Truth Magazine

By Guthrie Dean

The Scriptures Authorize One Set of Elders to be over the Work of that One Church Only

We refer to this arrangement as “congregational autonomy.” Any time any part of the work or resources of one church are placed under the supervision of elders of another church (for a “cooperative” brotherhood work), in that case and to that extent the one church is relinquishing its autonomy to another church.

What the Bible Says about the extent of elder’s oversight:

(1) Acts 14:23 — “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” When fully organized, each church has its own elders (Phil. 1:1).

(2) Acts 20:17 — “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” To the Ephesians elders, Paul said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (20:28). It is obvious, then, that those elders were over the flock at Ephesus only. Surely the Holy Spirit had not placed them as elders over more than the one flock at Ephesus. The local flock was the extent of their oversight.

(3) 1 Pet. 5:1-3 — “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not be constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” Verse 3 in the American Standard reads, “Neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock.” There are several self-evident truths in the above passage. To a particular set of elders, Peter writes: (a) The elders which are among you, (b) Feed the flock of God which is among you, (c) Taking the oversight (thereof), (d) Neither as being lords over the charge allotted to you.

There is no way such a passage could be construed to mean that those local elders were authorized to oversee or to become the “sponsoring church” for part of the work of another flock. The elders were among the brethren in the church to whom Peter writes. They were to “feed the flock” among them. They were to take the oversight of it. And the work and oversight of the one church only was the extent of the “charge allotted to (them).” If anyone believes otherwise, the burden of proof is upon him. The language of 1 Pet. 5:1-3 is plain. Local elders over the work of the local church only. To become the “sponsoring church” with “sponsoring elders” over the work of more than the one flock is to violate the obvious truth in this passage.

What Others Have Said About Sponsoring Churches and Sponsoring Elders and Congregational Autonomy

Truth is not determined by what men say, but that you may know what others have taught on the subject, I shall quote from a few brethren who have written in the past.

David Lipscomb: “A Christian, one or more, may visit a church. . .to stir them up to a faithful discharge of their duties. But for one or more to direct what and now all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church” (Gospel Advocate, 1890, p. 295). — “All such concentration of power is destructive of the activity and true liberties of the church. It tends to exalt the elders of one church and degrade and dishonor those of the other” (Gospel Advocate, Dec. 3, 1931).

H. Leo Boles: “There was- no common fund for churches, no `central church’ with a treasurer to receive the funds from the other churches, no general treasury to take care of the funds, no call from any church to other churches to help them do the work which fell in their province to do” (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 10, 1932). — “No church consulted any other church. They did not form any organic cooperative plan or union with other churches. Each church, guided by the instruction from God that it had, acted upon its own independent responsibility” (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 10, 1932).

C. M. Pullias: “But men would take this glory from God and bestow it upon themselves by combining small things. For instance, one would yoke a number of local congregations together to do a given work. This destroys the congregational independence and sets up the very thing that God sought to avoid in arranging nothing larger than the local congregation through which to work and worship” (Tidings of Joy, July, 1919).

F. W. Smith: “There is not the slightest intimation in the New Testament of any organization for any purpose whatever other than the local congregations, which were independent of each other” (Gospel Advocate, July 22, 1920).

F. B. Srygley: “The work of the elders stopped at the church in which they lived and labored. The elders had no authority to take charge of the missionary money or any other money or means of any church except that one over which they were overseers. Elders of one church should not try to get hold of the money that has been contributed by others to direct for them in foreign fields or other places” (Gospel Advocate, Dec. 31, 1931).

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. : “History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church-which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning the responsibility of their work over to big elders — which is diocesan in principle ….With one eldership of one church taking over the work of many elders of many churches, and with this centralized eldership overseeing workers by the dozens who are not even members of the church where these elders are suppose to elder, what will be left of the local autonomous organization of the New Testament church?” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 3). — “For one church to help another church by relieving an emergency there, where the elders elder, is one thing; but making the elders of one church a `board of elders’ through which all other churches can operate in doing their missionary and benevolent work is another thing-a cocky thing at that. This idea of a `centralized eldership’ is more than `half-cocked’, it is a mis-fire. Any church able to build a half-million dollar cathedral does not need the kind of help mentioned in Acts 11:29, 30” (Gospel Guardian, Vol 1, No. 44).

