Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafey

Our Lord calls men to obey and serve Him (1 Thess. 2:12; Acts 2:39). His calling card is the word “Whereunto he called you by our gospel” (2 Thess. 2:14). When one receives the divine summons, he ought to believe it (Eph. 1:13). “Access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph. 2:18), or “access by faith into this grace” (Rom. 5:2), is “by the gospel” (Eph. 3:6). “By one Spirit” is equal to “by the gospel” in the texts above. One enters, that is, has “access by faith into this grace.”

“The Call To Preach”

That the apostles were called and commissioned to preach no Bible believer doubts or denies (Jn. 17:18; Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 10:15). However, denominational clergymen, “Pastors,” become such, they say, when they “receive the call to preach.” But does God call these men? Does the God and the Christ who sent His Spirit to tell believers to repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins” send a Baptist preacher to tell them they are saved “at the point of faith, before and without water baptism?” Does the Lord, who sent Philip and the eunuch “down both into the water,” send a Methodist bishop to a chalice or tea cup to do the same job? If He does, why does He send a Baptist and tell him not to sprinkle for baptism? The Baptist says God called him, too, but that God told him it was wrong to sprinkle.

Did Jesus authorize Paul to tell certain brethren in Galatia, “Ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), and send Baptist preachers to tell people today that such a thing is impossible? If He does, why does the same Lord send Methodists and Pentecostals to preach that one may fall from grace? Then does the Lord “call” the Pentecostal to preach that speaking in tongues is the “initial evidence of Holy Ghost baptism” which is for all believers today? With as much proof for his calling as any other denominational preacher, the Pentecostal assures us that it is true. But did the same Lord send Paul to contradict the Pentecostal’s claim (1 Cor. 13:8-13)? He sent Paul; did He send the Pentecostal? If so, did He also send the Missionary Baptist preacher to refute and rebuke what He sent the Pentecostal to preach?

Who is the author of all this confusion and delusion? It is not the God of The Bible. The apostles did not contradict and contravene one another in such a fashion as denominational preachers do (1 Cor. 15:11). The examples and questions set forth above cannot be laughed and shrugged off as the rantings of a wild-eyed, narrowminded, legalist Campbellite. They demand an answer. They cannot be answered with your best grin. Those who are desirous of receiving denominational “Pastors” as called and sent of God need to be first in the line of response.

What The Bible Makes

The word of God, the New Testament, the gospel never made a man a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, a Mormon, or a Pentecostal. Lutherans claim that they love the Bible, but it has not made them Baptists. Baptists stake as much claim on the Bible and they will tell you that it has not made them Lutherans. Methodists have the same love for the same Bible, but it has not made them Baptists. Presbyterians believe the same Bible as the Methodists who claim it made them Methodists, but it has not made the Presbyterians into Methodists.

If you show me a canary and tell me you got it by breeding elephants and that by breeding canaries you produced hyenas, then you will have a parallel to the breeding of the word of God and denominationalism.

Preachers called and sent of God produced disciples, brethren, Christians. These people constituted the church; they were translated into the kingdom. They were both of and in one faith. Why should we compromise and improvise and tell men that is any different today?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 204
April 7, 1983

By Tom Moody

Anita Bryant Is Upset By Photo Of Her At Disco

Singer Anita Bryant was “rather upset” when a photograph of her dancing with a minister was distributed, the minister said.

“It was the first time Anita has ever gone to a disco, and she was exploited in it,” said the Rev. Russ McCraw of Montgomery, Ala., a close friend. “She’d like to have her privacy like anyone.”

Miss Bryant, 42, who opposed gay rights in Florida, was visiting friends in Atlanta when she and McCraw went dancing.

McCraw, who serves homosexuals, said he and Miss Bryant were “just having a good time” when they stopped briefly at the night spot. Louisville Times 6-29-82

In view of the fact that many religious people, including some Christians, try to defend dancing, this news clipping raises an interesting question: Why was it “newsworthy” that Anita Bryant was seen dancing?

