Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

A few of our brethren advocate that if a church puts a tract written by a woman in the tract rack, a sin is committed. Among all the absurd positions that brethren have taken through the years, this one is in competition to “take the cake.” What a warped conception of women’s role in the kingdom of God.

If these extremists are to be consistent in their position, they must quit singing all of the hymns written by women. In fact, they will have to print their own songbook that contains only songs written by men or they will have to mutilate the books they have by cutting out the songs written by women.

According to their illogical thinking, it would not be enough to not sing the songs, but the teaching done by women through the printed page (songs) must not even be in the meetinghouse. What would be the difference of having what women wrote in a songbook and what women wrote in the tract rack (or in a Truth Magazine – editor) It seems to me that having the women teaching us in the worship assembly through the songbook would, be far worse than haying a tract in the vestibule for anyone who might choose to, read it outside of the assembly, if the tract is sinful.

Brethren, such a ludicrous position could not be right. The fact that in its ultimate consequences the position makes the church a laughingstock shows that these brethren who embrace such extremity need to back up and reconsider.

In the songbook, Sacred Selections, there are nearly 150 songs written by women. This book is one of the songbooks used by the anti-women-teachers’ brethren and they sing the songs written by the women. (Oh, consistency, where art thou?) Some of these songs are “Just As I Am,” “Oh, Why Not Tonight?,” “I Am Thine, O Lord,” “Near the Cross,” “He Hideth My Soul,” “Anywhere With Jesus,” “Hold To God’s Unchanging Hand,” “When We All Get To Heaven,” and “Take the Name of Jesus With You,” to name a few. What are they going to do? Will they admit their extremism and back off or will they start using the scissors and cut out the songs?

Phariseeism

Such strict and narrow limitations on a woman’s role in the church because of a misunderstanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 reminds me of the spiritually deranged Pharisees during Jesus’ personal ministry. Due to their warped concept of the Sabbath, they meticulously defined “work” that prohibited nearly every imaginable activity.

There were 39 basic actions laid down by the Jews which were forbidden, on the Sabbath. Each action had to be carefully defined. One of the actions forbidden was a “burden.” But, what is a burden?. Some said a “burden” is anything that weighs as much as two dried figs. The orthodox Jews condemned anybody who drew water; who struck or killed anything or who just planned to do anything on the Sabbath.

The Catholic Church

These “no-tract-by-women-in-the-vestibule” brethren are just as preposterous as the Catholic Church’s restrictions concerning fasting before communion. In one of the Catholic books I have it states: “The Communion fast requires that one should take nothing in the way of food or drink, not even medicine. Things that are not digestible, such as a hair, thread or piece of wood, do not break the fast. Neither do the remains of food sticking between the teeth, not blood from the mouth or gums or tongue, since they do not come from without. Little drops of water which mingle with the saliva in washing the teeth and are swallowed unintentionally are not considered a violation of the fast . . . . One who is eating or drinking must stop at the first stroke of twelve o’clock, though he may swallow what is in his mouth.”

So, from midnight till Communion, a Catholic may not, according to this book, eat or drink anything digestible. However, Catholics may have all the wood, hair or thread they may want to eat.

Someone said there are three senses that man follows (not counting the five physical senses): revealed sense, common sense and nonsense. Of course, all must follow revealed sense, but brethren, for the sake of truth, peace and growth of the church, let’s start using a little common sense and not so much nonsense.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 5, p. 82
January 31, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

