FELLOWSHIP ON FOREIGN SOIL

From some foreign fields come reports that our missionaries are engaging in fellowship with the workers of the Christian Churches. As here at home, some of those groups call themselves "Churches of Christ," but they worship with instruments of music and are affiliated with that body of people known as Christian Churches. 

The Environment of the Mission Field
The isolation and loneliness of a mission field makes such associations easy and desirable in appearance.  In a strange and hostile place, a fellow American is a sight for sore eyes. Such friends share a similarity of thinking, manners, social customs and common interests.  They present a friendly face and fulfilling friendship for adults and children as well. With them you realize a similarity of faith and worship. In the midst of a pagan culture you share a commonality of faith in God, Christ and Scripture. You have so much in common with  members of the Christian Church and so little with the sea of sinners and/or idolaters surrounding you.

One may rationalize that he might be able to win these people over to God's way if he will be nice and fellowship them. Christian Churches workers are always willing and anxious to extend us their fellowship. They view us as the antis who pulled away from them 100 years ago.  They believe one can worship God acceptably with or without instrumental music. They have always said, "Let us fellowship each other, you can have you acappella music and we will have our instruments."  Here at home, such offers have been rejected for the last 100 years. (Until the current Change Movement emerged, only Carl Ketcherside and his few followers have done otherwise.)  But now, on the mission field, they find some of their "non-instrumental" cousins willing to accept their fellowship

Some Things We Do Not Question
It is not wrong to enjoy social fellowship with Christian Church people any more than with Baptists, Catholics or Buddhists. Social relationships are different from religious, spiritual fellowship. Just as we socialize with non-brethren here at home, so can one do so on foreign soil.

It is not wrong to assist them with personal problems or needs.  Here or there, we must do good to all men, especially them of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

It surely is not wrong to invite members of such groups to our worship service or Bible studies. They should be viewed as prospects for conversion, however, not as brothers or sisters in good standing.  We would not forbid the Christian Church brother to partake of the Lord's Supper. We do not have closed communion at home or abroad (I Cor. 11:28). We would not however, invite them to preach, to preside at the sacred table nor call upon them to bless the emblems of Christ's death.  Such actions would recognize them as faithful children in proper relation to God.

We can concede that most of these folks were indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but they hold to false doctrines and worship in error part or all of the time.  I make this distinction since the Christian Church member will frequently omit the use of instruments in our presence on foreign fields, yet here at home he would gladly use them in good conscience.

The Problem Identified
We have two conflicting practices among our churches.  In America faithful brethren do not fellowship those of the Christian Churches.  In some mission fields some do. Both cannot be right.  Either we are wrong here for refusing to do so or those are wrong who do so in far places. The apostle urges us to speak the same thing..and be perfected together in the same mind and judgment ( I Cor. 1:10).

Some Pertinent Questions
Are the Christian Churches a denomination or are they just a variety of the Lord's true church?  Does God's church have different varieties? If so, how does this concept differ from the Protestant concept of one invisible church divided into denominations? Is denominational division sinful and wrong? Paul labels such as carnal (I Cor. 3:1-4).

Is the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church contrary to God's will?  Is it anywhere authorized? Does one not have to go beyond the doctrine of Christ to justify its use (II John 9)? Are there not other matters of difference between us also?  What of the role of women in public worship and church leadership?  What of their concept of church government?   We hear of some of them having popular, annual elections of elders and deacons. What of their attitude toward fellowshipping still other Protestant bodies? What about their observance of holy days such as Easter and Christmas? What about their practices relating to the observance of the Lord's Supper? Some partake on weekdays or as a sacrament.  What of their attitude towards missionary organizations and conventions? We freely grant that all of those churches are not uniform in practice.  Some of them are closer to Scripture than others. Yet the fundamental problem in all these matters is their view toward the authority of Scripture. Is the New Testament the absolute and complete authority for faith and worship?  We only do what Christ authorizes (I Cor. 4:6).  They do not feel so bound.

Would you fellowship the Christian Church preacher in your community here at home in the same way as on foreign soil?  If not, why?  Would you publicly announce to your supporting churches here at home that you are fellowshipping these people?  It is my observation that those so doing rarely volunteer that information to the home folks.  Why is that?  Is it possible to compromise our faith and practice in a sinful way (II John 10-11)? What would we have to do in such fellowship situation s to compromise in a sinful way?

Why We Have No Fellowship
Some years ago, our brethren here in America reached the conclusion that they could have nothing to do with digressive brethren. For some 50 years they had tried the very approach discussed above.  Churches allowed men to preach, teach and otherwise serve, who believed in instrumental music and missionary societies, on the promise they would not make an issue of them. History records scores of cases where such men gradually gained influence and ultimately took the congregation and its meeting house into the camp of the digressives.  They drove out the faithful remnant that refused to change. Finally, our fathers learned it was impossible to co-exist with error.  Detent meant death to us. Digressive leaders view us as potential converts and we are both naive and foolish if we do not see them the same. One unfamiliar with this history should read the second and third volumes of Earl West's Search for the Ancient Order.  The record is clear, the lessons are plain.

What May Happen
If the missionary brother accepts the Christian Church members on the promise that they will forego the use of instruments for his sake, the national brethren will be conditioned to think of them as brethren in good standing. When our missionary leaves, what would keep those Christian Church workers from moving in on the congregation and with the same endorsement he gave them, lead the young disciples into error? Remember those Christian Churches that send missionaries expect their workers to promote their beliefs and make converts.  Nothing would please them more than to capture our brethren. History has shown this repeatedly.

Nothing is more tragic than to visit or read of a mission field into which God's church has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars, thinking they were planting new congregations faithful to the Book, only to discover years later that a watered-down gospel had produced only denominational churches or none that survived at all. Can those missionaries escape the responsibility if their work produces such a dismal failure?

I plead with every brother who serves Christ to reaffirm his commitment to the true undenominational church founded by Jesus (Matt. 16:18). May we never bid Godspeed to those who bring a teaching different than that of King Jesus, lest we be partakers in their evil works (II John 10-11).