Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

A few years ago a popular song was entitled, “The Games People Play.” The crooner jeered of hucksters who “sock it to you in the name of the Lord.” Sadly, this skeptical view of religious people is reflected in the lives of too many professed Christians.

Following Christ is not a game. True Christians are not “putting on a show” to either fool others or to amuse themselves. The real disciple has “obeyed from the heart” the gospel (Rom. 6:17, 18). He has forsaken all for Christ (Lk. 14:33). He is “crucified with Christ” and lives his entire life “by the faith of the Son of God” (Gal. 2:20). To him, being a Christian is serious, constant business, not an amusing, occasional game.

Dear ones, how earnest are we about our religion? If we profess to be His disciples, yet use foul language (Eph. 4:29), cheat in business (Rom. 12:17), dress immodestly (1 Tim. 2:9, 10), give grudgingly (2 Cor. 9:6, 7), fail to assemble with the saints (Heb. 10:24, 25), fail to study the scriptures, (2 Tim. 2:15) or fail to teach the gospel to our friends and neighbors, (Jn. 15:1-8), are we really serious about living for Christ?

“Play-acting” at righteousness is, by definition, “hypocrisy.” The scriptures indicate the Lord takes an exceedingly dim view indeed of such actors (Matt. 15:7-9; 23:13-36). Their threatened lot in eternity is horribly desperate (Matt. 24:51).

I wonder how amusing it will be to hear the Judge of the universe sternly pronounce:

Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41).

How serious are you, dear Christian, about following Christ?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 43, p. 697
October 30, 1980

By Name Withheld

In April, 1979, an announcement appeared in some of “the papers concerning a new work in F________ , California. It was a grand and, from all appearances, successful beginning, on December 24, 1978. However, before the announcement appeared problems had begun to show up. Other than a hint here and there, I received no warning whatsoever concerning these problems. While I am convinced that such silence was dereliction, to say the least, I shall leave it at that point and permit God to take care of whatever failures my brethren here demonstrated. This is a personal story, though shared by others of our local group. I would like to share the experiences of the past year and one-half with the readers of this publication, in the hopes that it will be both interesting and helpful to many.

Having been involved in new works in Florida, Arizona, California, and Missouri, I might be able to offer a few profitable thoughts for those involved in similar works or planning to do so. My experience tells me that problems differ from place to place mostly as a matter of degree, though some would be peculiar to a given situation. The new work in Missouri proved to be the most enjoyable and problem free of any in my experiences while my present work in F______ has proven to be the most difficult. Sharing my F__________ experiences may serve a two-fold purpose. First, it shall provide a progress report; secondly, it may be helpful to those planning such works.

Discouraged: I soon realized that there were those that because of their experiences elsewhere were badly discouraged. Their talents were rusty, their attitudes unpredictable and they generally felt that they had not been permitted to grow and produce as they could have done under different circumstances. These “carry-over” feelings from past experiences were repeatedly hurting. However, this group did not prove to be a big problem. Once they were permitted and encouraged to be an active and productive part, they were on their way. Enthusiasm ran high in this group, but bad habits were not easily broken. I have nothing but compliments for this group. They have come a long ways and are still going.

Quitters: As might be expected in such cases, there were those who planned to simply “quit,” judging from observations, and merely signed up to assist in the new works to keep from being bothered. Their original congregation would think they had gone to the new work and the new work would see nothing of them. Of course, most of these did exactly what they had planned. We have managed to “salvage” a few, though question marks still abound. If possible at all, these should have been “weeded” out before we ever started. With few exceptions, I had no idea about the size or seriousness of this problem. Not knowing these people, I spent a lot of time trying to undo things that I supposed some of us must have done to discourage them. I doubt, however, that it was a complete waste of time; we did, after all, learn a few things therefrom.

Disgruntled: Some had come with the new work disgruntled because they had not gotten their way elsewhere (I have no doubt about the wisdom here). You guessed it! They wanted their way here also, and it did not seem to make a lot of difference how they go it. It does not take much of an imagination to guess what problems these could cause; thus I leave them to your imagination at this point.

