Truth Magazine

By Quentin McCay

Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me “to glory” (Psalm 73:24). These are the words from one of the Psalms of Asaph, who had observed the affairs of men and wondered why the wicked were so prosperous and happy. He makes a list of their seeming advantages and their evils and concludes momentarily that the righteous life is vain. His conclusion brought him great pain. He then went into the sanctuary of God and learned of the final end of the wicked. He learned that there will be a time when all the inequities of this life will be adjusted, that God will judge all people and prove Himself to be truly just. Asaph then commits himself to God and murmurs no more. He resolves to be guided by the counsel of God and has the blessed hope of being received into glory.

Asaph lived and wrote under the law of Moses, which was abrogated by the death of Christ (Heb. 10:9-10; Col. 2:14). Though we now live by the counsel of God revealed through Christ (Heb. 1:1-3), the principle set forth by Asaph is still true. It is by the counsel of God set forth in the New Testament that we are sanctified, justified, or saved. By the counsel of God, made known by Christ, we must live if we are to be received into glory. It should give one great courage to follow the counsel of God when he recognizes the completeness, sufficiency and the authority of it.

Revelation

The Bible is a revelation of the counsel of God. The word “revelation” means “an uncovering.” At one time the will of God was a “mystery,” which means that His will had not been revealed. Paul declared, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1: 11). From Ephesians 3:1-6, we learn that Christ made known unto Paul the mystery, Paul wrote it down, and those who read it can understand the mystery. This mystery included the message that the Jews and Gentiles are “fellow heirs in the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel.” There are no additional revelations from God. The Bible is complete in its message for sinful man. All modern-day revelations, which claim to be from God are false.

Inspired Revelation

The Bible is an inspired revelation. The men chosen to write the message from God were not guided by their own ability, wisdom, or memory. They were “moved along” by the Holy Spirit as they wrote the very word the Holy Spirit directed them to write in expressing to us the counsel of God. The Bible claims to be a verbally inspired revelation (Eph. 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 2:10-13). The Holy Spirit searched the “deep things of God,” and guided men to express the counsel of God in words. Such a revelation assures us that we have a complete and sufficient message containing all of the counsel of God. Since the message from God is complete, there are no inspired men. None are needed.

Confirmed Revelation

The Bible is also a confirmed revelation. What Christ and His inspired apostles revealed was confirmed by “signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will” (Heb. 2:4). Since there is no need of further revelation, there is no need of inspired men to make known the message and no need of confirmation of the message since it has been confirmed once for all time by Christ and His apostles. The miraculous was to end with the complete revelation of the perfect law of liberty (` Cor. 13:8-12). The claims of miraculous powers today are false claims. The Bible plainly declares that “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” “That which is done in part” (1 Cor. 13:9-10) refers to those nine gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. “That which is perfect” means the perfect “law of liberty” which has come (Jas. 1:25; Eph. 4:7-16).

As long as there was a need of revelation of God’s counsel, there was a need of inspiration. As long as there was a need of inspiration, there was a need of confirmation. Since revelation is complete (Jude 3), there is no need of inspiration, or further confirmation.

Understandable Revelation

The Bible is an understandable revelation. As stated by Paul in Ephesians 3:1-6, he received his words by revelation, wrote it and we can read it and understand his “knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” The Bible affirms that one can and must understand the counsel of God. “Wherefore, be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). All the truth one needs to know about God, His will, the church, sin and salvation has been revealed to us and one must understand it, believe it and obey it to be received into glory (John 8:31-32; Heb. 5:8-9; Rev. 22:14).

All of this means that God’s will is completely revealed. The counsel of God has been confirmed and is adequate and sufficient. There is no need for doubt. God’s revelation to man is final and fixed. There is no need for more information and we are warned not to tamper with His revealed will. “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). God’s counsel will judge us in that great day when all the evil thoughts, words and deeds will be remembered (Matt. 12:36-37; 2 Cor. 5: 10). It is a mark of great wisdom to be resolved, as was Asaph, to be guided by God’s counsel. This is the way to glory.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 259-260
May 3, 1984

By Lee Rogol

Introduction

At the very beginning of this series of articles, I pointed out that I wanted to approach the current issues (sponsoring churches, Committees or “Church Councils”, and institutionalism) from a different viewpoint. Being a former Adventist, I keep abreast of the developments within that denomination. There is quite a stir among them over the very things that came into and divided churches of Christ. These are the very things Adventists are now objecting to, and in numerous cases, dividing over. Since many in that denomination realize these things as unscriptural, let their objections be a lesson to the liberal churches that are practicing the very things even the denomination realizes is unscriptural.

We observed that many Adventists object to the hierarchal system of church government, the General Conference, and they present valid arguments that such a hierarchal arrangement is of Catholic origin. We observed that “hierarchy” among Catholics and Adventists, and “sponsoring” churches/elders are the same in design and function.

