Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

For several years, the Crossroads church was the focus of national attention among the liberal churches of Christ. However, one of her satellite churches gradually began to eclipse the mother church. A group of brethren in Boston began to have phenomenal success as they moved beyond the crossroads.

The rapid growth of the Boston Church of Christ began in 1979 when evangelist Kip McKean was hired by a suburban congregation with fewer than 100 members. By December 1980, Sunday attendance exceeded 250. Today, more than 3,300 people worship weekly at the Boston Garden, home to the Boston Bruins and Celtics. In addition, more than 1,300 were baptized in 1986 at churches planted by the Boston congregation on five continents since 1982.(1)

The shift in leadership occurred, not only because of the phenomenal success of the Boston church, but also because of the removal of Chuck Lucas as preacher at the Crossroads church in Gainesville, Florida. The Crossroads movement was shocked by an announcement in the 25 August 1985 issue of ATC.

Our hearts are heavy and hurting as we share with you the unanimous decision of the elders to terminate Chuck Lucas as evangelist of the Crossroads Church of Christ. This decision was made necessary because of recurring sins in his life, which he has acknowledged.

The apostasy of Chuck Lucas created a vacuum in the Crossroads movement which was quickly filled by Kip McKean. The Boston church has since then moved to the forefront and the Crossroads church has taken a lesser important position. The movement has since been termed the “Discipling Movement” or “Multiplying ministry.”

More Rapid Changes

As the Boston church grew it moved beyond the crossroads, for it was willing to conduct its affairs without much concern for what the liberal brotherhood thought or what had been accepted as scriptural in the past. They have moved forward in their development of the “Discipling Movement.” In this phase of the movement, we see new ground being developed and explored. The balance of this material will deal with these new developments.

1. Submission to Authority. A series of six articles appeared in the Boston Church of Christ, the bulletin published by the church with the same name. This series of articles emphasized the obligation to submit to the leaders of the church. The articles explain: “(1) Submission is not agreement; (2) submission is more than outward obedience. . . (3) submission is not conditions. . . (4) Submission is not being quite.”(2) The thrust of these articles was to emphasize the obligation of the members at the Boston church to submit to their leadership.

2. Creation of House Churches. Operating without a building of its own, the Boston church rented facilities for meeting on the Lord’s day and divided their membership into house churches for other meetings. The elders “delegated” authority to house church leaders to oversee these groups. “Many of these ‘house churches’ have long ago outgrown the ‘house’ size, some of them 45 having as many as 250 members. . . . Therefore, the two elders of the Boston church, still headquartered in Lexington, are in essence, elders over a plurality of churches.”(3) The Boston leadership was willing to lay aside the biblical concept of autonomy.

Replacing “Congregational Autonomy” with Congregational Cooperation. The traditional idea that each group of disciples in a city is entirely autonomous from other disicples is not found in the Bible and has severely damaged efforts to win the world for Christ. Those with a heritage in the restoration movement have wrongly used the false teaching of “congregational autonomy” to justify disunity and noncooperation with other brothers.”(4)

Rejecting the concept of autonomous churches, the Boston church has perverted the organization of the church by making regional elders of its eldership (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

3. Creation of Pillar Churches. Another departure from biblical organization has occurred in the creation of “pillar churches.” “Pillar churches” are churches designed to serve as branches to impact a whole region of the country. The San Diego Church is the “pillar church for the southwest”; the Atlanta church is the “pillar church for the southeast”; etc. Although Boston does not claim to be the pillar church for the world, they send men to these pillar churches to set things in order (make this church like the Boston church). Too, the leaders in the Boston church are sometimes the “prayer partners” of the leaders of the satellite church.(5) The result of this is the creation of a group of churches under one founding mother church. The Catholic concept of church organization, of one mother church influencing and controlling other churches, is very similar to the Boston influence over pillar churches which in turn are over other churches.

4. Remnant theology. The “discipling churches” have had difficulty in defining their place in God’s plan. In an article published in the BCC, Bob Gempel stated that the 66multiplying ministries” are the remnant of God’s people today. He wrote,

Nothing that we in Boston have said or done in recent months has stirred as much anger in the Brotherhood as our reference to the planting of a multiplying ministry in Atlanta as the gathering of a remnant of Christians from the Southeastern United States. It is interesting to me that our comfortability with remnant terminology ceases when we are faced with the possibility that we are not part of it.(6)

Because of the concept of the “multiplying ministries” as God’s remnant, the leaders go into a city with several churches of Christ to “plant” a “mission” work. None of the existing churches are places in which a Christian can worship and fulfill God’s will. A church built after the pattern of the Boston church must be created. Where the “multiplying ministry” has gone into an existing church, they either take complete control of the church or divide it. The Boston plan must be duplicated; consequently, the church will be divided or another church will be started in order to duplicate the Boston plan.

