"The Christian Church -- How They Got That Way"
Almost anyone who knows anything about church history knows that at one time what is now called the "Christian Church' and the Church of Christ constituted one body religiously; but are now two distinct religious groups (churches). The Federal Census Bureau has listed them separately since the census of 1906. We are often called upon to answer the questions in regard to this division, "Why the division? What is the difference?' In a series of three articles we want to set forth clearly the true reason for the division which split the ranks of the Restoration movement.
Division -- The Result Of An Attitude
Shortly before the turn of the twentieth century a movement began within the Church of Christ which resulted in what is now known as the "Christian Church'. It is generally thought that the cause of this division was instrumental music in the worship and societies in the work of the church. Actually, this idea is wrong. That these were major differences between those who adhered to the original pattern of things and those who went out from us no one will deny; but instrumental music and the societies were, in fact, effects rather than causes. Instrumental music and the societies were simply symptoms of the disease that lurked unseen; outward manifestations of an inward attitude wholly foreign to the Bible and to that which characterized the Restoration movement in its inception and its early years.
The Restoration movement came into existence and grew into a world-wide uprising because of an attitude toward the Scriptures. It had been the firm conviction of the restorers that the Scriptures provided a complete blue-print for the church of all ages; not only in the matter of salvation from sin, but also in church organization, in worship, and in the moral life of the individual. This attitude is best summed up in the old slogan, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.' Gradually as people came into the Restoration movement from the denominations and brought with them their liberal views, and as a liberalizing tendency grew within the movement itself, there developed and emerged two distinct attitudes:
One attitude was that the Scriptures provided the all-sufficient guide in matters of doctrine, worship and morality.
The other attitude was that where the Scriptures did not specifically forbid a thing, the worshipper was at liberty to use his own judgment and wisdom as to its use or non-use. Thus, the old slogan was changed to, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we have liberty of opinion.' It was this attitude, as manifested in the work, worship, and spiritual life of the church that brought about the division within the ranks of the Church of Christ and produced the "Christian Church.'
This Attitude In The Work Of The Church
The point of view which underlies the whole structure of the Christian Church has left the door open to all kinds of error and innovations. This is seen, for example in the many societies, missionary and otherwise, which have corrupted the work of the Lord. They have divided the house of God. It has even come to the point now that they have divided the Christian Church, Societies are not "methods' of doing the work of God. They are organizations. They usurp the work of the church. They are unscriptural because they appropriate to themselves the duty honor, and authority, which rightfully belong to the church. They are unnecessary because the end for which they are established is far better achieved through the church itself without the help (?) that they can give. The rash of Bible societies, missionary societies, and benevolent societies would make of the church (as they have made of the Christian Church) nothing but fodder for their mills, a servant of the societies.
This "liberalizing' attitude is further seen in the action of the Christian Church in making women elders and preachers. The following quotations from "The Christian Evangelist', official organ of 'the Christian Church, illustrates the point: "It is an indication that conceit has not yet been knocked out of masculinity that there are so few women on the official boards of our churches,' and from another writer, "We have an equal number of women and men as deacons. . . there is perfect harmony, and all the old prejudice and feeling of 'let your women keep silent in the church' is gone;" still a third man writes, "I recommend electing women elders if they are spiritually and educationally qualified:"
The Bible says that a woman is not permitted to have "dominion over a man.' (I Tim. 2:12) Christian Church preachers say she can and should have such dominion "if spiritually and educationally qualified". Paul says a woman cannot "have dominion over a man'; and Christian Church preachers say that Paul was just "conceited' and needed "the conceit knocked out of him'. The Christian Evangelist says that if women are not placed on the official board (elders and deacons), it is just a matter of conceit on the part of men. It seems to us that it is the "Christian Evangelist' that is conceited and not Paul. Paul was inspired; he spoke "by the Holy Spirit.' (Yet they say Paul needed "the conceit knocked out of him'!)
We have never read anything from Robert Ingersoll, Tom Paine, Voltaire, or any other atheist that was any more blasphemous than these statements from the pages of the "Christian Evangelist', official organ of the Christian Church, and published in St. Louis, Missouri. Yet we know the "Christian Evangelist" represents and reflects the point of view and the attitude of heart of those preachers and leaders who led the apostasy from the truth of the Scripture and developed the modern "Christian Church'.
We will consider in subsequent articles the worship and the spiritual life which grow out of such an attitude.