Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

The January 17, 1978, issue of the Firm Foundation contains a remarkably frank interview with Brother Hugo McCord of Oklahoma Christian College. When asked his opinion of the future of the church, Brother McCord said that there is a likely possibility that the church will “give up Bible authority, become anti-nothing, and apostatize into a denomination among denominations.” His reason for believing this is that “thorough Bible knowledge is largely non-existent in today’s church, and the pulpit man sought by most elderships is not a teacher but a promoter.” When asked his opinion as to the future of the “antis,” Brother McCord said that “most of them will continue unswervingly in their doctrine and practice regardless of any consequences.”

Here is a brother who regards the “liberals” as right and the “antis” as wrong. As much as any man in the church, he is in a position to know what is going on in the brotherhood at present, and to be aware of trends. He does not desire that the church become a denomination, yet he is strangely apathetic toward that possibility. He does not appear to be alarmed or indignant over the fact that “Bible knowledge is largely non-existent” among his brethren. This deplorable situation does not exist among the “antis,” as Brother McCord would probably admit. Among the brethren who oppose institutionalism and modern trends, preachers are still chosen for their knowledge of the Bible and their ability to teach. As a result, he predicts that these brethren will “continue unswervingly in their doctrine and practice.”

Brother McCord and other honest and intelligent men among his associates can see an apostasy in the making and they do not have confidence in their ability to stop it. They view us as wrong because we will not allow churches to contribute to human institutions, but they admit that we will otherwise continue to teach the same doctrine that we always have, and that we are not in danger of a wholesale apostasy. But the “liberals” admittedly are in such danger. Doesn’t this tell us something about the nature of their teaching and practice? If these brethren were following God’s pattern in the work and worship of the church, why would “Bible knowledge” be “largely non-existent” among them? Why would there be such a danger of radical apostasy among them?

If I may be permitted to use a personal reference by way of illustration, I was in high school at the time of the great debate over institutionalism. My own family and nearly all the brethren I knew personally decided to go along with church support of institutions and the rest of the institutional package. But I was able to obtain copies of gospel papers and written debates which presented both sides of the issues. This left me in a state of confusion for some time. Brethren with whom I discussed the matter could not give me solid scriptural arguments in support of the innovations. Yet the arguments over the orphan homes and the Herald of Truth were presented in such a complex manner that I hesitated to take a stand immediately. Without defending the institutions (which I could not do), I did not wish to break fellowship with good brethren who believed exactly as I did in other matters, but failed to understand why the institutions were wrong. In the small town of DeQueen, Arkansas, where I lived at the time, there was no “liberal spirit” and no mad rush to discard scriptural authority. It was simply a matter of disagreement on two or three specific issues.

Then I had the good fortune to attend Harding College. Without that experience I might never have realized that there was any real apostasy in progress. Looking back on that period, I find it hard to understand why any young Christian with a solid background in the scriptures and in church history could fail to see that there was something wrong at Harding. I do not speak of the college alone, but of the cross section of the brotherhood represented by the student body, and of the two large churches in Searcy where most of the students and faculty members worshiped. I learned that the problem was of afar more serious and portentous nature than the quibble about Bole’s Orphan Home being a divine institution. I was faced with a totally different concept of the church, of the restoration movement, and of scriptural authority. This new concept did not measure up to the scriptures, and it bore the unmistakable odor of denominational philosophy.

What amazed me most was the general reaction of the students to false doctrine. They seemed to have “their feet firmly planted in the air,” and to be willing, almost eager, to be carried about with every wind of doctrine. When a Christmas sermon was preached in the College Church and the preacher’s text was something Pat Boone had written and a choir sang Christmas carols, I was the only one to object. When some brother from overseas preached one Sunday night, shouting for the Holy Spirit to come down into the hearts of his listeners and succeeded in turning the service into a Pentecostal revival, and about a quarter of the audience went forward, no one protested but me. I was asked by fellow students, “How do you know that we have all the truth?” But there was no diligent effort to study and find out just what the scriptures did have to say about these and other questions, and to find out who did have the truth. The idea seemed to be that no one had the truth, that no one ever would have it, and that truth was relative. Having been raised to be honest, if I had accepted that philosophy I would have had to have apologized to all my denominational friends for having judged them to be in error.