This is also the reason that many Christians are rebaptized when they become a part of the “multiplying” ministry. They “teach a narrow definition of what constitutes valid baptism. As a result, the church rebaptizes even people who were baptized in other Churches of Christ.”(7) As an example of this, Lynn Nitz, wife of Mark Nitz who preached for several years in the Cincinnati, OH area, was rebaptized when she joined the local “multiplying ministry” church in Cincinnati.(8) The “multiplying ministry” does not want to imply that they are the only ones saved.(9) Hence, they are sectarian to the core – they create a division within the church of God, separating themselves from others whom they believe to be saved. To separate oneself from the lost is one thing; to separate oneself from the rest of the saved is another. The former can be defended biblically; the latter cannot. The “multiplying ministry” needs to decide whether they are the “remnant” (the only ones saved) or not. To date, they have been unable to decide where they fit in God’s plan.

5. The use of music in the “multiplying ministries.” Our liberal brethren have allowed the college choruses to perform in their buildings for many years. Quartets and other groups have performed at singings in many localities. The development of a local church choir to be used for special performances was not that big a jump for the Crossroads church. The Crossroads church made this transition by organizing a group known as “The Crossroads Singers” who tour the country giving concerts in civic centers as well as local churches.(10) Their performances are partially secular and partially spiritual. Auditions are held to select performers from the congregation to compose “The Crossroads Singers.”(11) At the Crossroads church, the singers were used “in conjunction with evangelistic crusades, vacation Bible schools, and special services.”(12)

When the Boston church developed, what was begun at Crossroads was expanded. The Boston church had several members who were successful entertainers and they developed other musical performers. In 1982, the Boston church organized “The Freedom Singers” as an a capella singing group to be used in seminars and concerts. Writing about their performance, Bob Tranchell said, “One of their finest performances was the recent Holiday Concert. I came in prepared for an excellent evening of entertainment and walked away deeply touched. The mixture of a capella spiritual songs, testimonies from the performers’ lives and secular music was moving.”(13) In December 1987, a musical group from the New York City Church of Christ performed a concert and took a special contribution to raise $3000 for the poor. “In the next 5 months, several Friday and Saturday evening concerts will be hosted to raise money for a special contribution that will be collected by the London church in June.”(14)

They went another step in producing a musical entitled “Upside Down.” The musical was based on the book of Acts and traced the lives of Peter and Paul to their deaths. Describing the benefits from this musical, Tranchell also gives more details about the play, “There are four functions which a musical such as ‘Upside Down’ can impart – (1) to get the message out to non-Christians; (2) to encourage the Christians; (3) to give Christians a pure environment to perform in, and (4) to provide money for world missions. All the proceeds from ‘Upside Down’ will be given to world missions.”(15)

Tranchell also described a “band formed by Robert Duncan which plays contemporary Christian music and is made up of disciples in the Atlanta Church of Christ” which is known as “2:38.”(16)

In the following article in his material on “Recapturing the Power of Music,” Tranchell affirms, that, whereas instrumental music should not be used in the public worship services, “in a non-worship setting we should allow and encourage people to use their talents to the glory of God and the preaching of His word.”(17) The “multiplying ministry” has moved away from the doctrine of Christ in its use of music, involving the church in activities unauthorized (concerts, secular performances, plays, bands, etc.), using choirs at special services, and defending the use of mechanical instruments of music with spiritual songs outside the worship assembly.

Conclusion

The “multiplying ministry” has moved well “beyond the crossroads” and deeper into denominationalism. The tactics used by the “multiplying ministry” have been employed by Baptist churches for years to build large congregations, such as those churches where W.A. Criswell preaches in Dallas, Texas and Jerry Falwell preaches in Lynchburg, Virginia. The “multiplying ministry” is systematically creating a fellowship of churches like other denominations in America. Simply because they teach that baptism is for the remission of sins no more makes them the Lord’s church than it does the Mormon Church.

