Truth Magazine

By Leo Rogol

Let The Denominationalist Speak Out Against Them

Introduction

As a former Seventh-day Adventist, I have kept abreast of the chang s, developments, and problems within that denomination. But what has this to do with the above-titled subject? Very much in many respects. I will bear this out during the course of this article. I will deal with sponsoring church arrangements such as Herald of Truth and the World-Wide Radio TV program of the church in Monroe, Louisiana. I will also deal with Campaigns For Christ in connection with this to prove that such arrangements are gross departures from the original New Testament patterns for the organization and work of the church.

I want to approach this subject from an entirely different standpoint. I will use quotations from an Adventist minister and a few other quotations from other sources to prove that what is true among Adventists is true also among liberal churches of Christ. First, I wish to deal with the back-ground of Adventism, its problems, and then apply the same principles to the issues at hand: sponsoring churches and institutionalism. It will be interesting to note that the arguments of many Adventists against their organizational structure and their institutions, strike at the very heart of the principles involved in the current issues among churches of Christ.

Adventism, as a formal denomination, is a little over 125 years old. Its church organization and institutions date back to the late 1860s-70s. The very thing that early Adventists pioneers thought would make them a strong, progressive denomination are now seriously challenged and brought under heavy attack by many of their leading ministers, religious professors, even among their most high-ranking colleges. Their hierarchal system of church government, their great institutions, are under attack because many now see them as a serious threat to the well-being of the denomination and detrimental to the growth and strength of that denomination. As we observe these things, let them be a strong, forceful lesson to liberal churches who are practicing the very things that many Adventists are opposing among themselves.

I have a book entitled Judged By The Gospel by Robert Brinsmead. Many Adventists denounce and disclaim him as a true Adventist because he dares to challenge and criticize the very foundation of Adventism. Doesn’t this sound familiar among liberal churches who strongly denounce those who oppose the hierarchal system which they seek to maintain and expand?

Be that as it may, what Adventists think about Brinsmead, the significant fact is that many leading Adventists theologians and churches are beginning to join him in voicing the same concern and views which Brinsmead has and for which he is opposed by the hierarchy of Adventism! Of course, it is but little wonder that the main leaders of the General Conference and their institutions oppose these men vigorously. This comes as no surprise because the General Conference is the foundation of Adventism and their institutions are the main pillars of support of that structure.

As I said, I wish, therefore, to take a different approach to the issues involving sponsoring arrangements and institutionalism. I will take quotations from Judged By The Gospel and apply them to our current issues. I will use quotations of others when dealing with institutionalism, but this work will be my main source of information. As I quote from his writings, I will clearly show the exact parallel between what he is opposing among Adventist and what we have been opposing for over thirty years among the liberals. Therefore, as Mr. Brinsmead forcefully and precisely attacks the principles of hierarchism and institutionalism among the Adventists, this will serve as the strongest indictment of these systems among liberal churches because his arguments and principles against Adventism are precisely the same in principle against the practices among the liberals.

Quite naturally, you may understand that I do not believe that Mr. Brinsmead is a sound, scriptural minister. But the fact in my point is, that even a denominationalist, who espouses false doctrines, can see the error of the false system of the Adventist structure. If an Adventist can see these things as being unscriptural, why can’t our liberal brethren, who claim to know the Scriptures, see the very same evils among themselves?

I have several reasons for doing this. First, to show our liberal brethren that if this is wrong among the denominations, then our brethren are borrowing denominational methods and practices which are just as unscriptural.

Furthermore, I am actually more concerned over liberalminded “conservative” brethren caught up in this grace/fellowship/unity idea. This is becoming a plague that is dangerous to the positions we have held, and teachings we have done concerning these issues. Some of our conservative brethren are becoming more sympathetic (even defensive) toward the liberals. In fact, a number of brethren among us are sowing the very seeds of liberalism they have opposed for so many years. They are beginning to practice the same things they claim to oppose.

So I am really more concerned over our conservative brethren who, either are more sympathetic toward the liberals’ views in their grace/fellowship/unity movement, or are in reality practicing the very same thing.

While on this subject of grace/fellowship/unity, let me just make a few brief observations, or ask some simple questions.

1. Just how can they have fellowship or unity with liberals and still claim to be sound?

2. Fellowship is a two-way affair. Will the liberals fellowship them while they oppose them? Then how can the conservatives fellowship them if the liberals will not?

