Title Here!

Editorial
September/October, 1977
Volume 12, Number 5

The message featured this month was delivered at the Brethren Revival Fellowship "Insight" session on June 23, 1977 at the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference in Richmond, Virginia. We hope readers will profit from its instructions and concerns.

--H.S.M.

IS THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN

A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

By Paul W. Brubaker

Christian greetings to all of you! The BRF Committee has given me an assignment -- that of speaking on the subject, "Are we a New Testament Church?" And this is to be broken down into three areas:

"Are we a New Testament Church in PRACTICES?"
"Are we a New Testament Church in ELDERSHIP?" and
"Are we a New Testament Church in MISSIONS?"

Now, I realize that the only time a whale gets harpooned is when he comes up to spout. And I'm fully aware that I may get a good harpooning tonight because of some of the things which are on my heart. But brethren and sisters, I think there are some things which need to be said. And sometimes it's painful for us to look at ourselves as we really are; but at times, this is needful.

I am reminded of the baby who cried without stopping for the first fifteen minutes of the minister's message. Finally the mother got up and prepared to leave. But the minister interrupted his message and said to the mother: "There's no need for you to leave. Your precious child isn't disturbing me." "Yes," she said, but the reason my baby's crying is because you're disturbinghim!" And maybe my message will disturb you tonight, but maybe it's good for all of us to become disturbed at times. Having said thus, let me challenge our thinking this evening as we ask ourselves the question, "ARE we a New Testament Church?"

1. ARE WE A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IN PRACTICES?

The Brethren, from the very beginning, were known as Biblicists! They were a people of the Book! If the Bible said it, they believed it, and they practiced it. They were a creedless people. They gladly affirmed that the New Testament was their only rule of faith and practice. But of course, much of that has now changed. And it hasn't happened overnight. The departures have been gradual and very subtle. Let me "zero in" on three of these departures in the matter of "practices":

a. First, the departure from the final authority of the Scriptures. I'm appalled these days as I get around into various churches within our denomination, and as I read various publications coming from our denominational headquarters, to discover the amount of disregard for the final authority of the Scriptures. The Brethren have always believed that the Bible was inerrant in the original writings. We have strongly affirmed 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (and that word "inspiration" literally means "God-breathed").

And so,

When I read and hear of Brethren ministers and teachers doubting the miracle of the Virgin Birth of Christ, and other miracles. . . .
When I hear of those among us who are saying that Jonah wasn't a real person, but that the account is only a parable...
When I'm confronted with persons who explain this or that portion of the New Testament away by saying that it's no longer relevant, and that it no longer has a binding effect on us today. . .
When I hear of those within our denomination who are promoting the idea that heaven and hell aren't real places, but only a state of the mind. . .
When I "get wind" of those who say that God really doesn't mean what He says about pouring out judgment upon sin and sinners . . .

I say ... do we have a right to call ourselves a truly New Testament Church? A church that firmly holds to biblical authority? Let's think about it! If we've come to the place where we so boldly and openly defy the final authority of the Scriptures, I contend that we are in error in classifying ourselves as a truly New Testament Church.

b. The second area of departure in the matter of "practices" is in the observance of the ordinances. Now, an ordinance is a scriptural command that requires more than one believer to perform. Ordinances are essential factors in the development of the Christian life. Basically, there are six ordinances that the Church of the Brethren has historically practiced: baptism by trine immersion, the three-part love feast, the anointing service, the laying on of hands, the assembling of ourselves for worship, and the holy kiss. It is praiseworthy that in several of these areas, we have continued to maintain our former stance. We still baptize new converts by trine immersion; the anointing service has been increasingly used (and is no longer employed as merely a type of last rites); and we continue to use the laying on of hands at the time of baptism, and when persons are called to set-apart ministries.

In the three other ordinances, however, I see some real departures. We still continue to assemble for worship, but it's no secret that the attendance in many of our congregations is down. The affluence of our society has something to do with that, I suppose (because of people being so pleasure minded that they have very little regard for church attendance and the support of their local congregation). But I'm wondering if some people stay away because of the type of spiritual food they're receiving--because of coldness in the pulpit. I'm convinced that people still want to hear the truth in love. Statistics show us that those churches that are experiencing growth today are those churches where there is some "fire" in the pulpit, where there is some "thus saith the Lord" preaching, and where standards are upheld.

