Tom Ruhkala's Exclusivism
Nancy Grace interviewed Tom Ruhkala,
a Baptist preacher, on CNN on March 27, 2006. Her interview was prompted by the
death of Matthew Winkler, evangelist for the Fourth Street Church of Christ at
Selmer, Tennessee. Nancy Grace asked Ruhkala about the
churches of Christ. Among the ridiculous charges against churches of Christ was
this: "They claim that if you're not baptized by one of their ministers you're doomed to
hell, even if you're a believer in Jesus Christ." I know hundreds of preachers among
churches of Christ. I never heard one of them make that statement in my whole
life. Ruhkala also commented: "You have to be a member of their narrow sect. It's a very
exclusive group. And if you're not a member of their sect, you're condemned."
I have three questions for you to consider. Are modern churches of Christ an
"exclusive group?" Is the New Testament church an "exclusive
group?" Does Tom Ruhkala belong to an "exclusive group?" I shall
answer these questions in the reverse order I have listed them.
A friend of mine in Leeds, Alabama,
sent me a copy of an e-mail from a group calling itself "Baptist
Mid-Missions." The Ruhkalas moved to Finland to do mission work with that
group. Under the heading, "Goals," the e-mail provides the following information about
the Ruhkalas: "The Ruhkalas have not found other traditional Bible-believing churches in
Finland with which to fellowship. Nor have they found camps, radio ministries,
youth works, or Bible institutes they can recommend wholeheartedly to the Finns. Also,
most of the Christian literature that is currently published in Finnish promotes
Lutheranism or the Charismatic Movement and is therefore unusable." If you
listened carefully to what I read from the e-mail, did you get the impression
that the Ruhkalas are a very exclusive family? Can they not fellowship people
from Lutheranism or from the Charismatic movement? I am not criticizing Tom Ruhkala for
being an exclusivist. The truth is: Everybody regardless of his religious affiliation or lack of
affiliation is an exclusivist. So far as I can discover, there are no exceptions to that observation.
I shall illustrate
what I am saying to you. Philip Gulley and James Mulholland, two Quaker
preachers, wrote a book with the title, If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save
Every Person (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003). Over and over,
these two preachers repeat: "I believe God will save every person"
(pp. 8, 11, 89, etc). Are the beliefs of these radical preachers exclusive
views? Please listen to a few excerpts from their illogical and unbiblical
book. "I'll assert God's will is
the redemption of the whole world....God doesn't restrict his communication to
the Bible. He doesn't confine his presence to any single denomination or
religion" (pp. 18-19). They assert: We "visited prisons and became
friends of murderers, rapists, and child molesters. As I made room for these people in my life here on earth, I had to consider
making room for them in heaven" (p. 34). These unreasonable authors
are exclusive in their attempts to be
inclusive.
John Shelby Spong vigorously attacks virtually every fundamental
of the Christian faith. He does not accept the exclusivism of the New
Testament. He establishes an exclusivism of his own—a ridiculous and unchristian
exclusivism—but an exclusivism nevertheless. In his book, Why
Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), the former Episcopal bishop affirms:
"We must read them (the gospels) today not to discover the literal truth
about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking
to convey" (p. 107). If we must read the gospels for any reason, is that
not an exclusive claim?
In his book, Living in Sin?: A Bishop
Rethinks Human Sexuality (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers,
1988), Spong promotes an exclusivist view of human sexuality. He seems to believe
that almost any expression of sexuality is permissible. While he repudiates the
exclusiveness of biblical moral values, he engages in an exclusiveness of his own. He
excludes from consideration those who reject evolution, the homosexual
lifestyle, religious fundamentalism, the infallibility of the scriptures, the
virgin birth of Christ, Christ's physical resurrection and the Lord's second
coming. He almost certainly would not call his views exlusivism, but those who read his books certainly would.
