Truth Magazine

By Forrest D. Moyer

III. On Authority And Expediency.

A. We have, I believe, sustained the fact that everything authorized for God’s church is in the N.T. We must have book, chapter and verse for everything we do religiously. Problems, however, arise in the realm of expediency – that is, in carrying out God’s orders in ways that are decently and in order and without violating God’s order.

1. God’s teaching, whether to the individual or to the congregation, authorizes everything that is necessary to obedience to the command. For example, we realize that the command to baptize authorizes water in which to baptize. The command to assemble authorizes a place of assembly. The command to sing authorizes the words that we sing.

2. May I suggest that there is no such thing as a “law of expediency.” There are expedients because there is law. Where there is no law, there can be no expedients.

a. The Bible is not “silent” regarding the words of a song – it authorizes them whether written in a book or projected on a screen. The expedient is authorized by a Bible command.

b. The Bible is not “silent” regarding a place of assembly – it authorizes a place of assembly by the command to assemble and by the fact that early Christians assembled in “places.”

c. The Bible is not “silent” regarding a congregation’s “means” of giving aid to the saints in need. There are adequate examples of this in the practice of the early church. It is silent concerning another organization’s receiving contributions from churches to do this work for the churches.

3. Thus, general authority includes the ways and means of obeying the command (understanding that these ways and means do not violate God’s order).

a. We must take care lest we violate an order of God in our claim that something is expedient. Beyond doubt, David thought that his bringing the ark on a new cart pulled by oxen was an expedient way of carrying it. After all, other parts of the tabernacle were carried on wagons (Num. 7:3-8). But David sinned by putting the ark on the wagon. The reason is stated in Num. 7:9: God gave no wagons to the sons of Kohath because theirs was the service of bearing on the shoulders. Again, there was an absence of authority for wagons. They could not reason that it was expedient.

b. We cannot use the idea of expediency in any area that violates an order of God. For example, we might reason that it is expedient in our society today for women to preach or lead in public prayer. They might be quite effective in doing so. Yet, such would violate an established order of God as stated in 1 Tim. 2:8-12.

c. Instruments of music cannot be classified as expedient because they are not a part of God’s order and are not in any way necessary to our obeying the command to sing. They are an additional kind of music and are without New Testament authorization. The kind of music God authorized is singing. Words from a book or on a projector expedite our obedience to God’s command and are not another kind of music. Instrumental music is another kind. It is without authorization and cannot be expedient.

d. The local church is a body of people that is authorized to support gospel preachers (Phil. 4:15-16). It might be expedient for a messenger to deliver this money in person (2 Cor. 11:9) or for it to be delivered by the mail service. There is no violation of the oversight of elders in so doing. But the missionary society cannot be classified as an expedient because there is no authorization for the church to donate money to any other organization of any kind. The missionary society is not authorized in the New Testament and is not in any way necessary to our obeying the command to take the gospel to the world. I most emphatically believe that men like David Lipscomb and a host of others were biblically right in their opposition to the missionary society.

e. Benevolent societies among us cannot be classified as expedients since there is no New Testament authorization for the church to donate money to another organization. Benevolent societies are not authorized and are not necessary to our obeying the command to give aid to saints in distress. The church uses expedients when it provides a house or the care necessary for its needy saints such as the widows of 1 Tim. 5:16. Donating money to another organization is not an expedient. That organization must use expedients itself such as a house or the care necessary for those put in its charge.

B. The truth is that before anything can be expedient, it must not in any way violate God’s order. It must be in the realm of that which is authored by God. Therefore, anything that the church does must be authorized (authored) by the Lord in the pages of the New Testament. Will any of our brothers disagree with this?

IV. Application.

Brethren, we must get down to the brass tacks of application of Bible authority. We are here today because we recognize that there are differences between us on some vital issues. The way for us to be united is for us to discuss and resolve these differences. The only way we can is by the application of Bible authority to our practices. Now we all recognize each other as brethren, and we truly do love one another. But however great our love may be, that alone does not solve the problems any more than love alone will solve problems that may arise between husband and wife. The problems have to be addressed.

A. We must allow the New Testament to teach us what the work or function of the church is. Are we not agreed that the church has an obligation to carry the gospel to those lost in sin? Are we not agreed that the church has a responsibility in edifying its members? Are we not agreed that the church has a responsibility to aid saints in distress?