At Harding I was able to catch a glimpse of the “mainstream” church of the future; I did not like what I saw. I learned that the arguments used to justify church contributions to orphanages could and would be used to justify church-supported colleges, hospitals, etc. I began to realize that the abandonment of scriptural authority on a few specific issues was the missing nail – that loosened the shoe – that crippled the horse – that threw the rider. I saw that the apostasy had already progressed so far at that time (1960-62) that it was impossible to stop it or even slow it down. I saw that faithful Christians, who did not want to be sucked into the Maelstrom, must heed the warning to “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.”

I recently had the opportunity to visit the old meeting house at Cane Ridge in Kentucky where Barton W. Stone and others made the decision to drop human creeds and to preach only the word of God. The property is now in the hands of the Disciples of Christ denomination. I was moved to stand in the pulpit and sing a verse from the old hymn, “How Firm a Foundation.” I realized that the brethren who now own the property, and who claim to be the spiritual descendants of Stone and the restorationists, have departed from the firm foundation of Christ and the Apostles, and are now floundering in the quicksand of human opinion. The Disciples of Christ denomination is one of the most liberal and modernistic religious groups in America. The division which led to the founding of this denomination was due to disagreement over two specific issues: the missionary society and instrumental music in worship. Those who did not think that they needed Bible authority for these innovations have now rejected such authority completely, and have even rejected the verbal inspiration of the scriptures. The lesson of history must not be ignored.

Today a number of young preachers have been led astray by the “unity in diversity” movement. Sometimes we hear an argument made on consequences: that refusal to fellowship all baptized believers will only result in further fragmentation of the church and will prevent it from carrying out its great mission to save the lost. Those who make the argument do not consider how their practice would have affected the course of history if they had lived in the late 1800’s. Suppose no one had taken a firm stand against that apostasy. Suppose Daniel Sommer and those brethren at Sand Creek had not declared that they could “not tolerate” such things as church festivals, the choir system, the missionary society, and the pastor system. Suppose brethren had not stood firm against the introduction of the instrument. Would there be more or fewer faithful churches in existence today?

There were a few brethren such as J.W. McGarvey and Moses E. Lard who tried to take a middle course. They did not want to use the instrument, but they did not want to make it a test of fellowship. Some of them rejected the instrument, but not the missionary society. They wanted to maintain fellowship with all segments of the restoration movement. Their influence went with the digressives. McGarvey’s funeral was held in a digressive church, and the instrument was used. By maintaining fellowship with the digressives these men were not able to slow down or stop the apostasy. If Daniel Sommer, Jacob Creath, Jr., David Lipscomb and the other strong “antis” of their day had followd the same path, many faithful churches of today would be a part of the Disciples of Christ denomination.

We must conclude that doctrinal apostasy is a terminal disease. If it is not totally removed from the body, it will rapidly spread and contaminate all the parts, until the last breath of spiritual life is extinguished and the candlestick is removed from its place. The present apostasy is moving much faster than the apostasy of the last century. Those who live in small towns and rural areas are often unaware of its extent. In addition to the original innovations we see church recreation, including kitchens and fellowship halls in meeting houses, church parties, church ball teams, church bowling leagues, church Boy Scout teams, church “family life centers,” church hobby shops, church hayrides, even church mixed swimming parties. We see the puppet ministry, worldly entertainers used to attract young people, the bus ministry with reward motivation, and junior churches. We see church kindergartens, church elementary schools, church academies, church colleges, church hospitals, church psychiatric clinics, church counseling services, and church soup kitchens. We see churches participating in Easter, Good Friday, and Christmas services with sectarians, and gospel preachers taking part in denominational seminars, worshiping and preaching in denominations, and joining ministerial alliances. We see churches sponsoring area wide or national programs with denominational names such as workshops, clinics, and retreats; churches with unscriptural officers such as youth ministers, educational directors, and recreational directors. We see services with dim lights, hand holding, cross burning, mixed-sex chain prayers, etc. We see loosened moral standards including toleration of immodest clothing, mixed swimming, women dressing like men and men wearing their hair like women, and churches taking in adulterers and other impenitent sinners who have been withdrawn from. We see the teaching of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, modern miracles, etc. With all of this activity there is apparently little time for old-time Bible teaching and so “thorough Bible knowledge is largely non-existent.”