3. In order to prove this grace/fellowship/unity idea as sensible, and make it work, not in theory, but in practice, then they have to face certain conditions.

a. They will have to believe the liberals are wrong, and thus cannot seek to fellowship them.

b. But if they seek fellowship/unity, and since the liberals will not fellowship them if they oppose them, then those of the grace/ fellowship idea will have to relinquish their convictions and defend the liberal views. They can’t “have their cake and eat it too.”

c. Thus they have two choices. Either they have to abandon their grace/fellowship/unity concept to remain sound, or they will have to abandon the truth and join in with them in their unscriptural practices to achieve their aims in their fellowship goals. You simply cannot oppose unscriptural things and have fellowship with those who insist on practicing them. But if our brethren want to have fellowship with the liberals, they will have to “jump the fence” on their side because it is all too obvious that the liberals will not give up their practices and will not fellowship conservative brethren who differ with them, no matter how much conservative brethren want fellowship and unity.

d. Supposing a conservative brother asked for the opportunity to hold a meeting at Highland (Abilene) and preach against sponsoring elders/churches. Would they allow him to do this? The answer is quite obvious. But on the other hand, would any conservative brethren allow the preacher at Highland to come to them for a meeting? In fact, would a conservative church ask any liberal preacher to come for a meeting and preach his liberal views? If any church would, they would be guilty of what John wrote: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deed” (2 Jn. 10-11). “Partaker” means he is in fellowship and is just as guilty by fellowshipping the false teacher as the false teacher is guilty himself.

In reality, our brethren who seek fellowship, or “unity in diversity” not only have an unscriptural position, but an unrealistic, impossible objective, one that simply cannot work – if they truly want to be identified as sound or conservative.

Before I continue with the issue of hierarchism and institutionalism, I want to point out a very important and significant point. Both, hierarchism, or sponsoring elders/churches and institutionalism are of Catholic origin. Mr. Brinsmead points this out very emphastically in his book. Are we aware of the fact, as pointed out in Brinsmead’s charges against Adventism that the very same is true among churches of Christ? The fact that liberals teach “the plan of salvation” (baptism, etc.) has no bearing upon the fact that these two points of issue, i.e., sponsoring churches and institutionalism are of Catholic origin, therefore Roman Catholic in nature, structure and function. According to James 2: 10, it does no good to teach scriptural baptism, vocal music in worship, etc. if the church itself has borrowed the Catholic form of structure in organization and work. This being so, they may as well abandon their beliefs about salvation, the work of the church, for these are meaningless because of their Catholic structure.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 6, pp. 177, 183
March 15, 1984

By Bill Cavender

In conversation a few days ago with a young man who is a member of an institutional church of Christ (a congregation which supports human institutions from its collective, congregation treasury), we began discussing local congregational support of (sending funds to) so-called “Christian Colleges. ” This young man is of a newer generation in Christ and in the church, one who is not familiar with the controversies of the forties, fifties and sixties, and the strife, divisions and alienations which were caused by human institutions and their advocates insisting that these agencies be subsidized and maintained by monetary contributions from congregational treasuries. Some of the matters I tried to teach him were these:First of all, there is no such thing as a “Christian” College! The word “Christian” is a proper noun, a name, given by God to His redeemed children in Christ. The name identifies one who is a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, one obedient by faith to the will of our Heavenly Father (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:15-16). It is a God-given name, the whole family of God being thus identified with Jesus Christ (Isa. 62:2; Eph. 3:15). It is not scriptural to take this name, a noun, and use it as an adjective, a modifier, descriptive of something a Christian (or Christians) may do or own. To speak of a “Christian” home, “Christian” man, “Christian” nation, “Christian” college, etc., is incorrect – an unscriptural usage of the word which is the distinctive, proper name of a child of God.