However, many congregations have gotten involved in providing recreational facilities for their members, their children and others. But can the church scripturally provide for the recreational activities of its members and of the community? Can we spend the money from the church treasury for facilities for recreation. I am sure that we would agree that money collected by the church can only be used for that which is its work. A church building is but an extension of the money given into the treasury of the church. Thus, it is a legitimate question to ask, What did God assign the church to do?

B. Can we choose for the church to function in other areas than that set forth in the New Testament? Remember the principle: from Heaven or from men!

1. The early church sang – can we choose to play? Is such from God or is it authored by men?

2. The early church had the Lord’s supper on Sunday. Can we choose some other day of the week to observe the Lord’s supper? Is some other day from Heaven or from men?

3. The early church took care of its needy members. Can we choose another organization to do this work and receive donations from the church? We are not talking about the means such as a place or food. We are talking about the organization that provides the means. Is a human organization authored by God or by men?

C. Is there a way by which we can be united and yet do all the work effectively, as well as scripturally? If I didn’t think we could, I wouldn’t be here.

1. First, let’s look at supporting gospel preachers throughout the world. This is something in which each one of us is interested. We want to see the world taken for Christ! Can such be done without forming a missionary society – a separate organization from the church? Yes, it can be done. Can such be done without our forming a sponsoring church kind of arrangement through which churches funnel their funds?

Yes, it can be done. How? Let us look to the Scriptures for the answer since there is no other place for us to get a proper answer.

a. Did N.T. churches support gospel preachers? Yes, 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-16.

b. How did they do so? They sent support to the preacher! (Same verses)

c. Will any brother deny that it is scriptural (authorized by the Scriptures) to send support directly to the preacher? When brother W.W. Otey debated J.B. Briney on the missionary society issue, they discussed this issue. Briney defended the society by saying:

“Now, is there any objection to those small congregations cooperating with each other? I ask my friend how small congregations that are not able to send a missionary each are to cooperate? How are they to take part in this work? Now, the society provides for that” (Otey-Briney Debate, p. 199).

Brother Otey replied:

“How can a church that can give but ten dollars work without working through a society?” “Now, my friends, we are going to tell you exactly what the Word of the Lord says about it. We are going to turn to Paul’s letter to the church of Philippi … Phil. 4:15-16… Now, who sent it? Was it some great missionary society or organization? Oh, no, but the church in Philippi, sent directly to Paul, the man in the field. Could the weak church now do that? That church did it” (Ibid., p. 280).

d. The same answer can be given today. Brethren, we believe whole heartedly in congregational cooperation. The church in Cayucos where I preach helps currently in the support of eight gospel preachers other than myself. Other churches are also helping in the support of some of these preachers. We send directly to the preacher. This is being done throughout the world. Will it get the job done? Yes. Is it scriptural. Yes. Can we unite on this? My answer is yes. Can we unite on a missionary society? No. Can we unite on a sponsoring church arrangement? Not unless we see God’s authorizing such a practice in His word. Brethren, we want to do everything that God has authorized us to do.

2. Can we take care of all needy saints without forming a human institution to do it? Yes. The local church can provide the means in caring for the needy saints. Such was done in Acts 6. If the care was provided by a human organization, it would still have to provide the means of such care. The question is which organization shall provide the means? We would do well to ask, “Why were human institutions called into existence in the first place?” Was it because we read of such in the Word? Or was it because men decided for such? Are they authored by God or by men?

a. In the Otey-Briney debate, Briney made an appeal to prejudice as he sought to defend the societies in their care of aged preachers and little children by speaking of “. . the dear little orphans, under the fostering care of these institutions, and there because the hearts of good people have moved them to make an arrangement like this. (Ibid., pp. 272-273).

b. Otey replied: “I am not denying that it is right to care for the aged preachers. That is not the question. It is not what you do, but the organization or channels through which it is done . . . My opponent’s position is that God has authorized people to organize such institutions as these societies through which to do it. That is the issue between us” (Ibid., p. 257).

c. “1 Tim. 5:9. What institution or organization is in view here? The one body of Christ, the church” (Ibid., p. 274).

d. We can respond exactly as brother Otey did. Let the church do its own work without donating money to a human institution.

3. Whenever a work or obligation is one that belongs to individual Christians rather than the congregation, then let individuals do it in whatever way they see fit without infringing upon the work of the congregation. Paul set forth this principle in 1 Tim. 5:16. “Let not the church be charged” in matters that belong to the individual.

a. If brethren want to build a college in which they teach Bible classes along with arts and science, let them do so. But it is not the function of the church and we need to keep the church out of the college business.

b. If brethren want to get involved in recreational activities for themselves, their children, or others, let them do so as individuals, but keep the church out of the recreation business.

