Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

Israel was oppressed by armies of idolaters again and again because God gave them up to be punished after they rebelled against His law and copied the idolatrous world about them. The Lord would deliver them when they repented and prayed for help. The apostasy did not begin the day the invading and conquering army marched across the land killing and enslaving. Attitudes that led to their downfall no doubt developed gradually over a period of time.

In a private conversation in the late 1930s in the Gospel Advocate office, R.L. Whiteside told me that institutionalism would be the occasion of the next great apostasy. I did not know him very well and did not recognize the wisdom in his remark. I thought our fathers before us had gone through that and had put that behind us. In my ignorance I overlooked the fact that the devil uses the same tricks over and over again with only a little change in names and points of attack. Hundreds of thousands of my brethren were as blind as I was so there was not the proper teaching to immunize against the central agencies’ taking money from churches and exercising control over them.

We were too ignorant of the devil’s devices (2 Cor. 2: 11). Further ignorance was there, too. Far too many were not so well informed of the divine pattern for the Lord’s church at work so we could be led to change the plan without even realizing that we were missing the mark. Our senses were not exercised to properly discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:12-14). Is there not still that lack of knowledge on the part of many who should know the difference between “clover and sneeze weed”?

It is human for the teenage boy, his father, and his grandfather to want to be accepted by their neighbors. This requires conformity. The world will love its own and speak well of those who copy its ways (Jn. 15:19; Lk. 6:26). The Lord forbids our conforming to please the world, but this failure to conform brings persecution which we do not like. We like the praise of men (Rom. 12:2; 2 Tim. 3:12; Gal. 1:10).

Our brethren did not invent the family life building or the idea of a central agency with money to have a national “Church of Christ Hour” similar to “The Lutheran Hour” or “The Catholic Hour.” We are more effective at following the (denominations about us than we are at leading our neighbors to the Bible pattern (1 Sam. 8:5).

During the depression years and the war years we were preaching to get people out of the world and out of human denominations, but we did not preach enough about getting the world and denominationalism out of the men. I remember. I enjoyed hearing men make the good confession and seeing them baptized. I did not realize that the devil was planning such an all out attack on these new recruits to the army of the Lord. The devil was willing for these people to be members of the church and still enjoy the social gospel dainties of food, fun, and frolic and enjoy the social drink, the social dance, and the immodest styles with a certain bit of freedom to use blasphemy and vulgarity with the crowd. That way they could seek to serve God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). The love of the world leads to apostasy (1 Jn. 2:15-17).

Shrewd and prosperous socialites can exert influence over elders and many quiet people who live by a higher moral code. These fluent worldly people can talk of “caring for poor little orphans” or whatever they need to talk about to lead the majority away from a “narrow-minded preacher.” They might even use “good words and fair speeches to deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17,18). With feigned words they might make merchandise of the brethren, privily bringing in pernicious ways and damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2:1-3).

When the people who are so eager to be “accepted” by their worldly friends become a large number in the church, the lump by that time is leavened and will no longer endure sound doctrine. That church will find teachers who will say what they want to hear (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Such lovers of a perverted gospel will, for a price, be able to get preachers who fulfill their wishes (Tit. 1:11). They can “heap to themselves teachers” of their own liking. It is very, very important to do the proper preaching, reproving, rebuking, and exhorting before the leaven of wickedness has spread through the congregation. (Carefully read 1 Corinthians 5.) One wicked person can be marked, avoided, and rejected (Rom. 16:17,18; Tit. 3: 10,11). A Diotrephes with his company can reject the sound brethren (3 Jn. 9,10).

A distaste for controversy over foolish and unlearned questions which gender strife is in order. Please read the letters to the preachers in the New Testament watching for words like “shun,” “avoid,” “refuse,” and “reject.” (See 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.) It is a flashing red danger signal when good brethren begin to object to any and all controversy. Error can freely enter the flock if there is opposition to opposing it. False teachers like to introduce heresy privily (2 Pet. 1:1).

If a certain false doctrine is being taught, brethren may be found who promote the error, others may oppose it, and others may insist on giving it the silent treatment. An ill wind of doctrine takes over where it is promoted and where it is not opposed. It stays out only where it is vigorously opposed. The line of least resistance is the “on the fence” position, but the popular false doctrine or practice ultimately takes over congregations that take such a position. Read your church history or observe the churches in your area if apostasy has brought division to some if you would be convinced of the need for fighting a good fight.