Because all of these things are not going on at the same time in the same church some may think that the picture is overdrawn. But the point is that if one “liberal” church is not engaged in all these things, it is still in full fellowship with many brethren and churches which are doing them. Warnings are heard on every hand, but none of these brethren, however much they may oppose church colleges or anything else, are taking a firm stand and refusing to fellowship error. That is what makes the difference between a “conservative liberal” and an “anti”. These brethren know that the left wing is in firm control of their papers, their colleges, and their larger congregations. To oppose such entrenched power will mean ostracism and isolation. That is why Brother McCord knows that his brethren are likely to “apostatize into a denomination.” Because we have taken a stand, at great cost and sacrifice, is why Brother McCord knows that we “will continue unswervingly in” our “doctrine and practice.” Thanks for the compliment, Brother McCord.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, pp. 790-791
December 11, 1980

By Mike Willis

Through the years, denominationalism has changed. The attitudes of denominationalists which demonstrated themselves on the American frontier and which the Campbells confronted was one of bitter division. Each Protestant denomination was at war with Roman Catholicism and with every other Protestant denomination. Even within their own ranks, Protestant denominations fought bitterly, refusing to serve the Lord’s Supper to those from whom they were divided.

This picture does not describe the mainstream of twentieth century Protestant denominationalism. Today mainstream denominationalism is much more ecumenical. These modern denominations have accepted a policy of peaceful co-existence, if not actively working to effect some kind of merger of their respective sects. The historical heritage of each denomination might be considered as something of which a given group of people may be proud but it is seldom understood in the sense of being the only way to salvation.

Unfortunately, some gospel preachers are still fighting the denominationalism which existed several decades ago without taking note of so-called modern trends. We are generally very familiar with the creeds of denominationalism; in many cases, we know the creeds of a given church better than most of the members and some of the preachers of that church. However, modern denominationals generally could care less what their creeds say, for religion has little to do with doctrinal belief.

This change is not all that recent. In 1951, Yater Tant described denominationalism of his day as follows:

. . .Almost nobody cares anything at all about denominational lines, denominational doctrines, denominational shibboleths. Even the preachers themselves, committed to an upholding of the denominational peculiarities, are, for the most part, either uninformed or indifferent about much of their traditional teaching. On the contrary, the unforgivable heresy now is to do or teach anything that is distinctive. The whole emphasis in current denominational thought is on those broad general principles and ideals which nobody can question; preachers preach platitudes that even the Jew and the Mohammedan would sanction (“Protestant Preachers and Proselytism,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. II, No. 43, p. 4).

This is a rather accurate description of much of modern denominationalism. I am afraid that some of our preachers have not taken note of the change in position of modern denominationalism; some of us are still fighting the old form of denominationalism, which few people believe any longer. Perhaps this is because some of us are not informing ourselves about denominationalism or because we find it easier to preach an old sermon outline than to prepare one which deals with the denominational departures of our day. However, the departures of modern denominationalism need to receive more attention in our pulpits.

The Stance Of Modern Denominationalism

1. Ecumenism. One of the major thrusts of modern denominationalism has been the ecumenical movement. The desire for religious unity is certainly to be commended. However, the basis for unity which has been followed by the modern ecumenical movement is not the same as the basis for unity described in the Bible. The ecumenical movement seems to approach religion by reducing it to its lowest common denominator. When the lowest common denominator is found, unity can be had with everyone who has that common denominator.

