DisciplesCalledChristians

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. [asv]

Ephesians 5:25-29 NKJV

25 . . . just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. . . . 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.

There is no doubt but that the disciples were called Christians in the days of the apostles:

(1) In Acts 11:26 we read, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Why at this time after many years this name was given to them has been the study of countless scholars. Perhaps it was because of the favorable condition of the congregation there, where Jew and Gentile had come together as equals in Christ. Perhaps it was because of the great missionary spirit that characterized this group. In any event the name apparently began to be used here.

(2) In Acts 26:28,29 we read, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." Here we learn that Paul's argument concerning Christ had created in Agrippa's mind that believers were called, or could be called, "Christians." Paul's answer indicated that he was willing to be considered such, and apparently considered it an honor.

(3) In 1 Peter 4:15,16 we read, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. In those difficult times where followers of Christ were persecuted for their beliefs, Peter reminds them that being called a Christ-follower was a compliment.

And so we see, that among several other names the disciples were called Christians. It is my conviction that if -- and I say "if" -- God intended his children to have an official, definite, distinguishing name, this was it. Christian! I furthermore believe that this name, with all of it's implications and applications, needs to be revived for use today by the Lord's people. I believe this for a number of reasons:

First, it aligns all followers with Christ. It gives to Him the honor and glory due to Him as Lord. He is the central figure. He is the all important person. Dr. Robert Young, the compiler of one of the world's most useful study helps, the Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, says:

"The name Christ is the official name of the long promised and long expected Saviour, denoting his kingly authority and mediatorial position as the 'Servant of the Lord.' Jesus was the Lord's common name among men during his lifetime, and He is generally so called in the Gospels, while the Christ, or Jesus Christ is generally used in the Epistles."

Go to this concordance, or any other, and take out of the New Covenant Scriptures the names Jesus, Christ, and Jesus Christ, and you would not have very much left to read. This name, in one form or another, is the "red thread" that runs all through the Book; the "tie rod" that holds everything together.

Secondly, there is nothing divisive in this name, as it relates to the Lord's followers. They are all Christians, just that and nothing more. All are equal in Him. All should be treated as equals in Him by one another. The name Christian identifies all followers with Him. Not with any movement; not with any institution; not with any creed; not even with any Church; and certainly not with any man. In this name Christ -- and what it signifies -- all divisive differences should melt away. All should truly become one in the family of God.

Did not Paul say, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus"? (Gal. 3:28). Peter, speaking of Christ, told the High Priest, and the Jewish rulers, and elders, and scribes, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

As for examples, we hear much today about "Pentecostals." Immediately we think of a division of Christianity. Is this not immediately true? Among many things, these people want us to know that they emphasize the miraculous experiences of the beginning of the church. They teach that these things are still available today. And so they choose a name -- a name not found in the Scriptures -- to indicate this difference.

We hear of the "Full Gospel Men's Fellowship." They likewise want the world to know that they are different in some respect. They intend their name to indicate it.

And so, likewise, we have Baptists, and Methodists, and Presbyterians, and Catholics, and on and on. Each one says in effect that they want to emphasize one or more aspects of their distinctness, and have selected an appropriate name to identify this distinctiveness.

Certain it is that the desire for undenominational Christianity, and the unity of all believers, is not a modern invention. Religious leaders have long sought for unity in Christ alone. As for example:

Martin Luther, in Stork's Life of Luther, page 289, says: "I pray you to leave my name alone and call not yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified for anyone. Saint Paul (1 Cor. 1:13) would not that anyone should call themselves of Paul nor of Peter but of Christ. How then does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes to give my name to the children of Christ. Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions. Away with them all and let us call ourselves only Christians after Him from whom our doctrine comes."

John Wesley, as quoted by C. C. Crawford, in the book of Sermon Outlines, Volume 1, 1927, page 47, says: "Would to God that all party names and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world were forgotten; that we might all agree to sit down together as humble, loving disciples at the feet of the common Master, to hear His Word, to imbibe His Spirit, and to transcribe his life into our own."

Charles Spurgeon, generally considered the greatest Baptist preacher that has ever lived, in the Spurgeon Memorial Library, Volume 1, page 168, says: "I look forward with pleasure to the day that there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ's name last forever."

And, lest someone has not been following our series, and misunderstands our motives, and thinks we are just being bigoted, I have little doubt that if there had been some of our brethren living then as denominational members of a group calling themselves the Church of Christ Church, Spurgeon would have said the very same thing about them as he said about his own brethren. That we have such members today, who have no more understanding than that of denominational ties and loyalties, there is no doubt at all. Not all, thankfully, but some -- who are just as denominational as members of the Church of Christ Church as are members of any other religious denomination.

