Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Barry Cunningham wrote an article entitled, “Church Cooperation,” which appeared in Sound Words, Volume 2, Number 4, April, 1984, p. 3. The article states:

There are those who affirm the following proposition to be true:

“The scriptures teach that it is sinful for one church to send money to another church for evangelistic purposes.”

The idea of the above proposition is this: Churches of Christ are not authorized to cooperate in the area of evangelism; one church may not send money to another church for use in evangelistic purposes.

This proposition may be proved only when its advocates submit evidence from the scriptures that cooperation in evangelism is sinful. It is one thing to assert a thing to be true; it is something else all together different to prove a thing to be true.

To prove any statement as Biblically true, its proponents must show that it is taught in the Bible.

The Bible teaches in three ways:

(1) By direct command or prohibition.

(2) By approved example. In this case the example must be exclusive.

(3) By necessary inference, i.e., logical conclusions reached from the text.

First, there is no command: “Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism.” True, the Bible does not have to specifically forbid an act before it is wrong. Burning down your neighbor’s house is wrong even though it is not specifically forbidden.

A proper application of the “Golden Rule” enables us to know that burning down your neighbor’s house is wrong, i.e., we necessarily infer such to be the case.

Yet, the lack of such a specific command or prohibition must be admitted in regard to church cooperation in evangelism. The absence of such a command proves at least that church cooperation in evangelism is not forbidden in this way.

Second, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible. The following may be properly considered examples of New Testament cooperation:

(1) Cooperation between individuals (2 Timothy 4:9).

(2) One individual and several other individuals (Romans 16:1-2).

(3) A Christian family cooperating with individuals (1 Corinthians 16:15),

(4) “Disciples” cooperating with “elders” (Acts 11:27-30).

(5) Several churches cooperating with “saints” (2 Corinthians 8:14).

(6) A church cooperating with several other churches (Acts 15:4-23; 16:4-5).

(7) Individual churches supporting a preacher in the field while he labors with other brethren (2 Corinthians 11:8).

(8) A preacher receiving support from an individual (Galatians 6:6).

Which of the above is the exclusive pattern? Since there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible, church cooperation in evangelism may not be forbidden on the grounds of an exclusive, approved example.

Third, all churches are under the great commission of Christ (Mark 16:15). This commission specifically authorizes us to “go” and “preach.” We are not told however, to “go” in any particular fashion or to “preach” in any specific way. We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity.

Hence, church cooperation in evangelism may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism; cooperation is practical, expedient and scriptural!

Since church cooperation in evangelism is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism when it is considered expedient to the advancement of the gospel.

(Acknowledgment is given to Guy N. Woods and Thomas Warren for thoughts expressed in this article.)

Review And Response

Observe that the proposition says one thing while brother Cunningham’s informal definition says another. The proposition does not state that “churches of Christ may not cooperate in the area of evangelism.” However, it is easier for brother Cunningham to add to and alter the proposition than it is to deal with the proposition itself. Churches of Christ do cooperate in evangelism, and no one known to me denies it.

Read the two paragraphs beneath the proposition. Suppose brother Cunningham were to affirm that it is sinful for churches to use mechanical instruments of music in worship, and suppose a Christian Church preacher said:

“The idea of the above proposition is this: Churches of Christ are not authorized to have music in worship; a church may not use mechanical instruments in worship.

“This proposition may be proved only when its advocates submit evidence from the scriptures that music in worship is sinful. It is one thing to assert a thing to be true; it is something else all together different to prove a thing to be true.”

Brother Cunningham might well respond, “I am not affirming that music in worship is sinful. I believe churches may have music in worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). 1 do not have to prove that music, in general, is sinful, for I do not believe it is. I simply believe that there is no authority for churches to use mechanical instruments of music. My opponent may assert that such instruments of music are true and scriptural. We are not debating whether music in worship is scriptural. It is. We are discussing mechanical instruments of music in worship, and they are not authorized by the scriptures.”