Secondly, Christians may engage in any gainful work, job or profession which is in itself “good” and “.honest,” and in which one can do his work in quietness, dignity, and in all godliness and honesty (Eph. 4:28; Rom. 12:9-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 1 Tim. 2:1-3). Teaching in schools and operating schools, to instruct all who will learn of God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom, are such works. Secular education devoid of the knowledge of God and His wisdom and ways and will, is no real education at all. A person can only be an educated fool who knows not God and/or who would deny the existence of the Almighty (Psa. 14:1-3; 15:1-3; 10:1-18). In any work we do, in any employment or occupation we may have, we are to teach by word and precept, and by a godly life, the word of the Lord. If a Christian owns and operates a farm, a hardware store, a hamburger haven, or drives a truck, he is still to teach the Bible as he has opportunity or can make an opportunity. A Christian is not separated from God and His word and work when he goes to work or when on a vacation. Wherever we are, whatever we are doing, we are to have God, His word, His work and His way uppermost in our hearts and mind, words and deeds. We do not turn God and His word and His influence in us off and on as we do a water faucet.

Schools and colleges owned and operated by brethren are not “Christian” colleges and schools, nor are they “church” schools. They are fundamentally and essentially human agencies and institutions, operating in secular, human affairs. They exist by and are regulated by civil laws and authorities. They are governed by boards of directors who are authorized under terms and conditions of civil statutes. Such schools and colleges have no legitimate and scriptural financial, legal or organizational ties with true churches of the Lord. True churches of Christ will not cultivate or permit any such relationships with any human, secular institution, whether it be a school, college, childrens’ home, hospital, aged home, youth camp, etc. Into this area of unscriptural relationships many churches have digressed from the New Testament pattern of the local congregation and its independent, autonomous and self-sufficient nature.

Jesus built only the church, not any school, children’s home, unwed mothers’ home, camp, etc. God is glorified in Jesus Christ and in the church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:18-22; 1:22-23; 3:20-21). The church, God’s saved and redeemed children, exists as evidence of the eternal purpose of God having been accomplished, completed for the redemption of lost souls (Eph. 3:8-12). Only the church of our Lord exists by Divine purpose, planning, and perfection. All other agencies and institutions are human in purpose and organization. We must keep the divine and the human separated. To think that the local congregation, conceived in the mind of God, purchased by the blood of Christ, and regulated by Divine will and authority, is to be subservient to, and the maintainer and subsidizer of the human agencies of men, no matter what their function, is absurd.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 193, 212
April 5, 1984

By Mike Willis

From time to time one reads that a person who does not obey the letter of God’s law is nevertheless acceptable in God’s sight because he has the “spirit of obedience.” In periodicals which I have read, application of this has been made to those pious unimmersed who are honestly and sincerely mistaken about water baptism but who have a sincere and honest desire to please God. These articles state that such men who have not complied with the letter of the law but have complied with the spirit of the law are acceptable in God’s sight. Other periodicals which are not so consistent in the application of the premise stop short of application to water baptism but relate it to those issues which have divided brethren. They assure us that many of those who participate in churches which support human institutions (missionary societies, benevolent societies, hospitals, old folks homes, etc.), practice the sponsoring church form of ecclesiastical organization, engage in church sponsored recreation, and other unauthorized items are sincere and honest (which I do not deny). Hence, they comply with the spirit of the law in spite of violating its letter. Since they manifest the “spirit of obedience,” they are acceptable in God’s sight in spite of their failures to comply with the letter of the law.

In such teaching, the “spirit of obedience” somehow supplies the deficiency of failure to comply with the letter of the law. The “spirit of obedience” is not the same as obedience. We need to ask whether God will accept the “spirit of obedience” in place of obedience. As a means of studying this question, let us examine 1 Samuel 15, the record of King Saul’s mission to destroy the Amalekites.

The Historical Record

In 1 Samuel 15, God is recorded to have sent King Saul on a divine mission of Judgment against the Amalekite people. He commanded, “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (15:3). The command must be understood in the context of God’s moral government of the universe. The Amalekites had apparently degenerated beyond any hope of redemption (they are described as “sinners” in 15:18 and the conduct of King Agag is described in such a way as to imply wickedness in 15:33). The principle of God’s moral government is this: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34; cf. Prov. 16:12; 21:31; 29:2,4,14; Jer. 18:7-10)(1) Specific reason also given for this judgment was the assault of the Amalekites upon Israel when she was just leaving Egyptian bondage (15:2; cf. Exod. 17:8-16). Hence, King Saul was sent to administer God’s judgment against this wicked nation.

Saul went to obey the Lord’s command. He attacked the Amalekites, smiting them from Havilah to Shur (15:8). He slew all of the Amalekites, except King Agag. He killed all of the cattle except the very best which was brought back to Israel for the purpose of offering sacrifice (15:9).(2) Then he returned from his mission, convinced that he had obeyed the Lord’s command (15:13). Indeed, he had obeyed the “spirit” of God’s commandment, even if he had not obeyed the “letter.”

