Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

I doubt seriously if I have ever read anything more audacious and ridiculous than the recently announced plans by the Harding St. Church of Christ here in Indianapolis to launch a world-wide solicitation program to begin building a new “Christian” college. To really appreciate just how ridiculous this whole thing is, one would have to be familiar with the city of Indianapolis. Here is a small congregation (being generous, we will say 3040 members), meeting in a rather simple house that has been converted into a church building, located in the black section of the city (this is not said as a racial slur – the church where I preach is about 60 percent black and composed of fine Christians – but rather to point out a fact: many of them do not have the financial means, nor the large membership necessary, as may be found in other higher income sections of the city) that is not even in the higher incomes; that congregation has suddenly decided to launch a world-wide campaign to raise about $12 million to build a college! Why, some hardly even knew anything about them I Surely no one would take them seriously! On the other hand, how many would respond without even bothering to learn the facts?

Oversight

A near as I have been able to determine, there are not is even any elders serving over the Harding St. church. Leslie R. Jackson, “Assistant Minister,” sent out his letters of appeal after having received “permission and/or consent” from James H. Lawrence, Minister. When I went by the building, no one was there, but the neighbors pointed to Mr. Lawrence’s name on the sign and said, “The man who runs the church just left about five minutes ago.” Since he also felt he had to give his “permission and or consent” for the assistant minister” (not so listed on the sign – and why 2 of them are needed for such a small congregation in a city like Indianapolis that has plenty of other churches and is hardly a mission field escapes me) to launch the campaign, then the idea he “runs the church” seems to indeed have some credibility (no one has yet accused me of “running” the Emerson Ave. church, even though I preach there regularly). I wonder, would he also be the one who would “run” the college and oversee the collection, keeping and spending of the funds? If not, why was his “permission” needed to begin with?

But, the appeal also requested all who received the letter (which was apparently sent out to many churches – addressed to the Church of Christ, Emerson, c/o Minister) “to become an Associate Board Member.” That way, if a regular board member should die or resign, they might decide to select you from the “associates” in his stead. If not, they at least have been able to use your name and influence for the time being. And who selected the original board? Also, we might ask, “Why have a board?” The letter begins: “We, the Harding Street Church of Christ, will be soliciting donations (contributions) worldwide.” Now, is the board going to be running the church, or the church running the board? If the latter, then why the “associate board members” who aren’t even part of Harding Street? Will one of the requirements to serve on the board be to place membership with the Harding St. church? Is Harding St. the board?

Purpose

The launching of a world-wide solicitation program will be for “the sole purpose of rebuilding the church and building a new Christian College. Our main objective is to serve the people by strengthening the church, leadership, and motivating people to seek for higher educational levels. We also hope to create and generate jobs for the unemployed.” Whew! Did I just read one “sole purpose” there or about half a dozen? And, are they interested in serving the Lord or the people? I had always thought that the way to build the church was by preaching the gospel of Christ and creating respect for the authority of God’s word. If you had to “rebuild” the church, that sounds like there has been a drifting or a split. But then maybe we have a different definition of “rebuilding.” I note in the other letters submitted that part of that $12 million will be used to build a new church building for $225,000 (for 30-40 people?)! That would at least be a partial compensation if the whole project fell flat on its face! Kind of an easy way to get a nice new, spacious building too. I mean, since there aren’t any other churches in the city for all these students to worship with, funds would have to include a new building. But then, when they “do all the work,” perhaps they feel that justifies such a building to replace the house they have had to settle for presently. We’ll not count the other churches either.

Establishing a college is not the way to build up the church and its leadership. That must come from congregations committed to the word of God and respect for its authority. Until that is present, all the colleges one may wish to build will merely push the liberal attitudes further away from the word of God. In fact, it is not the work of the college to build up the church – that is the work of the church. If we must rely on the college, then we have admitted Christ did not give us an adequate institution to do his work (we need to look again at 2 Tim. 2:2 and Heb. 5:12-14). Colleges are to provide a liberal education to young people, to help raise their educational level, and that is not the work of the church! Now where is there anything even a country cousin to intimating that the church has the right and authority to launch a “world-wide campaign” to build a “new Christian College”? Since when is secular education the function of churches and church finances (read 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Jn. 9)? Can you imagine Peter preaching “Repent, and be baptized, and be sure to study your math for test in the morning”? Or Paul being told to arise and be baptized and loosen up his throwing arm for the football game next week? Are we to teach Math tables – or for men to come to the Lord’s table? Do they want to build up the church? Then let’s begin by establishing some respect for the word of God as our authority in all we do and teach! Will they produce the passages that authorize such an undertaking as building a college? Or the passages that authorize a church to solicit funds for someone else to build it? Or the passage that even permits one church to take on a project (scriptural or unscriptural) far in excess of its capabilities and then to launch a world-wide begging campaign to finance it? I predict their efforts to “build up the church” are nothing more than rhetoric and they will not offer such authority at all! I further predict their efforts to “build up the church” will only lead further and further down the paths of liberalism and a drift away from the word of God – hence a “tearing down” instead!