We have often been called "Campbellites," after Alexander Campbell. In the Christian Baptist, the paper Campbell edited for seven years in the early 19th century, in volume 3, pages 8 through 10, he addressed the matter of others calling those, who wanted to be only Christians, "Campbellites," and "Stonites." What did he say to all this? "But alas, the enemies have blasphemed the blessed gospel by pasting our sinful names upon it to bring it unto disrepute." See Crawford's book, page 103.)

There should be no brands, shades or grades of Christians. It seems to me that the biggest hindrance to religious unity today is with "churches," structured religious organizations, with their peculiar and identifying names, views, and operations. "Churches" do most often come in brands, shades and grades, but not Christians. At least, not real Christians. It is not attachment to Christ that segregates and separates children of God into distinctive forms, shapes and kinds. It is churches - the forming, establishing, planting, organizing and starting of churches that does the dividing. It is the "joining" of these by saints that crystallize the division. And when the people are divided from one another, what is worse, often they are divided from Christ. "You say that you are of Apollos. You say that you are of Peter. You say that you are of me. Is Christ divided," asks Paul?

Thirdly, it is in this name, and this name only, that we can glorify God. Paul said, "Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him" (Col. 1:17). To the apostles, before he sent them out to preach the saving gospel, Jesus said: "He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. . . . Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit" (John 15:5,8). In the sermon on the mount Jesus commanded His disciples to "glorify the Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). How are we to do this? "Let your light so shine before men," He said, "that they may see your good works." And, as before said by Paul, all things are to be done in the name of Jesus.

Paul wrote to "the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord . . . (1:2). He reminded them of the basis of their salvation - which was Christ. "Ye were called unto the fellowship of (God's) Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (v.9). What is the common denominator of salvation? Christ! What is the only basis of unity among believers? Christ! That which is right cannot be wrong, and Christ is the answer.

Next, he presents the general problem that was bothering the saints in Corinth. What was it? Division!

"Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren . . . that there are contentions among you" (vs.10,11).

"Now this I say, that every one of you" - the sin had become very common - "every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" (v.12).

They had become followers of men. They had become members of a party, the "Paul" party, the "Apollos" party, the "Cephas" party, and even the "Christ" party. The indication here is, in the last case, that these were not true followers of Christ, but party members of the party of Christ. Why the parties had developed will be considered in a later lesson, but it is obvious that they did exist.

Lastly, Paul gives the basis of reconciliation. This basis must be Christ and only Christ. "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching" - the content of that which was preached - "to save them that believe" (1:21). What was this "preaching" that could save believers? It was the gospel (v.17), Jesus Christ and him crucified (2:2). "But of Him" - that is God - "are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," says Paul. "He that glorieth," he continued, "Let him glory in the Lord" (vs. 30,31).

It is Christ, and Christ alone, that is the salvation of man. It most certainly is not in parties, regardless of their "brand, shade or grade."

Now at this point we might think of the "denominations" of others, but, much of the division among our own ranks can be traced to the same fundamental source. As it was with the saints in Corinth who had aligned themselves with various parties, so it is all too often that we, whether deliberately or innocently, do the same thing. It is often not so much a matter of being a Christian as it is being a member of some particular "Church." It is not so often asked, "Do you belong to Christ (Rom. 8:9; etc.) as it is, "Which Church do you belong to?" Even among us, in all too many instances, congregational exclusiveness and personality, with all the competition for members, is little different from that of the sectarian world where solicitation is based upon the advantages of "our Church" as opposed to those of "your Church."

There is not the slightest indication in the New Testament that such reasoning and such talk characterized the early disciples of Christ. Honest study will show that Christ was preached, and baptized believers united upon this basis -- CHRIST.

Pioneer preachers of early America, many of whom we hold in highest esteem for their insights and courage in preaching Christ, did not emphasize or preach "Church" as an entity or corporate organization into which one could come and be saved. At the very least, they did not preach this in the sense or to the degree that it is done today. These preachers for the most part were disgusted in their day with the religious parties that divided God's people. There was an abundance of them then even as there are today. In our age there are Churches everywhere, of every sort and kind, holding rule over the hearts and lives of the millions who would be, if permitted, Christians only, simply followers of the Christ. These pioneers seemed to know that parties and Churches were the main source of trouble, and certainly no more parties or Churches were needed. They did, according to the Scriptures, preach a restoration of the New Testament concept of the church, the body of Christ, the universal collection of baptized believers, but they obviously did NOT mean what in all too many instances we have today.

These pioneers, "restoration" preachers as they were called, pleaded with people to come out of the wilderness of parties and Churches, and be just Christians, "Christians only," nothing less, nothing more, and nothing besides. Leave the organizations of men, with all their party creeds, practices, labels, and leaders. Obey Christ and follow Him and Him alone. This plea found ready acceptance on the part of hundreds and thousands who were weary and hopeless in the clutches of the religious parties. It is little wonder that the response was so great. Jimmy Allen, perhaps our most highly regarded evangelist today, in his messages on "undenominational Christianity" hammers home the point that we -- Christians only -- have the most powerful plea that the world has ever heard. I wholeheartedly agree! If we can only understand it, and if we can successfully communicate this to the world, we should spread the borders of the kingdom of heaven far and wide. IF -- note, IF -- "we" can understand it!

