Truth Magazine

By James R. Cope, reprinted from The Preceptor

(Introductory Note: I am indebted to my friend and brother Robert F. Turner for pointing out to me the article on “Majorities and Manners” by James R. Cope, which appeared in his column “Preceptor Perceptions” in The Preceptor, Feb. 1952, p. 4. In the “Dunne-Pickup Debate,” published in the Gospel Guardian beginning 19 Nov. 1953, the Catholic priest Dunne claimed that Cope’s article endorses the concept of a hierarchy. We can understand Dunne grabbing at straws by misusing Cope’s article as well as by misusing Scripture. The Bible pattern for elders to oversee and to shepherd the local church, as defended by Cope, precludes both the extremes of hierarchy and of majority rule. There is a vast difference between one who leads in making decisions of expediency, which by definition admits that the decisions may be revamped when elders and brethren see changing circumstances, and one who makes ecclesiastical law equivalent to the divine revelation ordained in Matthew 16:19, which is precisely what Catholicism claims for its hierarchy.

Among our own brethren, history reveals the working of the destructive demons of radicalism, extremism, digression, and factionalism. During the institutional apostasy which began in 1849 and which recurred after World War 11, some elderships suffered from delusions of grandiose officialdom, used arbitrary and carnal tactics as though the end justifies the means, and ran roughshod over their brethren and the Bible. At the other end of the spectrum, a few men like Charles Holt have denied that the local church is an organized entity or that the Bible provides a pattern for a specially designated eldership which can lead with authority in the sense of making decisions in the realm of expediency. A few brethren have defied elders by resorting to the carnal and political tactics of majority rule-calling for votes and passing petitions. We commend brother Cope’s article as a balanced presentation of the truth.-Ron Halbrook, 1101 Dyson Rd., West Columbia, TX 77486)

I civilized countries recognize the necessity of government. Different forms of government hold sway in various lands but all admit the necessity of some final tribunal and ultimate authority. Chaos and confusion prevail where no rule obtains. Whether we study the civil, domestic, or religious realm authority must be vested and recognized as existing somewhere if peace and order are to be realities.

Authority Of Christ Supreme

In the church of Christ all authority resides in Christ. He is the maker, giver, and judge of his law as well as the discerner of the hearts of his subjects. On earth there is no super-organization of all Christians with authority stemming from some central headquarters. In view of plain Bible teaching one of the simplest and most revealing tests of the scripturalness of any professed religious organization is the question: Does it have some national or international head on earth? If the answer is the affirmative, such within itself shows that religious body not to be the Lord’s spiritual body for his church has no such organizational structure.

The only organization which Christ has on earth is the church in some given locality generally spoken of as a congregation of disciples or baptized believers. The law of Christ governs believers in their congregational relationships just as it governs Christians in their individual relationships. As the individual disciple cannot disregard the will of Christ in his individual activities and remain sinless, so the congregation cannot violate the law of God in its congregational or collective activities and remain sinless.

Bishops And Expediency

In the local church God has made provision for bishops to govern in matters of expediency. These officers are sometimes called elders, overseers, and presbyters. In matters of faith, i.e., where God has definitely spoken, bishops are under exactly the same obligation to obey implicitly the word of God as are all other Christians. They have an additional responsibility of faith not bound upon all saints, viz., they are to “feed the flock.” This is not a matter of judgment but a solemn obligation devolving upon them as a result of the relationship they sustain to those whom they oversee.

In matters of judgment or expediency those meeting the divine qualifications of bishops are supreme and their word is final. The Holy Spirit has appointed them and to resist their authority is to rebel against the Holy Spirit. God knew that the final decisions in the sphere of expediency had to be made by somebody, and divine wisdom has provided for them in the eldership. Regardless of the individual’s judgment, it becomes his solemn obligation to acquiesce in the bishops’ rule when that rule is announced. For all practical purposes their decision is God’s decision, and therefore, must become the disciple’s decision. To do otherwise is to nullify the office of elders and reflect upon God’s purpose in providing them. If their decisions can be disregarded, their office can be ignored. If their office can be ignored, God’s word can be set aside, for it makes provision for bishops in the churches.