A few years ago, Anita Bryant was receiving national attention (and often, ridicule) for some of the forthright moral stands she was taking. She made no secret of her religious and moral beliefs. Her career was probably severely damaged by her stand. She was recognized by many as a symbol of morality and decency.

Now, even though she has discontinued her crusade, and apparently compromised some of her former principles, it was still considered an oddity and a news event when Anita Bryant went dancing. It was not preachers, elders, or other “super-righteous prudes” who saw this as news, but the wire service and the newspaper editors. Could it be that people of the world see dancing as a contradiction in the life of someone who claims to be upright and pure in thoughts and actions? (Even though some members of the church seem not to realize this.)

Would it have made the news if Anita Bryant had been seen eating dinner with someone? What if she had been seen playing putt-putt golf, or going -to a Walt Disney movie or riding a bicycle? Would these activities have been reported to the nation? But she went dancing. This was news, because it seems unusual for someone who is supposed to be of high moral character.

The definitions of “lasciviousness” include: “indecent bodily movements” and “unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 79-80). Who can deny that this describes modern dancing? Lasciviousness is condemned in the word of God as a “work of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19) and is closely associated with fornication and uncleanness (Mark 7:21-22; 2 Corinthians 12:21).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 203
April 7, 1983

By Wayne S. Walker

Not long ago I was at a shopping center in a nearby town when my attention was caught by a flyer posted on the window of one of the store. It was printed by “The Way Ministry” of Brunswick, Ohio, and the headline read, “The Way Is Jesus Christ (John 14:6). ” A note near the bottom said, “We of The Way are a Biblical Research (Acts 17:11), Teaching (2 Cor. 5:17-21) and Fellowship (Heb. 10:25) Ministry. You, too can be a true follower of The Way… Jesus Christ.”(1)

What caught my attention was the use of Scripture. Most religious organizations today make no appeal to the Bible for their beliefs, teachings, or practices whatsoever any more. The flyer claimed, “As Jesus Christ responded when tempted by the devil, so The Way, today, responds with `It is written.”‘ There ensued five concepts, each followed by Scripture citations, four with which, if I understood them correctly, my study of the Bible forced me to disagree.

So far as I could remember, I had no knowledge of this group before I saw the flyer. So I wrote the address included with the advertisement seeking clarification of the points made. I received a telephone call from a gentleman who suggested we set up a meeting. So we met at a convenient restaurant. Although we did discuss some of our differences, my purpose was not to “argue” but merely to seek information. He explained the flyer, talked about his involvement in the movement, and gave me some more literature. I responded by giving him some tracts as well.

Seeking still further information, I found several interesting facts. “The Way,” which takes its name from Acts 9:2, et. al, originated between 1942 and 1953 when Victor Paul Wierwille, a former United Church of Christ (Evangelical and Reformed) minister, began teaching his Power for Abundant Living class, a thirteen-week course which cost $45 in 1971, $85 in 1975, and $200 in 1981.(2) It should be noted that Jesus and His apostles never charged a single penny for any of their services. Wierwille studied at Mission House College, University of Chicago Divinity School, and Moody Bible Institute, has a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, and received an honorary doctorate from Pike’s Peak Bible Seminary, a reputed degree mill.(3)

In 1957, Wierwille resigned his VanWert, Ohio, pulpit to launch an independent ministry. The Power for Abundant Living course spread to other areas, but “The Way” was largely confined to a few adults in Ohio until 1968 when two former drug users from the Jesus movement, Steve Heefner in New York, and Jim Doop in California, joined Wierwille to take “The Way” to both coasts. Soon the movement gained a conservatively estimated 20,000 adherents, distributed among all fifty states and thirty-three foreign countries, say its leaders.(4) By 1980, the followers were numbered at 40,000.

