Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Since the miracles recorded in Scripture are above and beyond the pattern of natural forces, Modernism finds those miracles irrational. We raise the question whether it is not Modernism itself which is irrational. Modernism embraces self-contradictory notions. How these notions can be true without destroying intelligence, appeal to rational evidence, and all the higher motives and capacities of man, is a miracle indeed! Let us look at some of the many miracles of Modernism.

Literary Miracle. In denying the verbal inspiration of Scripture, Modernism is thrown back on explanations for the existence of the Bible to an approach which appeals to the normal course of human life. Once it was said that the prophecies of Scripture were written after the events predicted had occurred, but extant manuscripts now disprove the theory. “It has been related that Voltaire, the great French infidel, said if he could be convinced that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is genuine, he would concede that at least one prediction of the prophets was fulfilled” (McGarvey, Sermons, p. 128). In addition to the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 250 B.C., we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are copies of the Old Testament dating before the time of Jesus. Voltaire’s challenge has been met and Modernist doubts about predictive prophecy have been answered. The Modernist is left with passages such as Isaiah 53 which accurately predicted future events and were written before, not after, the events. He must explain how, men predicted these events without a miraculous revelation from God. A naturalistic explanation of such a supernatural feat will itself be a miracle!

The Modernist has a literary miracle when he tries to reconstruct the life and teaching of Jesus from the New Testament so as to eliminate the miraculous. Modernism tears up the New Testament accounts of miracles, throws away the miracles, reshuffles the remaining material, and postulates what the life and teaching of Jesus may have been. But, when are the New Testament reports to be accepted and when rejected? This opens a Pandora’s box. The Modernist can no longer argue that so-called literary criticism is needed to determine what the original records said; textual scholarship has come so close to the original manuscripts as to discount such an approach.

The interval . . . between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-289).

The New Testament documents are primary-source material pointing like a knife at the throat of Modernist speculations about what “might” have “really” happened! Attempts to explain away such miracles as the bodily resurrection of Jesus “invariably demand more faith than the Resurrection itself, for they fly squarely in the face of the primary-source material” (Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, p. 39).

Moral Miracle. The Modernist has often argued that God is at work in all the experiences of man. This would mean that God is working in man’s experience when he defines his own morals. By the same token, God would be just as much at work when man breaks that moral code or discards it for a new one. In fact, situation morality as espoused by many Modernists argues just that. What is moral changes with the different circumstances and experiences of a man; breaking his own moral code may be the most moral thing he can do in some situations.

The very expression “situation morality” is self-contradictory. Morals are unchanging principles of right and wrong which do not break down under the pressure of “circumstances.” Situation morality is no morality; it is the search of a blind man in a dark cellar for a black cat which is not there, against which we are warned (Col. 2:8 – taken captive through philosophy and vain deceit). The nation of Israel suffered chaos and recurrent apostasy when “every man did that which was right -in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). The moral miracle of Modernism is that God is at work revealing His will in a man’s experience when he acts first in one way and then in the opposite way. The first absolute rule of situation morality is that there is no absolute rule of morality.

Another moral miracle for some Modernists is involved ,in their explanation of the Gospel accounts of Jesus. The most extreme Modernists have argued that Jesus was a great and good man but not the Son of God in a unique and supernatural sense. How shall we then deliver Jesus from the charge of lying about His nature (John 3:16 “only begotten Son”; Jn. 8:58 – “before Abraham was, I am”)? The answer is that the Jewish authors made up stories about the miracles, the claims, and even perhaps much of the teaching of Jesus as embellishments to the true story. But, this solution involves a moral miracle. How did first-century Jews of the working class so completely transcend all the prejudice and pettiness of first-century Judaism in order to paint the picture of Jesus Christ? Water does not rise above its source. Nothing in the moral character of the Apostles – who argued over which of them would be greatest and who fled when Jesus was arrested – qualified them to produce the moral character of Jesus Christ!

