ALONE WITH GOD     

Objections Answered

     There is an argument for denominationalism and against the possibility of Christian unity based upon the supposed difference between the visible and the invisible church. This argument maintains that it is necessary to organize the local congregation in such a way that it is inevitably a sect, because not including all Christians, even of the district or community, within its fellowship. This argument is very ingenious, and once deceived me; therefore I wish to examine it in some detail.

The best statement of the argument I have ever seen is found in The Elements of Theology, by Dr. Luther Lee. I shall let Dr. Lee speak for himself as he makes the strongest argument for the theory I have ever seen anywhere.

Dr. Lee : "There is clearly a distinction between the Church of Christ, and a Church of Christ.

"The Church of Christ includes all the redeemed of every age, in earth and in heaven. A Church of Christ is a single congregation of Christians. The term church, in the Scriptures, is sometimes used to denote all Christians—the whole of the redeemed. It is used in this sense, Heb. 12:23: 'To the General Assembly and Church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven.'

"Eph. 1: 22, 23: ' And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.'

" Eph. v. 27: 'That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.'

"Col. 1: 18, 24: 'And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.'

"In all these texts, by the Church, we are beyond all doubt, to understand all Christians, of every age and country, as well as those already in heaven. This is what is sometimes called the invisible, universal Church.

"But the term Church is more commonly used, in the New Testament, to denote a single congregation of persons who meet together regularly in one place, for worship and the promotion of the interests of Christianity. There is no such thing as a denominational church, embracing all who subscribe to a particular creed, and worshiping in a thousand different places, scattered over an entire continent. The term is never used in this sense in the Scriptures, but it is always used to denote all Christians, or a single congregation. If it means less than all the saved in any one text, it never means more than a single congregation; and if it means more than a single congregation, it never means less than all Christians."

Answer : The good doctor seeks to confuse us at the very outset by preparing us for two churches . . . a church of God, all one; and a church organized, owned, and controlled by man, half-filled with sinners, and hopelessly divided.

Strictly speaking a church of God is only such insofar as it is a part of the church of Christ. Each local church of Christ is a manifestation, in human flesh and blood, of the immortal and spiritual nature of the blessed body of Christ. If it is other than this in the slightest degree it is in an abnormal condition. If it altogether fails to translate this divine factor into human life and history it is no church of Christ whatever.

Therefore, we see at the outset that a church of Christ and the church of Christ are not two dissimilar institutions; but one is merely the manifestation of the other, just as the magnetic field is a manifestation of the presence of the magnet.

New York City is not the United States, and the United States is not New York City; but he would be a foolish man who should argue therefore that one is not part of the other. It would also be foolish to argue that because a man can be in the United States without being in New York City he might also be in New York City without being in the United States. A church of Christ is a part of the church of Christ. Both refer to different phases of the same thing.

Dr. Lee : "The New Testament writers uniformly speak of the churches, and not of the church, thereby clearly teaching that in those early times a church was a single congregation."

Answer : While the New Testament does, in some places, speak of the church as including all the saved (e.g., "Christ also loved the church"), yet I grant that it also often uses the term to describe a local congregation.

Dr. Lee : "By visible church organization is meant an organization or association of Christian persons, in a manner which presents to the eye of each, and to the eye of the surrounding world, a church, the precise limits of which may be known, visible in its parts, and visible as a whole.

" To organize a church, is for a number of Christian persons, voluntarily, understandingly, and visibly to recognize each other as Christians, and agree to be a church; to appoint in some way the necessary officers of a church, for the purpose of enjoying the immunities and doing the work of a church of Jesus Christ, in accordance with his will as taught in the New Testament.

"Such church thus organized or associated is composed only of such persons as have been recognized by the church, and have agreed to be members of the same, and does not include all who may believe in Christ, residing in the place or vicinity, who have not been recognized by the body, and who have not agreed to be members of the said visible organization or association. Furthermore, such church, thus organized, has a right to admit or recognize such other persons as members as they may judge worthy, and to expel or disown such members as they may judge unworthy, according to the law of Jesus Christ."