Recognizing what this movement is, why would faithful brethren go to men who are thoroughly infected with denominationalism to learn how to make more Christians? Nevertheless this has occurred. Connie Adams wrote, “What is of concern to me is the fact that in the last year or two reports have come of several preachers among us who have gone to Boston to study their methods of evangelism.”(18)

The “multiplying ministry” is more of the fruit of the liberalism which divided the churches several decades ago. The “multiplying ministry” churches have not repented of their involvement in liberalism; there has been no renunciation of the apostasies of the 1950s and 1960s. Instead this movement has moved deeper into apostasy, employing the tactics which have made the denominations grow, imitating the Falwells, Swaggerts, Criswells, and others instead of the church of the first century. Let us not allow their numerical growth to blind us to this fact.

Endnotes

1. Carlene B. Hill, “Boston Church of Christ Grows Amid Controversy,” Christianity Today [19 February 1988], p. 53.

2. Boston Church of Christ (hereafter called BCC) [11 October 1987].

3. Eddie Whitten, “The Discipling Ministry, Crossroads/Boston,” Contending for the Faith [May 1987], p. 5. The concept of elders serving over all of the churches in a city was proposed by Alvin Jennings in 3 R’s of Urban Church Growth (later renamed How Christianity Grows in the City).

4. Thomas Bogle, BCC [1 November 1987], p. 3.

5. Before moving to California, Tom Brown of Boston continued to “disciple” Bruce Williams in San Diego – BCC [20 December 1987], p. 1; Kip McKean continues to “disciple” Tom Brown in Berkeley, CA – Berkeley (CA) Church of Christ [May 1987), p. 1.

6. BCC (25 October 1987), p. 7.

7. Christianity Today [19 February 1988], pp. 53,55.

8. Gateway Church of Christ [5 July 1987], p. 3.

9. “Note that we are not saying that only those who are part of the remnant will be saved” – BCC [25 October 1987], p. 7.

10. ATC [14 June 1981], p. 3.

11. ATC [7 November 1982], p. 2.

12. The Crossroads Singers, p. 8.

13. BCC [27 December 1987], p. 3.

14. ATC [7 February 1988], p. 4.

15. BCC [27 December 1987], p. 3.

16. BCC [27 December 1987] p. 3.

17. BCC [17 January 1988], p. 3.

18. “The Boston Hierarchy,” Searching The Scriptures [January 1988], p. 3.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 226, 245-246
April 21, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

The “Jesus Only” doctrine affirms that there is but one person in the Godhead; namely, Jesus Christ. They believe that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Holy Spirit. The United Pentecostal Church is the largest exporter and exponent of this teaching. Occasionally, it is called “Oneness” doctrine, and the people are known as Pentecostal Oneness.

At any rate, that serves to identify what we are talking about in this article. A number of passages give the Oneness people a great deal of difficulty. Hebrews 5:4,5 gives them a problem. At least, I have never met a Pentecostal debater who could even blink his eyes or clear his throat like he thought he could answer an argument that can be made from that text. Note the Scripture. “And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”

First, what is the honor that no man takes unto himself? It is the honor or the office of being an High Priest. No one takes this position upon his own authority. It is bestowed by another. Take Aaron for an example. He did not make himself an High Priest. God selected and elected him to that place. Hence, God, one person, chose Aaron, another person, to be the High Priest. If another person was not involved, Aaron made himself to be the High Priest. There is no escape from that conclusion. So, two parties, two persons were involved, for “no man taketh this honor unto himself.”

Second, underline the words, “so, also, ” which introduce verse 5. 6′ So also” means “in like manner,” or “in the same way.” Just as Aaron did not glorify himself to be made an High Priest, “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest.”

Third, if Christ did not glorify himself to be made an High Priest, who did it? Who glorified him to be made an High Priest? It was not Aaron. It was not Jesus. It was God the Father. But if God the Father is not a separate and distinct person from Jesus, then Jesus did glorify himself and that contradicts what the passage says.

The Oneness Pentecostal may reply that Jesus was made an High Priest by his manifestation as the Father. Well, did a “manifestation” make Aaron an High Priest, or did another person make him an High Priest? Remember, as Aaron was made an High Priest, “so also” was Christ. If another person made Aaron an High Priest, then another person made Christ an High Priest.

