We are Unique

What distinguishes us from other churches of Christ in the Black Hills?

Not all churches of Christ are the same.  Many churches of Christ do not strictly follow God’s word.

Some churches of Christ have been “leavened” by carnal members (1 Cor. 5:6-8).  A sure sign of this is a church that condones sin among its members (1 Tim. 5:22).  Such was the case in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-5).  Rather than taking action to remove the sinful member, the church in their arrogance ignored the wicked brother’s conduct.  The Apostle Paul sharply rebuked the Corinthians and insisted they withdraw their fellowship from that brother (1 Cor. 5:1-13).

Similarly, the drinking of alcoholic beverages among our members has caused division among churches of Christ in the Black Hills.  The drinking of alcohol is just as sinful as the condition of drunkenness (Lev. 10:8-11; Judg. 13:3-4; Prov. 20:1; 23:31-32; 31:4-5; 1 Thess. 5:6-8; 1 Tim. 3:2-3; Tit. 1:7; 2:7, 11-14; 1 Pet. 1:13-18; 4:3, 7; 5:8).  This truth eludes some Christians because they want to focus on passages that condemn the condition of drunkenness while ignoring passages that condemn its use.  They conclude that a moderate amount of alcohol is acceptable.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!

The Battle Creek church of Christ does not condone the drinking of alcoholic beverages!

The Bible teaches abstinence from alcohol.  Study material is available on this website and a personal bible study can be arranged for all who are interested.

 What is a Sound Church?

It is no secret that there are many apostate churches in this world.  The apostle Paul warned us that many will depart from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1).  Even within Churches of Christ there are many congregations that have departed from the truth.  Brethren are quite aware of those churches that no longer seek Biblical authority for all their practices though they still consider themselves a church of Christ.

In the course of discussion, I’ll refer to congregations in the Lord’s one true Church as a “sound” church.  I seek to draw a distinction between churches of Christ that follow the New Testament pattern and those which do not.  A sound church will abide in all that is written in the scriptures (2 Tim.3:16-17).  An apostate church will not care if they operate with or without authority.

I could as easily call such digressive congregations “liberal.”  However, that gives credit to those congregations as abiding in God’s word but without a strict adherence to it.  In reality, any digression from God’s word is enough to jeopardize a soul no matter how liberal a church might become.  “Liberal” certainly describes an undesirable attitude toward God’s word.

A sound church is fundamentally solid.  It is like a building that is well constructed and remains solid through the years. If the building develops a crack in the foundation we would no longer consider it sound.  Without repair (i.e. repentance) even a building inspector (i.e. Christ) will eventually condemn the structure (i.e. the congregation). Christ told the church at Ephesus, “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp stand from its place – unless you repent” (Rev. 2:5). A building may continue to stand, but that does not mean it is sound.

Paul and Titus both referred to God’s word as “sound doctrine” (1 Tim.1:10; 2 Tim.1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1).  They also referred to those who abided in God’s word as being sound in mind, speech or faith (2 Cor.5:13; 2 Tim. 1:7; Titus 1:13; 2:2, 8).  It is not a stretch to refer to congregations that abide in God’s doctrine; composed of brethren who are sound in mind, speech and faith as being a “sound church.” If a congregation fails to abide in God’s doctrine that is enough evidence to know it is not a sound church.

A sound church would not try to justify kitchens and dinners supported by church funds when the apostle Paul condemned mixing social events with the work of the church (1 Cor.11:22, 34).  A sound church would not pay organizations or institutions to do their work (Matt. 25:36, 43; Acts15:36; Jas.1:27).  A sound church would respect what the scriptures authorize and not try to justify what it does not authorize (Lev. 10:1-2; Matt. 19:9; Eph.5:19; Heb. 10:26-27; etc.).  A sound church would not seek to establish a hierarchy nor positions not found in scriptures (Eph.4:11-12).  These things cannot be done by faith (Rom.10:17).  “Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom.14:23).  Yet, all these things can be found in apostate churches of Christ.

Some brethren will argue in ignorance that churches of Christ have always practiced the things just mentioned.  Jeffrey Hamilton wrote an excellent and well documented article on this very topic entitled “Slip Sliding Away.”  I would encourage anyone living under that delusion to read the article.  It can be found on this web site or at:

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/lvarticles/slipslidingaway.htm.

The Apostle Paul said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thes.2:15).

2 thoughts on “We are Unique

  1. I would encourage you to read St. Cyprian or St. Augustine on the Unity of the Catholic Church. Please open your mind to the universality that is the bond of charity among the Church that has, from the beginning, been guided by the Holy Spirit. Pax domini

    • There Must Needs be Heresies
      By Ed Harrell

      After a few weeks study at St. John’s University and Abbey, I am impressed by the perceptive Roman Catholic analysis of the weaknesses of Protestantism. They insist that Protestants are pressed between two unacceptable extremes. One extreme grows out of the assumption that man has an individual obligation to judge Bible truth. As a result, “a principle of disunity is embedded in the very essence of Protestantism.” On the other hand, in order to escape this evil, Protestants are guilty of hacking away at the body of essential truth of Christianity until they “sap it of all conviction.” (What Price Unity?” America, May 5, 1945, p. 95).

