Truth Magazine

By Don Givens

Jesus gave complete and unreserved endorsement to the old covenant Scriptures (Matt. 5:17,18; John 10:35) and said that He did not come to destroy, deny or fight against them, but to fulfil them. Our Lord quoted extensively from the old Testament and referred to its people and stories as historical fact.

Jesus upheld the validity of the law in its completeness, and He claimed that the three parts of the former Scriptures prophesied of Him: “the law, the prophets, and the psalms” (Luke 24:44). Our Lord obeyed the law of God under which the Jews lived at that time. He was willingly obedient to parental (Luke 2:51), civil (Matt. 22:21) and religious law (John 8:29). In all of His conversations and activities, Jesus’ constant appeal was to the Scriptures.

In defeating the tempter, Jesus wielded the Word of God (Matt. 4: 1-11) by emphatically stating “it is written.” Our Lord used the Scriptures to rebuke wrong-doing (Matt. 21:12, 13) and He exposed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their human traditions which made void the Scriptures. The Master Teacher clearly pointed out that the source of error was ignorance of the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29) and He quoted Scripture to silence objectors (Matt. 22:41-45).

Are we like Jesus in our attitude toward the Scriptures? Do we have this appreciation and respect for the sacred writings? How unlike Jesus is the person today who may boast of having “the spirit of Christ” but who at the same time is trampling underfoot the law of God! (Luke 6:46)

God’s only begotten Son loved, trusted, quoted, and believed wholeheartedly the Scriptures even exclaiming 41scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Dare our attitude be less? Does one today “mouth love . . . and disregard law”? Does one turn “grace” into an excuse to sin? Does one “bend the law” to conform to his own way? If so, he has none of the genuine “spirit of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:2-4; Gal. 5:13-15).

The theme of Jesus’ life was humble obedience to the will of the Father (Heb. 5:8,9). Is that our desire and passion? The grand design of the gospel is to make us more like Jesus every day; to follow His example, to imitate His character, and to be “changed into that same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18).

The question of eternal significance is not: “Do I have a good attitude toward myself?” but rather: “Do I have a good and proper attitude toward God’s inspired Word?”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 8, p. 231
April 17, 1986

By Mike Willis

Ever so often, someone writes an article opposing the present usage by God’s people of the name “Church of Christ.” These articles seem to be written in opposition to the sermons which are sometimes preached on the name of the church. Some brethren seem allergic to any sermons which are presented on the New Testament church to distinguish the Lord’s church from modern denominationalism. Indeed, they believe that the Lord’s church is just another denomination. One area in which they think they have a legitimate objection is in the area of the name of the church.

Does The Church Have A Name?

Before we can answer that question, we must define the word “name.” Webster defines the word as follows:

1. a word of phrase by which a person, thing, or class of things is known, called, or spoken to or of. 2. a word or words expressing some quality considered characteristic or descriptive of a person or thing.

Would anyone like to deny that the church has a name? Using Webster’s definition, who could deny that the church has a name?

Yet these brethren would protest, “I object to ‘the’ name of the church. The church does not have a name like that of a man, John Doe.” First of all, I know of no one who is teaching that God gave the church only one name and that it would be sinful to use any other name than “church of Christ.” Secondly, this objection denies that the church has a “proper name. ” A proper noun is distinguished from a common noun by this objection. Yet, I affirm that Paul’s usage of “unto the church of God which is at Corinth” is no different than when I address a letter to the “Church of Christ, 622 Main Street, Any City, U.S.A.” Any English grammarian would state that “Church of Christ” is a proper noun; similarly, so is “church of God” in 1 Corinthians 1:2.

“Church of Christ” Is Just Like Other Denominational Names

Some brethren have written that the usage of “Church of Christ” just like the usage of any other denominational name. To this I object.

