Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

We are in the throes of another unity movement. This should be encouraging to all who love the Lord; unity of God’s people is not an elusive dream which never can be achieved; it is something which each of us needs to be working to accomplish. Hence, I rejoice that men all over this great country are wanting unity. The ecumenical movement is one of the most obvious signs that many are presently wanting unity.

Unity at any price is something not worth having. America has recently witnessed a “peace-at-any-price” attitude in the settling of the conflict with Viet Nam. Frankly, I have trouble seeing the difference between the kind of “peace” which was obtained there and “defeat.” The ecumenical movement is another “peace-at-any-price” movement, although its main area of concern is with religious controversy. This unity movement has already called a moratorium against evangelizing pagan nations for the reason that they feel that pagan religions have just as much right to exist and stand just as approved before God as does the Christian religion. This movement is nothing less than a surrender to the forces of Satan.

Even as we watch the world around us discussing the problem of unity, we are made aware of the discussion of the subject within the Lord’s church. There is a mini-ecumenical movement in progress among us. The issues at stake are exactly the same ones as in the ecumenical movement facing denominationalism; both movements have the “peace-at-any-price” philosophy. Both movements would rather switch than fight over any doctrine.

Yet all of this discussion forces us to reconsider what is the scriptural foundation for unity. All men can be united upon the basis posited in the word of God. All men, that is, who believe and respect the Bible as the revealed word of God. Frankly, I have no desire for unity with any other kind of men. To those men, the command of Paul applies, “Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:18). I would like to discuss the historical emphasis in the restoration movement toward unity.

Restoration Or Unity?

Recently, I have read several statements which emphasize that the restoration movement split over two fundamental issues, restoration and unity. The liberal group took the unity route; the conservative group took the restoration route. Here is what those quotations said:

“The heart of the liberal-conservative rift was revealed in diverging views of the twofold plea of the movement -restoration of the ancient order and Christian union. To the liberal, Christian union became more and more important. To the conservative, restoration was the church’s central plea and union was only an elusive desideratum” (David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, p. 8).

In a recent article appearing in Vanguard, Daniel H. King quoted from O. R. Whitley’s Trumpet Call of Reformation as follows:

“Two attitudes were struggling in Alexander Campbell’s mind, and in the mind of Disciples of Christ. This becomes increasingly apparent as the story moves along. One of these, based on the restoration idea, led in the direction of legalism, a religious hardening of the arteries; the other, the unity idea, led in the direction of reassertion of the freedom principles incipient in the original Reformation, and was expressive of the spirit of Locke’s famous Letters on Toleration. Each of these attitudes was to receive its due emphasis, at varying times, depending upon the needs of the moment. . .Significantly in the later development of Disciples, the liberals’ have followed the ‘we-must-be-free’ idea. The extreme conservatives have tended to support the `there-is-nothing-new’ contention” (as quoted in Vanguard, December 9, 1976, p. 7).

In conclusion, Daniel said, “The spirit of the restoration movement is not and has never been the ecumenical spirit. The two are not in the least related. Therefore, if in the final analysis we must face the alternative `Unity or Restoration?’, then for my part at least, I shall without the slightest reservation choose restoration.”

But, does the restoration principle demand that we choose between unity and restoration? According to those who are writing today, one must choose whether or not the restoration of the New Testament church is more important than the unity of the church. Such has not always been the case.

Unity Through Restoration

Though there may be a certain tension between unity and restoration, those in the early efforts to restore New Testament Christianity understood that unity could be attained only through the restoration of primitive, firstcentury Christianity. Typical of the statements made concerning this is that which was made by James Alexander Haldane, one of the men who had a major influence on the thought of Alexander Campbell. He said,