Ethical Miracle. The ethical miracle of Modernism is that proponents are not required to reveal their true convictions, but in fact may conceal them by proclaiming their doctrine in the language commonly used to express the opposite convictions. Baptist minister W.S. Morgan attended Yale Divinity School and subsequently went into Unitarianism. He advised those going through the same transition but who feared the loss of their pulpit, “Don’t label your heresy . . . . Do as I do. Give them heresy in such a fashion that the very saints will not suspect it. Bad ethics, you say! 1 say, very bad! But this is the only way in which hundreds of orthodox pulpits can be held” (Morgan, American Unitarian Association tract No. 223, quoted in Gordon, The Leaven of the Sadducees, p. 96). Another Liberal acknowledged that this approach to the conflict between traditional and modern creeds had been often used but lacked “honesty and frankness.” In discussing “Two Creeds for Every Church,” William Pepperell Montague said,

One solution of the problem more often put into practice than defended in theory is the “double standard” of truth -one for the person, the other for the congregation; or at least for the more simple of its members. The latter are to be allowed, if not encouraged, to take the creed literally; while the minister takes it with reservations. It is difficult to defend this policy against the charge of bad faith and deception in a matter where, if anywhere, absolute honesty and frankness should be required. Sooner or later the minister will be asked point-blank by one of his flock, who is assailed by doubt, as to the truth of some article of doctrine. He must then either tell an outright lie or else let the cat out of the bag and abandon his double standard of truth (Chapt. IX of Roberts and Van Dusen (eds.), Liberal Theology, p. 157).

Montague advocated “the ideal solution” of adopting two “widely divergent” creeds. “The one creed will be sung, the other will be said,” thus satisfying the whole range of “religious experience,” from the “emotional” to the “cognitive” (Ibid., pp. 159, 162). In other words, we will believe and preach the Modernist faith but will sing and rejoice in the ancient faith. This solution internalizes the bad ethics in the individual: self-deception is practiced for the sake of feeling a false sdnse of continuity between the ancient and modern faiths. The Modernist’s ethical miracle is that of doubletalk “in a matter where, if anywhere, absolute honesty and frankness should be required.”

Intellectual Miracle. The intellectual miracles of Modernism are many. We have already seen that what is moral one minute may be immoral the next, and vice versa, but God is at work in all these experiences. Furthermore, the truth which is not subject to question is that all truth is subject to question. Modernism treats all truth as relative, expanding, ever changing: there is no final truth, yet this very truth is itself final, not relative, and unchanging. In explaining “The Meaning of Liberalism,” William Ernest Hocking asserted that “liberalism is not to be identified with any particular dissent . . . but only with dissent from the view that any version of Christianity is all final” (Liberal Theology, p. 57). The Bible, then, is not a complete, final, and all-sufficient revelation of God’s will to man; nothing about the Gospel of Christ is settled and certain for all times. We are thus asked to believe that the one revelation which is “all final” is that no revelation is “all final.” Montague advocated that the “intellectual creed” – the one we really believe and preach, the Modernist creed – “will be regarded in the first place as probable rather than certain” (Ibid., p. 159). He did not mention that this raises the question whether what he thus advocated is itself “probable rather than certain.” In Modernism, the one truth which is absolute is that no truth is absolute, the one truth which is not relative is that all truth is relative. The miracles of the Bible do not hold a candle to the miracles of Modernism, if the preeminent objection is that we are asked to believe the incredible!

Miracle of Origins. Modernism rejects miracles recorded in Scripture that have to do with the origin of the world, of man, of Jesus Christ, of the church, and of the Bible itself. But, Modernism accepts its own miracles when it comes to the question of origins. The theory of evolution became an all-encompassing answer in answer to all questions of origins for the Modernist; God works through evolution, we are told. How did one form of plant life, say ferns, produce another form such as Redwood trees? And how did plant life evolve into animal life? How did an animal such as a snake or an insect such as a fly produce elephants and eagles? How did the animal kingdom which is amoral produce man with the capacity for moral understanding and choice? How did a male evolve into a female, or how long did the first male have to wait until the animal kingdom could evolve a female? None of the missing links which are the very keys to the theory of evolution have been found, but we are asked to put our faith in the non-miraculous miracle of evolution. The law of evolution has been spoken from Mount Science and woe be to the man who does not tremble at this word.

