Truth Magazine

By Donald Townsley

From time to time men set forth the doctrine that we should “preach Christ” and leave the controversial subjects of the plan of salvation and the church alone. Some say, “just preach the man and not the plan”; others says, “preach Christ and not the church.” Their idea is that we can get more people to listen to us if we don’t identify ourselves with the church of Christ; people are “turned off” by the church, they say. This doctrine is presently being propagated by some and needs to be examined in light of the word of God. Is it possible to “preach the man and not the plan,” or to “preach Christ and not the church”? Let us see what we can learn from God’s word.

Can One Preach Christ Without Preaching The Plan?

The first lesson we all need to learn is that Jesus Christ is revealed to us in the word of God, and to fully preach Christ is to preach him as he is revealed in that Word. Christ is inseparably connected with the Old Testament (Lk. 24:44); he was foreshadowed by the Law (Heb. 10:1-4). Christ is inseparably connected with every book of the New Testament. He is the one Lawgiver (Jas. 4:12); the one who authorized it (Matt. 28:18). He is inseparably connected with all his commands, his promises, his warnings, his church, his supper (the Lord’s Supper), and his plan of salvation. All this being true, we cannot ignore any pan of what he has said without ignoring that much of Christ. We cannot ignore part of his will and be pleasing in his sight (Jas. 2:10).

Philip is an example of one who preached Christ (Acts 8): “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5). “. . . But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). This text says Philip “preached Christ”; what did he preach?

1. “Things concerning the kingdom of God” (the church, Matt. 16:18-19);

2. “The name of Jesus Christ” (Christ’s authority, Matt. 28:18);

3. “They believed . . . were baptized. (the plan of salvation, Acts 2:38; Mk. 16:16).

We can see that in preaching Christ, Philip preached the plan of salvation. What did Peter preach on the day of Pentecost? He preached the plan of salvation (Acts 2:22-38). Christ is not fully preached without the plan; man cannot be saved without obedience to that plan (Rom. 6:17; 2 Thess. 1:8), so it is impossible to “preach the man without the plan.”

Can One Preach Christ And Not Preach The Church?

Christ and the church were inseparable in the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:9-11), and one cannot preach Christ without preaching his church. When Philip preached Christ in Samaria he preached the church (“the things concerning the kingdom of God, ” Acts 8:5,12).

One cannot preach on the blood of Christ and not preach the church. Paul taught that the church was purchased with the blood of Christ (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28). The church, therefore, is inseparably connected with the blood of Christ; to be bought with the blood of Christ is to be in his church. We contact the blood of Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3) and enter the body, the church, by baptism (1 Cor. 12:13); when we are baptized we are bought with the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 6:20), and are added to his church (Acts 2:47). That which Christ purchased with his blood was his church (Acts 20:28), and one cannot fully preach what the New Testament teaches concerning the blood of Jesus Christ without preaching his church.

One cannot preach salvation in Christ without preaching salvation in the church. The apostle Paul said that salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2: 10) and that the church, the body of Christ, is the fulness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23); so every blessing in Christ is enjoyed in the church. Paul told the Ephesians that Christ is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23), and Luke said that the saved are added to the church (Acts 2:47). Since salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2:10); the church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23); Christ is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23); and the saved are added to the church (Acts 2:47), then it follows that salvation is in the church. One cannot, therefore, preach salvation in Christ without preaching salvation in the church.

One cannot preach glory to God in Christ without preaching the church. One cannot give glory to God in Christ without being in the church. Paul said in Ephesian 3:21: “Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever” (ASV). When one is baptized he is baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), and it is God’s will that he (God) be glorified in the church and in Christ.

The importance of the church is seen when we consider that:

1. Christ purchased it – gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28).

2. Christ loved it (Eph. 5:25).

3. Christ is the Savior of it (Eph. 5:23).

4. Christ sanctified and cleansed it (Eph. 5:26).

5. Christ is the head of it (Eph. 1:22-23).

6. It is the fulness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

7. Christ and the church are one (Eph. 5:31-32).

8. Christ will present it to himself a glorious church (Eph. 5:27).

I believe you can see from this short examination of the Scriptures that one cannot fully preach Christ without preaching the plan of salvation and the church. To be ashamed of the church is to be ashamed of Christ because the church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23). Let us never think we can preach Christ and not preach his church. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Let us never be guilty of trying to separate Christ and his church; it is an impossibility if we walk in truth

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, pp. 746-747
December 15, 1988

By David A. Padfield

It is with “fear and trembling” I approach the subject of church bulletins. A few years ago many congregations stopped their bulletis due to increasing postage costs. Some have even suggested that the “day” of church bulletins is over. I believe the printed page is an excellent way to preach the gospel in our day.