And since when is it the function of the church to “motivate people to seek for higher educational levels”? Unfortunately, in far too many instances, this has often led to a departure from the faith by those who got carried away with their own importance rather than dependency on God and his saving grace. Even recognizing this need not be the case, is it the work of the church to “motivate” people to go for Ph.D’s? Does it matter which field they select? Should we stop with a B.A., M.A. or insist they go all the way to Ph.D? Or, did Christ set up his church to motivate people to turn away from the pleasures and snares of sin and to encourage one another in seeking salvation that we might have a home above (Heb. 10:24-25)? Maybe I haven’t got the “education” necessary to find that motivation for higher educational levels in my Bible. If so, I sincerely hope one of these brethren will “enlighten” me further. Hmmm wonder what motivated people to seek higher secular education before the Lord set up his church?

And, is it also the work of the church to “create and generate jobs for the unemployed”? Wow! If that be so, surely we can beg the funds forever from those “well off areas” of the nation to launch a wide variety of building programs in more financially destitute areas. Let’s see, we could establish and build a new grocery chain, a printing company, schools, hotels, playgrounds, etc. Again, where did the apostles anywhere teach that it was the job of the church to provide employment for the unemployed? Did Paul instruct the churches to create their own tentmanufacturing companies? I thought Jesus came to make us “fishers of men” not founders of fishing and tackle manufacturing firms. Catholicism has nothing on these efforts!

If they are sincere about building up the church, then let them begin by showing their respect and reliance on the word of God. Let them show where there is a “thus saith the Lord.” If they cannot not and/or will not, and continue their project, then their attitude toward building up the church is obvious. “By their fruits, ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:16). 1 fear any “building up” of the church will be by accident, not design!

Spending

I am not an authority on construction, and have no intentions of getting into the field. However, if we are starting with nothing and a congregation of only 30 to 40, 1 also know we need not think we need a full-scale university before we can even begin. $2 Million each for dorms (one for males, one for females), $350,000 for a dining room, $430,000 for a student activity center, $225,000 for a church building, etc. isn’t exactly “chicken feed.” But then, if one is going to dream big, why not dream B-I-G? I mean, we have already decided to launch our begging campaign “world-wide.” Why not go for a whole university in one jump? It certainly ought to help somebody’s unemployment! For a congregation of 30-40 located in the “not too wealthy” section of the city, $2 Million and a world-wide campaign for a $225,000 building and a full college (including a $720,000 gym) is just a beginning to wild dreams! What shall we try next? After all, what has reality got to do with dreams – or authority?

Church Related

Now, lest some one accuse me of being unfair and misrepresenting their intentions, contending the letter was only sent to churches and ministers to reach.possible interested Christians, let me set the facts again before us. (1) The “Harding Street Church of Christ will be soliciting donations.” (2) The appeal was mailed out with the Harding Street Church of Christ as the return address. (3) Leslie R. Jackson’s appeal for the world-wide solicitation program was printed on a letter with “Harding Street Church of Christ” at the top and addressed to “Dear Church of Christ, leadership.” (4) James Lawrence’s letter giving his “permission” for Jackson to launch the campaign was on a letter headed “Harding Street Church of Christ” and identifying Leslie Jackson as “also a minister here at the church” without merit if the tie was not with the church. (5) His letter closed with Psalm 127:1 – “Except the Lord build the house. . . ” (the Lord is not interested in this house!). (6) The plans call for construction of a new church building as part of the college construction expenses. Indeed the college and church are wedded into one body in the minds of these misguided brethren. Which one the Lord actually died for may be in doubt – if not already, in the near future!