We have already shown that Modernism cannot account for the origin of the moral character of Jesus Christ; Modernism’s own supposition is that a motly band of Jews who all taken together could not represent one-tenth of the character of Jesus is responsible. The Modernist has no better explanation for the origin or the New Testament church. After the church’s existence is acknowledged, he may point to Paul as the great organizer and evangelist to the Gentiles. But, then, the Modernist must account for Paul’s conversion by rejecting his own account and explaining how he was converted without the miraculous appearance of the resurrected Lord. As for the Bible itself, Modernism is left with the problem of explaining the origin of predictive prophecy, which was discussed earlier. An explanation of such prophecy in the Bible without the miraculous intervention of God would itself be a major miracle.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, pp. 440-442
July 10, 1980

By Ben M. Shropshire

In our previous article on this subject, we showed the need for studying this topic, defined the word “judge” as used in the New Testament, discussed at least six different kinds of judging which the New Testament requires us to, do, and, finally, noted that, in all of the judging required of us, we are never allowed to use our own opinions, ideas, wisdom or suppositions as the standard for our judgments, but always must use the word of God, correctly understood and applied, as the basis for any judgment we make.

To continue the study of this subject this week, we want to take a look at the kinds of judgment which we are forbidden to do as in Matthew 7:1 – “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

We are never to judge another on the basis of our own law, or when we make our own life and beliefs the standard of judgment. This is what is being condemned in Matthew 7:1-5, Romans 2:1-3, and in James 4:11, 12. While most of us would quickly say that we would never do this, the fact is that we often do it in several different ways. One way in which we do this is described by Jesus in Matthew 7:1-5 in which we are extremely zealous to condemn another for a violation of the law of God, while we condone in our own life a more flagrant violation of the same law. This shows that we really do not respect the law of God ourselves, and are simply using it for our own purposes in castigating another. Our standard of judgment, then, is not the law of God at all, but our own perverted form of divine law and hypocritical application thereof. To all who do this Paul said, “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doth practice the same things” (Rom. 2:1). While this passage condemns such unfair judgment as being sinful, it implies at the same time the correctness of a proper kind of judgment of another when the standard of God’s law is properly applied to oneself as well as to the other person: “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:5). Being able to determine that a brother has a mote in his eye (has committed some kind of wrong) necessitates a judgment on our part; but we must also judge ourselves first by the same law to see whether there is a beam (or even a mote) in our own eye that needs to be removed (Gal. 6:1).

We also are guilty of making ourselves and our ideas the basis of judgment when we speak against a brother without any cause, as occasioned by malice and hatred in our hearts. We are taught that, in doing this, we are guilty of making ourselves a law giver: “Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge” (Jas. 4:11, 12). The “speaking against” which is forbidden here is defined as “to speak down of a person, to speak evil of, to slander, or, to insult a person.” When we speak evil of another person and have no basis for doing so (no violation on his part of God’s law), other than the hatred and malice we have in our heart for him, we have made our own law and are using it to judge him rather than judging him with God’s law. Such judgment on our part is sinful and forbidden.

An additional way in which we use our own standard in judging another is when we make a judgment of another person’s motives. We do not have the ability to know what are the motives of another person, and when we profess to know them and judge him based thereon, we are making an improper judgment, based on what we think rather than on what God’s law says. Of course, we may be applying God’s law to what we think are his real motives, but we must realize that what we think about his motivation play a more important role in our judgment of him than the word of God does, and, again, we have ultimately made our opinion the basis of our judgment. When a person does something which is right within itself for him to do, but we think he has done it with a sinful motivation and on that basis we condemn him, we are wrong. We have no right to assume that a person is doing something for any other than a proper reason, or the reason which is may specify as being his motivation, because we cannot know his heart (1 Cor. 2:11). This is difficult not to do because we often allow our prejudices, malice, jealousy and hatred to color our thinking about why another person does something. Again, when we do this we are putting ourselves in the place of God, the lawgiver, usurping a power that really belongs only to Him. “The Lord seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 ‘Sam. 16:7). “Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart” (Psa. 44:21). “I the Lord search the heart, I try to reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing” (Jer. 17:10). These, and many other scriptures like them, imply that only God has the ability to know the heart of a man and its motivations; that no man has such powers. For a person to claim such a power (to know the heart of another) and judge a person on this claim is for him to be guilty of the kind of judgment which is condemned in the Bible, but it is still done far too often.