Likewise, we are not discussing whether or not church cooperation is scriptural. It is. We are debating whether or not one church may send money to another church for use in evangelistic purposes.

Brother Cunningham implies that he would affirm that the Scriptures teach that one church may send money to another church for evangelistic purposes. Then, he states the rules whereby one proves “any statement as Biblically true.” These rules are:

(1) By direct command or statement.

(2) By approved example.

(3) By necessary implication, or inference.

Let us apply these rules to brother Cunningham’s position. Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? Perhaps brethren Woods and Warren will assist brother Cunningham in answering these questions with Scripture. The fact is that no such passages exist; yet, “To prove any statement as Biblically true, its proponents must show it is taught in the Bible” by one or more of the three ways cited above.

Brother Cunningham’s Objections

“First, there is no command: “Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism.”‘ We have previously considered the switching of the issue at hand, so, here we shall use a Christian Church response. Allow that brother Cunningham were to affirm that churches of Christ cannot send money to a Missionary Society for evangelistic purposes. How would he reply to the objection, “First, there is no command: “Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism The absence of such a command proves at least that church cooperation is not forbidden in this way?”

If brother Cunningham affirmed that mechanical instruments of music in worship are sinful, how would he answer the following objection? “First, there is no command: ‘Thou shalt not have music in worship The absence of such a command proves at least that church music is not forbidden in this way.”

“Second, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible.” If that be true, then brother Cunningham needs to consider this: In church cooperation in the area of benevolence, he believes churches may build and maintain benevolent organizations or societies which in turn employ methods of care and provide the means and facilities to do the work of benevolence. Now, since there is, according to him, “no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible,” may churches build and maintain missionary organizations or societies which in turn use methods of preaching and provide the means and facilities to do the work of preaching?

Perhaps brethren Woods and Warren will assist brother Cunningham in denying the parallel, keeping in mind, of course, that “there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible.” Furthermore, there is no “direct prohibition,” either.

“Third, all churches are under the great commission of Christ (Mark 16:15). This commission specifically authorizes us to ‘go’ and ‘preach.’ We are not told to ‘go’ in any particular fashion or ‘preach’ in any specific way.” Grant, for argument’s sake, that “all churches are under the great commission.” Indeed, this would authorize churches to “go” and “preach.” If it authorizes each church to go and preach, then each church must do so, but brother Cunningham’s scheme has some churches funding the work and others overseeing and doing it. The great commission does not authorize an inter-church organization. It would simply authorize each church to “go” and “preach.”

Consider the Herald of Truth arrangement. Thousands of churches contribute millions of dollars under the direction and oversight of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. Herald of Truth does the “going” and “preaching” while the contributing churches do the funding. Where does the great commission provide for that? In the New Testament, each church, under the oversight of its own elders, went and preached (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 11:22-24; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Do not forget missionary societies. If a church can “go” and “preach” by sending money to a sponsoring church and allowing it to employ the means and methods of preaching, why can it not send money to a missionary organization and thereby “go” and “preach”? True enough, “We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity,” but centralized control, the modern sponsoring church arrangement, as typified by Herald of Truth, is an organization, a conglomeration of churches that must use means and methods. There is no denial of the tenet that churches may employ expedient ways to go and preach. The sponsoring church plan is an organization, however, that must itself select the manner of its operation.

Brother Cunningham’s Last Two Paragraphs

At the risk of being redundant, notice that brother Cunningham has again shifted gears. He closes with a swipe at church cooperation in evangelism, as though someone denies it. However, the proposition he is reviewing does not deny “church cooperation” in general. It denies one church the authority to send money to another church for evangelism. That is what he should have been discussing and negating. In view of his change of subject, let us set forth comparable topics for his consideration.

Parallel Number One: Brother Cunningham affirms that it is sinful for churches to send money to a Missionary Society for evangelistic purposes. A Christian Church preacher concludes:

“Hence, church cooperation in evangelism may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism; cooperation is practical, expedient and scriptural!