There is a great need for teaching regarding abuses of church organization. The eyes of the beholder in the sectarian world view the church as another denomination because they see no distinctiveness associated with it. Generally speaking, brethren have become like those around them. Certainly we do not want to “harp” on issues, but we must teach what they are and how to deal with them. Failure to bring brethren to a remembrance of these things results in spiritual anemia (Rom. 14:1; 15:1; 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 Thess. 5:14). Our new generation simply does not understand that the basic “cause for the “new religion” facing us is unbelief! Generally speaking, brethren no longer anchor faith in objective truth (God’s Word), but in subjectiveness, the “we want it, we are going to have it because we don’t see anything wrong with it” approach. The “we do many things for which we do not have authority” philosophy has become a way of life in the brotherhood. As always there are three distinct groups among us: (1) the liberals, (2) the middle-of-the-roaders, and (3) the conservatives, who most often are called “antis.” The liberals and middle-roaders insist that the what of the work of the church has been given, but not the how. The conservatives maintain (and, rightly so) that the issue is not one of methods, but of organization. The who may not do the what (if not specified) in any way that does not violate Biblical principle. But can the church (the who) build and maintain human institutions (missionary societies, colleges, hospitals, etc.) through which to do the work God gave it to do?

The All-Sufficient Church

The church is God’s organization. It is called ekklesia in Greek, meaning the “called out” ones. It is a spiritual house, a priesthood and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:4, 9). It is the fulness of the Lord Jesus Christ (Isa. 28:18; Eph. 1:22-23). God’s plan for man’s redemption focuses in the church: “this is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32). The only organization for function on the part of citizens in the kingdom known to the New Testament is the local church with Jesus Christ as its head, independently organized under its elders (Eph. 5:25; Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). There is no earthly headquarters for the head of the church is in heaven. Though churches of Christ are not tied together by any central organization on earth, they do cooperate by functioning independently in carrying out God’s instructions.

Each local church can, to the extent of its ability do all that God intended the church to do. Each congregation is autonomous, independent, equal and sufficient in their relation to other collectivities. In the absence of authority should any local church financially subsidize through contributions any human organization such as a college, they sin! Should the elders of any local church give up their duty to see the things done by the flock are done rightly, they give away their autonomy; they sin! In either case the local church becomes dependent in$tead of independent, unequal instead of equal, and insufficient instead of sufficient. The issue is still this: if elders can delegate part of their oversight (resources, for example) to an unauthorized sponsoring church or to a human organization, then why not the rest of the elements of the local church? Why not some big, super organization! If elders can delegate a part of its work, is the whole left? Are they overseeing the flock, the whole? Shades of Rome! Please observe the chart and see the common ground of agreement, that the church doing its authorized work by the expedient methods deemed best causes no breach. Division occurs when human organizations or arrangements usurp the place of the church. All agree that methods are permissible but strife occurs when it comes to which organization shall employ these methods. The organizations are not methods, they are organizations that use methods!(See chart below)

 

 

A Glance Backward

In this writing, only a sketch of the historical aspect of digression will be given. Our immediate situation ties in with the early elements of the cooperation movement about a hundred years ago. Desiring to bring into being machinery for pooling resources in evangelism, influential men in the 1850 era began to commend the “sewing societies” of certain women desiring to provide clothing for the poor, the sponsoring of the “United Kingdom” fund by the Bethany, Virginia church (campaigned for by Walter Scott and S.K. Pendleton), and other institutional societies for church-supported benevolence. Voices of opposition were heard. Men like Barton W. Stone wanted to know where the New Testament authorized such. From this, the demand for cooperation of churches on a local and national level resulted in division when the American Christian Missionary Society began in 1849. Then as now, the desire for unscriptural arrangements was more important than unity among believers. As early as the middle nineteenth century, one can see the development of “liberalism” and “conservativism.” There was a clear, distinct cleavage between the two. A casual reading of events relating to the American Christian Missionary Society and election of Alexander Campbell as president reveals vividly that the one goal was not unity, but cooperation. Men like McGarvey and Pendleton took opposing positions on the society. The Gospel Advocate came out strongly against the Missionary Society in 1866.