A final way in which we allow our own law to become the-standard in juding another is when we misinterpret or misapply the word of God in doing so. Again, it is our perversion of God’s law that we are using to judge another, not the law of God itself. The Judaizing teachers of the New Testament age often did this, and Paul told the Colossian Christians to not allow such false teachers to improperly judge them (Col. 2:16, 17). Thus, when we find it necessary to judge another person in order to obey God (in the kinds of judgment we discussed in last week’s article), we must exercise the greatest possible degree of care to be sure that we are properly interpreting and applying God’s law to his situation. In requiring us to judge, the New Testament presumes that we are capable to doing such, and we ought not to so fear the possibility of our making an error of doing so that we fail to obey God.. To fail in this God-given task of judging others properly is to risk failing to teach them what they need to know and leaving them in jeopardy of their being lost without being aware of it. “Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest though also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). (Concluded next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, pp. 439-440
July 10, 1980

By Mike Willis

With attendance declining in the mainline Protestant denominations in America we are witnessing attempts being made by most denominations to rebuild their memberships. Several local congregations among the Protestants have been tremendously effective in building large memberships, including Robert Schuller (an ordained minister of the Reformed Church in America) who has built the membership of the Garden Grove Community Church to 7000.

An examination of some of the techniques being used by modern denominations deserves some of our attention. Indeed, some among us have attended workshops across the land conducted by these denominationalists in order that they might increase the attendance in local churches of Christ. Indeed, some are aping the denominations in building their attendance.

Attendance Building Schemes

1. Youth Programs. Because so many churches have been losing their teens from church attendance, most denominations and liberal churches of Christ have started all kinds of “youth programs.” Full-time “Youth ministers” are hired whose jobs appear to be little more than arranging and promoting a full calendar of social activities for the young people. The programs range from skating to ball leagues to outings to camps, fairs, and entertainment parks. There is little spiritual work involved in the work of these “youth ministers”; as one confessed to me, “The primary interest is fun and frolic.”

How effective have these programs been in keeping the youth? Not very effective according to some surveys. Charles E. Garrison conducted a survey among the students at Milligan College (a conservative Christian Church group) on “The Effect of Participation in Congregational Structures on Church Attendance.” The conclusion of Garrison’s study was that involvement of the youth in the work of the church was more determinative of whether they stayed faithful in church attendance than participation in church sponsored social activities. He wrote,

It was found that holding positions in the division of labor in the congregation while in high school does have some effect upon later attendance while in college. However, the extensiveness of the division of labor itself does not affect later church attendance.

In addition to the division of labor, the extent of activities which the congregation sponsored for the high school youth was measured as was the extent to which the individual participated in these activities. Examples of such activities would be parties, picnics, and softball teams. These activities are often justified as important for keeping youth involved in the church.

It was found that all congregations had a considerable number of activities and that most of the students had participated. The correlation of participation in activities to later college church attendance was 19. This relationship was reduced to .00 when control for high school church attendance was introduced.

It is interesting to compare participation in these social activities with the holding of positions in the congregation for the relationship of each to later church attendance. Holding positions, rather than participating in the activities, had a higher relationship to later college student church attendance. Furthermore, whereas participating in the activities has no effect independent of high school church attendance, holding positions in the division of labor does show such an independent effect. This indicates that, as a strategy to encourage continued church attendance, it is more effective to involve them in the holding of positions than in a variety of church-sponsored social activities.

. . . In conclusion, holding positions in the division of labor was found to be a pre-college variable affecting college student church attendance. In this, it is more effective than participating in church-sponsored social activities (Review of Religious Research, Vol. 18, No. 1 [Fall, 1976], pp. 41-42).

In confirmation of these statistics from another source, I noticed that A Summary Report of The Committee on Membership Trends presented by the United Presbyterian Church (1976) reported that “91 % of the growing congregations have active youth programs with slightly more than 50% of their youth participating. In the other congregations we find that 70% of these rapidly declining have an active youth program with only 35% participation. Eighty-one percent of the typical churches have youth programs with only 36% of the youth participating” (p. 24). This strikes me as saying that these youth programs are not having much effect on retaining the youth of the churches.