Jesus the Christ was one of the greatest controversialists this world has ever known. He was like a lamb in suffering the brutal treatments from the hypocrites and false teachers. He was the lion of the tribe of Judah in fighting their pride, hypocrisy, traditions, and love of the world. Have you carefully read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? No careful reader could overlook the fact that He was constantly in open word battles with those who opposed His message. He loved the souls of those with whom He did battle. Those who crucified Him were asked in His name to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. He prayed for them while on the cross, but He did not fail to try every possible way to turn them from error. See Matthew 23 for an example of His sharp rebukes.

A church is not destroyed every time a brave and effective battle is fought against error. “There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them. . . . Then all the audience kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul … and after they held their peace, James answered, saying . . . Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15). Error was corrected and truth was advanced by this earnest contention for the faith as commanded through Jude (Jude 3).

This matter of binding Jewish ordinances on Gentiles came up again and again at different places. Much of the book of Galatians deals with this danger. Even Peter and Barnabas were influenced by the pressure. “When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. . . ” (Gal. 2:1,12). Our Lord demands that we war a good warfare (1 Tim. 1:8; Tit. 1:9,13; 2:15; 3:9-11).

Too many, even good people, are mentioning their dislike for controversy in religious journals, etc. It is by means such as papers that we can study and prepare before we are faced “head” on by the heresy. Unless brethren generally strengthen their knowledge and conviction on the marriage law very many churches are going to be harmed seriously as some have been. This is one example of what I am writing about. Heresy is pleased to enter “privily,” but truth is to be proclaimed boldly by people who are equipped with the whole armor (Eph. 6:10-20). Please do not say, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace.

The “afflictions of the gospel” and the persecution that godly people suffer grow out of the fact that true disciples stand fast against heresy (2 Tim. 1:8; 3:12). Paul the prisoner was thankful for one who was not ashamed of his chain (2 Tim. 1:16-18). Shall we raise the white flag of surrender or shall we fight a good fight? There is no concord between Christ and Belial (2 Cor. 6:14-17). Politicians and unsound brethren wonder “What will people think?” when brethren shun not to proclaim the whole counsel in season and out of season.

I began trying to preach when I was young, timid, and cowardly. Several expressed their pleasure and hope by saying: “Irven, I am glad you have decided to preach, and I hope you won’t be a fighter!” That sentiment was rather common in my home area. Do you have any idea how these churches of that area went during the turmoil of the 1950s?

The egotistical, arrogant, and bitter attitude expressed by B.C. Goodpasture in the Gospel Advocate guaranteed division. This attitude was expressed in the simple and easy to be understood words: “Quarantine the antis.” This carried the idea of: Do not listen to these that question the social gospel and church support of central agencies in public or private lessons. There were sincere but uninformed people who went along with this official decree who did not know what was happening. They thought there was something about some who did not believe in caring for poor little orphans. The problem of the social gospel and denominational machinery never entered their minds. They obediently followed the promoters of the big machines. Those who asked for book, chapter, and verse were crushed, if at all possible.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 2, 30-31
January 2, 1986

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

The truth makes one free (John 8:32), but the truth is not free. It must be bought, often at a great price (Prov. 23:23). The price may be high in terms of searching, sacrificing, and suffering. When one forgets the price paid by himself and others so that he may have the truth, he often forgets the truth itself.

The writer of Hebrews warns against drifting away from the truth (2:1). He tells his readers to “hold fast the confession of (their) hope without wavering” (10:23*). He reinforces it all by reminding of “the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward” (10:31-35).

By the end of the first century all spiritual truth was revealed. The faith was delivered once for all time (Jude 3). The Scriptures were completed. They give us everything we need for “doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

While the revelation of truth ended, the struggle so that “the truth of the gospel might continue with (us)” was just beginning (cf. Gal. 1:8, 9; 2:1-5). That struggle continues even as we write. Each new Christian needs all the help he can get with buying the truth and selling it not. Being reminded of past struggles for truth and sacrifices on its behalf is useful to that end.

Our understanding of the truth is greatly aided by our understanding of the past struggles between truth and error. Such struggles, though precipitated by Satan, are used by the Lord to advance the truth. In this way the Lord makes Satan’s best efforts backfire on him.

We must pray to be spared temptation in any form (cf. Matt. 6:13). Yet, when trial and tribulation come because of truth, the wise will profit from them (Rom. 5:3-5; Jas. 1:2). They can be disciplinary learning experiences, if we will allow them to be (Heb. 12:11).

Brethren must avoid schism, division, or faction (heresy – KJV). The church must firmly correct or reject any who cause such (cf. Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17,18). Yet, factions (heresies – KJV) are trials that serve a useful purpose. They often separate the genuine (approved) from the superficial among brethren (1 Cor. 11:19). During such controversies, our studying to “exhort and convict those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9) often forces us to me tune our own views. We may be forced to abandon indefensible positions borrowed from the world around us. After the present crisis passes, the knowledge gained can help avoid similar troubles in the future. The sacrifices and sufferings that often accompany a controversy, rather than defeat us, can I strengthen our resolve to press on to a better country. They can also cause us to be careful in the future, lest we have suffered in vain (Gal. 3:14).