Answer : Here Dr. Lee is a master of logical presentation; and he skillfully states the ease for denominational division; for if we grant the truth of his assertions it is inevitable that each little warring group has a right to build its own little sect and bar out the rest of Christendom, world without end, forever.

Doubtless if one were discussing this matter with an atheist it might be difficult to disprove the foregoing assertion; because its successful answer rests upon the actual existence of the living body of Christ in human flesh upon this earth. It would be useless to argue this with an atheist, and ought to be entirely unnecessary to argue it with a Christian.

Dr. Lee here labors under the impression that a local church is a mere human organization, the same as a lodge, a club, and so forth. If this were true it would manifestly be impossible ever to hope for unity among all the possible sectarian organizations which might be organized, one with as good right as another.

What we plead for is a recognition of the feet that each local church is a manifestation and revelation of the spiritual church—it is that or no true church at all.

That is—a true local congregation of the spiritual church of our Lord must be one to which a genuine Christian may belong solely by virtue of his relation to Christ and without any formal action on his part. Dr. Lee: "A person becomes a member of the general invisible church by virtue of his faith in Christ, and becomes a member when he is converted; but a person becomes a member of a local visibly organized church, by being and consenting to be recognized as a member of such church. "

Answer : If this be true then it is vain ever to hope for Christian unity; for Christians have the right to split and divide into a thousand hostile sects, because they are not bound to reproduce the spiritual church in their assemblies, but may build a church of their own, and for their own little clique, just as they may organize a club of their own.

There are not two churches—a visible and an invisible church of God—as argued above; but only one with the two phases, visible and invisible, that is, the same church is at once visible and also a part of the invisible church.

Therefore I deny that a person becomes a member of the visible local assembly only by being and consenting to be recognized as a member of such church. On the contrary I maintain that spiritually he is made a member of the local church at the moment of his conversion.

This is impossible if the local church be merely a human institution, like a lodge; but it is inevitable if the local church is a manifestation of the universal church.

The idea that one must join the church of God, just as one would join a club after his conversion—or possibly even before—is at the root of all the division in the denominational world.

When he joins the spiritual church, by conversion, he is a member of the local assembly instantaneously, by the same act—if the local assembly is a true and genuine church of Christ. If he is a member of the spiritual church, and not also a member of the visible church, that of itself is irrefutable logical proof that the particular local church is not the church of God. If he must become converted and thus join the spiritual church by an act of acceptance of Christ, and then must join a visible church, he manifestly belongs to two churches whose conditions of membership are different. Since Christ has only one church this convert must belong to something other than the church of Christ, i.e., the church of man.

If this seems hard to understand, then reason it out in the light of the analogy of citizenship. I am a member of the American nation, yet I never joined it. I was born into it. I have a potential citizenship in any city, town, hamlet, or village in the nation. I have lived in New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Chicago. I was a citizen of each of these cities, and am potentially yet. But I never had to join any one of them. The fact that I was born in America settled all of that.

Just so I was born into the church of God by a spiritual birth. That act alone made me potentially a member of every local assembly of the true church of our Lord in the whole world. It is merely a matter of convenience to me which one I shall select.

If I should go to a city or town where my American citizenship was not enough to procure to me the rights of a citizen, where I had to join some other corporation or swear allegiance to something separate from the United States, I should conclude at once that I had wandered outside the limits of my nation and was in a foreign land, for in America my citizenship is good from ocean to ocean. In the kingdom of God my citizenship is good from sea to sea, over all the world—from the rivers to the ends of the earth. And if I go somewhere where that spiritual birthright does not procure me all the rights of citizenship I shall take it that I am in a foreign land.

To maintain that a Christian is obliged to join the local congregation by a formal act is exactly the same thing as to say that an American citizen must join the Democrats or the Republicans, or some other national party in order to enjoy the rights of citizenship.

Someone will complain that that is a pretty loose way to do business, is it not ? To which the answer is: That might be considered a loose way for a debating club to do business, but it is precisely the way the government of the United States does business.

All writers upon the subject will tell you that it is usually quite impossible to make a parable go on all fours. Generally it only applies in some of its aspects. But I find the analogy of citizenship literally goes on all fours. It applies with utmost precision. And this is doubtless because it is really a divinely given figure of speech.

