Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

On an almost daily basis the Northside Church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas, where I preach, receives advertisements from various individuals, churches and organizations appealing for money. Except for requests for support from faithful evangelists, this material quickly reaches “file 13.” But an advertisement recently came to the church that caused me to do a “double-take.”

I was startled to find that the Church of Christ now has its own, full-fledged, undisguised missionary society just like the Christian Church. The appeal was from the World Christian Broadcasting Corporation, which came into being in Abilene, Texas in 1976. “This non-profit organization is under the leadership of a Board of Directors.” “The President is Chief Executive officer” of the corporation. He is Dr. Robert E. Scott of Abilene, Texas. The chief objective of this organization is “to provide facilities and services by which the message of Christ can be shared with people in all parts of the world.” This corporation is appealing for individual Christians to send money and for churches to take a special collection “for a one time contribution” (enclosed article by Reuel Lemmons from Firm Foundation, October 13, 1981). Also enclosed was a form addressed to the “Northside Church of Christ” which included the following alternatives on its checklist: “Here’s our special gift to help WCBC” and “We plan a special contribution (date).”

The conclusion is inescapable. Brethren, this is a missionary society, pure and simple, precisely parallel to the American Christian Missionary Society formed in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1849, which served as the original and primary wedge between the Church of Christ and the Christian Church.

The monetary appeal of WCBC, though of enormous importance, should not be surprising. This corporation in Abilene is nothing more than the legitimate offspring of the Herald of Truth, also located in Abilene, which has divided churches of Christ for a generation.

For years proponents of the Herald of Truth have denied the obvious parallels between that sponsoring church arrangement and the missionary society. Although they have blinded themselves to the parallels, they have always used the same defenses that were used for the missionary society by Christian Church preachers.

Now a new generation has arisen. Thirty years of apostasy has borne fruit. The false arguments in support of the Herald of Truth have been accepted by those who have not been told what is wrong with the missionary society. The results? Now, a generation later, the Church of Christ does indeed have its own missionary society.

In defense of the missionary society, brethren argued the need for the preaching of the gospel to the lost (which none deny and which faithful churches do proportionately more of than institutional churches, that it was merely an “expedient” means for churches to cooperate and that something needed to be done on a larger scale than one congregation could accomplish (cf. Earl I. West, The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. I, ch. 9). The same defenses have consistently been used for Herald of Truth. Not surprisingly, these are precisely the arguments used by Reuel Lemmons in his futile attempt to uphold WCBC. He did not bother to cite even so much as one Bible verse to prove the organization to be scriptural.

And why shouldn’t institutional churches of Christ have a missionary society? For a generation they have had such sponsoring church organizations as Herald of Truth and World Radio, which were nothing but missionary societies under elderships. For over a generation they have supported human organizations under boards of directors to relieve the needy. Recently they have begun sending support to colleges under boards of directors to do the work of edification. Why shouldn’t they also put their evangelistic society under a board of directors rather than an eldership? Either way it is a corruption of the organization of the church, a violation of the autonomy of local churches, centralization of churches and a vain attempt to organize the universal church on this earth.

Just as missionary society advocates of the nineteenth century feebly tried to avoid the stigma of destruction of local church autonomy by claiming they could not dictate to the churches, even so WCBC vainly attempts to dodge the stigma of being a missionary society by claiming, “Remember, we’re not seeking funds from the church treasury.” Such an hypocritical, shallow, transparent disguise! In the same letter they request: “Use the enclosed Reply Form and envelope to tell us if your congregation will help.” Reuel Lemmons explains they are looking for a “special collection” from the churches on “a one time” basis.

If the church, under the oversight of its elders, takes a special contribution from its members, and the elders write a check for that sum to do a work for the congregation, is that not the church at work? Pray tell how does that differ from taking it out of the treasury? Does this mean churches will never hear from them again for more money? If you believe that, let me talk to you about buying the Brooklyn Bridge.

The list of brethren endorsing WCBC is impressive. It includes such well known preachers as Jimmy Allen of Harding University, Batsell Barrett Baxter of David Lipscomb College and Herald of Truth and Jimmie Lovell of Action Magazine, who can be counted on to endorse practically any new apostasy among the brethren.

More significantly, the list includes Ira North, editor of Gospel Advocate, and Reuel Lemmons, editor of Firm Foundation. Beginning in 1855 under Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb and later under David Lipscomb and his editor heirs, the Gospel Advocate adamantly and stridently opposed the American Christian Missionary Society. From 1885 under Austin McGary and on, the Firm Foundation did the same. Will these brethren yet deny they have changed?