Conclusion

I am not opposed to a college education – I have one. I am not opposed to brethren getting together individually and setting up a college wherein Bible is offered as one of the subjects of study – I attended two of them, my oldest son one, and my youngest son plans to. That is not the issue. I am not opposed to less fortunate people having such an opportunity – I’ve helped in several booster clubs. That is not the issue. The bottom line is where did God give the church, as such, the authority to enter the field of secular education, to build a college to raise educational levels, and to begin a world-wide campaign to solicit funds to finance this nearly $2 million venture begun by a few wide-eyed members in a small church located on the back streets of Indianapolis? A campaign? I think the first step needed is a return to the word of God and a study of how to establish authority. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 269-270, 281
May 5, 1988

By Carrol Sutton

In The Examiner (Jan., 1986), Dusty Owens wrote an article entitled, “Did God Name His Church?” In that article he quoted from an article by someone who had stated that for the church today to be the New Testament church, “it must have the same name.” Then Owens said: “it is implied that God gave His church a name. What name did He give it? Where is it stated in the Scriptures that God gave a name to His Church?” Owens continued: “The assumption that God named His church is believed by many today without questions. . . ” Later in his article he said: “People have made a denomination out of ‘church of Christ’ by insisting that this is a name given by God to His people. . .”

Owens also said: “Did God intend for that to be the name of His people? I reply emphatically, No! “, and “When you insist that ‘church of Christ’ is ‘the name God gave to His people,’ you make a denomination out of the Lord’s church. . . “

Some of the statements in Owens’ article are ambiguous, but if I understand the article, Owens is teaching that it is sinful to refer to the church as the church of Christ either in a universal or a local sense. To do so, in his mind, would be to make a denomination out of the people of God. If this is not taught in the article, then I missed it completely.

Does the word of God teach that it is sinful to refer to the church (either universal or local) as the church of Christ?

A serious consideration of the following osbservations should help clarify the question, “Did God Name His Church?”

1. Owens did not ask, “Did God Give His Church An Exclusive Proper Name?” If he had raised this question to be answered in the light of God’s Word, I (and probably every preacher I know) would certainly answer in the negative.

2. God did not give the church one specific name to the exclusion of all others. For various names, appellations and/or designations please read 1 Tim. 3:14-15; Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 1:13; 1 Cor. 11:16; Rom. 16:16 and Rev. 2:1,8,12,18, etc.

The fact that different appellations (an appellation is “a distinguishing mark, or title; appellation”) or names (a name is “a word or combination of words by which a person or thing is regularly known” acc. to Webster’s Clear Type Dictionary, 1976) are used in the New Testament by inspired writers to refer to the church prove that point.

3. When we have nouns used to refer to the church of the New Testament we have names because nouns are names! Nouns may be common or proper, but in either case (or both), they are names!

4. In Genesis 2:19-20 we read: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field. . . . ” Question: Did Adam give each one a name? Did he give each one a proper name? Or did he call one fowl an “eagle,” another a “raven,” another a d6swan,” etc.? Did Adam give each beast a proper name or did he call one beast a “camel,” another one a “lion,” etc.? Did Adam give a proper name such as Leo to each and every lion? It would seem to me that Adam gave common, not proper names to all beasts and fowls. Note. Regardless, whatever Adam called them, that was their name – common or proper!

5. Isaiah 61:6 says concerning some: “But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God:. . . ” Note. Here are some names that some would be called. However, each person has a personal name or names. “The Priests of the Lord” and “The Ministers of our God” would obviously be names, although neither would be “the name” to the exclusion of the other.

6. Luke 6:13 says: “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” Note. The twelve were named apostles! Of course, each one had a proper name. Is it sinful for us to use the name “apostles” to refer to the twelve? “Apostles” is a noun, hence a name!

7. The apostle Paul said: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the wholefamily in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:14-15).

8. For a person to ask “What name did God give the church” or “What is the name of the church” is about like a oneness Pentecostal asking, “What name did God give His Son?” or “What is the name of the Son?” Note. Various names were given to God’s Son (see Isa. 9:6-7; Matt. 1:23-25; 28:19; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 1 Pet. 4:14; Rev. 19:14-16; etc.). There was no exclusive name given to Him! It is certainly scriptural to use any name, appellation and/or designation that any inspired man used to refer to Christ. Note: Various names have been used by inspired writers to identify or describe the church (see number 2 above). It is certainly proper for us to use any (and all) of the names, appellations and designations given in the Scriptures to refer to the church. The context in each case must determine whether reference is made to the church in a universal sense or to the church in a local sense. No one name should be used to the exclusion of all others! This principle would apply when referring to God’s church or to God’s Son.