Publishing a quality paper requires the skill of a journalist, graphic designer and a journeyman printer. In most congregations these jobs are all given to the local preacher. Since there are many men better qualified to discuss the principles of writing, I will confine this article to the physical make-up of a bulletin, and a few suggestions to help us “adorn” the gospel.

I would like to start with this disclaimer: my bulletin is not perfect! The suggestions made here are simply that, suggestions; they are not hard and fast rules.

Define Your Purpose

There are several good reasons to publish a bulletin, among them are:

(1) Edification. Christians will be built up by a constant exposure to good reading material. Often non-Christians will read copies of bulletins while visiting in the home of Christians.

(2) Evangelism. Non-Christians will profit from articles on the first principles of the gospel. This type of paper is usually mailed to the friends and relatives of Christians, and to individuals living near the meeting house. We have had a few visitors as a direct result of a bulletin.

(3) News & Notes. Larger congregations often mail a weekly newsletter to all members to let them know who is sick, upcoming classes and assignments for the month. Though some will disagree, I fail to see why these newsletters should be mailed to brethren all over the country.

“Bulletin Classics”

Several years ago brother Gene Taylor and I started a file called “Bulletin Classics.” Maybe a better title would be “How Not To Print A Church Bulletin.” This file contains a wide selection of bulletin blunders. I realize there are times when preachers get rushed and mistakes creep into the paper, but most of these “classics” are the result of carelessness.

Every month I receive bulletins where the inside pages are either blank or printed upside down. A blank page is usually the fault of the printing press; upside down papers are the fault of the printer.

Have you ever received a bulletin that looked more like a ransom note? One “editor” used 13 different type styles on one page (I didn’t know rub off letters came in such a wide variety). Another brother apparently suffered from writer’s block for several months, for miniature pieces of clip art used to fill entire pages.

Suggestions

Before anyone can profit from a bulletin, it has to be read. While some will read a bulletin regardless of how it is printed, most will not. To enhance the chances of our bulletins being read, let me offer a few suggestions.

(1) One Type style. The appearance of a small bulletin will be greatly enhanced if you stick to one type style throughout the paper. My personal preference is for the Times Roman font; it is easy to read, and comes in a variety of styles such as bold, outline and italic. If you are going to borrow an article from another paper, it would be best to retype the entire article to match your own format and maintain symmetry.

(2) Clip art. A few pieces of quality artwork can do wonders for any publication. I’m not talking about taping down a piece of line art from the days of the mimeograph. Using appropriate clip art will help draw attention to the article; it is not a substitute for teaching. There are several good sources of clip art, and I would be happy to send you a list of suppliers. Unfortunately, good clip art is not cheap due to the widespread “stealing” practiced by some.

(3) Paper Stock. Though not a necessity, colored paper is much more eye appealing than plain white stock. Light blue or green are usually good choices.

(4) Quality Control. All of the effort put into publishing a bulletin will be of no avail unless you inspect the finished product. Careless folding and upside down mailing labels certainly detract from a bulletin.

Conclusion

There are several good bulletins which I enjoy reading. One of my favorite is edited by Dick Blackford in Owensboro, Kentucky. Some congregations publish newsletters which are passed out at Sunday services. Greg Gwin in Knoxville, Tennessee, and Gene Taylor in Tallahassee, Florida, print two of the best I have seen. I’m sure these two men would be happy to mail you a sample copy.

I hope this article is not perceived as being overly critical. Let’s all strive to put our best foot forward while teaching in print. If you publish a bulletin, I would appreciate being placed on your mailing list.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, p. 745
December 15, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Sydney E. AhIstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 451.