Now I wish to deal with Institutionalism and use the same basis for my arguments against this arrangement. There are several things we must observe about institutionalism. First, brethren, not God, set up these institutions through which churches carry out their work in benevolence and other functions. (And most of the work is not the work of the church in the first place.) Next, it is interesting to note that institutionalism found its origin in Catholicism. You don’t read of any institution in the New Testament as an adjunct to the church. This is the same as sponsoring churches and “Committees,” which in reality are the same as “Church Councils” of the early centuries in church history.

Adventists Condemn Institutionalism

It is interesting to note that the very objections many Adventists have to institutionalism are the very same we’ve been trying to point out to our liberal brethren for many years. They didn’t listen to us, so just maybe they’ll take heed to what a denominationalists has to say about it. If not, then our liberal brethren are defending the very thing many Adventists find unscriptural in their denomination. Will liberal brethren continue to defend what even denominationalists know is wrong? And all the liberal promotions among churches of Christ were “borrowed from” denominations when they first began to appear among us.

In Judged By The Gospel, Robert Brinsmead (a prominent Adventist minister for many years), makes several critical attacks on the institutions among them. Before going further, let me say that Brinsmead has abandoned Sabbath keeping. But this has no affect on what he has written, for he wrote it long before he gave up the Sabbath. So Adventists have no grounds to discount his statement because he was then writing as a sincere Adventist. On page 275 he wrote: “. . . we need to acknowledge some of the dangerous tendencies in Adventists institutionalism.” (This deals with their schools, hospitals and charitable organizations, as well as publishing houses.) Notice further:

In the first place, the same identification of the organization with the church which marked the development of the Roman Catholic system, has, to a large extent taken place in Adventism (p. 275)

Notice how Mr. Brimsmead points out the deteriorating effects of institutionalism on the church:

Institutionalism does not always encourage the aggressive spirit of a movement …. Nearly all the money and talent is drained from the little churches and conveyed to these centers, while many little churches are impoverished and ready to die (p. 276).

Institutionalism is also associated with another crippling tendency. This is the development of a top-heavy, nonproductive resource consuming bureaucracy. Religious institutions are not immune to the tendency to become self-perpetuating bureaucracies whose primary concern is their own safety, aggrandizement and glory. As the bureaucracy expands, more and more of the church’s resources are consumed by administration, and very little actually reaches the “front lines” (p. 278).

Quotation From Still Another Denominational Leader

. . . something is seriously wrong with modern Christianity …. History indicates that all movements tend to become institutionalized. This is what happened to the religious movements of the past, and the modern religious movement will be no exception (A Quest For Vitality In Religion, Edge, F.E.; pref. pp. 9-10).

Although this author is a denominationalist (not an adventist), he hit the nail on the head in his observation. He realized that “something is wrong with modern Christianity” and connected it with “institutionalized” religion. This author further pointed out that people become more stirred up and involved in social or political matters than in religious. People become more loyal and dedicated to a political system or party, or to a social problem then they do to Christ and spiritual obligations. So, Christians build their institutions to do what they should do as an individual duty, and thus they feel satisfied that they have fulfilled their obligations by letting these institutions do their work for them.

One of our own brethren (who defends the very thing in practice which he opposes in his writing) analyzed the same danger signal of digression.

At the close of the apostolic age, when the last apostle had died, the church was known only by the individual congregations scattered over the world. The work of Christ through the church was carried on through the influence of the local church in its community. Even in apostolic times the church felt no need of an organization devised by human planning, through which the church could cooperate to evangelize the world. They had a fervency and zeal, and history of the church has well shown that the less zeal and devotion there is in the church, the more institutionalism and human organizations are needed (Search For The Ancient Order, West, E.I. Vol. 1, pp. 169-170; all emphasis mine – LR).

Thus, what I fail to do is not so obvious because, on an institutional scale, I can say, “Look what we are doing.” Because we have a huge institutional machine, I can be lulled into a false sense of security and pride in failing as an individual because “we” – the institution is doing the work that needs to be done. As Mr. Brinsmead pointed out that the more these institutions take over the work, the weaker the denominational church becomes, so brother West quoted David Lipscomb’s observation along the same line: “When the Society prospers, the congregations become inactive, allowing the work to be taken over by these human organizations” (Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 59).

Crossroads: A Threat To Institutionalism

The liberals fear and oppose the Crossroads Movement with a passion. It is not because the Crossroads church is so liberal. Many liberal churches are as far out in liberalism as the Crossroads church. So they do not oppose Crossroads because of their liberalism, but because it presents a serious threat to their great institutions. I really believe this is why the liberals fear the Crossroads movement.

