Truth Magazine

By James L. Yopp

Crossroads And Other Churches

In conversing with the elders and preacher at Crossroads, they seemed startled when I told them I had the same objections to their practices that I had to the other liberal-minded churches of Christ. Aside from the few things mentioned earlier, they are lock, stock, and barrel but a reflection of institutionally flavored churches. They have “My School” (day care center), different kinds of ministries (tape, campus, youth, associate, etc.), a chorus (choir?), special drives, and a multitude of other practices that are being carried on in many churches. Whatever they do, they just seem to be more effective in doing it!

The Crossroads church of Christ, as other churches, has a particular fascination with organizations. They not only have the previously mentioned day care center (“My School”), but a “Tape Ministry,” “Christian Family Services,” “Fanning Springs Retreat Center,” and “Campus Advance.” There are, in addition, offices that have been created within the local church such as “Women’s Counselors.” They recently added a “Girl’s Counselor in our Youth Ministry.” In the apostolic church, there was a local, autonomous group carrying on the work of evangelism, edification, and benevolence under her elders. There were deacons to serve, evangelists to preach, and all were saints. There was a conspicuous absence of the organizations and officers peculiar to Crossroads. (See Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; Philippians 1:1; Ephesians 4: 1-12).

As is the increasing practice of some churches, Crossroads has a penchant for observance of days. They have “CA Play Day,” “Bring Your Neighbor Day,” “Double Contribution Day,” and “Special Fifth Sunday Contribution.” They even went so far as to suggest,

Since so many will be away during the Christmas Holiday season and because a “fifth Sunday” falls on Decmeber 30th, the elders have moved our usual “Fifth Sunday Contribution” to December 16 (At the Crossroads, Dec. 9, 1979).

As Paul told the Galatians, “Ye observe days, months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you (Gal. 4:10-11).

Over the past few years, many churches have added choirs to their programs (called “choruses”). Crossroads is no exception. They have a group known as “Crossroads Singers” that not only presents religious music in concert, tours the country, but sings secular songs during certain seasons of the year, including the Christmas holiday festivities. While the named things are bad enough, please observe the following.

The Crossroads Singers will make a special guest appearance at an Ole Fashioned Gospel Sing at University Auditorium on Saturday evening, January 27 (At the Crossroads, January 21, 1979).

At the same time Crossroads is incurring the wrath of denominational people with her approaches, she is rubbing elbows with those in error.

A choir has absolutely no authority from the word of God. Not only is there an absence in the divine record of any such thing, but we are commanded to sing to one another and no person is excused from participation who is able to perform (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). No defense has ever been attempted, to my knowledge, for the existence of the Crossroads Singers.

It has become increasingly fashionable with many to charge for the services or goods offered to the world by the church. Many churches charge for their tapes, their papers, the use of their buildings, etc. Crossroads is no exception. Among those items for which they receive money are: retreats, seminars, “My School,” records of singers, use of the building for weddings, spring banquets, and tapes. Please note that many of the things for which they charge have no scriptural right to be engaged in by the church in the first place.

In discussion with the Crossroads’ elders concerning the practice of raising money by any means except the first day of the week contribution (1 Cor. 16:1-2), their reply was, “Some churches have a savings account.” I do not know where they found that passage, but it is not in my Bible.

It should have been no shock (though it was) to learn that during their 1979 “Florida Evangelism Seminar,” they had a collection on Friday night (wonder why not the Lord’s Supper?).

On Friday evening, participants were given an opportunity to make a cash contribution or a pledge in support of the Campus Advance program and the Florida Evangelism Seminar. The total came to almost $40,000 – much higher than ever before (At the Crossroads, Sept. 9, 1979).

The next time one of the Crossroads’ members proposes to teach a denominational member on proper giving on the first day of the week, they cannot avoid condemning their own practice!

A Denominational Flavor

In addition to the similarities of Crossroads to some other churches of Christ, there is a certain denominational flavor that comes out of Crossroads. We would like to mention several examples.

The use of the name Crossroads is denominational. The location of the building for this congregation is in the middle of ablock, not at a crossroads, the community is not known as Crossroads, and there is no geographical reason for such terminology. As the Jehovah Witnesses borrowed an expression from the Old Testament, so did the 14th St. church when they moved into their new building. They quote Jeremiah 6:16 (“Stand at the crossroads . . . “) on the front of their bulletin (where appears a drawing of the cross that dominates their building). Even when a secretary answers the church phone, she says, “Crossroads (emphasized) . . . (pause) . . . (softly) church of Christ.” The people call themselves (as do others) “Crossroaders.” The term Crossroads is sectarian in use. Please observe the logo they use on their publications:

A use is made of personal testimony. Frequent references to ones who “share their faith” can be found in Crossroads’ writings. Inserts in local bulletins have personal testimonies (At the Crossroads, Feb. 10, 1980, and Feb. 17, 1980). The activities of the members at Crossroads seem to center on “witnessing” to the neglect of plain, pointed Bible instruction.

