OUR Lord's rebuke of the Pharisees, Sadducees and certain of the scribes is echoed time and again in the New Testament. He laid the axe to the root of the problem when He observed, "All too well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9).
The Scriptures record with disheartening frequency the unwillingness of men to abide by the simple law of God. Adam and Eve, allowed to eat the fruit of every tree in the garden save one, nevertheless lusted after forbidden fruit. Israel led out of Egyptian bondage by Moses, soon began to murmur and complain, wanting to return to -- of all places -- Egypt!
Later, unhappy with the judges that ruled over them, Israel begged for a king, in spite of the fact that it was contrary to God's will for them. Israel's overriding concern, however, was her own desire to be "like all the nations" (I Sam. 8:20).
We sometimes see this same attitude today. Many times, people are just not satisfied with the gospel, the church, or even Jesus. In their frustration, and ignorance, they seek to change that which is unchangeable. They begin to edit, substitute, and "improve" on God's original plan. How foolish men can be!
Consider this incident from 1884. The liberal wing of the Restoration Movement (the "change agents" of that day, you might say), having abandoned a strict view of Scripture, were attempting to remake the church into a denominational body. Seeing the man-made names that other denominations wore, they began to clamor for one of their own.
"Those who followed in the train of Alexander Campbell and Barton Warren Stone have asked time and again, 'What shall we call ourselves? Can we not have a name that doesn't have to be explained and defended among people who have little or no understanding of Disciples and their tradition?' To cite but one example of this sense of frustration, a number of Disciple women presented the following petition to the Cleveland Association of Disciple Ministers in 1884."
"We ask for a name, a denominational name by which we may be known as one people. We labor under embarrassment constantly because of this. We cooperate with other churches in Christian and charitable work. And, why not have a name by which we may be known as our people? We therefore ask your most worthy body to decide on a name, for this city. We feel that this will aid us in our work and give us better standing in this community."
"In responding the ministers encouraged the use of 'Disciples'" (Journey In Faith: A History Of The Christian Church (Disciples Of Christ) by Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker, (St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1975(, page 28).
Why were those Cleveland ladies under "embarrassment constantly?" Of what were they ashamed? Prior to this time they were known by the generic description "disciple" or, better, they bore the simple name Christian -- as did the saints in New Testament days.
Where is the embarrassment in that? Well, none for you and me, perhaps. Like Peter, we believe there is "none other name under heaven" that compares to Jesus (Acts 4:12). We delight in the glory we bring to God "in that name" (I Peter 4:16, NASB).
But, for those who long to be like the rest of the world, I suppose a denominational name is so much more comfortable.
Are we not hearing much the same thing today? Some who fancy themselves way out in front -- the rest of us just think they are way out! -- urge that we need to call ourselves and our churches something else, something not so confrontational and divisive. Others may say, "I'm a Baptist" or "I'm Catholic," but we are told that it is narrow and judgment to say, "I am a Christian." And, "church of Christ" just carries too much baggage. Better to call ourselves a "community church" or "the family of God" or something more open, more inviting, less threatening.
It may only be wishful thinking, but it appears many brethren have had their eyes opened by recent speeches, articles and events. The doctrinal course charted by Wineskins and Jubilee is being rejected by the rank and file, the mainstream churches of Christ. It is becoming more and more clear that the "unity" some want isn't really unity at all. Denominational names and identities are to be retained! No one will give up his sectarian heritage! All will admit that his little religious family is jut one piece of the overall picture. And, to help our brethren fit in with this brave, new world, we will surrender the name of Jesus and replace it with less offensive, more generic wording. Never!
The first seeds of apostasy are found in this attitude toward the will of God. When men tire of divine guidelines and restraints, they will have their forbidden fruit, return to bondage, pervert God's way, and embrace anything that happens to please them.
| --Via First Century Christian September 1997 |