HE WHO IS NOT AGAINST US IS ON OUR SIDE

By Nana Yaw Aidoo

Somewhere in Galilee, Jesus in the company of His disciples had just predicted His death, burial and resurrection. As they journeyed from that region of Galilee to Capernaum, the twelve who had just been taught about the cross, began to dispute about who would be the greatest in the kingdom. When they got to Capernaum, Jesus Christ who had enquired of the dispute among them pointed out to them the error of such reasoning. As Jesus spoke, John who remembered a past incident said; "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." (Mark 9:38). Jesus replied saying; "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side" (Mark 9:39-40).

Denominationalists contend that Jesus over here was encouraging denominationalism and that regardless of the church one is a member of, he is approved by God. It's a sad day in Zion, when people go to such lengths to justify organized division, which is nothing but a work of the flesh (1 Cor.1:10; 3:3-4). Why would the same Jesus who taught "one flock and one Shepherd" (John 10:16), turn around and advocate "many flocks"?

Since all churches teach different and contradictory doctrines, to use this text to justify denominationalism implies that the one who was forbidden by John and the apostles was teaching and practicing different things from Christ and the twelve. To illustrate, we see that Baptists teach salvation by faith "alone" (James 2:14-26) whiles the Lord's church teaches salvation by an obedient faith (Rom.1:5; 16:26; Gal.5:6; Heb.5:9). It is contended that regardless of this, and regardless of these groups being different and separate groups, then "we be brethren" (Gen.13:8). This assumes that the forbidden person was teaching something different from Christ and the twelve. This assumes too much.

First of all the forbidden one was working miracles in the name of Jesus. To do something in the name of Jesus is to do it by His power/authority (Acts 4:7) and with His approval. It's absolutely inconceivable to think that Christ would approve of someone who taught differently from Him (Amos 3:3; Luke 6:46; 2 John 9). It is evident however that this person had the approval of Christ and so of a certainty, he did not teach contrary to Christ and the twelve. Are we to believe that those who teach salvation by faith "alone" have the approval of Christ, when He plainly says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16)?

Secondly, the design of miracles was for the confirmation of scripture (Mark 16:20; Heb.2:2-4). If this person was teaching something different from Christ and the twelve, then we have God confirming contradictory teachings because this person was working miracles in Jesus' name and with His approval.

Thirdly, Christ wasn't teaching about churches but was correcting the selfish ideas of His friends. They had just been taught about the cross, which was a symbol of humility and yet they were still seeking things like prestige and recognition, which rather boost the egos of men. John's recollection of the incident evidences one who was envious of another for doing something he thought was meant for him and those in his group alone. How many friendships have been ruined by this kind of "me-first" and "me-only" attitude? To read denominations into this is to handle the scriptures deceitfully (2 Cor.4:2).

It is a fact that besides the twelve, Christ had other disciples who also worked for Him, most notably the seventy disciples of Luke 10. The twelve, bar Judas would go on to become apostles in the church but the seventy disciples of Luke 10 nonetheless were also disciples of Christ. Just as the apostles were sent on the limited commission (Matt.10), these seventy disciples, even though not restricted like the twelve, were also commissioned to go and preach the exact same message (see Matt.10:7 and Luke 10:9) and were doubtless empowered to work miracles to confirm the message. They spoke the exact same message (cf. 1 Cor.4:17) thus making this case irrelevant to the issue of denominations. This person could have been a part of the seventy. If he were, then he was on Jesus' side, just not part of the twelve. And being on Jesus' side, then he acted in the name of Christ and with the approval of Christ, since he would doubtless have taught exactly what Christ and the twelve taught.

This can't be said of denominations and thus the situation isn't parallel to the issue. Therefore it can't be used to justify religious division and confusion. God is not the author of division and confusion (1 Cor.14:33). The bible says "believe and confess" (Rom.10:9), "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). Denominationalists on the other hand teach salvation by faith "alone", adding "alone" to texts where God did no such thing. Some teach that Christ's plan to build His kingdom was stopped by the Jews and so the church being an afterthought was put in its place. Thus, making Jesus anything but omnipotent and a mere "crown prince" rather than the King of kings He is. Clearly, denominations don't teach what the bible teaches and certainly don't have the approval of Christ. Not having the approval of Christ, it can't be said they're acting in the name of Christ. Thus, the situation being as it is, then it can't be parallel to Mark 9:38-40.

Denominationalism is sinful and we urge all our denominational friends to "seek the old paths" in order to find "rest for your souls" (Jer.6:16).