The ecumenical movement has such a broad thrust that it is willing to consider unity with non-Christian religions. By extending overtures of unity to pagan religions, the ecumenical movement has reduced religion to any groping by man to have contact with something or someone called God or god.

Even among more conservative groups of denominationalism, the unity movement is being felt. Fundamentalist groups have a good rapport with each other. There is no present attempt to merge all of the Fundamentalist groups into one large denomination, as is presently being attempted by modernist groups seeking to form the Church of Christ Uniting; however, even the Fundamentalist groups, with few exceptions, have stopped fighting with each other. They have apparently agreed to recognize that each group can go to heaven in its respective way.

2. Gospel-doctrine. The theological justification for this approach to unity is based on some supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine. There is supposed to be a core group of beliefs which all men hold in common which all must accept; the rest of the Bible is apparently not revealed as clearly as this core gospel, inasmuch as denominationalism holds that doctrinal sections will never be agreed upon. Hence, doctrinal differences can and should be tolerated so long as one accepts the basic gospel.

The problem with this position, aside from the fact that it is not revealed in the Scriptures, is that there is no possible way of distinguishing the gospel from the doctrine. No one has given the final or absolute criteria by which one determines which part of the Scriptures is to be labeled as doctrine, allowing for differences in belief, and what part of the Scriptures is to be labeled gospel, demanding doctrinal uniformity. The result has been that the more liberal group simply applies the same rules to all of the Bible as the more conservative groups apply to part of the Bible. The liberal groups do not demand doctrinal agreement on the virgin birth, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the miracles of Christ, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the nature of God, and the person of God. One can believe just about anything and maintain fellowship with the liberal groups of denominationalism. The more conservative groups, however, have chosen to abide in their inconsistency, demanding unity in gospel (whatever that might be) and diversity in doctrine.

3. Salvation For Sincere Men. Modern denominationalism also accepts the idea that so long as a man is good, honest, and sincere, he can be saved regardless of what he might choose to believe. Hence, modern denominationalism is fully prepared to admit that a person can be a member of any denomination or no denomination and go to heaven. The more liberal, modernist denominations extend this to include pagan religions. Their ideas of subjective truth (“if you think it is true, it is true for you”) allow every man to believe whatever he chooses and every man be right, despite the fact that the respective beliefs of several men conflict with each other.

This results in faith having validity not on the basis of the contents of what is believed but on the basis of believing. There is no virtue in the act of believing; what is important is what is believed. However, if one takes the subjective approach to truth and the position that “it doesn’t make any difference what a man believes, just so he is honest in it,” the result is the annihilation of the Christian faith. If it does not matter what a man believes, then it would not and could not matter whether he believes at all or not. It would not matter whether he believed in the virgin birth of Christ, if he were honest in rejecting it. It would not matter whether he believed in the resurrection, or even in the divinity of Christ if he were completely honest in rejecting such items. He could reject the transfiguration, the miracles, the crucifixion, and even the very existence of Christ, if he were sincere and honest in such rejections, and still be saved.

This concept of modern denominationalism is contrary to the revelation of the gospel which demands that one believe the truth in order to be saved (Jn. 8:32). There is no salvation available to those who reject the gospel (Mk. 16:16), regardless of how honest and sincere they might be (Jn. 14:6).

4. Condemn no one. Another tenet of modern denominationalism, though not generally expressed, seems to be that just about anything can be accepted, except a position which condemns the religion of another man. The denominationals can fellowship each other, despite the glaring conflicts in their doctrines. The one thing that they cannot accept is the simple gospel preacher who preaches the unique and distinctive message of the gospel. The reason for this is that the gospel preacher is actively seeking to convert their members from denominationalism to Christ; hence, they must unite to destroy his influence.

The end result of this position is presently becoming rather obnoxious to some Fundamentalist groups. They are quite concerned with the appointment of homosexuals and women as clergy persons. They are- witnessing the destruction of their faith by the appointment of infidels to positions of authority and power. Some of them are already ready to fight modernism’s application of the principles which they themselves have adopted!

