Truth Magazine

By Charles G. Goodall

Israel of old looked at the nations about them and said to God,, “Give us a king.” Brethren in recent years have looked at the denominations said to God, “Give us control” or “give us conversions.” Specifically, Crossroads and Boston have provided such attraction. Brethren, who should know better, have “picked and sorted” among the Crossroads strategies, and made the trek to Gainesville or Boston allegedly to find out “the good things” that they are doing.

It is categorically untrue and deceptive to say that Crossroads and Boston are doing a “lot of good things.” Jesus said of the false teachers of his day that “ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two fold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). Crossroads and Boston are wrong, wrong, wrong! They have the wrong system of evangelism and conversion(1), the wrong baptism, the wrong approach to the Scriptures, the wrong organization, and the wrong edification system.

Those in the Boston movement teach that “disciple’s baptism” is necessary for salvation.(2) Disciple’s baptism requires that one understand before he is baptized that he must foresee that he must undergo a program which will require him to be a “discipleship partner” for a “discipler. ” Gordon Ferguson, in the May 29 issue of the Boston Bulletin, said, “To baptize a person who has not made a decision to be a disciple (Boston style, CGG) is to baptize someone who does not understand repentance. . . Anyone who does not approach baptism with that understanding has been mistaught . . . Those who are offended by this teaching are for the most part those who are threatened by the possibility that they may not be Christians. ” Nothing could be more absurd and further from the truth. Baptism of the New Testament required none of the Boston “methodology.” “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16) were the instructions given Saul of Tarsus.

Boston teaches that they are obtaining a progressive revelation of God’s word.(3) They cite Philippians 3:15 as proof that God continues to reveal the truth to his followers. They maintain that “one church per city, every member evangelism, discipleship partners, training of ministers through discipling relationships, women leading women, church reconstructions, disciple’s baptism, and evangelists discipling elders” have been revealed to them by God in modem times. They prefer the motto, according to Ferguson, “Where the Bible speaks we are silent, where the Bible is silent we speak.”(4) The Bible, by contrast, teaches that we have been provided with every good work (2 Tim. 3:16) and that revelation has been given once and for all (Jude 3).

The Boston system, with its Romish arrangement of “pillar churches,” “reconstruction,” “zone leaders,” and “house church leaders,”(5) is a long way from the autonomous New Testament church with elders conducting the oversight (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28). Boston alleges, “The idea of a non-cooperative . . . separation from each other as congregations is absolutely non-Biblical . . . contrary to the purpose of God and sinful.”(6)

Boston methodology subjects a convert to a system that enslaves the new member in order to expedite his growth. The system was conceived in Catholicism and exploited in communism. While Jesus, as God, may well have ordered the lives of the disciples while they prepared to be apostles, one would be totally inept to produce any suggestions from him or the apostles that he wants us to do that, much less what Boston does, with men today. The methods they use violate one’s freedom in Christ as well as his free moral agency.

Someone says, “they are zealous, sincere, and courageous.” Paul said of those of a similar temperament, “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:2-3).

The cold reality which my brethren who look with envy on Boston will not accept is that most people will not accept the truth. The disciples in effect asked Jesus near the end of his ministry, “Lord, is this all?” (Jn. 12:36-38) The lessons of “many be called, but few chosen” and “narrow” is the way to salvation and “broad” is the path to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14; 20:16) are echoed through almost every chapter of the Bible. The stark reality is that mass conversions are not to be expected and that when they do occur the methods of those with astounding results should be viewed with great scrutiny and care.

Brethren in various congregations, who have viewed the methodology of Boston with favor, have introduced what I call “friendship evangelism” and have reflected unfavorably on what they call the “common approach. ” The “common approach” they feet emphasizes too much the commandments, the church, the kingdom and the use of proof texts especially when it comes to baptism in conversion. They espouse instead a method that would forego such exposure. In their terminology they prefer to focus on love, the king, and spiritual experiences without seeing others as the ones who are wrong with God and as sinners who displease him. This “friendship evangelism” would forego or postpone exposure to the reality that Christ has promised to save only those uniquely in his body (Eph. 4:23). What the system does is hide the uniqueness of the church from the convert until what those who use the approach consider a more favorable time. The result is that a congregation is able to work with a much larger base of “converts” and apparently with much greater success than neighboring congregations.

Brethren, always ready to be “where it is happening” suddenly flock to be a part of the excitement. The problem is that there is no guarantee that those converted by such a system will remove themselves from influence and participation when they refuse to accept the uniqueness of the Lord’s people. Instead, from their perception of a brotherhood of saved on a much larger scale, they are in a position to wreck havoc on a congregation.

Boston and Crossroads are changing almost daily. Recently Crossroads in Gainesville refused “reconstruction” from Boston and have struck out on their own.(7) They still use the same ungodly methods they always have, they are just not in the Boston hierarchy.

