The Church — Her Structure And Life
In a previous article I reviewed some of J. P. Sanders' modernism presented under the heading "Reflections on Restorationism." (The Christian Evangelist, Aug. 22.) I discussed his arguments against there being a pattern by which the church can be restored and showed how others are denying the pattern on a more limited scale.
Sanders raises another question, "Are we certain that there was actually a 'New Testament Church' in the sense of a definite and uniform structure? Are we sure that the churches distributed around the Mediterranean Sea were of one type and practice, to be identified by any single pattern?" This inquiry, along with the answer given by him, reveals that Sanders, though he detests the thought of a pattern, is following the pattern of modernists in general: He unites with other liberals in denying that the church can be identified as a "definite and uniform structure." His proof? Well, he mentions Paul's fight for the right to receive Gentiles into fellowship without circumcision and thinks the Jewish Christians would not have accepted someone without circumcision. This would make variation in the practice of apostolic churches, therefore destroy the idea of uniformity in structure. We know Paul did fight to keep circumcision from being bound as a test of fellowship, but he did not allow that such would be all right in the case of the Jews. Sanders imagines that the Jews paid no attention to Paul and went right on making circumcision a test of fellowship. He carefully overlooks the fact that if they did do that, they were then "FALLEN FROM GRACE" (Gal. 5:4), and were not true New Testament congregations. Paul gave Jews and Gentiles the same pattern, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26-28.) Jewish congregations and Gentile congregations were to receive people into their fellowship on one basis — OBEDIENT FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. Those who departed from that pattern were not true New Testament churches. Hence if there was lack of uniformity in the structure of apostolic congregations, it was not approved. To prove that there was variation in first-century practice because some were in error does not prove that the true church had no uniformity in structure.
Sanders continues, "It is inconceivable that Jewish churches, made up of people accustomed to Jewish worship and acquainted with the Old Testament, should be like the Gentile churches, composed of former idol worshipers and those steeped in paganism generally." Why is it not conceivable? Because Sanders does not want to believe that it could be that way! He places no confidence in the power of the gospel. He forgets that the gospel turns men "to God from idols" (1 Thess. 1:9) and frees men "from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8:2.) That same gospel makes Jews and Gentiles one. (Eph. 2:14.) It gives us all "access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Eph. 2:18.) It puts us into one body. (1 Cor. 12:13.) It makes us "sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph, 24.) It makes us all "heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:29.) It teaches us that there is "one body," "one Spirit," "one hope," "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," and "one God." (Eph. 4:4-6.) It teaches us to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10.) Why, then, is it "inconceivable" that churches composed of men of different races and varied backgrounds should be alike?
"Do 'Restorationists' agree on what the 'New 'Testament Church' was like?" Sanders points to disagreements and differences among those attempting to restore the original church to prove the following: "if there is a picture in the New Testament, that picture is blurred beyond our ability to distinguish it." This argument is essentially the same as one the Catholics have been making for years. They have tried to destroy our faith in the idea of the "Bible only" as our guide by pointing to the divisions among those professing to follow, the Scriptures alone. They have said, "You cannot agree on what the Bible teaches, so you need an infallible interpreter." They fail to recognize that men see the Bible differently, not because the book itself is uncertain in meaning, but because their vision is faulty. Sanders thinks our disagreements make the picture itself blurred, though he really doesn't believe there is any picture. He needs to awaken to the realization that men like himself are promoting disagreements by their own faulty vision, being blinded by the desire to do what they please, the desire to make the New Testament church like modern churches, the desire to be popular, etc. The picture in the New Testament is quite clear. Our own eyesight may be bad, but we cannot blame the picture for the smears, stains, and other blurs that appear before us. May God have mercy on the man who cannot realize his dimness of sight and thinks every object before him is faded!
Our departed brother undertakes in the latter part of his article to prove that the "essence" of the New Testament church is not in its external structure and procedures but in its "life." He says that if by "restoration" we mean the "re-establishing of the church in form and procedure as it was in the days of the. New Testament, I feel that our effort is both futile and trivial." "But," he continues, "if by 'Restoration' we mean breathing anew in our time of the spirit and life of that early church — then may restoration be swift and complete!" "Essence" means that which is "permanent and unchangeable"; the "intrinsic nature," or "prime character" of something. The essence of the church, therefore, is the thing which is its true character. This, says Sanders, is its "spirit and life," not its external structure and procedure. Or, to be a little clearer, we do not restore the church by contending for scriptural names, a certain pattern of worship, one organizational set-up, the divine plan of work, and the form of doctrine given by the apostles, but by having right "spirit and life." I am in agreement with those who say we must restore the "spirit and life" of the early church, but I DENY THAT SUCH IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT OUR RESTORING THE "EXTERNAL STRUCTURE." This is like a man saying it makes no difference whether one is baptized by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, just so he has the right spirit. But how could he possibly have the proper spirit and not do what the Lord commands? John said, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1.) Not every one claiming the proper spirit possesses it. How do we recognize the right spirit? An individual proves he has the true spirit by his actions. How do we know whether or not his actions are correct? We test them by "the perfect law of liberty." (James 1:25.) Jesus said, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63.) Thus to have the "spirit and life" we must have the WORDS OF CHRIST. "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48.) Without adherence to the words of Christ we cannot have the "spirit and life." This means a restoration of all that Christ has commanded both for the church and individuals — a restorations of the gospel plan of salvation, divine acts of worship, the sacred work of the church, the organization outlined through the preaching of the apostles, and the entire "form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13) delivered to us. We cannot breathe anew the "spirit and life of the early church" without breathing anew the WORDS OF CHRIST.