Application For Us

The failure of some among us to preach on the themes of modern denominationalism, choosing instead to preach against the divisive denominationalism of a bygone era, is manifesting itself today in the grace-unity movement. If you will notice the main tenets of twentieth century, Protestant denominationalism, you will observe that the main tenets of the grace-unity movement which we are presently opposing are basically identical with those of modern denominationalism. Compare these following tenets with those of modern denominationalism mentioned above:

1. Ecumenism. It is no accident that what we are dealing with is a unity movement. That is the main thrust of modern denominationalism; the main difference is that the restoration movement is limited to a group described as the “heirs of the restoration movement.”

2. Gospel-doctrine. Anyone who has read very much written by the grace-unity brethren recognizes that the gospel-doctrine distinction is the basis for their being able to extend fellowship to those involved in doctrinal apostasies.

3. Salvation For Sincere Men. About every writer of the grace-unity movement has had something to say about the grace of God taking care of the sins of ignorance and the weaknesses of the flesh before and without repentance. Some provide for this through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ and others through some system of automatic grace.

4. Condemn no one. Anyone vaguely familiar with the writings of Ketcherside and Garrett will testify that the thrust of their material is aimed, not toward those who have perverted the worship, mission, and organization of the church, but toward those who have opposed these perversions. Any perversion can be tolerated. But, the faithful gospel preacher who calls for repentance cannot be tolerated.

Our failure to keep abreast with the changes of Protestant denominationalism and to preach concerning the main tenets of denominationalism, emphasizing the truth of God’s word and exposing the errors of denominationalism, is a contributing factor to what successes the grace-unity movement has had among us. The solution appears to me to be to preach specific lessons on some of the very topics listed above, showing wherein these depart from the revelation of God’s word.

Conclusion

We must continue to call for unity. However, the form of unity which we need to preach is not some organizational merger of existing denominations or some form of unity-in-diversity which simply ignores the major doctrinal differences among us. Rather, we should preach the unity based on the revelation of God’s word. To achieve that unity, all denominational organizations, names, doctrines, creeds, and distinctive features must be abandoned. Every member of each denomination must become simply a Christian, having been buried through baptism into Christ (Rom. 6:4). He must be willing to work, worship and live as an humble member of the New Testament church. When and if that spirit is present, then unity is not only possible, it will be inevitable.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, pp. 787-789
December 11, 1980

By Stephen P. Willis

How easy we do forget. Many times in life we find people coming to our aid, assisting us in situations in which we would have otherwise been helpless. But how soon, we forget these people. Peter said that unless Christians, were adding on their part diligence, moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love they were forgetting God who aided them in the remission of sins: “For he who lacks these qualities is blind or shortsighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9). I would venture to say that we find ourselves forgetting this aid more often than we might think. Consider the following instances.

Attendance. Do you find yourself getting the kids ready to go to midweek worship? Or, do you manage to make it back to the Sunday evening worship service? Or, what about Sunday morning Bible Study – do you plan to be in attendance? I wonder why so many find other things to do instead of worshiping God. Consider your last week: did you make these plans, or did you forget?

Giving. We must all face up to the fact that our physical blessings are bestowed upon us by God. He desires that we give a portion of that which we earn so that the gospel may be spread and needy saints may be attended to. When it comes to returning a portion to the Lord, do you do it grudgingly? Or do you grab whatever amount of “small change” is in your pocket or purse? Did you remember who gave you those blessings, or did you forget?

Spiritual Worship. All of the acts of worship are to be carried out in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24). Do you think on spiritual things while engaging in singing, prayer, the Lord’s Supper and while listening to teaching from God’s word, or do you give a sigh and wish that you could “get out of here early today”? Do you give consideration to the things that you should or do you have a mere outward appearance of worshiping? The last time you worshiped, was it in spirit and in truth, or did you forget?