One cannot overlook the “college issue” of this period. Beginning with Bethany College, the problem of the relationship between colleges and churches of the Lord was apparent. In the past, colleges have denied taking contributions from churches except when sent without solicitation. Now funds are openly solicited from churches by various colleges. In 1939, when G.C. Brewer went on record at Abilene Christian College as endorsing colleges in the budgets of churchs, a statement was made by him that it was his (i.e., Brewer’s) understanding that this had been the situation since Bethany College was founded in 1840. With qualifications, men like George Benson of Harding College, E.H. Ijams of Lipscomb in Nashville and N.B. Hardeman of Freed-Hardeman opposed placing colleges in church budgets.

From this situation, it was but a short step to sponsoring church arrangements with elderships taking oversight of foreign fields. Having proven workable overseas, the method was applied at home. Such things as the Herald of Truth were born. Anything that brethren want to promote is now placed under a sponsor and diocesan elderships are commonplace. The mania of “Frog Kissing Retreats,” and other clap-traps are fallouts.

When will brethren wake up to the fact that all human institutions and arrangements in evangelism, benevolence and edification stand or fall together? The church cannot by divine authority work through, nor contribute to any of them. How sad to witness brethren’s desire for their promotions taking precedence over peace and unity. The intoxicating glory of man-made schemes are short-lived when compared to eternity’s hell and loss of identity.

Where Is The Stopping?

In The Christian Monthly of August 1870, James Pickens said, “If the door is set ajar for innovations, how shall we determine where it shall stand or that it should not stand wide open, and that continually?” The giants of liberalism are lamenting the fruits of unscriptural cooperative efforts spawned by them. Ira Rice attacks the “maverick pastor” Jim Reynolds of Dallas, Texas; charging him with the responsibility of certain churches in Cupertino, California and Dallas joining the inter-faith movement. The truth of the matter is this: brother Reynolds only watered the digressive element in these churches. Brother Rice planted the seed of digresion when he convinced the Southwest Church of Christ to sponsor him in Singapore in 1955. Listen to him: “. . . your editor feels peculiarly qualified to comment personally on this one, because the now so called Southwest Church of Christ . . . is the same old Hampton Place Church of Christ, which was the original sponsoring church that sent my family and me to Singapore in 1955 – and was our sponsor for more than 13 years!” (Contending for the Faith, January 1978, italics mine, jt). The Southwest church where Jim Reynolds preached at the time of this statement had as much right getting involved in inter-faith movements as she did sponsoring and taking oversight of Singapore works. The pot calling the kettle black? I say so!

Questions

1. Why do brethren need to be constantly reminded of issues which divided the church in bygone years?
2. Was the last division over church support of benevolent societies and colleges simply a division over methods? Explain your answer.
3. What does the belief in the “all-sufficiency of the church” mean? Is the church all-sufficient to market books and other literature? Is the church allsufficient to care for the poor of all the world?
4. Why is it sinful for a church to contribute to any human institution?
5. Is there any significant difference in a church contributing to a missionary society, benevolent society, or edification society (college)?
6. Is the missionary society, benevolent society or col lege simply a “method” of doing a given work?
7. Is there any difference in principle in sending a cash contribution to a college, loaning a school the use of the church building, and building a church school?
8. Why is a “little liberalism” dangerous?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 4, pp. 73-75
January 24, 1980

By Karl Diestelkamp

If the founders are wrong, can the followers be right (Matt. 15:13, 14)`! If the foundations are unsound, can the building be sound (Matt. 7:26, 27)`! If the doctrines are false, can the beliefs be true (Gal. 1:6, 7; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4)`! If the belief is error, can the practice be true (Matt. 15:7-9)`! If the practice is unacceptable, will the worshiper be accepted (2 Thess. 2:7-12)?

These are crucial questions challenging every thinking person regarding personal faith, practice and religious affiliation. However, most of the denominational world long ago decided that these are unimportant and unnecessary questions. Many have been convinced that real religious unity is impossible and, thereby, deny the knowledge, wisdom and revelation of God. Multitudes have been led to believe that simplicity means inadequacy so everything from worship, to work, to organization is compounded and complicated in an effort to please men and to implement humanly devised programs and practices.

