Philippians — The Church And Evangelism
In several respects the Philippian letter is unique among those which the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. It has been well characterized by the word "personal". Unrestrained by the necessity of discussing any outstanding case of all false doctrine or moral delinquency among the people addressed, Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to move from one topic to another in a pleasing and easy style, as he revealed the most intimate thoughts and feelings of his soul to brethren who had been very helpful to him and to whom he was very grateful.
Philippians was not intended as a treatise on evangelism. However, the author was fully dedicated to Jesus Christ who came to seek and save the lost. His heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel was that they might be saved; in order to preach to the Gentiles and win Christ, he had cheerfully suffered the loss of all things. When such a one is guided by the Holy Spirit to reveal the thoughts of his heart to those whom he loves, the result is bound to be filled with the spirit of evangelism. Hence, from this letter we can learn some valuable lessons on the topic assigned me tonight--"Philippians--The Church and Evangelism,"
In studying the book from this point of view it seems to me that three characteristics stand out prominently:
1. Emphasis on preaching Christ rather than preaching the church.
2. Emphasis on direct support of the evangelist.
3. Emphasis on individual rather than group responsibility.
Preaching Christ--Not The Church
The word Christ occurs in this letter forty-eight times; the word God twenty-three times; the word gospel nine times; and the word church only twice.
The Catholics regard the church as a plan, a system of organization, a standard of conduct, and a source of authority. The church of our Lord is neither of these. It is a group of people.
God has given us a plan whereby the church shall function, but the church is not a plan. It is a group of people who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. God has given to the world a system of teaching but the church is not a doctrine or a system--it is a group of people who have been scripturally baptized. Neither is the church a standard of conduct or a source of authority. The Bible is the standard. All authority belongs to Jesus Christ.
From the Catholic point of view the word church may be used in many ways and with many implications which do not fit the scriptural concept at all and would not be proper among people who speak as the oracles of God. If we are not very careful, we will allow our own thinking and speech to be influenced by the Catholic concept to such an extent that our manner of speaking will be quite different from that which the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use. Let me cite some instances.
Paul introduced himself and Timothy not as minister and assistant minister of the church of Christ at Rome but as "servants of Jesus Christ." The letter is addressed to "the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi"--not to the "Philippi Church of Christ."
In verse eleven of chapter one, Paul speaks of the saints "being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God." in contrast, we speak of giving glory unto the church. He told the Philippians that his imprisonment at Rome had turned out "unto the furtherance of the gospel." I suspect we would have said it had resulted in the "promotion of the church" or had put "the church of Christ in a better light before the people at Rome." One of our main objects today seems to be to convince the world that the group of people known as the "Church of Christ" are well-to-do, educated, cultured, refined, numerically strong, and something to be reckoned with politically. If this be our purpose, it will take us a long time to catch up with the Catholics. They are far out in front on these matters. In contrast Paul was thankful that his bonds had "fallen out rather to the furtherance of the gospel."
We exhort the saints not to be ashamed of the church of Christ--a group of people. Paul was pleased when his brethren were "bold to speak the word without fear." He did not say that he was set for the defense of the church of Christ but "the defense of the gospel."
It was his earnest expectation and hope, not that the church, but that "Christ be magnified in his body. - He exhorted the brethren to behave "as it becometh the gospel of Christ." He did not ask them to behave so as to "reflect credit on the church," In verse twenty-nine it is pointed out that it is given unto the saints to suffer "in the behalf of Christ"--not "in behalf of the church." In Philippians 2:22 Paul said of Timothy, "... he hath served with me in the gospel." Wouldn't we have said that he had served with him "in the church" or as "assistant minister"?
The Holy Spirit guided Paul to say that "for the work of Christ" Epaphroditus had been nigh unto death. Don't you agree that a modern writer would have said, "for the work of the church"? We habitually speak of the enemies of the church, but Paul spoke of "the enemies of the cross of Christ."
We speak much about giving the women "something to do in the church," Paul said, "Help those women who labored with me in the gospel."
Near the conclusion of this epistle Paul said, "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you." I suspect we would have said, "The Rome Church of Christ sends greetings to the Philippi Church of Christ."
Nowhere in the epistle is anything said about preaching the church of Christ but rather Paul said that some preached Christ of envy, that some preached Christ of good will, and that in any event he rejoiced that Christ was preached. Thus the emphasis was upon preaching Christ, and not preaching the church of Christ.