The word ekklesia translated church in the New Testament is a Greek word which formerly was applied to the assembly of the citizens of a Greek city —not to all the inhabitants, for foreigners and slaves were excluded, but to the citizens alone. These were called out—which is what the word means—from the total population to exercise the privileges of citizenship in the ekklesia of the citizens. Thus it comes about that human citizenship is a divinely given illustration of citizenship in the kingdom of God, and membership in the ekklesia, church, or assembly.

If you come to think of it, the matter of citizenship does seem to be a pretty loose thing. It is distinctly an invisible thing—one cannot see if another one has it or not. I have associated with people for a long time before learning that they were not citizens. I have talked to people upon the assumption that they were citizens, and have had them embarrass me by assuring me that they were not citizens.

Probably there are thousands of foreigners voting constantly in American elections who are not citizens. This is because citizenship is an invisible thing; and the judges cannot see either its presence or absence in the man who presents himself to vote. A case occurred in a certain city where a judge served on the bench for years in an American court. Finally after some forty years of sitting as an American judge he applied for a passport to visit Europe, and suddenly learned that he was not an American citizen himself.

Doubtless this is all a very loose way of doing business; but the greatest nation in the world manages to carry on the business of government in this way without too much difficulty.

Referring again to the ekklesia, or assembly of the Greek city, the name of which is translated church in the English Bible, we find the absurdity of " joining the church." One did not, and could not go to the ekklesia and join it. He was born into citizenship, and became a member of the ekklesia, not because the members voted him in, or even acknowledged him, but because he was born into citizenship.

It is true that the local congregation does acknowledge a man as a Christian and a member; but to call that his admission into the church is to put the cart before the horse. They acknowledge him because he is a member—not to make him a member.

The sacramentalist churches baptize a person to make him a Christian; the free churches baptize him because he already is a Christian. We see the same difference with respect to church membership. A manmade church recognizes a man as a church member in order to make him a church member. The true church recognizes a man as a church member because he already is a church member.

This matter of recognition will bear closer study on the analogy of citizenship. I am a citizen; and always have been; but when I wished a passport to go abroad I was required to give some evidence of being a citizen. I was not required to "join" the United States, I was merely asked to give some reasonable proof that I was not an imposter.

That is all that is required in spiritual citizenship. Occasionally one is required to give some reasonable proof that he is not a fraud. Right here is the explanation of the difficulty that has been raised over the church membership of the apostle Paul in Jerusalem.

We read in the ninth chapter of the Acts: "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs. 26-29).

This passage is given as argument to prove that the church at Jerusalem had a sectarian organization; and that even Paul, a God-ordained Apostle of Jesus Christ, could not join it till he obtained a man with influence enough to get him in.

On the contrary I maintain that this passage is good evidence for the truth of our thesis that every true Christian is potentially a member of every true church.

Because the English version says that "he assayed to join himself to the disciples," uncritical thinkers have jumped to the conclusion that the church at Jerusalem had some kind of a human organization which one " joined" as one joins a denomination.

The Greek word used here is kollosthai, from kallao, meaning to glue; to glue together; to join, to join oneself to one as an associate; keep company with. Here are other places where the same word is used by the same writer in the Book of Acts: "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot" (8: 29). Evidently all this meant was to associate with the person in the chariot. When Paul was in Athens we read: "Howbeit certain men clove unto him, and believed" (17: 34). They joined Paul just as he tried to join the disciples. When Peter undertook to explain Jewish social aloofness toward the heathen he said: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation" (10: 28).

Here the English translators give us the exact meaning of the word in this connection. Paul was not seeking to join the church at Jerusalem as one joins a denomination. He was already a member of that church. He merely sought to associate with them, as was his spiritual privilege, which they had no right nor power to deny.

This is the way Ferrar Fenton translates the passage in his New Testament in Modern English: " Afterwards, when he visited Jerusalem, he tried to associate himself with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, etc."

It is as plain as day that this was an abnormal ease; and yet it is plain that Paul was acknowledged as a fellow-member without any formal act of joining as soon as he furnished reasonable proof, not that he was fit to be a member, but that he already was a member.