In conclusion, we observe that the effect of using Boston methods is parallel to the effect of the social gospel appeal. We told our digressive brethren who tried to lure people with fried chicken and ice tea that the converts would be as cold as the chicken and weak as the tea. Brethren who try to lure people with a feather touch and a pitcher of warmth will find the converts as flighty as the feathers and as empty as the pitcher. Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Conversions of the New Testament involved a radical immediate exposure to the truths of the gospel. The result was, “See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? “, “And now why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized,” and “. . the same hour of the night” he was taken to be baptized (Acts 8, 16, 22). Can we expect less in our day and time.

Endnotes

1. Charles Goodall, The Crossroads Heresy.

2. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, May 29, 1988.

3. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, May 1, 1988.

4. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, May 8, 1988.

5. Maurice Barnett, The Discipling Movement, pp. 59-95.

6. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, June 5, 1988.

7. (Note: Original document did not include corresponding number within article). The Growing Local Church, church workbook, p.14.

7. The Christian Chronicle, April, 1988.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 715-716
December 1, 1988

By James W. Adams

Unto him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen (Eph. 3:20,21).

Antecedent to our text, Paul had prayed for the understanding of the Ephesians to be enlightened that they might know: (1) the hope of God’s calling; (2) the riches of the glory of God’s inheritance in the saints; (3) the exceeding greatness of God’s power toward the believer (Eph. 1:15-19). God’s hope in calling the believer out of the world was to save him from the love of sin in the heart, the practice of sin in the life, and the guilt of sin in the conscience, and in Christ, to transform him by divine power into the spiritual image of the Son of God. The aggregate of such redeemed and transformed believers constituted for God a rich and glorious inheritance. With this in mind, Paul had previous ly said that, when the Lord returned to “judge the world in righteous ness,” he would also “come to be r, glorified in his saints, and to be ad mired in all them that believe” (2 Thess. 1:6-10). He had said also, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18).

To encourage the Ephesians to fulfill God’s hope, Paul prayed for them to accept it as a practical possibility. To assure them that such was so, he directs them away from their purely human power as the means of accomplishment to the almighty power of God which would work in them – the power demonstrated in the resurrection of Jesus.

Reaching a glorious climax in his crescendo of praise of God’s provisions for human redemption,’Paul looks back to his opening prayer and says, “Unto him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power which works in us (emphasis jwa), unto him be glory in the church of Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.” Based on this text, some erroneously refer to themselves as “The Church By Jesus Christ.” This is an abuse of the text. While the church is built, purchased, and possessed by Christ (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28), this is not what Paul is saying in our text. “Be the glory” is the predicate of the sentence: “glory” is modified by three prepositional. phrases: (1) in the church; (2) by Christ Jesus; (3) throughout all ages. In this text, the glory is by Christ Jesus as to source from whence it comes, and in Christ Jew as to the relationship in which it is enjoyed and by which it is manifested. “By Christ Jesus. ” modifies “glory,” not “church.

How God’s Power Works In Us

Paul had prayed also that the Ephesians “be strengthened by his (God’s jwa) Spirit in the inner man, that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith, that being rooted and grounded in love, they might be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, length, depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge, that they might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:16-19). God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit and here pictured as working in the inner man of the believer to effect the purpose of God.

Please observe that this “in working” is through the avenue of the believer’s faith (v. 17). In his letter to the Romans, Paul affirms: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). In keeping with this, he also said, “By revelation was made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words; whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Eph. 3:2,3). God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit work in the believer, to effect God’s purposes and realize his “hopes,” through the inspired words of the apostles of Jesus Christ. The redemption, sanctification, transformation, and eternal glorification of the believer are thus accomplished. Hence it was, that Paul wrote, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16).

Contrary to the belief and teaching of many, even many devout and reputable conservative brethren, neither the first, second, nor third person of the Godhead dwells personally in the body and soul of the believer. Their influence and their power permeate the heart and life of the believer to edify, perfect, and eternally save him through the instrumentality of Divine truth, called “the implanted word which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). We are: begotten by the word (Jas. 1:18; 1 Cor. 4:15); born of it (1 Pet. 1:22,23); sanctified by it (John 17:17); nourished by it (1 Pet. 2:1,2; Heb. 5: 12-14); transformed by it (2 Cor. 3:18); and ultimately justified or condemned by what it says and our response to it (Jas. 2:12; John 12:48; Rev. 20:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). It furnishes us with “all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), and by it we are perfected for the accomplishment of everything the Lord would have us believe, do, and become (2 Tim. 3:16,17). These inspired facts leave no room for any sort of operation or in working of the Holy Spirit in the believer independent of and in addition to the word of the Lord.