A single instance of these contrasts which I have set forth would not make a great difference. Many of the expressions which we commonly use with reference to the church are not unscriptural within themselves, but it is a matter of where we place-the-emphasis. What occupies the center of the stage, the focal point, around which our teaching and our conversation is built? A choice of emphasis can make a lot of difference.
Remember that the church of Christ is a group of people. It is true that they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, I admit that I am prejudiced in their favor, but after all is said and done, the church is still composed of human beings. Whatever is said of the church is said of a group of people. This group of people does not constitute a standard of authority. Having been unconsciously influenced by the Catholic concept, Christians sometimes use the expression "the church of Christ teaches" when they should say "Christ teaches."
Occasionally someone undertakes to set forth "the distinctive plea of the church of Christ." As long as the church follows the Bible, its most unique characteristic among religious groups is that it does not have a plea. The plea--the doctrine--came from Christ, - not from the church.
Many years ago when just a boy preacher, I undertook to write a tract on the topic "Our Plea." The more I considered the term "our", whom it included, what right we had to a plea, and what authority or merit our plea would have even if it existed, the more I became discouraged. Finally I decided it would be better to write on "God's Plea." Let us speak of the plea of Christ, the doctrine of Christ, but not the doctrine or plea of a group of people.
Once I was invited to speak at the West End Methodist Church in Nashville, Tennessee on "The Doctrine of the Church of Christ." That is a suitable topic from the point of view of the Catholics and some other denominationalists, for in their conception the church produced the doctrine; but the truth about the matter is, the doctrine produced the church. It was the preaching of the doctrine on the day of Pentecost that brought the church into existence.
Brethren sometimes speak about erecting a building that "will be a credit to the church." That means a credit to a group of people, because the church of Christ, whether the term is used scripturally or denominationally, is a group of people.
A speaker in Nashville claimed that one of the chief benefits of a certain radio program was its presenting the church of Christ to the people of America in a more favorable light. That meant that a group of people had been set before America in a better light. I maintain there is a difference between setting forth a group of people and preaching Christ to the people. If we should convince the people of this nation that the group who are known as the "Church of Christ" were all educated, refined, well-to-do, and numerous enough to be a great factor in political and national life what would we have accomplished? Is that our purpose?
Another concession to the denominational concept is found in such expressions as "church of Christ preacher" and "church of Christ member. "A brother in conversation with me, concerning one whom I would call a digressive preacher seemed eager to make himself clear when he hastened to explain, "Now he is not a Church of Christ--he is a Christian. " I wondered what he thought I was. Has the time come when we should identify a disciple of the Lord by his relationship to a group of people rather than his relationship to Christ? Is this not what we tend to do when we speak of "church of Christ members?" One is almost made to wonder if Acts 11:26 has been revised to read, "And the disciples were called Church of Christ members first at Antioch."
I have even heard the ridiculous expression "church of Christ church!"--whatever that means.
Hearing so much about letting the church get the glory rather than letting Christ do so, I once thought the Bible said, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the church. Just in case that there might possibly be someone present who has been mis-taught as was I, let me tell you what the Bible really says, "And whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." He is the one to receive the glory. The authority resides in Him, not in a group of people.
Recently I examined a legal instrument which said that a member of a certain board of directors must be "a communicant of the church of Christ in good standing." Would it not be sufficient to say that he must be a Christian? Think it over.
Surely this is enough to show what we mean by saying that the Philippian letter places the emphasis upon preaching Christ rather than preaching the church.
Emphasis On Direct Support
The next outstanding characteristic of the book of Philippians, at least for purposes of this study, is that it places emphasis upon direct support of the evangelist. In fact, I have been unable to find an example in this book or anywhere else in the Bible of what is commonly called the "indirect method."
Paul thanked the saints at Philippi for their "fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now." (Philippians 1:5). In the last chapter he said, "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity."
There references show that Paul was not being sponsored by the church at Antioch. (See Acts 13:1-3). If the Philippians were the only ones assisting him, then surely Antioch was not "sponsoring" him. Furthermore, when he and Barnabas disagreed concerning John Mark, they did not appeal unto the elders of the church at Antioch to settle the matter, which they no doubt would have done if they had been working under their oversight and sponsorship.