9. If one of “the churches of Christ” of Romans 16:16 cannot Scripturally be called “a church of Christ” (or “the church of Christ”) then one of “the children of God” of Galatians 3:26 cannot scripturally be called a “child of God.”

10. I see no reason why we should object to or have any problem with referring to the church by any word or combination of words that is used by inspired writers to refer to the church. Obviously, whatever names (words or combination of words) God gave to identify or describe the church are names that are scriptural.

11. Names such as “churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16 and “churches of God” of 1 Cor. 11:16 along with all others used in the Scriptures were used by inspired men in the first century and we are certainly in good company when we use them. Note. There is no way God’s people can be properly identified without using a name or names! If so, how?

12. We should never attack and condemn a scriptural expression in order to expose and condemn what we believe to be an unscriptural concept or practice. We should expose and condemn the unscriptural concept or practice.

13. I have no objection to brethren using any scriptural expression (call it a name, appellation, designation or what) to identify God’s people. Do you?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 268, 278
May 5, 1988

By Russell Matthews

Introduction:

1. The demoniac of Mark 5:1-5 “had his dwelling among the tombs.” His irrational conduct was the result of his being possessed with a legion of evil spirits.

2. Even today, in a very definite sense, the practice is prevalent. Since the world is dead in sins we would expect it to dwell in tombs. But when the church practices this, it is tragic.

3. The tomb dwellers today are those who are possessed by “the spirit of the world” (1 Cor. 2:12). They ignore the fact that “old things are passing away” and “all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

(a) They live as though the gospel were not true and that everything is as it was before the suffering and glorification of Jesus. They thus engage in a practical disregard for the whole new order of things and go about life in a “business-as-usual” manner.

(b) Being children of light, they walk as children of darkness. They dwell among the tombs of this repudiated and cursed world, instead of the heavenlies with the living and reigning Christ.

4. In a very clear parabolic sense, each child of God occupies the same position as Lazarus when resurrected from the Tomb (Jn. 11:43-44). Having come forth bound head and foot with grave clothes, the command to “loose him, and let him go,” was given. We must leave the grave clothes behind!

(a) Colossians 2-13; Rom. 6:3-6.

(b) Having put Christ on in baptism (Gal. 3:27), we are assured of a new life (2 Cor. 5:17).

(c) Galatians 2:20 shows that Paul considered himself dead to the old life (Gal. 6:14). He had put away the grave clothes and was living a glorious new life.

(d) We must now live consecrated lives for our Lord and Master (Rom. 12:1; Col. 3:1-2).

5. Nominal Christians who yet associate with the grave clothes of the past bespeak death and sin reigning in their mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12).

(a) The old man of sin bound in grave clothes is the person we used to be (Eph. 2:1-3).

(b) The new man in Christ is the person resurrected to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:17-18).

Body:

I. The Old Man And His Ruin (Col. 3:5-9).

A. The reality of it (3:5-7). We need to recognize the old man for what he is, repudiate him and drive him out of our lives. It is through the instrumentality of the body that the characteristics of a ruined life are expressed (lust of the flesh, etc., 1 Jn. 2:15-17). A redeemed life is expressed here too (Rom. 12:1-2).

B. The roots of it (3:6). Disobedience to the revealed will of God is the root of all ruination. God is sorely displeased with this.

C. The discernment of it (3:3, 5). We need to know what it is that we are to “mortify” (Gr. nekroo, “put to death”) and that we are dead to sin. Too, we need to understand our personal obligation in this matter (Eph. 2:8; Jas. 2:24; Phil. 2:12).

II. The Old Man’s Grave Clothes (Col. 3:8-9).

A. “But now you also, put off all these” (i.e., put them aside, strip them off).

B. The old man’s grave clothes constitute:

1. The habit of evil caprice: Anger, wrath, etc. (v. 8).

2. The habit of evil words: Filthy communications, etc. (vv. 8-9).

3. The habit of evil ways: Lie not to. . . (v. 9).

(a) An example of point I would be Mordecai’s enemy, Haman, who nursed an evil heart of hatred (Esth. 3:6).

(b) An example of point 2 would be the millions who lie at income tax time.

(c) An example of point 3 would be the Christians who go places they should be avoiding and engage in entertainment that must now be put off.

III. The New Man (Col. 3:11-14). A contrast with the way we use to be:

A. First, think about the creation of the new man (v. 10). The tenses express completeness. All new creatures have a new life.