A Voice From The Past

In my judgment one of the finest treatise ever written on “The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit” was written by G. W. Longan, one of the early preachers of “The Restoration Movement. ” It was published, along with other articles in what was called: “A Symposium on the Holy Spirit.” I should like to close with a statement from our brother’s pen:

“Let us insist that God, in the sphere of redemption, is immanent in truth, in the forces of truth – that he quickens morally dead sinners, sustains and comforts believers, ‘in no case, by naked, mechanical impact, but evermore through influences mediated by truth, and thereby divinely correlated with the voluntary activities of the human soul.

“The soul of every believer is as distinctly conscious of God’s truth in casual connection with each heaven-born longing, aspiration, impulse, each breathing of hope, love, and joy, as it is of these moods and states themselves. It is this truth that, by faith, makes the heart of the Christian a well-spring of spiritual life.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, pp. 737, 750, 754
December 15, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the heading above, Bill Jackson recently wrote:

All believers in the Bible know that error is defeated by truth. That is so, whether it is error from outside the church, or some kind of error embraced by some in the kingdom. Within the kingdom, error is often seen in hobbyism brethren going off on some tangent – and it has been so since the Judaizers began their work in the first century. But hobbyism, by its very nature, is a deviation from the norm of truth, and will hold positions that truth will show to be error.

Probably the greatest hurt done to the church in nearly 2,000 years, and before the current liberalism crisis, was by those who have been called the “anti-cooperation” folks. Many members of the church can remember when this hobby began, and they also will be able to recall that points of doctrine have been added all along, showing that the system was of human origin, for God doesn’t have to update his doctrine!

But to our point on the snares “built in.” The hobbyists began to speak against congregations cooperating together in works, but usually the point of emphasis was on money. Faithful brethren then pointed out that the church in Antioch sent goods to the brethren in Judea, and that the funds went to the elders (Acts 11:27-30). More, brethren then pointed out that Paul took contributions, in his work among many congregations, and that many congregations thus sent aid to the Jewish brethren in their time of need. Thus, truth answered the hobby! But then the cry is raised, “But that was in benevolence! Brethren cannot use benevolence passages to justify works in the realm of evangelism! ” Hobbyism then had developed the human rule regarding “benevolence passages” and “evangelistic passages,” and never the twain shall meet!

Well, hobbyism has snares “built in.” Those who love truth then pointed out that evangelism (including the local preacher’s salary and salaries of all missionaries) is supported by the funds of 1 Corinthains 16:1,2, which is a benevolence passage! Down goes the hobbyistic point! No hobbyism can stand the searchlight of truth, and that’s why the hobbyist will hope that brethren will believe him, “no questions asked! ” (Bill Jackson, The Southwesterner, Vol XV, No. 47, September 14, 1988, pp. 1, 2)

Brother Jackson, along with Garland Elkins, Roy Deaver, Tom Warren, Alan Highers and others, is in a fight to the death with “the current liberalism crisis.” Much of what he has written lately sounds like the “antis” of both the 19th and 20th centuries. Those who sanctioned the “tangent” of dining rooms and cafeterias (a.k.a. “fellowship halls”) and attempted to water down “anti” objections with “Wee Willie the Water Cooler” are now fighting “Family Life Centers.” Suddenly, their entertainment recreational facilities have become full grown, full blown health spas ministering to I ‘the felt needs of the whole man.” They loved the kitten, but they hate the incorrigible, fat cat it has become. They loved their camps, retreats, bridal showers and church socials when they were cute, controllable little puppies, but they despise the big, belligerent dogs they have become. Their tangents, or side roads, have become industrial spurs, replete with institutional appendages that attach themselves to innovations unknown to the New Testament.

Brother Jackson would not have “the current liberalism crisis” that threatens to envelope and engulf him if he had listened to the “antis” who warned him that his tangents would evolve into Frankensteinian monsters. “Crossroads” and “Herald of Truth” are but two examples. The colleges are another. From them, the promoters of “the current liberalism crisis” are being produced like bolts in a factory.

Brother Jackson says, “Many members . . . can remember when this (‘anti-cooperation’) hobby began.” If so, those “many members” must be over 100 years old. See the writings of Ben Franklin in his book of sermons. Read David Lipscomb in the Gospel Advocate on “this hobby.” But suppose those who disagree with brother Jackson were to say, “Many members . . . can remember when this ‘anti’ Family Life Center hobby began,” or, “Many members . . . can remember when this ‘anti’ Crossroads hobby began.” Would that prove that brother Jackson’s opposition to those things was invalid?

“‘Anti-Cooperation’ Folks”

Brother Jackson likely would not appreciate the Christian Church if they labeled him and his brethren as “the ‘anti-music’ folks. ” He is not anti-music per se. He is opposed to mechanical instruments of music in worship, but he is not antis-criptural music; namely, singing and making melody in the heart in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Just so, there are no . . . anti-cooperation’ folks.” All believers accept scriptural cooperation of churches (2 Cor. 11:8; Rom. 15:25, 26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8; 9). However, some oppose (are anti) arrangements whereby one church oversees the funds and function of other churches.