“Since church cooperation in evangelism is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism when it is considered expedient to the advancement of the gospel.”

Would brother Cunningham say that the respondent has addressed the issue? No, brother Cunningham believes churches may cooperate. He objects to the Missionary Society as an unscriptural scheme. What the Christian Church preacher must do is find his arrangement in the Bible.

Parallel Number Two: Brother Cunningham affirms that it is sinful for churches of Christ to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. A Christian Church preacher concludes:

“Hence, music in worship may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may have music in worship; music is practical, expedient and scriptural!

“Since music in worship is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may have music in worship when it is considered expedient to the worship of the gospel.”

Would brother Cunningham say that the preacher has met the issue? No, brother Cunningham believes churches may have music (singing) in worship. He does not deny that; he denies that mechanical instrumental music may be used. His opponent has not touched the proposition. What the Christian Church preacher must do is find his kind of music in the New Testament.

Proposal and Conclusion

Brethren Woods and Warren assisted brother Cunningham with his material. Both men are editors of religious magazines, Gospel Advocate and The Spiritual Sword respectively. Perhaps, they will allow brother Cunningham and me to conduct a written discussion of these and related matters in their papers. Guardian of Truth will carry it if they will. I am willing; surely, brother Cunningham is; now, all he has to do is convince brethren Woods and Warren. If you hear nothing further, it means they refused.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 547-548, 568
September 20, 1984

By William C. Sexton

No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me (John 6:44-45).

At times learning is not perceived properly. As the passages show, it is essential that one hears the word of God in order to be drawn to Jesus by the Father; when one really hears and learns, he comes to Christ.

Learning is often perceived as just hearing or taking in some information. However, a meaningful definition of learning in learning theory is a change in behavior. If there is not some change in behavior, then, in reality, there has been no real learning. The following definition seems good:

Learning is the process by which an activity originates or is changed through reacting to an encountered situation, provided that the characteristics of the change in activity cannot be explained on the basis of native response tendencies, maturation, or temporary states of the organism (e.g., fatigue, drugs, etc.) (Theories of Learning, Ernest R. Hilgard and Gordon H. Bower, p. 2).

With that definition in mind, let us see how much learning takes place in us and as a result of our teaching activity. I recall that back in Kansas City some years ago, as we were having some discussion on training efforts, we concluded and emphasized that “teaching is more than telling.” I truly believe that such is the case. However, telling is perhaps about all that takes place in some of our “teaching efforts and situations.” This short article is designed to challenge us to consider what is essential if learning is really to occur!

1. Listening is something that only I can do. You can’t do it for me nor can I do it for you. Listening is an active participation, however; it is not a passive presence when something is being said.

However, . . the mere presence of a message receiver does not guarantee that communication will take place – the listener must be “tuned in” to the speaker before communication can be successful (Listening Behavior, by Larry L. Barker, p. 2).

Preachers and Bible teachers should have this in mind as they try to communicate effectively the word of God. We, as disciples (learners and followers), must ever keep this in mind, if we are to avail ourselves of the riches before us -in taking in and assimilating the “power of God.” Let us see the model, the process, and the factors which can either interfere or enhance reception of the message.

Communicator — (* *) — Message — (* *) — Receiver

Speaker Listener

As I grow older, I’m becoming more and more aware of the fact that there is a lot more talking than communicating; a lot more is said than received, as will as that much which is received was not sent – it was picked up along the way.

2. Understanding is the aim or end of the message sender’s effort. Yet, often the attempt to communicate is a failure, for various reasons. The sender can be careless, ignorant of the process, or use poor judgment in choosing precise terms to convey the message. Look at the explanation of Jesus, “When one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which receiveth seed by the way side” (Matt. 13:19).

How many times have we been as the “wayside” receiver in regard to a particular message? As I look back, I see many things which I did not receive at the time they were sent to me by a communicator; often I feel that I have received the message fully, only to find out later than I have not! Have you ever had the experience? Can you not remember times when you indicated that you have heard, understood, and would carry out the direction, only to find out later that you had missed an important part of the message or perhaps “thought” that one thing was meant, when something different was. meant! I have and I suspect you have too.