1. Church of Christ is in the Bible. Most denominational names are not in the Bible. I defy the man who claims that the name “church of Christ is just like other denominational names” to find these names in the Bible: Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, Episcopalian Church, Pentecostal Church, Mormon Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. He may respond, “I can find ‘church of God’ in the Bible.” That is correct and I know of no man who considers it sinful for the Lord’s church to be called the “church of God.”

2. It honors Christ. Most denominational names do not honor the Lord or Christ; instead they exalt some man, organizational arrangement, belief, or practice. To illustrate, consider these names:

Lutheran Church exalts Martin Luther

Baptist Church exalts baptism

Presbyterian Church exalts a form of church government

Episcopalian Church exalts a form of church government

Pentecostal Church exalts the miracles of Pentecost

Methodist Church exalts certain methods of holiness

The names revealed in the Bible honor and exalt Christ or God. In this respect the names are different.

3. It is a name in which we can stand united. Denominational names are divisive. The various members of denominations cannot unite under one denominational name (e.g., no Baptist wants to be known as a Roman Catholic; no United Pentecostal wants to be called a Episcopalian). In contrast, everyone could agree to be called by any name by which the Bible designates the church, such as church of God, church of Christ, kingdom of God, etc. By using a name by which the church is designated in the Scriptures, we can have unity. I know of no division among God’s people which has been caused because someone wanted to call the Lord’s church a biblical name.

Much Criticism But No Alternatives

Through the years, I have watched carefully the various articles written by those who oppose using “church of Christ” as “‘the name” of the church. Much criticism has been written about what is presently practiced by churches of Christ. Wanting to be objective, I have watched what these brethren do to learn their better way of doing things. What do they do? Surprisingly, they practice the very things which they condemn in others. Their meeting houses have “Church of Christ” written on them; their signs in front of their buildings have “Church of Christ” written on them. Their stationary has “Church of Christ” on the letterheads and envelopes. Their bulletins say, “published by the church of Christ which meets at. . . . ” How serious are these brethren in making their objections if they are going to practice the very thing which they condemn?

They express; a concern about what “Church of Christ” on our signs conveys to the world. I suppose that “Church of Christ’ I on the sign in front of the building where I preach conveys approximately the same thing to the world as it conveys when written on the sign in front of their building. But what alternatives do we have? Shall we get a sign on which we change the name every week or day? Perhaps we could say: “Church of God” on Mondays, “Church of the Firstborn” on Tuesdays, “House of God” on Wednesdays, “Kingdom of God” on Thursdays, “Kingdom of Heaven” on Fridays, “The Lord’s Church” on Saturdays, and “Church of Christ” on Sundays. Every fifth Sunday we could put up a “No-name Church.” Would this be more scriptural or less scriptural? What would this convey to the world? The world would probably think that we were a mixed up bunch of people, bordering on emotional instability. Or, we could get one sign on which we wrote every name in the Bible by which the Lord’s church is designated. Surprisingly, none of those who so conscientiously oppose the sectarian use of “Church of Christ” has opted for either of these alternatives. As a matter of fact, they have suggested no workable alternatives at all. For the most part, they just keep on practicing what they condemn!

A few come up with some alternatives such as “Undenominational Christians Meet Here.” The idea is true but the expression itself is not found in the Bible. Is it really more effective than “church of Christ” which God directly revealed? If we say “church of Christ,” we will need to explain it means “Undenominational Christians” and if we say “Undenominational Christians,” we need to explain it to mean the “church of Christ” about which we read in the Bible. This is tit for tat. The same would be true for “Undenominational Church,” “The Church,” or any other proposal.

What Is Sectarianism?

Is sectarianism determined by what is on the sign in front of the building? I think not. Sectarianism is not a state of the sign, it is a state of the mind. Our brethren have been working to oppose sectarianism, even among our own members, for as long as I can remember.

Gospel preachers have preached, in every sermon that I remember on the identifying marks of the church, that the New Testament church is called by many different names, including church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23), house of God (1 Tim. 3:15). church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:15), etc. They have worked to teach members that individual saints are called Christians, disciples or believers but not “Church of Christers.” They have opposed usages such as “Church of Christ preacher,” “Church of Christ church,” “I’m a church of Christ.” They have correctly pointed out that this is the language of denominationalism, not of New Testament Christianity.