Perhaps the most clear-cut identifying mark of any modern denomination is its organizational structure. From the simple “presiding elder” to the complex “vicar of Christ” papacy, the word “departure” screams out at those who know the New Testament pattern for the Lord’s church. Remember, denominationalism could not exist without there first being a departure from the authority of the Scriptures. When anyone decides that the Bible is not the absolute, unerring authority for personal faith and obedience, such a person will not follow, or be concerned about, authority for the establishment and organization of the church.

That denominationalism is a departure from the New Testament pattern is clearly seen when it is contrasted and compared with the simple organization of the church which Jesus established. Please consider the absolute simplicity of the organization of Christ’s church.

(1) Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18). He is “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:14, 15). He now reigns and rules at the right hand of God, over His kingdom, the church, as an absolute monarch (Heb. 1:1-3, 5, 13; 8:1; 10:12, 13; 1 Cor. 15:25; Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 3:22; Eph. 1:20-22). Having all authority in heaven and on earth, He built His church as He had promised (Matt. 16:18). He is the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) and the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6).

(2) Christ is head of His church (Eph. 1:22, 23). All things are under His feet (authority) and He has preeminence in all things (Col. 1:18). Under Christ, the apostles and prophets functioned in keeping with His will (Eph. 2:20). We hasten to point out that there is no provision in the New Testament for any “succession” of apostles to this day and none today can meet the divine qualifications (Acts 1:15-26). First century prophets revealed the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. Their work was temporary and has been completed (1 Cor. 13:8-13; Zech. 13:1, 2); since there are no living apostles to impart the gifts (Acts 8:14-19), there can be no true “latter day” prophets today.

(3) As head of His body (church), Christ has authorized the only organization for the church meeting in any given place. The church in such a place consists of “all the saints . . . with the bishops and deacons” (Phil 1:1). Saints are “set apart ones” who have been added to the church (Acts 2:47) by the Lord. It is the will of Christ that each church have elders (bishops) when a plurality of qualified men are found (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). The qualifications are set forth in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Tit. 1:5-9. The Lord has decreed that elders be “overseers” (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2), that they “rule” (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:24) and that they “feed” and “tend” the flock (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:18, 28). This is not to be construed as giving elders any legislative (law-making) authority. They serve under Christ, shepherding the flock according to His will alone. Deacons are specially appointed “servants” in the church who meet the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:8-13. However, deacons do not “oversee” or “rule” in the body of Christ. Elders are to “take heed . . . to all the flock” over which they are overseers (Acts 20:28), and are to “feed the flock . . . which is among you” (I Pet. 5:2). There is a complete absence of New Testament authority for any organization larger or smaller than the local church. Intercongregational combines, cooperatives, associations and institutions are without Biblical sanction.

Now note some visible departures in organization found in modern denominations that argue against any of them being the New Testament church:

Roman Catholicism — A diocesan arrangement is used, including unmarried Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Pope. They have a highly centralized form of government and organization with offices unheard of in the New Testament.

Lutherans — There are three major denominations by this name. All have earthly headquarters with synodical (ecclesiastical council) forms of government and organization not seen in the New Testament.

Baptists — They are divided into various “Conventions” and “Associations,” having local offices and organizations not authorized by the New Testament.

Methodists — There are fifteen-plus different denominations by this name. Many are part of the World Methodist Council and have a local form of organization and offices foreign to the New Testament.

Presbyterians — They are organized into Presbyteries (a division of synods and councils) with several Boards and Assemblies unheard of in the Scriptures.

Disciples (Christian Church) — Abandoning the New Testament pattern, this group reorganized in 1968 and clearly identified itself as a denomination. The reorganization was admittedly not in the direction of Biblical authority.

Christian Science — They are organized under the Board of the Mother Church in Boston, Massachusetts about which the New Testament says nothing.

