Theory in Practice

Theory in Practice THEORY IN PRACTICE
F. B. Shepherd

Let it be distinctly understood that the God we read about in the Bible is an infinite God. His way is the only right way. This God is the author of several institutions, each of which has been established to perform a definite function, to attain a definite end. Being born and authorized of God they may, and do in some details of their function, somewhat overlap. Yet it is preposterous to presume they in any sense conflict or contradict. Two institutions to which I refer are: the “home” and the “church.” Each has been originated by God for a specific purpose, ordained by God unto a specific end. For our purpose today I shall have little to say about the home except incidentally. I am particularly concerned about the place and function the Lord intended the. church to fill and fulfill in society generally. I deal with that subject more or less negatively today since yesterday I discussed the matter in a positive way. I propose to deal largely with some popular misconceptions of the church Christ built, the “tabernacle the Lord pitched, not man” (Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 8:2). The church Christ built and Christianity have always been misunderstood and frequently misrepresented. While upon earth Jesus Christ himself was frequently misunderstood (Matthew 26:61). Even his own disciples misapprehended his mission and the nature of his kingdom (Luke 24:25-26; John 20:9; John 20:24-25; Acts 1:6). The apostles also were misunderstood (Romans 3:8). The early congregations of the church Christ built and Christians were spoken against, misunderstood, and misrepresented (Acts 28:22). Truth itself has ever been misunderstood, misconceived, and misrepresented. Some of these misconceptions, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, have been in ignorance, conscien-tious, and God will have mercy upon them. Some have been wilful, premeditated, criminal, hence God cannot pardon (Acts 28:26-27; 2 Peter 3:5). All have been without good reason or excuse since God has ever said what he meant, meant what he said, and expressed himself clearly and plainly in all matters that must be understood in order to obedience to his will and man’s salvation. One among the most popular and yet most unjustifiable misconceptions held by many today is the false idea the church Christ built is a combination or amalgamation of several hundred independent sects or denominations. A sort of religious society or social club of nice people all Christians should join. (The wife should join her husband’s church or vice versa.) This fallacy has fruited in such expressions as: ‘‘The church will not save you”; “It makes no difference which church you join”; “One church is as good as another”; “One can be saved as easily out of a church as in one”; “There is nothing in a name,” etc....etc.

Sectism and denominationalism exist in direct opposition to the church Christ built and Christianity. It is specifically forbidden and condemned by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:10-31). It separates believers in Christ. It defeats the purpose expressed in the prayer of Christ In John 17. The church of the Lord Jesus is the “Body of Christ”; the “House of God”; “Family of God”; “Vine and the branches” (Colossians 1:18; Colossians 1:24; Ephesians 1:22-23; 1 Timothy 3:14; 1 Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-20; 2 Corinthians 5:1; 1 John 3:1; John 16:15).

Just about as popular is the idea the church Christ built should shoulder responsibility for the correction of the moral, the social, and domestic evils of society m general. To the end this may be done effectively and successfully according to some human standards a great many otherwise wonderfully fine folk take a very active part in the deciding of political issues and the installing of polipcal leaders in, the various positions of trust within the gift of the people.