However, there will always be Christians converted from denominationalism and influenced by the denominational world around us who will have to be taught more perfectly the way of Christ. Changing the sign in front of the building will not change this. The only thing which will change this is the consistent teaching of New Testament Christianity to contrast it with modern denominationalism.

Many of the sermons which are preached against the “Church of Christ” name are aimed, not at moving brethren into a better understanding of undenominational Christianity, but at moving them into the broad, mainstream of twentieth century, Protestant denominationalism. Some are working to silence the guns which are being fired against the use of denominational names such as Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Episcopalian Church, and other names not found in the Bible. Unfortunately, some naive preachers among us are picking up on these objections and parroting them around as if they had discovered some new truth – that the New Testament uses more than one name to refer to God’s people. And, maybe that is new to them.

Conclusion

Brethren, let us not allow these shallow and unbiblical objections to move us from our studied and steady opposition to denominationalism. Let us continue to preach sermons which will enable men to distinguish the Lord’s church from modern denominations. Let us preach the identifying marks of the New Testament church, one of which is the names by which it is called. Though the name of the church is not the only identifying mark of the New Testament church which distinguishes it from the denominations around us, it is one identifying mark – one which Christians need to remember and not forget.

I still believe and preach, “If you cannot find the name of the church of which you are a member in the Bible, you

are not in Christ’s church.” Do you agree?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 8, pp. 226, 247-248
April 17, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Paul refers to the apostles or early preachers as “ambassadors of Christ” in 2 Corinthians 5:20. Does this term refer to preachers in general, both now and then, or is it limited only to the apostles?

Reply: The term “ambassadors” referred to the apostles and was limited to them. The term in the New Testament is applied to apostles, and not to preachers in general. Let us notice 2 Corinthians 5:20. Here Paul said, “We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.” Paul, an apostle, includes himself and the other apostles by the pronouns “we” and “us,” but he refers to the Corinthians by the pronouns “you” and “ye.” Thus Paul makes a distinction by the use of these pronouns. He says “we are ambassadors for Christ” (KJV), that is, we the apostles. It is therefore a misnomer for any preacher, or anyone else, to be referred to as an “ambassador for Christ.” I recall that several years ago there was a quartet on the West Coast that referred to itself as “The Ambassador Quartet.” Brethren today are heard to say, “we are ambassadors of Christ.”

What is the meaning of the word “ambassador”? Webster defines it, I ‘an official envoy” (Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 77). The word implies an embassy, “a mission abroad undertaken officially esp. by an ambassador” (Ibid., p. 405). So, by the very definition of the term “ambassador” it is the idea of one acting for another in an official capacity. The apostles were the embassy of Christ. They were inspired and their mission was to deliver the message of Christ to the world and saints. They represented Christ in an official capacity. Since they were the official representatives of Christ no one upon earth today holds such an office.

The gospel message was in the apostles because they were inspired. This is why they also were referred to as “earthen vessels. ” In 2 Corinthians 4:7 Paul wrote, “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels.” This treasure was “the light of the gospel” in verse 4. The word was in the apostles and they confirmed that word by the miracles which they performed (Heb. 2:3,4). Just as the light was in the vessels or pitchers used by Gideon and his men when they defeated the Midianites by the hand of God (Judges 7), so “the light of the gospel” was in the apostles. Today, the word is not in us but in the Bible; we confirm what we preach, not by miracles, but by Bible book, chapter and verse. This is the difference between the apostles and us.

Another designation which applies only to the apostles is “witness.” The apostles were the witnesses of Christ. Jesus told them, “ye shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). Paul was the last witness of Christ (1 Cor. 15:7). This eliminates the Jehovah Witness cult and anyone else who claims to be a witness of God or Christ today. The Lord chose the apostles to be His witnesses (Lk. 24:48; Acts 1:8). Today, we preach what the apostles witnessed.