Jehovah’s Witnesses — They are organized under the direction and control of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, N.Y., an organization unknown to the pages of the New Testament.

Mormons — They are organized under a 38-man body called the General Authorities consisting of a President and two counselors, the Council of Twelve Apostles and their Assistants, the church Patriarch, a 7 man First Council of the Seventy and three member Presiding Bishopric with headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, all of which are without New Testament basis.

Space forbids that we should list even most of the departures in the area of organization found in modern denominations. However, those sincerely seeking to identify the true church can quickly determine if any organization is correctly organized by comparing every facet of it with the New Testament pattern. Without scriptural organization, no “body of believers” can be truly the Lord’s body. Also, it should be pointed out that “organizational departures” are not the only departures that can cause a religious body to be false!

Any organization that includes offices and appointments unheard of in the New Testament has departures from the pattern of the New Testament Church. To illustrate, all of the following are unheard of in the New Testament: Sunday School Superintendent, Presiding Elder, Presiding Bishop, Board of Elders, Board of Deacons, President, latter-day Apostles, Headquarters, Councils, Elected Representatives, Evangelistic Oversight, Conventions, Associations, Sponsoring Churches, Intercongregational Cooperatives, Overseeing Elderships (with control of more than the local church), Statewide Nationwide and/or International Conventions (Workshops, Campaigns, etc.) which constitute functions beyond the realm of the local church.

Denominationalism is not of God! It is the invention of Satan who has, in turn, influenced men to accept his inferior, ineffective and soul-condemning substitutes. Since denominationalism is not from God, it can only be a departure from the divine plan and pattern. Brethren everywhere need to be ever alert to any and all such departures from the faith (Jude 3) and increase determination to “abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9-11). Remember truth has nothing to fear in open, honest investigation!

Questions

1. Discuss the simplicity of the organization of Christ’s church.
2. What are some departures in organization found in modern denominations that argue against any of them being the New Testament church?
3. Assign each member of the class to find out how the major denominations of the community are organized.
4. Can all authority reside in Christ (Matt. 28:18) if there is another man or group of men claiming to be the head of the church?
5. Is the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15; Gal. 2:1-10) justification for church councils to legislate doctrine? Explain and defend your answer.
6. How has the office of elders been perverted by denominationalists and liberal brethren?
7. If there is no pattern for the organization of the church, would any form of church organization be sinful?
8. If God has revealed a pattern for the organization of the New Testament church, what is it and what is our obligation to it?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 4, pp. 71-43
January 24, 1980

By Darrel Haub

God has intended from eternity that the church manifest His wisdom to men; therefore, we need to respect His desires in church organization as we do in all other aspects of the church (Eph. 3:8-11). By organization, we mean “to be organized.” When something is organized it is (1) provided with an organic structure; systematized; (2) arranged; established; instituted; brought into being. (Webster’s New World Dictionary). From the beginning of the New Testament to the end, we find the church described as belonging to Christ. In Matthew 16:18, He promised to build His church; in Revelation 21:9, we find her described as His wife. These basic ideas alone should encourage us to search out the type of organization which the Lord desires and support only that in the Lord’s church today.

We find the church described as blood-bought in both her universal (brotherhood of all the saved) and local (collection of Christians in one area) senses in the scriptures. In Ephesians 5:25, we are taught that Christ gave Himself up for the church. The reference in Hebrews 9:11-22 to the total body of those saved shows application of Christ’s death and the blood shed in His death to the church universally. In Acts 20:28, we see the eldership of Ephesus charged to shepherd the local flock of God which is also blood-ought. We would, therefore, expect to find the wishes of Christ manifested in the organization of the church in both her universal and local capacities.