The value of past struggles, separations, and sacrifices depends on how vividly we remember them. There is no value in remembering them with bitterness, resentment, or hatred. There is great value in remembering the reasons behind the sacrifices, and the issues that caused the struggles, and the lessons learned at the time. We need to remember these things often, though we “already know them, and are established in the present truth” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:12). Like Israel of old, we need to be told:

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal Peor; for the Lord your God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the Lord your God are alive today, everyone of you. . . . Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren (Deut. 9:2,3,4,9).

Many of the Israelites who) had been at Baal Peor were still alive. Their eyes had seen what happened when their brethren accepted the invitation of the Moabite women to join them in idolatry:

They invited the people to sacrifice to their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the Lord, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor” (Num. 25:2-5).

They were to be careful “lest you forget the things your eyes have seen.” They were to remember them all the days of their lives. They were to teach them to their children and grandchildren lest they forget them. They simply could not let what happened at Baal Peor become a “dead issue” in their minds. There was always the danger that history could repeat.

Many of the problems of later 1900s might have been prevented if brethren had remembered the lessons from the problems of the later 1800s. Those of us who lived through confrontations with error must not forget them as long as we live. We must tell our children and grandchildren what happened. They need to know what happened, why it happened and what they can learn from it.

The church as been troubled by a number of major issues during the past 100 or so years. There have been open divisions because some joined themselves to the traditions of men. Consequently, there have been periods of unusually high levels of controversy. Many are alive today who have vivid memories of the sacrifices, sufferings and struggles during these periods so that “the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” When they tell their children and grandchildren of these things they are not asking for sympathy for what they had to endure. They “joyfully accepted the plundering of (their) goods.” They do not want this and future generations to have to repeat the same struggle, make the same sacrifices, and endure the same sufferings that they did. Nor do they want them to make the same mistakes they made. They want them to know the things their eyes have seen. They want them to know “the truth of the gospel.” They want them to appreciate the sacrificing, suffering, struggling, and studying that has made it possible for them to have it.

Satan has not retired from the mischief business. He will be looking for different avenues to make mischief for this and future generations as long as the world stands. Old issues seldom die, they just become dormant waiting for another opportunity to become active. Each generation must fight its own battles for truth. We hope that by keeping alive an awareness and understanding of past battles that our children will be prepared for present and future battles.

So, the articles on these pages are being written about some of the issues that have disturbed, divided and even destroyed congregations in the recent past. Some of this is still going on. Some of the writers lived through the thick of the fight about which they write and know firsthand the struggles. Some have had the opportunity to have known older brethren who were directly involved in the matters of which they write. Others know about their subject by having read things written during the height of the controversy of which they write. We will let you decide which one writes from which perspective. Each writes hoping to help all to see the “truth of the gospel” about his assigned subject lest we forget.

*Scripture quotations from New King James, unless otherwise indicated.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 1, 31
January 2, 1986

By Elmer Moore

One thing about those who are members of the Lord’s church is that they will speak out against things they believe to be wrong. This is because they believe something. They are people who claim to have respect for Bible authority, who believe that we must have authority for everything we preach and practice. This indeed is a commendable trait. People who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Be assured that anytime there is opposition to a practice that it will have an impact (make an impression) on God’s people. As is the case of so many things that happen, an impact or impression may be either good or bad, or may sometimes be both. I believe that opposition to “cups” and “classes” had and still does have an impact for good and bad. You ask how can this be?

An impact for bad is seen in the fact that contention resulted from both practices. Good is seen in two areas: First, that such contention will serve to identify “they that are approved” (1 Cor. 11:19). Secondly, I am convinced that the worship and work of the church is made more effective by the use of “cups” and “classes.”

We need to establish clearly what we are writing about. By “cups,” I mean the use of individual containers in serving the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper. By “classes,” I mean the practice of arranging students in groups to be taught, either by age or experience.

I shall endeavor to show that opposition to individual containers and the use of group teaching is without scriptural foundation, and that there is scriptural justification for both.

Cups and classes constitute two separate issues, that are not necessarily related. There are those who contend for one while opposing the other. However, I believe that opposition to both practices is the result of the same mistake, the inability to properly understand and apply Bible authority.

I am convinced that classes (group teaching) and cups (individual containers) were utilized in the first century church. I will, however, address my remarks to the problems that were encountered by those endeavoring to restore New Testament Christianity.

