Truth Magazine

By Daniel G. Brown, PH. D.

Why Are Fathers So Necessary?

Let us consider now a few reasons why fathers are so necessary, particularly from the standpoint of child development and child psychology. In the first place, the character that a child develops is often a direct reflection of the values of the parents. A child comes to think and feel and act in terms of right or wrong, and good or bad, largely based on how the parents think and feel and act about what is right or wrong and good or bad. If, for example, there is little or no emotional attachment between father and child, then that child simply does not have the opportunity to get the guidance, values, and sense of direction in life from the father. And one possible consequence of this in the case of sons, for example, is boys who grow up to have consciences that are deficient and characters that are defective, boys who become chronic delinquents or antisocial personalities, etc. Cal Farley, founder of Boy’s Ranch, has observed that 90% of the youngsters who come to Boy’s Ranch are the products of homes where there was little or no father influence. Similarly, Father Flanagan reports that in the background of almost every boy offender is a story of shocking neglect and that between 80 and 90% of the boys at Boy’s Town who get into trouble, come from homes broken by divorce, separation or death, or from homes in which the boy’s chance for normal adjustment is reduced to a minimum by the clash of personalities in parental preoccupation with interests outside of the home. And in this same connection, Healy and Bronner, in a study of 143 male delinquents, found that only one in five expressed any love for father. Finally, Judge Leibowitz, of Brooklyn’s highest criminal- court, has concluded that the number one factor in the background of delinquents was an insufficiency or inadequacy of; father. There is thus striking agreement among all of these authorities, even though they come from different professions and institutions: namely, the lack of psychological fatherhood in the development of delinquency.

In addition to the development of delinquency and anti-social patterns, there is another problem of considerable magnitude, although it is seldom discussed outside of Psychiatric-psychological channels. This problem concerns sexual deviations, particularly male homosexuality, transvestism and sex-role inversion. There is now a rather convincing array of evidence suggesting that boys who do not have a male figure at least some of the time in early childhood with which to identify are susceptible to sex-role disturbances and are more prone to develop sexually deviant behavior in adulthood. This likelihood is increased in boys who are emotionally smothered by their mothers and emotionally starved by their fathers. There no longer seems to be any doubt that considerable risk is involved when the father is physically absent or psychologically distant from the son during the critical period from infancy to the third or fourth year. Passive, feminine male homosexuals typically have childhoods in which there was an abnormally close mother-son relationship, where the mother and son were over attached, physically and emotionally, to each other, while the father-son relationship was one of indifference, non-existence, or rejection, and there was no adequate male substitute.

Thus, not only does the son’s character development, in part, depend on an adequate father or male figure relationship, but, in addition, that son’s very masculine development and chances for a normal sexual life would appear to depend, in part, on adequate fathering in childhood.

But it is not simply to avoid having a son grow up to be a misfit, or a deviant, or a delinquent, or a criminal that fathers are needed. There are positive aspects to this business of being a father, benefits and rewarding experiences for both father and child. In the case of a daughter, the father is often the first “boyfriend” in the little girl’s life. Her first “romance” usually occurs at the age of three or four or five with her father. And what kind of man her father turns out to be in her life will exert a very formative and lasting influence on her attitudes and feelings toward other members of the male sex. In this connection, a recent issue of Newsweek magazine contained an article on Caroline Kennedy who, it was pointed out, enjoys a warm and close relationship with her father. “The first things she does when she jumps out of her miniature four-poster bed in the morning is to scamper to his room, pop her dark blond head in the door, and call: ‘Hi Daddy.’ Sometimes when the President is working at his desk he will look out the window and spy Caroline romping on the south lawn. If there are no important visitors on hand, he will walk out into the rose garden and clap his hands. It’s a secret signal of their own and Caroline always comes running.” Caroline is fortunate indeed to have a father who, though the busiest man in the world, finds time to be a father.

In the case of a son, the father is or should be his most important model, an example after which to pattern his own behavior. For a boy to have a warm, close, genuinely affectionate, mutually respectable relationship with his father probably contributes as much as any other single factor to that boy’s psychological development and emotional maturity.