3. Movement or change in one’s behavior or conduct results when real learning takes place. When one hears the message that Jesus is the Christ, that he is lost in sin and the consequences of that sin is eternal ruin, and that all who will come to God by Jesus will be saved, if one really learns that message, he will run to Jesus!

Many things interfere with the reception of that message, however, both externally and internally (Acts 13:8; 28:2627). Things which interfere may be people, concepts, and circumstances. False concepts, having been accepted, close the door to true ideas which go contrary to basic parts of the held concept. People holding wrong ideas can and often will seek to influence us so as to pay inadequate attention to truth, “new ideas,” etc. (“That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them,” Mk. 4:12).

What made such possible? “And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” (Matt. 13:14-15).

The people’s preconditioning had rendered them capable of mis-treating the message from heaven which was designed to save them. Is that same process operative today? Surely such is the cause for many being unreceptive to the salvation message today. Are you allowing such to close the door to heaven for you? Please don’t. Christians, how about you? Hear Paul’s recorded words: “But ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:20-24).

As children, people who have learned and been taught by Jesus, we see how inappropriate it is to claim the relationship with Him and at the same time be living under the domination of the “old man.”

So, if we have really learned the lesson, it manifests itself in our behavior. Our conduct reflects the extent and source of our learning. Using that as an indicator, what have we really learned and from whom?

Also, brethren, what are we really teaching?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 530-531
September 6, 1984

By Dennis D. Tucker

By now everyone has heard of Vanessa Williams. For a number of days she was the source of national news and controversy. Her name has been on the front page of numerous newspapers and magazines. In fact, it was a magazine and some photographs that started the whole uproar. It appears that Miss Williams posed nude in some very lewd pictures for a certain photographer a few years back. She was paid to pose nude, and she willingly accepted the money after she had done so.

Eventually the pictures wound up in the August issue of Penthouse magazine, a so-called adult magazine, meaning that it shows pictures of individuals in sexual positions and acting out sexual encounters. It is worth noting that several magazines turned down the rights to the pictures of Miss Williams, realizing that such publicity would harm her career and harm the Miss America Pageant. Those magazines turned down a good sized profit; Penthouse has to be pleased with their August sales.

Once the pictures of the naked Miss Williams hit the newsstands, everybody reacted with horror. Miss Williams was stunned that the photographer would have the gall to sell those pictures and that any magazine would print them. Organizers of the Miss America Pageant were shocked and angered by the photographs. They stated that the contestants of the pageant. sign a contract with a morality clause. This clause allows the organizers to relieve the winner of her duties if she acts in any immoral way or brings reproach upon the pageant. They stressed that this was the first time that they had to actually use this clause and wanted to stress the cleanliness and decency of the Miss America pageant.

Publishers of Penthouse responded by calling the organizers of the Miss America Pageant a bunch of hypocrites. Penthouse did not claim that the pictures were wholesome or innocent; they recognized the pictures for what they were, photographs designed to stimulate a sexual response. They challenged the pageant to be honest with itself and admit that they have the same goal, that is to show off flesh.

The whole pageant. is designed to show off bodies of some pretty young girls. No matter how hard pageant officials try to present a wholesome pageant, they fail. If the pageant’s very purpose is wrong, if its goals are wrong, its results will be wrong. Young ladies are shown wearing bikinis, one piece bathing suits, and evening gowns. These articles of clothing are designed to show off the bodies of these women. Pageant officials have tried to keep a certain level of respectability; however, it is impossible to have a wholesome event if its purpose is not wholesome. Talent and ability play very little part in selecting the winner. There is a question for the five finalists to answer, but the nature of this question does not require a great deal of knowledge. For the most part, the winner is chosen on the criterion of looks.