Be assured that the introduction of classes, by the “Disciples of Christ,” was met with aggressive opposition. They were denied the use of the “Sunday School” on the basis of “the close ties between the Sunday School and denominationalism.”(1) Among those who occupied a position of opposition was Alexander Campbell. In 1824 he wrote, “I have for sometime viewed both ‘Bible Societies’ and ‘Sunday Schools,’ as a sort of recruiting establishment to fill up the ranks of those sects which take the lead in them.”(2) It should be noted that in 1847 Campbell wrote, “I have never had but one objection to the administration of the system never one to the system itself. That objection was simply to the sectarian abuses.”(3) On the other side of the issue, Jesse P. Sewell in his 1919 lecture introduced a threefold rationale to support his premise that the church is essentially an educational institution. He reasoned that, “Christianity is preeminently a teaching religion, that the extension of the church depends entirely upon teaching, and that Christians are at liberty to teach the word of God at anytime and any place.”(4)This is not to imply that no one objected to the “Sunday School” from a scriptural standpoint; there were many who did.(5) Limited space will not allow us to pursue this further.

Concerning cups, individual containers, there were those who opposed their use and still do. Efforts to introduce multiple containers met with much opposition. The Christian Standard was active in opposing their use. An article appeared in that paper, March 1893, concerning the “movement1to have a separate cup for each communicant.”(6) A reply to the article previously referred to occurred in the Christian Standard charging such practices as “being an absurdity.”(7) G.C. Brewer is credited, by the “one cup” advocates, as introducing a plurality of containers in the “non-organ” churches.(8) Concerning this matter, brother Brewer wrote, “I think I was the first preacher to advocate the use of individual communion cups and the first church in the state of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching, the Central church of Christ at Chattanooga, Tennessee.”(9)

Classes And Cups: Arguments Viewed

I am convinced that opposition to cups and classes are both a result of an improper attitude toward the Scriptures, a failure to properly understand how to determine when a practice is right!

Examples

One of the basic mistakes of those opposing classes and cups is to demand an example (record of action) of the early church engaging in such practice. Even a casual investigation of their writings and debating will reveal that I have not misrepresented them. They demand an example of our practice while refusing to produce one for theirs.

The fallacy must be obvious. A practice may be authorized without being exemplified. The right to act may be determined implicitly (capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed) as well as explicitly (clearly developed with all its elements apparent). A practice authorized, either explicitly or implicitly, does not have to be exemplified. These objectors indict themselves of the guilt of special pleading (unwilling to apply the same criteria to their practice that they apply to others) by refusing to produce an example for all that they do (cf. Rom. 2:21).

Is Their Practice-Safe?

Another mistake of these brethren is seen in their efforts to prove others wrong because they claim to be doing that which is safe. This is something that merits investigation. I deny that their practice is safe! One’s practice involves what he teaches as well as what he does. Their teaching is not see! It is never safe to make something essential that the Bible indicates is incidental. When men do this they become lawmakers. It is just as bad to make laws as it is to ignore them. When we make a law where God has not, we become lawmakers, and assume a position that belongs only to God (Jas. 4:11-12). To do this is to “sit in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:9). It was safe to circumcise males; it was not essential to being a Christian (Gal. 5:6). So long as it was viewed in this light no problems resulted. When some determined to make it necessary, Paul disputed with them (Acts 15:1-2), refusing to give “place in the way of subjection no, not for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).

“They Did – We Can – We Must”

Another fallacy is to find that in the New Testament something was done in a certain way and arbitrarily decide that. it must be done only in that manner. I believe that an example (record of action) may obligate us to that precise action (Phil. 4:9). However, there are some very definite rules that we must respect in determining when an example is requiring us to do something.(10) At this point those who object to classes and cups demonstrate their inconsistency. They realize there are some examples that only illustrate a liberty, what we may do. They realize this without being able to cite the criteria for determining that some examples require and some only allow.

Classes And The Command To Teach

We are authorized to teach the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). In order to teach, there are some things that are inherent. There must be a teacher, a student, material, time, place, and some kind of an arrangement. Whatever God has bound in these matters must be respected. However where He has loosed anything we had better not bind it. God has bound the teacher, Christians, whether individually (2 Tim. 2:2) or collectively (1 Tim. 3:15). He has bound the material, the gospel (Gal. 1:8,9). He has bound the students, aliens in conversion and saints in edification (Mk. 16:15; Eph. 4:15,16). But you will search in vain to find where God has bound the time, place and arrangement. We are to teach “in season and out” (2 Tim. 4:2), in public places, private places and dwelling places (Acts 20:20; 28:30, 31). The New Testament reveals the arrangement of didactic discourse was used (Acts 20:7); the arrangement of debates was used (Acts 15:1-2); and also the group arrangement (Acts 20:17; Gal. 2:2). For men to bind an arrangement is for them to bind where God did not.