Those of us who have been saying all along that there is no scriptural authority for the church being involved in sponsoring recreation will need no confirmation from sociologists for what we are teaching. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that sociologists are confirming that these programs have been largely ineffective in building attendance.

2. Attractive buildings. Millions of dollars are being spent annually to build super-structures which might appeal to the materialism of the upper middle class Americans. Robert Schuller makes no bones about this aim in his attendance building techniques. Listing things which build church attendance, he cited,

3. Impress the unchurched. Schuller makes no bones about the fact that his church has some rather schmaltzy furnishings – like a number of water fountains that begin spraying when he presses a button in the pulpit – and that their purpose is to impress the unchurched. “It’s obvious that we are not trying to impress Christians,” he says. “They would tend to be most critical of the expenditure of money we have made. They would tell us that we should give this money to missions . . . . We’re trying to impress non-Christians and non-churched people. We are trying to make a big, beautiful impression upon the affluent non-religious American who is riding by on this busy freeway” (Wilfred Bockleman, “The Pros and Cons of Robert Schuller, ” Christian Century, Vol. 92, p. 733 (20-27 August 1975).

Emphasis of this sort has caused some of the unchurched and some of the those who attend church to offer the criticism that the church is emphasizing finances, buildings and property. Rather than attracting the crowds, this approach has turned off not a few people.

3. Big name entertainers. In order to attract crowds, bigname entertainers have joined the production number of Billy Graham-type evangelists who are promoting crusades and attempting to build church memberships. Obviously theological compromise has been the result. Recently, Billy Graham shared the pulpit with Muhammed Ali, a practicing Moslem! Pat Boone has shared the stage with Oral Roberts, Billy Graham and other religious leaders.

In discussing the attempt to “impress the unchurched,” Bockleman continued to describe Robert Schuller’s tactics in addition to building impressive cathedrals.

This approach (that of building cathedrals with schmaltzy furnishings, mw) carries with it some corollaries. Don’t expect to find deep theology in the sermons. Instead, look for things that will attract the unchurched. For example, Schuller often invites big-name people to share the platform with him on Sunday. When he asked a newly elected president of the American Medical Association to speak to the congregation, a letter of invitation was sent to each of the 1,200 medical doctors living in Orange County. After Schuller discovered that there are 3,000 life insurance salesmen in the area, he asked W. Clement Stone to speak and invited all the life insurance salesmen (Ibid.).

These tactics are being mimiced by our brethren. Several years ago, the usage of Pat Boone in Campaigns for Christ and well-known “Christian” athletes was o,bviQusly done for these same reasons.

The result has been that crowds have been attracted. But, attracted to what? Are the crowds attracted to the suffering Savior? Obviously not! The crowds are attracted to the big-name entertainers. The same people who go out to hear Johnny Cash sing go to hear him talk and for the same reason – they like Johnny Cash, not Jesus Christ! Commenting on Schuller’s success, Bockleman stated,

To resort to less ecclesiastical metaphors, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or don’t argue with a satisfied customer. The members of the Garden Grove Church and the pastors who have attended Schuller’s institutes are indeed satisfied customers. But as a reporter-commentator I think it’s fair to raise the question as to whether they’re getting the right kind of pudding! (Ibid, p. 735).

4. Entertainment and fellowship. In addition to youth programs designed to attract and keep the young people attending with church-sponsored recreation, the churches are seeking to keep their adults with church-sponsored recreation as well. Recreational facilities are being justified under the pretense that they are “fellowship” halls. Every kind of reason imaginable is being used for a church supper. In this manner, churches are trying to keep people interested and attending worship through tactics of this sort.