“The Way” has no official membership. Most participants are young people, although some parents have joined also. The organization is carefully structured, according to Allan Wallerstedt in a book, Victor Paul Wierwille and the Way. The trunk is the international headquarters at New Knoxville, Ohio, near Lima. The limbs are statewide organizations of which there are about twenty. The branches are city areas. Twigs are home or campus meetings of which there are over fifteen hundred. And leaves are individual members.(5)

Although chapel is conducted each Sunday night at the world headquarters, there are no formal worship services, just home Bible fellowship meetings. Other institutions associated with the movement are The Way Magazine (which increased in circulation from twenty-five hundred to ten thousand in just three and a half years), the American Christian Press publishing house, The Way College in Emporia, Kansas, and a national convention in Ohio called the “Rock of Ages Christian Music Festival,” plus a training center in Rome City, Indiana.(6)

The doctrine of the group is based on instruction Wierwille claims the Lord revealed to him directly in 1942.(7) According to Ellen Whiteside in a book, The Way, published by the organization in 1972, Wierwille reported, “I was praying . . . And that’s when he spoke to me audibly, just like I’m talking to you now. He said he would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others.” One of his converts is quoted as saying, “I see Dr. Wierwille as the next man of God to rise up after Paul’s death.”(8)

This doctrine is a blend of many different ideas. It includes typical denominationalism – salvation entirely by grace; Calvinism – once saved, always saved; dispensationalism – the church began with Paul’s epistles; Pentecostalism -tongue and healing are stressed; Unitarianism – the trinity doctrine is contrary to Scripture; and materialism – human beings do not have immortal souls.(9) Members believe in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, salvation, and eternal life, but define these terms differently from the way we would. For this reason, James Bjornstad, executive director of the Institute of Contemporary Christianity in Oakland, New Jersey, said, “Probably the closest counterfeit to orthodox Christianity we have today is The Way International.”(10)

According to a publicity folder, “The Way” is “not a church, nor is it a denomination or a religious sect of any sort.” Yet the organization’s fifty ordained clergy (as of 1975), five of whom are women (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-14), are authorized to perform marriages. A strong missionary effort is emphasized. In 1974, one thousand thirty-three “Word over the World” ambassadors were commissioned to herald the news about “The Way” in the United States, and two-thousand seventy-seven more in 1975 in both the United States and foreign countries, plus one-hundred four “minute men” or seasoned troops. The group began to grow appreciably when they began foraging for leaders among Jesus-movement converts.(11)

Shirl Short has written in the Moody Monthly, “The individual who has some religious or biblical background but no strong church ties or convictions is easy prey of The Way. So is the person who is down and out, feels rejected by his family, doesn’t have a good self identity, or lacks love. He is very likely to find appealing the loving, positive approach of The Way.(12) Wierwille also convinces some with his claim of scholarship. He often makes a point of saying, “Now in the Sanskrit it says . . . .” There are no Sanskrit manuscripts, but he uses that language to prove his unique interpretations. To anyone who has no scholastic background, it sounds plausible.

The group is often accused by critics of mind control of its recruits, who are usually young, white, and with “Christian” backgrounds. It is suggested that members be approached in the same manner they were approached by “The Way” – in love. It is best to begin with the Scriptures and the deity of Christ. If it can be demonstrated that Christ truly is God and the passages shown that reveal it, Wierwille’s theology crumbles. It is also helpful to show that his scholarship is faulty and how the Bible refutes “The Way’s” doctrines. These will be studied in the next article.