4. The church can do its own work of preaching, edifying, maintaining worship, and aid to saints in distress. We can spread the gospel to the whole world. We can be united, but only if we seek for and follow the authority of the Scriptures in all things.

Conclusion: The church of our Lord can spread like wildfire without societies, machinery, or central headquarters. Brethren, we have a message; it is the greatest in all the world and fills the greatest need of the world. Let us diligently work to lay aside all our differences and join arm in arm in the greatest conflict that this world has ever known. Let us march shoulder to shoulder fired with the zeal of discoverers. Let us preach God’s message with love for one another and for our -fellow-man and with a sincere desire to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. ” Our hearts can beat in spiritual unison. Let us cry “Back! Back over the commandments and doctrines of men! Back to the worship ordained by God! Back to the truth in its original power and simplicity! Forward – back to Jerusalem!”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 9, pp. 265-266
May 7, 1987

By Mike Willis

When some people learn that I preach, they refer to me as “Reverend” or “Rev.” I understand that they are trying to show respect and courtesy toward me. Such religious titles are commonly worn by the “clergy” of the denominations and, judging the churches of Christ to be just another denomination, they refer to gospel preachers just like they refer to the denominational clergy. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept the religious titles commonly worn by denominational clergymen.

Here are the reasons why I reject the wearing of religious titles:

1. There is no New Testament authority for the practice.

Though there were many gospel preachers in the first century, not one of them accepted and wore a religious title. I cannot read where Paul was ever called “Reverend Paul,” Peter was ever called “Archbishop Peter,” James was ever called “Pope James,” Timothy was ever called “Pastor Timothy,” or John was ever referred to as “The Right Reverend, Dr. John.” The wearing of religious titles is a practice that arose centuries later. They were never worn with the approval of God by those in the Lord’s church. Consequently, I refuse to go beyond the things which God has revealed that we should do in our worship of Him (2 Jn. 9-11; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 22:18-19).

2. Wearing religious titles is expressly condemned.

The Lord Jesus forbade the practice when He said,

But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ (Matt. 23:8-10).

The wearing of religious titles to elevate one brother above another was soundly condemned by Jesus. The practice is contrary to the spirit of Christianity that “all ye are brethren.”

Long ago Job said, “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away” (Job 32:21-22).

3. Wearing religious titles exalts man too highly.

Paul warned us “not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6). Man should not be an object of worship. Peter would not allow Cornelius to bow to him (Acts 10:26); an angel would not allow John to worship him (Rev. 22:9). Man steps outside his proper bounds of his habitation when he allows himself to be worshiped.

When man exalts himself through flattering titles such as “reverend,” “right reverend,” “worshipful master … .. most worshipful,” etc., he encourages others to offer praise to him, rather than giving praise to God. In this practice, man sins.

4. Wearing religious titles exalts one brother above another.

Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees saying that they “love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:6-8). By “all ye are brethren,” Jesus forbade exalting one brother above another (also see Gal. 3:27-28; Jas. 2:14).

5. Wearing religious titles contributes to a clergy-laity distinction.

The first century church did not have a clergy separate from the members. In Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong wrote,

In the apostolical Church no abstract distinction of clergy and laity, as to privilege or sanctity, was known; all believers were called to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices in Christ (1 Pet. v. 3). The Jewish antithesis of clergy and laity was at first unknown among Christians; and it was ‘only as men fell back from the evangelical to the Jewish point of view’ that the idea of the general Christian priesthood of all believers gave place, more or less completely, to that of the special priesthood or clergy (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. II, p. 386).

In the years since the New Testament was written, a clergy has developed. The clergy is composed of those ordained for performance of Christian worship and teaching. The ordained clergy has these jobs to perform; (1) interpret the Bible for the people, (2) administer the sacraments (usually defined as the Lord’s supper, baptism, marriage, etc.), and (3) administer excommunication.

Only those who meet certain qualifications can become part of the clergy. In the Presbyterian denomination, a man must have a diploma from college, a diploma from an approved seminary, and be willing to submit to the teachings of their accepted creeds in order to become a member of their clergy. The Wesleyan Methodists encourage their men to attend a 4-year ministerial school operated by their denomination, hold membership in the Wesleyan Church and pass an examination from their denominational hierarchy. Neither Jesus nor one of His apostles could have been part of the clergy of the modern denominations of men.