Visiting. How did you become a Christian? Chances are that you were taught by someone’s coming and visiting you! Were you ever sick and wished that others would come and see how you were doing, or that they might help you meet some needs that you could not fill while you were sick? Was merely a phone call a comfort to you? During your last week in regard to your visiting, did you remember to do what you wished others would do for you, or did you forget?

Bible Study. If a foreign preacher came through your city, could he say that the saints there were more noble than the last town he had visited because they searched the scriptures daily? Do you read or meditate on the Bible daily? Speaking of the man favored (blessed) by God, the Psalmist said, “But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night” (1:2). If you were blessed according to your Bible study, how blessed would you be? Did you study your Bible last week, or did you forget?

What if Jesus and the Heavenly Father were as forgetful as we? We often think of Jesus as one born with a mission: the saving of mankind. What if He forgot His mission? What if He became as unsatisfied with His mission as we do ours? Or consider God: if after we have obeyed the gospel and lived our lives. to His glory, He were to forget to read our names out of the Book of Life, we would not think that too fair. We might cry out, “But, Lord, you forgot to read my name!” What would be our feelings if He replied, “Sorry, I just forgot.” The truth of the matter is that Jesus did not forget His mission: mankind has a hope of salvation. And, God will not forget to read our names out of the Book of Life – if our names are recorded there. God will not hesitate to punish those deserving punishment either.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 786
December 11, 1980

By James L. Yopp

The Crossroads church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida is one of the fastest growing congregations in the United States. They baptize over 200 people per year. Their attendance is in excess of 1000. Their budget exceeds $9,500 per Sunday. They are effectively activating almost every member of the local church. In many ways, they excell more than any church of Christ in the recent past.

For all of their growth, enthusiasm, and dedication, heated opposition has come from the other churches of Christ, especially among those who are sympathetic to the Gospel Advocate and Contending For the Faith. Others, as Fanning Yater Tant, having observed the phenomenal growth, became interested in the methods they used and whether these methods could be adopted for use by conservative churches. (In all fairness, brother Tant’s first visit to Crossroads earlier this year had somewhat of an adverse affect upon Northeast in Gainesville. However, that seems to have disappeared.).

The elders at Crossroads are very cordial men, and this writer, in company with Yater Tant and one of the other Northeast elders, had a very congenial discussion with the local preacher, Chuck Lucas, and the two elders, Rogers Bartley and Richard Whitehead. They seemed willing to try to answer any question that was put to them. They repeatedly offered to discuss their work and position with others.

The growing influence of the Crossroads’ church (through various enterprises, to be discussed later) has been felt throughout the nation. Many elderships come to Gainesville to study the methodologies followed in their work. They offer “seminars” in which people from everywhere are encouraged to come and be taught (indoctrinated?). Reactionaries to Crossroads would say they are trying to sell their philosophy. Some conservatives would label their activities foolishness. Still others would admire their fidelity. So, what is it with Crossroads? Philosophy, foolishness, or fidelity?

There are many commendable things that can be said of those who make up the Crossroads’ leadership and membership. They seem to be extremely effective in teaching (perhaps part of this is because of the number of contacts made – a lesson for us?). Their zeal, even if it be like those of Romans 10, is indeed evident. There is a devotion to the work within the people at Crossroads that cannot but be admired. There is a strong sense of unity that exists among the membership. The outward manifestations of love are clearly seen. They demonstrate a deep concern for one another and for the unfortunate, including the aged and widows. One has to admire their courage to stand against the secular press and other criticisms that have been made of them and their work. My one regret is their hesitancy to face issues of concern to conservative-minded brethren.

It is fitting also to observe at this point that part of the criticisms against Crossroads are for practices they deny and disclaim any responsibility for occurring. It is regrettable that any group of brethren would launch an attack against a congregation without being able to prove what they say. This writer readily admits that some things which have been said about Crossroads are not true. That does not remove the fact that some of the members will do (and have done) things which are not approved by the elders. As is true in many churches, there is sometimes a difference in what is taught by the leaders and what is practiced by the members. This article will deal only with those teachings and practices of the elders and preacher, and those experiences with Crossroads’ members where proof of occurrence can be given. Even Lucas has said, “Abuses and misrepresentations can occur in any program or teaching.” Hence, certain practices and positions charged to Crossroads are not sanctioned by the Crossroads’ elders and/or preacher.

