Truth Magazine

By Lee Rogel

Within recent years there have developed different types of cooperative efforts among liberal churches of Christ. They involve many matters ranging from evangelism to youth rallies and recreational/social promotions. Although these are under the sponsoring church arrangement, they have taken a different form: organizations apart from, in addition to, the church known as “committee” arrangements. Again, this is bringing the churches closer to the formation of the papal system than anything known before.

In order to understand how much it resembles the beginning of the rise of the papacy, we need to observe some historical facts about the emergence of “Church Councils” in the early centuries which finally led to the formation of the Catholic church. Thus, let us see how the recent development of committees among churches resemble these early Church Councils, and in turn, how they take on the appearance and structure of Catholicism.

Within the third century, when the organization and government of the church became more complex and powerful, a system was arranged known as church councils. Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church (Vol. 2), says that these “church councils” were at first 1POmmittees made up of representatives of bishops, presbyters, deacons and “laymen.” Each church sent a representative, or several representatives, to these councils. At first, they were loosely organized and no church had any jurisdiction or authority over these councils. They simply came to discuss certain matters and no church had the authority to bind then decisions upon the churches that sent their representatives to these councils. However, as time went on, and church government became more competitive and powerful, the presiding Bishop of a church in a District or Patriarchate assumed more and more authority. Thus, from a loosely organized committee (or council) there developed the structural form of the papacy.

At present there are not too many such arrangements among liberal brethren – but they are beginning to develop – and apostasy knows no stopping place. There are a number of these in some parts of the country, especially in the northeastern states. To give you an illustration of this arrangement which is identical to the early church councils, and the departure from the New Testament pattern of church organizations. I will cite only one example. And please note that this has already passed the first stage of the system of church council of the second and third centuries. But this one example represents another danger developing among the liberal churches.

Back in 1975, the churches of Christ in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area were planning a “Campaign for Christ” to be held the following year. Gaston D. Cogdell, then preacher for the Clifton church, prepared a lengthy defense of this plan. Notice some of the plans he proposed in the planning of this campaign promotion. The title of this written defense is two fines long, so I’ll not give it.

The formation of a committee made up of representatives of several congregations to advise and assist in a joint evangelistic endeavor, is not unscriptural because such a committee is simply an aid to the church in carrying out its most important work-seeking and saving the lost” (p. 2, all emphasis mine, LR).

Notice three things in his statement:

1. He is defending the set-up of another organization, a “Council” or “Committee” separate and apart from the local church organization. By doing this he must defend the missionary societies which Alexander Campbell started over 100 years ago.

2. He calls this an “aid” to the work of evangelism. Of course, through the years we tried to prove that organizations are not “aids” in doing the work; they use various aids, but the organization is never an aid of and within itself.

3. Each representative from his respective congregation has an equal right to make suggestions, outline plans for this Campaign. He emphatically claims so in his article! But is this really so?

Now notice how conflicting and absurd his “reasoning” is. He readily condemns the missionary society for the very thing he defends in his case for the “76 Campaign” under the committee set-up. Notice what he says about the missionary society, and then how he contradicts himself in his promotion.

Both the United Christian Missionary Society and the centralized denominational governing bodies are autonomous groups, which exercise authority over those congregations which are members of the fellowship with which they are identified (p. 5).

Now notice how he defends the authority of the Clifton Church over the committee of representatives of various local churches.

The elders of the sponsoring church (Clifton-LR) have sole final authority in all matters, and the decisions of the campaign committee are all subject to the approval of the overseeing eldership, but the committee itself is not under the overseeing eldership, but the members of the committee are under the authority of the elders of the various congregations they represent” (p. 5 – all emphasis mine – LR).

Just how does brother Cogdell propose to prove that which he contradicts? That the sponsoring church does not have authority over the committee, if at the same time it has “sole final authority in all matters and decisions of the campaign committee” and are “subject to the approval of the overseeing eldership?”

First, “overseeing” implies authority over that committee. Next, the committee can make suggestions, offer ideas and plans, but the sponsoring church makes the final decisions. The committee has no voice or authority. It can only make suggestions. It has no authority in a single decision. This automatically places it under the oversight or authority of the “Overseeing” or sponsoring elders. The committee is subject to the authority of the sponsoring church. And remember again, this committee is not a local church, but another organization, like the missionary society or the church councils of the early ages.