“Cups” Arguments Viewed

In an effort to prove that only one cup (container) can be used, brethren argue that Jesus used only one cup in instituting the Lord’s Supper, and that we must follow His example. It is well to note that these brethren cannot prove that Jesus only used one container. The Passover Feast, that they were observing, provided that each participant have his own container.” These brethren assume that there was only one container and that Jesus used only one. Even if they could prove that Jesus used only one container, this would not prove that we are obliged to follow that any more than we are obliged to take the supper in an upper room because He instituted the supper in one (Luke 22:12).

Their entire contention is based on the idea that the expression “the cup” cannot mean more than one container. In the first place, “the cup” is obviously talking about the fruit of the vine and not the container. Matthew and Mark use a metaphor (one thing is said to be another), while Luke and Paul use metonomy (where one thing is named to suggest something that relates to it), the cup for the contents. However, the expression, “the cup” occurs in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and in this passage Paul states, “the cup of blessing which we bless . . . .” Paul was at Ephesus and writing to the church at Corinth and he used the singular expression “the cup.” If they only used one container at each place, the expression “the cup” meant more than one. It must be obvious that the expression “the cup” does not necessarily mean one container.

“Three Elements – Not Two”

The concept of the “one cup” advocates is more than just one container. These brethren believe that there are three elements of significance. (1) The “‘cup” represents the New Testament. (2) The bread represents Jesus’ body. (3) The fruit of the vine represents His blood. Their contention that the “cup” represents the New Testament is based on the structure of Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25, which states, “this cup is the New Covenant in my blood, whereas Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, render it “my blood of the New Covenant.” These brethren deny that these four statement are parallel. However they admit that Luke and Paul are using the figure of speech that names the cup for its contents. Surely all can see that in whatever sense the “cup” is the New Covenant it is the contents and not the container, which is spoken about. The truth of the matter is that the reversal of the terms does not change the meaning whatever. The order of faith and confession is so reversed in Romans 10:9, 10. All four passages declare that the cup (contents) is a fair representation of Jesus’ blood that ratified the New Covenant. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 the inspired writer identified two elements of importance, i.e. “The cup of blessing which we bless. . . The bread which we break.” No, my friends the container holds no significance whatever.

The Elements Of Communion

The brethren also contend that the elements in communion include the assembly and Christ. If they should drop the container, break it and spill the contents while half through serving the communion, they would obtain another container and serve the whole assembly. They contend that no one has actually communed until all have. This is just not sol The elements of communion are the Christian and Christ. Paul declares, “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat. . . ” (1 Cor. 11:28-29). The personal pronouns show this to be individual, just as surely as they do in James 1:27, and John 15:1-6.

Summary

If brethren do not want to use group teaching that is their business. However, when they begin to teach and condemn all others who will not follow this “practice,” then problems arise. If brethren want to use only one container in distributing the fruit of the vine that is their business. However, when they begin to teach and condemn all others who will not follow their “practice,” then problems arise. I firmly believe that they are judging brethren to be unfaithful by their own law and in so doing are judging God’s law to be inadequate. This is the very thing that James is condemning in James 4:11-12.

Endnotes

1. Mirror of a Movement, Banowsky, p. 232.

2. Ibid., p. 233.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p. 235.

5. Ibid.

6. The One Cup, Victor Knowles, p. 67.

7. Ibid., p. 68.

8. Those Individual Cups, J.D. Phillips, pp. 9, 10.

9. Forty Years On The Firing Line, G.C. Brewer, pp. 12,13.

10. The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 144.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 19-21
January 2, 1986

By Jimmy Tuten

This treatise is an attempt to alert brethren to the dangers and doctrinal perversions associated with a segment of the “Total Commitment” philosophy known as “Quiet Time.” Various brotherhood journals have dealt with problems of the Crossroads approach to personal evangelism, campus ministries, and edification. So brethren are aware of the fact that the principles of it have come from such publications as The Master Plan of Evangelism, Jay Adams’ Competent To Counsel and The Christian Counselor’s Manual, all of which are Calvinistic in nature. The “Total Commitment” evangelistic movement is a method of securing devotion from members of the church in approaches likened to that used by various cults (Unification Church and Hare Krishna, for example). A number of people have been caught up in the emotionalism of false spirituality even to the point of alienation from families and broken marriages. Congregations have been splintered over this doctrine. The system perverts the biblical concept of “Jesus is Lord.” It espouses a neglect of all duties of the Christian except that of “a prayerful life” (i.e. “Quiet Time”). It uses coercion instead of persuasion to gain converts. It is a commitment to a man-made system of doctrine rather than to Christ.

