Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

Brother L.L. Freeman of Modesto, California died November 23, 1981; funeral services were held Wednesday, November 25 in Modesto. The short message was delivered by this writer and burial followed in a local cemetery.

Brother Freeman is survived by his widow Lona, four daughters, three sons, four step-children, one sister, and three brothers. He had just two months short of age 79 at the time of his death. One son, Jack Freeman, of Las Vegas, Nevada is a faithful gospel preacher. I would call brother Freeman one of the old “work horses” of the church, especially in California and Oregon. There are many congregations in California alone that owe their existence to this good man and his untiring efforts. Many of those churches fell victim to “liberalism” during the 1950s and 60s.

Brother Freeman was a good man and a faithful proclaimer of the Word. I have often heard him speak of his associations with such men as Foy Wallace, Jr. and C.R. Nichol. Brother Freeman paid a heavy toll, at times, for remaining true to the Book but his loyalty to the Truth could not be questioned. The last 20 or 25 years of his labors were in the Modesto area, being responsible for two loyal congregations.

We extend our sympathy to his good wife Lona and to their children. We trust that they shall find comfort in the fact that Brother Freeman was a faithful servant of the Almighty.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, p. 69
February 4, 1982

By Mike Willis

In recent years, there has been a great deal of preaching and writing done concerning the organization of the church. Brethren have properly been emphasizing that the sponsoring church arrangement, in which the elders of one church oversee the money of many other churches, is a violation of the pattern of organization of the New Testament church. The elders have authority only in the local congregation – “the flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28). The departure from the pattern of New Testament organization by our brethren has demanded that much teaching be done relative to this subject.

That is not to imply that the only form of organizational apostasy is through the sponsoring church arrangement. One form of organizational apostasy, which is particularly prevalent among the Baptist denomination, is the “pastor system.” Without accusing any preacher of becoming a pastor, let me restate the difference in the work of the pastor and the preacher.

Who Are Pastors?

There is only one place in our English Bibles where the word “pastor” appears. That passage is as follows: “. . . and he gave some, apostles; and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). What is a “pastor”? The word poimen means “a herdsman, esp. a shepherd” (Joseph H. That’ er, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 527). The word is then used metaphorically to refer to “a presiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly” (ibid. J. Hence, it refers to the overseers of the Lord’s local church.

The noun poimen (pastor) has a corresponding verb, poimaino. The verb means “to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep.” The one who does the work of poimainein is a poimen (i.e., the one who does the work of shepherding is a shepherd or pastor). Who is it that does the work of “shepherding the flock”? Let the Scriptures answer that question. Consider these evidences:

1. Acts 20:28. Paul met with the “elders of the church” (Acts 20 :17 ) of Ephesus in the town of Miletus. In his sermon to these elders, he said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (poimainein) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The elders, who were also called overseers (Acts 20:28), were given the responsibility “to shepherd” the flock. The one who does the work of tending the flock is the shepherd or pastor.

2. 1 Peter 5:1-2. This passage reads as follows: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed (poimanate) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind . . . .” You will notice again that the “elders” do the work of “shepherding the flock.”

Writing on this subject, J.W. McGarvey said,

. . . The evidences that this term designates the overseers or elders is conclusive, and may be briefly stated. The Greek term for shepherd is poimeen, and the verb poimaino means to do the work of a shepherd. Now, he to whom this verb applies is a shepherd, just as he who sows is a sower, he who reaps is a reaper, he who speaks is a speaker, he who sings is a singer, &c., &c. But Paul exhorts the overseers in Ephesus “to be shepherds to the church.” Acts xx: 28; and Peter exhorts the elders of the churches to which he writes, “Be shepherds to the flock of God which is among you,” and promise that when the “chief shepherd” shall appear, they shall receive a crown of glory. They then, were shepherds and Christ, the chief shepherd (The Eldership, p. 18).

A “pastor” is an elder, an overseer, or a bishop.