The Crossroads’ influence has been most strongly felt in communities where colleges and universities are located. The activities and approaches used by the Gainesville church appeal strongly to college-age people and their greatest success in conversions comes from that age group. While intellectuals have tried to explain this in terms of psychological needs felt among these young people, I would explain it in terms of hard work. Any group, full of zeal and determination, with sufficient sweat, can (and will) grow (brethren – there is another lesson here).

Cult?

Since college communities are often the targets of various cults, the success of Crossroads has attracted the secular press (an undependable source of information) and caused much attention to be drawn to Crossroads not only in Gainesville, but in places such as Orlando and St. Petersburg. From this mostly adverse publicity and with the aid of liberal religious leaders, Crossroads has been labeled a “cult.” Is it or is it not? In the eyes of the world, it probably is. But, then, in the eyes of the world, so would any congregation of God’s people be so identified. I have often stated that if the world knew truly what the Bible teaches, they would like Christians less.

There is a certain amount of jealousy toward Crossroads from the denominational preachers of the area. This is evident from what they have said and what they have done, to discredit Crossroads. Anyone who has been able to make inroads into their memberships as much as Crossroads has, would probably incur their wrath as well. But, one wonders if this may not be some of the problem stemming from the opposition of the Gospel Advocate and Contending For the Faith. Crossroads has effectively utilized in their programs what the liberal-minded churches have been doing for years and she has done it so well that a little(?) jealousy may be behind part of the opposition.

But back to the question: Is Crossroads a cult? To state that Crossroads is a cult, in the same sense that the “Moonies” constitute a cult is a misnomer. This is not to say that at times certain cultic characteristics do not surface among the members. For instance, in working with a young lady who was involved at Crossroads, she had to slip away to one of the Northeast members’ homes to talk with us. All of the time she was present, she expressed fear they would find out and continually pressure her with admonitions, rebukes, etc. Additionally, when trying to get in touch with the woman, her roommates (Crossroads’ members) would attempt to interrogate me before telling me the lady was not at homy (I do not know whether she was or not). This type of protectionism and isolationism has added some fuel to the charge, for it does contribute to destroying the individual nature of Christ’s disciple.

Crossroads does not only incur the wrath of certain churches and papers in other parts of the country, but the liberal-minded churches in Gainesville shun her. The attitude that is shown by members at Crossroads contributes, to some degree, to that reaction. One student wrote to me, “I am very involved in another church of Christ in Gainesville and am not interested in any other one.” Many of these young people have closed their minds and refuse to study (or investigate) the differences in Crossroads and others. I have more than 50 letters from students who wanted their names removed from our mailing list and most of them contained statements similar to the one quoted above.

The intensity that as built around Crossroads could also be interpreted by some as being characteristic of a cult.

I am doing great spiritually, by the way I am attending a church of Christ here in Gainesville that has been able to meet all of my physical, spiritual and other needs.

While faithful saints know the foolishness of this claim, it does illustrate why some feel it is cultic in nature, even though this writer does not, at this point, believe such.

What Some Object To

Crossroads has made different attempts to defend her teachings and practices. These have included use of “seminars,” articles in various national publications, visits by different brethren from throughout the nation to Crossroads, and the local preacher wrote a series of articles in the local bulletin. The attitude was expressed by Lucas in these words,

We, of course, stand ready to defend from the scriptures what we DO believe and practice and are always open to change if shown wrong in any point (At the Crossroads, June 16, 1978).

Unfortunately, many of the articles written by Lucas in defense of Crossroads never get down to the specifics. They especially do not defend the very teachings and practices to which conservative-minded brethren object.

