Truth Magazine

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

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: What chance does a person (a man) have of going to heaven who cannot talk? I had an operation several years ago and lost my voice. I would like to have you comment on this.

Reply: There is no reason why you cannot go to heaven like anyone else. The matter of going to heaven is not dependent upon soundness of body. Being blind, deaf and/or mute will not keep one from going to heaven. Whatever one’s physical condition may be, if he has obeyed the gospel and is living and worshiping as God directs in His Word, this is what counts.

Paul was afflicted with a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7). What this affliction was, we do not know, nevertheless, Paul was a faithful .preacher and servant of God, in spite of his handicap. God provided him strength (v. 9) to accomplish what he was able to do (Phil. 4:13). Any Christian, whether handicapped or not, should determine to do the very best possible service to the Lord.

There is much that you can do, even though you are not able to speak. You can point to the Scriptures as you are teaching others, you can write down passages for others to read, you can distribute Bible tracts and you can give out printed invitations to services and gospel meetings, to mention a few things. You have great opportunities, other than speaking, to lead precious souls to Christ. You need not be concerned about going to heaven simply because you have lost your voice.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 199
April 7, 1983

By Gainesville, Florida

Chuck Lucas: Our next speaker, brother Yater Tant.

Yater Tant:

An old man, going down a lone highway,

Came in the evening cold and gray

To a chasm, vast and deep and wide.

Through which flowed a sullen tide.

The old man crossed in the twilight dim,

The sullen stream had no fears for him,

But he paused when safe on the other side

And built a bridge to span the tide.

`Old man,’ said a fellow pilgrim near,

`You waste your strength in laboring here,

Your journey will end with the ending day,

You never again will come this way.

You’ve crossed the chasm deep and wide,

Why build you this bridge at even tide?

The traveler lifted his old gray head,

`Good friend, in the way I’ve come,’ he said,

`There followeth after me today

A fair-haired youth who must come this way

This stream which has been as naught to me,

To that fine lad may a pitfall be,

He, too, must cross in the twilight dim,

Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.’

I don’t know whether you know that old man or not, but I know him. As a matter of fact, he is in the audience; he goes under several names. One of them is Richard Whitehead. And another is Alonzo Welch. And one not quite so old is the one you just listened to. And, sometimes, he might be known as Yater Tant.

Now, before I start, when I talked to brother Bartley, and brother Whitehead (I would have mentioned Bartley but he’s not old enough yet), they told me I’d have twenty minutes. I said, “There’s no way, no way, that I can do anything in twenty minutes. But, if you will permit me to bring an editorial that I have written, this will set forth some of my basic convictions.” Brother Bartley said, “These people are interested in knowing anything that will be helpful. They’re open-minded, they’re receptive, and they’ll read anything you want to bring.” So, I went down in my pocket and went to the bank and came up with about eight-hundred dollars, eight-hundred and fifty (850), and printed fifteen hundred copies of the June issue of Vanguard. They’ve been distributed. Now then, I want to know how many of you have not read the editorial that was in that issue. Let’s see your hands. Read it. Read it.

I taught school down at Stephen Austin University for several years, and I had the practice with some of my classes of giving a very exhaustive and exhausting examination the first week. And the students would come to me and say, “Professor, we haven’t been over this material, we don’t know this.” I said, “I didn’t give this examination to find out what you know, but what you don’t know, so I’ll know what to teach you.” And I want to know, I want to know if you have read this.

I want to recommend to you two more things. Let me first ask, how many of you can give a real logical, biblical answer as to what is wrong with the missionary society? Let’s see your hands, how many? Not even the preachers? Well, don’t be ashamed about it. I was forty years old, I’d been preaching for twenty-two (22) or three (23) years, before I ever really understood the whole thing. And the thing that helped me was a little tract by Earl West entitled Congregational Cooperation. Brother West teaches up at Harding Graduate School. I want to recommend that to you. I want to recommend another writing: The Emergence Of The Church of Christ Denomination by David Edwin Harrell. He is the head of the history department at the University of Arkansas. And, incidentally, both of these things will be published in the Vanguard within the next few months. And in all these papers, these fifteen-hundred Vanguards, that, presumably you’ll have a chance to read, you’ll find an envelope. If you want to get the paper, put your name in that envelope, put your money in it and send it to me. Now, I know a lot of you are students. If you don’t have the money, put your name in anyhow, and a little note, “I can’t pay for it,” and I’ll send you the paper. But you’ve got to promise me that you’ll read it, and give it to two or three others. I’ll come up with the money to do it. Incidentally, brother Whitehead, when he invited me, said, “We’ll take care of your expenses.” I think he meant my travel expenses. Alright, let’s get down to business (audience laughter).