One of the first things which we notice from this is that the “pastor” is not the “preacher,” except in those cases in which a preacher meets the qualifications of an elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9/. Modern denominational usage designates the local preacher as the “pastor” and gives to him the responsibility of shepherding the flock. McGarvey commented on this perversion as follows, “It is found in the fact that pastor has become perverted by sectarian usage, and designates in popular phraseology, an entirely different office from the one to whom it is applied in the Scriptures. It has become a synonym for a settled preacher, and is often used for the purpose of distinguishing the preacher from those who are Scripturally called the pastors of the church” (Ibid., pp. 18-19).

Preachers And Pastors: A Contrast In Their Works

To emphasize the difference in the preacher and the elders or the pastors, let us consider their respective works. When one understands the difference in the program of work revealed in the Bible for each, some of the confusion will be cleared. The work of the pastor or elder is as follows:

1. Take the oversight arid rule well (1 Pet. 5:2; 1 Tim. 5:17; 3:5; Heb. 3:7, 17).

2. Take heed to the flock (Acts 20:28).

3. Tend the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-2; Acts 20:28).

4. Watch for the souls of the church (Heb. 13:17).

The church has a responsibility to be submissive to the elders or pastors (Heb: 13:17).

The work of a gospel preacher is pretty well summarized in the books of 1-2 Timothy and Titus. The work involves these activities:

1. Charge men not to teach another doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3).

2. Put brethren in remembrance (1 Tim. 4:6; Tit. 3:1).

3. Command and teach the revealed word of God (1 Tim. 4:11, 15-16; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; 4:1-2; Tit. 2:1, 15).

4. Rebuke sin (1 Tim. 5:20; Tit. 1:13).

In essence, the work of the preacher is to “preach the word; be instant in season, out season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Nowhere do the Scriptures state that God has given the preacher the responsibility of overseeing the congregation.

“The Pastor” Verses A Plurality of Elders

The New Testament pattern of congregational organization has a plurality of elders overseeing the local church. This is seen in a direct statement in Acts 14:23 which states that Paul and Barnabas “ordained them elders in every church.” Similarly, in other references to Ne elders, they are mentioned in a plurality:

Acts 11:3- “. . . sending it to the elders . . . .”

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23 – the elders met in Jerusalem

Acts 16:4 – “. . . elders that were at Jerusalem . . . .”

Acts 20:17, 18 – “. . . elders of the church . . . .”

Acts 20:28- ” . . .Holy Spirit made you bishops. . .”

Tit. 1:5 – “. . . appoint elders in every city . . .”

Jas. 5:14 – “. . . let him call the elders of the church . . . .”

1 Pet. 5:1 – “. . . laying on of the hands of the presbytery . . . .”

Phil. 1:1 – “. . . to all the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons . . . .”

Heb. 13:7 – ” . . . remember them that have the rule over you. . .”

Heb. 13:17 – “. . . obey them that have the rule over you. . . submit to them, they watch. . . they shall give account . . ..” 1 Thess. 5:12 – “. . . know them that labor among you and are over you in the Lord . . . .”

The New Testament reveals that a plurality of elders were the overseers of the local congregation.

The modern denominational system has one man, who may or may not meet the qualifications laid down in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, overseeing the local congregation. Assuming that the man was qualified to serve as an elder, he could not serve as “the” elder. It is simply contrary to the Scriptures for one man to rule a church!

Dangerous Trends

To ignore the denominational organization of “pastor oversight” only makes us vulnerable to being guilty of “preacher oversight.” Many of the members of any given local church have been converted from denominationalism; many of the denominations of which they formerly were members used “pastor oversight.” Consequently, this is a false doctrine which is deeply engrained in the minds of many which needs to be eradicated. There are several dangerous trends which I see among us to which I would like to call your attention:

1. The tendency to exalt the preacher. A man who does a good work should be respected for his work’s sake. There is nothing wrong with giving honor to those to whom honor is due (Rom. 13:7/. However, when members begin to treat the preacher as if he were “clergy” and act as if they are not -quite as good as him, being mere “laity,” false concepts regarding the place of the preacher are prevalent. When the preacher is the only Christian introduced as “brother,” the term is used as a title to exalt the preacher, contrary to Matthew 23:8-11.