The establishment of a clergy undermines the New Testament concept that all believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9), having the right to approach God directly in worship without the intervention of a human intermediary. Jesus is the only High Priest we need through whom to approach God (Heb. 2:17-3:1). Every man can read and understand the Bible; he has no need for an official interpretation by a church official.

The only biblical passages which could be used to authorize a separate priesthood must be found in the Old Testament. To appeal to those passages for authority for a separate priesthood is to revert to Judaism with its animal sacrifices, rather than accepting the all-sufficiency of the blood of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

Noted Religious Titles Worn Today

Here are some of the religious titles which men wear today. All of them are unauthorized by the New Testament.

Pope Father

Reverend Right Reverend

Bishop Archbishop

Cardinal Pastor

Masonry has always shown a propensity for flattering titles. The master of a symbolic lodge is addressed as “Worshipful Master.” The prevailing title of a Grand Master is “Most Worshipful.” A thirty-second degree Mason is “Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret.”

The New Testament teaching on wearing religious titles condemns the practices of most denominations and the Masons.

New Testament Terms Show What A Man Does

A man is a “doctor” because he doctors the sick; a man is a plumber because he plumbs; a man is a builder because he builds. These terms explain what a man does and are not titles. In the same way, the New Testament uses terms to describe what men do. A preacher (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11) preaches (2 Tim. 4:2). An evangelist (Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5) evangelizes. (There is no difference in a preacher and an evangelist in the New Testament.) Overseers (Acts 20:28, sometimes translated “bishops”) oversee a local congregation. “Pastors” (Eph. 4:11) tend or shepherd a flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). These are not religious titles to exalt one brother over another; they are descriptive terms which tell what a man does.

A preacher does not oversee the affairs of a local church and is never called “The Pastor” in the New Testament. Bishops, overseers, pastors and elders are different terms for the same work – the work of guiding and directing the affairs of a local church. This office or work is limited to the local church and is not to be confused with the evangelistic labors of a preacher. A preacher has no right or authority from God to pastor or oversee a church; therefore he is not properly called “The Pastor.” God ordained that each local church has a plurality of elders, bishops, or pastors – men chosen within the local membership – to oversee the local congregation. Preachers are not to usurp that office for themselves. Like all other members in a local church, the preacher serves under bishops, elders, or pastors. If we properly understand the work of a preacher and the work of a pastor, we will not confuse the two terms.

Conclusion

A generation which does not learn the thoughts and language of New Testament Christianity will soon embibe the thoughts and language of modern denominationalism. Like the Israelites in Nehemiah’s day who began speaking the speech of Ashdod (Neh. 13:24), untaught Christians will begin speaking the language of denominationalism.

This has already happened in the Christian Churches. Isaac Errett, former editor of Christian Standard, received a silver doorplate which read, “Rev. l. Errett.” Errett displayed the door-plate and J.S. Lamar, his biographer, justified it saying that “the Savior’s words do not prohibit the use of any designation which simply makes known the fact that the man to whom it is applied is a preacher. It is distinctions among preachers – the acceptance of highsounding titles which elevate the parties above their brother ministers – that the divine word seems to forbid” (Memoirs of Isaac Errett, Vol. 1, pp. 277-278). Wearing religious titles is accepted practice among the Disciples of Christ denomination.

We will do well to be reminded of the danger of wearing religious titles, even in incipient form, among us. Sometimes men who have academic degrees are advertised as gospel preachers with these titles: “Dr. . .” The term “brother,” which is used in the Bible to refer to a relationship sustained by all Christians, is sometimes reserved only for the preacher. Others are introduced by their names but the preacher is introduced as “Brother .” We must never forget that “all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8).

The wearing of religious titles is a practice condemned of God. Let us avoid every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:21). Let us resolve to call no man father who is not our fleshly parent, who is neither married nor has children, and who does not teach the gospel which enables children to be begotten of God (1 Cor. 4:15); to call no man reverend who does not revere what God spoke about wearing religious titles (Matt. 23:9); to call no man pastor who does not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 but usurps to himself the rule over a local congregation; to call no man bishop who oversees a collectivity of churches unknown to God’s word; to call no man cardinal who exalts himself as if he held a chief office in the church; and to call no man pope for God alone is our Father.

Let God alone be exalted among those who profess to serve Him.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 10, pp. 290, 310-311
May 21, 1987

By Raymond E. Harris

As we read the first three chapters of the book of Romans, we find the apostle Paul declaring in no uncertain terms, the fact that Jew and Gentile alike, stood condemned before God.