Another departure in the ordinances is that of the Holy Kiss. The Scriptures instruct us to greet one another in this manner; and while the handshake has become more acceptable, may I say that it doesn't quite convey the fullness of emotion that is demonstrated by the kiss of charity. When brethren greet one another, and when sisters greet one another, they are in effect saying, "I love you! There is no enmity between us!" I remember Bro. Ralph Schlosser (former president of Elizabethtown College, and former Conference moderator) saying that when he was a boy, the Brethren would embrace one another when they kissed. A little later on, Bro. Schlosser says it was just a "peck" on the cheek. Then it was merely a handshake. And now, he says, it's simply "hi!" Well, this is one of the departures in the observance of the ordinances.

The third area of departure in the matter of the ordinances is that of the three-part love feast, where we wash one another's feet and share together in the agape meal, and then partake in the Holy Communion. A young college student recently participated in her first love feast service in one of the congregations of the Atlantic Northeast District. And after the service, her only comment was, "Beautiful! Beautiful! Oh, never get rid of such a beautiful service!" She said, "I've been a member of another denomination which didn't practice the three-part love feast, and I'll tell you, you really have something here! Oh, never, never lose it!" With a comment such as this, I thought, why would we ever want to cast aside the observance of feetwashing and the agape meal (as many of our congregations are now gradually doing across the brotherhood)? Are we ashamed of washing one another's feet? Is it a sin to reenact the agape meal which Jesus shared with His disciples? Must we streamline the Lord's Supper, all in the name of progress? Is it that we must conform to the mainline denominations? Let's think about it. Of course, Christianity doesn't merely consist in the observing of ordinances, but nevertheless these symbols are visible, perpetual reminders of great spiritual truths. And so my question to you is: Do we have a right to call ourselves a truly New Testament Church when we've been gradually letting down the bars in these various areas of obedience? Let's think about it.

c. The third area of departure in the matter of "practices" is that of non-conformity to the world and its godless system. Now, non-conformity is a broad field, and encompasses a whole gamut of related subjects. Seemingly, we've come to the place where we almost apologize that God would ever mention such a thing as non-conformity in His Word. But the fact remains that God does speak about it, and we need to take heed.

Probably the most familiar scriptural passage regarding nonconformity is that of Romans 12:2 which says, "And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed, by the renewing of your minds." 1 John 2:15 is another scripture on the subject, and that verse says: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." But probably the strongest teaching we have on this subject comes to us from the writer James. James 4:4 says: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God!" Now, that's pretty strong language. But you see, over the years, the Brethren have taken Scriptures such as these very seriously. And it's for this very reason that up until about fifty or seventy-five years ago, non-conformity (and all of its broad implications) occupied a major block of business on the Conference floor. You read about it sometime in the Conference minutes. Sometimes we smile when we read of the "Old Brethren" haggling over such things as lightning rods and sleigh bells and spelling bees and fire insurance. But they believed strongly that we are to be a separated people, that we are not to be guided and controlled by this world and its godless system. Now, perhaps they were overbalanced in this area; but when you compare them over against that which we are experiencing today, you would hardly know it's the same Church. For the most part, the teaching of non-conformity across our brotherhood has been thrown out the window!

But the fact remains, brethren and sisters, that the Bible still instructs us to lead the simple life.
The fact remains that the Scriptures continue to teach modesty and simplicity of dress and the distinction of the sexes.
The fact remains that Jesus teaches love and peace and brotherhood and abstinence from war and personal strife.
The fact remains that we are to refrain from the outward adornment of the body.
The fact remains that the Scriptures prohibit the Christian man from having long hair, and for the Christian woman from having short, unveiled hair.
The fact remains that God still frowns upon divorce and remarriage.
The fact remains that the Bible warns about brethren going to law against brethren.
The fact remains that our daily lives must not be governed by the passing fads and fancies of this world and its godless system.

And so my question to you is this: Do we have a right to call ourselves a truly New Testament Church when we've almost totally discarded the biblical teaching of non-conformity? Let's think about it, and then not only be "hearers" of the Word, but also "doers."