5. Fifth Avenue Promotionalism. Churches advertise their services using all of the techniques of secular advertising. Promotional schemes to build attendance have long been used by denominations. Radios and bicycles have been given to the person bringing the most to the services; bus captains have endured pies being thrown in the face;preachers have swallowed gold fish when attendances reached a certain level; pastors have sat on the steeple to encourage crowds to gather. In addition to these, preachers have developed attractions to draw crowds. A man is no longer a crowd drawer simply because he preaches the gospel of Christ; today he must be “Fooey-Louie, the Gospel Magician,” a Karate for Christ Expert, have a repertoire of talking birds, or be a chalk artist in order to draw a crowd and be in demand all over this country.

Too, the sermon must be advertised properly. A preacher does not preach simply on the story of the healing of the leprosy of the Syrian Captain Naaman; he preaches on “Seven Ducks In A Muddy Stream.” During the period when the movie “Encounters of the Third Kind” was popular, one conservative church advertised its meeting as “Encounters of Another Kind.” Another church conducted a meeting in which the preacher was advertised as a communications specialist from a given university and his subjects included “Triangular Relationships.” The words Jesus, God, gospel and salvation were not even mentioned on the advertisement. No wonder people think the church has lost its emphasis on spiritual things!

6. Watered down preaching. In order to build attendance, the preaching has been watered down. Denominational preachers intending to be popular avoid preaching on controversial subjects. Schuller’s techniques include the item “don’t be controversial; always be positive.” Bockleman commented, “This rule naturally follows from an attempt to reach the unchurched. The pastor who preaches on controversial subjects may be tempted to take a public stand that would be at variance with the thinking of half the congregation and thus turn them away” (op. cit., p. 733). Consequently, today’s preacher discusses the love of God, kindness, gentleness, and such like subjects. He does not “run down” other religions.

Many preachers within the Lord’s body have studiously avoided calling denominational names from the pulpits. Many members would like to demand that all preachers desist from referring to denominations by name from pulpits. In addition to that, they are looking for preachers, not so much on the basis of how well they present Biblecentered lessons, but on the basis of how well they hold one’s attention, how long (maybe I should say “short”) they preach, the humerous anecdotes which they tell, etc. Someone has well said, “Christianettes are looking for preacherettes who preach sermonettes!”

If preaching the full-gospel of Christ offends someone, let him be offended. If a man is not committed enough to the truth to allow someone preaching the truth to cause him to quit attending the worship service of the church, he was never converted in the the first place.

7. Bus Ministries. Attendance is also being built through bus ministries. Programs are arranged in which promoters go into housing projects with their pockets loaded with bubble gum and candy to induce children to attend worship services. People are bussed past several churches which teach identical doctrines in order to build up the membership in a given place. Some bus ministries bring members in from 20-30 miles away despite the fact that a local congregation meets just around the corner.

A liberal dose of Fifth Avenue promotionalism is necessary to keep the bus ministry running. Special days of one sort or another must always be in the making. Stops at fast food restaurants, serving ice cream, donuts and candy are a necessity for a successful bus ministry.

The Simple Appeal of the Gospel

No one can argue with the facts. These schemes do boost the attendance at the local congregation. However, how effective are these tools to true conversion to the Lord and the edification of the local church?

Looking at what is being done to promote church attendance, one is not surprised to find that “organized religion is widely criticized by the unchurched as having lost `the real spiritual part of religion’ and for being `too concerned with organizational as opposed to theological or spiritual issues’ ” (The Unchurched American, p. 8).

– Six in 10 among the unchurched, and as many as one-half of the churched, egree (strongly or moderately) with the statement, “most churches and synagogues have lost the real spiritual part of religion” (Ibid.).

These trends demonstrate that the church has gone astray, using the techniques of the world, in trying to answer the problems of decline in church membership.

One needs to look at the legitimate things of the gospel which should be used to draw men to church attendance and the worship of God.

1. The love of God. We should hold forth the love of God in sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of mankind as God’s drawing power. Man cannot come to God except God draw him; Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (Jn. 6:44-45). The drawing power of the gospel is Christ’s love for us in dying on the cross for our sins. Again, Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32). Consequently, first century gospel preachers went everywhere preaching nothing except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Men were drawn to the Christ in numbers; churches were filled to overflowing by the preaching of the simple message of the love of God. The love of Christ will still constrain men if we will have the faith to preach it (2 Cor. 5:14).