But there is another contradiction here. This committee is made up of representatives of cooperating churches. This means that as the sponsoring church has sole authority over the committee, it simultaneously has authority over the churches who send their representatives to that committee. These representatives speak for, or are voices for their respective churches. So, the sponsoring church does, not in theory, but in fact, have control over cooperating churches by the very fact of having authority over the committee made up of the representatives the churches send to the committee. Each man on the committee represents and speaks in behalf of the church that sends him and, therefore, to deny the committee any authority is to simultaneously deny the churches any authority. Thus the sponsoring church in reality exercises authority over the local churches by exercising authority over the Committee made up of representatives of individual local churches.

Now, let’s go back to what brother Cogdell said earlier about the Christian Missionary Society, etc., that they are autonomous groups “which exercise authority over the congregations which are members of the fellowship. . .”

The committee referred to by brother Cogdell in connection with the “Campaign for Christ ’76” is an independent, separate organization from the local church. It is an organization within itself exactly as the missionary society in every detail of its characteristic features. It is an organization set up which in no way is a local church; thus it is an organization apart from the church, but working for the church.

The New Testament pattern for church organization is autonomous, with no strings attached either to another church or an organization apart from the church. The New Testament church needs no other organization through which it carries on its work. Both, the missionary society and this committee are organizations apart from the church, yet doing the work for the local church.

What is the difference between the missionary society exercising control over local churches (which brother Cogdell pointed out) and the Clifton church exercising control over the committee? Neither is a local church! Pray tell me again, “What is the difference between the missionary society having authority over “congregations which are members of the fellowship . . .” and the Clifton church exercising authority over the committee, which is identical to the missionary society because it is another organization in either case of local autonomy of churches?”

Whereas the missionary society controls the local churches, the Clifton church controls the Society known as the “committee.” Furthermore, the Clifton church has authority over local churches in every way as the Missionary Society. And so, the Missionary Society known as the “committee” is controlled by the Clifton church because the final decision of that Committee rests within the authority of the Clifton church. And that authority reaches to the local churches that send their representatives to that committee over which the Clifton church has absolute authority.

Do not forget what we’ve observed earlier about the emergence of church councils in the second and third centuries. At the beginning no church had final authority in any decision over any other local church. The church council had no authority over any church that sent its representative to it. But this campaign committee has taken several steps further toward the papal structure in that the committee, which is the same as early church councils in nature. It is under the authority of the overseeing church. And let it be known that the terms, definitions and arrangements of such things as “sponsoring” and “overseeing” are the same in concept and structure as “hierarchy, ” which is identified with Catholicism. And I don’t think they selected and use such terms (over-seeing) by chance or accident. I believe they chose the words to define and describe exactly what they mean and what their purpose is. I believe these men are well acquainted with English grammar to know what words to choose to describe what arrangement and work they seek to arrange.

They know their grammar, by which they seek terms to describe what they seek to arrange and establish, but don’t know their Scriptures well enough, or as well as their grammar, to know these very arrangements are without divine authority, or “works of iniquity.” Don’t you wish they knew their Scriptures so they could point to the authority for their actions – to understand what is scriptural authority – as well as they can pick out proper grammatical terms to define their. unscriptural practices? This is what is so absurd about the whole matter: they deliberately set up false practices and are experts in grammatically defining them as the dictionary gives the proper terms, but seemingly care little about scriptural definitions of the identity of the New Testament church in teaching, organization and work. They ought to realize that their terms to define their arrangements are identical to Catholic terms to define their unauthorized arrangements.

So, let us know that such arrangements are more closely identified with the structure of the papacy, or Catholicism, than what is found in many denominations. When the church was established on Pentecost, there was no thought in the mind of Christ and His apostles that it should develop into the papal system. And here, in the twentieth century, the church is headed for Catholicism, as surely as did the early church after the falling away.