Well, I've "zeroed in" on several areas of departure in the matter of "practices." You hear a great deal today about "freedom in the Spirit," but you hear very little about implicit obedience. Let me remind you of the Apostle Paul's admonition to young Timothy found in 2 Timothy 2:5 (and I'll be quoting from the Beek Translation). Paul says: "If you enter a contest, you win a prize only if you compete according to the rules." We are spiritual athletes, contending in the arena of life for the Crown of Righteousness. God has always required obedience of His people. But if we so openly and boldly depart from scriptural injunctions and principles and practices, then I ask, Do we have a right to call ourselves a truly New Testament Church?

2. ARE WE A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IN ELDERSHIP?

For those of you who are not familiar with the subject of eldership, may I say that the Brethren discontinued the office of elder at the Annual Conference of 1967 in Eugene, Oregon. My wife and I were delegates to that Conference, and I know the heaviness we experienced because of its discontinuance. Now, of course, the Brethren have always believed in the priesthood of all believers. But we have also believed in the "set-apart" ministry, and even more specifically, the office of elder or bishop. The Brethren, by the way, chose to use the term "elder" because of some bad implications they had of the "bishop" figure in the State Churches of Europe. As we look at the Scriptures, 1 Timothy 5 tells us that elders are to be preachers and teachers. 1 Peter 4:10-11 says that elders are to rule, teach and govern. As we look at the New Testament as a whole, many other functions are given. Elders are to withstand error, they are to lead by example, they are to admonish, they are to watch for souls, they are to anoint and pray for the sick, they are to lead the way to the confession of sins, and they are to act as shepherds in tending and feeding the flock. But over a period of years in the Church of the Brethren, we have increasingly minimized the duties and the functions and the importance of the office of elder:

In 1917, we approved the employment of full time pastors.
In 1937, we determined that "the pastor should be considered the executive head of the church, the active leader in its program and activities, its spiritual counselor and shepherd of the flock."
In 1955, we discarded the term "elder-in-charge," and adopted the term "moderator".
Also in 1955, we began allowing the laity to serve as local church moderators.
In 1959, we permitted lay members to be district conference moderators.
In 1964, we adopted a plan of local church organization using a board and three commissions.
In 1965, we approved a plan of district organization, making the board (through its Commission on Ministry) responsible for initiating action when problems of discipline arose.
And then of course, in 1967, we discarded the office of "elder" altogether.

And now that the office of elder has been dissolved, and is already ten years behind us, let me ask two questions:

a. Has the casting aside of the office of "elder" and ''elder-in-charge" in the local congregation brought a deeper spirituality to the Church? I think the. answer is "no," because what has happened is this: Matters that were once considered to be of spiritual consequence are now often (not always) placed into the hands of a lay moderator (who in himself may be a good organizer and a good conductor of a business meeting, but who often (not always) lacks the spiritual depth of one who has had hands of consecration laid on his head, and who has spent years in the spiritual shepherding and nurturing of the flock. What I'm saying is that on a broad basis, we have placed too many of the weightier matters of the law into the hands of hireling leadership. And that is a dangerous trend.

Let me give a passing observation. Historically, the Brethren believed and practiced the plural, non-salaried ministry. And they did this because of Paul's instruction to Titus to ordain "elders" (plural) in every city (Titus 1:5). The New Testament always refers to this word in the plural. Now, while we may criticize the Old Brethren for their lack of education and for their lack of finesse and polish, do you realize with me that it was during this period of time (when we practiced the plural, non?salaried ministry) that the Church experienced its greatest period of growth? I don't want to attribute all of the growth to the type of ministry we had, but I believe it was a contributing factor.

