Truth Magazine

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

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

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

By Harold Hancock

Most of us do some good works, but how many of us are good work conscious? To be good work conscious is to be aware of the many opportunities about us to do good. The Old Testament speaks of some who would lie upon their beds at night and think of evil to do. We need to think of good to do.

Good works are to characterize God’s people. Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). “Zealous” means “eager interest and enthusiasm.” God’s people should be looking for good to do, not just waiting for it. Who is known for good works in your town?

Good works are our purpose for existing in Christ Jesus. “For by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10). Goodness does not save; we are saved to do good! This is our purpose of life as a Christian. This is what we need to be doing the most of. A machine that does not do what it is suppose to do is not any good. Salt that loses its savor is to be cast out.

Good works are a part of pure religion undefiled. “Pure religion and undefiled before the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). All would admit that visiting the fatherless and widows are good works, would they not? The point of James is doing. The person who has pure religion is a Christian doing good works. Good works also shows our faith. Jas. 2:14-18 speaks of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. He speaks of faith and works. James was not trying to persuade someone to be baptized. James was writing to Christians. His point was that by doing these good works, and not just talking about them, we show our faith. Faith without works is dead. Have you a faith that is alive and that can be seen?

We glorify God with good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify the Father” (Mt. 5:16). Ben Franklin persuaded the city of Philadelphia to install street lights by first letting them see the warm, friendly glow in his own yard. We can get people to listen to the Gospel by letting them see a warmth of good radiating from us. Here we are face to face with the real reason for good works on the part of Christians – to honor God and to further His cause.

Some would do good works, but they have no time. Their time is consumed by other things. They are choked by the riches and cares and pleasures of this world. They bring forth no fruit unto perfection (Lk. 8:7, 14). Could it be that many need to weed their gardens? Others begin but grow slack. I remember how one young lady would sometimes call our home looking for something to do in, the name of the Lord, but she soon lost her zeal. “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).

The Lord’s church needs some good Samaritans to turn aside and show interest in others (Lk. 10:30-37). It needs some who are like Dorcas (Acts 9). It needs men full of exhortation and forgiveness like Barnabas. There is plenty of room for some mothers like the mother of Mark, who opened her home unto prayer (Acts 12). We need some couples like Aquila and Priscilla who will teach others (Acts 18).

Jesus stands at the end of life to say, “I know thy works.” He will know if they be few or many. He will not forget what good we do (Heb. 6:10). Someone said, “My religion is to do good.” Goodness alone cannot save (Eph. 2:8); but for the Christian the statement may be nearer right than some suspect. Join the brigade of do-gooders. Be good work conscious.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, p. 124
February 15, 1979