Truth Magazine

By Dennis C. Abernathy

“But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15). As sad as it is, the situation described by the above verse of Scripture is all too true in many congregations of the Lord’s people.

This is seen in an atmosphere of bickering and fussing, backbiting, talebearing, the hurling of taunts, the use of snide and sarcastic remarks, and in general, that of agitation and turmoil.

I suppose there are various reasons for such a sad and sorry state of affairs to exist among God’s people. It may be jealously, envy, factions, the party spirit, etc. Whatever it is, it is wrong and the church of the Lord suffers!

In congregations, brethren will have some disagreement with the preacher or elders, or, perhaps they do not like some decision that is made. In a group of people working together, these things happen from time to time. But brethren, there is a right way and a wrong way to air our disagreements and make our feelings known. Instead of making their feelings known to the preacher or elders in a brotherly way, they begin to eat away, causing all the turmoil they can, looking for anything they can use to get their point across or to get at the one or ones who have now become their “foe.” To make the situation even worse, all too often they conduct themselves like termites – never out in the open – but working – continuously working gnawing away – spreading a little bit of gossip here – a sarcastic remark there – and on and on it goes until it erupts into open contention and in some cases splits the church!

Another scenario is seen when members are disciplined for ungodly conduct, and some do not like such action for one reason or the other, so they will try to get everyone they can to take the side of the sinner (the one disciplined) against the elders and the church. In other words, “the poor sinner is just misunderstood.” “He is not really doing anything all that bad.” Next, you begin to hear how two or three “just had it in” for this poor misunderstood and sorely maligned brother. Juicy tidbits of hearsay are tossed about among the members of the church, motives are imagined, maligned, and impugned. Brethren begin to line up, petitions are drawn up, and everyone who can be persuaded sign up, and what you have is one big sinful mess!

On and on we could go. But you can mark it well. It is a sad state of affairs when the church is thrown into turmoil. Pity the one guilty of causing such. Please do not make charges and spread rumors and slander the good name of others. If you have a legitimate charge to make against your brother (you have clear cut proof and reliable witnesses), go to him and handle it in a brotherly way. If decisions are made and they are according to truth, then support them. If ungodly members are worked with, rebuked and finally withdrawn from, encourage them to repent of their ungodliness – but please never sympathize with them and encourage them in their wrong by telling everybody how wrong the church is in taking such action.

Remember, if we “bite and devour one another” we will be consumed the congregation will cease to exist and even if it does continue on it will have lost its good name and reputation and will be a hindrance for the Lord’s cause in that community.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 10, p. 289
May 21, 1987

By Donald Townsley

We believe this subject needs to be studied because, as we look at the pages of history, it seems there has never been a reformation or restoration among men where the people as a whole remained faithful to the principles of that reformation/restoration for even one hundred years! Generally, it seems, the descendants of the reformers/restorers do not remain faithful to the principles of their fathers throughout many generations!

During the lifetime of the Lord’s apostles “the mystery of lawlessness” was already at work (2 Thess. 2:7) – the “man of sin” was on his way! The restoration which made such great strides in this country in the first half of the nineteenth century had, by the middle of the century, begun to drift into “societyism” with the great majority finally departing from the faith. Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, along with some others, were the “salt” that kept a few churches from going with the departure – they worked hard to keep a few from leaving the New Testament pattern. Then, it was not long before brethren would begin drifting from the truth again. During the lifetime of brother J.D. Tant (who died in 1941) another drift had begun. Brother Tant, seeing the drift, warned over and over: “Brethren, we are drifting!” The warnings were not heeded and the drifting gained momentum. By the early 1950s churches were surging into a complete apostasy from the faith! A few strong voices were heard pleading for a return to Bible authority, and we thank God that there were those who heeded the admonition and stood against the harsh wave of digression! Now, as we stand thirty years this side of the last major departure, I feel the need to sound brother Tant’s warning – “Brethren, we are drifting!”

Many who espouse the truth and run well for a while have allowed the force of their fleshly appetites to lead them into error – or to drift from their love for the truth to such an extent that they no longer have the taste to do battle with our adversary, the devil (1 Pet. 5:8) – and when the devil is not resisted, he is going to gain a greater foothold (Jas. 4:7; Eph. 4:27)! Let us look at some things that bring a departure from the faith.

When Preachers Quit Preaching The Gospel

When preachers quit preaching the gospel a departure from the faith is not long in coming. Simple, distinctive gospel preaching is the only thing that will save the church from error and set it apart from all other religious institutions in the world! Gospel preaching not only sets forth the truth, it refutes sin and error wherever it is found – in the church or in the world. Gospel preaching is not like denominational sermonizing and the telling of personal experiences and stories (which appeals to most religious people); gospel preaching has its basis in God’s word. Time cannot change the nature of true gospel preaching; it is the same in every generation because its basis, the word of God, is the same!

The New Testament reveals some distinctive characteristics of gospel preaching. Inspired preachers did not deal in generalities; sin, whether in the church or out, was pin-pointed and condemned! This is the way Peter preached on Pentecost (Acts 2:22,23), and the way Stephen preached in the seventh chapter of the book of Acts. Paul preached this way when he rebuked Barjesus (Acts 13:6-12) and Peter (Gal. 2:11) for their sins. Religious error was always refuted by inspired preachers (Gal. 2:4,5).

Tolerance And Compromise Toward Sin And Error The disposition of tolerance and compromise that is found toward sin and error will ruin and destroy the church of our Lord! There can be no compromise with worldliness, modernism, institutionalism, denominationalism, Calvinism, or any other “ism” without traveling the road of digression! Brother Foy E. Wallace made a statement many years ago that we had better take to heart. He said: “The strength of the church is found in the truth, and the defense of it.” All error must be met with the full force of the gospel, and with the determination to put it down (2 Cor. 10:4,5).

