I Could Not Recommend It
Recently, I was handed a copy of the October special issue of 20th Century Christian Magazine on "Marks Of The True Church" with the suggestion that I read it with a view to recommending that a number of copies be placed in the church building for distribution. I have read each of the nineteen articles therein, and in the reading, was very pleased with what I read-even thrilled, until I came to article eleven. This article was by Joe B. Phillips and on the subject, "Spirit of Benevolence." I verily believe this article teaches error and surrenders ground so boldly occupied in other articles of this special issue.
In the beginning of this article, some fine comments given on loving God and our neighbor and abounding in good works. Such passages as Matt. 22:38-39, Heb. 10:24, and Matt. 25:35-46 were given.
Beginning with the third Paragraph, the writer says:
"The spirit of benevolence was clearly understood by the early church. According to Justin who wrote in the second century, the money from the collection of the church was used to care for the widows, the orphans, the sick, the imprisoned and 'in a word take care of all who are in need.' It was common in the second and third century for the elders to call on the church to fast so that food would be available to the hungry.
There are many ways that we in the twentieth century may help our fellowman. For example, many have been fed and clothed in the name of Jesus in Germany and Japan after World War II and in this city during the depression years and in time of tragedy. We may locate those in need often by working through the public schools and other state agencies. Many Christians have opened their homes to children and adults who are in need. Children's homes and homes for the aged are operated by the church to serve this purpose also."
Everyone readily admits that the spirit of benevolence was clearly understood by the early church. This is clearly understood because the New Testament says a great deal about the church and it's benevolent work. We wonder just why the writer of this article did not give some of the fine New Testament examples of the church doing this kind of work instead of relying upon history-tradition. There are about a dozen passages in the New Testament dealing with the church helping needy saints. Some of these references are Acts 2:44-45, 5:1-11, 6:1-7, 11:27-30, Rom. 15:25-31, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8:1-24, 1 Tim. 5:5-16. If one is trying to impress people with the fact that the Lord's church bears all the marks of the true church, surely reading such passages and identifying them with the practices of the church would be very impressive.
The author of the article under consideration quotes history to show that the early church took care of "all that were in need." Perhaps we see here why no Scripture reference was given in this respect. There is no New Testament passage which speaks of the church out of its treasury providing for any except "saints". All passages specify "saints" or "believers" and not "all that are in need." Next, to show that the church today has this (New Testament or Traditional? ?) Mark, the writer says "Many have been fed... in Germany and Japan... during depression and times of tragedy" . . . "Children's homes and homes for the aged are operated by the church to serve this purpose also." It is not denied that Christians can, should, and have relieved many in need in various ways, but where is the Bible authority for a church relieving "all (including non-saints) in need" and building and maintaining orphan and aged homes-asylums-corporations? When it is understood that there is no Scriptural authority for such, yet brethren are determined to do it, it is not hard to see why one would quote tradition for a practice and not Scripture.
This article declares that the church "taking care of all are in need" and "operating children's homes and homes for the aged" are marks of the true church. By what authority is this declaration made — by Scripture or Tradition? There is no scripture, hence the writer of the article under consideration quotes history or tradition. Any sectarian preacher could do as much.
Fisher (History of The Christian Church-Chapter 2, P. 51) says: "After we cross the limit of the first century we find that with each board of elders there is a person to whom the name of "bishop" is specially applied, although, for a long time, he is likewise often called a presbyter". Does this justify each church today having a bishop or presiding elder who is over the other elders"? Do we not go back to the Bible and show that such is not the Scriptural order regardless of what history or tradition says? Or do we?
The first article of this special issue of 20th Century Christian, is a very fine one on "Who Sets The Standards?" by Frank Pack. In this article, the question is raised, "What shall be the standard of Trueness?" Several false standards are suggested such as numbers, wealth, organization or church machinery, modern age appeal, and tradition. The "Word", as given by Christ, the head, is then said to be standard, and others are urged to measure their faith and practices, not on the basis of popularity, tradition of men, or appeal to human opinions, but by the Lord's Word. This very fine article closes with these questions and caution: "Do you have no higher authority for these practices than the opinions and authority of men? Or is there a "Thus saith the Lord" for what they are doing in matters of faith and practice? Remember, the Lord sets the standards, for the Lord is 'the saviour of the body, the church.' (Eph. 5:23).
This first article considered along with the one on "Spirit of Benevolence" might well bring from a sectarian the charge: "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?" (Rom. 2:21). On what ground can we censure our sectarian friends for practices not authorized by Scripture but by tradition, when our own brethren are equally guilty? Because of the error taught in the article-"Spirit of Benevolence" and because of the inconsistency, particularly between the two articles mentioned, I could not recommend that this attractive, special issue of 20th Century Christian, containing a number of fine articles, be made available for distribution.