Summary of Church Cooperation in the Area of Evangelism

While Paul preached to the church and to others in Corinth, “other churches” cooperated with one another and Paul by sending “wages” to him (2 Cor. 11:8). They sent his “wages” directly to him (Phil. 1:5; 2:25; 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8-9).

The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to preach and to teach the word to the church and others in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Therefore, it is scriptural and right for churches to cooperate in sending and supporting gospel preachers all over the world. Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. expressed some truths that I think are appropriate just here: “When we criticize these deviations from New Testament principles in the organization .and work of the church it does not mean that we oppose the work. All of the effort to foment feeling and plant prejudice against men who plead for adherence to `the stipulated conditions of the New Testament’ by charges that we are anti-foreign-mission, anti-Christian-education, and anti-cooperation will not prevail in the end. Many sober minded brethren are already seeing the light on these issues and many others will as we shall continue to set forth these principles. It is the same battle over the same issues that had to be fought fifty years ago” (Torch, Vol. 1, No. 2).

The sponsoring church idea is not taught in the Bible, nor is there anyone who can justify it by the Bible. To say that we are anti-cooperation because we do not accept the unscriptural sponsoring church arrangement is to completely mis-state the case.

I believe the following chart will help all to see what the real differences are. The chart is copied from Brother Clint Spinger’s book: Church History and Present Issues.

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, pp. 326-327
May 18, 1978

By Mike Willis

Sometime ago, I sat in on a confrontation with a man who had stolen another man’s wife. As the discussion progressed, I noticed an absence of guilt on this man’s heart, even though I knew that he had heard God’s word sufficiently to know that his conduct was sinful. Consequently, I asked the man if he saw anything wrong in divorcing his wife and marrying the wife of another man. To my consternation, the man actually tried to defend his conduct. I could hardly believe what I heard.

Similarly, I can hardly believe my eyes when I read what my brethren are writing to defend their usage of reward motivation. When I first began to investigate the bus ministry, I expected that some of the gimmicks being used were the product of some untaught zealot who simply got carried away. Now I know that is not the case. Reward motivation is a vital part of the bus ministry. It is advocated and defended by its proponents. Hence, in this article, I want to (1) acquaint our readers with the arguments used to justify reward motivation and (2) refute those arguments.

Arguments For Reward Motivation

1. Jesus used reward motivation.

The idea of being rewarded with material blessings as a result of our service is Biblical.

Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life” (Mk. 10:29-30).

Jesus points out we will receive eternal life in the world to come, but please observe that there are material blessings available for us “Now in this time,” if we serve him faithfully.

Again, notice Matt. 6:33; “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Jesus said “these things shall be added unto you” material blessings such as, food, clothing and shelter.

We are rewarded now for faithful service and then the greater blessings will be ours throughout eternity.

Why have you said this? Because some brethren will oppose giving awards to the children for their faithful attendance and their diligence in bringing others (Albert Hill, On The Move with Bus Evangelism, p. 73).

a. Mk. 10:29-30. “Jesus said, `Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for my sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and the world to come, eternal life.” If this passage authorizes reward motivation, then I will take one of those farms mentioned in this verse. I have been pretty good in my attendance and service, so just go ahead and give me one of those nice farms.

Anyone who reads this can see that this passage is not authorizing rewards to those who ride buses. It is not even discussing what the church will do. Rather, it is discussing what God will do. These material blessings are not offered as inducements or allurements to get men to follow Christ. Jesus simply stated men who left all to follow him would be blessed in this present life.

b. Matt. 6:33. “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.” This passage again is not offering inducements for church attendance; such is a perversion of this passage. Rather, this passage is teaching people not to worry about the physical necessities of life because God will be sure that our necessities are met. Giving bubble gum, balloons, ice cream, etc., as inducements to ride a bus is not authorized by this passage.

2. Other Arguments.

Rewards will be given from time to time to children on the busses; some will criticize this but the Lord said to compel them to come in. Matt. 10:42. Christ offered rewards. If we will just give a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, ye shall in no wise lose your reward. God rewards us for doing things. Heb. 11:6 “He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder unto them that diligently seek after him” (Russell L. Sample, Reaching the Common Man With The Gospel of Christ Through the Bus Ministry, p.5).

