Truth Magazine

By Carol R. Lumpkin

First of all, allow me to explain what I have in mind when I say a “liberal church.” I have reference to a church which practices that which the New Testament does not authorize, such things as using the church building (paid for with the Lord’s money) for secular education, fellowship halls, recreational activities, baby showers, wedding showers, voting precincts, scout troop meetings, etc.; sending church funds to some sponsoring church, or serving as a sponsoring church; sending funds to some benevolent institution, or to some college. There, of course, are other things being done by some “liberal churches”; but these will let the readers know the type church I have in mind.

I cannot worship with a liberal church because:

1. I would in a sense be lending encouragement by my presence (2 Jn. 9-11).

2. I would be condoning those who do not believe and respect the all sufficiency of the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

3. I would appear to support what that church is doing (Matt. 5:16).

4. I would be denied the opportunity to teach the truth (Jude 3; John 8:32).

5. I would be violating my duty to withdraw from those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Rom. 16:17).

6. I would support heresies (1 Cor. 11:18-19). I must speak out against such activities (Titus 3:10).

7. I would fail to obey the command to withdraw from those who walk not according to the apostles doctrine (2 Thess. 3:6).

8. I would fellowship those who no longer have fellowship with God, nor with Christ (2 John 9).

Some brethren who claim to be “conservative,” favoring only what the New Testament authorizes, seem to think (by their actions), that they can worship occasionally with a “liberal church.” If this can be done while on vacation, visiting, or on a business trip, then I raise the following question. Why can’t a person worship every time with a “liberal church”? If the “liberal church” is practicing sinful things, then is it not wrong? It would be like saying, since I do not intend to commit adultery all the time, then it would be alright to do so once in awhile.

John wrote, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jno. 1:6). Churches which do not follow the New Testament pattern in all things are in darkness. The person who commits adultery once in awhile is in darkness. Neither of the above have fellowship with God, even though they may think they do (2 John 9). When sin (darkness) is engaged in by a church, or by an individual, repentance is in order before God will remove the sin. John admonished the sinful churches of Asia to repent (cf. Rev. 2:5).

Churches, in the first century A.D., did not engage in the things which “liberal churches” are doing today. Since the New Testament churches were established under the influence of inspired men and were, therefore acceptable with God, how can churches of Christ today believe that God will accept their innovations?

Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18). Elders are to oversee the local church; but they do not have legislative power. Their authority is the New Testament; and there is no way to improve it. We must all “contend for the faith, once delivered” (Jude 3). Jesus prayed that we all be one (Jn. 17:20-21). Preachers may assume authority, elders may usurp authority; members may demand things like their denominational neighbors; but it all spells tie same; a rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ. When false doctrine is practiced and unscriptural works engaged in, people are deceived and souls are lost. In view of all this, we all must die and face the judgment (Heb. 9:27). We each will be judged by the words of Jesus Christ (Jn. 12:48). Those who reject, add to, or take away from God’s word will be lost (Rev. 22:18-19). Those who obey God will be saved (Matt. 7:21; Rev. 22:14). It is better to obey than to perish.

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, p. 717
November 9, 1978

By David King

A series of public discussions was recently conducted in Wichita, Kansas between William Sexton, evangelist for the Westside Church of Christ, and Robert Loudermilk, evangelist for the Clark and Water Church of Christ. The propositions basically dealt with the cup and class issues which have divided our brethren. However, the propositions-and practically every other aspect of this debate-were an unusual departure from similar discussions of the past.

Background

This discussion arose out of an earlier debate on the “cup” issue that these brethren had in September of 1975. That was the first debating experience for both men and the usual cup proposition was used. Over the next couple of years, Bill and Bob continued to study together privately. As a result of their debate and the studies that followed, the propositions for a second discussion were drawn up. There were six propositions in all: two on the container, two on the bread and two on the class arrangement. Instead of cramming the whole discussion into one week, it was spread out over a three-month period: the container issue on January 13-14, 1978; the bread issue on February 17-18, 1978; and the class issue on March 24-25, 1978. A final session of summary speeches and questions-and-answers was held on April 2, 1978. Jerry Cutter and Lonnie York moderated for brother Loudermilk. This writer and Keith Schoonover moderated for brother Sexton.

First Discussion

The container issue centered on the following propositions: “The Scriptures teach that in the communion `the cup’ (drinking vessel) is emblematic of the new testament (new covenant) and the fruit of the vine `the cup’ is emblematic of the blood of Christ. ” (Laudermilk affirm, Sexton deny) “The Scriptures teach that in communion `the cup’ of Luke 22:20 and First Corinthians 11:25-26 refers to the fruit of the vine which is emblematic of the blood of Christ by which the new testament was sealed. ” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny.) As far as I know, this is the first time that any one-container brother has ever affirmed in debate the doctrine that is the foundation of the one-container error: viz, that the container is a third element in the Lord’s supper, representing the new covenant of Christ. This peculiar belief has surfaced in practically every debate on the container issue, but this is the first time it has been openly defined and defended.