2. The tendancy for the preacher to do the work of the elders. Someone has said, “The preacher does the work of the elders, the elders do the work of the deacons, and the deacons do nothing.” If that is the case, the organization of the local church has been perverted! There is some overlap in the work of elders and preachers inasmuch as both are concerned with saving souls and encouraging the spiritual development of the saints. Hence, some become confused, thinking that the preacher is doing the work of the elders when he is only doing his own work. The boundary of the work of the preacher has been crossed when he oversteps divine authority and begins to run the church. Writing on this subject, James R. Cope said,

. . . A preacher not only betrays a sacred trust himself but directly contributes to the breakdown of the divine organization when he pushes himself or, allows himself to be pushed into a position of functioning where the elders should act. Actually such an arrangement weakens the church organically and therefore, spiritually for there can be no. true. spiritual development where the divine government is disregarded.

We can preach all we desire on the “evils of the pastor system” but-not until gospel preachers learn to preach the gospel and leave the “pastoring” to the Scriptural pastors, will . the situation improve. Evangelists are destroying their own ,,, souls when they look upon preaching as a profession and gospel work as the primary means of a livelihood. They are robbing churches of their spiritual power and doctrinal integrity when they “take over” some local “charge.” And the proof of the pudding is the helpless condition in which elders find themselves and the church when it becomes necessary for a change in preachers, either through their decision or his. Something is radically wrong, when a change in preacher results in a disgruntled membership and a decline in the spiritual development of the church (“Pastors And Preacher,” The Preceptor, Vol. 1, No. 3 [January 1952], pp. 4-5).

When preachers make decisions which should be made by the elders or the men of the congregation in a business meeting, they have violated the word of God and created a congregational organization which is just as sinful as the papacy at Rome. When elders allow themselves to be dominated by the preacher to the extent that they merely become his “yes” men, they need to repent or resign. They have become party to an unscriptural pattern of organization.

Conclusion

Let preachers do the work of preachers and let the elders do the work of shepherding the flock. There is plenty of work for both to do without getting into the work designated for another. The preacher is not “the pastor.” He should teach on this subject from the pulpit in order that brethren would understand scriptural organization and the manner in which the denominational “pastor system” violates it.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, pp. 67-69
February 4, 1982

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Is it true that when Jesus first began to perform miracles it was for the purpose of getting the crowds to follow Him? Did He do this to get their attention and thereby teach some spiritual truth? If so, would this be justification for us today to entice outsiders with “free suppers” to get their attention and teach some spiritual truth?

Reply: There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that Jesus performed miracles to get the attention of the people so that He could teach them. The Scriptures clearly teach that the purpose of His miracles was to prove that He was the Son of God. Notice John 20:30, 31: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God’; and that believing ye may have life in his name.” The purpose of miracles in the Bible was to produce faith. The miracles performed by Moses and Aaron in Egypt were to produce faith, to confirm the testimony that they had been sent from God to deliver the Israelites from bondage (Ex. 4:5). The message of the apostles in the New Testament was confirmed by miracles. “God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his will” (Heb. 2:4). It is evident why miracles in the Old Testaments were performed. They were to confirm God’s word and thereby produce faith. The miracles of Jesus were no exceptions. Jesus came from God to this earth to save men (Matt. 1:21; Lk. 19:10 etc.). This He did by teaching. His miracles proved Him to be all that He claimed to be, the Son of God. His triumphant resurrection from the tomb was the crowning evidence that He was divine. Paul wrote in Rom. 1:3, 4, “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.” From these and other Scriptures it should be clear that the purpose of miracles was not to attract attention for the purpose of teaching spiritual truths. Rather, they were to confirm the spiritual truths already taught.