In promising to build the church, Christ also authorized the apostles to bind and loose in the kingdom according to the binding and loosing already determined by God (Matt. 18:18). Therefore, apostolic authority is needed for any church organization that pleases God. We find that the methods of determination of authority used in Acts 15, when the question of circumcision was considered, should be used to establish authority in church organization. Briefly, the methods used there were necessary inferences such as Peter reasoned from God’s revelation (Acts 10), approved example used by Paul and Barnabus, and direct statements such as James quoted from Amos (Acts 15:19). Since apostolic authority is given for both the offices and the filling of these offices in the organization of the church, she should be organized only according to that authority. Therefore, in both structure and operation, the organization of the church is divine in origin.

Officers In The Universal Church

By many direct statements, we find the universal church established as a monarchy with Jesus Christ as her head. As Peter preached his first gospel sermon on Pentecost, He proclaimed Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (cf. 2:36). This statement makes Him both ruler and intercessor in the kingdom. As Lord, He is both Lawgiver and Judge (Jas. 4:12). When questioned by Pilate about Himself, Christ answered affirmatively to the charge of being a king, yet not a rival of Caesar (John 18:26-37). He is called the Shepherd and Guardian of our souls (I Pet. 2:25). We also find Him described as the Chief Shepherd over other shepherds (1 Pet. 5:4). This reinforces the subjection of local church elders to Christ as head of the church. In the Scriptures, Jesus Christ is described as a permanent high priest ever living to intercede for men under our better covenant (Hebrews 7:22-5). Therefore, the unique position of Christ in the church as ruler, judge, and high priest is firmly established by divine Scripture.

Jesus functions in these areas as He does because He is qualified to do so. He qualifies as ruler because He pleased God in all respects (Matt. 17:5). He qualifies as judge because God raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:31). He qualifies as high priest because He is both God and man who was tempted in all points yet without sin (Heb. 4:14-16).

Next in the universal church, we see the establishment of the apostleship. These men were charged with binding and loosing in the kingdom (Matt. 18:18). They function in a universal sense as Paul taught in many churches (1 Cor. 4:17). Their primary mission was to witness to men what Christ had said and done in person and what He would tell them through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 1:2-8). Their field of work is the whole world; they are still the church’s apostles even though none are alive today.

The qualifications for apostles are given to us in Acts 1:21-26. They must have been an eye witness of Christ. Also, the Lord must have chosen them Himself. This latter qualification is especially reinforced in the case of Paul as related by him in Acts 26:16-19. He is the last apostle to have been appointed by Christ (1 Cor. 15:8).

There is another office in the universal church in which men were inspired to function for the whole church. That office is the office of prophet. Some came from Jerusalem and prophesied in Antioch (Acts 11:27-28). We notice also that the church in Antioch had some prophets of her own (Acts 13:1). A prophet was qualified to prophesy by a spiritual gift which came by the laying on of Apostles’ hands (Acts 8:17). In the reading of 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14, the limited nature of spiritual gifts is taught so that the gift of prophecy would only exist until the revelation of the word of God was completed. We are not concerned that we have no Apostles to now bestow that gift. The prophets functioned to edify, exhort, and console the church (1 Cor. 14:3) before the inspired word was completed to do that work.

In the universal church, members are identified by various terms indicating status and function. Hebrews 2:11 shows us that we are brethren with Christ, hoping to inherit with Him. 1 Peter 2:4-10 presents the universal church as a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices. These descriptive names help us to understand our function as members of the universal body of Christ. The qualifications for universal church membership are salvation (Acts 2:47) and being faithful to God as we live day by day (1 John 1:5-10).

Officers In The Local Church

A local church is identified in Philippians 1:1 where the saints are addressed with the overseers and deacons. Until elders are appointed in a local church, something is wanting (Tit. 1:5). Even though it is not wrong -for a church to exist for a period of time without elders as in Acts 14:21-23, the local church is intended to be organized by having them. Never do we find them referred to as functioning without a plurality of their number.