B. Second, think about the character of the new man (v. 11, a birth in which there is no distinction between Jew and Greek). There is also the abolition of creed (neither circumcision, etc.) and class differences (rich or poor, slave or master, etc.).

C. Think about the robe of the new man (vv. 12-14).

1. Some years ago a preacher was preaching in London’s Hyde Park. A communist heckler kept interrupting him. Pointing to a wretched beggar, he triumphantly exclaimed, “What good is your Christianity? Communism can put a new suit on that man.” The preacher replied, “What good is your communism? Christ can put a new man in that suit.”

2. The Christian’s wardrobe in which we are to be arrayed:

(a) Kindness, etc. (v. 12).

(b) Graciousness (v. 13, forbearing one another, etc.).

(c) Godliness as a topcoat (v. 14).

D. Even the humblest child of God has been given this wardrobe and can now sing:

Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness

My beauty are, my glorious dress;

Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,

With joy shall I lift my head.

Conclusion:

You have been raised to walk in newness of life.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 265, 278
May 5, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Do you think it would be morally wrong, or even poor judgment, for a gospel preacher (or any other member of the church) to enroll in a college that is supported by contributions from churches?

A number of preachers, especially younger ones, have enrolled in graduate programs in various seminaries to work toward their college degrees. Many of these seminaries are operated by denominations, and they, along with some graduate schools, obtain their support from contributions by churches. What is true of benevolent institutions is also true of educational institutions, or any other human institution. The Scriptures do not authorize churches to financially support any of them. They all stand or fall together in this regard. If it is scriptural for churches to support one of them financially, they can so support all of them; or, if it is unscriptural for churches to support one with their money, it is unscriptural for them to so support any.

Reply: Before undertaking anything, we should evaluate it to be sure that it does not violate the Scriptures. We should not wish to do anything that would displease God. The desire to do what is right is evident upon the part of the querist. His sincerity is appreciated and we wish that all would manifest this attitude.

As to the inquiry, enrolling in an educational institution such as a university, seminary or graduate school, which is supported financially by churches, we see nothing wrong with enrolling in it. The simple reason is that it is merely a matter of buying services from that institution. We observed in another article (see Guardian of Truth, Vol. 31, No. 9, p. 261) that individuals, and even churches, may buy services from such organizations as a utility company or buy books from a Baptist bookstore. They, like seminaries, graduate schools, etc. have services to sell. There is a difference, as we pointed out then, in buying their services and donating money to their support. When students enroll in a college that is supported by contributions from churches, they are only buying the services that the college has to sell. This does not make those enrolled for study, any part of the unscriptural practice of church contributions to the school. Those who enroll in these colleges for the purpose of furthering their academic education should be grounded well enough not to be swayed by errors which may be taught in their classrooms. The tragedy which sometimes occurs is that some young people (especially young preachers) have not been able to cope with the liberalism taught in some of these institutions of higher learning. This is a caution that we sound forth to any who contemplate studying in these schools. They should have a sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures to be able to differentiate between truth and error. But there is nothing wrong morally or in judgment, in and of itself, to enroll and study in such schools.

The caution exercised by our querist (he himself, whom we presume to be a young man, is considering taking courses in a school of religion) is commendable. Graduate schools and seminaries have much to offer in many fields of study and do afford opportunities for advanced training. Our advice to any who enroll in them is to take advantage of what they offer that is good, but be careful. Modernism is rampant in many colleges. We are thankful that students at Florida College (a two year college), Tampa, Florida, can sit at the feet of those who believe that the Bible is the word of God and respect its authority. Our three sons graduated from it and we now have two grandchildren enrolled there. We are thankful for such institutions. Two years there will help students to be grounded in the faith, affording an extension and supplement to the teaching they have had at home. If they later enroll in colleges or universities to complete their academic work, they are better able to withstand destructive criticism of the Bible and other forms of infidelity which are so common. Parents should consider this factor, a major one, when the time comes to choose the college for their children to attend. There is more important consideration than the inconvenience of being a great distance from home, or the financial expense. It is not our contention that such schools as Florida College are perfect (and the school itself makes no such claim) but we can be thankful for its fundamental teaching and an environment which is more wholesome than what is found in state schools.

It is good that students have the opportunity to take graduate courses. Regardless of how the graduate school raises its money, the student is buying the coures which are offered and which he needs. This does not mean that he sanctions or is a part of how the school raises its money, even though it may be unscriptural.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, p. 261
May 5, 1988