Truth Magazine

By Bob F. Owen

Several years ago I preached in a gospel meeting in the small community where my wife and I have lived for thirty-five years. Having formed many friendships in the community through serving on the City Council, we saw a special chance to get some of these friends to study the Bible with us. We wrote a personal letter explaining our belief in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God and the necessity of doing only what we find in the Scriptures. This, of course, rejects the popular concept that any and every way of worship is acceptable to God. We mailed this letter to over two hundred acquaintances. During the week’s meeting with the local church a number of these people attended.

In the few weeks following the meeting, three of my friends saw me personally and explained why they had not attended. Each of these expressed quite similar reasons although they talked with me separately and had no idea of the discussions of the others. Their reasons impressed me greatly. To their great surprise, I agreed with much of their criticism and expressed total disapproval of the practices on the basis of Scripture – not just because of personal feelings. Perhaps you have shared some of these same feelings. Perhaps, too, you may be surprised to hear a preacher agreeing with your objections to “religion.”

Each of my friends began with a statement which, in essence, said, “I really do not have any respect for religion, or churches, or for that matter, for preachers.” Q welcomed it when each assured me he liked me personally and was speaking of preachers generally.) Each, in separate ways, explained his feeling that churches were little more than tax exempt social clubs and preachers were little more than public relationship managers. Each objected to the common place money-raising schemes and to the seeming hypocrisy of the leaders. None of these three saw “church” as a spiritually-oriented group with a major goal of eternity. All saw churches as parallels to the Heart Fund, the Red Cross, or another service organization trying to meet physical or social needs.

My friends were surprised to learn that I disapprove the social gospel concept as much as they and that where I preach the emphasis is on gaining heaven. Our churches do not build recreational facilities or sponsor youth ball teams or special outings for the aged. Our preaching is Bible-centered with the thrust of “this is what God requires of us in order to go to heaven.” The gospel of Christ is designed to save the souls of men, not to reform society or to create a heaven on earth. If one obeys God he will be a good citizen and a good father (or mother) and a good worker, etc., but these are side benefits to the real purpose of the coming of Jesus – “to seek and to save that which is lost.”

I expect the feelings expressed by my friends are common to many people today. Their disgust with what they see as religion closes their eyes to true religion and to the Bible which teaches that truth. What a shame that those who parade as God’s servants are in fact serving to drive people away from God! It certainly could be that they are like those of the days of Paul,

And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers fashion themselves into ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works (2 Cor. 11:14,15).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, p. 745
December 17, 1987

By Steve Wolfgang

Several years ago, while producing a church bulletin with a sizeable mailing list, I borrowed an idea from my good friend, Ed Harrell. He had written a series of “Footnotes” for the front page of a church bulletin in Birmingham in the 1970s. These “Footnotes” consisted of short articles quoting various published materials with appropriate comments on each quotation. With Ed’s permission, we are happy to reintroduce this series to our readers.

Although I will occasionally borrow some of brother Harrell’s material from a decade ago (or material from other pertinent sources), most of these “Footnotes” will be my own. Because of my interest in church history, especially the history of the Restoration, many of them will deal with that sort of material. I always appreciated the “history” page of Robert Turner’s Plain Talk, and since Mike Willis has been trying to get me to write on Restoration History for some time, perhaps these short articles will serve as a down payment. However, I have also prepared some dealing with other aspects of our culture, on topics ranging from the creation/evolution controversy to psychology, from biblical issues to denominational doctrines, from hymns to rock music, and assorted other miscellaneous issues.

Sometimes I may feel the need to comment on the quoted “Footnote, ” but frequently I will simply let the quotation stand on its own merits. Often, in reading for the “Book Reviews” column, I come across good material which is too long for inclusion there, but which can be excerpted in “Footnotes. “

I invite interested readers to send me whatever interesting quotations catch their attention. I will try to incorporate them as space will allow. Happy reading!

FOOTNOTE’ Alonzo Willard Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky (Published by the Convention of the Christian Churches in Kentucky, 1932), pp. 350-351.