It might be noted, in passing, that fathers may also exert far reaching influences in the cultivation of abilities and talents in their children. Take, for example, some of the greatest names in music: Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Bach, Brahms, etc . . . all from early childhood taught music by their fathers. And many other notable examples could also be mentioned, James and John Stuart Mill, Henry and William James, etc.

What is it that a father can provide that is so important in the life of a little child? Many fathers seem to think that the answer to this question is a “good home,” i.e., good food, a good house, good clothes, etc. But these things have little to do with the emotional needs of the child. One of the best answers to this question is from a book by English and Foster, quoted as follows:

Actually the things that a baby needs most cost very little in terms of dollars and cents. He has never heard of the Joneses. He is unconcerned about whether you have a million dollars or just enough to pay for his arrival. He does not care whether you have a new car or none at all. He can be as happy in a one-room apartment as in a ten-room house surrounded with landscaped gardening. What he wants is love, warmth, and acceptance for himself . . . strong arms to hold him and make him feel safe, smiles and cheerfulness, serenity and a sense of order, someone to come to him when he cries out of his sense of newness and strangeness. He wants you not to be too busy to play with him or too serious to en joy him. He wants you to stir his awakening mind to a joy and interest in the world around him . . . He wants and needs emotional security.

These, then, are some of the things that a child needs from a father. It is in helping supply some of these compelling needs and wants that fathers are so necessary and, not only necessary, but obligated to supply them. Just as a highway sign in Kansas reads, “You are morally responsible for safe driving,” “Fathers are morally responsible for adequate fathering.”

When men fail to supply these fundamental needs of their children, i.e., when men fail as fathers, whatever success they may be in other respects, including eminence in their profession, they have failed in life’s most serious and sacred trust. During the last four or five years, the writer has had occasion to counsel with disturbed military families and there have been a number of instances where the father was basically a failure as far as his children were concerned. Two actual cases may be mentioned briefly: An adolescent boy, son of a highly successful military officer, was referred for psychiatric evaluation because of social maladjustment and juvenile offenses. This boy was unable to recall a single instance, not one, in his entire life when his father expressed any warmth and love to him. This was confirmed by the mother who stated, “My husband never really cared for our son, he seemed to resent him from the beginning, and he was never close or affectionate to him; he did, however, punish him frequently and often severely for any infraction or mistake.” The other case was that of an officer with high level responsibility, with an outstanding military record, who developed emotional difficulties himself and had to be referred to another base for psychiatric evaluation. This man was such a failure as a father that all of his several children expressed their hope to their mother that she would not bring “him” (meaning their father) back home from the hospital when she returned!

 

Conclusions

 

In conclusion, there are two books and a parable that might be recommended to fathers everywhere. The books are: Fathers Are Parents, Too, By English and Foster (Putnam’s, New York, 1951), and Understanding Your Boy by Flanagan (Rinehart, New York, 1950). Any father who would like to make a conscientious effort to develop further his adequacy as a father will find these books very helpful and full of sound, practical father-child psychology. The parable is that of the Prodigal Son as recorded in the Book of St. Luke. Dr. Charles Curran, Professor of Psychology at Loyola University, has referred to this parable as one of the most perfect stories ever written. It is mentioned and recommended here simply because it contains an account of fatherhood at its psychological best.

What kind of life pattern should fathers provide their children? In trying to answer this question, it is especially important for fathers to remember above all that, Children Learn What They Live. How a child lives and what a child experiences is greatly influenced and in part even determined by how his father lives, his father’s values, his father’s character:

Children Learn What They Live

If a child lives with criticism, he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight.
If a child lives with fear, he learns to be apprehensive.
If a child lives with pity, he learns to be sorry for himself.
If a child lives with jealousy, he learns to feel guilty.
If a child lives with tolerance, he learns to be patient.
If a child lives with acceptance, he learns to love.
If a child lives with approval, he learns to like himself.
If a child lives with recognition, he learns to have a goal.
If a child lives with fairness, he learns what Justice is.
If a child lives with honesty, he le4rns what truth is.
If a child lives with security, he learns to have faith in himself.