I merely cited this one example of this departure into Catholicism. It is another innovation by the liberals which proves their greater disregard for scriptural authority and their lack of desire to maintain the church according to the identity and pattern of the New Testament. It’s not just one church involved in a sponsoring type arrangement. This involves a sponsoring church to create, construct a church council, a missionary society – another organization – apart from the church through which churches carry out their functions. And it is slowly, but surely growing. Other examples could be cited, but these are enough to let us see (and shudder) at the insidious danger of Catholicism lurking in the liberal churches of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 237-238, 240
April 19, 1984

By Donald P. Ames

The subject of the Shroud of Turin has a habit of popping back up every so often, and usually with strong statements that the issue has been “proven”and “settled.” There have been little bits leaked to the press every so often, each alleging conclusive proof. And, others pick up on such news articles and feel there really must be something there, or it would not be in the news.

However there are some facts we need to carefully examine before we jump to any hasty conclusions lest we find ourselves out on a limb with no where to go. One important fact, mentioned in the Reader’s Digest (Jan. 1984), is that there is no way to prove conclusively that this actually is the burial cloth of Jesus. It was examined for proof, and while I some interesting things were discovered about whatever is or, the cloth, the author (one of those actually studying the cloth) had to admit there was no way they could prove it to be the actual cloth used on Jesus. This factual statement is made in spite of some strong statements to the contrary in other press releases.

Actually, this is not the only shroud that alleges to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Rodney Miller in his bulletin (Feb. 1981) noted that there have been “No fewer than forty-three similar ‘true shrouds’ circulated in medieval Europe at the time the Turin cloth appeared.” Some of these are still on public display! The Turin shroud, which first appeared in 1356 A.D., is but another in the long line of Catholic relics (like the cup used in the last supper, the bones of Peter, the hairs of Jesus, the robe at the cross, etc.) which is being promoted for publicity and profit by the Catholic church – often in spite of the evidence, and not because of it. The fact the shroud was exposed and renounced by the Catholic Church at the time it was originally revealed as a fraud is quietly buried in the past. The fact that Popular Photography showed how similar shrouds could be made using materials available even in the 14th century is ignored (Nov. 1979). The fact the Catholic Church will not even allow a Carbon 14 test (using a piece of material no larger than a postage stamp) to establish a valid date is also brushed aside. The fact there is even a difference of 2-3 inches in height between the image front and back view is quietly brushed aside as well. And the fact the feet are clearly visible (ever try making a clear footprint lying on your back with both legs straight out?) on the cloth is also ignored. Instead one hears, “But it has been proven now conclusively to be the burial cloth of Jesus.” Hardly! “Is it the shroud of Christ Himself? That, say both scientists and theologians, will remain forever outside the bound of proof” (National Geographic, July 1980).

Actually that one would even seriously consider it to be such is a bit amazing, especially in view of John 20:5-7. John here makes it abundantly clear that the body of Jesus was not wrapped in a shroud (or sheet), but rather was wrapped in small strips around the body. While it is true Mark 15:46 uses the term “sheet” in the NASB, it is not in the original or in the KJV! John again made it clear that the facial cloth was also separate from the other wrappings. Lenski, in commenting on Luke 23:53, says, “Like Matthew and Mark, Luke says only that the body was wrapped in sindown, cloth of fine linen which was torn into long strips for the purpose of wrapping it around the limbs and1the body. John speaks of these othonia or bands, between which the aromatic spices were sprinkled as they were being wrapped. Only the head was left free to be covered with a special cloth after the body had been deposited in the tomb” (Commentary on Luke, p. 1162). Thus the Shroud of Turin can not be the burial cloth of Christ! The language of the Bible does not support the Shroud!

“But,” comes the reply, “how do you explain the coin, the date and misspelled word ‘Caesar’ using a ‘C’ rather than the ‘K’. Does this not clearly establish the cloth as valid?” Such reasoning would be humorous, if some were not so serious about it. First of all, as we have just shown from the Bible, the cloth does not fit the wrappings used to wrap around the body of Jesus (nor account for the separate facial cloth). But, just how conclusively is the “proof” of the coin?

To properly understand the reasoning, one needs to understand the philosophy behind the alleged “photograph” on the shroud. It is alleged that when Christ was in the tomb, still -in the “burial cloth” (not “wrappings”), that the brilliant light that illuminated from His body in Matthew 28:3 “must have” burned an image into the cloth like a flash bulb on film – hence the reason it is a reverse image and must be viewed as a negative. Now, think with me for a moment: If the brilliant light came from the body of Christ, and the coins were lying on his eyes, would they not be black spots? How could one read dates, etc., off an object on the back side of a flash image? A third grader ought to be able to reason better than that! A hand stuck in front of a camera will not show if it has freckles or warts on the back side you can’t see the back side!