Were Benjamin Franklin and David Lipscomb “the ‘anti-missionary’ folks” of their day? No, and they would have resented such a libelous label. Their “anti-ism” regarding missionary societies did not make them opposed to preaching the gospel to the lost. Likewise, when one objects to pianos and organs in worship, he is not anti-music. When one opposes certain forms of cooperation, he is not anti-cooperation; that is, he is not against scriptural, congregational cooperation.

Works And Money

Brother Jackson says, “The hobbyists began to speak against congregations cooperating together in works, but usually the point of emphasis was on money.

(1) Scriptural, congregational cooperation “in works” must not be spoken against (2, Cor. 11:8; 1 Cor. 16:1).

(2) Unscriptural cooperative arrangements often involve error both “in works” and “money.” Brethren opposed the Missionary Society’s involvement “in works” not assigned by the Lord and as a misuse of “money.”

(3) Brother Jackson opposes “Family Life Centers.” Suppose those who have them (and they are legion in “the current liberalism crisis”) were to say, “Brother Jackson has begun to speak against Family Life Centers and their works, but usually the point of emphasis is on money. ” Would that be a fair representation of brother Jackson’s views on the issues involved? Hardly.

(4) Suppose those among brother Jackson’s brethren who want the colleges in the budget of all the churches were to say, “The hobbyists began to speak-against congregations cooperating together in (college) works, but usually the point of emphasis is on money.” What would Foy E. Wallace, Jr. have said to that? What would a young Guy N. Woods have said to that?

(5) Brethren Jackson, Elkins, Deaver, Warren, Highers, etc., to their credit, are opposed to the loose leanings, liberalism and denominationalism of the Herald of Truth as it presently exists. Suppose the Herald of Truth were to issue a statement aimed against them by saying, “The hobbyists (Getwell Road church, Memphis, Elkins, Jackson, Deaver, Highers, etc.) began to speak against congregations cooperating together in works, but usually the point of emphasis was on money (since the afore-mentioned hobbyists ceased to solicit funds for Herald of Truth).” Would that be a fair assessment of their opposition to Herald of Truth?

Acts 11:27-30

Yes, brother Jackson, “faithful brethren” have always “pointed out that the church in Antioch sent goods (‘relief) to the brethren in Judea, and that the funds went to the elders (Acts 11:27-30).” Unfortunately, other brethren, like Bill Jackson, have argued for an intermediary, congregational agent from that text. They argued (see chart at top of right column):

Thus, a pattern for such things as Herald of Truth was sought from the text. Brother Jackson’s comments cited above are not what the “antis” opposed. The “sponsoring church,” as outlined in the chart, was the thing opposed.

No one opposes what the passage describes. Acts 11:27-30 shows:

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. said, “Acts 11:29, 30 is not a case in point for what some brethren was promoting in the way of a general eldership as a board of benevolence and missions for all churches” (Torch, Vol. 1, No. 2).

If brother Jackson will practice what he now says Acts 11:27-30 presents, we will shake hands with him. Then we shall ask for the verses that justify cooperative arrangements like Herald of Truth. His statement in the article under review surrenders Acts 11:27-30 as proof for systems like Herald of Truth.

Romans 15:25, 26; 1 Corinthains 16:14; 2 Corinthains 8 & 9

Paul commanded, ordered, that collections be made by certain churches and that their designated, appointed messengers deliver them to the needy saints in Jerusalem. No one has ever been against the policy and procedures of cooperation as outlined in the above passages to which brother Jackson alluded. I suspect that no one knows that any better than Bill Jackson, lest it be Guy N. Woods.

The texts show:

Do not be deceived. Those horrible “hobbyistic antis” have never objected to the plan, practice and pattern of cooperation in relieving needy saints as seen in the texts and outline above. However, here is what brother Jackson needs to find:

The chart above is what the “antis” have opposed. It is your practice, not that of Romans 15:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 16:14; and 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, that is rejected.

That Cry That “Is Raised”

Brother Jackson cries against a cry, crying, “But then the cry is raised, ‘But that was in benevolence! Brethren cannot use benevolence passages to justify works in the realm of evangelism! Hobbyism then had developed the human rule regarding ‘benevolence passages’ and ‘evangelistic passages,’ and never the twain shall meet!”

First, one is in the Bible. The other is not. A pattern for congregational cooperation in benevolence is taught. The other is not. A pattern for the sponsoring church, for which brother Jackson contends, is found in neither evangelism nor benevolence.

Second, even brother Jackson believes in two patterns. In benevolence, he believes churches may build and maintain benevolent societies for the care of the needy. In evangelism, he does not believe churches may build and maintain missionary societies for the work of evangelism, “and never the twain (benevolent and missionary societies) shall meet!” Whose “human rule” is it that allows a separate benevolent organization but not a separate evangelistic one?