Closely involved with this man-made system is the idea of perfectionism, sometimes called the “gospel of perfectionism,” because the gospel has in fact been replaced by a gospel of a changed life. This perfectionism is a power growth concept involving a “Quiet Time.” The basis for it is the theology of the charismatic movement of Wesleyanism. The fact, the doctrinal basis and outlook of the “Quiet Time” segment of the “total commitment” movement itself is Wesleyanism. It is a fact that while some conservative churches have not been directly affected by the general movement of “total commitment,” they have, in some instances, been infiltrated and disrupted by the “Quiet Time” concept. Too, there is some acceptance of “Quiet Time” in varying forms. Through these pages (August 5, 1982, p. 462) 1 asked the question three years ago: “Will Crossroadism work its ugly tentacles into conservative churches and wreck the structures that are already fragmented?” Three years later I can answer with a resounding, “Yes!” Through the “Quiet Time” it is working its way into our ranks. Hence, the need for this treatise.

History of The “Quiet Time” Concept(1)

“Quiet Time” has its roots in the “spiritual earnestness movement” of John and Charles Wesley, who in turn were influenced by the Moravian sect founded in 1722 by John Huss. The movement was in response to the spiritual lethargy of the people of England and was designed to offset the prudence and cold logic of the day. A “Holy Club” was formed (later called “Methodism”) for the purpose of reading helpful books and having frequent communion. This club was broken down into “bands” or groups of twelve each for mutual cultivation (prayer groups and soul talks are part of the “total commitment” movement and find their roots in the preceding). Each group had a class leader (prayer partner) who would monitor progress. Members of this “Holy Club” were censorious as to the genuineness of religious experiences that did not conform to their own. They were self-seeking. They looked for instantaneous, joyful experiences and they showed remarkable exhibitions of bodily excitement (people torn by convulsions, fainting, etc.).

John Wesley’s emphasis fell upon what he called “entire sanctification,” or “Christian perfectionism” (second work of grace). His teaching efforts zeroed in on perfectionism and he taught his followers to center their aspirations on this point. He took the emphasis away from what happens when you initially become a Christian in obedience to the gospel (Rom. 1: 16-17; 6:1-6; Mk. 16:16). He made a distinction between “justification” and “sanctification.” In the former there was the essence of being a Christian and sometime later one became a real Christian (sanctified at this point). According to Wesley, one is justified at one point and sanctified later, though the apostle Paul says that both take place at the same time when one is washed (1 Cor. 6:9-11). To Wesley, sanctification meant that one reached the point of is complete devotion to the Lord, absolute surrender and total commitment. The “total commitment” concept simply substitutes “discipleship” in the place of “sanctification.” Just as Wesley emphasized the second work of grace, so with “total commitment” a true disciple is one who has come to the point of really serving Jesus and of being fully committed, we are told. The “Quiet Time” (private time) is the beginning of this “power growth” and along with “Soul Talks” (called “Life Talks” and “Discipleship meetings” at one time or another) is the most important vehicle for this new life concept.

In time the concept has worked its way into Pentecostal books such as Larry Christenson’s Speaking In Tongues. It is here that you find the basis for “Quiet Time.” In addition to this unscriptural, Apostolic Pentecostal publication, the Moody Monthly with its Manna In The Morning is used by the Crossroads brethren. The Campus Advance Strategy Manual, dated September 15, 1967 (page 3, item B.2) commands the “Daily Quiet Time.” It is patterned exactly like that of Lary Christenson’s “How to Have A Daily Quiet Time with God” (p. 136, Appendix). The “Daily Quiet Time” is completely Pentecostal. But, how did this Pentecostal “Quiet Time” work its way into Churches of Christ?

In 1967, during the height of the glossolalia movement among Churches of Christ (see my The Holy Spirit. His Person And Work), there was a movement that got underway among brethren known as Campus Advance. This movement used such key, Pentecostal prone men as Pat Boone and Wesley Reagan (Mission Magazine, Sept. 15 and Oct. 19, 1970) as key speakers. Knowing where these men now are helps one understand the movement’s thrust. Because it was tied closely to the local church, it died by 1970. The movement was therefore aborted and Dudley Link, writing in Mission Magazine (Oct. 19, 1970) said it needed rethinking if it was to be the intended movement within a movement, with its own doctrine, designs and organization. The result was a new strategy involving the use of pilot churches. The old 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida (now Crossroads) became the pilot church. Hence, Crossroads is the child and the neo-Pentecostal Campus Advance movement (1967-1970) was the father of the Crossroads philosophy. In a tape that I have in my file, Chuck Lucas said, “The materials used in Crossroads were begun in 1968” (May 24, 1981). There is, therefore, no doubt about the origin of the movement.