But, let us examine this “proof” a bit more closely. Who contends the coin is “conclusive proof”? Do all the scholars? Nol Every reference comes back to one person: “The Rev. Francis L. Filas, a professor of theology at Loyola University” (Aurora Beacon News, 11 – 17-8 1). And what is Loyola University? A Catholic school! And who is Mr. Filas? “A Jesuit priest” (Carbondale Southern 11linoisan, 9-2-81)! No wonder he is speaking so boldly in defense of the cloth!

And how conclusive is the “proof” he has produced? Not worth the time it took for the press to set the print for the story! Note that according to the article in the Reader’s Digest the image was so faint and hard to visualize that one had to stand back three foot to even see it at a (Jan. 1984). Further note that the letters, which appear on the side of the coin away from the light source, are but “one-thirty second of an inch high” (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81). Further note that these tiny letters, on the wrong side of the coin, which must be viewed from 3 foot away, are so clear that he has even determined the word “Caesar” was misspelled with a “C” rather than a “K,11 and that this proves conclusively it was a coin issued in the time of Christ (per Mr. Filas, who has a relic to preserve). But, “critics contend experts have no historical record of a coin containing the rare misspelling in Greek of the name Caesar, using a ‘C’ instead of a ‘K,’ and that the markings found on the shroud could have been distorted by age and the texture of the cloth” (Beacon News, 11-17-81). “Some researchers doubt whether a coin really exists in the photographs of the shroud. ‘I think the problem is whether there is any indication of a coin (emp. mine – DPA), said Dr. Walter C. McCrone, a Chicago microscopist who has done research on the shroud. ‘Not very many people except Father Filas (emp. mine – DPA) are able to see it… (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81).

Although Mr. Filas affirms, “As far as I’m concerned, I see no way of objecting to this (conclusion) anymore” (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81), we simply remind him and other Catholic relics collectors that we have heard many such strong statements before – in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. In this case, we find no exception. The Shroud of Turin was exposed as a fake when it was first revealed in 1356 A.D., and though it has undergone a variety of tests, Catholicism will not allow any test that will expose it for the fraud it actually is; but rather, they will continue to boldly proclaim their “great find” to those gullible enough to follow their many (and false) relics of the past, the facts notwithstanding!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 240-241
April 19, 1984

By Raymond E. Harris

Brother Loren N. Raines, after an illness of about six months, passed from this life February 7, 1984. He preached the Gospel of Christ for over 65 years. And even though he became too weak to preach about a year ago, he continued to teach his Sunday morning Bible class until about the first of September, 1983. When his health finally failed, he weakened rather quickly. He was able to attend services only one Sunday after October 30, 1983. During the last three months of his life, he was plagued with pneumonia, a blood clot and heart trouble, which finally caused his demise.

Brother Raines was born July 1, 1895 near Sullivan, Indiana. He obeyed the gospel at fourteen and soon developed a keen interest in Bible study. When about twenty-two years old, he attended a twelve-week Bible Reading under Daniel Sommer and later attended a ten-week study under A.M. Morris. That same year he preached his first sermon in Pratt, Kansas. After spending sixteen months in the service, including a year in France, Raines returned to Indiana and spent the next six years teaching in public schools. During that time, most every Sunday found him filling the pulpit of various surrounding congregations.

Brother Raines married Opal Stivers of Sumner, Illinois on April 3, 1921. Their second son died in infancy. Their first child, Max, is a professor at Michigan State University.

Brother Raines did his first I ‘located’ I work at the Fourth and Lincoln Street Church in Bloomington, Indiana. While in that area, he earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees from Indiana University. In 1932 he moved to Bedford, Indiana and continued preaching there until 1951. During those nineteen years, the old 12th and X Street Church grew till the old building was totally inadequate. In 1950 the congregation moved into a new building at 12th and N Streets. During that nineteen years, brother Raines also worked as a teacher and principal of three Lawrence County High Schools. In 1951 he retired from teaching and moved to Salem, Indiana, where he preached for six years.

