Voices from Our Past: “The Current Reformation not the Church”

This week I’ve decided to give voice to articles from the Restoration Movement’s (Church of Christ, Independent Christian Church, Disciples of Christ) past. It is always vital to know history, for so often it is repeated, too often blindly. Perhaps as we look to the present and pray for the future, God may enlighten us with a bit of wisdom from these men who’ve already been where we now stand, at the fork in the roads of unity and division.

 

THE CURRENT REFORMATION NOT THE CHURCH.

F.D. SrygleySome weeks ago the Christian Standard said those who are engaged in the current reformation and commonly known as “disciples of Christ,” or “Christians,” do not, in the aggregate, make up, or constitute, the church of Christ. It is marvelous what a great commotion such an innocent-looking little statement has produced. The usually clear-headed editor of the “Texas Department” of the Apostolic Guide repudiates the Standard, and seriously asks what are we, anyhow, if not the church of Christ. The Christian Leader rants over about all the ground between Campbell’s baptism and Gabriel’s trumpet, pounding everything that will make a fuss by way of opposing the Standard on this question. True, the Leader does not, in so many words, say we are the church of Christ; but it says enough to show it has a small opinion of any man who says we are not. Everybody seems to be either hurling theological missiles of an argumentative character at random, or shying around logical corners, to dodge those thrown by somebody else. Would it not relieve the situation considerably if somebody would clearly explain: (1) Who are we? (2) What is the church of Christ? I have been thinking about the first of these questions, off and on, for years. I believe it was R. C. Cave who asked me, about six years ago, by what rules of measurement I located the lines and limitations around that we. I explained it to Brother Cave then—to my own satisfaction; but that is not so clear now. To get the exact “metes and bounds” of that we is a difficult problem. Suppose it is admitted that “we as a people constitute the church of Christ.” What then? Am I one of the “we as a people?” Who is to decide that question? The Leader and the Standard could not settle it. They have never settled anything since I can remember. As to the second, the Standard holds substantially that all who have been scripturally baptized and are living godly lives are members of the church of Christ. There are many who have been scripturally baptized and are living godly lives who are not counted with us. There are such persons in the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, and in many other churches. Therefore, the Standard concludes we are not the church of Christ. The reasoning is good, the definitions seem correct, and the Standard, I think, is right. The question of apostasy enters into this problem. Men and churches apostatize. We do not know exactly the point at which God ceases to recognize a man as a Christian because of apostasy. We know Christians can apostatize, and we know God does not recognize apostates as Christians. The same is true of churches. What was the church of Christ while Paul lived ceased to be the church of Christ because of apostasy in the centuries after. But to determine the exact time when the Lord ceased to recognize it as the church of Christ because of apostasy would be impossible. God only knows that time. No church is any time wholly free from apostasy. The mystery of iniquity is continually working in all churches. That God does bear with evil doers and continue to recognize a church as a church of Christ after it has committed some very grave errors, the Bible clearly teaches. That such errors, if persisted in and increased, will carry the church beyond the limits of God’s forbearance and cause him to cease to recognize it as a church of Christ, is also clearly taught. But the exact point it ceases to be a church of Christ because of apostasy no man can tell. From this point of view, therefore, it would be impossible to say, “we as a people” compose the church of Christ. Many who yet remain among us as a people may have long since passed the limit of God’s forbearance by apostasy. The safer plan, therefore, is for every man to “fear God and keep his commandments.”

 

– FD Srygley, Gospel Advocate, 1889

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christianity, Church of Christ and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Voices from Our Past: “The Current Reformation not the Church”

  1. shannon says:

    “the Standard holds substantially that all who have been scripturally baptized and are living godly lives are members of the church of Christ. (WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CHURCH OF CHRIST AS USED HERE)There are many who have been scripturally baptized and are living godly lives who are not counted with us. There are such persons in the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, and in many other churches. Therefore, the Standard concludes we are not the church of Christ. (WHAT IS THE DEFINITIOIN OF CHURCH OF CHRIST AS USED HERE) The reasoning is good, the definitions seem correct, and the Standard, I think, is right. The question of apostasy enters into this problem. Men and churches apostatize. We do not know exactly the point at which God ceases to recognize a man as a Christian because of apostasy. We know Christians can apostatize, and we know God does not recognize apostates as Christians. The same is true of churches. What was the church of Christ (HERE) while Paul lived ceased to be the church of Christ (HERE) because of apostasy in the centuries after.”

    Did the Lord’s body of called out believers actually disappear from the earth for a while?

  2. James says:

    In the use of the term “church of Christ”, he is referring to the Body of Christ, not a specific group or denomination. In the second, he is still using in that way, meaning that the Christian Standard is saying that those in the Restoration Movement churches do not comprise the totality of those who are in the Body of Christ (like in the slogan, “Christians only, but not the only Christians”).

    His main point is that God alone can number all those who are His and is the judge, despite men’s/churches’ efforts to draw the circles themselves and figure out to the inth degree who’s in and who’s out.

    That’s the way I read it, hope it helps. (And no, I don’t believe the body of Christ every disappeared from the earth, such would conflict with scripture, prophecy and history.)

  3. shannon says:

    Yes, the body of Christ has never disappeared from the earth. Christ’s “church” has never ceased to be His “church”. Has His body grown in number or decreased in number over time? Certainly.

    His third and forth use of the term seem to be more in line with how we most often use it today – to denominate ourselves.

    I wish we could forgo the use of the term “church” and use congregation or assembly. (Thank you King James for an attempt to justify the existence of the institutional “church” of which he was the head)

  4. James says:

    Even there I’m quite sure he means it as the body of Christ. At the time of writing, before the 1906 split, the term didn’t have the current baggage. I think the next article will clear that up a bit. It is by the same author, the same year.

    I do appreciate your comments; I’m sure others who’ve read but not commented read it the same way and had the same observations.

  5. shannon says:

    It seems to me that in his writing, there is a difference in the meaning of “the church of Christ” and “a church of Christ.”

  6. James says:

    In the last reference, he’s speaking congregationally and, for lack of a better word “denominationally”. In other words, he’s saying that only God knows when a congregation, or a group of congregations tightly aligned (as in a denomination) passes from grace to apostacy. He’s saying that for us to point at other groups (or ourselves–both indivitually and congregationally), or other congregations and say that we know when the “cup of error” is full and God has “yanked the candlestick” is impossible, because we don’t know at what point God says “enough”. He then brings it back around to say that in the end, rather than finger pointing, we should be examining our own personal walk in the faith instead.

Share your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s