There are three basic convictions which I hold, which I presume all of us hold, which will forever make division impossible, if they are properly understood and applied. Number one, we accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God. We all agree on that, don’t we? (“Amen” from a number of the audience.) Alright. Number two, we accept the Bible as a total revelation of the will of God for us. Everything we need to know or to believe or to practice is therein set forth. Everybody agree to that? (“Amen” from the audience.) Number three, the Bible can be understood insofar as it effects our obedience to God. Everybody agree to that? (“Amen” from the audience.) Alright. Now then, if these three basic convictions are firmly held, understood, and applied, division becomes impossible. (“Amen” from the audience.) And if it has happened, one or the other, or maybe all three of them have been abandoned. Now, let me go on from that.

These three basic convictions must be followed by four basic areas of total commitment. Some people are frightened of that word “Total Commitment.” And some have made some derisive remarks about it. John Whitehead told me that there’s an elder down here somewhere that boasted that there was not one ounce of total commitment in the church where he was an elder (audience laughter). Well, when I see that brother in heaven, I want to ask him about that. Oh, he’ll go to heaven. I may not but he will. Like my father was in a debate with a Baptist preacher one time many years in Texas, and he kept saying something about what my father said, “When we get to heaven we’ll ask Paul about this passage, and we’ll ask Peter or John.” Finally the Baptist preacher stood up and wanted to quit the debate. He said, “Elder Tant has agreed that I’m going to heaven.” And he said, “I was born a Baptist, I’ll die a Baptist, and my Baptist doctrine will take me to heaven.” My father said, “Yes, brother, I think you’re going to heaven.” He said, “When the Lord takes a look at the arguments you’ve been making in this debate, He gonna poke you in through the fool hole” (audience laughter). Not a very elegant way of saying it, but, I think, my brother who boasted that there was not an ounce of total committment in his congregation, I think he’ll be in heaven.

“What are these basic committments? Number one, a committment to Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives. (“Amen” from the audience.) Now there’s a difference between that and a conviction that He’s the Son of God; the devils have that. The devils have that (Luke 8:28); “What have I to do with thee, Jesus thou son of the most high God,” a devil said that. Matthew 8:29, “What do you want with us, son of God,” a devil said that. They believed that He was the son of God. There’s a difference in believing in the divinity of Christ, and making a committment of your life to him as the Lord of your life. (“Amen” from the audience.) That’s essential, that’s essential. His will expressed in His word comes to us with all authoritv. In Matthew 7:29, He spoke as one having authority. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” In John the sixth chapter, when many of the disciples turned back and walked with him no more, he turned to His immediate group and said, “Would you also go away?” and Peter responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” We must have that basic understanding, that committment that the word of God comes to us with absolute and total authority. The third thing, we must be unequivocallv committed to the fact that unity is possible. (“Amen” from the audience.) Christ prayed for it in John chapter 17. The apostle Paul enjoined it in 1 Corinthians 1. And Christians through the centuries have practiced it.

We can be united, but some things are absolutely essential to that. Number one, if we are to have that unit v, there must be communication. There must be communication. We must talk to each other. We must associate with each other. Let me show you what happened. A hundred years ago, the Firm Foundation was started in Austin, Texas, for the very purpose, according to Austin McGary, of combating what he called “Lipscomb’s Heresy.” Brother Lipscomb taught that if a man has been immersed into Christ, he is a child of God. If he’s been immersed in order to obey God, he is a child of God. A. MeGary said, “That’s not so. He must know what he’s being baptized for. He must understand he’s not a Christian, he’s not in Christ, his sins are not forgiven, until he’s baptized into Christ.” McGary said, “The question is a very simple one. Is baptism for those who know what they’re doing, or is it for those who don’t know what they’re doing?” My father was with McGary. As he expressed it, he was on the “cow-catcher of the re-baptism train.” But at the very height of the controversy, brother Lipscomb invited my father to the Nashville Bible School, which is now David Lipscomb College, to give a series of lectures setting forth his conviction on the matter of baptism, or re-baptism. About the same time he asked my father to become an associate editor of the Gospel Advocate, knowing that their convictions were the very opposite on this question. But, they loved one another, they loved the Lord, and the church did not divide. There was communication. Oh, they debated it, hot and heavy. They discussed it, and sometimes they discussed it with considerabe heat. But through it all, kind of like the fights you have with your wife sometimes, it can get real hot, but it never even enters your mind that you’re going to split. Somebody asked one of the columnists in the lovelorn sections, “Has it ever entered your mind to get a divorce from your husband?” And she said, “No, not really. Murder once in a while, but never divorce” (audience laughter). I think we need to have that attitude in the church. No matter how angry we get, or how stirred up, and we do get stirred up, it never even occurs to us that we are going to quarantine one another.