I realize that one can expect a certain number of these sorts of people in any new work (and elsewhere). However, I was soon to realize that these were so prevalent and obvious that it caused a number of talented and dependable people to decline to assist with the new work, thinking we would have nothing but problems. I do not agree with this thinking, but that does not cause the problem to go away.

The new work begins; soon after fallacies began to appear. Some apparently viewed the new work as a “love nest” in which almost anything would be tolerated. Just about every kind of liberal was urged, “Come be a part of our new work.” Along with this attitude was the practice of some in frequenting the services of some of the “liberal” groups in our area. As expected, they came, but they did not stay long. I preached the truth; they did not like it. Of course, I was a culprit for “running them off” and I needed more love in my heart. Of course, we were blessed with those that were full of wisdom, who knew better than anyone else what should be preached, how it should be preached, and when it should be preached. But, they had a poor student; I did not learn too easily. There was a willingness and an effort to involve the congregation, as a congregation, in things that were none of our business. All I could do here was to say, “No, not me!” and to press the principles of truth that should be respected in all such cases. I am certain I have not mentioned everything up to this point, but perhaps the reader has the picture. Let us return to specifics.

Gossip and back-biting: Gossip was our first collective problem. Brethren, changing locations will not stop gossip. We managed to get this stopped momentarily. However, we did not accurately judge the stubbornness of those involved, and we under-estimated its source. Insisting upon firm and determined action was not easy under the circumstances, but it had to be done. This had been going on for some time but came to light because of the courage of some in reporting it at this point. Efforts to stop this proved almost completely vain; such would merely change their avenue of attack, deny their intent, and continue to do what they were doing. Again we failed to realize the “depth” of this problem. Perhaps a better explanation would be that we so badly desired it to be otherwise that we did not see too well. We were still wrestling with this problem when the next one surfaced.

Fornication: One couple, by their own request, talked with me about their marital situation, several months before the new work began. Their story was somewhat like the proverbial “fisherman’s” story, but I, nonetheless, accepted it at face value. Now, a few months after the new work was under way, concrete proof was voluntarily offered that this couple was living in adultery and had been for some twenty years. Like the “man without a country,” I was man without a choice if I was to please God. Dear reader, keep in mind that all these things were going on at the same time. I was soon to learn there were others, both congregations and individuals, that had “stuck their heads in the sand” in this matter and had permitted it to be dumped into my lap in the beginning of the new work. But, we cannot be accountable for the neglect of our brethren elsewhere. Action was taken, the couple were disfellowshipped. Alas, this couple had fellow-travelers. At least one insisted that they did not have to part in order to repent and correct their sins. Others openly defended them and opposed such action as was taken. We lost about twenty-five per cent of the families with which we started. I was accused of initiating such action for wrong motives. Have you ever initiated such action and have only one person in an area of 250,000 population to call and commend the action? If so, you know exactly how I felt. I shall never forget that one call! Excuses flew thick and fast! I have never seen so many “cautious” brethren in all my life; for the first time in my life I learned the danger in opposing sin-some one is going to think you “are taking sides”! I can assure you it would take a rather wild imagination to cover all that those who left us tried to do. Of course, after the action had the appearance of being successful (and it was), many were the compliments.

There is considerable aftermath of this last problem. I shall resist the temptation to tell such lest I be thought of as being unkind and harmful to my “good” brethren. One good illustration of attitudes was expressed by an elder’s wife when she asked, “Why didn’t O just destroy that evidence and forget about it?” The answer was supplied by my supportive wife, “And go to hell?” The full story in all this is almost unbelievable; what has happened to most of those that left us because of the action taken is a sad, sad story. I was to learn that some of them were fully aware of the fornication problem, but had not once opened their mouth to get such corrected; they wished it to be tolerated in our midst. And, if you were not willing to tolerate it, you just needed to have more love in your heart. We are still feeling repercussions from this problem, and probably will for some time to come.

I wish to have it clearly understood, I could not have gone through all this without the support of the majority of the brethren involved in the new work. I never cease to thank God for those that stood firm with me in this or these matters. They are good men, they are applying themselves, and should their efforts continue the new work will have a bright future.