Many of the sponsors of the pageant use the young ladies to model their fashions and makeup. They will use these ladies and other models in their advertisements. Such advertisements are often aimed at stimulating sexual response or at showing other women how to be provocative. They will do this by showing women posing skimpily dressed, wearing their product or with their product, so as to catch the eyes of men. The same thing happens during the pageant; women are skimpily dressed, and people watch to drool over these young ladies.

Penthouse made a good point; their pictures of Miss Williams are the natural conclusion. People who are immodest enough to stand in front of a national audience barely dressed will have little trouble appearing naked in front of a photographer. Miss Williams should not have been shocked; after all, she posed for the pictures. The photographer was in the business of selling pictures. The fact that he would eventually sell her pictures is the natural conclusion. Organizers of the pageant should not have been shocked. If somebody is immodest enough to try to show off her body, it will not matter how under-dressed she is. People with immodest attitudes will do immodest things. Persons with modest attitudes will dress and act modestly (1 Tim. 2:9).

It would shock most individuals to sometimes see the natural conclusion of their attitudes. Those individuals who could see nothing wrong with “church supported orphan homes” or “church supported colleges” twenty years ago, should not be shocked by the church businesses we have today. It is the natural conclusion. People who start missing worship services and eventually fall away should not be shocked. It is the natural conclusion. Individuals who advocate social drinking or immodest dress have no right to be shocked by alcoholism or adultery. It is the natural conclusion. Penthouse was honest enough to see and admit the natural conclusion. How about you?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 550
September 20, 1984

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Why was Jesus born of a virgin?

Reply: Skepticism and denial of the virgin birth of Jesus not only exist among the non-religious, but they also prevail within the religious circle. Modernism and infidelity have both infiltrated the pulpits of some religious bodies. Many people believe that Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived, even the greatest moralist and teacher, but they deny that He was born of a virgin, thus rejecting His deity.

According to the natural laws of procreation, conception occurs when the sperm of a man unites with the egg of a woman. This, however, was not the case with Jesus. He was born of a virgin. It was prophesied that He would be (Isa. 7:14), and the narratives of Matthew and Luke assert it (Matt. 1:18-23; Lk. 1:26-35). The virgin birth of Jesus was a supernatural event, a miracle, which those of us who believe that the Bible is the word of God accept by faith.

Why was Jesus born of a virgin? The pre-existence of our Lord necessitated a miraculous conception. The preexistence of Jesus is affirmed in John 1:1,2: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ” The “Word” here is Logos (Gr.) and refers to Christ who is the Logos. This term (Logos) which applies only to Christ in this passage, also appears in 1 John 1:1 and in Revelation 19:13. Although logos may at times refer to speech (utterance of words), or to the divine mind of God (see Heb. 4:12), its use in the above passage applies to the person of Christ. In John 1:1,2, the word is used with reference to Christ in connection with His pre-existence with His Father. Other New Testament passages testify to the pre-existence of our Lord (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15, 16; Eph. 1:4,10). While Jesus lived on earth, He affirmed that He was before Abraham (Jn. 8:58). He had lived eternally in union with His Father before His birth upon this earth.

When we entered this world by the natural laws of procreation, we became persons; we were newly created. But Jesus was already a person before His birth. This was true only of Jesus, but not true of us. The natural union of a man and woman cannot bring into the world a person who has existed before (even though some believe and teach the doctrine of reincarnation–rebirth in new bodies). Joseph and Mary could not bring the pre-existent Son of God into the world. His entering into the world had to be by divine intervention. The miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus was exactly how it was done. He became man to reveal Himself to man. Men could see God the Father in Him. In His discourse to the Jews, Jesus said, “If God were your father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me” (Jn. 8:42). John declared of Him he came forth from God, and goeth to God” (Jn. 13:3).

The virgin birth of Jesus was unique. There was never anything like it before, nor has it been since. It explains how Jesus came to earth from God. The subsequent life, teaching and miracles of Jesus all attest to the fact that indeed He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was born of a virgin.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 549
September 20, 1984