2. Man’s need for salvation. Another thing which will draw men to God and encourage them to worship with other saints is to preach their need for salvation. We need to preach that the wages of sin is death (Ram. 6:23). Every man is guilty of sin (Ram. 3:23) and doomed to everlasting damnation because of his sins. Unless he finds something to atone for his sins, he will die and go to hell.

3. Jesus Christ is man’s only answer to the problem of sin. To men who are deeply convicted of sin, we need to preach that Jesus died on Calvary to atone for the sins of man (Gal. 1:4). He is the only means through which one can have access to the Father (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5). There is no other way of salvation than that which is available through Christ.

4. The hope of the gospel. To a world lost in sin, we need to hold forth the hope for everlasting life. Despite our affluence, we find the world around us still dissatisfied with what life on earth has to offer. They are groping and grasping for anything which will give meaning to life. The gospel with its hope for everlasting salvation provides the only true meaning to life. We need to preach about the inheritance which is incorruptible, undefiled, that fadeth not away, and that is reserved in heaven (1 Pet. 1:4-5) as the hope of the world.

5. The church as part of God’s eternal purpose in Christ. Having related these facts, we need to hold forth the church as being a part of God’s eternal purpose in Christ, (Eph. 3:11, 2:16). God had a purpose in building the church (Mt. 16:16); we need to find out what that purpose is and find our place in that body of Christ. In it, we need to draw near to God exhorting one another and provoking each other to love and good works (Heb. 10:24). Those who respect the Christ will respect the church which Christ came to build!

Conclusion

We need to be careful not to be ashamed or embarrassed to hold forth the truth of the gospel. I am afraid that we have been so afraid that we are going to appear sectarian or narrow-minded that we have pussy-footed with the truth. I do not believe that a man can go to heaven while being a member of any human denomination; hence, I should not be ashamed to tell him that he must be a part of the church of Christ in order to be saved. This will let him know that he is lost in his present condition and stimulate hirn to find out what the truth of God’s word teaches.

Theological liberalism will not save anyone. Furthermore, it will not encourage anyone to study to find truth, so long as he is convinced that he can be saved where he is (believing and practicing what he does). With all of liberalism’s tolerance, church membership is declining. In contrast to theologically liberal churches, the conservative churches are growing. Those religious groups which do not hesitate to teach that they are the “one true church” (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, the Pentecostals, etc.) are growing. I am afraid that we have been sold a bill of goods by theological liberals when we have been persuaded that we should not imply that someone is going to be lost because he is not a member of the church of Christ. We believe that men are lost outside the body of Christ, so let us not hesitate to say so.

Let us preach the saving gospel of Christ as the only drawing power which there is to build up the membership of the local church. Worldly schemes may increase the numbers, and that generally only temporarily, but the gospel of Christ will convert the world and edify saints to the point that they will want to offer acceptable worship to God in conjunction with other saints. That, my brethren, is the only way which the Scriptures authorize to build church attendance.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, pp. 435-438
July 10, 1980