Our Lord also promised that just by giving “a cup of cold water” that “he shall in no wise lose his reward.” (Matt. 10:42) Friends, if giving a drink of water is scriptural, then would it matter much if it had a little sweetener added, was colored and perhaps called “Kool-Aid”? I think not! If drinks of water in the name even of a “disciple” will be blessed by the Savior, then will donuts, Kool-Aid, cookies, gum and sandwiches, receive any less of a blessing? Such reasoning that opposes the giving of “treats” out of Christian love and concern, yet defends the water fountain in the foyer is illogical if not characteristic of sheer stupidity! (Carl W. Wade, Joy Bus Evangelism, p. 46).

Matt. 10:42 does not command or infer that reward motivation is scriptural. Jesus was not suggesting that we give cokes, ice cream, candy or bubble gum to children to induce them to come to services. What Jesus was discussing was the giving of a drink of water to quench the thirst of a brother. The person who served his brother because he was a fellow Christian will not lose his reward. His reward, of course, will be given in heaven.

The Unanswerable Argument

When brethren resort to the Scriptures to authorize what they are doing, a man can examine the context to see whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant the conclusion drawn from it. In the passages cited in the above quotations, one can see that the evidence is insufficient. However, there is one line of argumentation which is unanswerable. Read the following:

It is perfectly all right to have “fellowship” for the “church” but heresy if you have a “party” for the children! What is the difference except for the semantics?! None! (Carl W. Wade, op, cit., p. 47).

During V.B.S. we reward the children for their work in bringing other. We offer them prizes for their work-a Bible, a picnic, a special trip, etc. If it is scriptural to do this one week out of a year, can we do it fifty-two weeks out of the year?

Also, during V.B.S., we serve refreshments. Usually, it consists of “watered-down” kool-aid and cookies purchased at a bargain. If we can do this one week out of a year, can we do it fifty-two? (Albert Hill, op. cit., pp. 72-73).

That argument is unanswerable. Brother Hill and Brother Wade are right. If it is right to use reward motivation once, it is right to use it all of the time.

However, who has proven that it is right to use reward motivation once? Although these brethren’s argument carries weight with those liberals who use reward motivation during their Vacation Bible School and conduct adult parties called fellowship dinners, it does not prove very much to those of us who have opposed such things all along. Rather, the bus ministry is just another example of the chickens having come home to roost, from our point of view.

How Successful Is Reward Motivation?

Those involved in the bus ministry will laud the praises of reward motivation. However, some teachers are not quite as convinced. Hugh M. Salisbury and Larry D. Peabody wrote the following in A Guide To Effective Bible Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966; p. 92):

At the village church in Kalonovka, Russia, attendance at Sunday school picked up after the priest started handing out candy to the peasant children. One of the most faithful was a pug-nosed, pugnacious lad who recited his Scriptures with proper piety, pocketed his reward, then fled into the fields to munch on it. The priest took a liking to the boy, persuaded him to attend church school. This was preferable to doing household chores from which his devout parents excused him. By offering other inducements, the priest managed to teach the boy the four Gospels. In fact, he won a special prize for learning all four by heart and reciting them nonstop in church. Now 60 years later, he still likes to recite Scriptures, but in a context that would horrify the old priest. For the prize pupil, who memorized so much of the Bible is Nikita Khruschev, the former Communist Czar.

From a practical standpoint, reward motivation does not produce the inward character necessary for true spirituality. It might produce an outward form of godliness to get the prize offered, but it will not build character.

Jesus condemned the doing of righteousness to obtain an earthly reward in Matt. 6:1-6. He said,

Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Thus, when you give alms sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men, Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you give alms do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your alms may be in secret and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men, Truly, I say to you they have their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

This passage plainly forbids the practice of righteousness to be seen of men, much less to be rewarded by men. Furthermore, I remind you that Jesus would not accept those as His disciples who followed Him merely for the loaves and the fish (Jn. 6). Such a follower was worthless to Him.

Conclusion

Even the denominationalists are beginning to see that reward motivation is sinful. In Visions of Bubble Gum, Forrest L. Keener, a Baptist preacher, criticized the reward motivations of certain Baptist Churches. In his conclusion, he quoted the poem “Gimmicks” by Gene Sutton.

My brethren need to learn this lesson! God’s power to save is not hamburgers, bubble gum, lollipops, etc.; it is the gospel! This is what God uses to draw men to Him (Jn. 6:44-45).

It seems that churches everywhere

are doing things today

To try to bring their attendance up

by giving things away.