In the Campus Advance Strategy Manual the statement was made that a vanguard of students would be developed (Appendix 111). The objective was to teach young people how to live moment by moment in a “victorious abundant, adventurous relationship with Jesus Christ. . . given over to a ministry. . . of effectively, aggressively evangelizing the campus. . . . ” These men were called “Vanguards,” then “Front Line Soldiers” and finally “The Gladiators” when it was found to be a problem on campus at the University of Florida.

The power growth concept, of which “Quiet Times” is an intricate part, is taught in the Master Plan of Evangelism, beginning on page 69. “Power growth” simply means that as one grows in the System, spirituality increases proportionately. This growth begins with the “Quiet Time.” In the instructions for “Quiet Time,” taken from Manna In The Morning and used by Crossroads (they later came out with their own, Your First Forty Days) it is asserted: “as you obey, so He reveals. When you cease to obey, He ceases to reveal.” The power growth concept of “Quiet Times” is the practice of looking for additional revelations beyond the Word of God. We will now address ourselves more specifically to the subject.

What Is The “Quiet Time”?

Before discussing this, let it be said that no one objects to setting aside a period of time each day for the purpose of meditating on the word of God and for prayer. The Bible teaches the need for study and prayer (1 Pet. 2:2; 1 Thess. 5:17). However, when a system of man-made rules are set up for such efforts and these rules become the standard for the measurement of spirituality, you have a system of manmade doctrine and not that which is of faith (Col. 2:8-10, 16). This violates Jude 3. For example, it is said, “the quiet time is vital for spiritual cleansing. You are initially cleansed by the precious blood, that is true, and again and again you have to come back to the quiet time” Manna In The Morning). After arguing for the essentiality of “Quiet Time” for spiritual growth, it is then stressed that “What You Need for and Effective Quiet Time” is (1) a definite place, (2) a good sized, easily read Bible, (3) a prayer list or prayer cycle, (4) a personal notebook and (5) a spirit of expectancy. A booklet, “Quiet Time” (an inter-Varsity guide book) says that “Quiet Time” is the “secret of a successful Christian life” (back cover). But the question rises, What if I cannot find a definite place for study and prayer? Am I less spiritual than those who do? What if I cannot meet each day at 6:00 a.m. for private time? Am I minding the things of the Spirit less than those who do? The point is, that spirituality is not confined to a small area of life, nor is it to be defined as religious activity. It is the whole range of life: in the home, on the job, at play, in government, etc.

Defining “Quiet Time” is difficult, but it is best defined as a system of ultimate salvation by works and a begging through prayer for additional, apart-from-the Word inspiration and revelation as the only way to achieve perfection (power growth) and spirituality. Like the issue of circumcision in Acts 15 it imposes something not bound by God. It is a concept that espouses the idea that just as the Holy Spirit convicts and converts separate and apart from the Word (this is a false doctrine of Calvinism), so in sanctification (discipleship) the Holy Spirit illuminates apart from the Word (this is Calvinism also). The fact is this: the Holy Spirit does nothing to the Christian that He does not do through the Word (see my notes, The Holy Spirit. His Person And Work, chapter 6).

What Is Unscriptural About Quiet Time?

(1) It Negates The All-sufficiency of Scripture. It is essential that one understand that belief in the completeness and all-sufficiency of Scripture, and that the Holy Spirit operates on the heart of the Christian through the all-sufficient Word are bound inextricably together (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). If the Spirit gives additional revelation, or inspiration, or illumination then the Word of God is not complete. The logical consequence of “Quiet Time” is that the Word is not complete and all-sufficient and new revelations are needed for growth.

Please note:

(a) Quotes from Manna In The Morning. The “spirit of expectancy” is “not the Bible memorized, nor the Bible on your bookshelf or in your study. It is the Word that God speaks to your soul in the quiet place of prayer and meditation. . . . You can be doctrinally correct, and yet be spiritually dead. The thing that maintains life is the living word of God which is spoken to your soul every day,” etc.

(b) Quotes from Quiet Time (Inter Varsity Guidebook): “Your object in the Quiet Time is not so much to gather information as to gain inspiration.” “The Holy Spirit reveals the deeper things only to those who are at leisure to receive from him the secrets of the Scriptures.” “Don’t do all the talking. There should be stillness and expectancy.” “This is the story of a living faith planted in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.” If we will expose all our soul to the Holy Spirit, we shall have many a thrilling surprise.” “A notebook should be used in which to write thoughts which the Holy Spirit may give you as you read and pursue your mornings portion, ” etc.

