UNITED WE STAND . . .

Professor Axter suggested that our Great Religions of the World class make an intensive study of the major religious groups in our city (Everytown, Tennessee). He divided the class into teams of two and then allowed each team to take its turn at drawing names out of a cigar box.

Lacka Unity, my teammate, put her hand into the box and brought our a small scrap of paper. As she unfolded the paper, a smile flashed across her face and she announced that we had drawn “The Church of Christ” — the church of which she was a member.

After the other students had drawn their names, Professor Axter dismissed the class. Lacka and I walked downstairs to the student center and found an unoccupied booth near the back of the room. We began talking about the procedure which we should use to gather material on our topic.

Lacka eagerly began to enumerate the various sources which she could provide for our study. She said that she had a book entitled, “Why I Am A Member Of The Church of Christ,” which put forth many of their beliefs. In addition, she said that she could easily obtain, from her preacher, several booklets written by prominent Church of Christ preachers on the theme, “What Is The Church of Christ?” “One thing we really stress,” she said, “is the fact that the Bible is the basis of unity and the ground of fellowship.” “The Churches of Christ believe,” she continued, “that all religious people can be united, if we just accept the Bible as our authority.”

Since I had heard very little about the Church of Christ, I thought that it would probably be a good idea to attend one of their services. Besides, their plea for unity had an Apostolic “ring” to it. I asked Lacka where the Church of Christ met for worship. She bowed her head, trying to hide the crimson color which my question had provoked. Glancing up at me, she said, “Which Church of Christ do you mean? There are seven Churches of Christ in Every town.” — Stan Paregien, Box 843, David Lipscomb College, Nashville, Tenn.

ABOUT SOME WHO DIED FOR OTHERS

“The man who loves his brother lives and moves in the light, and has no reason to stumble” (1 John 2:10). True love is a condition of discipleship. And the greatest proof of true love is the willingness to die for the welfare of others. “We know and to some extent realize the love of God for us because Christ expressed it in laying down his life for us. We must in turn express our love by laying down our lives for those who are our brothers.” (1 John 3:16)

According to reports, several Christian missionaries recently died in the Congo because they chose to stay and try to help people who needed their help rather than leave to protect their own lives. The only way I can understand this action is to say that they were committed to the life and love of Jesus. In the action of these people, I see something of what the life of Jesus was really like — service and love for God and man. This is the only explanation I can offer for what they did.

Some reflection on these events ought to cause us to think seriously about the position which demands that we refuse to consider such people Christians. They appear to have given a tremendous manifestation of that love which is a proof of discipleship.

But, I can already hear the conditioned response of our orthodoxy, “proving” that those who died didn’t really possess true love, and therefore cannot be considered by “loyal Christians” as being disciples of Jesus.

How does this response go? Something like this: “Paul said that even if we give our bodies to be burned, and don’t have love, it profits nothing (1 Cor. 13:3 ). Further, he says that ‘love rejoices in the truth’ (vs. 7). And it’s evident these people didn’t have the truth since they didn’t wear the ‘right name for the church’ or engage in ‘the right acts of worship’. Therefore, since they didn’t ‘rejoice in the truth’, their actions didn’t spring from love and so were profitless. So, we can’t consider them Christians.”

The abuse of Paul’s writings inherent in the response outlined above is so clear as not to need any elaboration.

The actions of these people who gave their lives ought to make us stop and ask the question as to whether or not we may have missed the point of the religion of Jesus when we make a man’s standing before God depend on the right pronouncement of our shibboleths with respect to many “issues” and give no place to the matter of love for God and man as seen in their willingness to lay down their lives for others. How many of us who can “wax valiant” in our assaults on others because they do not understand everything as we do, or who can be so bold in our defense of what we are pleased to call “sound doctrine” would show ourselves willing to be valiant and bold to the point of giving up our lives to try to serve others?

Is everything right with our conception of Christianity when it demands that we must refuse to consider those who showed the love of Jesus in its greatest measure as brothers beloved in the faith?

Is there not something wrong with our sense of spiritual values when that sense leads us to deny that such people as these are disciples of the Lamb and when it causes us to make Christianity dependent on one’s observance of outward forms alone, many of which, in the final analysis, may be only our opinions? — Obert Henderson, 3117 Sheridan, Loveland, Colorado 80537

WHO AM I?

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith . . . “ (l Timothy 1 :4, KJV).

“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3 :9, KJV).

About a year ago, while visiting in a home, a high school senior asked a question that I have thought much about in the past months.

He prefaced his question in this way: He and some of his friends, who were members of the “Christian church”, had been discussing “church.” They insisted that the group called “the church of Christ” had branched off from “the Christian church.” But he had always been told that the Christian church had branched off from “us.” His question was: ‘What should I have told them? What could I have told them?”

Truthfully, that had always been a question in my mind, and had never been easy (for me) to answer, considering my indoctrinated background.

But one of these two verses of Scripture came to my mind with a flash of insight!

In essence, this young man’s question was one of those I had asked myself: What is my genealogy? What is my pedigree? What is my lineage? What is my religious ancestry?

I believe the reply I gave him was closer to the truth than I had been at any other time in my life when trying to answer this question for myself.

Mentioning this reference of Paul’s to genealogical concern, I told him I did not know (the answer to his question), but I was sure of one thing: the teachings of Jesus will still make one godly and Christ-like, if obeyed from the heart, without introducing any problem whatsoever of church genealogy.

I seriously doubt that when Jesus the Christ uttered, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (literally, assembly, with no high falutin’ organizational implications), He intended to start the beginning of a long genealogical history of churchism. I have therefore lost interest in tracing all the way back to A. D. 33, in Jerusalem, for my church ancestry. I have lost interest in tracing it out of the Reformation and the Restoration as well.

A recent editorial in the Firm Foundation devoted an entire page to talk about church, church, church, but unless I overlooked one or more, the lord Jesus Christ was not mentioned at all, unless the use of the word “Christians” (used one time) counts.

This interest in and concern over churchanity to the neglect of genuine Christianity fulfills the very prediction of Paul. It has ministered questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith, and our failure to avoid genealogies has been most unprofitable and vain.

THE WAY is still revealed in Christ, by Christ, through Christ; and the Scriptures reveal Christ, not church. Christ’s people collectively are an assembly, but this assembly is not the object of our loyalty - our loyalty is to Christ.

While we may use human logic and syllogistical reason, using a few here-and-there verses, that “church” and “Christ” are equal to each other, a thorough reading of the New Testament book-by-book fails to sustain such reasoning, if my understanding is correct. — Jim Smith, 1321 W. Drew, Ft. Worth, Texas.