|
|
|
Jason Hardin How much religious confusion would be cleared up if we understood and truly believed that the kingdom of Christ is just that–a kingdom (Matthew 16:18-19)? The church of our Lord is not a democracy, nor is it a republic. The church of the New Testament is a monarchy through and through. We readily buy into the practical necessity for strong, compassionate leadership in so many arenas of life–government, schools, the workplace, the home, etc. Anarchy and chaos descend immediately into the mix when the role of strong leadership is abandoned or unfulfilled. The church of our Lord–the church about which we read in the Bible–is no exception. It also, as decreed by the Architect, Builder and Founder, needs leadership. But God does not look to a voting membership or specially selected representatives to legislate laws or decide policy within His kingdom. Using passages like Ephesians 1:18-23, Colossians 1:16-18, and John 18:36-37, we can easily discern that Jesus is the divine Monarch of His kingdom. The implication? There is only one Lawgiver (James 4:10-12; Matthew 28:18). How much authority does that leave for human creed makers? Preachers? Priests? Popes? Church councils? Synods? Religious conventions? You know the answer. However, we fall into a deceptive and carefully placed trap when we, as God’s people, look for functioning government of the “universal” church here on the earth. The “universal” church as established in the New Testament (Matthew 16:18) is composed of all the saved throughout the whole world. When we speak of this “universal” church we must realize that the Bible speaks of no divinely appointed universal government here on the earth. There is no human being who is the head of the Lord’s church, regardless of what our Roman Catholic friends would have us to believe. There is no such thing as a modern group of men who dictate with God’s approval to the universal church. If so, who are they and where is the divine authority for their universal positions of power? The question, then, naturally becomes, “Who are we trying to please?” One man? If so, who is he and where is his authority? Other congregations? Other assemblies of God’s people? Is our great goal simply to look and act and work and worship just like another group in some other locality? If so, why, and where is the authority for such? If the local body of which I am a member does something different from another group in another place, is it nothing more than the inherent difference that makes it wrong? If they do something different from us, should I instantly be put on guard and allow suspicions to germinate within my heart just because a difference exists? For instance, there are Christians all over this world who assemble to worship in houses. Because the church that I assemble with gathers in a building, is one right and another automatically wrong for none other reason than the obvious difference of assembly locations? Should one of us change simply because of the difference in order to please or conform to the other? A confederation or alliance of congregations? To adopt such a mindset is to buy into the spirit of denominationalism. In the New Testament, God’s people were described as the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:23-31), the church of God (8 different times in the NT), the household of God (3 different times in the NT), the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16), or simply the church (64 times in the NT). Faithful Christians can describe themselves in a variety of different ways. Is it biblical for a local assembly to describe itself as a "church of Christ"? Of course! If another group of God’s people decides to describe themselves as "a church of God" or "the household of God," or simply "the church in this locality," should I instantly be put on guard and assume a lack of respect for God’s authority? If so, I have a problem with the inspired apostle Paul and a great deal of his phraseology (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1). Throughout the pages of the New Testament, the absence of a proper name for the Lord’s church is deafening. What would Paul have to say, then, about some of the arguments and logic being used by Christians today? The Biblical point, of course, is a simple one: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). If a body of believers describes itself with a biblical designation, I must then look to what they are actually doing. Therein lies the determining factor, not simply whether or not they wear a “universal name” like “all the faithful.” Faithful Christians recognize Biblical descriptions of themselves and stand unashamed of each of them. True disciples of Christ continue to echo the charge: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Above all else and all others, children of God seek to please their heavenly Father. When anyone says that “we” should refuse any one of the biblical descriptions provided by the Spirit and instead, have one, universal proper name for all of the faithful, then it is time to ask, “By what authority are you saying these things, and who gave you this authority” (Luke 20:2)? Is there some sort of convention that should be called, and if so, who has the right to call it? Is there some paper? Some publication? Some board? Some committee? How could “we” augment a proposal that all faithful congregations start using or stop using one description in favor of another without interfering with the divinely ordained independence of every congregation on earth? Brethren, who are we trying to please? Let’s think about the words we are using. Let’s think about the arguments we are making. Let’s think about why we are doing the things we are doing. Let’s think about who we are trying to please. And let’s make sure that we are not allowing the religious confusion around us to influence us more than we would like to admit. There is no mortal man or group of men today who dictate with God’s approval to the universal church. It is the monarchy of the mighty Messiah. |