In Romans 1, Paul indicts the Gentiles by saying “. . . when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (v. 21). Hence, he tells us that, “God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts” (v. 24), “God gave them up unto vile affections” (v. 26), “God gave them over to a mind void of judgment” (v. 28). One might say God “washed His hands” of the Gentile world when they so utterly departed from His righteousness.

On the other hand, in Romans 2, we find the Jews possessed an unbelievable capacity to doubt, murmur and sin against Jehovah. This was true, despite all the special instruction and treatment they had received. In the Old Testament, God lamented the fact that even the cattle of the field knew their master, but Israel did not seem to be mindful of God (Isa. 1:3).

So when Jesus was born into the world, He arrived upon the scene to find the whole population lost in sin. What was to be done? How could mankind ever be saved? Prophets of old and even the angels of heaven had wondered throughout the centuries, how mankind – God’s prize creation – could ever be saved. Was it possible to restore peace? Was there any way for an honorable and just reconciliation to come about? What was man to do? Was there any way man could be forgiven? It seemed doubtful.

Not even the angels of heaven can fathom the mind of God! However, in 1 Peter 1:20, the apostle explains that God had foreordained, before the foundation of the world, that Jesus would come in these last times. He would come not only to reveal the Father, and give a new law; but, He would also give Himself upon the altar of the cross, as a lamb without spot or blemish. Yes, the Almighty Father allowed His Son to come and “stand in,” to die for you and me and everyone. God did not want His prize creation, the whole human race, to be lost eternally. Hence, He set in motion a grand scheme whereby men could be justified and forgiven.

That is what Christianity is all about! The gospel points to Jesus as man’s only hope. The gospel sets forth the terms of salvation. The church has been established. Now all responsibility rests with man. Man sinned against God! Man is not at liberty to legislate the terms of his own forgiveness! Man’s only hope for forgiveness and salvation is in compliance to God’s terms.

For the sake of your own eternal welfare, won’t you look to Jesus as your Savior? Won’t you repent of your past sins (Acts 2:38), confess that Jesus is the Christ (Rom. 10:10) and be baptized (Mark 16:16)? The Bible explains that when we do these things we are born into the family of God, we are Christians, members of the Lord’s body, the church. This is all possible in that through these acts of obedience all past sins are forgiven. What a glorious thought! Won’t you act now! Behold, today is the day of salvation!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 9, p. 270
May 7, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: I do not believe that it is scriptural for benevolent institutions to be supported out of the church’s treasury. As an individual, is it right for me to help such a home?

Reply: The Scriptures do not authorize churches to build and maintain any human institution, whether it be a school, a hospital or a benevolent home. This issue, along with others, has resulted in division among the Lord’s people. Faithful brethren oppose this practice because the New Testament does not authorize it. They oppose it on the same ground that they oppose instrumental music in worship. There is no scriptural authority for it. The issue of churches contributing funds out of their treasuries to human institutions has been discussed on the polemic platform several times, and as yet, the Scripture has not been produced that will authorize the practice. We do not question the sincerity of brethren who favor this practice nor those who are involved in it. Their motive is not the issue. The issue is: do the Scriptures authorize it? If all brethren would be guided by the Scriptures instead of human reasoning and sentiment, we would not have division over it.

There are some organizations which cannot even be scripturally supported by individuals. Even though they do much good, they nevertheless donate to unscriptural religious bodies such as the Roman Catholic Church; and for that reason alone, brethren with conviction will not contribute their money to them.

The last part of our question is: “As an individual is it right for me to help such a home?” The reference, of course, is to benevolent institutions as referred to in the first part of the question. If our querist means is it right to donate money to such a home in order to support and maintain it, the answer is “no”; for the reason that it is being financially supported by churches out of their treasuries, as well as by individuals. However, if our querist has in mind buying services from the home, the answer is “yes.” Churches and individuals may buy services from a utility company or purchase books and supplies from a Baptist bookstore. Such institutions have services to sell, and there is a vast difference in buying their services and in donating money to their support. No effort is made here to establish a parallel between the structures of benevolent homes and utility companies, etc. The point involved is the difference between making contributions to them and buying their services.

Churches in the New Testament did benevolent work by caring for the needs of saints for whom they were responsible (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8,9; Rom. 15:26; etc.). They did not build and support benevolent institutions through which to do the work that God authorized them to do. When we all submit ourselves to the authority of the Scriptures, a “thus saith the Lord” in all matters of faith and practice, we shall have the unity for which our precious Lord Jesus Christ prayed (Jn. 17:20, 21).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 9, p. 261
May 7, 1987