The Spirit Of Rebellion

Sad to say, many feel today that God’s word can be set aside. They will not admit it but their actions betray their true sentiment. When rebellion breaks out and the judgment of qualified, God-fearing elders become the target of invectives and harsh criticisms of loose thinking and looser-talking church members, the Lord’s word has been set aside and his own government attacked. Either elders are to rule or they are not to rule. If they are to rule, they must be obeyed. If they are not to rule, divine wisdom was mistaken in commanding that they be obeyed.

When the spirit of rebellion begins to foment, it generally finds expression in overt acts. Absalom became the victim of his own vain ambition to rule in David’s stead before the people were stirred to help him consummate his evil designs in dethroning his father. His dissatisfaction with the existing order, first, and his conceited notion that he could successfully replace God’s appointed king, next, formed the framework of his scheme to usurp the throne of Israel. His foolish folly is best seen in the overthrow of his plan and the loss of his life.

A disposition to throw out the elders and change the existing order is the thing of the day in some localities. It is the mind of Absalom and the spirit of Korah. When it takes tangible form, it is overt rebellion against God and the gospel. It denies the authority of Christ and brings his body to open shame. Within the last decade churches all over the land have witnessed such heart-rending spectacles, and the cause at large has suffered irreparable damage as a direct result of this spirit.

Majority Manners

Most always the situation resolves itself into majority rule versus elder rule, and eventually into open division of the congregation. Christian principles and decent manners fall prostrate before majority vote. The would-be rulers take over, and the men who only a short while before held the confidence and respect of all are now ambushed by ambition, scourged by scoffing, and crucified by calumny. Majority rule in the church has no manners-decent manners, that is. And those who constitute the majority are so blinded by pride that they can see no sin of their own and so infatuated with their own importance that they do not listen to reason and will not heed revelation.

Where gospel preachers are willing to submit themselves to the judgment of elders when they fire as well as when they hire, the situation will rapidly improve. If preachers and elders will hold faithfully and constantly before the congregation, its responsibility and proper attitude toward the elders the disciples will not likely get out of control. This is one sure way to honor the divine arrangement and preserve the peace of God’s people.

Majority rule is not God’s plan for his church. If it is right part of the time, it is proper all the time. If it is right all the time, there is no room for elder rule. If there is no place for elder rule, there is no place for Christ’s rule. If there is no place for Christ’s rule, there is no place for Christ’s church, and if there is no place for Christ’s church, there is no room for Christ. Beware of the man or men, preachers or otherwise, who will dissipate the divine plan for their own purposes. Such persons are too liberal for the progress and prosperity of the Lord’s people in spiritual affairs.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 558-559
September 19, 1985

By Bill Hall

One will find little joy in any cause for which he has never suffered. A nation that has not had to fight for freedom will hardly appreciate freedom as it ought; but those who have fought, suffered, and risked their lives for freedom know its values and even find joy in their suffering in its behalf. So it is with the cause of Christ. Paul could say to the Philippians — and he obviously saw their condition as a blessed one — “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29).

A major element in the joy of the early Christians was their suffering for righteousness’ sake. They did not rejoice in spite of their suffering, but because of it. Had one taken away their suffering, he would have greatly dampened their joy in the Lord and their enthusiasm for His cause.

The secret of their joy can be seen in the wording of Acts 5:41: “They departed from the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” Counted worthy! They had not always suffered shame for Jesus for they had not always been worthy. There had been times when they had fled in fear and had proven themselves to have been cowards, unworthy to suffer. But now they have been tested again, tested severely, and this time they had passed the test. Their suffering in fact was proof of their loyalty; they were now worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Those early Christians viewed their suffering, then, as an opportunity to demonstrate the reality of their faith; they saw it as a sharing in the suffering of Christ; they recognized it as a trial of their genuineness, and found great joy in the proof of that genuineness. They knew that their suffering was working for them “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17); that it was an “evident token . . . of salvation” (Phil. 1:28).