Loudermilk based his defense on the language of Luke 22:20 and First Corinthians 11 25:26 (“This cup is the new testament in my blood”). Sexton argued that the Old Testament concept of a covenant always involved a blood sacrifice; hence, “the blood of the new testament” in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24-which clearly refers to the fruit of the vine. He also outlined the whole context of irst Corinthians 11:25-26, in which Paul obviously recognizes only two significant elements in the Supper: that which we “eat and drink” (v 26, 27, 28, 29). Loudermilk evidently realized the force of this latter argument, because he never responded to it.

It is the conviction of this writer that this doctrine of the third element in the Lord’s Supper is the Achilles heel of the one-container brethren, and we should exploit it more than we do. Loudermilk himself stated that “spiritual significance is the heart of the issue,” and if it can be shown that the container is given no spiritual significance in the Scriptures, then their plea for one container becomes empty. Faithful brethren would do well to press this issue when studying with these brethren.

Second Discussion

The February session dealt with another issue that receives scant attention: the number of loaves (pieces) of bread that can be used in the Supper. The propositions were as follows: “The scriptures teach that when a congregation of God’s people partake of the Lord’s supper, the `bread’ MUST be in one piece or loaf.” (Loudermilk affirm, Sexton deny); “The Scriptures teach that when a congregation of God’s people partake of the Lord’s Supper, the `bread’ MA Y be in more than one piece or loaf” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny).

Loudermilk quoted from scholars and questionable translations in an effort to prove that the word for “bread” in the Lord’s Supper (Greek arton) ought to be translated “loaf.” He also appealed to First Corinthians 10:17 (“we are all partakers of that one bread”) as proof of his proposition.

Sexton defended his proposition on four grounds: (1) Thayer, Robinson, Bullinger, Berry, etc., give the primary definition of arton as simply “bread”; (2) the four “recognized” translations (KJV, ASV, NASV, RSV) uniformly translate arton as “bread” all 12 times it is applied to the Lord’s Supper; no other translation could be found that uniformly translated arton as “loaf” all 12 times; (3) in several other passages where ARTON is used (notably John 6:31, Matthew 6:11 and John 6:23) it clearly refers to more than one piece; a (4) the context of First Corinthians 10:17 forces us to understand the “one bread” as all the Lord’s supper bread partaken of by all Christians, the “one body” of Christ. The passage says nothing about how many pieces of bread are to be used in a local assembly.

Laudermilk also used a “four undivided bodies” argument, based on the Passover Lamb and the unbroken body of Jesus on the cross. Sexton replied that the New Testament carries the symbol of Christ’s body only this far-“This (bread) is my body”-and we dare not carry it any farther.

Third Discussion .

The proposition for the March discussion were as follows: “The Scriptures teach that a congregation of God’s people may use the Bible class arrangement, among other arrangements (as is sometimes practiced by the Westside Church of Christ), in carrying out the command of God to teach His word. ” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny); “The Scriptures teach that a congregation of God’s people may use a woman to teach a Bible class of small children or young women (as is sometimes practiced by the Westside Church of Christ) in carrying out His command to teach His word. ” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny).

Most debates on classes and women teachers use a single proposition that , includes both classes and women teachers-actually two propositions in one. That has always seemed illogical to me, and especially so when I see no-class brethren run a circle between the class arrangement and women teachers. These propositions were specifically designed to avoid that kind of dodgingone proposition devoted strictly to the class arrangement, and another to women teachers.

Sexton defended the class arrangement as an expedient to carry out the command to teach the word. He showed from the scriptures that a congregation can teach the word (1) in the assembly (specifically commanded) and (2) out of the assembly (generally authorized). Classes fall under the second category, along with radio-TV programs, bulletins, home studies, men’s training programs, etc.-methods of teaching the word that do not violate or conflict with the command to assemble. Loudermilk attacked the classes on two grounds: (1) they violate the command to assemble; and (2) it is impossible to classify people into classes.

Sexton defended women teachers by showing from the scriptures that they can teach (Titus 2:3-4,; Acts 21:9, etc.) and that the church can use their talents (Romans 16:); Ephesians 4:11-12); hence, using women teachers in some classes is authorized. In response to Loudermilk’s charge that such violated First Corinthians 14:34-35 and First Timothy 2:11-12, Sexton reminded him of the context in each passage: The woman is not to teach “over the man” (1 Timothy 2:12), and she is to remain silent when “the whole church be come together into one place” (1 Corinthians 14:23, 34)-neither of which is violated by our women teachers.

Conclusion

This series of discussions did not feature “big name” debaters, so it has not attracted much attention. But it plowed new ground, so to speak, in exploring areas of difference that have not been previously explored in public debate. These two brethren plan to continue private studies in the coming months, in an effort to come to a common mind and restore unity. We believe, at this point anyway, that Bob Loudermilk is an honest young man who will face up to inconsistencies in his position. If youthful pride and ambition do not blind him, future study will either lead him to the truth or force him into dishonesty. We pray for the former.