Progress: O, yes, there are positive aspects, many good things! When it was evident that we would not tolerate such rebellion against God’s Word, a number of good brethren cast their lot with us; we are thankful for these. Maybe we needed to prove ourselves a bit. We lost most, if not all, of the original trouble-makers. We have baptized twenty-five since our beginning, most of them in recent months. More classes are underway now than ever, and it appears that the good news of our existence and our stand for truth and light is being noticed. We pray that the Cause of our Savior will reap much fruit as a result. Both attendance and contributions are on the increase, and interest is high with most. New converts are active and growing, a pride and joy to all of us.

We all recognize that there shall be “growing pains” and, no doubt, other problems. We hope that we can face such with the same determination with which the recent ones were faced. We have lost a lot of sleep, some weight, and maybe a few years; that is nothing compared with the price paid on Calvary. We were hurt, disappointed, and made ashamed of some of our brethren, but we did not quit. Unity now prevails, and if present progress continues, and I believe that it will, we will soon be reaching out to other places. We sincerely thank God for all the progress, we pray that it shall continue, and we solicit your prayers to that end. For those who get tired of fighting and wish to quit, we simply say, “You are in the wrong army!”

I have retraced my steps for the past one and one-half years many times. If I had it all to do over, I cannot think of one decision, one effort, or one point that I would like to change. Of course, I should hope to improve in anything that I do; but I could not change anything without feeling that I was betraying the Cause of my Lord. I trust that these have been helpful or encouraging to someone out there, somewhere, that is involved in the same or similar works. May the God of heaven bless you with wisdom and courage to continue!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 43, pp. 695-697
October 30, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

Eschatology is a term which denotes things that are to take place at the close of man’s earthly existence. All of the events centered around the second coming of Christ and the judgment would come under this heading. “Eschatology” is pronounced “es-ka-tol’o-ji,” and as far as modern theology is concerned, the doctrine contained therein forms the “crown and capstone” of the thinking of the religious theologians. Since the word comes up rather frequently in religious circles and since there is much error taught under this heading, it is well for those who love and respect the authority of Scripture with reference to final things, to know something about the term as it is used by our denominational friends.

“Eschatology” is from two Greek words: eschatos, meaning last, and logos, which in this instance means a discourse. Hence, “eschatology” is simply “a discourse or doctrine about last things, or the consummate state of the future.” Under “New Testament Studies in Eschatology,” we will be presenting a series of articles dealing with such subjects as “The Judgment,” “Death,” “Immortality,” “Hell,” etc., all of which have to do with man’s eternal destiny. There is widespread difference of opinion on certain phases of the last things to occur and much of these differences of opinion are due to the fact that man is inclined to speculate instead of remaining with what is taught in the Bible. This writer is concerned only with what the Bible teaches on last things.

Final Things Of The Old And New Testament Periods

There is an “eschatology of the Old Testament” and an “eschatology of the New Testament.” Though we are not primarily concerned with the former, our readers should realize that the work of Christ during His earthly ministry and the establishment of the Church (or, Kingdom) on earth is part of Old Testament eschatology as much as “the new heavens and new earth,” “hell,” etc. (2 Pet. 3:12; Isa. 65:17; 66:22) is of New Testament eschatology. In one sense we are now living in the “last days” which had their beginning as a result of Divine interposition in the process of history. Though this occupies a legitimate place in God’s scheme of things, New Testament eschatology (based solely on the New Testament and not on man’s speculative and uncertain indulgences) does not follow these lines in that it does not expect a temporal Messianic Kingdom to be established on earth at some future date (Hal Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth notwithstanding).

As far as these last days are concerned, there are two successive ages: this present age and the age to come. Various terms are used to describe these terms, namely, “this present world” (Matt. 12:22), “this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4), “the world to come” (Lk. 18:30), and “ages to come” (Eph. 2:7). The distinction between the two is this: “this present evil world” is transitory, while the “world to come” is abiding and endless. “Eschatology” is, therefore, a study of the close of man’s earthly existence which centers around the events immediately preceding and following the judgment of all races. It has to do with the things that will transpire at the end of the last days, as well as things in the age to come.