You can understand from our discussion thus
far that everyone to some extent is exclusivist—no exceptions. Is Tom Ruhkala an
exclusivist? He could not find in Finland anyone to fellowship except Lutherans
and Charismatics. According to his own testimony, he could not wholeheartedly
recommend their work and worship. That unquestionably is his prerogative, but how
can he criticize churches of Christ for being exclusive when he is exclusive? Do you
remember what Paul asked the Roman Christians? "You who teach another, do
you teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you
steal" (Rom. 2:21)? When one practices the things for which he condemns
others, is that not being a hypocrite? It is my judgment Tom Ruhkala cannot
avoid being an exclusivist; nor can anyone else. But should he not be able to recognize
that fact?
Is the church of the New Testament an
exclusive body? How can any careful student of the New Testament doubt that?
For example, faithful gospel preachers and other Christians in the first
century rejected every doctrine and practice that did not harmonize with
apostolic doctrine. Romans, the Corinthian letters, Galatians and other New
Testament books make that truth too plain for honest students of the word to
deny. A few excerpts from Galatians will prove that the early church was
exclusivist. Paul wrote in very plain language: "I marvel that you are so
soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel: which is not another; but there are some who trouble you, and would
pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As
we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that you have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9).
There were some teachers among the
Galatian churches who were adding some of the teachings of the Mosaic law to the
gospel of Christ. In so doing, they were inventing a new religion. If portions
of the law of Moses which came from the very mind of God could not be added to the
gospel without corrupting it, certainly no other addition could be made to the gospel.
Paul asked the Galatians: "O foolish Galatians (literally, O stupid
Galatians), who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before
whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you" (Gal.
3:1)? Were Paul and the Galatians being exclusivistic when they rejected the
judaizing teachers among the Galatian churches? Does Tom Ruhkala believe the
Galatian Christians were wrong in their exclusive ideas about the gospel?
All of the churches in the first century were
concerned—or at least, should have been concerned—about compromising the gospel
of Christ. They constantly faced various forms of paganism. Paul knew the
temptations that confronted the Corinthians and warned: "Be not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with
unrighteousness? And what communion has light and darkness? And what
concord has Christ with Belial? And what agreement has the temple of God with
idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God has said, I will dwell in them,
and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore
come out from among them, and be separate says the Lord, and touch not the unclean
thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons
and daughters, says the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Was Paul
preaching exclusivism among the Lord's people at Corinth? You know he was. He
had no other choice; that is, if he wanted God's approval.
There is much more in the New
Testament that proves that the church of our Lord was exclusivistic. But I must
examine briefly some statements from the gospel according to John. I ask you to pay
close attention to the little definite article "the" in the verses I
shall read from John. Jesus told his disciples: "I am the living bread
that came
down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). "I am the
door of the sheep....I am the good shepherd" (John 10:7, 11). "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man comes unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6). "I
am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman...I am the vine and you are
the branches: he who abides in me, and in I him, the same brings forth much
fruit: but without me you can do nothing" (John 15:1, 5).
What did Jesus mean when he told some
of his fellow Jews: "I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your
sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins"
(John 8:24)? When Peter and John were on trial before the Jewish council at Jerusalem,
the apostle Peter told the Jewish leaders: "You rulers of the people, and elders
of Israel, If we this day be examined concerning the good deed done to the
impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to
all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom you
crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here
before you whole. This is the stone that was set at nought by you builders, which
has become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved" (Acts 4:8-12). How can words more exclusive than what I have just
read to you?
Are churches of Christ an exclusivist
group? Time will not permit a full discussion of this question, but I must make
a few observations before our time expires. For example, faithful churches of
Christ teach that the Mosaic covenant ended on the day of Pentecost. We do not
live under the law of Moses, but under the gospel of Christ. Stephen
L. Carter, a law professor at Yale University, published an outstanding book with
the title, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics
Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: BasicBooks, 1993). I am a
Stephen Carter fan. I have five of his books and have profited greatly from my
reading of Stephen Carter's literary productions. But he does not understand the
relationship of the gospel to the Jewish covenant. He affirms: "As a
Christian, I have no doubt of either the continuing validity of God's covenant with
Israel (see Romans 11:29) or of my own spiritual inheritance from the Old
Testament tradition. I am perplexed by the insistence of so many believing Christians
that Jews can find salvation only by rejecting the special covenant that has
nurtured them through centuries of hostility and horror" (p. 88).
