followed us not.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who
shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able to quickly
speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us”
(Mk. 9:38-40).
In recent years, this passage in the Gospel of Mark has
become the center of a doctrinal storm. It has been cited
frequently as a proof-text for the allegation that there are
individuals in practically all denominational bodies who are
true Christians (Shelly, 123ff). This includes religious
leaders like Billy Graham, John Stott, and James Dobson
(Cope, 7).
Those who dispute this saints-in-the-sects dogma are accused
of exhibiting an arrogant, exclusive attitude — similar to
that of the Lord’s disciples, and for which they were
rebuked.
John’s Testimony
What are the actual facts of this case? A careful
consideration of the available data will reveal that this
rather obscure incident does not afford any comfort to those
who are unscripturally ecumenical in their orientation.
John, an eyewitness to the controversy, plainly stated that
this man was “casting out demons” in the name of Christ.
There are several crucial considerations to be noted.
Christ’s Response
The Lord instructed his disciples: “Forbid him not,” or, as
the Greek suggests: “Stop hindering him.” The Savior then
explained why this fellow was not to be opposed. “No man who
is doing a mighty work in my name will be able to quickly
speak evil of me.”
Jesus acknowledged that: If the man was actually casting out
demons, then he obviously was teaching the gospel, because
supernatural signs were designed to confirm the truth of the
miracle-worker’s message. “Signs” were never granted as mere
ends within themselves; they were intended to accompany, and
validate, divine instruction (Mk. 16:17-20; Heb. 2:2-4).
Supernatural gifts would never have been given to
authenticate a false teaching.
How can this case possibly serve as a precedent for today,
justifying fellowship with those who are propagating
denominational error?
Conclusions To Be Drawn
What do we learn from this episode? We are forced to
conclude that this unknown disciple had, on an earlier
occasion, been associated with Christ, and that the Lord had
enlisted the gentleman in His divine mission.
The disciples were unaware of the man’s identity;
nonetheless, he was one of the Savior’s workers. He
possessed a spiritual gift. From whom else would he have
received that power — if not from the Son of God? Jesus
plainly suggested that though this man was not in the immediate
company of the twelve, he was nevertheless “for us.” And
so the disciples were not to hinder his labor.
What relationship does this episode bear to a modern
situation involving folks who have never obeyed the gospel,
and who are unquestionably teaching anti-scriptural
doctrines? None at all. It certainly does censure an aloof
attitude on the part of any disciple who would hold himself
apart from others who are faithfully serving the Lord, but
it does not sanction the teaching of error.
The Current Problem
What theologically liberal people need, in order to justify
their interdenominational-fellowship, is a case where Jesus
rebuked his disciples for not fraternizing with those
advocating error.
Our current problem is this: We have men within the church
(and they represent a sizable segment) who have lost all
respect for New Testament authority. They have become
sectarian to the very core of their souls. They desperately
want to be affiliated with the denominations, but various
factors prevent them from leaving the church outright and
joining themselves to the sects. Some of them have already
swayed the flocks with which they work — naive souls whose
superficial Bible knowledge has made them vulnerable to the
charms of slick-talking technicians who masquerade as gospel
preachers.
Some of these feel they are “reformers.” They fantasize that
they have been specially called of God to bring “the Church
of Christ denomination” out of its suffocating sectarianism
into the conglomerate of modern “Christendom.” They actually
envision their names inscribed in the books that will
chronicle the epochal deeds of ecclesiastical history.
There are a couple of crucial principles that must be kept
in view in considering the issues of the current
controversy.
Those who wish to remain faithful to the Lord will not be
swayed by this new sectarian mentality.
|