      Of course, Catholics are not so perceptive in analyzing the appalling consequences of their own alternative to the Protestant dilemma. It hardly seems an improvement when one is asked to swallow a body of divine truth rooted in historical corruption, Biblical ignorance, and the intellectual intolerance of the Roman Catholic tradition. A Roman Catholic does indeed have his own certified brand of truth and unity, but he pays a staggering price.

      But what of the Protestant predicament? I am not a Protestant, but it strikes me that there is a lesson for Christians to learn by examining the apparent incompatibility of truth and unity. The core truth of the lesson is that a belief in individual responsibility means one also believes in division. I unabashedly accept that conclusion. Protestantism, as a system of human religion supposedly reflecting the wisdom of good men, is indeed vulnerable to the taunts of Rome. Protestants ought to be ashamed that they can do no better. But Christians should understand that a rigorous search for truth necessitates that “there must be also heresies among you” (I Corinthians 11:19).

      The Bible clearly teaches that division serves a useful and necessary function in the church. The acceptance of unity at any price will eventually “leaven” the whole body — such unity levels all to the lowest common denominator (I Corinthians 5:6-7). Division is necessary so that “they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (I Corinthians 11:19). If the only vestige of the true church that existed today was the liberal Christian churches, I believe it would be impossible to distinguish the church of the Lord from every other form of religion. In the same way, if there is to be a church of Christ in another fifty years, it will be in the conservative churches today. Whatever might be the intention and hopes of many of those associated with liberal churches of Christ, it seems historically absurd to believe that after one or two more generations these churches will offer a distinctive alternative to the chaos of Protestantism.

      Finally, division is necessary to preserve the peace and sanity of the kingdom (Romans 14:1). A group united in the “same mind and the same judgment” (I Corinthians 1:10) — and only such a group — can take to the world a message of hope and peace.

      This is not to say that division is good in any absolute sense. It quite obviously is not, and Jesus prayed fervently that his disciples would be one (John 17:11). He made it quite clear that Christian division would be a source of confusion to those who were not disciples. But if religious unity among all men of good will is desirable, the Bible never intimates that it is a practical end to be expected by Christians in history.

      It is true that a Christian is obliged to work with both a love of the truth and a desire for unity. It is true also that Romans 14 teaches that under some circumstances two can walk together who do not agree and that a Christian is always ready to engage in dialogue about what is “essential” as a basis for doctrinal unity. There is no easy formula which answers all of the questions one must face in a lifetime. A Christian will take the issues one at a time, day by day, person by person, and weigh the respective tugs of truth and unity.

      One could miss the central truth in this lesson, however, by gagging over the unpleasant day to day confrontations which arise. Practical problems should never obscure the very real Bible principle that truth is divisive. Again and again, those who start with a commitment to truth become weary along the endless trek through barren deserts of debate, bickering, and biblical legalism and opt for peace and unity. Some become too sweet-spirited to stomach the bitterness that is a part of division.

      Some become tired of the long and tedious discussions of seemingly trivial subjects. Some long for the enlightened company of those who do not honor the truth. Some become exasperated by their human inability to find a final resting place, to fight the last battle and lay their armor down. They retreat in dismay. So many are overwhelmed by the responsibility for division which every man shoulders when he picks up his Bible to read it as the literal and comprehendible word of God.

      Over and over again in the history of Christianity the weary have dejectedly begun the long and fruitless journey toward compromise and unity. In the minds of nineteenth-century Disciples of Christ, the quest for peace came quickly and logically to exclude the concept of the “restoration” of true religion. The renewed interest in “unity” movements in the church today stems, I believe, from the same mentality. It is a mind which has lost its spiritual toughness, which can no longer tolerate the consequences of a belief in individually perceived religious truth. Although we tend to see all of our differences in terms of case studies the ever present and argumentative “what would you do if” — they are generally, I believe, much more a matter of mood. Some come to love too much the sweet fruits of unity and to hate unreasonably the purifying exhilaration of strife. One who feels in mortal danger on one horn of the dilemma proposed by Roman Catholics is likely to be gored by the other.

      I am not ashamed to admit that my teaching is divisive. Jesus came with a sword. I have helped to divide churches; I expect to divide more. I have also helped to unite churches that were needlessly and shamefully divided. Unity is wonderful in the truth of God; division is needed when the truth is at stake. It would be more comfortable if the dilemma were not there — but it is. We must live life as it is. If you have deep convictions, you must be prepared for careful, courteous, certain confrontation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *