Why I Left The Pentecostal Religion

By Robert Sumpter

First of all, I would like to make clear that I was very sincere while I was in the Pentecostal religion. The apostle Paul was very sincere in the Jewish religion; he said:

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the ‘feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day (Acts 22:3).

Also Cornelius, a Gentile, a sincere man, insomuch that the scriptures says that he was a devout man, one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always (Acts 10:2). Here we read of two cases of sincerely lost people: a sincere Jew, who persecuted the Christians thinking he was right and doing God’s will and a sincere Gentile who was not under the Jewish religion who worshiped God in his own way. Yet, both of these men needed to be saved. Why? Because the Church of Christ was now built.

I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loose in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19).

He was speaking to Peter here, and to all the apostles in Matt 18:18. The kingdom of Heaven and the church are the same; this was prophesied in Isa. 2:2-3, Mic. 4:1-2, and Dan. 2:44. Until the church was built by Christ, the Jewish religion was acceptable before God for the Jews who were faithful to it. The Gentile who worshiped God in his own way, as Cornelius did, was acceptable to God until Christ by the way of the cross brought Jew and Gentile into one fold.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (I Cor. 12:13; John 10:6; Eph. 2:14-15).

It was revealed in Jer. 23:10 that it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. This is why Paul and Cornelius needed God’s help, to direct them into truth, now that the church was built. It needed to be done in a miraculous way since the perfect law of liberty, the New Testament, was not yet completed. Yet, the obedience to the plan of salvation was not in a miraculous way. They both were given instructions regarding how to be saved. Ananias taught Paul saying, “And now why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Peter told words to Cornelius and his house, in Acts 11:14, how they could be saved. Certainly if God was going to save anyone in a miraculous way or by prayer now that the church was built, it would have been one of these two men because Paul was praying, in Acts 9:11 and Cornelius’ prayer went up before God for a memorial. Yet, God chose not to save them in any different way than He will save us.

When the perfect, law, the New Testament, of which Christ is the mediator (Heb. 9:15) came, the Lord revealed:

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a)-doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed (James 1:25).

Since this has been completed, there is no need for God to use a direct miracle to lead a man to teach us. We have available the Scriptures for our study so that we can know the will of God. It is our responsibility to hear the man of God; it is not God’s responsibility to send us a man in a miraculous way for us to hear. We know when we hear the man of God, because he uses the New Testament Scriptures; the man of God gives a “thus saith the Lord” and not a book of by-laws or doctrines of men. When we hear and have pointed out to us by the Bible the truth, and the Bible is the only truth, it is up to us to obey it as Paul and Cornelius did in order to be saved. In John 17:17, Jesus said that God’s word is truth.

Certainly I know of no one anymore sincere than I was in the Pentecostal religion. I was very dedicated to it. I fasted, prayed and worked very hard for that religion. At sixteen years of age, I felt very depressed and did not care about life when a crippled boy invited me to a Youth for Christ Prayer Meeting. I went to it feeling very badly, looking for some hope for the future. Those young people prayed, one by one, on their knees; one girl prayed and prayed, cried and moaned for my lost soul. It really made me feel bad. When I got home, I went to my bedroom and prayed, “God save me, please.” After praying awhile, I felt better and it seemed as though my burdens had rolled away. I began shouting and ran downstairs. I shouted, “God saved me. God saved me.” My mother asked me if I was crazy and I said, “No. I am saved.” But I did not know one thing about the Bible or God. All that I knew was that I felt good.

I began going to the Brethren in Christ denomination because that was my grandmother’s religion. I worked for a grocery store and rode the bus home. The bus stopped in front of a Pentecostal Church almost every night. One could here them speaking in tongues, shouting, singing, and using their mechanical instruments. It was so loud. one could hear it a block away. This attracted me. I was not satisfied in my grandmother’s religion, so 1 joined the Pentecostal Church of God of America. The headquarters at this time was in Joplin, Missouri.

It took a few months before 1 received what I thought to be the baptism of the Holy Ghost. In seeking for the Holy Ghost, I was helped by the Pentecostals. They got on both sides of me, some screaming, “Let loose,” others, “Hold on,” and still others clapping their hands and saying, “Thank you, Jesus.” Almost every night for two months from nine till one or two in the morning, I prayed and shouted very loud and fast things like, “Hallelujah,” “Praise the Lord,” “Thank you Jesus,” and “Amen,” until I wore myself out and just lay back on the floor. Finally, one night when I fell back exhausted, my tongue could not stop; it just said a lot of things not clear. When it was over, they said I had received the Holy Ghost baptism and I believed them. 1 began preaching thinking that God would fill my mouth with what to say. The louder 1 was and the more 1 spoke in tongues the better preacher 1 was. The Pentecostal Church of God of America was not willing to give me a preacher’s license, so at twenty-two I went to the Dayton Revival Center where they ordained me to be an evangelist. I was given the position as one of the assistant preachers to Leland Gaver, a divine healer. He later separated from his wife and she made me her assistant.