In 1829 the Baptists listed the “error” taught by the Disciples. Ahlstrom summarizes their charges: “1. They distinguish simply between the Old and New Covenants and hence abolish the Law of Moses. 2. They hold conversion to be wrought through the Word alone without any direct operation of the Holy Spirit. . . . 3. They believe baptism should be administered on profession of belief that Jaw is the Christ, without examination of experience or consent of the church. 4. They believe that baptism procures the remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit. It is thus man’s obedience which alone can bring him within the purview of God’s ‘electing’ grace. 5. They believe that none have a special call to the ministry and that all baptized persons have the right to administer the ordinance of baptism. . . . 6. They believe that the Christianity of the New Testament is simple and clear, with no element of mystery or mysticism. Creeds and enthusiasm, which obscure this fact, are therefore not to be tolerated.” Some points might need slight clarification, but in general this summary is a remarkably clear statement of the distinctive plea of the restoration movement. As much as 150 years ago, these important truths provide clear landmarks between the churches of Christ and those of men.

I call for a return to preaching this distinctive plea. I understand that this is not the fulness of the gospel. We should not neglect the great truths which we hold in common with most of those who claim the title “Christian.” But must we vacillate wildly between two extremes? One generation preaches the “distinctive” truths to the neglect of all else in the Scriptures. The next generation discovers that vast body of neglected truth and belittles and rejects the distinctive truths.

I wonder how clearly the younger generation today understands the distinctive plea of the church. I wonder how clearly they grasp the New Testament teaching on the law, the operation of the Holy Spirit, the significance of baptism, the rejection of a clergy, and the essential simplicity of New Testament Christianity. I wonder how clearly the world understands the enormity of these differences.

We are in a period of the maturing of conservative churches. As our knowledge becomes broader, deeper and more perspective let us not forget our distinctive plea. Billy Graham says many things the world needs to hear, but the world needs to hear some things he will not say. – Ed Harrell

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, p. 750
December 15, 1988

By Dan Walters

Some of those who believe that we can achieve unity in the church without understanding or obeying the New Testament Scriptures have made an interesting argument. They say that the New Covenant was complete on Pentecost, but that the New Testament Scriptures were not available until many years later. Therefore, many Christians lived and died without the benefit of these Scriptures, yet they were saved under the New Covenant. Their line of reasoning is a mixture of truth and error. It is true that the New Covenant and the last 27 books of the Bible that we call the New Testament are not the same thing. In fact all the history that is recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John occurred before the New Covenant came into effect. Just as the Old Covenant is contained within the first 39 books of the Bible, but not everything within those books is actually the Old Covenant, it is also true that the New Covenant is contained within the last 27 books, but not everything in those books is the New Covenant. A covenant is an agreement, or a contract. The New Covenant is the agreement between God and his spiritual children through the mediatorship of Christ. When those 3000 people on Pentecost accepted and obeyed the first principles of the gospel, they were then in covenant relationship with God. But did that covenant include any obligation on the part of those people other than obeying the first principles? It certainly did. Part of the gospel they accepted was that “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). When the 3000 were baptized into Christ they accepted him as their Lord and master. That is, they agreed to be guided by his commands.

Those commands included not only those things that Christ had spoken on earth, but other things that the apostles had not been ready to receive at that time. These truths would be revealed by the Holy Spirit later (Jn. 16:12,13). We read that those 3000 persons converted on Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). This doctrine was not only what they remembered of Christ’s own words, spoken in the flesh, but included new teaching revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. They could not receive all such teaching in one day, anymore than a newborn babe in Christ can receive everything in the written New Testament Scriptures in one day. But they did receive all of this teaching, part by part, and they certainly did not have to wait until they had it in written form in order to understand it and obey it. The apostles did not have to teach all of this personally since God appointed some to be prophets in the church (Eph. 4:11). These inspired men taught in all the congregations long before the word was in written form.

As this doctrine was being revealed, did the early Christians have the option of ignoring it or rejecting it and still remaining loyal to the New Covenant? Paul said that they did not. He wrote to the Thessalonian brethren: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). Paul had neither more nor less authority than the other apostles. And the teaching received through the inspired prophets was identical with the teaching of the apostles and was upheld by the apostles. A Christian’s faithfulness to Christ under the terms of the New Covenant was dependent upon his accepting and obeying this apostolic teaching as it was revealed to him. If he rejected it, he was rejecting Christ as Lord.

We are not to think that any of the directions for faithful living found in the New Testament Scriptures was unknown until 70 A.D., or later. The fact that they were in oral form made them no less important or less binding. So we conclude that the early Christians did have the benefit of the New Testament Scriptures, though not in present form, and that they did understand these teachings to be a part of the New Covenant.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, p. 749
December 15, 1988