The Authority Of Christ
Although few people realize it, nearly all of our problems in religion finally boil themselves down to a simple question of the authority of Jesus Christ. Generally speaking, the area of disagreement as to actual Bible teaching or statements is comparatively limited and restricted. While there are a few basic and fundamental differences in this realm, the scholarship of the world is pretty largely agreed as to actual Bible teaching on the vast majority of those matters on which the religious world is divided.
Is it a question of baptism? In this issue we carry a brief excerpt from a much longer article by the late Joe S. Warlick indicating that the scholars of all the churches, even those churches which practice sprinkling, are agreed that immersion was the practice of the New Testament church, just as it is the meaning of the word which has been transliterated as "baptize."
Are men divided over the question of instrumental music in Christian worship? The scholars of all churches agree that instruments were not used in the primitive church; that there is no command in the New Testament authorizing their use, and that many hundreds of years went by before the first venturesome soul dared to introduce any kind of an instrument into the worship of a Christian assembly.
What about the frequency of observing the Lord's Supper? Here again there is agreement as to the practice of the early church. The historians and students of primitive Christianity are practically unanimous in telling us that the disciples came together "upon the first day of the week" to break bread. From the ancient record of Luke (Acts 20:7) on through all those early centuries there was uniformity among the followers of Christ in their weekly meeting (on the first day) for the breaking of the bread.
Are there questions as to church polity or government? Do not all competent Bible scholars agree that in the primitive simplicity of those early congregations there were three qualities outstanding in the relations of the churches to one another: independency, autonomy, and equality? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning a problem facing them all he said, "For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality." (2 Cor. 8:13, 14.)
Since it is true that Bible scholars are fairly well agreed on what the Bible actually teaches, why is it that divisions exist? What is the cause of such divergence in practice and application of these principles? Why can there not be uniformity of action and obedience?
The answer is simple. It is a question not of Biblical interpretation but of AUTHORITY.
Christ commanded baptism; that "baptism" means immersion and never meant anything else But the traditions of Men have changed that, the rationalizations of many ages have intervened to rob his words and his commands of authority. Men acknowledge that Christ enjoined it; but in the same breath declare it makes no difference at all as to whether we do exactly what he said or not. There is no denial of the command; there is a tacit denial or belittling of the authority of the Commander.
That the early Christians simply sang, and that without any kind of instrumental accompaniment, is generally acknowledged. But the very ones who are fully convinced that Christ did NOT command the use of an instrument, and who are agreed in saying the early Christians under the guidance of inspired men, never used an instrument, are quick to justify their own use of it simply as an "aid" and "expedient"; they brush aside the whole question as a troublesome quibbling about trivia, an inconsequential and insignificant matter of no importance one way or the other. Again, it is not a problem over Bible teaching or the practice of New Testament Christians that brings division; but rather a question over the authority of the one who gave the commands and who prescribed the order of our worship.
The matter of church government is in the same category. There is little room for dissension or dispute among Bible students as to what actually took place in those first decades of Christianity. All are agreed that the New Testament order was that there should be "elders in every church" that there was "equality" among the churches; and that the only kind of "cooperation" practiced was one in which there was complete freedom from any kind of ecclesiastical organization or ecumenical action. Churches rushed aid to a sister congregation to help relieve her distress; but they undertook no kind of program of permanent work, either evangelistic or benevolent, which called for a continuing functioning of many churches through and under the supervision of one church. Modern denominational organizations are justified on the ground of "efficiency" and "meeting modern problems and conditions," or in a score of other ways. But the fact remains there were no such organizations or arrangements among New Testament Christians. Again, we are faced with the old, old problem as to an agreement concerning the New Testament teaching and practice, but disagreement as to the authority which would bind that kind of practice on churches today.
"Authority" not "interpretation" is the battleground of disagreement.