The first church in Kentucky to take action pledging support to the American Christian Missionary Society was the church at Danville. On March 24, 1850, the church adopted four resolutions [urging] co-operation through an organization that would enable the churches to do the work that should be done in Kentucky. . . [These] resolutions indicate that the church at Danville had a missionary vision . . . and indicate a wonderful attitude toward the missionary task.

Aside from the personal interest this quotation may hold for those of us living in Danville, this statement of historical circumstances raises additional questions which relate to more modern controversies in the church. One sees attitudes, perhaps only implicit in this quotation but quite explicitly stated elsewhere, which have become characteristic of the thinking which has produced missionary societies, other human institutions, and “sponsoring churches.” Presumption on the one hand, complacency with regard to divine authority on the other, and a generous dosage of smug superiority combine to produce just such unscriptural innovations.

First, one detects an attitude which says, in effect, “if it seems good, do it.” This is simply a subtle restatement of a supreme ethical error: that the end justifies the means. The plain truth is that the assertion (or even the fact) that someone has a “wonderful attitude” or good intentions provides no justification for circumventing the Divine order.

Second, there is an implicit rebuke, almost overbearingly self-righteous, against those who decline to subscribe to the current wisdom or the latest “brotherhood” scheme. Those who don’t jump on the bandwagon of somebody’s pet promotion are represented as lacking in “missionary vision” and, by implication, are unconcerned for lost souls.

Third, one almost smiles at the usage of the word “cooperation.” Most of those who prefix that word with the label “anti” insist that “co-operation” must be practiced their way (a joint effort involving pooled resources or some formal organization) and no other.

We hope to discuss just such practices at greater length in the future. For now, it is sufficient to notice that this strained and unduly limited concept of “co-operation,” coupled with an attitude of arrogant intolerance toward any who disagree, have produced major catastrophes in the Lord’s church in at least two different generations. Perhaps a calm study of history and a fervent desire to know and practice God’s will may help to prevent a recurrence. To this end we strive.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, p. 743
December 17, 1987

By Earl Kimbrough

The Philippian Christians aroused such joy in Paul that he continually thanked God for them (Phil. 1:3). They comprised a model church, except for a hint of discord that gave the apostle concern. The trouble was nothing like that at Corinth. But even a healthy church can become unraveled if small snags are unattended. Paul wisely treated the problem as a danger, but not as an emergency. He did not issue rebukes or thunder threats. He gently urged the Philippians to follow principles that promote like-mindedness in a congregation (Phil. 2:14).

The Basis of Like-Mindedness

“Therefore” ties the like-mindedness to the preceding exhortation (Phil. 1:27). Their standing “fast in one spirit, with one mind striving for the faith of the gospel” was what Paul wanted most to hear about them. The motives on which he based his appeal to this end are introduced by four “if’s” (Phil. 2:1). The conjunction here does not express doubt but assured certainty. Anchoring his plea in facts they knew to be true, he poured out his heart in fervent eloquence, urging on them the highest possible duty.

The facts are fundamental. “Consolation in Christ” is the comfort one receives by assurance of union with him. Christians breathe the atmosphere of Christ, and none can do this without genuine affection for the Lord and his people. “Comfort of love” is the encouragement love brings and which we share with all who are in Christ. The “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” is our participation in the Spirit’s influence through his word dwelling in and guiding us to fruitful lives (Gal. 5:22, 23). “Affection and mercy” are also valued blessings the Philippians knew.

The aim of Paul’s exhortation was the completion of his joy (Phil. 2:2). This was not merely for his personal benefit, but his joy was so entwined with the joy of Christ that he knew what made him glad made Christ glad. But as great as Paul’s joy in them was, it would not be full until he knew they were truly “like-minded.” The word means “to think the same thing” and is the general word for harmony. It is followed by two specifics. (1) There is unity of affection: “having the same love.” Love will not survive unless it is mutual. (2) There is unity of sentiment: “being of one accord.” This means to be of “one soul; having your souls joined together . . . (and) acting together as if one soul actuated” the body (Albert Barnes).