But someone may say, 'What if the preacher is a cheater? If you send money directly to him, he will deal dishonestly with you." I reply, "What if the elders of the sponsoring church are cheaters?" Frankly, I believe that preachers are just as honest as elders. Furthermore, they are interested enough in preaching of the gospel to forego the apparent independence of a business career and depend upon their brethren for support. How many elders do you know who would be willing to do this?
It is just as easy to safeguard the preacher and protect him from temptation to cheat as it is to do the same for the elders of the sponsoring church. If the preacher makes proper reports to all contributors, then it seems to me that there is no greater opportunity or temptation for him to be dishonest than there would be for the elders of a sponsoring church to be so.
Furthermore, all support sent to a preacher directly or indirectly is ultimately entrusted to him. If eventually, why not immediately? Is his honesty safeguarded and his proper use of his support insured by the mere fact that the money passes through the hands of a sponsoring church before reaching him?
If a preacher is not honest and cannot be trusted, should he be supported at all, whether directly or indirectly?
Recently I was told that money should not be sent directly to the native preachers in a certain foreign country. Upon inquiry I was assured that all the native preachers were dishonest, that they could not be trusted to tell the truth. Question: Do you believe there is any satisfactory method of supporting an evangelist who is admittedly a liar and a thief?
But someone will contend that it is necessary for the evangelist to be under the oversight of an eldership. According to some remarks heard among the brethren, preachers seem to have lost whatever independence they once possessed.
When I spoke at Athens Bible School on the topic "Congregational Independence, "Brother A. J. Rollins responded by saying that the independence of the gospel preacher was just as important as the independence of the congregation. Then he raised this question: "What if some group of brethren in Nashville had been telling Brother Dark what to say here tonight?" In contrast with this many seem to think that one has no right to preach a sermon without first becoming subservient to some group of elders. The Catholics have influenced us more than we think!
Certainly, preachers should cooperate with elders--which sometimes would mean to rebuke them. Paul said to preacher Timothy concerning elders, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." (I Timothy 5:20). However, when one is preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, he is not amenable to any one on earth, but to God alone, for what he says. May we be delivered from men who preach to please the elders instead of preaching to please the Lord! We must obey God, not men. We must preach the truth, even if every elder on earth should say otherwise.
Of course, elders can tell me not to preach in a building to which they hold the title (and should do so if they think I am preaching false doctrine) but they cannot tell me what to preach. Only God can do that. I can forbid one to preach in my living room, but he can preach what he pleases out on the street. Those who control this campus can tell me whether I can preach here--even if they have to put me in jail to carry out their wishes--but that does not mean that they can tell me what to say. You know they would not attempt it.
If one wants to go to heaven when he dies, he must preach what the Bible teaches, regardless of what any man does or says.
Often we hear that it is the duty of the church to train its preachers. That sounds pretty good on the surface, but one speaker on this program has asked whether it is not rather the duty of the preacher to train or prepare himself. Is it not the duty of every Christian to prepare himself to the utmost to do the job that God wants him to do?
It is the duty of the preacher and it is the duty of other Christians to support him. As to the method, the only example we have in the book of Philippians, or any other place in the Bible as far as I have been able to learn, is that of sending money or goods directly to him.
Emphasis On The Individual, Not The Group
The word "church", like the word "committee" for instance, is a collective noun and may take either a singular or plural verb or pronoun depending upon the context. When "...there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem...they were all scattered abroad..." (Acts 8:1). Note the plural form of the word "they". There the church is spoken of distributively. Hence, it takes a plural pronoun. It might help to clarify our thinking if we would talk less these days about the difference between individual and church functions and more about what God wants the church to do collectively and what he wants it to do distributively.
Emphasis upon the distributive concept of the church, in other words, individual responsibility, is depicted by several references in Philippians. The letter is addressed to the church distributively rather than to the church as a group. Three times in verses seven and eight we have emphasis upon the distributive concept by use of the expression "you all." Not the church as a group but "many of the brethren in the Lord," are said to have waxed confident by Paul's bonds. In 2:15, speaking to the saints, not as a group but distributively or individually, Paul said, "...ye shine as lights in the world. "Notice that the individuals are said to shine as lights--not the church as a light, though it could be considered so, of course.
After the establishment of the church at Pentecost, emphasis is on the individual approach. Paul did the first preaching in Europe of which we have any record. Note how he began when he came to Philippi. He did not put on a million dollar advertising program or call a mass meeting. He did not even start an orphans' home. Rather, he found some women by the side of a river and told them about the gospel of Christ. Lydia and her household became the little leaven destined to leaven the whole lump. That was the beginning of the church at Philippi.