Endnotes

1. Flyer published by The Way Ministry, 660 East Dr., Brunswick, Ohio.

2. From articles in Christianity Today (3/26/71, 12/20/74, 9/26/75, and 9/19/80).

3. Christianity Today (12/20/74), p. 312.

4. Christianity Today (3/26/71), pp. 618-619.

5. Moody Monthly (7/8/77), pp. 27-31.

6. Ibid.

7. Christianity Today (12/20/74), p. 312.

8. Christianity Today (9/26/75), pp. 1232-1234.

9. Ibid.

10. Moody Monthly, op. cit.

11. Christianity Today (9/26/75), pp. 1232-1234.

12. Moody Monthly, op. cit.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 202-203
April 7, 1983

By Dorvall L. McClister

Elders and Business Meetings

I do not oppose business meetings which are conducted to discuss matters which pertain to the building, maintenance of property, and other matters which may arise. However, the business meeting can become a very sorry substitute for the eldership, and it can easily become the decision-making body within the church even where there are elders. Elders sit down once each month with all the men of the congregation and listen to wranglings and arguments over matters which should never be discussed in a business meeting. Another problem with the business meeting is that it can also function as a steering committee to influence the elders to make decisions which favor the majority of the members. I have known of business meetings being conducted and after discussing an issue it would be brought to a vote and a decision rendered by the voice of the majority. When elders allow a matter to be settled by majority rule, they surrender their position as elders of the church. Where there are elders who do their job sincerely and according to the Scriptures and where there are deacons who render the services needed within the local congregation, there is not a great need for conducting monthly business meetings other than to report on the work accomplished and to account for the money spent from the treasury. The business meeting must never be allowed to become a substitute for the eldership, nor as a committee which renders the decisions, thus becoming the overseeing body within the church. If the local church has no elders to oversee the work, then it becomes necessary for the members to meet and discuss those matters which involve the work of the church. Yet in the final analysis; the business meeting concept generally follows the principle of rule by the majority.

Preacher Serving Also As Elder

In many cases a preacher can serve as an elder if he has been with the local church for a long time. In selecting the preacher to serve, he must be given the same scrutiny as any other man. Just because he is a preacher, this does not qualify him for an elder. He must also meet the other qualifications. It is my personal convictions that it would be difficult for a preacher to serve where he and only one other man were the elders. I do not believe it is unscriptural for the preacher to serve with one other man, but it is not an ideal situation. He must constantly guard against the accusation of “the pastor” position, as it will easily appear to be such in -the eyes of some of the members. Where there are three or four men who comprise the eldership, the relationship is much more relaxed. And there is always a problem when there are only two elders over a congregation. Often one of the elders is away and this leaves the church with really no oversight if a situation should arise where there had to be a decision rendered. Three or more elders would be ideal, but two elders will probably have problems, especially if one is the local preacher.

Problems Within The Church

Seldom, if ever, do we find a congregation without a single problem. Elders of the church have the responsibility of keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Yet there will be misunderstandings and elders will, at times, make a wrong decision. Elders are not infallible men, and they ought to correct their mistakes immediately. In so doing they will not only correct an error but they will also establish a greater degree of confidence and respect among those whom they lead.

False Teachers

False teachers find their way into the local church, and elders must guard at all times to detect and identify the false teachers. When error is taught, the elders must approach the teacher and discuss the matter. Here is where the important qualification of being able to convince the gainsayers will count (Titus 1:9). This is where his ability to instruct someone in the way of truth must be applied. If the false teacher refuses to accept the truth, then the elders must stand before the church, point out the error, and name the false teacher. Such leavening must be purged out before the entire church is contaminated.

Unfaithfulness

Elders are to feed the flock of God which is among them (1 Pet. 5:2). But what happens when some of the members refuse to be fed? Elders must provide spiritual nourishment for the flock, but what happens when some members of the church refuse to be present and partake? In such cases, elders must sit down and have a talk with those who disregard the matter of faithful attendance to duty. Weak and weary Christians must be handled with patience. Individually, it must be made certain that they understand their spiritual problem. Admonition is in order at first with gentle persuasion and study. Other periods may require reproof of strong rebuke. If it proves to be a case where no heed is given to scriptural warnings, then the unfaithful must be marked and disfellowshipped.

Worldliness

The problem of worldliness often raises its head among God’s people. They become so bogged down with the job, social functions, recreational trips, ball games, and other activities that the church and its work suffers at their absence. Teaching, and more teaching upon putting first the kingdom of God is the first attack upon worldliness. Point out the sin for what it is and let it be known that the problem is known by all and that it involves a lack of love for God (I John 2:15). Worldliness becomes the cause for unfaithfulness, and it must be treated the same.

Disputes Among Members

Disputes will often arise among members of the church, and such disputes and anger must be subdued. Guilty parties should be contacted by the elders and brought together, and their problems solved before gossip leads to taking sides and unfriendliness develops. If a personal feud gets to the point where it disrupts the unity within the church, the elders must step in and settle the problem.