Individual And General

When we think in terms of things preceding the judgment and the things that are to follow thereafter, we cannot get away from the fact that the end involves the nations of the earth as a whole (Matt. 25:32; Rom. 14:12). These things also affect us individually (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). The importance of “last things” on us as individuals is seen in the stress that this aspect gets from the New Testament writers. All who are in the graves (Jno. 5:28-29), and all who are alive shall be called up together to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:17). On an individual basis, however, will these people of the world be judged. At the second coming all will be judged for things done in this life. This is why so much devoted space is given to the ultimate destiny of the individual. One might say in comparison that the emphasis placed upon the individual in the present life, and the individual’s state throughout eternity, makes all that is said about the intermediate state seem almost insignificant.

Why Study The Doctrine Of Final Things?

Neither the individual Christian nor the church established on earth (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 5:23) attains its destined perfection in this life (Rom. 8:24). Perfection is reached only when the church is glorified (Rev. 21) and the individual is changed into the likeness of our Lord (1 Jn. 3:2-3). Three things are therefore certain about final things: (1) The triumph of the church, or Kingdom. (2) The victory of life over death (1 Cor. 15:20-58). (3) Judgment involving rewards and punishments in the world to come. While inspiration leaves out minute details about the consummation of all things, it does give us a general outline of what is to take place. What is revealed is sufficient for our understanding (2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:12-16).

One can live only one life at a time. This is what the Lord would have us do (Matt. 6:25, 31, 34). However, a study of the last things can become a mighty stimulant for a righteous life on earth and should in no way take us from duties imposed upon us by the Word of God. This is illustrated in 2 Peter 1, where the Apostle Peter reminds us of “great and precious promises” (v. 4), as well as an entrance into the eternal Kingdom (v. 11). Peter’s use of these things to take place in the last days was such that he sought to arouse his readers to a sense of urgency in fulfilling present spiritual tasks (vv. 4-11). The nature of the events to take place in the last days is such that we ought to “make our calling and election sure . . . for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:11). The following things point out the importance of studying eschatology:

(1) There is an eternal reward offered to all who would live godly in this present world. Be this called a “crown of life” (2 Tim. 4:8), or “an everlasting inheritance” (1 Pet. 1:3-5), it is still a coveted blessing. This is the very hope of life itself! The hope before us encourages us to so live as to see the realization of these promises in our lives.

(2) The conviction that there is a hell and that it is Satan’s sinister purpose to devour people as a roaring lion devours its prey is an incentive to steadfastness in the faith (1 Pet. 5:8-9; 1 Jn. 3:3). No man wants to spend eternity in hell with the devil and his angels.

(3) Knowledge of what the Bible teaches about heaven’s reward as compared with hell’s punishment is one of the greatest stimuli for personal evangelism known to man. When saints reach the point that the doctrine of last things becomes real to them, they will seek the salvation of the countless thousands who are lost in sin and are without hope for everlasting life (1 Tim. 4:16).

Conclusion

The study of last things is timely and of universal interest. Man has a soul created for eternity and a body created for this life only. This life is but a stepping stone to a never ending vista of eternal life in Christ Jesus. This is why there are warnings and admonitions as well as encouragements to live now in anticipation of eternal life. May each person see the sharp contrast between the ultimate end of the wicked and the end of the righteous.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 43, pp. 694-695
October 30, 1980

By Mike Willis

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the sponsoring church idea of congregational cooperation and organization was born among the churches of Christ. Since then, it has been partially responsible for a rupture in the body of Christ which has completely divided brethren. From time to time, we need to recall what were the issues which separated us, lest we forget.

Someone might ask, “What is a sponsoring church?” It is true that one could read his Bible from cover to cover and never know what a sponsoring church is, for there is certainly no biblical example of one having existed in apostolic times. A person must study present day churches to find out what a sponsoring church is. By looking at what liberal churches are doing, a man can determine that a sponsoring church is a church which receives funds from another church or churches to oversee the spending of them in preaching the gospel. The sponsoring church, therefore, receives funds from many churches and forwards them to areas for evangelism. Hence, it is a church in which funds from several churches are centralized; it is a church which oversees the spending of funds received from other churches.