They’re running buses all over town

in a way they think is dandy

Giving all the boys and girls that ride

some bubble gum or candy.

And maybe they’ll have a contest

give the winner a free plane ride

Or offer them a ten-speed bike

that would make one swell with pride.

God does not use this kind of plan

to save one from his sin

But uses visitation

to bring the sinner in.

So if you’re using this unscriptural plan

perhaps you had better stop

Or your reward in heaven

might be just a lollipop.

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, pp. 323-325
May 18, 1978

By Jack H. Kirby

Men take an unrealistic view of death today by taking no view at all. Some try to ignore it away, because basically we are reluctant to let our mind dwell on what we consider to be morbid. However, since it is “appointed unto man once to die” (Heb. 9:27), we should wisely and soberly approach death with planning and not shunning. As I think about the time that I must die, I think of the words of Balaam in Num. 23:10, “Let me die the death of the righteous.”

Let me die the death of the righteous that my family may be strengthened by my example. Memories of good people are precious and uplifting. A righteous legacy enriches lives to greater duty. There is no regret about “what might have been.” Comfort lies in the knowledge that faithful Christians are rewarded in heaven. The wise man of long ago said, “A good name is better than precious ointment” (Eccl. 7:1-4). Ointments were costly in his day. They were counted among the riches of the day. Riches cannot buy a good name, but it will live forever. A good name left to our heirs is better than all the earth’s silver and gold.

Let me die the death of the righteous that my friends might have hope by seeing Christianity lived before their eyes. Let me be faithful in living the Christian life. Let me show compassion toward people by caring and ministering unto them. Truly it is more blessed to give than receive.

Let me die the death of the righteous that I might have confidence at death. “Perfect love casteth out fear” (1 Jn. 4:18). How sorrowful to come to life’s end not prepared for judgment! What a terrible thought to know the soul is lost forever! What a rejoicing to know the hope of the Christian-a hope both sure and steadfast, a peace that passeth all understanding.

Let me die the death of the righteous that some soul might be led to Christ. The good that men do lives after them. Abel “being dead yet speaketh” (Heb. 11:14). Sermons preached, lessons written, and words spoken live on in the hearts of men. Memories and examples of lives already lived sometime motivate men to faithfulness.

“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Psa. 116:15). And so I pray, “Lord when I die, let me die the death of the righteous.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 322
May 18, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Virginia: “Certainly we have to admire Daniel’s courage in praying to God after the edict not to pray for 30 days, but why did he have to do it before an open window, just because the command had not yet been given not to pray to be seen of men?”

Reply:

If you are not familiar with the story of Daniel in the lions’ den, read the sixth chapter of Daniel. The question above is based on the events described in that passage.

Even in the Old Testament, praying to be seen of men was wrong. The consideration of Daniel’s deeds does not involve that particular point. Suffice it to say that Daniel did not pray to be seen of men. If he had, he would have been censored. It is not indicated in the sacred narrative that Daniel acted improperly in any manner. His conduct was vindicated by his miraculous deliverance. The fact that neither Daniel’s behavior nor his judgment were questioned is tacit proof of the propriety of his actions in every respect.

Matthew Henry answers the major portion of our querist’s question; so, we shall let him conclude this column.

“When he knew that the writing was signed he continued to do as he did aforetime, and altered not one circumstance of the performance. Many a man, yea, and many a good man, would have thought it prudence to omit it for these thirty days, when he could not do it without hazard of his life; he might have prayed so much the oftener when those days had expired and danger was over, or he might have performed the duty at another time, and in another place, so secretly that it should not be possible for his enemies to discover it; and so he might both satisfy his conscience and keep up his communion with God, and yet avoid the law, and continue in his’ usefulness. But, if he had done so, it would have been thought, both by his friends and by his enemies, that he had thrown up the duty for this time, through cowardice and base fear, which would have tended very much to the dishonor of God and the discouragement of his friends. Others who moved in a lower sphere might well enough act with caution; but Daniel, who had so many eyes upon him, must act with courage; and the rather because he knew that the law, when it was made, was particularly leveled against him. Note, we must not omit duty for fear of suffering, no, nor so much as seem to come short of it. In trying times great stress is laid upon our confessing Christ before men (Matt. x. 32), and we must take heed lest, under pretense of discretion, we be found guilty of cowardice in the cause of God.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 322
May 18, 1978