The devil had a place for me the moment 1 was interested in my soul being saved; when I became dissatisfied with the world, he had something else to offer me and lead me around by the nose for many years. The devil has a church for everybody; whatever they want to believe, he has it for them. He does not care if you quit lying, swearing, smoking or drinking; he would rather have you in a false religion, having you believe you are saved.

In being an assistant to a divine healer, 1 was being trained to be one also. In this training, 1 got the shock of my life. 1 was taught to use psychology. One time, Gaver held a meeting in Kentucky. The auditorium was quite big. Many other young preachers and 1 sat on the stage, and were observing, learning to be divine healers. The evangelist took his notebook and walked from side to side and back and forth through the crowd while the songleader kept the crowd busy with loud and fast music. This time was also spent with selling books which they claimed, cost nothing. They gave them away for a dollar donation, for God wanted everyone to have one, so they said. They were paper back books only worth about fifty cents. While all this was going on the evangelist was writing in his notebook such things as blue sweater, red dress, green hat, black shoes, etc. When he came to the microphone to preach and heal the people, God was supposed to tell him that a woman way in the back (too far for the natural eye to see) had on a blue dress, and was sitting on the right side of the building had need for prayer.

Not one thing ever prayed for was of the nature that you could see it healed with your own eye. When someone did get to be prayed for that was blind or crippled, they never had enough faith to be healed and needed to come back when they had more faith. There were many far out things that took place in these meetings. I could take much time relating stories, but just a few examples are all that I could relate in the space that I have.

In service, a woman testified that her sick pig was about to die. She related that she annointed it with oil and commanded God to heal it, and He did. The people shouted and even ran outside the building shouting,” “Thank you Jesus.”

Another time in Hera Arena in Dayton, Ohio, A.A. Allen told how he bottled up demons which he cast out of people and that he had a room full of bottled up demons. On this particular occasion when he was casting a demon out of a person, he told everyone to close their eyes and take the Bible in their hands or else the devil which would come out would go into them through their eyes and they would be filled with demons. Two ladies in front of my wife and I had only one Bible, They were so afraid they began to fight over it and tore it in half. I saw this happen because my eyes were open. I was beginning to doubt my religion. No devil came into me. It was shortly after this that I found the truth.

Until this time, my wife and I were very devoted to Pentecostalism. We fasted and prayed. 1 was very skinny. I believed that by fasting and praying, I could cast out devils and heal people. 1 prayed for the sick and there were those who claimed they were healed through my ministry. However, 1 could not heal myself of the very things that I could heal others, such as a cold, a headache or aches of the body. 1 never healed a blind eye or a crippled leg, etc. I not only talked in tongues, but I also sang in tongues. People would tell me that they saw a halo over my head when I preached. I never saw it, nor did my wife. However, 1 believed it was there.

I worked with many divine healers, not in the service itself, but in the tent or prayer rooms. I worked with men such as Oral Roberts, A.A. Allen, James Dunn, David Walker and many others. Most of them are not heard of anymore, some are dead or inactive. All used psychology on the people. New men and women have cropped up since I have been out of the Pentecostal religion. Leroy Jenkins is one. I visited his services in a meeting in Springfield, Ohio several years ago. He is no different than any other divine healers who 1 knew; if anything, he is more bold with his deceiving the people. All the healers who I worked with robbed the people; they talked old people out of their pension checks. When I was in charge of the Dayton Revival Center, I just could not bring myself to rob the people and would get scolded for not bringing in as much money as I should. Many other incidents I could tell about this part of my life, but space will not permit.

On February 17, 1963, my wife and I obeyed the gospel at Adelite Street Church of Christ in Dayton, Ohio. This came about by much study of the scripture with Eugene Carter, the preacher of the Adelite congregation. He is now the preacher of the Montgomery Avenue congregation in Springfield, Ohio. Eugene was a part-time preacher; he works for a living at International Harvester Company, the same place that I do. We were introduced when he was to break me in on a job. He heard that I was a Pentecostal preacher and asked me to prove my belief by the Bible. I got upset and mad because I could not do it. I was so hung-up on divine healing and speaking in tongues that it took about six months before we obeyed the gospel.

To show you how much I believed that God would heal people through me, I began to want others to go with me to the hospitals to heal the sick and to the mental instituations to cast out devils. I felt that many could not get to the divine healer, but if the divine healer would go to them, how great this would be. Jesus went to the sick, even to Lazarus who was dead and raised him from the dead (John 11:14). If the divine healer can heal, he needs to go to the people wherever they are. This caused many of the members of the Pentecostal religion to frown on me; they thought that I was crazy and soon I was blackballed from preaching. This was one of the things that kept me debating with Eugene. I felt that Mark 16:17-20 applied to people today. I believed signs and miracles should follow me as a believer; I should be able to cast out devils, speak with tongues, take up serpents, drink deadly things and lay hands on the sick so that they would recover. It took almost six months for me to see this passage was talking about the apostles. Verse 16 is what I needed to see. It is for me and it is for you. It says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:17). The “he” is all of us who will believe the apostles and, in believing, be baptized in obedience to the gospel. The “them” is the apostles. They would do signs and miracles if they believed. It was the eleven to whom He appeared and upbraided for their unbelief. In Mark 16:14, He told them to go to all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. We, the “he,” are to hear and obey what they preach. The apostles were to have the signs and do the miracles. This is easy to see if one is honest and does not let the devil blind his eyes.

Baptism was not easy for me to understand. We were taught that one was saved and then, when convenient, was baptized as an outward sign of an inward work. Eugene wanted me to find that in the Bible. Believe me, I tried. I looked and even asked the preacher, but we just could not find it. Eugene, however, was able to show me where the Bible said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). He showed me that baptism also saved me, not just repenting or believing. He referred to this passage:

Wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water, the like figure where unto even baptism Both also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Peter 3:20-21).

He showed me that baptism put me into Christ and Christ in to me:

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:26-27).

2 Tim. 2:10 tells us that salvation is in Christ Jesus. It is not possible for us to be saved without being in Christ; to get into Him, we must be baptized. He showed me that we were to be baptized into the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). He shed His blood in His death (Jn. 19:34). Furthermore, Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

He showed me by the Bible that the baptism for man today is water baptism. He made me read this passage:

And as they went on their way they came unto a certain water: And the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:36-39).

At Cornelius’ house, Peter said; “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized” (Acts 10:42-43).

My wife did not want to accept the Lord’s church at first; she gave me a hard time. I told her that I was going to study with the church and its minister for a while, and site could do what she wanted to do. I would show her the scriptures that I was studying, and she was ready to be with me. The people at the revival center knew we were studying with the church and they were very upset about it. One night a lady came up to me and laid her hands on my head and spoke in tongues. Then, she interpeted it, “Behold I am the Lord thy God, Thou art about to leave the Pentecostal Church. If you do, you will not live long.” This did not scare me, it would have at one time and I would have fallen on my knees to repent. I was row seeing truth through the Bible with the help of Eugene Carter and other members of the Church of Christ. The Pentecostals prophesied over me because they were afraid I was going to leave them and they did not want to loose me. I had been trying to show them through the scriptures that perhaps we were wrong in our teaching.

It was a great night at the Adelite Church of Christ the night we obeyed the gospel. Eugene Carter preached on hell. I could hardly wait for the sermon to get over. As soon as the song started I went forward not knowing that my wife was standing behind me. I certainly rejoiced when I realized my wife was standing beside me. She also believed and obeyed the gospel with me in order to become a member of the family of God. That was on February 17, 1963, fifteen years ago. It has not been an easy life to be just a Christian, a member of the Church of Christ, but it has been very rewarding.

Speaking in tongues was also hard for me to understand. We believed that this was the evidence that the Holy Ghost was in our lives. Eugene pointed out to me that all who obey the gospel receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. He referred me to this passage:

And we are his witnesses of these things and so is also the Holy Ghost whom God hath given to them that obey him (Acts 5:32).

The apostles were God’s witness concerning Christ, and the Holy Ghost was God’s witness given to those that obey God. Man does not have to obey God in direct voice for the Holy spirit to be in his life, for by obeying His word the Spirit is in the life of a Christian. We believed that all should speak in tongues, but it was pointed out to me by the Bible that not all speak in tongues, nor do all interpet. “To some were given divers kinds of tongues, and another interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:30). It was also pointed out that in 1 Cor. 13:8 that tongues shall cease.

We used the unknown tongue as a way to get around speaking in a clear tongue. Peter spoke in tongues, as well as did the other apostles, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). It was a language to be heard and understood. About seventeen different nations heard them speak in their own tongues (v. 8), yet they were all Galileans, These men did not go to a school or an university to learn these tongues, yet I know of no one that belongs to the Pentecostal religion, now or then, who went to a foreign country to preach without having to study the tongue, or have an interpreter who had studied the tongue, to interpret what he spoke into the country’s language. It did not make sense, if one had the gift of tongues, why did he have to study the tongue to be able to preach in another language?

The unknown tongue is simply unknown to the hearer because they do not know the tongue being spoken; therefore, the one speaking in a tongue was to have an interpreter or not speak (1 Cor. 14:2). If he did speak, it only understood by him and only edified him, not the whole church. Because one is so zealous, he needed to control himself, to the point where that when he spoke publicly, he edified the church. Paul explained in 1 Cor. 14 how vain it was to speak when no one understands, and that he would rather for them to speak to be understood or, if in another tongue, to have an interpreter. Paul said,

1 thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all, yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (1 Cor. 14:18-19).

The unknown tongue is not some mysterious tongue that only God knows. It had to be a clear tongue of a nation, where that all could hear the gospel, for God is no respecter of persons. One needs to study the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians very carefully and, if he is honest, he will see by the Bible that tongue-speaking people today are false in their speaking.

My wife and 1 were honest with the Bible and God. We did just what you need to do: forget your doctrines, the teachings of your religion and. your parent’s religion and sit at the feet of Jesus, accepting what the Bible has to say about salvation, for Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all that obey Him (Heb. 5:9). If you hunger and thirst after righteousness, God has promised to fill you (Matt. 5:6). This is what happened to my wife and I. We were seeking for truth and hungry for righteousness, and God allowed us to be filled. If you do not love the truth God will allow you to believe a lie and be damned because you believe not the truth.

Let God be true but every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings and mightest overcome when thou art judged (Rom. 3:4).

We had to let our Pentecostal preacher be a liar, because the Bible said so and let God be true by accepting book, chapter, and verse for what the Lord taught us. I left the Pentecostal religion because it is false; hardly a one of their teachings is in harmony with the Bible. Many are sincere in the Pentecostal religion but not honest with God and the Bible. Let me exhort you to be honest and study with the Church of Christ and see that what is taught comes only from the word of God.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 8, pp. 134-137
February 22, 1979

The All Sufficiency Of The Church (2)

By Mike Willis

I have previously manifested my faith in the all sufficiency of the church. I have shown its perfections as revealed to us in the word of God. History, however, demonstrates that not all men have this belief in the all sufficiency of the church. Consequently, there have been many departures from the revelation of God in the area of the work of the church. The root disease in each case was unbelief; men became convinced that the church was insufficient to do the work which God gave it to do.

Manifestations of Unbelief in the Nineteenth Century

Those who have even a smattering of knowledge about restoration literature, such as myself (for I am surely a novice in this field), know that the American Christian Missionary Society was borne out of a lack of confidence in the church to do the work of evangelism which God gave it to do. Let us demonstrate that this is so.

In 1842, Campbell wrote a short note entitled “Five Arguments For Church Organization” (he listed six arguments but’ made a numerical error). Notice his dissatisfaction with .the church as it was then organized prior to the organizing of the American Christian Missionary Society:

1. We can do comparatively nothing in distributing the Bible abroad without co-operation.

2. We can do comparatively but little in the great missionary field of the world either at home or abroad without co-operation.

3. We can do little or nothing to improve and elevate the Christian ministry without cooperation.

4. We can do but little to check, restrain, and remove the flood of imposture and fraud committed upon the benevolence of the brethren by irresponsible, plausible, and deceptive persons, without cooperation.

5. We cannot concentrate the action of the tens of thousands of Israel, in any great Christian effort, but by co-operation.

6. We can have no thorough cooperation without a more ample, extensive, and thorough church organization (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VI, p. 523).

In 1849, this same dissatisfaction with the organization of the local church as being all-sufficient to accomplish the purposes which God gave it to accomplish is manifest in Campbell’s opening paragraph of “Church Organization.” He said,

There is now heard from the East and from the West, from the North and from the South, one general, if not universal, call for a more efficient organization of our churches. Experience, than which there is not a more efficient teacher, decides and promulges that our present co-operative system is. comparatively inefficient, and inadequate to the exigencies of the times and the cause we plead . . . .

But there are gathered a thousand and more communities spread over this great continent, without any systematic form of cooperation. And there is a vehement desire expressed from all quarters for some general and efficient action on this subject, for some well digested system of bringing all our energies to bear upon the church and the world. And there are some that think that had we such an organization as their reason approves, we should carry every thing before us. Nay, that organization is essential to prevent a retroactive movement, and without it we must rather lose than gain, and cease to occupy the territory we have conquered (Millennial Harbinger, pp. 90, 92).

In this article, Campbell is convinced that the organization of some ecclesiastical board is not only more expedient but it is necessary. Otherwise, he feared, the Disciples would lose the ground which they had already conquered. Hence, the church as God organized it in the Bible is not all sufficient to maintain ground, in Campbell’s views.

In 1845, a meeting of brethren occurred in Wellsburg, West Virginia which drew up plans for organization. In the course of the resolutions drawn up, we read the following comments:

1. Christian communities should cooperate in all things which they cannot so well accomplish by their individual enterprise.

2. As it is the duty of every congregation in any city or district of country to have respect to its influence upon the community in which it lives, being placed there as a candlestick; so is it the duty of all the congregations in any city or district to cooperate in accomplishing in that district, state, or nation, whatever they could not otherwise accomplish for the publication of the word and the edification of the church.

3. To do this successfully, they must either occasionally meet together, by deputies, messengers, or representatives, and consult together for the better performance of their duties . . . . (Millennial Harbinger, pp. 66-67).

This article demonstrates a disbelief in the church as it existed prior to the forming of the missionary society to such an extent that churches were said to be obligated to form these cooperative societies. It was not the duty of these churches to form these cooperatives.

In 1847, in an article entitled “Cooperation of Churches in Kentucky,” Campbell stated that the idea of independent, autonomous churches unscriptural but heretical. He said,

It is impossible to conceive of such a body without organization; and if the body is a unit, its organization must be adapted to the unity of its nature; and, therefore, it conclusively follows, that the organization adapted to the one body, must be something other than the organization of individual and independent churches or congregations; for such organizations, in the absence of a general system, tend rather to destroy the grand principle of unity; and Messiah’s kingdom, instead of being a well regulated and organized government upon earth, must become and continue to be a mere chapter of accidents to the end of the volume.

It is, therefore, manifest that the doctrine of the absolute independence of individual congregations, is not the doctrine of the Bible, and that it is necessarily schismatical in its very nature and tendency (Millennial Harbinger, pp. 162-163).

The idea of independent congregations was now considered to be dangerous to the very existence of New Testament Christianity. With what was this to be replaced?

Since the church of the Bible was insufficient in its independent congregational arrangement, Campbell proposed to replace this with cooperatives of the congregations. He wrote,

That it is the duty of churches to cooperate in every thing beyond the individual achievements of a was not only

particular congregation, we shall not attempt to illustrate and sustain.

A church can do what an individual disciple cannot, and so can a district of churches do what a single congregation cannot (Millennial Harbinger, 1831, p. 237).

His solution to the deficiency of the church was a cooperative of churches. The result was the American Christian Missionary Society.

History records the division which occurred because of the introduction of the American Christian Missionary Society and mechanical instruments of music. The Christian Church opted to use both of them; the Churches of Christ decided to oppose both. The division resulted. Remember, however, that the movement to begin the American Christian Missionary Society was the result of disbelief – brethren lost faith in the all-sufficiency of the church!

Manifestations of Unbelief in the Twentieth Century

Let us pass from the Nineteenth Century into the Twentieth Century. The churches of Christ have recently split over the issues of the sponsoring church arrangement and the church support of benevolent institutions. Let me demonstrate from similar statements made by leaders among the liberal brethren that this division began, as did the former one, with disbelief in the all-sufficiency of the church.

G.C. Brewer lamented the situation among churches in their missionary work in 1953. He wrote,

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 (Gospel Advocate, August 27, 1953, p. 544).

The sad condition which existed in the brotherhood might have been real. Churches might have been guilty of doing nothing. The solution, however, was not to bring in something not authorized in the Scriptures, as Brewer proposed when he suggested the sponsoring church. Rather, there should have been a return to the old order of evangelistic, local congregations. But Brewer was discontent with the old arrangement and this gave birth to the new arrangement – the sponsoring church.

William S. Banowsky felt the same way. In The Mirror of a Movement, he writes,

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 (pp. 273-274).

Notice his dissatisfaction that the church did not have an organized missionary society. As Banowsky went on to explain the origin of the sponsoring church, he said,

The lecturers came to desire a missionary procedure which would more effectively involve the hundreds of small congregations. (Notice his discontentment with God’s arrangement. – mw) But they also sought a program whose scope would be more far-reaching than even the best, but isolated efforts of any one large congregation. (Notice the presupposition that something better than the local church can be devised. -mw) They could not resist the temptation to shop about and contrast their plight with the obvious strong points in denominational machinery. Thus, they sought for some practical, scriptural means of brotherhood-wide control . . . . (p. 313).

The result was described as follows:

At the Abilene Lectureship, a momentous biblical principle governing missionary methods was articulated and recommended as a remedy for this brotherhood predicament. (Notice his assessment of the church without the sponsoring churches. – mw) The principle was described as intercongregational cooperation without ecclesiastical organization. It greatly expanded the scope of the church’s evangelistic opportunities and led logically to recognition of the special role of the sponsoring congregation as compared with the part to be played by the smaller participating churches (p. 313).

Hence, my brethren, the sponsoring church arrangement was borne out of unbelief – the same unbelief in the allsufficiency of the local church to discharge its work in preaching the gospel which led to the establishment of the missionary society earlier.

ConclusionIn conclusion, let me quote what Cecil Willis wrote several years ago. He said,

Brethren never began seeking to build another organization for evangelistic work until they lost faith in the sufficiency of that organization the Lord provided. It matters not how loud one may shout that he believes that the church is sufficient, so long as he erects another organization to do the work assigned to the church. His practice counterbalances and neutralizes what he says. He is not practicing what he is preaching. The brethren never built a missionary society until they lost faith in the sufficiency of the church to preach the gospel (Truth Magazine, Vol. V, p. 271).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 8, pp. 131-133
February 22, 1979

There Are Different Ministries

By Steve Hudgins

Paul wrote the Corinthians as follows: “And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord” (1 Cor. 12:5). The marginal note on “administrations” is ministries. Surely Paul did not have in mind some of the “ministries” that are becoming common ‘among liberal brethren today. There are now “ministries” that entertain and amuse. Some time ago a Baptist church in Orlando, Florida featured a champion weight lifter at their morning service to attract the crowds. Billy Graham has long had his “entertaining celebrities” to help draw crowds. How far behind are some of the liberal brethren?

We hear and read of the “puppet ministry” that entertains the children. Then there is the “Bus Ministry” to get the children to ride the “Joy Bus” to the place where they can be “ministered to” by the puppets. The “Bus Ministry” must be a very important one considering the attention and time given it, the articles and books written about it and the award programs, etc. The “Gateway Soulwinning Workshop” which was advertised for St. Louis in July for two arid one half days has published their “Program Schedule” which lists 13 time periods devoted to the subject of the “Bus Ministry.” There must be more to this than some of us think. During these two and one half days, four hours are given to open forum panel discussions of the “Bus Ministry.” In addition to this, one brother is to speak on how to sell the church on the “Bus Ministry.” One is to discuss recruiting and training “Bus Workers.” A sister is to speak on “Women in the Bus Ministry.” Other phases of this “ministry” to be discussed by different ones are: “Ways to operate a Bus Ministry,” “Problems in the Bus Ministry,” “Visuals in the Bus Ministry,” “Converting Bus Riders and their Parents,” “Discipline problems and the Bus Ministry,” and “Maintaining high morals in the Bus Ministry.” You see there is quite a bit involved in this “ministry.”

Another “ministry” – one brother at ACU has his own unique “ministry” – the “ministry of gymnastics.” He calls it “Gymnastics to the Glory of God.” His “ministry” carries him to appearance at churches, youth camps, youth rallys and workshops where he demonstrates his gymnastic talents. He will do a gymnastic trick and explain that as you have to know how to do such a trick you have to know the “trick” of being a Christian. He also rides a motorcycle, dresses in white and is known as the “White Knight.” If he fails at some trick he makes an object lesson of that, too, explaining that sin sometimes causes us to fail, He believes that through this “ministry” the Lord is having an effect on people’s lives and finds this “tremendously exciting.” Though this “ministry” takes him from home quite a bit, his wife is understanding and supports him in it believing he is “doing God’s work.”

One may wonder when and,what skilled Skateboarder will start a “Skateboard Ministry”. What about a talented tennis player or golfer starting a “Tennis” or “Golf ministry”? And what about a “Skydiving Ministry”? Surely object lessons could be given from these and many other things. It seems the possibilities are unlimited.