Besides, their suffering no doubt enhanced their anticipation of heaven. Place a man in prison in Philippi, his back beaten and his feet in stocks, and he will view heaven from a different perspective than will that man who is in luxury and ease. That was exactly the position of Paul and Silas when, at midnight, they sang praises unto God. We do not know the songs that they sang while in that prison, but had they had access to today’s songs, one of them might have been:

“O Zion, Zion, I long thy gates to see;

O Zion, Zion, when shall I dwell in thee?”

– L. H. Jameson

and no doubt they could have sung it with real meaning. Whereas, it is entirely possible that in our absence of suffering, we are only giving lip service to such a statement.

We do not court persecution. In fact, we readily confess our thankfulness for the peaceful conditions in which we serve the Lord. But we make a mistake if we try to “offer unto the Lord that which costs us nothing.” Only when we learn true devotion and sacrifice in the Lord’s cause will we come to appreciate the true value of the cause and its ultimate reward. We will not likely see a restoration of the joy and spirit of early Christians until we see a restoration of the sacrifice and suffering that characterized them.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 553
September 19, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

The current discussion on “walking in light” has produced more than its. share of ambiguities and contradictions, with some unethical treatment of brethren. These have, however, been thankfully offset by some fair treatment and open study. But the total picture has also revealed our weakness in dealing with basic theological concepts, and that should concern us greatly. We are not theologians-nor do I fault us for that. For the most part, we have been content to dwell on the surface: seeking practical, simple ways of teaching the commands of the gospel, and giving but cursory attention to more basic concepts. But this does not feed with “meat,” nor prepare us to discuss revealed principles that require critical analysis and exegesis. We trip over our own terminology, and contradict principles we would never violate in another context. I freely acknowledge my own inadequacies in these matters, but ask you to carefully consider this effort to improve our study “tools.”

We must seek common ground for a beginning, and “we hold these truths to be self-evident” among the believing students of the New Testament who will likely read this article.

(1) All have sinned, and do “come short,” i.e. continue to sin (Rom. 3:23). The first phrase “gathers up the whole race into one statement (a timeless aorist)”; “and come short. . . ” is “continued action, still fall short” says Robertson (Word Pictures). Aliens sin; and people who have obeyed the gospel also sin; surely there are none who doubt it.

(2) All would be lost save for the grace of God, who forgives sins on the basis of the substitutionary offering of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24f). Aliens would be lost without forgiveness; people who have been baptized would be lost without further forgiveness. Does not everyone agree to this? I believe they do.

(3) God has stipulated conditions upon which an alien’s sins will be remitted (faith, repentance, confession, baptism; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38); and He has given conditions whereby His children will be forgiven (repent, confess and pray; Acts 8:22, Jas. 5:16). Obviously, I am giving abbreviated statements and references, but my readers surely understand, and agree with these basics.

(4) I am persuaded most of my readers will also agree that the citing of unusual or hypothetical cases (a crocodile got him as he was about to be baptized, or before he could say “I have sinned”) do not change these basics. We believe our job is to preach the revealed pattern; and leave “what if” contingencies in His hands.

Now, having these basics in common, how can we have such differing concepts about “forgiveness” and “walking in light” of 1 John 1? I believe the “bottom line” is (1) mechanical exegesis, ignoring contextual effects upon words and phrases; and (2) failure to recognize the grammatical and contextual meaning and use of “walking. ” These errors get us into doctrinal trouble. Then we speculate or invent new “rules” to get out-and only make matters worse. Here we will consider some errors that get us into this mess.

I.B. Grubbs, in Exegetical Analysis, p. 4, says:

The carnal man, as described in Rom. 8:5-8, is the godless man, as standing in full contrast with children of God; but this term is applied with less meaning, of course, to believing “babes in Christ” in 1 Cor. 3:1. And the word is still further contracted in force when applied to Paul by himself, Rom. 7:14, under a comparison with the faultless law of God. It is one of the chief sources of erroneous exegesis that men adopt a sort of arithmetical method of interpretation, and deal with words as if they were numerals, in overlooking the obvious contextual import which they often acquire.

In Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin” is contrasted with “the gift of God,” and “death” is contrasted with “eternal life.” Paul’s sins, and Peter’s, and those of babes in Corinth (1 Cor. 3:3), had not yet reached their eternal conclusion. This does not mean they could not produce such a conclusion. Any sin, unforgiven, will condemn eternally. That is why sinners are warned about all sin. We must “buffet” our body (1 Cor. 9:27); repent, confess, and pray for forgiveness, lest our sins produce the final death. But “a sin” is not 44apostasy” in any and every context. (Apostasy means “abandonment, total desertion of principles or faith.”) Basic error: the mechanical use of terms.

“Walk” is used of one’s continued course of action and life: i.e., the habitual habit and manner of life” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech, p. 832). “Walk” (peri + patomen) is literally “walk about,” “indicating the habitual course of the life” says Vincent. In 1 John 1 it is present, active, subjunctive — ” keep on walking.” Robertson and Davis’ Greek Grammar says present subjunctive”denotes continued or repeated action, ” and “the idea is always linear with no reference to time,” i.e., it is not punctiliar (point action).

B.F. Westcott (on 1 Jn. 1) says, “The whole description refers to the general character and tendency of life, and not to the absolute fulfillment of the character in detail.” Westcott further comments on “walking” when discussing the walk in darkness: saying it means to “choose and use the darkness as our sphere of action. The question is not directly of the specific acts, but of the whole region of life outward and inward. . . . To choose this as our sphere of movement is necessarily to shun fellowship with God.”

To maintain the metonymy, . we could call “a sin” on the part of a Christian a “step” in darkness. It is incompatible with God’s nature. Unrepented of and unfortunate, it can condemn to Hell. But a “step” is not walking-whether It is a right or wrong step, It is not “walking. ” And if we are to clearly establish the proper meaning and use of 1 John 1:6-7, we must refrain from reading into the passage something that is not there. According to our text, we neither maintain fellowship with God by “a step,” nor do we break fellowship with God by “a step.” We do it by “walking” in light or darkness. Can we not leave this teaching as God put it?

But someone says, “How could even a ‘step’ in darkness be acceptable to our God who is light?” It is not acceptable. That is why we are told we must confess our sins (repentance and prayer are understood) to be forgiven. God loved us, and gave His Son to die for us, “while we were sinners” (Rom. 5:8). Does that mean God approved of the alien’s sin? Of course not. Neither does He approve of His child’s sin, but calls on the child to use the blood of Christ for further forgiveness. In 1 John 1 access to the blood of Christ, and His advocacy, are stated benefits of “walking. in the light.” If our brethren could look at the above, free of prejudices and reactions gendered by real or imagined “errors” they have heard, it is difficult to believe they would deny any thing written here.

“Walking in the light” is the equivalent of “fellowship with God,” being “in grace,” “in Christ” “in His body,” “knowing, and being known” of God, “begotten of God,” “children of God,” and many like phrases. All of these states or conditions hinge upon our doing God’s will, but I know of no passage of Scripture that teaches such people achieve sinless perfection. Many of these descriptive phrases vary in their application from context to context, and all of them must be understood in the light of grammar and context (cf. 1 Jn. 3:9). God is absolute light, “in Him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). But He is also absolute love (4:16), purity (3:3), holiness (1 Pet. 1:16), and mercy (Lk. 6:36); and in all these passages we are called upon to be like God. Surely it is clear that we can but poorly and relatively measure up to this ideal. Even in seemingly overt service (singing, etc.) the heart as well as the deed is involved, and only God knows if our heart is acceptable (cf. 1 Jn. 3:20f). That is why we must seek mercy in Jesus Christ.

But someone gets the idea that God forgives those who “walk in light” even as they sin. That is not in the text. And another counters with the idea that one who “walks in light” does not sin. The very opposite is in the text. Another says only certain kinds of sins are “in the light.” (The plot is thickening!) And he is countered by one who says “a sin” of any kind takes us out of the light. (Out of grace, Christ, etc.? How can a wholesale apostate get back? [Isa. 59:2; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26]) It seems once we have gone beyond the limits of the writer’s purpose, there is no stopping.