I am not defending Crossroads any more than I am defending liberalism in other churches. But they are getting far better results than other liberals do through their institutions. I truly believe the liberals fear the Crossroads movement because it is a threat to these institutions which take over the individual responsibility of each member. Members, who have no zeal, give their work over to their institutions fear that the work and objection of Crossroads is a real threat to the existence of their institutions. So, destroy the Crossroads and preserve “our institutions.”

The evil that sponsoring churches/elders and institutionalism creates is pride, power struggle seeking preeminence and control. The wider in area the sponsoring program, the more prominence and prestige is given to the sponsor. This, in turn, exalts the pride of men seeking preeminence which makes their lust for power and control more determined. Institutional orphans’ homes have their superintendents, managers, directors, etc. Do away with these institutions and these power structures would fall to pieces like the great image of Daniel 2.

Of course, Crossroads finds its supreme power in Chuck Lukas, of the Crossroads church in Gainesville, Florida. But still, the Crossroads concept is that each member devotes about all his time in active evangelism. And this is where the threat to sponsoring churches/elders and institutions lies. This is the conflict between the individual effort of each member dedicated to evangelism and institutional efforts and arrangements is the clash between Crossroads and institutional brethren.

If all the liberal brethren would accept the Crossroads method, it would be the end of sponsoring churches and institutions. And those in prominent positions would lose their power and glory. And thus they oppose Crossroads. As I said, the ultimate power of Crossroads lies in Chuck Lukas. But as a movement, it is on a broad scale of personal commitment to the work that the sponsoring churches/elders and institutions fear and oppose so strongly. They fear that the individual efforts under the Crossroads program is bringing more results than institutionalized religious arrangements. The more effective and wide-spread Crossroads becomes, the more institutional brethren fear they will lose their influence and control over the churches across the land. So actually, the conflict is not over scriptural issues, but over a deadly competition, for self-preservation.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 261-262
May 3, 1984

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Is it proper for the one leading the congregational singing during worship services to sing harmony, tenor or bass, rather than the melody? I am not referring to those hymns with a tenor or base lead in the chorus.

Response: It makes no difference which part of the song (soprano, alto, tenor or bass) the song leader sings as long as he is directing the singing. When he is standing in front of the assembly and directing the singing, he is the song leader. What part of the song he may choose to sing himself while he is leading is incidental. The song director is to pitch the song, start it and then continue to direct it. Should he decide to sing bass or tenor (he may have a throat condition, or may not for some reason, be able to sing certain notes) would be optional. There is nothing in the Scriptures which teach that anyone must sing one part of a song only; in fact, in the early church there were no notes for music as we have them today. We are simply commanded to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13). All of us should sing the very best we can, following the song director so that we will all be singing in unison and also singing the same tempo and pitch. Each one should sing his own part to the best of his ability, regardless of what part the song leader himself may be singing.

It is believed by some that, when the song director sings some part other than the melody, the lead is being transferred to the women. This is not the case, because usually some men in the congregation are singing the melody also. All the melody is not necessarily turned over to the women; but even if it were, it would not be a violation of scriptural teaching because the man leading the singing continues to be in charge. His changing to tenor or bass does not turn the song leading over to women. It may not always be the best judgment for the song leader to sing a part other than the melody, because of the effect that it might have upon the quality of the singing; but it is not unscriptural for him to do so.

All of us should be careful that we do not bind our opinion upon others and thereby become contentious about matters of judgment or indifference.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, p. 260
May 3, 1984

By Raymond E. Harris

Matthew 7:12 reads, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should to do you, do ye even so to them . . . . ” This verse expresses an attitude that has won for it the designation “The Golden Rule. ” Simply stated the principle is: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

It is interesting how some try to set certain bounds or limits to what is obviously a universal principle. The attempts to exercise such exemptions or exclusions clearly manifest areas of rebellion and selfishness.

For instance it is not uncommon to hear someone say, “Yes, the Golden Rule is a noble principle but after all business is business.” It does not take a Solomon to perceive that anyone who would make such a statement is serving mammon and not God. Truly, the love of money is the root of all evil.

But let’s now move into another area where the Golden Rule is neglected. One such area is most assuredly the home. In some cases people treat total strangers with more understanding and kindness than they do their own companions, children or parents.

Invariably, when I see where a divorce suit has been filed, I immediately know that one or both parties involved violated the Golden Rule. Put another way, there would have never been a divorce in the history of the world, if all husbands and wives had always kept the Golden Rule.

Some feel there is no better definition for the word “love” than the Golden Rule. Truly, if we love God, our companions and all our fellow men as we should, we will do unto them as we would want them to do unto us.

To illustrate the application of the Golden Rule in marriage:

1. We should not criticize our companions in the presence of others.

2. We should not nag.

3. We should not stir jealousy by being flirtatious.

4. We should never do anything out of spite.

5. We should do everything possible to control our own selfishness.

Verily, we would a live happier lives if we could always remember, on all occasions, and, in all circumstances, to keep the golden rule!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, p. 264
May 3, 1984