Problems With The Preacher

The local evangelist is not “the pastor” of the church, even within a congregation where there are no elders. Some preachers have a strong urge to run the church and become the leader of the group. They believe that elders are only figureheads without any authority, and such a preacher will soon become busy undermining the eldership by meeting with members and circulating petitions to get rid of the elders. When a church hires a man who wants to be “the pastor,” then the church is on a course for serious trouble. The preacher can generally manipulate a sufficient number of the members on his side to divide the church before his scheme can be uncovered.

A problem of this nature generally divides the church and leaves in shambles years of faithful toil and labor. Elders, at times, seem to become desperate for a preacher and accept a man without looking into his background. A preacher can generally get someone from among his followers to recommend him for a preaching position. If the man is unknown by the church where he seeks to work, the elders ought to contact congregations where he has previously worked or worshiped and get some facts about the man. If he has a history of problems with other congregations, he will probably be a problem wherever he goes.

A preacher who seeks to undermine the eldership and gain a following of his own must be dealt with immediately and effectively. He should be considered as a false teacher and a busybody. The only effective solution to the problem is immediate dismissal of the man and a complete and documented report made public.

Swaying The Elders

Family, friends, and relatives often have bearings upon our decisions, and pressures from these relationships can be used to affect a decision by the elders of the church. Elders must not allow such to enter in and influence their work. The church did not appoint the elder’s wife, children, relatives, or friends as advisers to him. An elder who can be swayed or influenced, or who must need to counsel with his wife or relatives before he can reach a decision is a man lacking in sobriety. He either cannot think for himself or he is afraid to do so.

Popular opinion or the majority of the members should never be allowed to influence elders in their work. When elders keep their ears tuned to the beat of the majority they become nothing more than puppets to be manipulated to endorse whatever the members want. Every major apostasy, and most of the evil which enters in and destroys the Lord’s people generally enter the church by the endorsement of elders who have been influenced by popular demand or the majority of the members wanting it. As an elder, let the New Testament Scriptures be the only scales upon which you weigh your decisions on any matter.

Discipline

As elders are to be the overseers of the local church, they are also responsible for overseeing the discipline of the church. The New Testament teaches us “to withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (I Thess. 3:6). This is never a pleasant task, yet nevertheless it is essential to the spiritual purity of the church. The procedure also requires great patience and wisdom. It is easy at times for anger to be stirred against the guilty party or against the elders. There are occasions when the execution of disciplinary action against a member creates a problem greater than the one which it was originally designed to solve. Questions and more questions arise such as, “Why discipline one when there are others who need the same?” This is the problem which arises when discipline is not practiced with consistency. Some churches will put off this difficult task because no one wants to get involved. Then a backlog of offenses are accumulated over the years and no one knows where to begin and where to end. Nothing is accomplished in withdrawing from a member who has not attended the services in the past five years. Effective discipline must be administered concurrently with the offense. Make sure that every member of the church is well informed and every member has been encouraged to do in a personal way what they can to restore the erring member (Gal. 6:1). Every member of the church has a responsibility here. When every effort has been made to restore the erring member and there is no indication of repentance, then an announcement of withdrawal of fellowship must be made before the church.

A Question

A question is asked at times concerning 1 Corinthians 5:11, where Paul instructs the Corinthians not to keep company with certain people – and not to eat. How does this apply in a family relationship where one has been disfellowshipped? Can the family eat together? In the case of husband and wife, must one withdraw and cease from all martial relationships? I am aware that this question poses a problem, and my comments may not provide a satisfactory answer. But the question raises other questions to be considered. Does withdrawal of fellowship from a member divorce a man and wife or annul the marriage? When the family sits down to eat must they exclude from the table the one withdrawn from? Is the husband and father relieved of his responsibilities to the one withdrawn from? Withdrawal of fellowship will bring about sadness within the church and within the home involved. Members of the family must impress upon the one withdrawn from that they do not endorse his or her sinful conduct. Yet, even though fellowship has been withdrawn from one member of the family by the church, there still remains the family relationship of husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. Withdrawal of fellowship may finally result in altering the marriage relationship to the extent that 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 becomes applicable, yet it seems to me that it was never designed to destroy these relationships.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 199-201
April 7, 1983