The tragedy is that we -- the second and third generation heirs of these preachers -- so soon lost sight of the high and holy purpose that motivated them. As has been so often true in religious history, the followers soon began to follow the "Apollos'es" or "Cephas's" or "Pauls" and forgot Christ. While CLAIMING to be devoted to HIM they separated from brethren, and organized, and built, and established, and planted, and denominated, until they took on many of the very marks of the sects they had previously opposed, and in so doing rejected the plea and prayer of the Lord that all be one.

To question the Scripturalness of such dividing is almost blasphemy in the eyes of many religious leaders. And, while agreeing that no written creed for these is permitted, for all practical effects one has nonetheless gradually developed that has all the force, pressure and control of the written ones. Faithfulness is all too often measured by what the "brotherhood" believes and practices; by what is the "accepted" view. This "accepted view" is nearly always determined by the editors and professors of the papers and colleges, and many preachers have sold their integrity to such in return for invitations to speak and write and be popularized. Men who do not "fall in" are sooner or later boycotted, and often intimidated or driven out. This is one of the vicious evils of organized religion.

If it had not been for "Churches" there could never have developed the problem of what the "Church" could do as opposed to what "saints" could do. Take the matter of support of children's homes that was such a hot issue a few years back and even today still festers among many; this could never have become a problem had not saints "organized," and delegated responsibilities that the Scriptures speak of as being obligatory upon saints, to the organization. The irony of it all was that never at any time were there more than a few hundred children ever maintained in "homes," yet thousands of brethren were divided and many remain so. Innocent and ignorant saints were literally forced to choose between the factions, to be on one side or the other of this issue. Taking the lead from the Lord??? they cried, "You are either for US or you are against US." Instead of seeking truth, it became a matter of supporting positions, and furthering causes, and backing the organization.

For the most part, many people today just cannot even begin to imagine being just Christians and serving the Lord without some sort of organized, structured, and more important, named church. How could followers of Christ do "church work" if there was no "church." How could followers of Christ delegate their preaching of the gospel and helping the needy to others if there was no organization to delegate these to? There is no doubt that many would be frustrated and wander about in confusion. Some would not even know how to worship, or study the Word, or teach another.

It might be interesting and profitable for each of us to contemplate the case of the eunuch. After his conversion "he want on his way rejoicing," says Luke. He went home, glad that he had found the Lord. Now what was he to do? There was no "church" for him to join. Was he to just sit down and wait? I think not! He was to love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, and express this love in worship and in "good works." He was to continue to study and share his insights with all who came within the shadow of his influence. And, how long was he to continue this? When would he be free to quit this? The answer is, "Never!" Not so long as he could mentally and physically tell the story. (Many "retired" Christians obviously do not believe this, of course.)

As the Samaritan woman told of her experience with the Lord when she returned to her people, so no doubt would the eunuch tell of his experience with Philip. As Andrew went to his brother to tell of his discourse with the Lord, so would the eunuch tell of his immersion into Christ. Soon numbers would become believers. They would continue steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, in the breaking of bread and in prayer. The same God who made it possible for him to know how to BECOME a child would surely provide the means for his GROWTH in His grace and knowledge. But, the individual responsibility of this single saint, and afterwards upon all others, was never changed in any way as the numbers increased. Never at any time, as long as he lived, was he ever able to delegate to others - call it whatever you will - these marks of being in Christ. Never was he able to turn over to anyone, at any time, the dedication and service that was characteristic of him as a CHRISTIAN ONLY.

It is easy to come to the conclusion, as we continue to talk "church" instead of Christ, and begin to honor and be loyal to our church, that it is the "church" that saves, or at least, we are saved because we are "in the church." That is, when we come into the church we are then saved. It is more difficult to preach that we are saved by Christ, and the church IS the saved. The church of Christ, the church which belongs to Christ, does not save; it IS the saved! The church is people, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing besides; the saved of God. Furthermore, it is these same people - not IT the church, but WE the church - who have been given the task of keeping ourselves pure, and preaching the gospel to the world. Although we may co-labor with others in the doing of many things, we can not delegate the responsibility and accountability for the doing of these things to others. And yet, preachers can preach "individual responsibility" till they are "blue in the face" and it is largely to no avail, as long as there is "a church" to do the work of Christians.

