“I’m All Shook Up…”

Mike Johnson 

These words perhaps echoed from the facilities of a local congregation in Huntsville, Alabama, as they presented “A Tribute to the King of Rock & Roll.”  A newspaper ad for the event pictures an Elvis impersonator.  I don’t know if “Elvis” sang this song, “I’m All Shook Up,”  but its title is perhaps a reflection of how many felt upon learning from the newspaper that a group calling itself a “church of Christ” planned to host a rock & roll show.  This situation is undoubtedly sad.

What is the work of the church?  Some must think that God has not assigned the church a work and that it is free to engage in any activity that it deems appropriate.  Has God given the church specific tasks to carry out, and is the church limited to that work?  Since we typically build things for a purpose, we should not be surprised to learn that the church was built for a purpose.  The Bible teaches that the church has a three-fold responsibility.   First, the church is to teach the gospel to the lost (I Tim.  3:15, Eph. 4:12, I Thess.,  1:8, Phil. 4:15, II Cor. 11:8,  Jn. 18:36).   Second, it is to teach those who are Christians (Eph. 4:12, Acts 20:28), and finally, it has a responsibility in benevolence to needy saints (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35, 6:1-4, 11:26-30; II Cor. 9).  Despite what people might prefer, these are the only three works which the Lord has assigned the church.  The church is authorized to use its money to carry out any of these responsibilities.  It can provide means and methods and build facilities to carry out these three functions.  Where then is the authority (by direct statement or command, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference) for the church to provide recreation or entertainment for its members or the community?  If God told the church to provide entertainment or recreation, then there would be authority for the church to provide the facilities for such.  The church could even build a concert hall or large room for performances, or it could rent the local civic center.  The fact of the matter is, however, that no authority can be found for the church to provide recreation and entertainment.  The church is not to be involved with the “social gospel.”

The group mentioned above is the same one that earlier sponsored workshops on such topics as “Clowning Around” (using clowning for evangelism and outreach), “Up In The Air” (fundamentals of outreach-oriented juggling), and “Face Painting for Outreach” (introductory techniques for beginners).   It is incredible to see the gimmicks that various groups have resorted to in order to attract people and keep them interested in God’s Word.  These gimmicks remind us of similar tactics such as “Karate for Christ” and “Gymnastics for Christ.” I have often wondered if any group has tried “Swallowing Goldfish for Christ” or “Throwing Pies at the Preacher for Christ.”  What happened to the use of the gospel as the “power of God to Salvation” (Rom. 1:16)?  Also, didn’t Jesus rebuke those who sought him for the loaves (Jn. 6:26-27)?  (By the way, the “Outreach Workshop,” which was supposed to be designed to learn how to reach young people, cost $18.00.  The tribute to Elvis program, pure entertainment, was free.)

Another point of interest to me was that these workshops were advertised  to be  for, among others,  “PASTORS,” “ASSOCIATE PASTORS,” and “YOUTH PASTORS.”  Most Christians know that the word “pastor” in the Bible refers to elders.  With this in mind, I am curious about who “associate” elders are supposed to be.  I have not read of a hierarchy of elders in the Bible.  Furthermore, what is a youth pastor?   The name “youth pastor” (or elder) is a contradiction of terms.  Could it be that the workshop had an intent for denominational “pastors,” “associate pastors,” and “youth pastors?” Was it designed to help them better convert people to their denominational body?  Who knows?

Among the churches favoring the church support of human institutions (orphan homes, etc.), there is certainly a more conservative element than the group represented by the above congregation.  Many, who are sometimes called the “new antis,” are decrying what they call “liberalism” or “change agents.” Books by Dave Miller (Piloting the Strait), Goebel Music (Behold the Pattern), and William Woodson (Change Agents and Churches of Christ) are some recent books along this line.  The books speak against such things as fellowshipping denominations, the new hermeneutics, and changes in the roles of women in the church.

Those who regard themselves as “conservatives” among the institutional groups (these new antis)  should have spoken out against the “liberalism” of the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s.  Instead, “liberalism” was endorsed, and the church split.   During those years, churches started supporting human institutions, and they started building fellowship halls (places to eat and play games).  They hired “youth ministers” (a kind of “camp director) to provide for the social needs of the young people.  They started buying buses, which were used more at first to transport kids (who were usually induced by fleshly incentives) to services and were later used more to transport people to such places as Six Flags.  They also started daycare programs.  These practices are without Bible authority.   Now “change agents” are being decried.   They now protest the next stage of liberalism, which started with the innovations of past years.  It is “liberalism gone to seed.”

Many used Galatians 6:10 to justify the controversial practice of church support of human institutions.  They did so on the bases that the passage says we are to do good unto all men.  They claimed this even though the passage’s context clearly reveals that individual responsibility, not church responsibility, is its focus.  Galatians 6:10, in reality, has nothing to do with church action.  I am unsure if the congregation above would even feel compelled to defend their concert.  If they did, could they not quote Galatians 6:10 to the “more conservative” institutional groups?  After all, it is argued that Galatians 6:10 authorizes “church action.”  It says that good is to be done to all men, which, it is said, can be understood to mean that the “church” is to do good unto all men.   Would not the Elvis concert fall into that category?  “Recreation is good; people would enjoy the concert; it might lift their spirits.”  I would reject that argument because the passage teaches individual responsibility, but could the “conservative” institutional groups reject it?   No, the next generation has taken their arguments to a logical conclusion.  (I assume that the “conservatives” among the institutional churches would not go along with a church hosting something like an Elvis concert, and I think that many would not.)

Once the door opens for unauthorized practices, it is opened, as a rule, more extensive as the years pass.  Therefore, we must protest all unauthorized practices and return to the early church pattern.  Think about these things.

(This article was written in the Summer of 1998 and appeared in “The Chapman Acres Quarterly.”  I think that this concert was actually canceled.  Nevertheless, the Biblical principles in the article are still needed. Mike)