The Origin of the Sponsoring Church

Following World War II, many American churches decided to evangelize Europe. Their desire to evangelize these areas was commendable; however, in their zeal to do the work, they perverted the organization of the church. The method which they chose for evangelizing Europe was the sponsoring church. A church would pick a field, for example Germany, for evangelization. It would then call upon its sister congregations to send funds to it. The sponsoring church would then oversee the preaching of the gospel in Germany. Frequently, the sponsoring church not only supported the preacher but also owned the property of the churches meeting in Germany.

Another better known example of the sponsoring church is the Herald of Truth operation in Abilene, Texas. The Highland Church of Christ assumed oversight of the Herald of Truth program. Highland has called upon her sister congregations to send contributions to her in order to preach the gospel over radio and television. Thousands of churches have responded, sending their contributions to Highland for her to oversee and distribute.

Today, some of the sponsoring churches are not only overseeing the funds for evangelism of other congregations, some sponsoring churches are overseeing the entire program of work of another congregation. Hence, the sponsoring church oversees the contributing church in such an arrangement.

What Is Wrong With The Sponsoring Church?

Someone might ask, “What is wrong with the sponsoring church?” I have several objections to the sponsoring church arrangement which I would like for you to consider.

1. It is unauthorized in the Bible. There is neither general nor specific authority for a sponsoring church in all of God’s book; there is neither command, example, nor necessary inference of any church becoming a sponsoring church. Hence, in the absence of positive divine authority, the sponsoring church stands in exactly the same relationship to God’s word as does instrumental music in worship, sprinkling for baptism, baptism is an outward sign of an inward act, burning candles in worship, and any other innovation introduced into the work, worship, or organization of the church for which there is no Bible. A person does not have to find a scripture which says, “Thou shalt not have a sponsoring church,” in order for it to be sinful; the absence of positive divine authority for a sponsoring church is sufficient evidence that it stands condemned.

If I write not another line, the sponsoring church would stand condemned on this basis. Until positive divine authority can be produced authorizing the sponsoring church, the sponsoring church arrangement stands condemned as a sinful departure from God’s revelation.

2. It violates the limits of the elders’ authority. The authority of elders is either limited or unlimited. If it is unlimited, a group of elders could become the legislative and executive head of all of the churches. I know of no one who would state that the authority of the elders is unlimited. If the authority of elders is limited, we must turn to the pages of divine revelation to find out what limits are imposed on them. In addition to noticing that all authority resides in Christ (Matt. 28:18) which prohibits any legislative authority being given to the elders, the scriptures also reveal that the elders’ authority is limited to the congregation over which they were appointed. Notice these verses:

Take heed therfore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not be constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind (1 Pet. 5:2).

It is no accident that the Holy Spirit revealed that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). That is the scope of authority which elders have; they have no authority outside of the local church.

One church cannot voluntarily allow the elders of another church to oversee any part of their work without violating the limits divinely imposed on the authority of elders. A given church cannot approach the elders of another church and request them to oversee that church, as some liberal churches are presently doing, without violating the limits of authority divinely imposed on elders. Furthermore, a local church cannot send a portion of its resources to another church, sometimes called a sponsoring church, for that church to oversee the spending thereof without violating the limits of the authority of elders.

Actually, the principle of church organization which is utilized by the sponsoring church brethren is exactly that which is used by Catholics and Christian Scientists. In the Catholic Church, all of the churches work through the church at Rome under the pope; in the sponsoring church, about 20% of all churches of Christ work through the Highland Church in Abilene under its elders. In the Christian Scientist religion, all of the local congregations work through the Mother Church in Boston. Each of these methods. of church organization can be diagramed as follows:

If a person can see that the pattern of church organization used by the Catholics and the Christian Scientists is wrong, he can also see that the sponsoring church pattern of church organization is wrong. It gives the sponsoring church oversight over more than God intended.