Was there after all some merit in having the plural ministry on the local level? Some people today wonder how two or more elders could ever get along in the same congregation. Well, may I say that I serve in that type of arrangement in the Atlantic Northeast District, and it's a tremendous blessing! We learn from each other; we help each other; and even though we don't agree on every little thing, we love each other; and we pull together as a team. It seems to me that the New Testament calls for elders (plural) who are to be the spiritual overseers and shepherds of the flock.

b. The other question I have in relation to the eldership is this: Has the abolishment of the "Elders' Body" on the district level, strengthened our ability to deal with ministerial problems? I think the answer is "no"! I serve on the Ministry Commission of the Atlantic Northeast District; and really, I think it is unfair to have our District Executive single-handedly tackle and become responsible for some of the sticky, ticklish problems we face today in the ministry. Action, of course, usually is initiated by the Ministry Commission, but ultimately it falls into the lap of the District Executive. In addition, we have committed to many laymen on our District Board, problems which I believe belong to seasoned spiritual giants. And thus, our church on a district level, lies almost powerless to deal with these ministerial problems. I'd personally like to see the re-establishment of an Elders' Body to function as a type of authority in handling matters of ministerial discipline. And so my question in the matter of Eldership is: Do we have a right to call ourselves a truly New Testament Church, if we've cast aside this very biblically-oriented office of "elder"?

3. ARE WE A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IN MISSIONS?

It's no secret that the number of Church of the Brethren missionaries has greatly decreased over the past thirty years. First, with the total closing of the mission in China, then with the phasing out of the missionary program in India, and now more recently with the church in Nigeria "coming of age" and becoming indigenous, we can hardly call ourselves a Church that takes seriously the "Last Will and Testament" of our Lord--that of going into ALL THE WORLD and preaching the Gospel. I realize, of course, that political changes and international climate have caused some of these changes. But there is something far more serious, and that is the fact that we have somehow come to the place where we no longer think of the world's masses in two categories--either SAVED or UNSAVED. There has been a shift in our theology from personal evangelism to that of subtle universalism! We have come to the place where we no longer believe that the world's masses need a personal encounter with Jesus Christ in order to be saved! I don't know about you, brethren and sisters, but for me, Acts 4:12 is still true, in the fact that "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven among men, whereby we must be saved!"

You see what has happened, of course. Since we have begun adhering to the teaching of the "Fatherhood of God, and the Brotherhood of Man," there's no need to win the masses to Christ, because somehow God (in his love and mercy) will save all these people anyway! Well, how foolish! We Brethren have shifted our emphasis from "Missions" to what we now call "Mission" (which is usually a program of social concern; and may I say that we have done very well along these lines). But we need a balance. We need to minister to the whole person. And if we've omitted the most important aspect of all, the spiritual needs of mankind, then I contend that we are in error!

My wife and I have several missionary friends who are serving on foreign fields with independent groups (who of course are very aggressive in their missionary zeal). And quite frankly, when these friends of ours question us concerning the mission program of the Church of the Brethren, we have to hang our heads in shame. There's nothing the matter with feeding and clothing and providing shelter for those who are less fortunate, but I contend that if we do only that, we are only helping these folks to go to hell, well-fed, well-clothed, and well-housed! Brethren and sisters, let's get back to the Great Commission, and take it seriously! As we think of "missions", are there no more mountains for us to climb? Are there no more doors for us to open around the world? Have all the world's peoples been told of a Christ who loves them and who died for them? Is our goal to make disciples of all men? I say, where is our aggressive evangelism?

Now, the easy thing to do is to blame "Elgin," but let's not do that. Let's admit that we haven't been very much interested in personal evangelism on the local level, so why should we be concerned about the souls of the dying masses somewhere half?way around the world? Those of us who are old enough to recall the very beautiful and very moving services of consecration for missionaries at Annual Conferences of yesteryear, become a little nostalgic as we recall the strong, flourishing mission program of the Church. And so my question to you is: Do we have a right to call ourselves a truly New Testament Church if we've taken the Great Commission and replaced it with purely social concern?

Well, that is basically my message! Are we a New Testament Church in PRACTICES? Are we a New Testament Church in ELDERSHIP? And, Are we a New Testament Church in MISSIONS? It has not been my purpose this evening to parade the ills of the Church only for the sake of parading. And while you may consider the message a rather negative one, my prayer is that it may produce some very positive results. My remarks were shared out of a heart of love and concern for our beloved Church. My commitment to the Church of the Brethren is extremely deep, and is expressed in the second verse of the hymn, "I Love Thy Kingdom, Lord" (in speaking of the Church):

For her my tears shall fall,
For her my prayers ascend.
To her my cares and toils be given,
Till toils and cares shall end.