It is highly significant I believe, that no inspired preacher ever uttered a tirade or delivered a discourse on moral or ethical principles to alien sinners. Neither Jesus Christ, his disciples nor any inspired preacher, so far as the inspired record is concerned, ever made a direct onslaught upon the customs, practices, or institutions of the day and age in which they lived, as these things related to non-members of the church. In the matter of slavery, which all men agree is not compatible with Christianity, the inspired utterances dealt only with the conscientious service of the slave to his master (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25). The instruction of the Holy Spirit to slave holders is that they treat their slaves with due regard to their own relationship to Christ as a bondservant of his (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; Philemon). No where was the slave instructed to free himself by physical force or legislation. Neither was the Master commanded to free the slave in order to remain well pleasing to God, In the matter of the relationship of the child of God toward the political set up or situation he is nowhere made responsible for Democracy, for Monarchy, absolute or limited, but is instructed to ‘Tender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:17-21), and to be “subject to the powers that be” (Romans 13:1). And be it remembered this in a time when slavery, barbarism, and every kind of abuse of liberty was rife. The church nowhere in the teaching or practice of the inspired teachers either by inference or otherwise, is committed to assume a definite responsibility for the enforcement of ci\il law, the execution of corporal punishment, or the infliction of physical pain upon lawbreakers in or out of the church. Nowhere does the New Testament instruct the church to busy itself in the control of legislation politically. Nowhere does the New Testament inform the church it is superior to human government. A third misconception of the divinely ordained function of the church Christ built is that it should assume the burden of supplying the physical and material needs of the world today. Certainly the Lord Jesus never spoke truer words than when he said, “The poor you always have with you.” But in that very expression and that very time he quite clearly indicated that primarily the church was not instituted as a benevolent or eleemosynary society to be burdened with the obligation to assume responsibility for the eating, wearing, and housing of the world. The Jerusalem church is found early in its history concerned about the physical needs of its less fortunate members and efficiently caring for the situation. But one reason for the appointment of the seven was that the apostles themselves might not be handicapped in their most important “ministry of the word.” And be it noted this was not the organizing of an independent, subsidiary, or auxiliary to the church itself that would function to the seeking out of all and sundry, in the church and out, persons to whom some money, clothes, or food might be given (Read Acts 4:32-37; Acts 6:1-6). In the case of the activity of the churches of Macedonia to raise money to relieve the physical distress of the brethren in Judea, the help was evidently sent to relieve the distress of the Saints exclusively, and not for general distribution (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Acts 11:29). In one of the few explicit instructions given by the Holy Spirit to govern this sort of church work the apostle limits the donations to a particular type of needy (1 Timothy 5:9-10). He at the same time gives some direct instructions regarding the relief of the church itself from responsibility. Read again 1 Timothy 5:4-8. I am not opposing the giving to the relief of the needy, child or adult. Such is the natural expression of a heart warmed with the love of God. It is Christianity. What I have in mind is that the New Testament nowhere teaches, either by precept or approved precedent, that the church or the churches shall be committed to the dispensation of “charity” promiscuously. That the church should go into the business. Christianity has to do primarily with the soul and its salvation rather than with the body and its preservation (1 Timothy 4:7-8; 1 Timothy 6:6-8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Again of late years there has been considerable agitation looking to the obligating of the churches to assume responsibility for the recreation and enter-tainment of their membership. Especially for their “young people.” Much has been said of late about the “young peoples’ problem” and the need for the church to supervise games, plays, etc. In circles outside cf “ours” (?) churches have gone so far as to assume the supervision of the public dance on the assumption that if the young people are not provided with a “clean” dance they will go to the “honky tonk.” The idea looks attractive to some. The arguments in favor of church supervised play appear plausible. But! are we not mixing our functions? The home is the responsible institution for all such that is legitimate per se. Entertainment is not at all the responsibility of the church. Entertainment of either its own members or the other fellow. It is true the home) has become grossly, criminally, negligent in the matter of maintaining the proper oversight of its product. But a bad situation cannot be scripturally or authoritatively corrected by unloading it upon the shoulders of the churches. At no time have two wrongs made one right.

God has authorized three institutions that still exist in this world. These are the home, the church and the state. All three have exclusive, God ordained and authorized functions. We cannot be too careful in our endeavor to understand each and acknowledge and recognize the distinctions. God made them. God has revealed them. Let man recognize them and abide by them. No amount of failure to understand the reason of some of God’s prescriptions justifies a rebellion against any. No amount of failure upon the part of churches or Christians to function scripturally justifies any departure from God authorized means or methods. Would we realize the ideal we must idealize the real.