By looking at the various names given to the eldership, we can determine their function. The idea of elders being overseers of the local flock is presented in Acts 20:17-32. However, they are also required to go to the word of God for their authority, not legislating for themselves. The word elder calls to our minds age, wisdom, and experience. In 1 Tim. 3:1, they are also addressed as overseers and, in 1 Peter. 5:1-3, they are told to shepherd the flock as shepherds. In this passage, they are also told to be examples to the flock and not as lords which might require one thing and do another.

When a question arose concerning the teaching of circumcision by Christians from Jerusalem, the elders were involved in an examination of the inspired evidence and a determination of what to do about this matter (Acts 15). One time, Paul called upon the elders in Jerusalem before entering the Temple and they advised him to go through the Jewish cleansing ceremony to avoid difficulty (Acts 21:17-26). It certainly is wise for a Christian to consult his elders to benefit from their wisdom and experience in problems of life as a Christian. They should be called upon to pray in behalf of one of their flock such as for sickness as discussed in James 5:14. We see them working to shepherd both the sheep and the flock of their charge.

By the very nature of their work in watching over souls (Heb. 13:17) and protecting the flock through exhortation within and refutation of false doctrine without (Tit. 1:7-11), they must be well qualified men. Qualifications for the eldership are given clearly in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1-:6-9. Even though these qualifications may appear to restrict the eldership beyond the average adult male, mature Christian, these qualifications must be respected or the eldership cannot do what God intends it to do. God never restricts needlessly; therefore, these things are essential to an elder’s normal function. Every man in the church should strive for the spirituality it takes to be qualified for the eldership whether he is married and a father or not.

In addition to the elders, we have an approved apostolic example of deacons, being appointed in the church (Acts 6:1-6). They were appointed to see to the details of the physical action of benevolence among the widows at Jerusalem. Again, a plurality of deacons is always seen, as in the eldership. Their qualifications are given 1 Timothy 3:8-13. The trusted work of the deacons in handlng the physical aspects of the local church’s work also requires the strict adherence to the qualifications listed.

In every case which discusses the eldership or the role of deacons, we see them restricted in their work to one local church. Elders are charged to shepherd the flock among them in 1 Peter 5:2 (i.e., one local church). The deacons of Acts 6 saw to the benevolent need of the widows in the church at Jerusalem. These facts show us that the Holy Spirit, as He establishes elders and deacons, establishes them to function only in the local church in which they hold membership.

Local church membership is based upon universal church membership or sainthood. Paul, after obeying the gospel, was accepted into the local church first at Damacus, then later at Jerusalem, based on his obedience to the gospel and new life which followed (Acts 9:18-28). In accordance with Paul’s instructions to Corinth, local church membership should be dissolved if unrepented sin is seen in the life of any of her members (1 Cor. 5). As members of the local church, Christians are expected to be subject to their authorized leaders as well as to the Lord.

The establishment of local church organization is done by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). In doing this, He works through the same revelation which is used to make us Christians. By the approved apostolic example in Jerusalem, we see the church selecting deacons and the apostles ordaining them. When the Holy Spirit has given us qualifications for the officers of the church and the members of a local church select men who meet those qualifications, having them set apart by an evangelist, we have acted by God’s authority in organizing the local church.

There is no earthly organization of the universal church given in the scriptures. Since the church in its universal sense has no functioning arrangement, it is logical that there be no earthly organization; therefore, Christ still rules from heaven as head of the church. The church in her local congregational capacity has an authorized earthly organization because she has collective activity to accomplish which is best done through organization. Even though local churches existed in New Testament times without elders and deacons and may do so now, they had and have something wanting until they are organized scripturally.

Questions

1. Why should the church be organized according to Scripture?
2. Discuss the significance of the church being blood bought in her universal sense and in her local sense.
3. Why is apostolic authority needed in church organization?
4. What is the general nature of the universal church organization?
5. Describe the universal church’s offices.
6. What offices are authorized in the local church?
7. What should be expected of elders?
8. What should be expected of deacons?
9. Why should the local church be organized?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 4, pp. 69-71
January 24, 1980