Fourth and finally, no matter how you look at it, another person was included in installing Christ as High Priest. And that stubborn fact is a death blow to the “Jesus Only” persuasion.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 228
April 21, 1988

By W. Curtis Porter

I cannot conceive of there having ever been a time in all of the history of the church that distinctive preaching was not needed. Perhaps there have been periods of that history in which such preaching was more sorely needed than at other times; but if so, the failure of some to preach a distinctive gospel was responsible for the increase of the need for it. And it may be that there was never a time when the need for distinctive preaching was more imperative than now. We have entirely too much preaching that means nothing, and the need of the hour is fo men who have the courage to preach a distinctive message.

To me it is no compliment to a speaker for the audience to be unable to place him. I have heard it said of preachers: “He has preached in our community for two weeks, but people could not tell by his preaching to what church he belonged; he was an orthodox preacher.” While such things have been said by way of compliment, to me they shout their criticism and are not complimentary words at all. Whenever a man is so vague, indefinite, or general in his preaching that his auditors cannot place him, or identify him, there is something seriously wrong. A preacher is certainly not filling his mission as a preacher when his pulpit proclamations are characterized by such vagueness. I am talking, of course, about a preacher who stands identified with the church of the Lord. I am not so much concerned about how other preachers preach. If they are preaching the doctrines of men, there is nothing vital to the soul lost if they never become definite about it.

And yet if I were a member of some human church,,l would want my preacher to preach the things for which the church stands. If I were the member of the Baptist Church, I would want my preacher to preach a Baptist doctrine; and if I belonged to the Methodist Church, I would want my preacher to preach a doctrine that would be distinctively Methodist; and the same goes for any other denomination. In any case I would expect my preacher to preach definitely the doctrines of that denomination. Then since I am a member of the church of Christ, should I expect less of the preachers of that institution? The world will lose nothing of importance if denominationalism is not distinctively preached; but if the gospel of Jesus Christ is not preached in a distinctive manner, a great loss is incurred.

Who Preaches What?

There is a vast difference between the truth of the gospel and the theories of denominationalism, and that difference ought to be held up to the people who hear. Jesus said: “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13). Why, then, make any compromise with such plants? Or why fail to show that human institutions are not growths from a heavenly planting? I am just certain of the fact that it often becomes necessary to tell who preaches what. This would not be so necessary if denominational preachers would preach the doctrines of their churches, but they are like some of my brethren would be if they listened to the clamor of the audience for “soft preaching.” They have no distinctive message to proclaim. Consequently the average member of denominations does not know the doctrines of his church. You may preach ever so strongly upon some point of error, but he does not know you are talking about his doctrine, for his preacher has not preached it; such things have been kept from him. To this there are some exceptions, but the condition is very general.

In order for a member of the Baptist Church to know that you are contrasting the truth with Baptist error it becomes necessary to state that the error is taught by the Baptist Church. Otherwise he may not discover that you have taken his doctrine apart. The need of this was very forcibly impressed upon me as a result of one of my own sermons. I was engaged in a mission meeting near where I was laboring for the church. At one service I preached on the subject, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” I contrasted truth with error and showed plainly what the Bible teaches about that subject. When the service had been concluded, a stranger came to me, took me by the hand, and complimented very highly that sermon, stating that he believed every bit of it. Upon later inquiry I found that he was the main leader of the Baptist Church of that community. And yet I had been preaching things that were in direct conflict with the doctrines of the church to which he belonged! The next day a conversation was heard over the telephone in which one lady told another that she should have been at the meeting last night, for she would have heard one of the best Baptist sermons that she ever heard. And yet I had not failed to preach the truth! However, they did not know the teaching of the Baptist Church; and if I had told who preaches what, they would have seen the difference. At least, they would not have accused me of preaching Baptist doctrine!

I know that harm can be done by mentioning denominations in the spirit of sarcasm. There is a difference between exposing error and abusing the adherent of the error. We may show kindness to the man and yet expose the error which he holds. Therefore, I do not hesitate, when I feel that conditions demand, to call denominations by name and show the error of the denominations. This is exactly what Jesus did while he was on earth, and, judging from what he did then, it is exactly what he would do now!

Make People Know They Are Lost

Preaching that is not distinctive enough to make the lost realize they are lost is not the kind of preaching it takes to save men. Whenever an unfaithful brother, one guilty of sins against the high heaven, or with an ungodly attitude toward the work of the Lord can sit under a man’s preaching without feeling any discomfort or alarm, there is probably something wrong with the preaching. The man needs to be blasted with the gospel dynamite till he can see his lost condition. As long as your preaching allows him to feel secure in his sins he will not likely be redeemed from his sinful state. Just so it is with the member of the sectarian churches. If my preaching allows them to feel safe in denominationalism, there is not much chance to rescue them from it meshes. My preaching must be distinctive enough to make them see the sinfulness of denominationalism, then I can have some hope of saving them.