In my judgment, one
of the clearest teachings of the New Testament is the abolition of the
Jewish covenant and the establishment of the new. Why would our Lord tell some
of the Jews: "Except you believe that I am he you shall die in your
sins" (John 8:24)? Our Lord's ministry did not apply to the Jews. His
covenant did not begin until the day of Pentecost, the birthday of the church. There are
many passages that teach the truth I am emphasizing, but none more clearly than
Hebrews. For example, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto
us by his Son, whom he had appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds" (Heb. 1:1-2). Can any person reject the truths that were spoken by
the Son of God and still be saved? If he can, the words of Hebrews do not make sense.
The author of Hebrews quotes
Jeremiah's words concerning the coming of the new covenant. He then affirms:
"In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that
which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:8-13). The
English Standard Version renders verse 13: "In speaking of a new covenant,
he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old
is ready to vanish away." Did Stephen Carter know about these verses from
Hebrews? And
what about these words from the same author: "Then he said, Lo, I come to
do thy will,
O God. He takes away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:9-10)?
First and second what? He is speaking of the first covenant—the law of Moses—and the
second covenant—the gospel of Christ. God removed the first covenant that he
might establish the second. Was the author of Hebrews being exclusive? How any
truth can be plainer than what I have read to you from Hebrews I cannot imagine?
Faithful churches of Christ teach that
Christians must meet every Lord's day to partake of the Lord's supper and to engage
in other authorized acts of worship. Very few New Testament scholars deny that the
early church met every Lord's day and partook of the Lord's supper every Lord's
day. Many within the religious world think that such teaching and practice is too
demanding and too exclusivistic. But there is hardly any doubt the author of
Hebrews had such meeting in mind when he wrote: "Let us hold fast the
profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And
let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking
the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting
one another, and so much the more, as you see the day approaching" (Heb.
10:23-25).
In his outstanding set of books, Word
Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: The Sunday School Board of the
Southern Baptist Convention, 1932), Dr. A. T. Robertson, the great Greek
scholar, comments on verse 25: "Already some Christians had formed
the habit of not attending public worship, a perilous habit then and now"
(volume 5, p. 412). When we teach that Christians have a sacred obligation to
attend all the worship services of the local church, are we being exclusivist? Incidentally, many
churches, including most churches of Christ, teach what the Bible says about regular
attendance at all the services, but not all of them practice it.
Let us talk for a few minutes about the plan
of salvation. Are we being exclusivist when we preach the absolute necessity of believing
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God? You know the Bible teaches
that doctrine, but many liberals and even some evangelicals accuse those who
teach it of being intolerant and exclusivist. In view of what our Lord himself
said, how can anyone doubt the necessity of believing in Christ? "For God
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). If we can be saved
without believing in Christ, his words in the Golden Text of the Bible are
meaningless.
Are churches of Christ being
needlessly exclusive when we argue that faith alone cannot save? Have you noticed,
especially in the book of Romans, how strongly the Bible emphasizes obedience?
"But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you. Being
then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:17-18). Is Paul
teaching that the Romans were made free from sin and became servants of
righteousness when they obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine that was delivered to
them? Must we obey from the heart the teaching of scripture to be made free
from sin and to become servants of righteousness? If this is the exclusivism Tom Ruhkala
condemned, I plead guilty to be an exclusivist.
For some reason I have not yet been able to
understand, the real conflict between churches of Christ and some religious
groups related to the Bible's teaching on baptism. When we preach—as we must to
be faithful to the divine record—that alien sinners must be baptized to be
saved and to be added to the Lord's church, we are accused of being
exclusivist. But that is precisely what the New Testament teaches. How else can
these words be interpreted: "For you are all the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ"
(Gal. 3:26-27)? Do you believe it is essential that we put on Christ to be
saved? Then you must be baptized since it is in baptism that we put on Christ.
It is also
in baptism that our alien sins are forgiven (Acts 2:38), we are added to the
church (1 Cor. 12:13) and our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16).
We must be exclusive when the Bible demands
exclusiveness.
Winford Claiborne
The
International Gospel Hour
P.O.
Box 118
Fayetteville,
TN 37334
Back
to Home Page
Back to Transcripts Titles