Third, some of brother Jackson’s brethren believe in two patterns for edification and benevolence. They believe churches can support benevolent societies to care for the needy, but they do not believe churches can support edification societies (colleges) to educate the saints. “And never the twain (orphan homes and colleges) shall meet!” Whose “human rule” is it that allows a separate benevolent society but not a separate edification society?

Fourth, some believe churches can send money to a college’s Bible department but not to a college’s general fund. Thus, they have developed the “human rule” regarding Bible department passages and college passages, “and never the twain shall meet!

Fifth, some of brother Jackson’s brethren believe churches may build “fellowship halls” (dining rooms, cafeterias), but they may not (like the late Ira North and the Madison, TN church) build “Family Life Centers.” Hence, the “human rule” regarding “fellowship hall” passages versus “Family Life Center” passages, and “never the twain shall meet!”

Sixth, the late Roy Lanier,- Sr. and Reuel Lemmons used to argue that churches could maintain benevolent societies for the care of the needy if they were overseen by elders, but Guy N. Woods argued that elders, as elders, could not be over another organization. So, there was the “human rule” of “eldership” benevolent societies and “non-eldership” benevolent societies, “and never the twain shall meet!”

Seventh, some of brother Jackson’s brethren believe money can be sent to a benevolent society operated by brethren but not to one owned and operated by Catholics and Baptists. Some believe churches can send to both I Has liberalism developed the “human rule” of “our benevolent society” passages as opposed to “their benevolent society” passages? “And (Are you ready for the chorus one more time?) never the twain shall meet!”

In view of the items above, just who is it that has “points of doctrine (that) have been added all along, showing that the system was of human origin, for God doesn’t have to update his doctrines”?

1 Corinthains 16:1, 2

Contextually, 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, “is a benevolence passage! The particular funds raised in accordance with Paul’s ” order” could not have been used to pay “the local preacher’s salary.” Those specific funds were “for the poor saints” in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25, 26; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1,12,13). They were not collected to pay preachers. So, those certain “gatherings” could not have been used to pay “the local preacher’s salary” (cf. 2 Cor. 8:19-21).

Though 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, does not teach the fact, it is scriptural to pay “the local preacher’s salary” (2 Cor. 11:8; 12:13; Phil. 4:15-17).

Though 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, does not authorize it, churches may provide facilities for the preaching and proclamation of the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8).

A number of provisions have to be made for the church to carry on its various and sundry works of evangelism, benevolence and worship. These items require money. (A) How shall the church raise its money to perform its work?

(1) By pie suppers, pancake breakfasts or rummage sales? No, for the Bible is silent about such sales and promotions.

They are not authorized by the Scriptures (1 Cor. 4:6).

(2) By cheerful, purposed giving of members as they are prospered? This is the only way set forth in the New Testament (Acts 5:2,4; 2 Cor. 9:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

(3) Though 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, deals with benevolence, the principle of how one gives is applicable in all cases, i.e.,’as God hath prospered him,” for the accomplishing of all the work the Lord authorized the church to do.

(B) When shall the local church take up a collection for any of its divinely designed and assigned works?

(1) Every time it assembles, on any day of the week? Is this when?

(2) The only passage that tells us the time when the church took up a collection is 1 Corinthians 16:1,2. The passage itself does not authorize the church to buy class books, song books, nor to pay the preacher. But it is the sole, single Scripture which tells us when a collection was made. The text is not used as authority for paying preachers or buying chalk boards, but it is the only passage which designates a time for any collection of any kind. Therefore, those who speak as the oracles of God, give of their means “upon the first day of the week.”

Now, brother Jackson has the same problem or dilemma he endeavored to ensnare us in. 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, was for the needy saints. (1) It was not for a benevolent society. (2) It was not for Herald of Truth, World Bible School or for World Radio Gospel Hour in West Monroe, Louisiana. But brother Jackson believes that contributions may be sent to similar organizations. All of that from “a benevolence Passage!” “Down goes the ‘liberalistic’ point I” Especially does it go down when you recall that he has two patterns. He will take the money from the passage and donate it to a benevolent society but not to a missionary society.

We read of the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians 10 & 11. We know that “as often as” we partake of it, we declare the Lord’s death until he comes again. We are not told how often to partake of it. The only passage that cites a time is Acts 20:7. Unlike the Corinthian references, we are not told the facts surrounding the purpose of the Lord’s supper in Acts 20:7. However, by putting the two together, we come together on the first day of the week (that is when) to have the fellowship described by Paul (the how and what of the communion).

Likewise, various works of local churches are prescribed in the New Testament. These activities require funds. The only passage that cites a time of giving for any project of any kind is 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2. By placing the passages together that deal with the works and the collection of funds, we learn when to lay by in store, how to give, and for what purpose.

Conclusion And Appeal

Those who truly know the so called “antis” know that the “no questions asked” charge is false, but we will not belabor the point here.