Just remember that in order to save a man you must make him know that he is lost. By your following some other method he might decide to “change churches” because he likes the preacher, or that he might be with some other friends he especially likes, or something of that kind; but “changing churches” for any such reason is not conversion. What we want to do is to convert the man that his change may be the result of conviction.

Jesus Christ and the apostles did not hesitate to let men know they were lost. Paul called Elymas a “child of the devil,” and “enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). There was no reason for Elymas to think that Paul considered him in a safe condition. Peter plainly told Simon to repent and pray that God might forgive him (Acts 8:20-23). He let him know that he stood condemned. And Jesus said the Pharisees were children of hell (Matt. 23:15). With such worthy examples before us, why should we fail to preach so that men in sin and sectarianism can see they need to be saved?

(Originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate, but reprinted here from Guardian of Truth, November 20, 1980.)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 207, 213
April 7, 1988

By Michael Garrison

Webster defines morals as “relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between, right and wrong in conduct.” An article by David Schoenbrun in Parade Magazine (Dec. 6, 1987) contrasted life in the 1950s and life in the 1980s. Some of the statistics Mr. Schoenbrun reports were most interesting and point out a difference, I think, in the morality of the ’50s and the ’80s. (Note: Quotes and statistics quoted in this article are used by permission of Parade, copyright 1987, m1g.)

For example: Mr. Schoenbrun points out that births out-side of the marriage relationship in the 1980s account for 22 percent of births! On the other hand, births outside the marriage in the ’50s was only 4.5 percent! This shows a huge difference. The reason? The morals of the ’50s were more in line with the Bible and the morals now are in line with humanistic ideas.

The Bible teaches, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). This is what most people in the ’50s believed and followed. Now, most people follow another “Moral” code. This code says, “. . . neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil'” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18.) Actually, this is an immoral code, because it does not recognize any sexual activities as “wrong” or “evil.” No wonder the ’80s see so many births outside of marriage. When the moral code God has given is rejected, anything goes!

Mr. Schoenbrun also points out a difference in the divorce rate in the ’50s and the ’80s. The divorce rate in 1984 was 5 per 1000 people. But, in 1957, it was 2.2 per 1000. Why? Again, the moral ideas of people have changed. Most people in the 1950s recognized, “For the Lord . . . hateth putting away” (Mal. 2:16). They also believed that “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). The humanist code, not recognizing right and wrong says, “In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to . . . divorce should be recognized” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18). This reminds me of Judges 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This is what happens when God’s moral standard is left behind and people do what they want to. The more humanism had made headway, the more wrong and immoral conduct has been seen.

Mr. Schoenbrun also points out that in 1986, most professional jobs were held by women, whereas in 1957, only 35 percent of women had out-of-the-home jobs. Why? Most women in the ’50s were taught God’s truth, that they are “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers (or workers) at home, good, obedient to their own husbands” – then note this – “that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4-5). When this God-given moral code was rejected, women began leaving their God given roles and followed their own desires. After all, don’t they have to help pay for all the luxuries (not necessities) this present world offers? After all, the Humanist Manifesto Il says they believe “. . . individuals should be permitted to . . . pursue their lifestyle as they desire” (p. 18). This leaves God and his moral standard out of the picture! Then their children come home from school to an empty house and have no supervision for hours to do what they want to do and later on, once the children have gotten into some trouble or been caught with various drugs, the parents will ask, “Where did we go wrong? Didn’t we provide everything they needed?” All but love and care as God directs in his Word!

A little – very little – progress is being made by researchers on AIDS. As AIDS spreads from the homosexual community to heterosexuals, it’s ironic that the old-fashioned virtue of sex with a permanent partner, the standard of the Eisenhower times, is now regarded as the principal protection against the scourge. To be moral, to be monogamous, is now the greatest defense against the new plague. That monogamy seems like a new idea is an indication of how our notions of the family have changed since the ’50s.

Yes, in many ways, the 1950s were better than the 1980s because the highest moral code ever given to man was followed by a majority of the people. That did not make it right, but when it was followed, it made a better world in which to live! Let us ever follow that moral, code given by God – by so doing we will have the best life here on earth and prepare ourselves for that world to come in which nothing immoral can enter.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 229
April 21, 1988