Sixty years after that re-baptism controversy was settled, a question developed over the contribution of churches to Christian schools. It was debated pretty hot and heavy, and then from that it went into the question of the church contributing to benevolent organizations. I went to brother Goodpasture, who was editor of the Gospel Advocate, and pleaded with him to let men of capability, who had the respect of the brotherhood, discuss the question openly in the Gospel Advocate. I went to brother G.H.P. Showalter with the same plea. Men who are respected, C.R. Nichol, Foy Wallace, and others of recognized ability could discuss the issue. And the answer was “No, no.” And then in 1954 a quarantine was initiated against all those who questioned church contributions to the benevolent associations. Now if we are ever to get together, we must associate and talk and study. I’d like to recommend to you highly that some effort be made to lift that quarantine. There are about 1800 “Anti” congregations. I know 400-500 faithful gospel preachers. I’d like to think that some of these men could be invited into other, what would you call it, “segments” of the brotherhood, like the “main-line” churches, and the Crossroad churches, for a brotherly discussion of these matters. Men like Homer Hailey, or Robert Turner, or Ed Harrell, or Marshall Patton, who won’t come in with the idea that they’re going to blast you, but for a prayerful study. We have enough in common that if we are determined to be together, nobody will have to give up one iota of the truth that he holds. (“Amen” from the audience.) We can compromise our matters of judgment, and our opinions, but not the truth, not the truth. I don’t ask you to give up any truth you hold, and I’ll certainly not give up any I hold. But if we have the right spirit and the right’ attitude, we can find a solution to our problems.

So, a committment to Jesus as Lord, a committment to the Bible as final authority, a committment to the belief that unity is possible, and then, a total committment to the mighty task of evangelism are necessary. You find me a church that is really committed and working in the field of evangelism, and there’s not much chance for the devil to get in there and cause much trouble. We have a preventative, that total committment. Jim Cope wrote me some time ago, and said, “What is your judgment of the biggest problem the church is going to face in the next twenty years?” I replied, “There are all kinds of problems. Secularism, paganism, but the biggest problem that I see is apathy. Just indifference. Unconcern. I live in Birmingham, Alabama. About 75 years ago, not quite that far back, Studard Kennedy, who lived in Birmingham, England, wrote a little verse that’s become a classic of its sort. I quoted it when I was here three years ago. I’ll repeat it. It’s worth it. He said,

When Jesus came to Golgotha, they hanged him on a tree. They drove great nails through hands and feet, they made a Calvary.

They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, red were His wounds, and deep,

For those were crude and cruel days, and human flesh was cheap.

But, when Jesus came to Birmingham, they merely passed Him by.

They never harmed a hair of Him, they merely let Him die.

For men had grown more tender, they would not give Him pain.

They simply passed down the street, and left Him in the rain.

Still, Jesus cried forgive them, for they know not what they do.

And still it rained the winter rain that drenched Him through and through.

The crowds went home, and left the street without a soul to see,

And Jesus crouched against the wall, and cried for Calvary.

The spikes of the Roman soldiers through His quivering flesh,

Were less agonizing than the brutal indifference

Of those for whom He had died.

I think if Jesus should look out from the battlements of heaven today, and see His broken, divided, alienated, separated body, the church, He might crouch against the jasper walls of heaven and cry for Calvary. The spikes of the Roman soldiers would be less agonizing, less hurtful, than the division of His people. In the name of God, my brethren, I challenge you, let’s do something about it. (“Amen” from the audience.) I ask you to join with me in a crusade, a holy crusade, to bring peace to the troubled people of God. I hope I get an invitation to go among the “main-line” churches of Christ, the Crossroads churches of Christ, and the “anti” churches of Christ. And I may not live to see it. I enter my 75th year before this year is out. I may not live to see it, but I pray that the time will come before this century closes when there will be no Crossroads church of Christ, no “main-line” church of Christ, no “anti” church of Christ, but we will be Christians, children of God, one Lord, one faith, one body. (“Amen” from the audience.) I’m ready for that crusade, I hope you are. (“Amen” from the audience and then loud applause.)

Chuck Lucas: Brother Tant had asked me earlier, if we might be able to sing a song that is not in our books. And I don’t know how many of you even know this, but I got together rather hurriedly a group of brothers, and they have learned this song. They’re going to lead us in it, and if you know it, feel free to join in. It’s called, “Shall I Crucify My Saviour.” Certainly an appropriate thought after brother Tant’s remarks.

(Song is sung, followed by an audience ovation.)