So, there are three designations in the New Testament which are to be applied to the apostles only – “ambassadors,” “earthen vessels” and “witnesses. ” They cannot be applied to Christians (including preachers) today, and they could only be applied to the apostles then. All Christians (including preachers) are to preach the word of God; but we do not do so in the same capacity as did the apostles who were the official representatives of Christ with His message in them.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 8, p. 229
April 17, 1986

By Larry Ray Hafley

Mr. William Pile, editor of Good News, the bulletin of the Highland Park Church of Christ, Los Angeles, California, wrote an article under the title above in the December, 1985 issue of that paper. The Highland Park church is a conservative Christian Church. Editor Pile writes of his conversion regarding the commemoration and celebration of Christmas. He used to be, he says, “a ‘Christian’ Scrooge.” This was because he denounced Christmas. But let him tell his story. Please read his article on the opposite page.

Here’s My List

Mr. Pile requested that we exchange lists of passages on Christmas celebration. As requested, here is my list. Surely, the former Scrooge will send, as promised, his list of “all the Bible verses that justify (his) change.”

(1) Matthew 28.20. This verse says disciples are to be taught to “‘observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. ” Since the Lord did not command them to observe His birth, how can we do it and obey Him?

(2) 1 Corinthians 4:6. This text instructs us “not to think of men above that which is written.” Mr. Pile, is Christmas above and beyond “that which is written”?

(3) Colossians 3:17. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” To do a thing in the name of Christ is to do it with His authority (cf. Matt. 7:22, 23 with emphasis on the word, “iniquity,” or lawlessness). How can Christmas be observed in the name of Christ since the Bible is silent about it?

(4) 2 John 9. This passage says that if we do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, we have not God. Is Christmas in the doctrine of Christ? If so, where?

(5) 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. These verses say that the word of God completely, thoroughly equips us “unto all good works.” Where do the Scriptures equip or outfit us with Christmas?

(6) Galatians 1:8, 9. Though Mr. Pile or an angel of heaven should preach any other gospel, “let him be accursed.” Is the observance of Christmas part of the gospel of Christ?

Now, it is no longer a “draw,” Mr. Pile. The tie has been broken, and you are in debt to the tune of six “Bible verses that justify (your) change.” That is a heap of work for Mr. Pile to stack up. Perhaps we shall see if he pays his debts, or if he reverts to being a miserly Scrooge.

That “Old ‘Origins’ Argument”

Let us see if we cannot up-date “the old ‘origins’ argument.” “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” (Matt. 21:25) “The religious observation of Christmas, whence is it? From heaven, or from men?” He may reason with himself saying, “If I shall say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say unto me, ‘Why did you not then cite the passage? But if I shall say, ‘Of men,’ I fear the people; for all hold Christmas as divine.” And Mr. Pile may answer, “I cannot tell.” To which a Catholic might respond, “Neither tell I you by what authority I light candles, chant the Rosary or sprinkle water on little babies.”

Scrooge Pile will favor us with the origin of “All Saints Day, ” the lighting of candles, the burning of incense, holy water, the counting of beads and Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day? Yes, I really want to know if “the old torigins’ argument” will stand up or not. According to Editor Scrooge, it will not hold up concerning Christmas. I wonder if “the old origins’ argument” will eliminate the “many ‘true Christians'”. who want to light candles and burn incense in the Catholic Church (or even in the Highland Park Church of Christ). Pagan origins do not keep Christmas from Mr. Pile. Do they keep him from beads, incense and holy water? If so, why?

“Even a flashing thought of a world without Christmas now scares” Mr. Pile. Well, Mr. Pile would have been scared to death all of the time had he lived during the days of the apostles! They never had “a flashing thought of a world with Christmas.” Mr. Pile, would a world without beads, candles, incense and holy water scare you? Also, say, “Boo!” to yourself when you have a “flashing thought of a world without” the Pope. Mr. Pile, you would have been a nervous wreck during the first century unless someone could have laid hands on you and driven out your “flashing thought” demons.