Noticeably absent from the roll of supporters was Guy N. Woods, editor of Gospel Advocate. Brother Woods, could we hear from you? Do you approve this new Church of Christ missionary society? If so, what will you say about the one started in 1849? If not, how will you defend church support of the orphanages and Herald of Truth? Will you stay with Ira North and the Gospel Advocate, which uphold WCBC?

For a generation brethren in institutional churches who know their practices are wrong have been claiming, “If they bring in such-and-such, I’ll leave.” Dear brethren, how much farther must they go? They have church recreation, church socials, church support of human organizations, universal benevolence, centralization of churches and now a missionary society. What difference does it make whether or not these churches bring in the organ? They are already apostate. One more bullet will not make a man who has been shot to death any more dead.

Brethren, leave those dead churches now, or simply admit you are as spiritually dead as they are.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:17, 18).

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, pp. 71-72
February 4, 1982

By Jimmy Tuten

1n another periodical an attempt is made by a contributor to align me with brother Yater Tant’s soft-pedaling and tip-toeing on the Crossroads matter. I have been charged with giving “glowing reports” about Crossroadism and lending support to insidious error gone to seed in liberalism. So that there will be no misunderstanding as to where I stand, regardless of how the material came across to you in Truth Magazine (Vol. 24, Aug. 14, 21, 28 and October 9), grant me the. liberty of making the following statements:

(1) Tant and Tuten are poles apart on Crossroads. There are some things we do agree on (I guess we still do) regarding this cultic philosophy, i.e., total commitment of each child of God, etc. But the Crossroads “Methodology” and extreme liberalism (or, liberalism, period), I do not endorse. For some time brother Tant and I were in direct communication on this matter and I thought at that time (a couple of years ago) that brother Tant, like myself, was simply being cautious in the matter in view of its explosiveness and our lack of sufficient evidence to draw proper conclusions. I was, perhaps, neglectful in not following my initial article with a later article to document the cultic tendencies of Crossroads which became increasingly obvious to me. I confronted brother Tant at the Florida College Lectures two years ago and asked him point blank, “Will you tell us what, if anything, you disapprove of about Crossroads?” I am still waiting! I endorse unequivocally. Ron Halbrook’s attempt to draw Tant out of this (Guardian of Truth, Vol. 25, No. 49). His failure (i.e., Tant’s) to speak out is the thing that prompted me to increase my investigation and make further assessments. Where I stand, and have stood all along, but now with more resolve, is stated below. But first:

(2) Whatever I wrote and said in Truth Magazine was not intended to be a glowing report or endorsement of Crossroads. I said then and I say now (Truth Magazine, Oct. 9, 1980), “any attempt on our part to be fair in our criticisms and denunciations of the ‘Crossroads Philosophy’ is not to be understood as an endorsement of, her” (emphasis mine, jt). While it is true that some misunderstood my position, i.e., an attempt at clarification in the midst of grandiose explosiveness that makes it difficult during the heat to make proper assessment, most saw what my goal was and so stated (letters in my file verify this). Too, another brother who lived in Gainesville during the entire development wrote on the matter (Truth Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 49-50) and reechoed my sentiments. Neither one of us endorse the Crossroads philosophy.

(3) My position on Crossroads is this: I do not view her a cult in the vernacular of “Jim Jones Cultism,” but she is cultic. The increased volume of information about Crossroads that has continued to cross my desk since I wrote those first articles causes me to flatly and undeniably say, Now, Crossroads is cultic! She is more than that, she is liberalism gone to seed! If you ask me point blank, “Brother Tuten, is Crossroads a cult, or is she not?” I would have to respond in this either or proposition with a “yes, she is a cult.”

An Appeal

If this statement and clarification is not clear enough, tell me how I could say more clearly, “I am opposed to Crossroadism.” Please allow me the same liberties in expression as you want for yourself. I like to make my own butter though I milk a lot of cows! I am not a “bandwagon” man. I’m too busy looking at the direction they are taking and keep missing them. I had rather walk “with my God” anyway. Any charge that Tant and Tuten are taking the same position on Crossroads is way off base! I have told you where I stand, if you did not understand before. Let’s work together and get brother Tant to tell us exactly where he now stands. If he has been keeping up with what has been happening on this matter, surely he can make proper assessment by now. Brother Tant, you have meant so much to me in the past. I shall never forget that it was you as editor of the Gospel Guardian who first encouraged me to write. Your writing has guided me in the formative years after my “new birth” and helped me see the light of day of institutionalism. Will you now join me in exposing and condemning the errors of Crossroadism? If not, why not? I am tired of the battle too, but the bugle continues to sound! “Soldiers of Christ arise . . .!” Amen.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, p. 70
February 4, 1982

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