If a child lives with friendliness, he learns that the world is a nice place in which to live.*Indeed, children do learn what they live, and fathers, for better or worse, have much to do with the final outcome.

(*Quoted from Hyde Park News, Hyde Park School for the Deaf, Los Angeles, California).

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 11-13
November 1961

By Glenn L. Shaver

Jesus Christ prayed for his followers to be ONE (John 17:2-22). The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth reproving them for their divisions and exhorted all to be of the same mind and judgment, speaking the same things (I Cor. 1:10-13). He also wrote to the Ephesians exhorting them to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Thus, it is Christ’s will for his people to be united and not divided.

Yet, there is division among Christ’s followers today, just as there was in the 1st century. Some of the problems causing differences in the 1st century were: circumcision, keeping of the Law of Moses, heathen feasts, worshiping of angels, etc. Some of the current problems are: “Missionary Societies” and “Sponsoring Church Cooperation” in preaching the gospel; “Educational Institutions” taking funds from the churches to edify; “Benevolent Organizations” to do the work of relieving the needy for the churches; “Socialized Gospel Movement” in building “recreation and fellowship halls,” “youth camps,” etc. to entertain and provide recreation for the young people, etc.

These “human organizations” set up to do the work for the churches are causing division among the followers of Christ. The promoters of such “human institutions” are guilty of “driving the wedge that split the log.” Remember, “these six things cloth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:” (What is the seventh thing?) “He that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6: 16-19).

When faithful and sincere brethren ask for the scriptural authority (precept, approved example, or necessary deduction or inference) for the above practices, the promoters of such practices cry, “You are trying to kill the good works we are doing.” No, no, beloved, we are not trying to kill any good work, but we are asking that the good works be ordained of God and that the churches work in the manner God has appointed.

Truth Magazine VI: 3, p. 1a
December 1961

By Richard Weaver

The Church Is a Kingdom

The division and resulting confusion of the religious world today will continue until the leaders of the sects recognize that the church of the Lord is not a democracy whose practices are to be determined by majority vote or by conferences and councils of men. Jesus in the Word has taught us that the church is a kingdom. Read Matthew chapter 13 that records parables of the kingdom which refer to the church and Matt. 16:18 where He spoke of building his church, then in the very next verse referred to it as the kingdom. See also verse 28 of the same chapter in which Jesus said, “There shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Moreover, Paul wrote, “God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13). Jesus himself “is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords (1 Tim. 6:15).

 

Divine Order of Government

 

Those familiar with secular government know that in a democracy the people rule either directly or through elected representatives. In an aristocracy the ruling class is composed of a few, but in a monarchy the king has all power, which he may delegate if he chooses. In a democracy there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, to make laws; a system of courts, the judiciary, to interpret the laws; and the executive branch composed of officials to enforce these laws. In a monarchy the legislative, judicial and executive powers are ALL vested in the king. So also it is in the divine order of government for the kingdom, the church. Of this divine kingdom Christ is King, ruling over his subjects who are members of his body, the church, and citizens of his kingdom (1 Cor. 12: 20, 2 7; Phil. 3: 20 ASV).

 

Jesus Has All Authority

Jesus said unto his disciples, “All power (or authority the American Standard Version says) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Inspired by the Spirit, Paul wrote, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24). Hence, Jesus now has “ALL RULE AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER.”

We must listen, therefore, to Jesus in all matters religious rather than to the ideas of human, fallible man who has no authority whatever since Christ has it all. Jesus further stated to h s disciples, after having declared that he had all authority, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit-ASV): Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt. 28:19-20). Jesus in giving this worldwide commission stipulated the conditions of the apostles’ preaching, namely, they were to observe all things commanded them by him, and not by any man or group of men in conventions or synods.

 

Cause of Division

The reason so much religious confusion exists is because too many people take what some preacher says rather than listening to what Jesus and the apostles plainly teach in the scriptures. Following the transfiguration of our Lord, God spoke from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Let us listen to authorized teaching from the Son of God, who pleased well the Father and who has been given all authority in Christianity.

Protestantism apologizes for its divisions on the ground, “We can not all understand the Bible alike.” This is not true for when we understand anything, we must of necessity all understand it alike. Many people, however, misunderstand the Bible! What we need is more study and belief of just what the Bible says!