Remember, however, a thing that has a “pagan” origin is not a problem to Mr. Pile. He practices the magical art of ‘”Christianizing'” items like Christmas which has a “pagan” origin. Mr. Pile, let us see you turn back to being “Brother Scrooge” again. That is what you win have to do if you dry up the holy water and snuff the candles of pagan Catholicism, or can you wave your mystical, magical “‘Christianizing'” wand and sanctify those things?

Scrooge Sold “Christian Exclusivism”

Mr. Pile once “bought heavily into Christian exclusivism.” That meant that the “Observance of religious holidays not specifically mentioned in the Bible” were “outright condemned.” But he has sold out his stock in that market. Mr. Pile, did you sell all of your stock, or did you keep a little bit? Do not be like Ananias and Sapphira and keep back part of the price. Since you sold your shares of the argument that “religious holidays not specifically mentioned in the Bible” are “outright condemned,” did you sell out on infant baptism, too? Since you “bought heavily into Christian exclusivism,” I suppose you excluded the sprinkling of babies. Opposition to baby baptism has been part of your portfolio, has it not? Well, now, since you have seen the error of your ways on Christmas, how about infant baptism? Is the observance of infant baptism “outright condemned” because it is “not specifically mentioned in the Bible”? Is it, Mr. Pile, or are you still secretly trading in “Christian exclusivism” in this area?

Mr. Pile, you have opened the door for Christmas as a religious observance. Through that same door I can bring infant baptism, holy water and the Pope himself. Try me and see if I can.

A Parallel Conversion

Suppose, using Mr. Pile’s premises, I experience a conversion regarding infant baptism. “You may not agree with my conversion. You may see it as compromising with evil. And you may be wondering where all the Bible verses are that justify my change. I already thought of that. My list is composed of one passage encouraging infant baptism for every passage denouncing it. Send me yours and I’ll send you mine. In the meantime, we’ll call it a draw.”

Mr. Pile, do you care to answer that last paragraph concerning infant baptism (or candles, beads, holy water, the Pope)? Or will you remain a “Brother Scrooge” in those areas?

Blame It On The Holy Spirit

Experience with denominational preachers will teach one thing; namely, if it cannot be found in the Bible, then, “The Holy Spirit reveals it to me.” They always say the Spirit “led” them into this “new” awareness, this “new” light. It never fails. If it cannot be found in the word of God, blame it on the Holy Spirit. It is funny when you think about it. After all, who wrote the Bible? Who revealed the mind of God in the Bible? Why, the Holy Spirit, of course! Strange that the Spirit did not reveal things like Christmas when He guided the apostles into “all truth,” but He had a “dramatic” “impact” on the late Scrooge, Mr. Pile.

Note Mr. Pile’s meanderings as he attempts to put the blame on the Spirit for his “change.” He is “not sure of the dynamics,” the processes of his “change,” “but He (the Spirit) certainly changed me.” So, the Spirit operated on Mr. Scrooge apart from the word of God. If the Spirit’s sword, the word of God (Eph. 6:17), had been the instrument of Pile’s conversion, he would have been sure “of the dynamics” of his “change,” but since he is “not sure,” then the Holy Spirit worked outside of His word.

Let us try this argument on the Pope and see if it fits.

It didn’t happen overnight, my conversion, that is. I’m not sure of the dynamics of my change, actually. I know that no body, no person, changed my mind. People don’t un-scrooge a Scrooge. I know that for a long time I’d been questioning whether the fact that the Bible didn’t mention the early Christians honoring the Pope meant that it was wrong to do so. I was wondering about the “origins” argument. I could think of some things that used to have an evil connotation, but now didn’t.