Prayerfully, fearfully, we suggest: (1) Quit the use of “continuous” or docontinual cleansing,” and say instead, “continually available.” (2) Cease to speculate on hypothetical cases-to usurp God’s place as final judge. (3) Learn that grace was expressed in Christ “before the world began” (1 Tim. 1:9), and profits us only through the gospel. It is not a “Watkins liniment” to be sprayed on in emergencies. (4) Avoid mechanical interpretation of Scriptures, knowing words and phrases vary according to context. And, (5) Become aware that 1 John 1:6-7 is not discussing “a sin” on the part of a Christian. It is contrasting two conflicting ethical realms-the regions of darkness and light.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 550-551
September 19, 1985

By Sammy Bynum

On the evenings of January 14, 15, 17 and 18, Ed Bragwell, Jr., who preaches for the Golden Springs church in Anniston, Alabama, met Roger Jackson of the Betta View Hills church in nearby Oxford, in a public debate of issues involving church benevolence. The discussion, held in the meeting house of the E and Quintard church of Christ, was attended by an estimated 125-150 each night.

Ed O. Bragwell, Sr. of Fultondale, Alabama, moderated for Ed Jr., who was engaging in his first public debate. Clyde Ray moderated for Roger Jackson, a staff writer for Firm Foundation and widely used by brethren who support human institutions.

It will be our purpose in this article to review and examine some of the major arguments made by each disputant during the course of the discussion.

The First Proposition

The proposition discussed the first two nights and affirmed by Roger Jackson was the following: “It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to benevolent institutions structured like Childhaven, so that the needs of orphaned children might be adequately met.”

In lieu of Scripture to support his proposition, Jackson’s argumentation consisted chiefly of human reasoning, setting forth emotional and hypothetical situations, and taking verses which address individual responsibility (Jas. 1:27; Gal. 6:10) and trying to apply them to collective church action in benevolence.

Not surprisingly, he began with the assertion that the issue was one of “how” the work of benevolence was to be done, and that the “home” of his proposition was simply a “how.” He further claimed that his proposition would be established by necessary inference based on James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10. Also included in his affirmative argumentation were various statements made to appeal to emotion and prejudice. He enjoyed talking about a petty cash envelope, containing some of the church’s money, out of which he supplied the needs of sinners, and queried whether or not all the members of Betta View Hills would go to hell if they did not repent. Many other efforts in the vein, no more worthy of mention than the latter, were also made in seeming imitation of Woods, Highers, etc.

The main thrust of Jackson’s affirmative was what he referred to as a “component part” argument, in which he purported to have put together elements comprising the “total situation” from Scripture which justified church support of benevolent institutions like Childhaven. In it he included the following points: (1) God has given the church an obligation to orphans; (2) God has not specified the details; (3) Recognition of the true meaning of the word “orphan”; (4) God’s love extends to all men and we are not to do the opposite as His body (Matt. 5:43-48); (5) The church and the home are two distinct institutions; (6) The needs of a destitute child cannot be adequately met without his having or being a part of a home; (7) A home can scripturally meet legal requirements; (8) Legal homes structured like Childhaven are homes; and (9) The church may send funds from its treasury to institutions structured like Childhaven.

Brother Bragwell countered the affirmative arguments of brother Jackson by first pointing out that the discussion was not one of “how” the work of benevolence was to be done-method-but “who”-which organization is to provide for the needy to whom the church is responsible stating that it is the work of the church and not a human benevolent institution. Effectively shown by use of a chart was that the church has no more right to maintain a benevolent institution to do its work of relieving the needy than it does to maintain an evangelistic institution to do its work of spreading the gospel, or an edification institution to do that work for it.

He also noted that Jackson had shown no passage in which a benevolent institution like Childhaven was necessarily inferred, and that it was a misuse of Scripture to apply passages such as James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 to church activity. He also replied to the various emotional and prejudicial statements by simply pointing out that such were characteristic of denominational attempts to justify unscriptural action or to set aside the teaching of Scripture.