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, pp. 715-716
November 9, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). This passage tells “himself” or “oneself” (AV) the personal responsibility which he has to help the needy. During the battle over church-sponsored institutions, this passage has been used to justify churches building, maintaining, and sending donations to institutions which care for the needy. Detailed arguments have been made on the passage, pro and con, but sometimes a man’s experience in life gives him insight into what a passage teaches-and why.

In 1926, brother Carson Isenberg’s father died, leaving a wife and six children. Individual Christians in the Mud Lick (Tompkinsville), Kentucky area aided this family in their needs for about three years. They brought corn, sacks of flour, and other staples of life from time to time, visiting the fatherless and a widow in their desperation. Finally, someone proposed that the children be put in Potter’s Orphan Home at Bowling Green, Kentucky and just let a nearby church send about $10.00 per month in order to visit the fatherless and widows! So, about 1929-30 brother Isenberg stayed at Potters for six months; he was ten years old. The children were split up according to age. Carson remembers that when the officials were too busy to give leis three-year-old brother personal attention, they kept him out of trouble by penning his gown under a bed post.

After several boys had run away and been returned, the officials called everyone together and offered to send anyone home who was thinking about running away. Carson knew that his physical needs were being met but also knew that institutional care was no substitute for mother and home. Seeing an opportunity to return to his loved ones, he claimed that he was considering running away. He then lived with his grandparents, while his other brothers and sisters stayed at Potters.

Carson Isenberg obeyed the gospel in 1952 and about ten years later began to face the institutional controversy. Although he had never thought these problems out before, the expression, “Let not the church be charged,” kept coming to his mind. But something else made an even deeper impression on his conscience. “I looked at what the Christians started out doing around Mud Lick and at what they ended up doing. They took their individual duty and shifted it to Potters Orphan Home, with the idea of letting the church send periodic donations of money. The individuals who started out visiting the fatherless and widows as James 1:27 teaches ended up not visiting the fatherless and widows. ” Brother Isenberg saw that institutionalism was destroying the personal dedication and service of Christians. In view of his own experience, such a movement could have no attraction to him. “Once we were in the Orphan Home, not a one of the people who had been helping us ever came to see us.” Fortunately, the church in question repudiated institutionalism some years later.

We have been told over and over for the last 25 years that James 1:27 tells us the responsibility and that we may choose any way, method, means, or expediency to discharge it. The work and function of the human institution is “how” the church fulfills its duty, we are told. No, actually, the human institution is selecting its own “how” and the church is sending donations to finance the institution, while individual Christians are relieved of the work which they must do to be pure and undefiled. These church-supported human institutions are not the “How” of James 1:27. They are rather the “how” in how to not visit the fatherless and widows.

When brethren lose the spirit of zeal, sacrifice, and unselfishness, they lose interest in pure and undefiled religion. They pass to the church that work which belongs not to the church but to themselves. Rather than do that work, the church then passes the buck to some human organization. This is how to not practice pure and undefiled religion. This is how to look into the perfect law of liberty and how to not continue therein. How to visit the needy is not the problem. The problem is that some brethren have learned how to not visit!

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, pp. 714-715
November 9, 1978

By Earl Robertson

Unity is not only “good” and “pleasant” (Psa. 133:1), but it is demanded by the Lord. This unity is among brethren. There is no teaching from the Lord demanding that His people be united with denominationalism; to the contrary, He demands separateness. The unity the Bible teaches is unity among God’s people based upon divine truth.

The unity among the followers of Christ is based upon what the apostles taught (John 17:20, 21), We are to be “one” as the Father and the Son are one. Unity cannot and must not be in the absence of truth. Should a “union” exist without the truth of the Lord, that is all it would be-union. Jesus prayed for unity-unity based on apostolic teaching.

Christ is one; the body (church) of Christ is one, and so must Saints then know the essential need for oneness (1 Cor. 1:13; 12:20). Division is condemned by the Lord. The word used by the apostles in their condemnation for disunity is schisma, and properly means a cleft or rent. It is used metaphorically to mean dissension or division. Every Christian should realize both his ability to serve the Lord and his responsibility to contribute toward oneness among God’s people upon the sacred trust of truth. Paul says, “. . . there should be no schism in the body . . .” (1 Cor. 12:25). The problem of division existed in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:18), and it was because of carnality (1 Car. 3:3).

Yes, unity is demanded by the Lord. However, He never wants unity among His people at the expense of truth. We are commanded to “speak the same thing . . . that there be no divisions among you . . .” (1 Cor. 1:10). Opinion is not the basis for unity, but rather the word of God. In opinions, we must give deference. In opinions, we can afford to sacrifice our own to get along with others, but we cannot sacrifice truth to get along with anyone.

Sometimes brethren demand what the will of God will not allow and this forces conscientious brethren out. Through the years faithful brethren have had to leave where they worshiped for years simply because some interjected works or relationships which the Bible neither authorized nor sanctioned. This division is sinful. Make efforts to contribute to Bible unity among brethren.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, p. 731
November 16, 1978