Seriously is it so that the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4) and of the gospel of the grace of God (the ministry Paul was engaged in – Acts 20:24) has lost so much of its power (Rom. 1:16) and appeal (Acts 2:41) that we must turn to the wild imaginations and inventions of weak, fallible men to get .the job done? Perhaps some of the liberal brethren wonder how the apostles got along so well and did such a good job without all the present “ministries” to help them. Well, they did have the word of God and they had faith in God and in His way (Isa. 55:8, 9; Mark 16:15).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 8, p. 130
February 22, 1979

Letters to the Editor

By Mr. Mike Willis

Dear Mike:

I am in receipt of the November 30, 1978 (Vol. XXII, No. 47) issue of Truth Magazine and have noted your reference to me and the Gospel Anchor, which I edit. I was disappointed to see in these references misrepresentations, guilt by association, and implications, so unworthy of ethical journalism. 1 do marvel at your apparent lack of understanding as to what the issue is.

Though 1 am tempted to reply in detail, to correct the misrepresentations, etc., 1 acquiesce for the time in favor of keeping the situation calm. As I have personally stated to you, this is a time for calm, deliberate study. I know of no one who is desirous of pressing differences to division, except for Mike Willis. The only two points you have tried to establish with me is (1) your argument of justification based on Luke 8:1-3, to which I gave study and responded in my article, “Was Jesus Supported Out of The “Judas Foundation’?” (Gospel Anchor, May 1978, vol. IV, no. 9), and (2) that our difference. will not allow fellowship. This has been your emphasis in writing to others. You seem determined to have an issue to divide over. I cannot concur with your thinking. This is exactly the tactic of the institutionalists in the 1950’s. They wanted to draw lines of fellowship before brethren had time to study. I do not want this to happen again. 1 am confident enough of the truth that I believe that given enough time and calm study brethren will unite on the truth. For that time and study I plead.

1 know that others in association with you have tried to restrain you in this matter. I think you would do well to heed those of more experience and wisdom than your youth permits (I Kings 12:6-11).

Persuaded that most of your readers are unaware of what has been written in the Gospel Anchor on the subject, I am willing to send to all, who want to make a fair study, a copy of the series of articles dealing with privately supported missionary societies (by whatever name they are called), historically and present-day. I would only ask that your readers send postage to help defray my personal expense (since the Gospel Anchor does not accept contributions and does not have the means nor intent to propagate the truth, only to sell a product). The reader may write to me and ask for the booklet, “A Study of Religious Collectivities.”

Meanwhile you might contribute to the study with a positive approach by showing Bible authority for building and maintaining a society (not the church) through which the gospel may be propagated in the form of supporting evangelists, publishing and distributing papers and tracts, conducting radio and television programs, etc., which work is supported through contribution of Christians.

I ask that this letter in its entirety be published in the earliest issue of Truth. Fairness demands it, and 1 pray that your desire to promote unity through calm, deliberate study will promote it.

Sincerely,

Gene Frost

712 Victoria Place

Louisville, KY 40207

Editor’s Reply

Published above is Brother Gene Frost’s letter in reply to my November note in “Quips and Quotes.” In this, he accuses me of “misrepresentations, guilt by association, and implications, so unworthy of ethical journalism” but decides not to enumerate the specifics wherein I committed these offences., I frankly would have preferred to have been proven guilty rather than merely to have assertions with no evidence cited. Likely this will be done in Gospel Anchor at a later date.

In order that our readers might keep this in is perspective, I am going to reproduce the paragraph to which Brother Frost is responding. Read it please.

I have noticed that some of those who teach that the church is the only collectivity which can preach the gospel either endorse or operate a collectivity designed to teach that the church is the only collectivity which can preach the gospel. For example, 1 read in a recent church bulletin edited by a man who opposes the Bible department at Florida College a commendation of Gospel Anchor. Yet, Gospel Anchor is owned and operated by Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated, a religious collectivity with its own board of directors I might add that though the religious collectivity has been propagating the thesis that the church is the only collectivity authorized to preach the gospel, it makes a different application than those who are recommending the paper make. Those who recommend Gospel Anchor in their bulletins (of course, we need to keep in mind that a man would be guilty of mortal sin if he recommended Florida College in his bulletin in the same manner as some recommend Gospel Anchor) believe that collectivities such as Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard and Florida College are sinful whereas the editor of Gospel Anchor does not see anything wrong with the Bible department of Florida College. Their unity is in opposition to such papers as those mentioned above-those published by Vanguard and Cogdill Foundation. Strangely enough, the rules which condemn these two papers do not fit for the paper published by the religious collectivity known as Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated. It is a strange set of rules which only works one way!