The Holy Spirit’s impact on my life wasn’t quite as dramatic as the ghosts in Scrooge’s, but He certainly changed me. He began to strip my robes of righteous exclusivism from me while re-focusing my attention from the negative to the positive. Those were two radical moves! I discovered many “true Christians” who honored the Pope in a genuinely Biblical spirit, and if anything they were better for it. They knew the early Christian probably didn’t honor him, and they knew that the office of the Pope was just a guess at his true function. They don’t worship the man, the crown he wears or the golden cross he carries.

Mr. Pile, would you excuse me while I bow to kiss the Pope’s ring?

“A Genuinely Biblical Spirit”

How does one do a thing that is not authorized in the Bible in a “genuinely biblical spirit?” That “genuinely biblical spirit” will make you feel “better,” not only toward Christmas, but also toward beads, candles and ham and cheese on the Lord’s table. If you cannot find it in the Bible, simply do it in a “genuinely biblical spirit,” and “Presto!” it becomes acceptable. Do not forget, Mr. Pile, that through the same portal that you bring Christmas, I will bring in a myriad of other things in a “genuinely biblical spirit,” of course.

Mr. Pile, are you still wearing your “robes of righteous exclusivism” regarding the Pope and infant baptism? Has the Holy Spirit taken those musty clothes off you yet? Are you still in “negative” focus concerning holy water, or are you positive about it? Are you “negative” or “positive” about coke and saltine crackers on the Lord’s table (provided, of course, they are partaken in a “genuinely biblical spirit”)? You need to tell us if the Spirit has you in focus on these matters.

Conclusion and Commentary

Surely, there will not be a Scrooge response to the issues and questions raised here. It will be easier to dismiss this article as the bigoted, narrowminded ranting of a legalist than it will be to answer it. It is easier to accept things that are “pagan” in origin than it is to answer scriptural questions.

We are seeing the same stages of digression among churches of Christ – ask Guy Woods, Garland Elkins and Tom Warren if it is not so. Be warned, brethren.

The truth is that William Pile is simply becoming more consistent. He accepts mechanical instruments of music in worship. He does so without divine authority. He has merely dusted off some of his arguments for mechanical instruments and applied them to Christmas. He may have unwittingly done so. But he has done it. There is no need to blame the Spirit, or Ebenezer Scrooge. It is a process of theological evolution. When you go beyond the word of God in one area, the next step is easier, and the next, and so on. Now, Mr. Pile may stop at Christmas. However, his spiritual descendants will not. They will eventually take the next steps. They will shed more coats of “Christian exclusivism.- Mr. Pile may not live to see it, but they will do it. The Christian Church itself is proof of this evolutionary development societies to do the work of the church, mechanical instruments, social gospelism, recreation and entertainment sponsored by the church, Christmas, Easter, and, finally, the Disciples of Christ denomination. The chain of apostasy is there in the strata. There is no historical missing link in the “dynamics” process Mr. Pile is fostering and following.

To those brethren who have been smitten by the siren song of unity with the Christian Church, does the acceptance of Christmas sound a sour note? Apparently, some are ready to swallow pianos and organs in worship, or at least not burp against them (Rubel Shelly, for one), but just when they have gulped down a “Baby Grand,” along comes the sound of “Jingle Bells,” with mistletoe and holly, jolly old Saint Nick and Christmas! Is that too much for them to swallow? And what next? At first, it was just a little organ music to overlook or grow deaf to, but now William Pile has added Christmas to the menu – and if you put it on your plate, what is for dessert? Does this meal never end? Yes, eventually, it does. See the lumbering, humanistic, modernistic Disciples of Christ denomination? It is the end of the feast. It is the result of swallowing all the traditions of men that you have to gorge yourself with in order to have your “unity.” Bon appetite.

Stay within the pages of God’s book. If it is not in the word of God, have neither part nor lot with it. If you cannot read about it in the Bible, either from general or specific authority, do not preach, present or practice it. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). It is that simple. It is that sure.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 205-206, 211
April 3, 1986