Brother Jackson, you and those with whom you stand, doubtless recognize and realize that you have lost the institutions you fathered, fostered and fought for. Herald of Truth is gone. You cannot endorse it. It will not indorse you. The college in Abilene is gone. You cannot endorse it. It will not endorse you. World Bible School is gone. You cannot endorse it. It will not endorse you. The Madison church near Nashville and the “On The March” liberalism planted by Ira North is gone. You cannot endorse it. It will not endorse you.. Guy N. Woods is gone. He is too tied,allied and identified with institutionalism to be of any measurable assistance. He may whisper in your ear to encourage you, but he himself is a toothless, declawed old bear, unable to fight what feeds him. He is gone. He cannot openly help you nor publicly endorse your efforts against liberalism. He dares not, cannot and will not help expose the liberalism in Abilene’s college nor in Nashville’s gymnasiums. The organizations he championed have him tethered, muzzled and defanged. Expect no ringing expose’s from him on the pages of the Gospel Advocate. They will not appear there. It is sad, but true, however much you may like to deny it.

So, you must fight virtually alone against the institutional powers that be, and, as you will see, it is a losing battle.

In view of these facts, and in view of a never ending eternity, please consider with an open mind and an open Bible the issues that alienate you from the “antis.” Is there hope, brother, for objective study, fair representation of differences and a brotherly spirit that desires unity in truth? You have no closer kin, and a host of family and friends in the faith and in the flesh stands ready-to reason, reflect and rejoice in Christ Jesus, our righteous, ransoming Redeemer.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 709-711, 722-723
December 1, 1988

By Larry R. DeVore

In the bulletin of the BOSTON CHURCH OF CHRIST (their style of all capital letters), beginning in the May I st issue, Gordon Ferguson, forty-five year old, re-baptized gospel preacher, who was “pulled out” (his terminology, Ird) for “discipling” and “re-training,” has a series of articles on “progressive revelation” that should leave no one in doubt as to their journey into apostasy.

He does tell the truth in his very first sentence, and then he departs from the truth rapidly. He says, “Viewed in one way, the concept of progressive revelation from God is false” (BCOC Bulletin, May 1, 1988). He tries to lull Bible believers to sleep by quoting 2 Peter 1:3 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. But then he says that God “does reveal the application of those old truths” (their emphasis, Ird). He quotes 2 Timothy 2:7 and Philippians 3:15 as scriptural proof, but these hardly “prove” what he is trying to make them say.

Gordon says in the same article, “Within the discipling ministries, God has led us into some amazing discoveries.” “. . . we are willing to throw off the traditions which both bind and blind us.” So, they claim special leading by God for their activities, and they have laid aside the “traditions” (i.e., scriptural authority, Ird) which “bind” them. In other words, they are no longer going to be “bound” by the teaching of the Scriptures. He further says “non-traditional decisions (translate that as unscriptural decisions, Ird) have been necessitated by their insistence on discipleship being the standard rather than an ideal. ” He attempts to squelch criticism by these statements. “Probably some critics will no doubt say that we begin some practice and then go to Scripture in order to justify it. But the issue is whether or not the Bible does in fact justify it. Bottom line, to criticize fruitfulness for Christ demonstrates a pretty hard heart and closed mind, anyway.” This is the old argument of “Look how much good we’re doing! ” The “discipling ministries” are baptizing a lot of people (31 named in the bulletin quoted), so how dare you criticize us! In fact, we are condemned as having a “hard heart” and “closed mind” to even bring the subject up. Well, those remarks are not going to stop our examination of what they are claiming.

In Gordon’s second article, he purposes that those who “emphasized the doctrinal aspects of Scripture” are guilty of “deification of Scripture” and says this “is a tragic mistake to make” (BCOC Bulletin, May 9, 1988). He then takes a slap at the concept of a restoration movement, when he states “any religious group which strongly emphasizes doctrinal accuracy runs a risk of losing perspective and losing God. Historically, the churches of Christ have been noted for such an emphasis.”

Gordon also states, “An insistence that we must have ‘book, chapter and verse’ for anything new has virtually guaranteed that we will have nothing new, even if the old is a failure.” Can you believe it! The Word of God is a failure! God has given us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3), but that is not enough for Gordon Ferguson and the BOSTON CHURCH OF CHRIST! They want God to be “actively leading His people.” If not, he says, “we are doomed to a stale dying religion” (bulletin, May 8, 1988).

Gordon wants to do away with the motto “we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” He wants to replace it with the following; “Where the Bible speaks, we are silent; where the Bible is silent, we speak.” Frankly, I prefer the original, which closely paraphrases 1 Peter 4:11. But Gordon prefers to mis-use the Scriptures by saying, “But if He has not (spoken, Ird), then we have the freedom to discover the most effective way to carry out His principles. Success is of God. If He is truly leading us, we will not be unsuccessful. Period!” (Bulletin, May 8, 1988) They are not going to do something because it is scripturally authorized; they are going to do it and if it works, then God must be leading them! They have exchanged sophistry for Scripture!