It would be well to observe also that when Jesus fed the five thousand (Jn. 6:1-14) the crowd was already present. Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and two fishes because He had compassion on the people. This miracle was a consequence of the drawn crowd rather than being done for the purpose of drawing a crowd. The fact that a great multitude followed Him because they saw His signs (Jn. 6:2) was merely the consequence. The fact remains that the motive of Jesus in performing miracles was not to draw the crowds. The feeding of the five thousand (about the number of the men seated) fulfilled the purpose of His miracles. “When therefore the people saw the sign which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world” (Jn. 6:14).

I presume the querist has reference to the church and not individuals. I see nothing amiss in a prearranged meal and Bible study in a private home. But to use the miracles of Jesus to justify church sponsored meals, entertainment and recreation to draw people to the gospel is a misuse of the Scriptures.

The gospel is the power of God to save souls (Rom. 1:16), and God intended it to be the means of drawing men to Him. Jesus declared in Jn. 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself”. The question is, how are men drawn to Christ? They are drawn by His teaching. He plainly stated this when He answered the Jews in Jno. 6:44, 45, “No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” This should be clear enough as to how men are drawn to Christ. They are drawn by teaching, hearing and learning (Rom. 10:17). This is a far cry from drawing people by church sponsored social activities, as is being practiced by some of our brethren. If they would resolve to adhere to a “thus saith the Lord,” they would cease putting the church in the social business. The church is a spiritual institution and has a spiritual message for a lost and dying world. It is not the business of the church to attract people by providing youth camps, social or “fellowship” halls and bus ministries. The business of the church is to support the preaching of the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15). There is no substitute for plain, simple unadulterated preaching.

When some brethren will see what the mission of the church is and drop their social provisions to draw crowds, then at least one thing will be eliminated that divides us. We unite upon what the Scriptures authorize. We divide over what they do not authorize.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, p. 66
February 4, 1982

By James W Adams

Jesus said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself . . .” (Matt. 16:24). Discipleship demands total commitment. If there is one thing, above all else, that causes people to be lost, it is their unwillingness to commit themselves wholly – body, soul, and spirit – to the Lord. Yet, it should be observed that this must be a completely voluntary act. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, it was prophesied that the Lord’s servants of the Messianic kingdom would be “willing in the day of his power” (Psa. 110:3).

There is a “philosophy” and a movement emanating from that “philosophy” among our so-called “liberal” brethren, and a few avant-garde, professed “conservative” brethren of the far left variety, which masquerades under the title, “Total Commitment.” In fact, however, it is no more than a highly organized system of coercive, psychological pressure. This feature of the so-called “philosophy” has been so marked in its practical manifestations as to evoke charges of “cultism” both from within and without.

The movement had its origin among professed churches of Christ, in Gainesville, Florida, in a congregation known as “The Crossroads Church of Christ.” The movement’s basic principles have come to be called by many, “The Crossroads Philosophy.” It has been the occasion of much consternation and heated controversy among various segments of the “On-the-march” wing of professed churches of Christ. Though it began ,yin Florida, its echoes have reverberated throughout the nation. It has given rise to morbid curiosity, spurious investigation, and tentative acceptance (somewhat timorous) even among persons professing to be “conservative” – persons possessed of a certain type of mentality which egotistically rejects the “traditional” and gravitates to the novel and unusual.

No informed, sincere brother in the Lord opposes “total commitment” to Christ, but coercion and cultic demagoguery are not to be confused with New Testament consecration. Total commitment which is motivated and sustained by personal faith in Christ and love for God and things spiritual is a blessed virtue. Coerced commitment – whether psychologically or physically induced and enforced, or both – is a pernicious evil, particularly in religion. It is enslavement to fallible, human masters as opposed to the hallowed commitment of gloriously liberated sons of God. Pragmatic though it may be in its immediate, visible effects, its ultimate end is spiritual suicide.

