RESPONSIBILITIES OF KINGDOM CITIZENS

Everyone who has confessed his faith in Christ and been immersed according to the Great Commission is a citizen of the kingdom of heaven (Phil. 3:20).  Upon receiving salvation we were delivered “out of the power of darkness and translated...into the kingdom of the Son...” (Col 1:13).  That kingdom is  the church which Christ built (Matt. 16:18).  As in all kingdoms, citizens of the kingdom of Christ have responsibilities to meet if they expect to remain in good standing with their king. 

* We must love the kingdom of which we are part.  Christ loved the church enough to die for her (Eph. 5:25).  We often sing the hymn, “I Love Thy Kingdom Lord.”  As in marriage, love demands more than words or a song.  It consists of loyalty, support and faithfulness to the principles of the kingdom.  It means to cherish and treasure the kingdom of Christ above all others.  Never will a kingdom citizen think of exchanging his place in Christ’s kingdom for a place in a competing church founded by men.  Never will he do anything to hurt or dishonor the holy kingdom of which he is a part.

* We must honor the king and the constitution of the kingdom.  In days past, honor was a vital part of Western man’s education and code of values.  Today millions have been raised with no concept of honor.  Because we highly value the privilege of our citizenship, we willingly bow in submission to Jesus our king.  We gladly obey and honor his sacred will which is wholly just and right.  We never allow ourselves to speak disparagingly of our king, his church or his code.  We pledge to him our faithful allegiance and obedience.

* We must ever be willing to stand up for and defend the kingdom of our liege Lord.  When our Master came down to earth, he came to do battle with the Prince of the Kingdom of Darkness.  He suffered mightily before he gained his great victory over Diabolos. Satan has never conceded defeat and with demonic determination he makes war against the citizens of the kingdom of Christ (Rev. 12:1-17).  Every able-bodied man and woman has a duty to take up the sword of the Spirit and take his/her place in the ranks of the army of heaven (Eph. 6:17). Citizenship in the kingdom of Christ does not allow exemptions to the rich, the famous, the pampered.  All are citizen soldiers of the king (II Tim. 2:3).

* Citizens must be willing to work for the prosperity of the kingdom. The kingdom is not just about warfare, but also about preaching the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15) and recruiting the multitudes into the king’s Cause (I Cor. 15:58); about planting colonies of the king’s subjects in every city, town and hamlet.  It is about helping the weak, restoring the fallen (Gal. 6:1-2). 

Today those who hold membership in the Church of Christ need to be reminded about these kingdom  responsibilities.  The church is under attack from foes within and without.  Too many of our citizens  manifest little love or loyalty for the kingdom of Christ.  A true patriot of Christ’s kingdom will not stand tongue-tied when arrogant preachers heap insults upon the church or when they belittle  and shame her.  Nor will he stand idle while agents of change  undermine her foundations and break down her walls. To be afraid to act is cowardice!  To not care is disloyalty! To give aid and comfort to those who dare to lay  wicked hands on the bride of Christ is treason.  This is the day of decision. May every faithful citizen of the kingdom of our Master buckle on his armor and take his stand for the kingdom of our Lord Jesus (Eph. 6:10-18).  If we fail to do so how can we look at ourselves in the mirror? 

 

“The truest courage is always mixed with circumspection, this being the quality which distinguishes the courage of the wise from the hardiness of the rash and foolish” (Jones of Nayland). 

“Courage consists, not in blindly overlooking danger, but in seeing and conquering it” (Richter).

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL

 In the early part of last century our denominational neighbors were busy absorbing the liberal theology flowing from their seminaries.  One prominent aspect of that approach to Christianity was the “Social Gospel.”  This concept was based on the belief that “man was to be perfected through change in society” “That...belief lead some to engage in active social work as a means of Christian witness” (New International Dict. Of the Christian Church, Revised by J. D. Douglas).  It blossomed in churches, “most of which were influenced by liberal theology and progressive social thought.” (Dict.  Of Christianity in America by D.C. Reid et al.). “(T)he Social Gospel is often identified with theological liberalism...” Although, as a movement, the Social Gospel has disappeared, “its influence remains both in the more liberal mainline denominations and in ...American evangelicals since the 1960s” (New Dict. Of Theology, S. B. Ferguson, et  al.).  It is here that we enter the picture.  As some of our schools, preachers and churches have become more liberal in their theology, they have embraced the ideas of the Social Gospel at home and in their foreign mission endeavors.

One sure indicator of this approach is when a church puts more emphasis on providing social services to people than it does to teaching them the gospel and bringing them into the kingdom of Christ.  One need only look at the large number of congregations that are stagnant in terms of evangelism, with no outreach and ingathering of souls.  Yet they console themselves by pointing to the contributions they make to the many social-service organizations operated by our brethren.  Look at our church newspapers and notice the missionary reports.  One missionary team has a well-drilling ministry, another offers lengthy studies in disease and first-aid.  There are AIDS ministries and drug rehab programs. We read of literary programs and job-training programs. Educational projects are springing up as well as medical clinics.  A few years back there was a dairy cattle breeding program.  Another was providing sewing machines.  We see the same problem here at home when misguided folks insist that the church’s benevolence in no way be tied to teaching the recipients the gospel and urging them to obey the Savior. In one case a discussion was in progress about providing prenatal care for poor mothers. When reminded that no provisions had been made to teach them the gospel one man replied, “You can’t teach those people.” This is flawed thinking. 