The Lord spoke to Samuel, telling him of Saul’s disobedience. He said, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (15:11). God sent Samuel to rebuke Saul.

When the judge and the king met each other, Saul said, “Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandments of the Lord” (15:13). Samuel retorted, “What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” (15:14). The facts demonstrated that Saul had not obeyed the Lord’s commandment.

In his defense, Saul justified himself on two bases. (1) The people had pressured him to bring back the very best cattle for sacrifice to God (15:15,21,24). (2) The cattle were to be used for the purpose of sacrifice (15:15,21). Saul seemed fully persuaded that he had obeyed the Lord’s commandment (15:13,15,20-21).

Here is proof that a man may be blinded by his own self-will, and that he may imagine that his own way is right, while it is leading him to the gate of death (Prov. xiv. 12; xvi.25). It is not enough for a man to be approved by his own conscience; but is necessary to regulate the conscience by God’s Will and Word (Acts xxvi.9; 1 Tim. 1:13) (quotation of Wordsworth reproduced in Lange’s Commentary on I Samuel, p. 213).

And so he had in the half-way in which men generally keep God’s commandments, doing that part which is agreeable to themselves, and leaving that part undone which gives them neither pleasure nor profit . . . . Saul’s justification of himself is remarkable, as he seems entirely unconscious of having done anything wrong (E. Payne Smith, Pulpit Commentary, IV, p. 266).

Samuel replied to Saul’s defense saying, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?.Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbomness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou has rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being King” (15:22-23).

Upon hearing that he had been rejected as King, he said, “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice” (15:24). Nevertheless, his “repentance” seemed more intended to keep the kingdom than to be reconciled with the Lord (cf. 15:30). The Lord did not change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul and giving it to another man.

Lessons From The Narrative

1. The spirit of obedience is not accepted in the place of obedience. Saul’s intentions in bringing back the best of the cattle were the highest – to offer them in sacrifice to God. There does not appear to have been any selfish motive in his disobedience. Hence, one could surely argue that Saul manifested the “spirit of obedience.”

The probability is that he was conscious of uneasiness, but had no true conception of the enormity of his sin. His feeling was that he had no wish to disown the authority of God, that it was a mere matter of detail, that his general conduct was exemplary, and that he followed the inner light which seemed just then to indicate another way of ultimately and substantially carrying out the command. So do men tone down their sins and regard them as venial (C. Chapman, Pulpit Commentary, Vol. IV, p. 274).

Samuel charged him with disobedience (15:22). The modern religious concept that the letter of the law is unimportant so long as one manifests the “spirit of obedience” stands in stark contrast with the words of Samuel. For Saul had indeed obeyed the “spirit of the law”; he had destroyed the Amalekites. Yet he had violated the letter of the law in bringing back King Agag and the best of the cattle alive. Despite his good intentions – his desire to offer the best of the cattle in sacrifice to God, his act was wrong. The end did not justify his means.

2. Disobedience frequently springs from having too exalted opinion of oneself. Samuel called Saul’s sin rebellion and stubbornness, comparing it to witchcraft and idolatry. In what Saul had done, he had manifested sinful human pride. While returning from his conquest, he set up a monument to himself at Mt. Carmel (15:12). When Samuel rebuked him, he said, “When thou wast little in thine own sight . . .” (15:17). This was in contrast with his present estimation of his importance.

Most human disobedience springs from having too exalted opinion of oneself.

Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying and oracles, because idolatry was manifested in both of them. All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human 1, into a god (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentaries on the Old Testament, p. 157). It makes man a worshiper of himself rather than of God (C. Chapman, Pulpit Commentary, Vol. IV, p. 274).

Men elevate their own personal thoughts higher than God’s spoken revelation. We have seen the same thing duplicated in our day in the Lord’s church with such things as involving the church in recreational activities as a means to reaching greater numbers with the gospel. Human pride is evident in subtle form when man thinks that he can devise a better way to win the world to Christ than the great God of heaven has revealed. Like Saul, many who comply with the “spirit of obedience” (they bring the masses into captivity to Christ) have not obeyed the letter of the law and for the same reason, they have too exalted an idea of their own human ideas, projects, and plans.

