WHY “LIBERAL” AND “CONSERVATIVE” CHURCHES OF CHRIST?

WHY “LIBERAL” AND “CONSERVATIVE” CHURCHES OF CHRIST?

"The churches of Christ greet you" (Rom. 16:16). 

Across the USA, one can visit a church building with a sign in front saying, "CHURCH OF CHRIST" but going inside one hears a wide range of doctrinally different lessons. Some are much more liberal than others, allowing women to take leading roles in worship and even using instrumental music in worship. Others have set up human institutions as another organization to supplant doing the work of the local church and then at the other extreme there are those who bind using "one container" in the Lord's Supper, which is for another discussion. 

Some sincere brethren who have been caught up in one stream or the other never fully understood, and many who were too young before have now grown to adulthood wondering why such wide differences in beliefs and practices. It is therefore a good question worthy of repeated investigation. 

Labels of “liberal” (feeling free to go beyond God's authorized appointments) and “institutional” (favoring human institutions do the work of the church) versus “anti” (being against unscriptural innovations) and “conservative” (conserving the New Testament pattern) have been used by some as a prejudicial tool to halt further investigation. 

Labels used as prejudicial clubs are to be condemned; yet the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are proper when used as adjectives to describe a difference in attitude toward Bible authority, and consequently, a difference in practices. Jesus has all authority as Head of the church to direct the belief and practices of individual disciples and the collective work of local churches (Matt. 28:18-19, Eph. 1:22-23). Christ said we must abide "in" His Word to be true disciples (Jn. 8:31-32), which means we should "not exceed what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). The New Testament pattern of Christ (2 Tim. 1:13) is both the rule and limit of faith and practice. 

However, as the years go by the attitude underlying the division becomes more apparent. We are not separated because one group believes in benevolence and the other does not, nor because of jealousy and envy. We have divided over a basic attitude toward the Bible: (1) A “liberal” attitude justifies any activity that seems to be a “good work” under the concept, “We do a lot of things for which we have no Bible authority.” (2) A “conservative” attitude makes a plea to have Bible authority (either generic or specific) for all we do – therefore we refrain from involving the church in activities alien to that of the church in the New Testament (Col. 3:17). We should speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11). This means our faith and practice rests on what the New Testament teaches, not on what it does not teach. 

Briefly, the walls of innovations which have divided us are built in three areas: 

Who is to do the work of the church? The Church? Or a human institution? The church has a God-given work to do of saving souls, and the Lord made the church sufficient to do its own work (2 Tim. 2:2). Within the framework of elders and deacons, a local church is the only organization necessary to fulfill its mission of evangelism, edification and benevolence (Eph 3:10-11; 4:11-16; 1 Tim 3:15). However a wedge was driven when some brethren began to reason that the church may build and maintain a separate institution – a different WHO – to do the work of the church. This separate institution is human in origin and control. It is not a church nor governed by the church; yet it receives financial maintenance from the church. Human institutions so arranged (such as benevolent homes, hospitals, Bible schools, colleges or missionary societies) may be doing a good work; but when they become leeches on the church, they deny its independence and all-sufficiency and make a “fund raising house” of this God-planned institution.

How is the work of the church to be overseen? On a local basis with separate, autonomous congregations? Or may several local churches work as a unit through a “sponsoring eldership?” The organization of the New Testament church is local in nature, with elders limited to oversight of the work of the flock among them (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2). We are divided by those who promote “brotherhood” works through a plan of intercongregational effort with centralized oversight -- an unscriptural HOW.

  What is the mission of the church? Spiritual or also social/political/economic? It is in this area that the loose attitude toward the scriptures is becoming more apparent. Though wholesome activities are needed for all, the Lord died for a higher and holier mission than fun, food and frolic or physical projects. Let the church be kept free to spend its energy and resources in spiritual purposes of saving and spiritually edifying souls (Rom 14:17; 1 Pet 2:5), and let the home or individual Christians be busy in providing social/political/economic needs (1 Cor 11:22, 34; Eph. 4:28). 

For Christians to be faithful to the Lord and "observe all things commanded" by Him (Matt. 28:19). preachers must know and then teach to members how to establish Bible authority as the framework to guide the authorized work and worship of the local church.

Culled.