The underlying cause of division in the religious world is a lack of recognition of AUTHORITY. Groups of men convene to determine the practices of their denomination and forget or disregard the divine standard of authority, the teaching of Christ and the apostles contained in the New Testament. It should, though, ever be remembered that Jesus said for us to observe all things whatsoever he has taught. He has all authority! (Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:23.) Also, hear the words of Peter preached on Solomon’s porch, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; (Moses was speaking of Jesus) him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3: 224-23) .

 

Innovations

 

Many members of denominations will admit that the Lord authorizes a certain act in a specific way but they say, “I don’t think it’s wrong to do it another way.” They then disregard divine authority and set themselves up as the end of all wisdom.

Pope Stephen II in 1311 introduced sprinkling as a substitute for scriptural immersion.

The New Testament teaches that baptism is a burial (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:3-5), a going down into, a coming up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39; Mt. 3:16-17). Whether you accept sprinkling or immersion for Bible baptism is an index to whom or what you recognize as authoritative!

In 658 Pope Vitalianus introduced instrumental music to accompany the scripturally authorized singing of New Testament worship. These are the New Testament scriptures which authorize singing in acceptable worship to God: Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12 and 13:15 and James 5: 13. There is no authority in the New Testament to use mechanical instruments such as the organ, piano, trumpet, etc, in the worship of God.

Jesus said, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9). Therefore, in subscribing to those doctrines and practices unauthorized by Christ and hence commanded by men, ones worship is in vain. No man has the right to make religious laws binding upon the church nor has any conference or council of men.

The word of Christ which is to dwell in us richly (Col. 3:16) and by which we are to live and ultimately be judged (John 12:48) is our authority in Christianity. Since we are to be judged by this divine standard, the teaching of the New Testament of Christ, let us diligently study it that our lives and religious practices may conform thereto.

 

Additional Innovations

 

1. Since 1910 churches of Christ have contributed, from the treasuries, to Orphan Home Corporations and Old Folks Home Corporations. There is not one passage in all the New Testament of Christ that authorizes the church to contribute to another organization except to a church of Christ which is in NEED (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Romans 15:25-31; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). When men “go beyond that which is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6), and corrupt God’s plan for taking care of the needy their worship is in vain (Matt. 15: 1-9).

2. In recent years brethren have solicited and accepted church contributions to Colleges and Schools. There is not one scripture that teaches by precept or statement of fact, by approved example, or necessary inference that churches of Christ may contribute to an Educational Society. The beloved apostle wrote, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9).

3. During the David Lipscomb College Lectures in the Spring of 1960, “Prophet” Marshall Keeble said, “I prophesy that we’ll have Church of Christ Hospitals in the next few years.” Friends, there is no authority from Christ for such. Certainly Christians, as individuals, are to visit the sick for Jesus said, “I was sick, and ye visited me” (Mt. 25:36), but this does not authorize churches contributing to a church of Christ Hospital Corporation.

Indeed, all need to recognize the importance and seriousness of these matters and “continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine,” (Acts 2:42), and ever be content to “abide in the doctrine of Christ,” (2 John 9). Then when “we walk in the light, as he is in the light” we will “have fellowship one with another” (1 John 1: 7).

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 22-24
November 1961

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

The following statements enumerated are of such character as to be regarded as self evidently true to all who are familiar with the New Testament scriptures. They were not formulated by me, but by brother Foy E. Wallace Jr., to whom I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness, not only for them but for much of the little I have learned of God’s Will. The observations and comments on each of them are substantially my own. These are made in order that the reader may be assisted in appreciating the relevancy of the basic truths to the present day issues, and, consequently, be the better able to discern the merits of the points in controversy among brethren today.

1. No Congregation Has the Preeminence.

This is a statement of fact insofar as the New Testament record reveals, and as being true in the apostolic era. However, the succeeding centuries record the struggle for preeminence by several congregations, with five emerging as rivals. Finally, the struggle came to be between two–Rome and Constantinople, with the former gaining the final ascendancy in the eleventh century. Today, among congregations of the Lord’s people, we see some emerging to a point of power and prestige above others that finds assertion in, among other things, a campaign to outstrip the other in Bible class attendance.