In Brother Frost’s letter, I did not notice a single word denying that Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated is a collectivity which produces Gospel Anchor. Hence, my point stands: Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated is a collectivity designed to teach that collectivities which teach God’s word are violating the Scriptures. Did you see a denial of this by Brother Frost?

In Brother Frost’s second paragraph, he charges me with wanting to press our differences to the point of division. I deny this charge. There is no reason that 1 would have, from my position, for wanting to see a division occur regarding whether or not an individual can make a donation to an organization such as Vanguard or Cogdill Foundation. In my opinion, no sin has been committed should a contribution be given or not given; the Christian is not separated from God whichever he chooses to do. Why should 1 want to see my fellowship withdrawn from that brother who disagrees with me on the matter?

Brother Frost and those who stand identified with him are the brethren who have the fellowship problem. They believe that those who give a donation to an organization such as Cogdill Foundation and Vanguard (and others among them add Florida College) have committed sin. In their writings, they equate the sin with that of taking money from the church treasury to give to a missionary society. They make this a matter of faith, not opinion. Yes, I have raised the fellowship question to these brethren. I have asked them, “Are you not logically bound to extend or withhold the same amount of fellowship to both groups (i.e., those who give money individually to organizations such as Cogdill Foundation and Florida College and those who take money from the church treasury to make donations to human institutions)?” Not one of them has given me a reason for extending fellowship to one group and withholding it from the other.

Brother Frost’s reply shows just how dangerous his position is. He does not say that fellowship should not be broken over this matter. Rather, he replies that the time is not ripe for the fellowship to be broken. Re-read his letter above and see if that is not his implication. Furthermore, he stated to me just as much in a telephone conversation several months before. This thinking shows that problems lie ahead of the same nature as those we have previously faced with those who break the fellowship of God’s people over such things as no Bible classes, no women teachers, the wearing of the covering, and other such like problems. Yes, I am concerned.

Brother Frost, we raise the question regarding fellowship as follows: Some of us have studied the materials which you presented and have reached the conclusion that you are binding over and above what the word of God has bound. Our convictions are such that we feel that we have the liberty in Christ to participate or not participate in such human institutions as Florida College, Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard, etc. We act not out of ignorance, but out of studied conviction. Are you going to continue to extend the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) to us or not? Will we continue to be used in prayer when visiting your services? Will we be invited to meetings at places where you might preach? We want to know your position about fellowship with reference to the matter. I have plainly expressed my convictions on this matter as it pertains to fellowship; let us hear yours.

Brother Frost did write an article on Luke 8:1-3 in Gospel Anchor (May, 1978). The article was suppose to be a reply to a position which Brother Frost thinks that 1 hold. He learned my position from a telephone conversation in which 1 asked him to consider what implications Luke 8:1-3 holds for his position. I did not even make an argument on the passage; 1 simply asked him to write on the passage. From those comments, the editor of Gospel Anchor erected his straw man which he proceeded to destroy. Even so, he had a rather difficult time determining which was the best way to destroy his straw man inasmuch as he conceded the very points which he opposes and took some very ridiculous positions in that article. Be sure and re-read that article!

In keeping with Brother Frost’s request, I have prepared a reply to his position on collectivities. In keeping with his admonition regarding wisdom and experience, I have withheld publishing it for several months to give some brethren time to read it and criticize it. As soon as this is completed, I plan to publish the material in booklet form, providing that circumstances are favorable to its publication. What I have to defend, however, is not a society which supports evangelists through individual contributions, inasmuch as 1 am not a member of any such society. What I have to defend is an institution which publishes literature. Brother Frost is a member of one of those kinds of human institutions himself, known as Gospel Anchor Publishing Company, Incorporated. The same passage which authorizes the human institution of which he is a member will authorize Cogdill Foundation. When this defense is ready, t hope to get it published. Some of this material being discussed is new material which has not been discussed before among brethren, so far as I know. Hence, I want to carefully consider what I say before putting it in print.

Brother Frost seems rather irate that I mention his position in two paragraphs in Truth Magazine. Indeed, he cannot quietly endure what 1 had to say in those two paragraphs. He wrote demanding an opportunity to reply. Has he forgotten that he wrote on this subject for four years? We who disagreed with him patiently bore with his teaching of his opinions without so much as causing him one bit of trouble. It seems, however, that he will not tolerate the presentation of the other side without charging those of us who disagree with apostatizing.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, pp. 125-126
February 15, 1979