Bragwell countered the “component part” argument by (1) noting that some essential “parts” were missing, namely Scripture showing that benevolent institutions like Childhaven are authorized, and that the church can contribute to it; (2) pointing out that he was assuming the thing to be proven with his last part of the argument, (3) using the same kind of misapplied logic to show that with such any kind of proposition could be proven.

The Second Proposition

The second proposition was affirmed by brother Bragwell the last two nights of the debate. It stated: “The Scriptures teach that the local church in its work of benevolence, may only provide the needs of the saints.”

At the outset of his speeches, brother Bragwell stated the basic issue involved in the proposition. He pointed out that it was not (1) whether churches have a work of benevolence, or (2) what the responsibility of individuals may be in benevolence, but whether a local church is to provide benevolent aid for non-saints from its treasury.

Furthermore he emphasized the importance of respecting scriptural authority by following the New Testament pattern for church benevolence. By examining passages in Acts 2, 4, 6, 11, Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 16, and 2 Corinthians 8-9, he showed that the objects of church relief were always saints, thus limiting church benevolence to saints only. He paralleled the New Testament pattern in benevolence with the pattern found therein with respect to singing, pointing out that just as the exclusive pattern of “sing” authorized d6singing only,” so the exclusive pattern of church benevolence to saints authorized “saints only.”

Brother Bragwell also reminded the audience that since he was in effect affirming a “negative proposition,” that it would be necessary for brother Jackson to give scriptural authority for church benevolence to sinners to sustain any rebuttal.

Brother Jackson’s responses to the affirmative were characterized by the same kind of argumentation that he used when he was in the affirmative-inflammatory and emotionally charged statements, supposition and speculation, and misuse of Scripture-only to a greater extent.

Being weak in scriptural argumentation, his apparent attempt to turn the debate from one based on “thus saith the Lord,” to one muddled by the wisdom of man, was quickly manifest in his stating that the issue was “Can’t the church give to a little child as a token of love,” and whether or not an innocent, hungry orphan would starve before the church would take ten cents from the treasury to feed it. In response to these and a number of other such “classics” (including some absurd statements made in total ignorance about the costs of brother Bragwell’s clothes, car, and living quarters), brother Bragwell aptly noted that such were an admission of being deficient in Scripture.

Jackson replied to Bragwell’s argument on the New Testament pattern of church benevolenct to saints only by conjecturing that Acts 2, 4, and 6 possibly included some nonsaints who were aided. He discoursed on the possibility of their being one or two hundred “walk in” children to the assembly in Jerusalem who were aided out of the treasury.

In response to brother Bragwell’s point that he needed to give Scripture to justify benevolence to sinners, Jackson responded, “I don’t have to prove a dime’s worth of anything.” It might be added that as far as Scripture is concerned, he was pretty true to his statement.

Although using James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 as he had the first two nights, Jackson sought to make his stand from Scripture at 2 Corinthians 9:13. From there he made the argument that “them” were Christians, and that the “all men” were sinners; thus the churches had helped both saints and sinners. His apparent lack of understanding of the passage was indicated by (1) his stating that there was nothing in the context that would limit “all men” to Christians, and (2) his battle with the straw man argument that all transfer of funds does not constitute fellowship, overlooking the import of koinonias in the verse. In his response to Jackson’s argument from 2 Corinthians 9:13, Bragwell pointed out (1) the limitations of “all” in the context, (2) the meaning of the term translated “distribution,” as indicating the relationship which exists only among Christians, and (3) the fact that such construction as found in the verse is not necessarily mutually exclusive, as he illustrated by Matthew 3:5.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the discussion held in Anniston illustrated that brethren who disagree can do so in a cordial manner, and that such a discussion affords an opportunity for many to hear both sides of the issues which divide brethren. Tapes and charts of the debate are available and can be obtained by contacting brother Bragwell.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 562-563, 566
September 19, 1985