3. Men are reluctant to accept personal responsibility for sins. Saul blamed the people for his sin (15:15,20-21). Yet, Saul was the king, not the people. This was but a device of Saul’s defense mechanisms to avoid acceptance of his own personal responsibility for his sinful conduct. The same ploy was followed by Adam in the Garden of Eden when he blamed Eve for his sin (Gen. 3:12). Each of us is ready to blame someone else or the circumstances for our own sinful conduct. Human nature has not changed.

4. Men sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that they have done God’s will when they have only done the desires of their own hearts. Saul’s case reminds us that “all the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (16:2) and that “there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (16:15). This seems to be forgotten or not believed by some who think that so long as a Christian (why limit it just to Christians?) is good, honest, and sincere that he is acceptable in the sight of God.

Conclusion

The gospel which is being preached by some is a watered down substitute for the real thing. Instead of preaching that obedience is necessary for salvation (Heb. 5:8-9), some preach that the “spirit of obedience” will suffice.

There is a gospel which is often preached in our day that divests God wholly of the rigid, judicial character; it clothes Him with no attributes but those of kindness and love; it presents Him in a countenance ever smiling, never stern. It maintains that the great work of Christ in the world was to reveal this paternal aspect of God’s character, to convince men of His fatherly feelings towards them, and to divest their minds of all those conceptions of indignation and wrath with which our minds are apt to clothe Him, and which the theologies of men are so ready to foster. But this is a gospel that says, Peace! peace! when there is no peace. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does indeed reveal, and reveal beautifully, the paternal character of God; but it reveals at the same time that judicial character which insists on the execution of His law. That God will execute wrath on the impenitent and unbelieving is just as much a feature of the Gospel as that He will bestow all the blessings of salvation and eternal life on them that believe (W.G. Blaikie, The Expositor’s Bible: The First Book of Samuel, p. 242).

I am convinced that much which is approved and defended under the “spirit of obedience” is nothing other than rebellion and disobedience of the same nature as Saul’s.

Endnotes

1. Some of this conclusion is based on inference, not specific statement. My process of reasoning is this. One can learn God’s method of dealing with the nations from such studies as the flood (Gen. 6-8), His action toward Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), His dealings with the nations in Canaan during the Israelite conquest (Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:24-25; 20:21,-27), His conduct with Israel throughout the Old Testament, and passages in the prophets. Once one has learned the principle of God’s conduct, it applies in every case, whether specifically mentioned or not (unless some exception is mentioned). A comparison which might illustrate this is the purpose of water baptism. We learn the design of water baptism from such passages as Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; etc. We deduce that the purpose of water baptism was the same in every case, even though that purpose might not be specifically stated in the text, unless some specific reason for concluding otherwise is mentioned (such as in the case of the baptism of Jesus in Matt. 3).

2. The conduct of the Israelites stands in stark contrast to the general practice of plundering by invading forces. None of the booty was taken for selfish purposes based on greed or avarice. Saul and his army conducted themselves as an army under a divine mission.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 194, 212-213
April 5, 1984

By Luther Bolenbarker

Two people were discussing the affairs of state. One man was quite concerned and said to the other, “You know there are two serious problems in our world today: ignorance and indifference!” The other man replied, “I didn’t know that but I don’t really care.” That says something to us doesn’t it?

These two problems are not new or just a problem of our times, but rather, they have plagued the religious world for centuries. Hosea cried out for God, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). God said in Hosea 6:6, “1 desire … the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

Ignorance is devastating in any endeavored area of venture. Who would want a school teacher instructing our children who had very little knowledge of the “3 R’s”? Who would want a doctor to treat them who knew very little about medicine? Paul wrote about people who had a “zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10: 1-3).

The attitude of indifference caused Jesus to say to the Laodicean church, “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot” (Rev. 3:15). Jeremiah wanted Israel to work with vigor so he wrote, “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord negligently … (with indifference, LB)” (Jer. 48:10).

Ignorance and indifference are still problems in the religious realm (secular, too) today. Therefore, one reason among many (besides a commandment of the Lord) for our attending Bible classes, worship services, gospel meetings, singings or special classes etc., is for us to overcome these two malfunctions that are a blight in the life of the Christian and upon the image of the church. If you will not be indifferent, you will do all you can to seek knowledge.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 6, p. 184
March 15, 1984