Gordon also affirms that the “early church did not have a ‘rule-book’ mentality.” I don’t think Gordon and I have been reading the same book. Take a look at such Scriptures as 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:6; 15:1-2; Gal. 1:6-12; Phil. 3:16; Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:13; 3:16-17; Tit. 1:9; Heb. 8:5; 2 Pet. 3 and many others. It seems to me that the writers of the New Testament had a different understanding of the importance of God’s Word than Gordon does.

Doctrine Is Unbiblical

But his best short is coming next. Gordon says, the churches of Christ over the past one hundred years have absolutely proved that a religion focused on doctrine is unbiblical.” Gordon says that the churches of the Lord have been and are “unbiblical.” Standing for the truth, “contending for the faith” is “unbiblical,” according to Gordon. But the Boston Church is right in everything that they do, because God is leading them. Who can believe it? Gordon says, because “No group has studied more, debated more, and united less,” we are ‘ ‘unbiblical. ” All that proves is that some have contended for the truth, and some contended against the truth. Gordon also says, “Most ‘mainline’ congregations are full of worldliness and deadness.” That may be so, but I don’t known how you could prove it. But that only shows that some of God’s people are not living by God’s truth, That does not affect the truth of God’s Word, or the fact that it is our “rule book” to guide us from earth to heaven (see John 17:17). God has provided us everything that we need in his Word (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

Reconstructing Or Dividing?

In the BOSTON bulletin for May 15, 1988, Gordon tries to justify their “church plantings” concept. He says, “The concept of ‘church plantings,’ with one church per city is obviously in line with the biblical examples. There is simply no biblical example of anything else.” He refers to Acts 14:23 (elders in every church) and Titus 1:5 (elders in every city) and says “the conclusion is obvious. God intended for each city to have one church!” Recognizing that many larger cities have several congregations, what does Gordon want to do about this? He says, “Actually, the answer is quite simple. Unless a congregation exists which is really making and training disciples in a multiplying way, such a church must be planted! An existing congregation that has not already sought out the effective approaches which others have been using for years is not likely open to change as a congregation anyway. If they do not want change (translate that “do it BOSTON’s way,” Ird), and if the city in which they met is not being effectively evangelized, no other choice exists except to plant an evangelistic church. Prayerfully, those in other groups which have a heart to really be disciples will join in with the planted church. No other solution seems possible. The world must be reached. No amount of sentimentality should be allowed to affect the Great Commission and its demands.” “The urgency which prompts these conclusions is the same urgency which prompts ‘church reconstructions.”‘ Gordon spells it out for us. Don’t allow any feelings of remorse or “sentimentality” to stop you from splitting churches. The BOSTON PLAN for “reconstructing” churches of Christ will not be stopped even though congregations across the country are going to be split in two. This has already happened in many places.

Women Preachers

In the BCOC bulletin for May 22, 1988, Gordon has more to say, this time about women leaders. “Another key principle which God has helped us re-discover concerns women leading women in a high-powered manner. ” Notice that everything Boston does is described in glowing terms; “powerful, exciting, high-powered.” Gordon says that “Women in the first century church had high profiles.” He refers to Acts 21:8-9 which mentions Philip’s four daughters who prophesied. From this he makes a mighty leap and says “But preach they did!” “Praise God that He is raising up high-powered women leaders . . . … Gordon says these “activities took place in women’s groups.” But we wonder how long before another “progressive revelation” will have them preaching in mixed groups as well?

The BOSTON CHURCH OF CHRIST are the only ones training church leaders in the right way, according to Gordon. “My own training in a Preacher’s School and a Graduate School, both sponsored by the churches of Christ, left me woefully inadequate in my preparation for ministry. ” (Gordon could have better spent his time in studying God’s word.) He further says, “Without question, the discipling approach practiced by Boston and similar congregations is The biblical way to do it!” If evangelists and elders are not being trained the Boston way, they are not being trained right! Gordon also states, with regard to training elders; “Unqualified evangelists (those not discipled to maturity) (translate that; ‘not trained at Boston’) cannot disciple other leaders effectively, especially elders. ” “Qualified evangelists can and must disciple elders . . it “It is time for elders to humbly submit to discipling and for evangelists to humbly disciple them. ” The plain implication in the BOSTON plan is that evangelists have authority over the elders!

Baptism Invalid?

