Mere Christianity
Posted on May 19, 2007
Filed Under Brandon Renfroe, Denominationalism
by Brandon Renfroe
One of the most treasured volumes in my library is Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis’ classic work on apologetics. Lewis’ avowed goal was to set forth his conception of the basics of Christian faith and practice, irrespective of sectarian ideologies. Though one will not always agree with Lewis’ theology, the method in which he treats the human condition is nothing short of masterful. Indeed, if one is able to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of ecumenism, there are many golden nuggets to be mined from Lewis’ vast depository of writings.
Today, if one were to set forth a “mere†Christianity more in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament, what would it look like? That such an effort is necessary is evident from the fact that an increasing number have no real conception of the distinctive nature of the church for which the Savior died. Unable to conceive of Christianity other than in terms of an “-ism,†they view virtually every religious body, regardless of its teachings, as being on equal footing. It was for this reason that N.B. Hardeman once lamented that his greatest difficulty as a preacher was to help others comprehend the non-denominational nature of the church. Said Hardeman:
In this country of ours, we’ve been bred and born and reared in the denominational idea until it has become such a mass of confusion that it’s next to impossible for any man to make clear the distinction between the church of the Bible and a human organization, founded by some uninspired man, at some other time than the year 33, at some place other than the city of Jerusalem (198).
It is not terribly difficult to convince a reasonable mind of the singular nature of the Lord’s church. To wit, if there is but one body (Eph. 4:4), and if that body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23), there can be only one church. No degree in philosophy, logic, or theology is needed to draw such a simple conclusion.
The problem in most minds, as Hardeman alluded to, stems from dueling conceptions of this one church. Many within the community of “Christendom†view the church as a jigsaw puzzle of sorts, with the various denominational bodies coming together to form the whole. Others, though in the decided minority, realize that while the church is the body composed of every saved individual on earth (cf. Eph. 5:23), only those who have done exactly what the Bible requires to do are in fact saved (cf. Rom. 6:17).
Coming to a proper understanding of “mere Christianity†involves making at least one crucial, yet fundamental, distinction; namely, that conflicting ideas cannot both be correct. In their book World Religions & Cults 101, Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz describe the thinking of those who would place Judaism, Islam, and other world religions on par with Christianity. Viewing “God†as living at the top of a large “mountain,†they believe the various belief systems of the world represent different paths which eventually lead to the summit. Just as every winding trail eventually reaches the mountain peak, all religions, it is believed, eventually lead to God. The problem with this mindset, Bickel and Jantz argue, is that “all religions can’t be true.†This is because “all religions are different and mutually exclusive at various points†(10). Thus, if Christianity confidently contends for Jesus as the Son of God, and Judaism just as fervently rejects this notion, obviously both cannot be correct.
Though many readily concede the veracity of this initial point, they fall prey to essentially the same error when they seek to excuse similar divisions among those claiming to follow Christ. Few there are among us who have not heard the tried and true, “We’re all going to heaven, just taking different roads to get there.†What is this if not another version of the “God at the top of the mountain†analogy? In this case, Christ is sitting at the top of the mountain, and the various denominational bodies that dot our landscape are the pathways that lead to the top. If we can understand its fallacy in the one instance, the same should be apparent in the other. Did not Christ speak of a “strait and narrow way†(not ways) which leads to glory? (cf. Mt. 7:13-14). Consequently, if one church argues that baptism is “for†the remission of sins (cf. Acts 2:38), while another contends that baptism is “not for†the remission of sins, it should go without saying that these positions—and the religious bodies that hold them—cannot be reconciled.
At the outset, then, a plea for mere Christianity would recognize the “common faith†(Tit. 1:4) and “common salvation†(Jude 3) of which the Bible so clearly speaks. That is, there is a uniform body of objective truth set forth in the sacred scriptures, and a definite process to which men must submit as result, if they would be cleansed from their sins. When writing to the Romans, Paul described this as “that form of doctrine†they had “obeyed from the heart†(Rom. 6:17). In short, there are not differing “schemes of redemption†or “plans of salvation†to which men must submit.
Additionally, a plea for mere Christianity would surely involve wearing nothing other than the “noble name†of Christ (cf. Jas. 2:7). When the divine name was bestowed upon the disciples in Antioch of Syria, it was Christian (Acts 11:26). When Paul made his defense before Agrippa, it included a plea for the ruler to become a Christian (Acts 26:28). Indeed, it is in wearing the name Christian that we bring glory and honor to God (1 Pet. 4:16).
Unfortunately, many in our day are unduly enamored with names which, if they do not completely displace “Christian,†are at the very least given equal billing with it. When asked of their religious affiliation, scores will respond by offering the name of a man, doctrinal position, or congregational arrangement to which they subscribe. It is only after seeking clarification that they will append the name “Christian†to themselves. Is there nothing amiss in this procedure?
In reality, this problem is not a new one. Modern day division may be traced back to its seed form in the church at Corinth. When the apostle Paul directed his first letter to the brethren there, he rebuked them for displaying inordinate allegiance to those who had taught them the gospel. Specifically, some were apparently wearing the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) as religious appellatives. Since none of these men had been crucified on their behalf, and, further, since none of the Corinthians had been baptized into their name, they had no right to their names (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11-13). Applying this ancient problem to more modern times, Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey observed, “If it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing?†(147-148). It could be argued that the sin of today is even more egregious in its nature, for if the Corinthians were wrong for wearing the names of apostles and prophets, how much more blame do some today bear for wearing the names of uninspired men? In truth, there is only one name for those who claim to follow the Lord to wear, and that is Christian.
Finally, a plea for mere Christianity would not be complete without the realization that religion, to be effective, must be active. Those who seek to follow Christ, the perfect example (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21), must go about “doing good†(Acts 10:38). “Pure religion,†as James would write, involves “visiting†and “keepingâ€â€”action words! (Jas. 1:27). We must ever keep in mind that the “doers†of the word are blessed, not “hearers only†(Jas. 1:22). Only by practicing what we preach will men see our good works, and come to glorify the heavenly Father (Mt. 5:16). Any religion which would suggest that “penance†may supplant “repentance†cannot be other than a counterfeit!
If the Savior’s prayer for unity is ever to be realized (cf. Jn. 17:20-21), His people must lay aside the divisions which so easily beset them and pledge total allegiance and fealty to none other than the “King of kings and Lord of lords†(1 Tim. 6:15). This is our calling, and it is a noble one.
Sources
Bickel, Bruce and Stan Jantz (2002), World Religions & Cults 101: A Guide to Spiritual Beliefs, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers).
Hardeman, N.B. (2001 Reprint), Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 4, (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), Original Commentary on Acts, (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).
RELATED POSTS:
How do we love God? Let us count the ways…
Hearing the word of God
The Need for Balance
Evolution: A Science Teacher’s Perspective
DTS professor misses chance to scripturally refute ’spiritual resurrection’
Comments
Leave a Reply
Polls
Loading ...-