Lest I be thought an ogre for questioning these benevolent works, let me hasten to add that all of them are good and beneficial.  But any or all of them, alone, will not save the souls of those who benefit by them.  Only the gospel of Jesus is God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).  If we send missionaries and money to a distant land and dig the people wells, educate them and bring them good health and fail to teach them the gospel they will live longer, more healthy and enjoyable  lives and then die lost. They will be facing an eternity separated from God.  The issue is one of priority. Christ commissioned his church to  send missionaries to lost souls, first and foremost, to teach them about the Lord and his will for their lives (Matt. 28:19-20).  We go to bring them into a saving relationship with him through faith and obedience to His will.  Ancillary to that we assist them in other ways by ministering to their poverty and  illness and sharing with them the knowledge we have that will improve their lives.  

We should learn from the mistakes of our neighbors.  Those churches that embraced the Social Gospel eventually lost all interest in teaching the gospel and converting the lost to Christ.  In many cases their mission endeavors folded from loss of faith and lack of interest.  Their churches are now in serious decline.  Remember, our marching orders are “Go preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:16). 

 

PROGRESS IS BEING MADE

 God continues to provide needed helpers so we can expand the outreach of this effort to protect the church from the promoters of unscriptural changes.  Thanks to a brother in Florida we will be mailing the leaders of every congregation in that state.  A brother in New England is making it possible for us to add all the churches in Michigan, Indiana and most of Illinois.  Others have provided funds that allow us to add a number of churches in Louisiana. Additional church haves been added in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and California.  Perhaps you could help us add the churches in Kansas, Missouri or the rest of Louisiana. 

We have gathered all of the book reviews and recommendations we have made over the last 30 months and complied them into a book. It is entitled, Books About the Change Movement: Reviews and Recommendations.  By the time you receive this issue it should be available.  If you would like to have a copy, write for more information. 

Wonderful news has been received from a family in an Eastern state.  They moved to a congregation and found

promoters of change at work. We were able to offer them some useful advice and materials.  With prayer and determination they went to work, educating their fellow Christians about the problem and motivating them to resist those seeking to change the church. God blessed their efforts and the agitators and the few members they had won slipped away. Such reports make our work worth all the effort.

 

 

PARTICIPATING IN GOD’S LIFE (A Review)

This book, authored by C. Leonard Allen and Danny G. Swick, is sub-headed “Two Crossroads for Churches of Christ.” They describe it as “an historical/doctrinal study of Spirituality in the heritage of Churches of Christ” (p. 15). Those who read this book will find it to reflect the reasonings of philosopher/theologians who have judged churches of Christ to be a flawed and failed attempt at  the religion of Christ.  They offer us what they feel is the antidote for our ailments. It is a call for churches of Christ to make the necessary changes to be acceptable to the Postmodern world. Conversely, Jesus and the apostles thought the world should change to be acceptable to God (Rom. 12:2). It helps to understand that the authors have embraced Postmodernism as their guiding philosophy. “We who like to call ourselves postmoderns”(p. 92).

The authors build their story around a brief controversy that erupted in the pages of Alexander Campbell’s Millennial Harbinger and the Gospel Advocate between 1857 and 1860.  The participants were Dr. Robert Richardson, confidant and co-worker of Campbell and Tolbert Fanning, president of Franklin College and editor of the Advocate. Fanning was also a friend and traveling companion of Campbell. They take this exchange of articles between two preachers and declare it to be representative of the entire brotherhood, then and now.  Richardson argued that the proper approach to understanding God’s will was not by a simple rational reading of it.  He insisted the spiritual truths must be understood with the mind and the heart (p. 38). According to him,  somewhere in the movement “there remained a ‘serious defect which paralyzes the  most earnest efforts and renders comparatively fruitless the most successful proselytism’” (p. 41).  According to Allen and Swick, “The problem in fact lay primarily in (the fact that) a human philosophy had infiltrated the camp, blocking the flow of Divine Life...” (p. 42).  This criticism is interesting since the authors and their fellow-promoters of change are seeking to introduce the human philosophy of  “Postmodernism” into the contemporary church. Richardson argued that Fanning and other leaders had embraced and adopted the Common Sense philosophy of John Locke, a system he disparaged by calling it “dirt philosophy”  (p. 42-43).  The authors use this derogatory term in referring to the reasoning of brethren who do not share their Postmodern view. It is noteworthy that neither Richardson nor Fanning sought to develop a following based on their views about the Holy Spirit and the Christian.