We are being told today to preach “positive” sermons; to leave error alone because someone might be offended and never come back to our services. Brethren, positive preaching only – that which never exposes any error – will fill the church with unconverted people who stand for nothing and will follow every wind of doctrine! A solid diet of positive, ethical sermons – sermons that are not rooted in the redemptive system and are undergirded by no doctrinal base -will restructure the church into a denomination!

The late B.C. Goodpasture (who was a leader in the departure from the faith thirty years ago) became very disturbed in his dying days of February 1977 because of the type preaching that was being done in many liberal churches. He made the following observation to his friend, Ralph T. Henley: “Some preachers are apparently trying to restructure the church of our Lord by resorting to preaching only positive sermons. ” Henley said that brother Goodpasture “was visibly disturbed over statements, from many quarters, making fun of quoting the Bible to prove the validity of a sermon” (Gospel Advocate, Sept. 15, 1977). Brother Goodpasture was soberly viewing the work of his own promotions, and he knew that this kind of preaching would completely restructure the church. Ralph Henley goes on to say: “Can the church be restructured by a solid diet of positive ethical sermons, undergirded by no doctrinal base? The answer is a resounding ‘yes'” (Gospel Advocate, Sept. 15, 1977).

Young preachers today who think they have found something new in this positive method with the Dale Carnegie approach need to understand that this style of preaching is not new – it was around thirty (or more) years ago – and that the preachers and churches who went for that kind of preaching were the leaders in the disgressive movement! Many of these same preachers are now trying to unite with the Christian Church. Older men among us today who seem to think they are going to “lead us out of the wilderness” and “put us back on the road” with this positive type of preaching are only hastening the day of a departure from the faith! The word of God, and history, will bear this out.

A Lack Of Bible Knowledge

A lack of Bible study, resulting in a lack of Bible knowledge, will bring about a departure from the faith. God said through Hosea: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6). The Hebrew Christians were rebuked for a failure to study (Heb. 5:11-14). Paul told the Ephesians to “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17); and Peter said that we are to be able to give a reason for our hope (1 Pet. 3:15). This requires study of God’s word! Every member of the church needs to be informed on the church and its organization; the work of the church; the plan of salvation; the second law of pardon; worship; Bible authority; marriage, divorce, and remarriage; worldliness; what is wrong with denominationalism, Calvinism, institutionalism, instrumental music and premillennialism. When the people of God lack Bible knowledge on these vital subjects, we are in danger of a departure from the faith!

A Lowering Of Morals And A Breakdown Of Home Life

The lowering of morals and a breakdown of home life will help bring about a departure from the faith. The morals in this country are at an all-time low! We are told that more than fifty percent of married women and more than seventy percent of married men have been (or will be) unfaithful to their companions; that forty-nine percent of girls seventeen years old have had sexual relations; that 23,000 people have already died with AIDS, and that one-quarter of a million will be dead (or dying) within the next five years. Immodesty and vulgarity are the common things of the dayl Men and women make no effort to flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18) – many seem to make opportunity to engage in it! People don’t seem to care what they say, what they wear, or what they do! And the saddest thing about all this is that many who call themselves children of God get caught up in this worldliness! We see marriage, divorce and remarriage for any cause (Matt. 19:9); married couples who are unfaithful to the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4); worldly, lascivious dress (Gal. 5:19) even among those who call themselves “Christians”! Also a factor contributing to the breakdown of home life is the working mother – mothers who are out of the home working so they can have more “things” while their children are not receiving proper guidance (Tit. 2:4-5; 1 Tim. 5:14).

A lesson we all need to learn is that immorality and departing from the faith go hand-in-hand! A people who are weak morally will not long be strong in the faith!

Cowardice

Cowardice among God’s people will help to bring about a departure from the faith. God has never had any use for a coward. When Israel went to battle, God did not want them to be afraid (Deut. 20:1). Those who were fearful or fainthearted were allowed to return to their homes lest they cause others to become fainthearted (Deut. 20:8). God told Gideon, as he prepared to fight against the Midianites, to let those who were fearful and afraid go home (Judg. 7:5-7). John said the fearful would be lost (Rev. 21:8). Peter said we are to add virtue (courage) to our lives (2 Pet. 1:5).

Many are too fearful to “stand and be counted” when error is taught. They say: “Let us have unity. If you teach the truth on that you will stir up trouble.” Let us all be reminded that unity is to be based upon the word of God (John 17:20-21). Truth is what we must have at all cost (Prov. 23:23; John 8:32; 2 Jn. 9)! Unity will come, without fail, to all who walk in truth (2 Jn. 4; Eph. 4:1-6). Unity in compromise with error is not New Testament unity! Those who are too fearful to stand always play a role in every departure from the faith! The departure over institutionalism and the sponsoring church is filled with examples of men who were too fearful to stand, and who thus lost the Cause to error!

Those Who Have No Real Desire To Be Christians

Those in the church who have no real desire to be New Testament Christians help to bring about a departure from the faith. These people don’t want all the truth (Jn. 8:32)! They don’t want all the truth on the church and its work; all the truth on how Christians are to live and dress; all the truth on how Christians are to worship; all the truth on how Christians are to be forgiven of their sins; nor all the truth on what the Bible teaches about unity, fellowship, and the plan of salvation! Yes, those in the church who have no real desire to be dedicated New Testament Christians are the leaders in every departure from the faith!

Yes, brethren, we are drifting! If this article disturbs you, it may be a sign that you have already drifted farther than you realize! Let us stop the drift before it results in another departure!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 9, pp. 272-273
May 7, 1987

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