In Gordon’s article “progressive Revelation” (Part IV, in the May 29, 1988, issue of the BCOC bulletin), he talks about “Disciple’s Baptism.” After reading and re-reading his article I conclude he is teaching that unless you are taught by a “multiplying ministry” evangelist, your baptism is not valid. Notice, “To baptize a person who has not made the decision to be a disciple is to baptize someone who does not understand repentance. ” “Anyone who does not approach baptism with that understanding (i.e., Boston’s teaching on discipleship, Ird) has been mistaught. ” Gordon says “Either these people never became disciples, or they quit being disciples. In either case, they are not saved. Calling ourselves ‘Christians’ or ‘members of the church’ means nothing.” “And my personal conviction is that may of those in ‘churches of Christ’ have never biblically repented, have never become disciples, and are thus not Christians. A large number of people, including me, have faced the issue and have been baptized with a true disciple’s repentance.” Now get what Gordon is saying. He is not talking about people who were immersed in denominations. He is talking about people who have heard the true gospel preached, have believed it and obeyed it. They have been baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27). But Gordon says, “they are not saved,” they “are thus not Christians.” If you haven’t been taught according to the BOSTON method of evangelism, you cannot be a Christian! I don’t believe that! Do you?

Progressive Revelation and Church Autonomy

In the BCOC bulletin for June 5, 1988, Gordon has somewhat to say about the concept of church autonomy. I believe he’s against it! He says, “One real hindrance to brotherhood unity has bee an ungodly view of church autonomy.” “The idea of a non-cooperative, and often prideful, separation from each other as congregations is absolutely non-biblical.” Have you noticed from all these quotations; that if you’re not doing it BOSTON’S way, it’s “non-biblical”? Gordon says church autonomy is “contrary to the very purpose of God and is sinful. ” He also said, “‘church autonomy’ as we have practiced is an invention of sinful man – an ungodly tradition.” He wants to do away with church autonomy because he wants Boston-trained “leaders” and evangelists to be “brotherhood leaders rather than simply congregational leaders.” He mentions several men in the New Testament, such as Philip, Barnabas, Paul, Timothy, Erastus and others. He then affirms, “These men were brotherhood leaders! They were world Christians, not simply Philippian Christians or Ephesian Christians! Leaders with less training were ‘pulled out’ and later ‘plugged in’ by fully-trained leaders as the needed dictated.” Gordon admits he is part of this new concept. “I personally have repented of my pride and erroneous thinking, and am now a world Christian. I have been ‘pulled out’ for more training (voluntarily, of course) and a more equipped brother (Bruce Williams) has been ‘plugged in’ (yes, also voluntarily) to San Diego in my place.” “The results? . . . a united brotherhood through a united leadership” United? Well, I guess “united in error.” If you have Boston-trained leaders sent out to take over or “reconstruct” congregations around the world, then you will have “unity” by the Boston plan? But the only unity that will please God is the “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). That only comes by following his word. The word “autonomy” is not in the Bible but the concept is. The word autonomy simply means “independent; self-governing. A self-governing community or group” (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary). This concept is taught in such passages as Acts 14:23 (“elders in every church”) and 1 Peter 5:2 (“feed the flock of God which is among you”). Paul said in Ephesians 5:24, “the church is subject to Christ.” The church in Ephesus wasn’t subject to “brotherhood leaders.” It was subject to Christ! Period! The apostles could be classed as “brotherhood leaders” and they traveled a lot, preaching the gospel. But we have no living apostles today! The Boston trained leaders are poor substitutes for apostles! Faithful churches cannot accept these men and women from Boston as “modern day apostles” or even as faithful teachers of the word. They have a totally foreign concept of “church hierarchy” and “leadership” than that which is taught in the New Testament.” “Mark them” and “avoid” them (Rom. 16:17).

To be fair to Gordon, we should go back and look at his “proof texts” for this doctrine of “progressive revelation. to He cited 2 Timothy 2:7 and Philippians 3:15 as his “proof” (quoted from the NIV, Boston’s favorite translation). 2 Timothy 2:7 simply says the Lord will give you “insight” (NIV). The KJV says “understanding.” There is no “revelation” involved her. How does one obtain “insight” or “understanding”? Paul says in Colossians 1:9, “be filled with the knowledge of His will in a wisdom and spiritual understanding.” Plain enough! Study God’s word. In Philippians 3:15 the NIV says, “And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” The KJV says “reveal.” Here too, the text simply involves getting a clear understanding by studying God’s Word. There is no “modern day revelation.” God is not going to “progressively reveal” anything to anybody today, Gordon Ferguson to the contrary notwithstanding! I have nothing personal against Gordon Ferguson, I have never met him. But how can you separate the doctrine from the one who is teaching it?

A final note. I probably won’t be receiving their bulletin any more because of their stated intentions of no longer sending it out free, but of charging $26.00 a year for it. It is a beautiful printing job; blue and gold inks on enameled paper, with a stated circulation of 9,200. But no matter how attractively you package false doctrine, it is still false doctrine! The devil is an expert at this (see 2 Cor. 11:13-15).

The Boston Plan is not God’s plan! Avoid it!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 712-714
December 1, 1988