“Of one mind” repeats the idea of harmony in stronger form and gives it greater emphasis. The unity enjoined is deeper than common belief, harmonious worship, or mutual work. As important as these are, they must be coupled to a unity of feeling. Ephesus shows that a church may be one in faith and practice but fall short of the inner bond of love that is essential to true oneness in Christ (Rev. 2:2-4). The Lord prayed for unity that is more than form (John 17:20, 21).

The Qualities of Like-Mindedness

“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition” (Phil. 2:3). Christians, as members of Christ’s body, must not act according to faction, or in separate interests. Neither should they act in opposition to or in competition with one another, whether as individuals or a party. Rivalry among Christians has no place in the service of Christ. There are two ways to do a good work: through strife and through love (Phil. 1:15-17). What Paul has in mind is the modesty of self-assessment that is learned at the feet of Jesus.

“Let nothing be done through . . . conceit.” Empty pride or vain glory is meant. Conceit is the spirit that moves one to boost himself and put others down. Vanity and discord are common bedfellows for vanity creates discord. It can ruin a marriage, a family, or a church. “Christ came to humble us, and therefore let there not be among us a spirit of pride” (Matthew Henry).

Each Christian is to be characterized by “lowliness of mind.” This is the opposite of self-seeking and vain glory. The apostle does not recommend that we think any less of ourselves than we should. Everyone needs a sense of worth and accomplishment. How often, even in the church, do we hurt and discourage people by ignoring or making light of what they do because they do not do it as well as others? Some act as if feelings for others were a mark of apostasy. Christianity was not designed to make door mats or neurotics of pe ple. When it does, it has been perverted.

But neither was it designed to encourage us to think of ourselves more highly than we should (Rom. 12:3). What Paul desires is a balance between a healthy selfesteem and a wholesome regard for others, with the preference tipped in their favor. He is discussing moral worth, not knowledge, skill, or ability. His words must be taken in perspective. We see our faults better than anyone else, if we are honest, because we view them from within. But we do not see the faults of others with the same clear vision because we view them only from without, and perhaps with warped lenses. Love’s eye is quick to detect virtues and overlook defects in others. It is in this light that we are to esteem others better than ourselves.

“Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). Each one is to watch for his own interests, of course. This is not wrong; but do not miss the “also.” What is forbidden is fixing the vision on our interests to the point that we fail to see the interests of others. The thief on one hand and the priest and the Levite on the other represent two types of excessive self-interest. The first is aggressively harmful to others, and the second is negligently harmful. There is another kind of excessive self-interest that cuts more deeply. It finds expression in Demas, a supposed friend who deserts one in time of need.

Paul is not encouraging us to be busy bodies, or to intrude into things that are not our business. Where looking into the personal affairs of others is needed (as in helping one in distress), the utmost delicacy should be used. Some enter such situations with a bulldozer, and shout the ill fortune from the housetops, leaving injured souls along their path. Perhaps the main thought in the verse is care for the spiritual welfare of others. We are not lords of others’ faith, but we are helpers in their service. We need the wisdom to know the difference.

“Probably there is no single thing so insisted on in the New Testament as the importance of harmony among Christians” (Barnes). What Paul describes is ideal. It is not always possible to attain this degree of oneness (see Rom. 12:18). But we must constantly strive to reach it. And remembering this will also help promoting disunity.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, pp. 746, 752
December 17, 1987

By Larry Ray Hafley

One of the major differences between the church described in the pages of the New Testament and modern denominational churches is that of organization or church government. Since a number of our regular readers are members of various denominations, it may be profitable to emphasize this point. Catholic and Protestant churches have various and sundry types and kinds of organizational structure and ecclesiastical hierarchy. They differ greatly from the church discussed in the Bible with respect to polity, government and organization.

“Elders In Every Church”

The New Testament pattern is simply this: “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23).

(1) Elders in each church in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Acts 14:21-23).

(2) Elders in Jerusalem church (Acts 15:4).

(3) Elders in Ephesian church (Acts 20:17,28).

(4) “Elders in every city” in Crete (Tit. 1:5).

(5) Elders in churches of Judea (Acts 11:29,30; 1 Thess. 2:14).

