At the beginning of the month, I was determined to read the Bible in it’s entirety before the end of summer, but I have only gotten through the five books of Moses, partly because I was sidetracked by a book someone let me borrow, and mainly because I’m lazy. Right now I want to talk about that book, which is “The Eternal Kingdom: A History of the Church” by F.W. Mattox. My thoughts on the five books of Moses are forthcoming.

Many of you may know I am a member of the church of Christ, which is a profoundly misunderstood group of people. Folks accusingly tell us we believe we are the only ones who are right. But I would ask, Why is this somehow bad? What else do you suppose? How can the church of Christ not be the only ones who are right?

Of course, I am trying to make a profound point, and my point of view, which is the same as that of many others, is explained very thoroughly in “The Eternal Kingdom.” The book is not a ranting about personal religious views. It is encyclopedic and chronicles the history of the church under the leadership and influence of the apostles, the apostolic and early church fathers, the heretics, what became the Roman Catholic system of church organization and it’s theological results, the reformers of the 1300s on, and finally the nineteenth century scholars and church leaders predominant in America who saw themselves as restorers of the “New Testament church.” The book is used as a textbook in some Christian colleges. It was important for me because it was really my first attempt to seriously study Christian history outside of New Testament times and events.

Basically, after the apostles and period of written revelation, Christians had many options before them and many hardships. It was the church in it’s infancy and had not yet grasped a significant understanding of church organization and leadership, much less doctrine and theology. Soon, churches began to develop the first aspects of what would later become a full-blown hierarchy, largely to combat false teaching. I’ll spare you the details, but it is clear that the hierarchical system that we now see in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches was a merely human and at times political development that experienced many different phases and was not championed or even recognized by all early Christians and churches.

But the result of changes in organization also produced major theological consequences – such as a priesthood unique to bishops and ministers.

After Constantine I, the Roman emperor in the fourth century, adopted Christianity and tampered with it largely for political gain, Christianity became a religion of councils and creeds, and it was through these councils and creeds that Christians became crystallized in their party affiliations, swearing allegiance to councils of men instead of to God. When the reformers of later centuries challenged the predominant party (the Roman Catholics), they merely created new parties, crystallized by new creeds, synods and special names, with each party competing against the other. The purpose of the “restorers” of the nineteenth century was simply to be Christians and do away with various products of men. Among these people, councils and creeds were done away with as “terms of communion” between Christians, with only the canonical scriptures replacing them. What objection could somebody possibly have against this practice?

One of the things that restoration achieves is unity. It is unity based upon scripture.

For anyone still reading, let me explain further.

It can hardly be said that the denominationalism that came out of the Reformation is the way Christ wanted his church to be upon his death, which was “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). This is something most of us now can agree on, and there have been developed different ways of unifying Christians. F.W. Mattox outlines three different methods of unification among Christians that have been advanced: authoritarianism, inter-denominationalism, and undenominationalism. Mattox subscribes to undenominationalism.

Authoritarianism is the belief held by the Roman Catholic Church, which is that all believers in Christ should swear allegiance to its hierarchy of bishops, which is headed by the pope. Roman Catholics believe its hierarchy was appointed by the apostles and that it constitutes the church of Christ that has been from the beginning. Historically, this just isn’t true.

Inter-denominationalism is the belief held by many Protestants of our day, which is that all denominations should be in communion with one another. Church organization and doctrine shouldn’t get in the way of Christian unity. This argument falls on its face, because the question arises, What would be the purpose of different denominations and methods of organization? Why not just compromise and join together, which would only make sense because the argument presumes that there is no one right way to pattern the church?

Undenominationalism is the belief held by the church of Christ, which is that all believers in Christ should use the scripture as its only term of communion and leave man-made devises and parties by using the Bible as their only creed. We must be Christians in terms of Christ’s word, not the words of men and the interpolations of their various creeds. This argument holds that the church must be organized and run according to the New Testament pattern, which is complete and full. This argument therefore holds that the Bible is all-sufficient for the church (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the only true “sola scriptura” doctrine.

The unification of Christians must be achieved through practicing that faith which was once for all delivered to us by Jesus and his apostles (Jude 1:3) and comes down to us through the Bible. Unifying doesn’t mean accepting all doctrines and churches as equally Christian, which is impossible. Not all who say, “Lord, Lord” are part of his kingdom. Even the most avid believer of inter-denominationalism has to admit this. Unifying means coming together to let the Word dwell in us richly (Colossians 3:16).

If you have read this far, you may be interested in reading this book, which can be bought on Amazon.com, although you can buy it for cheaper if you go through the publishing company’s Web site, which is gospellightbooks.com.

After much hoopla about N.T. Wright on Russell Robert’s blog, I decided to pick up one of his books, “The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God–Getting Beyond the Bible Wars,” over the weekend.

While the book’s cover plays itself up with stuff like “Can we still trust the Bible to lead the Church?”, it is actually a very logical argument for interpreting and using the Bible the way it was meant to be used. Wright takes you through a bunch of confusing history that has to do with the different methods through which people in different periods have interpreted the Bible.

He claims that too often people use the Bible as a source book to promote their own ideologies. That is, instead of studying it and letting it lead wherever it leads, people often run through its pages in order to find a word or phrase that “proves” what they already believe. His basic solution is actually very simple (more simple than he makes it out to be): Read the Bible. He argues that we should place scripture to the forefront in the church, a church that should be “characterized, at the very heart of its life, by prayerful listening to, strenuous wrestling with, humble obedience before, and powerful proclamation of scripture” (p. 114). He says the early church was a “scripture-reading community” (p. 61). Scripture is not to be a “source book,” but a book that shapes the church’s beliefs and ways of living.

Wright lays out several things that stifle the central role scripture should play. Mainly, people today place “reason,” tradition and experience on the same level as scripture, when these three things should be used in a practical way only to understand scripture, or the will of God. Tradition should never be placed on equal footing with scripture (as has been done in the Roman Catholic Church and several denominations), nor should it ever be taken as a perfect interpretive lens through which to understand the Bible. Tradition is simply what past Christians believed, which is useful but must always be taken with a grain of salt. And people often try to use reason alone to prove this or that, when it is supposed to be used to understand the teachings in the Bible, not to make up our own teachings. Finally, personal experience is–well–not really worth anything if someone uses it instead of scripture to justify what he “thinks” is right.

“The Last Word” simply adds to my belief that traditional creeds and doctrines take scripture out of the center of the different faiths. They are why every denominational church is different, i.e. commits itself to its own tradition. While Wright is on to something, he doesn’t go far enough, as he still condones these divisional practices. If Christians were a scripture-centered, scripture-reading folk, there would be no need for creeds. Some people have realized this, such as those in the churches of Christ and elsewhere, and putting the Word of God back into its proper place can and will work, if only people would be willing to do it at the expense of aimlessly heeding to traditions.

It appears to me that today’s fast-paced culture has resulted in less people devoting daily study to the scriptures. It’s the reason I didn’t post anything on this little blog during the entire school semester. But we must all realize, as books like this one remind us, that if we don’t study on a daily or periodic basis (Psalm 1:2, Hebrews 5:13-14), we lose track of the will God has for our lives and our generation and grow to depend on traditions that make it easy for us.

During Moses’ farewell speech to the Israelites before his death, God warned through Moses’ lips, “What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

As I heard one preacher say: If a creed adds to the Word of God, it should be thrown out. If a creed takes away from the Word of God, it should be thrown out. And if a creed says only what the Word of God says, it is useless.

Click here to find a church in your area.