(c) The following is a summary: “Hush yourself in His presence. Wait until the glory of His presence seems to come upon you . . . Seek cleansing. Seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit . . . Say: ‘Lord, as I look at this passage this morning, is there any command to obey?. . . Is there any new thought to follow?’. . . Lord Jesus, as I face this day, I ask thee by the power of thine indwelling Spirit (personal, direct, apart from the Word indwelling, jt) to give me the grace to translate into action what thou hast told me to do this morning” (Manna In The Morning). In the Campus Advance Strategy Manual there is a section on “Terminology” and under “Christ’s Glory In Our Lives” they say, ” – – it is a glorious experience so that we can be seen to possess something different from the Word” (p. 11).

(2) It Creates A False Sense of Pride In Spiritual Attainment. Because the Bible is put into a sense of revelation and growth in proportion to obedience and involvement with others, one naturally tends to conclude that the more active you are, the more spiritual you become. The more spiritual you are (according to the movement), the more you look to your attainment as a superior way of spiritual life. From here on out the gospel is looked upon as not being sufficient to motivate people and this false sense of spirituality becomes the gospel of a changed life. This, rather than the gospel of Christ, becomes the power to get people involved and busy. When this force is applied it is connected with fear and guilt (psychologically speaking). Fear of God’s displeasure, fear that He does not love us and fear of our own inadequacies finally lead us to conclude that we are not Christians after all. Things that the movement have imposed are placed upon us and we lose sight of real spirituality as taught in the Bible. The movement now says, in fearful pride of super spirituality, “grow like us, or you are dead in the sight of God.” This is conversion by condemnation! Churches that are not “evangelistic” (Crossroads style) are without power, we are told (i.e., spiritually dead). Please note that this violates a number of passages on judging, etc., but more specifically, the fact that:

(a) The gospel is the power to save and not a changed life (Rom. 1:16-17).

(b) Spirituality is not activity in one field, but in the whole of one’s life (Col. 3:18; 3:19; 3:20; 3:22-25, etc.).

(c) Scriptural motivation is the sufficient fact that the Christian has died to sin and has been raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 3:1-4). Being richly filled with the Word of Christ, we obey Him in every walk of life. Paul said, “whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God through Him” (Col. 3:17).

(d) The fruit that we are to bear (Jn. 15:1-6) is not confined to the narrow sense of winning souls, i.e., producing other Christians. Fruit bearing, according to the context, is obeying God’s commands, all of them (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23; 15:10). This is broad, indeed!

(e) Christian perfection is not the “entire sanctification” of Neo-Pentecostalism. It is the growth from being a babe in Christ to maturity (1 Pet. 2:2; Heb. 5:11-14). The biblical perfection is not sinlessness, for we all sin (1 Jn. 1:8).

(3) It Destroys The Biblical Fact That The Gospel Changes Lives. The “Quiet Time” concept makes the changed life the gospel. We are told that “the Christian life does not consist in trying to keep our souls fit, but in being so fit that we are ready for the maximum accomplishment” (Quiet Time, p. 9). Again “make perfectly clear to yourself. . . that you cannot convey to others divine grace if you yourself have a neglected spiritual condition. . . you cannot lead anyone higher than you yourself have gone; you cannot enrich anyone beyond your own actual experience with God. . .” (p. 10-11).

The changed life is a fruit of the gospel and not the gospel itself no more than helping others in the gospel (Jas. 1:27). Would you make benevolence the gospel? No, because the gospel is the standard of measurement for spirituality and not spirituality as a measurement (Tit. 1:13; 1 Cor. 9:27). For example, after admonishing Titus to speak sound doctrine, Paul tells him to put the brethren in mind to be ready to every good work (Tit. 2:15; 3:1). Good works is a fruit of obedience to the gospel. The good work is not the gospel, but the effect of it in our lives.

(4) It Damns One To Hell. Any who abide not in the doctrine are without God (2 Jn. 9), they are not perfect (complete, 2 Tim. 3:16-17), and they are without the gift of grace (Eph. 3:3-7). In failing to make their calling and election sure, they have fallen from grace (2 Pet. 1:5-11). The book of Revelation speaks of the fact that without the holy city will be those who maketh a lie (Rev. 22:15). False doctrine is a lie. False teachers will be cast into hell (Rev. 21:8). the “Quiet Time” is a false system of teaching that damns souls.

Conclusion

“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived. . . but after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. . . This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men” (Tit. 3:3-8). “Quiet Time” is not a “good work” because it is not taught in the Bible!

(Next installment: “What is Spirituality?”)

Endnote

1. One should study carefully: Christianity Through The Ages, by Cairns; History of The Christian Church, by Walker; History of 77se Christian Church, by Fischer; The Eternal Kingdom, by Mattox, etc. in the section “Wesleyanism.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 24, pp. 748-750
December 19, 1985