In spite of the protectionism, the harassment methods with which they are charged, and the isolationism being promoted, what is it, specifically, that Crossroads is doing that is different from other churches of Christ and to which many liberal minded brethren object?

1. Much has been said about the “total commitment” advocated by the leaders at Crossroads. In the minds of some, this involves becoming so involved in the local program that people neglect their families, their work, and their civic duties. Among students, different ones charge that grades fall and academic accomplishments suffer (I have a copy of a letter from a mother claiming this.). I have worked with some who were so affected by Crossroads membership. However, the elders do not approve’of any such abuse. Lucas has defined “total commitment” in this manner:

Jesus is not requiring that we “sell all our possessions,” rather that we totally surrender to him everything that we are and everything that we have – our time, our talents, our will, our bodies, our possessions. Everything is to be at his disposal and to be used for his glory. That’s total commitment! (At the Crossroads. May 6, 1979).

One could agree that total commitment to Christ is right, but total commitment to Crossroads (out of love for a group and a work) is wrong. Some experiences of this writer point more toward commitment to Crossroads rather than Christ.

2. Articles that appear in Crossroads’ publications continually advocate what they call “one another” Christianity. Great stress is placed upon all of the passages in the Bible where such an expression occurs. While no Christian would deny the necessity of being concerned for one another, to build a concept with a sectarian flavor from any scriptural principle is an abuse of the word of God. There would be no limit to the ideas that could be promoted. Why not have “caring” Christianity, or “loving” Christianity, or “concern” Christianity, or “giving” Christianity, ad infinitum? A person could take any word, or any expression, that describes the life, faith, or work of a disciple and build a sectarian concept around the idea. Being a Christian embodies all that pleases God without having to promote a particular item or practice.

3. “Soul talks” have been another target of those who criticize Crossroads. Certain ones may envision “hand holding,” “candle burning,” and “spirit moving” when hearing the term. While there may have been abuses in soul talks, they are defined as “small group evangelistic Bible studies,” “discussions about the soul,” “Bible study groups hosted by committed Christians,” “Bible studies led and directed by competent Christian teachers” (At the Crossroads, October 14, 1979). While some may think (this writer; included) the description “soul talks” somewhat questionable, they are nothing less or more than Bible studies. Do we not all need to talk more about the soul?

4. “Prayer partners” constitute another area where much objection has been made. Lucas defines the concept in this way.

We must find ways to implement these “one another” commands. The “prayer partner” concept is one way to do so. In our ministry we have found that having an entire membership involved in “prayer partner” relationships has strengthened us immeasurably as individuals and as a congregation. It has enabled us to meet one another’s needs and to assure that every member of the body is being ministered to. The “prayer partner” arrangement has no connotations of “superiority” or “inferiority,” but the emphasis is on mutual ministry to “one another.” Some have described it as a “spiritual buddy system” – and we do “need one another” (I Corinthians 12:21). (At the Crossroads, October 21, 1979).

When this concept is carried into practice, prayer partners get together “on a regular basis each week.” Shortcomings, failures, weaknesses, and sins are discussed (and confessed) to this prayer partner. At times, the most intimate transgressions and feelings are bared to the “partner.” What is wrong with such a practice?

(1) There is little difference in this and having a priest to which one would go to “purge” his soul of his sins. Much emphasis is placed on guilt in Crossroads’ writings, and this is supposed to be one way of freeing people of guilt. Such a practice is absolutely without any New Testament authority whatsoever.

(2) The only sin that one is obligated to confess to another human is one of whi-ch-the-person to whom it is confessed is knowledgeable: All such confession was made with the idea of correcting faults (see James 5:16-20). No Christian is commanded to confess a sin to a person that person does not know about!

(3) The command to confess faults (James 5:16) is not a practice that involves a one-to-one basis, but is a practice that involves all of the brethren. To isolate one brother or sister (prayer partner) to which confession is made without equal involvement of all, is without scriptural foundation.

(continued next week)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, pp. 785, 794-795
December 11, 1980