To secure the victory, famed entertainers and athletes have been engaged to attract and secure the needed number for victory. Also, we have seen instances of one of these most successful “on the march” churches putting pressure on smaller congregations to enlist their financial contributions to the varied general work carried on by this sponsoring church. This has occurred even to the rupturing of the small congregation located in the shadow of the big promotional church.

2. No Elders of a Church are to be an Ecumenical Eldership (a board for the whole church).

This, however, is exactly what exists in act and in fact when the elders of one congregation oversee a work of a plurality of congregations. Weak and wildly imaginary efforts in exegesis have been resorted to, designed to support such an arrangement. A prime example of this is Acts 11: 29-30.

They suspend a defense of current practices on the assumed probability of elders in the Jerusalem church, and none in the other churches of Judea. Why the assumption? Paedobaptists have assumed for centuries that probably there were infants in the household of Lydia, and on such an assumption they defend their sprinkling of infants. Will brethren who so reason be agreeable to accept the consequences of their doctrine. This I would like to know.

3. No Coordination of local churches functioning through one eldership.

This poses the thought of equality of cooperating congregations while being overseen and controlled by the eldership of one, which would mean they were not the elders of one congregation but of many–a thing not known in the New Testament. Some have thought there were elders of the church in one city, with several congregations, as per Titus 1.5. But Acts 14:23 nullifies such a contention.

4. No pressure of one church on another, or others.

No one would deny this being true of churches in the days of the apostles. Can it be successfully denied today? When brethrel1 call meetings of elders and preachers of a number of congregations to deal with one, which incidentally is absent, it would be difficult to deny such a condition.

5. No Force in the church except of being and doing right.

Every principle of morality and human dignity that Christianity recognizes and enjoints forbids any other force!

6. No function of elders outside the church in which they are elders.

This fundamental truth, if recognized and respected, would silence every voice and stop every effort directed toward brotherhood wide operations by any and every congregation in the land. Yet there is heard no firm and clear affirmation of a contrary nature, though some have sought by implication to deny it in the construction of Acts 11:29-30.

7. No action of one church is authoritative on other churches, for binding decisions; otherwise there would be an authority other than the scriptures infallible.

The contrary of this has produced and sustains the claims of the Papacy; that is, the pre-eminence, and, therefore, the binding authority of the See of Rome. Present day cooperation has brought about a state of affairs where some participants therein have acted in concert to suppress and endeavor to destroy congregations and preachers who dissent from certain practices. This is affected by one congregation sometimes initiating an action of excommunication, and being acquiesced in by others; hence, it involves a course which smacks of collusion as virtually synonymous with cooperation, with lesser influential congregations becoming guilty of connivance by their acceptance of the decrees, lest they become the victims also of excommunication. The whole procedure rests on an implied acceptance of the thesis of an infallible authority residing in, and being exercised by, a congregation under its elders. Of course when such is done, there is the pious appeal to Romans 16:17-18. But when a request is made to prove those th us charged with teaching and practicing that which is “contrary to the doctrine ye have learned,” the request is treated with complete silence! The edict thus is founded on the presumed infallibility of those who pronounce and issue it.

8. No Feudal authority can be vested in an eldership. Feudal: an over lording of one state over other states – holding of relieves, revenues, aids, properties or that which is another’s.

However, we actually have this state of affairs presently existing. We have congregations that are holding companies, having in their possession large sums of money, amenable to no one, without responsibility or accountability to anyone among all those whose money it is, and who have entrusted it into their keeping. Supplementary thereto, there is now being solicited the legacies of Christians through the provisions of their wills, when such ones are not even members of the soliciting congregations. The idea of building up huge wealth and property vested in the church finds its counterpart in Roman Catholicism, and not the New Testament Church. Where there is a concentration of wealth there is a corresponding accumulation of power, be it in the government or in the church.

9. No elders of one church can become the voice of the churches of Christ, assuming the prerogative to state doctrine for the whole church, power to commit the church to a statement of doctrine.