We have been told for so long that "whatever is good for the organization is good for the saint" until we accept it as truth, when it is not necessarily true. The organization takes over and provides an easy way for the "church member." Nearly everything is done for him, and "individual responsibility" is now preached as simply amounting to little more than being a good "church member." Attend all the worship services. Give to the church budget; and while corporate needs and co-operative works do indeed require corporate support, the sad effect of much of this kind of thinking is that many saints turn over their individual and God-given obligations to preach and help the needy to the same ones to whom they turn over their contribution. I heard a preacher once say to the congregation: "It is your responsibility to give and it is the elders' responsibility to spend. You will be judged by how you give and they will be judged by how they spend it." This is simply not a Bible doctrine.

While one could conceivably live with this concept of giving, which largely is a material matter, a much more critical matter is that of studying and teaching the Word of God. Is the average saint able today "to give answer to every man that asks him a reason for the hope that is in him, with meekness and fear?" Has the average saint grown in the "grace and knowledge of the Lord" until he can stand alone when tempted, regardless of what all others may do? Has the average saint matured in the spirit to the point that sickness or other disaster will made his faith stronger rather than tempt him to fail? Has the average saint reached the state of maturity where saving his soul, and the souls of others, is the one single most important aim in life? Or, to the contrary, is the average saint one who is counting for his salvation upon the fact that he is a "member of the church?" All too often the individual has robbed himself of his strength and cannot stand on his own two feet to serve the Lord.

One of the beautiful little songs to come on the scene in recent years (at least, new to me) is the one entitled, "I have decided to follow Jesus." Set to a catchy little tune, the message says:

Some years back a young man and his family were transferred by his company to one of the Middle East nations to work in the oil fields there. He and his family were popular members of a strong congregations in one of our larger cities. He came to me with this problem: "There is no 'church' over there. Christian 'churches' are outlawed. It is against the law to even advertise the 'Christian' religion. What shall I do?" In jest I replied, "Well, that is bad. Since there is no 'church' there you will not be able to 'go to church.' You will not be able to do any 'church work.' You are in a terrible mess." The young man smiled and then said, "Well, I guess my family and I will just have to be Christians!"

What finally happened? It seems that when he and his family finally arrived in this land, discovered by accident a few brethren. They decided to run an advertisement in the newspaper stating that if graduates of a certain well known Christian college were in the area, they should get together. Thirty-one brethren in the Lord came to that first meeting. What do children of God do when they meet together? They sing, pray, commune in the Supper, and rejoice in the Lord. They acted like followers of Christ, and brethren in the family of God should act. They formed no "church," they were the church. They did not "go to church;" they assembled and worshiped, etc. They did not do "church work," as we so often think of such today, but taught whomever they could (in this Middle East nation one had to have the person's official consent before any indoctrination was permitted), and tried to always encourage one another. How many times has a contrary scenario developed when weak Christians have gone into an area of the world where there was no "church," and dropped away from the Lord, no doubt in some cases forever.

The problem of "church" religion is very obviously seen in our accommodation of titles and offices in the "church." "If I were an ________(elder, deacon, etc.), I would visit the sick, strengthen the weak, restore the fallen, teach the lost. But since I'm not one of these I will be just a "church member." The fact of the matter is, that if a saint is not doing these things BEFORE he becomes an "officer," it is not likely he will do them afterwards, and he is not ready to be made an "officer." What about one being asked to be a "teacher" who is not presently teaching? Or preaching? While I recognize the fact that one who must "make tents" for a livelihood will have less time to serve the Lord than one who is supported by brethren, it is unthinkable that he would not serve to his limit of time and ability until he was supported, or "ordained."

Several years ago I served a congregation of saints as one of the preachers, following a man who had "retired." The man, since he no longer was "the preacher," spent most of his time doing little or nothing for the kingdom's sake. His material living was assured, through previous planning and social security, so he should have been free to spend most of his time and spiritual energies working for the Lord, and preparing his soul for the judgment. Did he do so? Not at all. He was "retired!" What a gospel preacher! What would Paul have said about this.

In the same congregation were three "elders" who had retired from other congregations and moved to the area. These also spent most of their time doing little or nothing for the kingdom's sake. What elders!

It is relatively easy to be a "church member." One can be a "church member" and hardly anyone ever notice. This is not the same thing as being a Christian. The two should not be confused, in spite of the fact that it is commonly thought that they are one and the same.

Salvation depends upon one and all being "in Christ." The emphasis and plea of all who presume to preach and teach should be for one to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and submit to His will. The concern should be for all of the saved to unite in Christ. There is in reality, according to the Scriptures, no such thing as "preaching the church," or condition of "entrance into the church," or terms of "membership in the church," etc., etc. All these things are the imaginations and machinations of men. Let us cease pushing "church membership" and begin to push Jesus Christ as Saviour, and equally as important, as Lord. It will do one little good to "become" a Christian unless he continues as one. (John 8:31,32.) It will be a great day for unity when the sincere of this world recognize the beautiful and precious salvation that is reserved for those "in Christ." Let us be Christians!