To teach total commitment, born of faith and love, as a solemn duty of eternity-bound men and women is one thing. To coerce “total commitment” to humanly conceived and psychologically implemented programs of religious activity which are totally consuming, under the guise of consecration to Christ, is quite another thing. In fact, it is the difference between a sectarian cult and a New Testament church. It is the difference between a devoted disciple of a crucified, risen, and coronated Lord and an idolatrous zealot of a charismatic Manipulator. It is the difference between a New Testament “saint” and Jim Jones devotee or a Ron Hubbard “Scientologist.” In the use of these illustrations, we do not imply that the Crossroads’ philosophy and practice are identical with those of the men mentioned, but we do perceive a striking parallel between the coerced commitment which characterizes all three systems, and we are as much opposed to said coerced commitment in one system as the other.

It is a source of never-ending amazement that some very respectable, “conservative” brethren have considered themselves under some sort of compulsion, if not overtly to defend, at least to publicize in a semifavorable light the so-called “Crossroads’ Philosophy.” This has been done in lengthy, highly qualified, and culpably ambiguous “analyses” – dissertations which have raised more questions than they have supplied answers. From the analyses themselves, even a casual reader can recognize that they are based on superficial investigations which accept as evidence the personal assurances of the persons promoting the philosophy rather than competent data. These apologetic exposes have served (we hope not intentionally/ to camouflage significant errors in the Crossroads’ philosophy and practice and to palliate highly questionable methods of procedure even in reference to things not wrong within themselves. One is forced to wonder about the motivation behind such efforts as those demonstrated in the apologetic disclosures to which reference has been made. A very pertinent question is raised by them: What possible, defensible interest can truly “conservative” brethren have in becoming involved in a quasi-defense of a neo-liberal gimmick which has finally concerned our “On-the-march” brethren enough to shock them out of their egotistical smugness and self-righteous sense of sufficiency to stir up a controversy among themselves over it?

Specious titles, such as “Total Commitment,” are often employed by propagandists to camouflage the unlovely features and destructive tendencies of their products. Semantics can be deceptive. This is well illustrated by an advertisement run in the daily newspaper by a bank in South Wales. The bank had sustained financial reverses and was not in a position to make loans. To make this known without hurting the image of the bank, the ad was thus worded: “Within the framework of existing ratios of liquidity and statutory reserve deposits, the banks have little room for maneuvering at present.” What they were really saying was: “We cannot lend you any money right now!”

In the same way, religious innovators and cultic demagogues cover many of the quagmires of their progressive (?) and personally self-profiting activities with dignified and traditionally acceptable religious nomenclature. Hence, be careful! Do not swallow their prescriptions without carefully studying the label and analyzing the contents of the bottle. In a word, beware of sectarian gobbledegook which has been sugar-coated with specious terminology! Shakespeare correctly noted that “A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” Conversely speaking, it is just as true that sulphuric acid may be called “water,” but doing so does not make it any less deadly to him who drinks it. When I was in high school chemistry, more years ago than I care to admit, we used to recite a little piece of doggerel to the effect: “Johnny used to live here, but he doesn’t anymore, for what he thought was H20 (water) was H2S04 (sulphuric acid.” How very, very correct we were!

“Total Commitment” is the answer to the eradication of many spiritual ills provided it is produced and maintained by hearts voluntarily consecrated to the Lord in personal “faith, hope, and love.” Structured regimentation through psychological pressure and manipulation, however, is a deadly poison emanating from human, spiritual ambition and religious quackery. The Ephesian book-burners (Acts 19:18-20) learned this when they opened their hearts to the teaching of the Spirit-filled apostle of the Lord. Do we really need to be reminded of the “Jonestown Massacre” or be pointed to the recent revelations in Reader’s Digest (May 1980 and September 1981) concerning so-called “Scientology”? The path of religious history is literally strewn with the wrecks of the lives of millions who were not able to distinguish between “total commitment” as taught in the New Testament and cultic demagoguery as advocated and practiced by designing men. Shall we be totally deaf to the lessons of history?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, pp. 65, 76
February 4, 1982