There is a constant go-go-go attitude in their writings. One new scheme scarcely is mentioned until something else is proposed. Additionally, there is a continual use of superlatives to describe anything in which the people (especially leaders) at Crossroads may be involved (as great, exciting, rich, rewarding, best, large, excellent, finest, tremendous, etc.). One who is familiar with the New Testament writings could hardly equate the Crossroads’ approach with the early saints.

An increasing hint at a willingness to ‘compromise in order to have unity with different segments of the “restoration movement” is apparent. After speaking at the Canton Christian Conference in Ohio, Lucas stated,

While we have our distinct differences with these brethren, we must recognize that they are our brothers in Christ, and I am convinced that there is a real need for greater communication between us. We are not suggesting any compromise of our convictions or watering down our message, but we are saying that we need to make every effort to bring about greater understanding and unity among all Christians and to “reason together” on matters of concern. This is, it seems to us, in the highest and noblest tradition of the Restoration Movement and is the spirit of New Testament Christianity (At the Crossroads, April 6, 1980).

This may not seem as dangerous to you as it did to me for I knew that Lucas has attended a meeting at the Northwest Christian Church in Gainesville and sang with the instrument as well as leading the closing prayer. Apparently it did not compromise Lucas’ convictions to sing with the instrument!

In another issue of At the Crossroads (Sept. 23, 1979), after commending Reuel Lemmons, J.D. Bales, and Yater Tant, Lucas stated,

And there is hope for the kind of unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 as long as we hold to these fundamentals, and when we are willing to discuss our differences in brotherly love without trying to ostracize or run anybody out of the brotherhood.

However noble be the intentions expressed in this quote, the one question that should come back to haunt every disciple is: What does the truth say? The only unity in which this writer is interested is one in which we all seek the word of God for every teaching, every practice, and every belief. If book, chapter, and verse cannot be produced for something, abandon it. Let is be understood: Every church that continues to practice (or would uphold practices) something that has no Bible authority, that church is guilty of dividing the body of Christ. Such churches erected the barriers to unity. To challenge them to produce a passage is not creating division, it is trying to solve division. To refuse to participate with any congregation in something that has no Bible authority is not causing division; it is upholding the truth. When Crossroads abandons those practices for which she has no Bible authority, unity can be a reality.

Conclusion

There are some good things about Crossroads. There are some very bad things. To a degree, they are willing to be open and discuss their practices. There is a hesitancy to come to the defense, with appropriate scripture (because there is none?), for many of the practices mentioned in this article.

I confess that Crossroads makes me ashamed for the little that I do, but that is my fault – not theirs. To launch an attack on Crossroads because of jealousy is wrong, but I fear this may be the case in some of the recent attacks from various churches, papers, and individuals. Judge ye what I say.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 50, pp. 801-802
December 18, 1980

By David D. Bonner

In the last two weeks of October, Ronald Buxton, preacher for the Southside church of Christ in Duncan, Oklahoma and T. Grady McCord, preacher for the Jesus Name Church in Comanche, Oklahoma, engaged in an eight-night debate on the subjects of the Godhead (whether there are three persons or one) and what, if anything, one has to say while baptizing in order for the baptism to be valid. Buxton had done his homework well and presented the truth with clarity, using some fifty charts with logic and force. Not only did McCord not even try to meet the arguments Buxton presented, but the audience went away frustrated not even knowing what McCord believes on the Godhead. McCord defined “person” as one who has flesh and bones and affirmed there was no flesh back of Bethlehem. With his definition, Buxton was not able to get McCord to commit himself as to whether there was even one person in the Godhead before Jesus came into the world, or whether there is even one in the Godhead now, although by inferences it seems he may think Jesus is in the flesh now (?).

On the baptism question, McCord presented the four Scriptures (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) which specifically state that baptism is in Jesus’ name and affirmed that is what the baptizer must say while baptizing. He affirmed the validity of baptism hinges on what is said at the baptism. Buxton ably proved that although one must be baptized in Jesus’ name, yet the Bible nowhere states what must be said, if anything, at the baptism, only what must be done. Buxton affirmed that all we do in word or deed must be done in the name of the Lord (Col. 3:17) and asked McCord if we have to say it for each act of worship, etc. to validate each action, to which McCord responded with silence.

Buxton conducted himself throughout the debate with dignity as a Christian ought.

In this part of Oklahoma, crowds where truth is discussed are never big but McCord’s people seemingly dwindled some during the debate; faithful brethren from the area attended consistently. The seed was sown so only time will tell what the results will be in the hearts of those who attended. Ben Roberson, who claims to have debated these questions throughout the years and moderated for other debaters who have met Guy N. Woods and others, moderated for McCord. I moderated for Buxton.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 796
December 11, 1980

By Lynn Trapp

In the world today there are multitudes of people who claim either they or others have power from God to perform miracles. In spite of clear New Testament teachings that miracles (being part and parcel of the apostolic message) were confined to the apostolic age, these persons continue to claim that they have performed miracles and have witnessed the performance of miracles by others. Due to these claims hundreds of innocent persons are being led into a grievous deception and are emphasizing the presence of the supposed miraculous events to the exclusion of the revelation from the Spirit of God. It is a grievous deception because they are rejecting the salvation of their souls and accepting the love of the present world. It is most important that men today learn the difference between the so-called miracles of today and the valid miracles of the apostolic age.