While focusing their attack on Bro. Fanning, the unspoken target is all of those brethren of the church who do not subscribe to their Postmodern views. It would be revealing to compare the work and accomplishments of the authors with that of Fanning.  Theirs pale beside those of his. Much of the success of our churches in the Mid-South flows back to Fanning’s labors.

The 15 pages of notes gleaned from this book cannot be thoroughly presented in this brief review. We can only provide a sampling. This book reflects the following views of the authors:

* That Churches of Christ are a human denomination, seriously flawed and needing renovation.

* That as a whole, we have totally misunderstood how to study and understand God’s will.

* That in general we have failed to understand and thus benefit from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

* That as a people we are hopelessly mired in the rationalistic philosophy of John Locke. They would rescue us by leading us to accept Postmodernism.

* That the authors have embraced and are calling  for a religion of subjectivism and emotionalism.

* That by following their doctrine, God will speak to us beyond the Word and “make the words of the Bible a reality in our lives” (p. 76). They look for Divine illumination (p. 48).

* That by understanding the Spirit’s work as they do, we can walk in a way and engage in practices that are humanely impossible (p. 177).

* They recommend to us a “litany” so we can become more consciously “Trinitarian.” This would be published so we could repeat it in responsive readings in our worship (p. 188). They also suggest a Trinitarian prayer to  be “repeated mentally in the rhythm of one’s breathing, inhaling with the first clause of each couplet and exhaling with the second clause” (p. 188). Imagine a Buddhist mantra.

* The authors are reaching for a mystical experience with God, such as other pietists have in days past.  Their position, by necessity, diminishes the value and importance of Scripture in the life of Christians. It encourages its neglect as they reach for a mystical experience.

* The assertions and conclusions set forth in these pages demonstrate that the authors have a very limited and imperfect acquaintance with and understanding of the larger brotherhood of churches of Christ.  Perhaps their perception has been distorted by their years in the environment of the seminary.

* Their thesis is built upon the premise that members of  churches of Christ are devotees of John Locke’s Common Sense philosophy. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of our brethren are unacquainted with Locke and have never read a line of his writings.  They have constructed a vulnerable straw man and beaten him soundly, but alas  their assumption was mistaken.

* Readers of the book will get a good sampling of “theobabble.”  The authors are strong on opaque reasoning and philosophical speculation but weak on Bible knowledge.

The authors are sure that our fathers made a terrible mistake by not following Richardson’s subjective approach to religion.  Perhaps they could explain why our churches, with their common sense way of reading the Bible, have flourished far more than those of the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches who followed Richardson’s subjective approach?  Do they say that those churches are more spiritual than our brethren?

Of Judas, Jesus said, “good were it for that man if he had not been born’ (Mk. 14:21). Of this book, we could say the same.   An ancient philosopher once said, “Those who drink from tainted wells can expect to be sickened.”  

 

PARABLE OF THE BIRDS 

This morning while riding my bike, I came upon a fascinating scene.  A group of  ten or so black birds were in hot pursuit of a barn owl.  The owl was as large as all ten of his pursuers.  Taking them one at a time he could easily overpower, defeat and devour all of them. But when faced with ten determined black birds, he could only flee.  Owls are carnivores.  They like to raid the nests of other birds.  Left unchallenged, the nestlings will be his meal.  Parent birds have a natural instinct to protect their nest and its precious contents.  Those who do not, lose their little ones to the predator. 

So it is in the church of Christ.  Satan is the great predator.  Like a roaring lion he seeks whom he may devour (I Pet. 5:8).  Look as you may, you won’t  see an actual lion or the typical artist’s image of Satan.  Peter uses a simile (as a lion).  Today Satan is sends his  agents into congregations of God’s people to capture them or to snatch out those they can (Matt. 7:15). 

Preachers of the change movement are like the raptors that prey on  nestlings. Many of them occupy stations in large, wealthy and influential churches.  They use this advantage to influence and lead away those who are young, immature and untaught in the fundamentals of the faith.  Also professors in Christian universities that have embraced the change agenda are like the predator birds. They capture  hearts and minds of  students whom unsuspecting parents send their way.  They send them home to spread the change message in the churches. 

The black birds are the hundreds of ordinary preachers who spend their days toiling in the vineyard of their local congregation.  They have neither wealth, power nor high credentials, but they love the church and God’s people.  They cannot sit idle and watch while predators sweep in and snatch their brethren away from the purity of the gospel (II Cor. 11:3).  Alone, one small preacher might not be able to accomplish much, but working  with others, they can have enough force and influence to put to flight those who would harm the church. 

I urge every brother, be he young or old, plain or polished, to rise up to defend the Lord’s church.  If we do nothing, great harm will surely follow. If we choose to act alone, we will find the odds insurmountable.  But working together and with God’s help we can put an army of aliens to flight (Heb. 11:34). May God grant us the wisdom and courage of the lowly blackbirds to resist those who would harm his church.