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 196-198
April 7, 1983

By Mike Willis

For many months now, brother Yater Tant, editor of Vanguard, has commended and defended the Crossroads church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida for its evangelistic program, in spite of the criticisms which have come from various sources who had no opportunity for collaboration but whose testimony agrees and confirms each other. For information regarding the different commendations of Crossroads, please read the following comments in Vanguard: Vol. VI; No. 4, pp. 2-3; No. 12, p. 12; Vol. VII, No. 1, p. 12; No. 12, pp. 2-3; Vol. VIII, No. 10, p. 2; No. 11, pp. 2-3.

During this same period, brother Tant has been appealing for some kind of unity with liberals through a “box in the vestibule” approach to support orphan homes, colleges, old folks homes, recreation, and other things in which the liberals are involved. The January 1982 issue of Vanguard contained an “open letter” to Reuel Lemmons and Guy N. Woods in which this appeal for unity was made. On August 13, 1982, brother Tant addressed the subject of unity at the Crossroads church in Gainesville before an audience of 4,000 people. His speech is presented in this issue.

I would like to present the following background in order that you might better perceive the impact of the Crossroads speech in August. Many of our readers are not aware of the Crossroads church. Consequently, some background is needed in order to fully grasp the impact of the sermon preached.

The Crossroads church is a big, liberal church. Here are some things in which they are involved by financial support and other forms of fellowship:

(1) The sponsoring church arrangement (for example, they sent $600.00 to support the Alan Cloyd restoration ministry in 1982).

(2) A Christian Family Services program which solicits contributions from individuals all over America in order to operate a facility for the adoption of children.

(3) It plans to develop and maintain Fanning Springs Development, a retreat to accommodate 250 people.

(4) It plans to build residential housing for homeless children on Riegel Ranch, a church owned property of 120 acres.

(5) They send the Crossroads Singers all over the United States to perform before and entertain both secular and religious assemblies. They also advertise to sell their records at Christmas time.

(6) They sponsor many recreational outings, including the purchase of block seating for University of Florida football games, an annual “Play Day,” and other such activities.

(7) They use their building for such activities as girl scouts meeting places.

In short, the Crossroads church in Gainesville has been in the vanguard of the movement to pervert the mission and the organization of the church (by their participation in social welfare work, recreational activities, and sponsoring-church projects).

On top of these objectionable matters, the Crossroads church of Christ has become involved in a system of evangelism which is objectionable even to those brethren who accept and agree with them in the matters listed above. The liberal brethren have criticized the Crossroads church and its satellites for the following activities: (1) its prayer-partner system of confession of sins; (2) its disruption of the eldership when it moves into a congregation; (3) its refusal of baptism to adults who request it but whom they judge not to be ready for baptism; (4) its making loyalty to the Crossroads evangelistic methods a condition of faithfulness to the Lord and for fellowship; (5) its participation with the Christian church in growth seminars; and other things. These things stand as barriers to the fellowship of the Crossroads brethren and the mainstream of the liberals.

On 5 December 1979, brother Tant visited the Crossroads church and was invited to speak at their services on Wednesday night. He said virtually nothing which his audience could perceive as pertaining to the issues of the past 30 years and, therefore, received a blanket endorsement from Chuck Lucas, the Crossroads preacher. The liberal convictions and practices mentioned above have continued to this day. For this compromising appearance at Crossroads, brother Tant has been criticized by numbers of brethren. His reply was something to this effect: “But because I respected the Crossroads elders, and did not seize the `golden opportunity’ . . . to `teach the truth’ to the 1,000 who were present the Wednesday night, I now have an invitation to speak to an audience of 5,000, and specifically offer what I believe to be the scriptural way to achieve unity.” The speech reproduced was presented on August 13, 1982 at the Crossroads church to approximately 4,000 people from all over the country.

If you were given the opportunity to address a congregation so steeped in liberalism as the Crossroads church is, what would you say? Would you tell them that unity could be attained and maintained between every child of God so tong as all were content to “walk in the light”? Would you call upon them to repent of their sins of having perverted the mission and organization of the church? For the sake of scriptural unity, would you appeal to them to quit driving the wedge of unscriptural practices between us? Would you imply that these brethren were already in fellowship with God or that their sins had broken their relationship with God? Would you say that liberal preachers who offer no prospect of repentance are building beautiful bridges for the unity of God’s people?- Just what would you say?

Fortunately, we do not have to wonder what brother Tant had to say. Reproduced in this issue is his speech and you can judge for yourself whether or not he preached what these brethren needed to hear.

Do the actions of brother Tant identify with brother Paul in the synagogue and marketplace of Athens (Acts 17) or at Ephesus and “almost throughout all Asia” where he preached “they are no gods that are made with hands” (Acts 19:26)? Would he, having the opportunity, speak of some as being “reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:9)? Paul did! “The faith” is under attack at Crossroads, brother Tant.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 194-195
April 7, 1983