In the New Testament we are given a command to “try the spirits whether they are of God.” In line with that we set forth the following tests of modern miraculous claims and modern faith healers. We will leave it to the readers to discern the validity of the test and the validity of the modern claims.

I. For a miracle to be valid, it must be instantaneous. We do not find cases of New Testament miracle workers performing miracles which took days, weeks, and even months to take effect. Numerous examples are found in the New Testament of instantaneous healing – a leper was immediately cleansed (Mt. 8:2-3), Peter’s mother-in-law was healed as soon as Jesus touched her hand (Mt. 8:15), and Malthus’ ear was restored whole immediately (Lk. 22:51). A multitude of other examples can be cited to demonstrate our point but these should suffice. Let the modern claimants present a New Testament case of a “slow” miracle. They cannot do this, and yet, this is the only kind of “healings” which are performed today. Innocent people are told, and they sincerely believe, that they have been healed even though their symptoms remain. Any slow abating of their disease is not attributable to the power of the “miracle workers,” but to the power of God inherent in natural law.

II. For a miracle to be valid it must be complete. Partial recovery of some of the afflicted is the usual track record for today’s so-called healers. People may feel better for a time, usually while under the hypnotic influence of the healer, but their pain soon returns, sometimes worse than before. When Jesus healed people, they were made “whole” (Mt. 9:22; 12:13) and the apostles gave “perfect soundness” to those they healed (Acts 3:16; 4:9).

III. For a healing to be valid it must be the cure of an organic disease. “The limitations of present day healers, however, is tragic to witness. Of 1400 modern cases of healings that were investigated, not one of an organic character was discovered; all supposedly cured were of a neurotic nature” (Herbert Lockyer, The Healer and Healing Movements, p. 46). Though this statement was made over 20 years ago I am certain that its truth can be confirmed today. (For further reading on this subject see Dr. William A. Nolen’s book A Doctor In Search Of A Miracle.) New. Testament healings were of an altogether different nature: Christ restored a severed ear (Mt. 26:51), Peter healed a man who- was born lame (Acts 3), and the dead were raised (Jn. 11:43). Surely, the evidence is in favor of New Testament miracles and against modern claims.

IV. For miracles to be valid they must not foster division among God’s people. I have personally asked a number of persons who believe in modern miracles to explain how there can be conflicting doctrines among various miracle workers. One fact is certain from these inquiries, no one is willing to call the other’s miracles fake even though they teach different doctrines. Thus, so long as they can oppose a gospel preacher’s stand on miracles, they will walk hand-in-hand even though they differ on such crucial doctrines as the nature of Deity and the number of beings in the Godhead. I challenge anyone to find a case of two inspired persons in the New Testament teaching conflicting doctrines. The apostles and other inspired persons in the first century stood together when it came to the teachings of Christ.

V. For miracles to be valid they must be universally accepted. No one who saw the Lord and the Apostles perform a miracle ever claimed that they did not actually perform the miracle. One effort was made to attribute the Lord’s miracles to an unholy source (Beelzebub), but even then these enemies of Christ admitted the actual occurrence of the miracles. It should be emphasized that these enemies of the Lord would have had much to gain by claiming that He did not actually perform miracles, that the miracles were just delusions, or that they were merely the control of functional disorders. In contrast, the modern claims are universally denied. Only a small minority of the world accepts the modern “miracles.” The New Testament evidence cited shows that this would not be the case if the modern “miracles” were like the miracles of the New Testament.

Many other tests could be applied to the modern claims of the faith healers, but these should be sufficient to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the claims. I put it before the readers to test these claims of the so-called healers. Do not just accept their word that they are performing miracles. Put them to the Bible test and accept only that which can be validated by the scriptures. Reject anything which cannot meet the test.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 793
December 11, 1980

By Wallace H. Little

I hear of situations where ambitious preachers fight with elders, and as a result, churches divide. I read of situations where Diotrephes’, masquerading as elders, act as lords over God’s heritage, to divide it. I learn of situations where stubborn and willful brethren, obstinately “taking the bit in their mouths” decide they are going to have their way, run roughshod over the conscience of other brethren, and the flock is split. I find situations where “she-elders” refuse to follow the Biblical admonition of subjection; indeed, they thrust themselves into positions of control through their spineless husbands, to the splintering of God’s local churches. And lest the young people be left out, on several occasions, I have received information of situations involving willful and rebellious younger members of the church deciding they were going to “do their thing” in their personal lives, such as going to dances, social drinking and what not, and the congregations were rent asunder as a consequence. I have heard of situations where unbelieving liberals and modernists have hidden their pernicious unbelief, and working like leaven, created factions, to the dividing of a group of God’s saints.

And in all cases, it seems, “. . .think(ing) that he (they) doeth God service” (Jn. 16:2).

When, oh when, will we ever learn that we are dealing with souls?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 792
December 11, 1980