This, however, is done when one church oversees and determines that which is broadcast greeting the public with: “The Churches of Christ salute you,” thereby, in effect, speaking for the churches generally. Every contributing congregation is bound to that which is taught on the Herald of Truth, while having no voice in determining that which is taught. Notwithstanding, some offer the defense that such is not an intrusion on and a breach of congregational autonomy! If there is to be an activation of the “church universal,” then a delegate system would be preferable, inasmuch as such would not be “taxation without representation” Of course this would be wrong also, since there is no scriptural way to activate the church in its universal character inasmuch as it has no organic and functional character on earth.

10. No eldership has authority to operate a human institution.

This is so obviously true to anyone even reasonably conversant with the New Testament, that it is astonishing to find members of the church who do not either know better, or despite the truth, endeavor to reflect against it by suggesting that a human institution is made scriptural by the simple process of placing it under an eldership. The authority of elders is restricted to the congregation of which they are elders or bishops. They have no jurisdiction over anyone or anything other than the congregation constituted of its members, and as the overseers and leader; of its activities as a church of Christ. Their authority here is subordinate to, as defined and restricted by the Word of God; any self-asserted authority beyond that which is defined and delineated in the scripture is an unwarranted assumption. The idea that elders can make scriptural any organization by assuming the oversight thereof is the very essence of presumption. This, however, lies at the very base of a widespread and fallacious attempt to justify the church created and supported benevolent organizations among us today. The notion is so firmly implanted in the mind of some, that the Superintendent of the local orphanage takes the view that we shouldn’t distribute any papers among members of congregations as expressing sentiments contrary to the “convictions of the elders” thereof. He should be careful, then, to never send any literature to a Digressive church containing any truth on the subject of instrumental music in the worship, because such is contrary to the convictions of the elders of such a church Just when did elders become empowered to function as a board of censors for the churches? Also, this superintendent sought to make the sending of this page parallel to the giving and receiving involved in his institution. Now, if we were soliciting and receiving funds wherewith to do the teaching for all the churches through such medium, then he would have a parallel. Such, however, is not the case at all, and he and all others should be able to see it.

11. No eldership of a sponsoring church in the New Testament.

The truth of this statement resides in the fact there are no such churches in the New Testament. Not an instance can be cited where any congregation set itself up as a sponsoring church to do the work of churches generally, and solicited funds from them to do their work for them. This is widely practiced today, and congregations, which refuse to become contributing churches, are being stigmatized by those thus engaged. It would be far more appropriate and fitting, if rather than so reacting, that those advocating this practice would first prove by the scriptures that such is good: “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Nothing in religious faith and practice is good unless first proved by the scriptures to be so.

12. No organization of any kind in New Testament for inter-church work.

Co-operation is not equivalent to co-congregational; that is, one church overseeing and directing the work of many, doing a collective work (evangelistic or benevolent) through one congregation. Each congregation is adequate to do all the Lord enjoins upon us to do in any organizational capacity, so far as the scriptures reveal, and they have supplied us with all that pertains to life and godliness. In fact I hereby challenge anyone to point out one thing God requires of Christians, which they cannot perform, either in their individual capacity or congregational relationship. The local congregation is the only collective body revealed in the New Testament, and the relation of Christians is intra-congregational rather than inter-congregational in their work and worship. Work and Worship affords the justification for a congregation existing.

 

Conclusion

 

These facts, while not all that might be cited for lack of space, are set forth to challenge the thinking of all who are devoted to the principle of abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Those otherwise minded cannot be reached; these can.

We have long prided ourselves as a people who can support our faith and practice by a “thus saith the Lord.” Shall we supinely and apathetically react to this kind of appeal by disparaging its virtue and repudiating its force today in these present issues? Shall Christians react as do Sectarians, generally, when their position on any point is challenged, or will they examine the scriptures to see whether these things be true?

These matters vitally affect the questions of fellowship and the liberty we enjoy in Christ. Any attitude and action on the part of elders and preachers which builds an iron curtain between them and the most intelligent and able brethren in the church, among living preachers, reflects a seriousness that surpasses anything witnessed in our time.

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 16-19
November 1961