(6) “Elders of the church” (Jas. 5:14).

(7) (Elders), Bishops at Philippi (Phil. 1:1).

(8) Elders to feed and lead “the flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28).

(9) Note: Elders, bishops, pastors (plural) in every church.

“Just Your Opinion”

Someone may object, “That is just your opinion; that is the way you see it.” That implies that what we have outlined above is not the teaching or the pattern of the Bible. If the verses above do not set forth the conclusion we have advanced, what do they advocate? If our conclusions are not true, then what do the passages teach with respect to the organization of the church?

It further implies that the objector is a member of a church that is not organized according to the passages of Scripture cited above. If so, where is your church’s organization in the Bible? Is it there? Can you find it? We know that the church in the New Testament had an arrangement of government; it had organization of some sort. Was it like what your church has?

Is it, though, “just (my) opinion”? No, it is not. Listed below are just a few quotes which show that several denominational scholars recognize the difference between the organization of the New Testament church and that of denominational bodies.

Lofton, in the English Baptist Reformation (p. 25), said, “Someone must yet restore a plurality of elders to Baptist Churches.” Lofton was right, but no one has done it yet.

Referring to Philippians 1:1, Augustus H. Strong, a prominent denominational theologian said, “In the very first verse you have recognized an organization of the Christian church that is noteworthy. He writes to those who recognize Christ, to the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; i.e., with the overseers and deacons. Only two orders are recognized, only two sorts of officers in the Christian church. First the pastors, or overseers, of the flock, and then the deacons of the church; and I suppose we have here the outline of church organization in the apostolic time. We do not anywhere find that there are more than these two ranks, or officers, in the Christian church” (Popular Lectures on the Books of the New Testament, pp. 242, 243)

Walter L. Lingle, former President of Davidson College wrote, “In Acts 14:23 we are told that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church which they organized. In Acts 20:17 we learn that Paul sent for the elders of th church at Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. In Titus 1:5 Pau commands Titus to ordain elders in every city. These passages are sufficient to show that the New Testament church was governed by elders. . .

“Elders Sometimes Called Bishops. The Presbyterian is sometimes a bit perplexed by finding the word bishop in the New Testament. It occurs in five different places and leaves the impression that perhaps after all the New Testament church was governed by bishops. A little closer study of the passages will reveal the fact that these bishops were simply elders.

“In Acts 20:17 Paul sends for the elders of the at Ephesus. In Acts 20:28 he calls these same men bishop according to the correct translation given by the American Revised Version. In Titus 1:5 Paul directs that elders should be ordained in every city. In Titus 1:7 he refers to these same men as bishops. It is perfectly clear that elders and bishop are identical in the New Testament. They are only different names for the same office” (Presbyterians: Their History And Beliefs, pp. 11-13).

Paul F. Barackman, a Presbyterian Professor, commented, “Episkopos means ‘overseer,’ and was at first a general term. In Paul’s time the ‘bishop’s’ jurisdiction was the local church. . . .

“It is now rather generally agreed that ‘elder’ and ‘bishop’ are two words for the same office in the early church. The term ‘elder’ was basically Jewish, and had reference to the man himself. The term ‘bishop’ was basically Greek, and had reference to the function of the office. As to what is said here and elsewhere in the New Testament regarding the qualifications for these officers, it might be a good thing if we were to review our church government from time to time in the light of what Paul and others had to say.

“‘Elders’ (presbuteroi) are not to be distinguished from bishops at this point” (The Epistles of Timothy and Titus, pp. 39,40,63).

The men and books noted and quoted above are not the standard of authority. The word of God is our pattern. The word of Christ will judge us in the last day (Jn. 12:48). New Testament churches did not have Archbishops, District Overseers, or a single Pastor serving under a board of deacons, but such structures are found in denominational churches. Is the church of which you are a member organized like that of the Bible? If its pattern of organization and government is not in the word of God, what about its worship and terms of admission, its plan of salvation? Are they like the Bible? If not, you need to be concerned. Ask questions. Seek scriptural answers; study your Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, pp. 744-745
December 17, 1987