Paul's situation at the time he wrote the Philippian letter places emphasis upon the importance of individual work. He was spending two years in his own house, receiving all who came unto him, preaching unto them the Kingdom of God, and teaching them in this private and personal way the things which concerned the Lord Jesus Christ.
It seems that God has always been interested in dispersion rather than concentration. When our ancestors would have stayed together at Babel, God forced them to scatter by confusing their tongues. Concentration was contrary to His plan for them to multiply. They were working against his decree that they replenish the earth, and subdue it. In order to do this they must scatter -- not concentrate.
When Sampson undertook to burn the grain fields of the Philistines he did not start one big fire but many little fires.
The apostles preached to large crowds in Jerusalem but later they placed emphasis upon teaching individuals and small groups. See Peter at the house of Cornelius; Phillip preaching to the eunuch; Paul speaking to the jailer and his household; and so on.
When the saints fled from Jerusalem because of persecution they went everywhere preaching the word. (Acts 8:1-4). This turned out to be perhaps the greatest evangelistic movement that the world has ever seen. I don't know what eldership was sponsoring them or overseeing them, but, anyway, they went everywhere preaching.
For military, social, financial, sight-seeing, and other reasons, Christians still go everywhere, but they do not always preach the word as they go. Hence there is a big difference in results obtained in our generation and in the one following Pentecost. They were conscious of their individual responsibility. Too often today, we are not.
Jesus came from heaven to earth with the greatest mission and greatest message ever known to man. He came to introduce a world-wide movement, involving the eternal interests of the whole world and destined to cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Consider how he chose to make his message known to the world. He did not call a mass meeting. He did not work through any established institution of that day. Rather he gathered about him a small group of individuals; asked them to follow him, observing his work and learning his word; and depended upon them to tell others, who would in turn tell even others his message. On one occasion when he had an audience of 5,000 or more, he spoke in such a way that many of them forsook him, then addressed himself to the twelve.
That is the way the Master chose to introduce the greatest message the world ever heard, and to begin the greatest mission ever undertaken upon the earth. It looked like a small beginning, but that was God's method. Our confidence in his wisdom should cause us to accept his way as best.
He had the most rapid and the most effective system of communication this world has ever known, in spite of all our modern inventions. Ire did not have radio, television, or printing presses, but his method of communication was man to man, person to person. That is the most rapid and the most effective.
A sense of individual responsibility in evangelism as it is emphasized in the book of Philippians would soon cause the gospel to be preached all the way around the world.
Let me give you a few figures. Suppose I relate a story to just one other person, then two of us know it. Let each of us tell another, and that makes four. If each of the four tells another, obviously eight will have heard. Do you know how many times that would have to be repeated in order for every person on earth to hear the story? Only thirty times, following the first!
If I tell another person, each of us another, and so on, after the message has been communicated thirty-one times it will have been heard by 2,147, 483, 648. If we allow an entire month for one person to relate the story to one other person, it can cover the earth in thirty-one months. Can we do that well with our modern methods and devices?
To be generous let us say that it will take an entire year for each to teach another. At that rate we can include all the people on earth in thirty-one years. How long will it take at the rate we are going now?
If we assume that there are already as many as 500,000 Christians in the world we can reduce the number thirty-one to twelve, hence the required time to twelve years! Remember that in accomplishing this, one-half of the earth's population would not have to teach any one, another fourth only one person each, and no one would need to teach more than twelve others!
This would be cooperation in the finest and most effective sense. It is the best system of communication ever known. It is the one Jesus used. But, it has one great hindrance. It places responsibility on the individual, and we don't like that! We want to shift it to the group. We prefer to make a small contribution to some mass movement, and then claim credit for every thing the group does.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Philippian letter with respect to evangelism places emphasis on preaching Christ rather than preaching the church; upon the direct method of support; and upon individual rather than group responsibility. That is the safe and scriptural emphasis. Observing it we are unquestionably safe.
We preach safety first with reference to baptism, instrumental music, and such like. I beg you, let us also practice safety first in this matter of evangelism. If we follow the simple and sensible rule of doing that which is unquestionably safe, then most of our problems will be settled. This does not mean that our opportunities to do good will be in any way restricted. We can follow the plan of safety first without any restriction of opportunity to do good. It will increase rather than retard our efficiency.
I thank you for listening so patiently at such a late hour.