3. It destroys the equality of the churches. In the sponsoring church arrangement, the equality of the churches is destroyed. The churches fall into two categories: contributing church and sponsoring church. The contributing church can only do one thing – send money to the sponsoring church. The contributing churches have alsolutely no say in how these resources are spent. On the other hand, the sponsoring church has total authority over the spending of the resources of all of the churches. Hence, it is in a position of greater authority than that of the contributing congregations. The equality of the church is, therefore, destroyed by the sponsoring church arrangement.

4. It destroys congregational autonomy. When one congregation oversees another, the congregation which is being overseen has lost its autonomy. In some sponsoring church arrangements, the entire program of one church is voluntarily surrendered to the oversight of the elders of another church. No one could question that the autonomy of such a church is lost. In other sponsoring church arrangements, the deeds of property of the overseen church is held in the name of the sponsoring church. Even in the sponsoring church arrangements in which only funds are transferred from one congregation to another, the transferred funds of the contributing church are overseen by the sponsoring church. The fact that they are voluntarily surrendered does not change the fact one church is overseeing at least a part of the program of work of another church. Hence, congregational autonomy is destroyed.

5. It denies the all-sufficiency of the local church. The sponsoring church idea of congregational cooperation was born out of infidelity. Brethren lost faith in the ability of the local church to do the work which God gave the church to do. Here are some statements which indicate the kind of infidelity which gave birth to the sponsoring church:

. . . In sponsoring a missionary, a church simply underwrites his support. It is, therefore, responsible to the missionary for the amount that it takes for his maintenance, and it is also responsible to any brethren, who may be willing to help support the missionary, for the missionary’s soundness, for his Christian character, and for his qualifications as a missionary. This whole idea was born because of a very sad condition that existed in the brotherhood forty or fifty years ago (G.C. Brewer, Gospel Advocate [27 August 1953], p. 544).

If a sad condition existed because churches were not doing what they should, churches should have been admonished to do the work which God gave them to do. However, instead of this having occurred, the sponsoring church was created.

The absence of an organized missionary society among churches of Christ created several unique handicaps in selection and preparation of qualified missionary workers. Since no official board existed, congregations were free to select and send (William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement, pp. 273-274).

Notice that Banowsky describes the condition prior to the establishment of the sponsoring church as a “unique handicap.” God’s divine arrangement is described as a “unique handicap”1 This is the type of infidelity which gave birth to the sponsoring church idea of congregational cooperation and organization. Brethren became convinced that the local churches alone were unable to evangelize the world; consequently, they set out to devise programs which would work better. The result was the sponsoring church.

6. It seeks to activate the universal church. The Lord, in His divine wisdom, provided no organization for the church universal and no program of work was commited to it. The Lord only provided for the organization of the local church and gave a program of work only to the local church. Hence, the Lord has provided for no church organization greater than, smaller than, or other than the local church.

Brethren have not been content with the Lord’s divine arrangement, however. In 1849, brethren created the American Christian Missionary Society through which all of the local churches could work. The ACMS received contributions from local churches; their program of work activated, or sought to activate, all of the local congregations. It was an attempt to activate the universal church. The sponsoring church program does exactly the same thing. It seeks to get all of the local churches contributing to a given sponsoring church in order to present a nationally televised radio and television program.

God has given no program of work to the universal church. There is no pattern of organization for the universal church and no program of work committed to it. As a matter of fact, the universal church is not composed of all of the individual congregations; it is composed of all saved individuals. Hence, any attempt to activate the universal church is born of a misconception of the church. We simply must remember that the universal church has no organization, no officers, and no mission. If God had intended for the church universal to function, he would have described its organization, named its officers, stipulated the limit of their authority, defined their responsibilities, and. given their qualifications. He did all of these for the local church and none of them for the church universal. Hence, He must not have intended for the universal church to function.

Conclusion

Perhaps others would bring other indictments against the sponsoring church pattern of cooperation and organization. However, these are sufficient to clearly identify the arrangement as sinful. Whether we are discussing the sponsoring church program of the Herald of Truth, World Radio, or one church overseeing another, the sponsoring church arrangement stands condemned by the word of God.

Those who are seeking to walk by the Book, will not participate in things for which no Bible authority can be given. Hence, they will abstain from participation in sponsoring church programs of work.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 43, pp. 691-693
October 30, 1980