Brother Raines, in 1957, at age 62 launched into what might be called a third phase of his life’s work. This last third of his life, was beyond doubt the most fruitful time of his life. The struggle over institutionalism was raging. At a time in life when many are ready to lay down their sword, Loren moved to the 40th and Emerson congregation in Indianapolis. In swift succession, all the congregations on the east side of Indianapolis (except Emerson Avenue) fell to institutionalism. As conservative people in those churches learned that Raines was going to stand four square against all such innovations, they flocked to Emerson Avenue. And so, within a short time, the building was filled to near capacity. He preached eight years there and the work prospered.

Brother Raines at age 70 agreed to go on social security and to preach for a new congregation on the west side of Indianapolis. He continued to preach the next five years there and the High School Road Church prospered. At age 75 he determined to step aside as he felt the growing church needed a younger man. He supposed he would “retire” there. However, within a few months the “Macedonian Call” came again and he moved to preach for the church at Robinson, Illinois. For three years he did his work well there; but, his heart was back in Indiana. So, at age 78 he accepted an invitation to move back to Lawrence County and preach for the Oolitic, Indiana Church. There he labored another five years.

Brother Raines, now 83, thought it was surely time to “retire.” However, during the next year an opportunity came to start a new work in Bedford, Indiana. And so, on January 1, 1980, he became the first preacher for the Midtown church of Christ in Bedford. This was especially gratifying to him because the old church in Bedford that he had labored with back in the 1930s and 40s had long since gone institutional. With tears in his eyes, he related to me that it seemed almost a miracle that he had lived to see a faithful church back in Bedford and that he would have the privilege of being its first preacher.

Brother Raines was only able to continue “full time” work there for five months. However, until his death, he filled the pulpit from time to time, taught classes every Lord’s day and served as a Trustee. In his 88th year, just a few months before parting this life, brother Raines compiled a series of thirty-three Bible study lessons, covering the entire New Testament. The Church here will reap the benefit of these lessons for months to come. Between ages 80 and 86, he wrote two books. The first is entitled What Doth The Lord Require? and the other, a book of his own sermons entitled Partakers of The Benefit.

Brother Raines’ epitaph might well read, “He never found time to retire, he could never lay his sword by.” His life could be divided into three nearly equal parts of 30 years each. And, beyond question, the best was saved for last. Who would have ever supposed that at age 60, brother Raines was on the threshold of his life’s greatest work.

Even though the funeral was on a Friday morning (Feb. 10), the funeral chapel overflowed and several had to sit in side rooms to listen to speakers. Brethren from at least three or four states came to the funeral home. Brothers Dwayne Laws of Bowling Green, KY and Raymond Harris of Bedford, IN spoke at the funeral service; Delmar Winninger conducted the grave side service. Fellow preachers Gary Fiscus, Johnie Edwards, H. Robert Williams, Harold Comer and Olin Kern served as honorary pallbearers. The burial was in Bedford’s “Green Hill Cemetery.”

It seems altogether proper and fitting that in this cemetery, which contains over 10,000 graves; one can stand at brother Raines’ head stone and see the Midtown Church building. Even in death, it is as if he is stationed to watch over the flock, that was so dear to his heart! May his tribe ever increase!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 242-243
April 19, 1984

By Raymond E. Harris

As we study this matter of deceit we find it is a problem that can spring from many sources. The Scriptures teach us to beware of false teachers who lie in wait to deceive. Likewise, the Scriptures warn that self-deception is one of mans greatest weaknesses.

And now, with this article we want to consider the deceitfulness of sin. In Hebrews 3:13, we are admonished to exhort one another “lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” In Galatians 6:7-8, Paul warns, “Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” And in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, he further warns, “Be not deceived. neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Truly, sin is most deceptive! All sins are not alluring to all people. But everyone has his weakness. In the main, everyone sins because he wants to I Whether it be illicit sex, ill-gotten gain or whatever, people sin in what seems to be appealing to them. Some strength to overcome sin can come from the encouragement of others (Heb. 3:13). However, in the main, strength to overcome sin lies in a conscience educated by God’s word and a self-control nurtured by true fellowship with God (1 John 1:3-7). David said, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart. That I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:11).

Yes, sin is deceptive! Sin is soul-damning! And, the consequences of sin are eternal (Matt. 25:31-46).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, p. 236
April 19, 1984