By N.B. Hardeman

Now let me go back and say some other things. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, or thereabout, the great Restoration of primitive affairs was, proclaimed throughout our land. It shook this old earth from center to circumference. When those principles were announced clearly, unmistakably, and without modification or apology, the world sat and trembled at the very thought that it had been in error so long regarding God’s word. Men from human denominations rushed to accept a gospel restored. Together a happy, brotherhood marched do down the line. It was a solid body. It had one common objective, and every heart beat in perfect unison with the others. But, what happened? That peace and tranquillity was not for long. In 1849, in the city of Cincinnati, there was organized a human society for the making known of the wisdom of God to the world. What was that? A contravening of God’s statement that by the church, God’s wisdom was to be made known and that according to the eternal purpose, which He proposed in Jesus Christ our Lord. What do you find? That peace among the brotherhood was now disturbed by the organization of a human society. That’s it. Then in 1859, up here at Midway, Kentucky, they brought in a little melodeon, wherewith to worship and praise God. And again, division was made to appear. And then further, in 1869, in Olive Street church house in St. Louis, an organ was brought in; and what was the result? An open rupture and a division in the body of Christ. Now, I want to ask, who’s responsible for that? And I answer in concert with you all, the man that organizes a thing untaught to the Bible; the man who brought into the worship that which the Bible, does not authorize. Years went by and division appeared in Nashville. It come into this city, at Vine Street, Woodland Street, and other places, and it went throughout the region of Tennessee, and other states, until within the lifetime of some of us, we have seen the body of Christ torn asunder with open rupture, and each one going his separate way. When I oppose these diversive innovations, their proponents say: “Hardeman, don’t say anything against it. You’ll cause a fuss, Now isn’t that ridiculous! You’ll cause the fuss, “and you’ll divide the body, if you don’t keep quiet: ” Well, I didn’t keep quiet about such things. I contended earnestly for that faith once for all delivered unto the saints, and I declare again tonight that the responsibility for the division that followed rests heavily upon those brethren who introduced into the church these unscriptural things. I am neither afraid nor ashamed to declare such in the presence of any living man. After this unfortunate experience, brethren sought to cleanse the temple of God and once more worship Him as it is written. The church then had rest for several years. But alas! Within the last ten or fifteen years, p),e-millennialism has sprung up, and again, we are going through the same experience as we did with mechanical devices, and human organizations. The proponents of societies were not out open and above board declaring it, but in a secret sinister, clever manner, they went from house to house seeking whom they might devour. Finally, they got possession of the elders and then, with the legal background, they said, “If you don’t like it, get out.” Now you know that’s the story, and I am one preacher who will tell you about it and not go behind the-door to 7 do it. . L know those are facts. They can be attested by brethren all over this land.

This pre-millennial theory is a duplicate, in principle, to the music and- society disturbance. Its apologists admit it neither essential to salvation nor to Christian living, and yet there is that continued agitation and eternal talk about these things. ‘this, is not so much; in public but rather from house to house. Pre-millennialists say: The Church of God was “a spiritual contingent” – a mere accident; the kingdom o#: heaven has not yet been established upon this earth; we are not citizens of it; Jesus Christ is-not reigning on David’s throne tonight; and he will not be, in fact, until he ,comes back and all Jews are physically gathered to Jerusalem and the old Davidic temple rebuilt. Friends, let me say that sympathy for this theory is expressed by finding fault, by circulating slanderous reports and by sen-, ding anonymous letters over the land. Those responsible for such nefarious doings never come out in the open, but in a cowardly manner and with a pious air, they, too, seek whom they may devour. They cry: “Don’t oppose You’ll hurt the church. ” Brethren, those are digressive tactics to a fare-you-well but I, for one, am not easily intimidated along lines of that kind. I am amenable only to God. I don’t have to answer to any synod, conference, association or convention. I propose to announce these matters with an earnest, fervent prayer that we may cease the promulgating of those things that are causing unrest, dissatisfaction, faultfinding, and criticism among brethren over matters admittedly non-essential. Now, I am perfectly willing to say this: if there is a man in the brotherhood who has, in all sincerity, believed the gospel of God’s Son, genuinely and truly repented of his sins, publicly confessed the Christ, and has been buried into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he is a Christian. If that man has an opinion as to what Christ will do when he comes again and how we shall be, and will hold the opinion to himself, I’ll fellowship him. That’s the principle. I know that John said, “Beloved, it does not yet appear how we shall be.” I haven’t heard from heaven since John wrote, but there are brethren who speak as if they have heard later messages. They think they know how it is going to be. John said, “We do not know, but one thing is certain, we know that we will be like him.” Friends, that ought to be sufficient. Now, if any brother will keep his opinion to himself and advise all others so to do, all criticisms will cease. But if you continue to advocate and push that which is but a theory, you ought not to expect men who believe God’s word to be silent and cease not to warn brethren night and day, even with tears, regarding the baneful results that follow. Friends, there’s the ground of unity. 4n all matters, let us speak as God’s Book speaks, believe what is clearly stated therein, practice only that as a matter of faith, hold all things else that are not wrong in themselves, as matters of private opinion, and let love prevail among us. The result will be that unity, that wonderful harmony, and that strength of which every child of God might be justly proud. How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! (Hardemanis Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. IV, pp. 80-83).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, p. 434
July 10, 1980