“The importance of uniformity amongst Christians, is not only evident in itself, but has been allowed in every age since the Reformation. Good men have lamented the differences which have subsisted, and which have not only occasioned strife amongst themselves, but have also given infidels a handle to reject and ridicule all religion. Various plans have been devised for promoting uniformity; but all these, as might be expected, have failed. Indeed the success of such plans was not in itself desireable. It could only have taken place, by churches giving way to one another’s prejudices. It is necessary, in common life, sometimes to give up what we know to be our right, for the sake of peace or some greater advantage. But such conduct respecting religion is not countenanced in the word of God. Every one must be fully persuaded in his own mind, and no evil is to be done that good may come. We must by no means encroach on the liberty given to every church to walk according to their own light. If we endeavor to model one church after the example of another now existing, we shall make little progress unless authority be employed, and in this case our zeal is not according to knowledge, our weapons are carnal. But if a model exist in the New Testament, by which all churches ought to be regulated; if each be occupied in imitating this, they will gradually approach nearer to each other; and thus the numberless sects and parties which dishonour the religion of Jesus, will be at an end. When a number of children are taught to write by one master, we expect to see a resemblance in their handwriting. This naturally arises from each copying the writing of the master, to whom all look up; but what progress could be expected if they were employed in copying from each other, or in quarrelling who wrote best” (A View of the Social Worship and Ordinances Observed by the First Christians, pp. 33-35).

Many other such quotations could be taken from the sermon outline books of those who have written regarding the subject of unity and who were early leaders in the effort to restore New Testament Christianity. All of them understood that unity was to be obtained through the restoration of first century church.

The quotation of the speech made by Brother James Adams in the Arlington Meeting has been much misunderstood because brethren apparently did not grasp this very point. Brother Adams, however, made himself very clear in the early part of his speech. He said,

“At this point, I should like to reemphasize a fact which has previously been stated; namely, unity is not an end within itself. I believe this was one of the mistakes made in the so-called ‘restoration movement.’ Brethren, If they did not believe it, often preached and wrote so as to give the Impression that they considered unity an end within itself. I believe that many of us today regard unity as an end within Itself. As I have grown older as a preacher of the gospel, I have become more concerned with getting men to whom I preach to do the will of God. If all of us conform our lives and teaching to the will of God, we will have unity. Hence I am more concerned about this than I am about unity. This does not mean I am not concerned about unity. I would not be here today if I were not. But I am more concerned about getting men to do the will of God. This is an end within itself. Unity is a by-product of this, hence I am more interested In the (cause than in the effect” (The Arlington Meeting, pp. 393-394).

One could almost get the impression that some have intentionally overlooked the original context of Brother Adam’s speech in their quotation of what he had to say about unity.

Why Has Division Occurred?

If the early restorers understood that unity was to be obtained through the restoration of the early church, why then has division occurred so often within our ranks? This is not an easy question to answer and perhaps the answer which I am going to suggest is too simplistic. However, I believe that this is what has caused our divisions and intend to say so.

The churches have been divided because brethren loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren and the Lord. Historically, this can be substantiated. The churches were united until some “progressive” brethren decided to bring in the mechanical instruments of music and to build missionary societies which were to be supported from the treasury of the local church. When conscientious brethren objected to these innovations, the liberals chose their innovations over their brethren. Apparently, they loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren. Later, when the liberals among us introduced the sponsoring church concept of evangelism and the church support of benevolent institutions and colleges, conscientious brethren again objected. The liberals, however, chose these innovations above their brethren; apparently, they loved their innovations more than they loved their brethren.

However, notice what has occurred in each of these divisions. The foundation principle which had initially caused them to be united was laid aside in order “to advance” the gospel. Being discontent with the organization, work, and worship which were found in the New Testament, the groups went out on their own to devise their own organizations, works, and worship. Conscientious brethren could not accept the things which they devised and were, ;therefore, forced to separate from them.A New Unity Movement

A new unity movement is in progress among the churches today. However, each of us should recognize that a different basis for unity is being suggested in this new movement than was suggested by the restoration principle. Whereas the restoration principle said that we can be united when all of us go back to the New Testament and become like the model church of the New Testament, the new unity movement says that we can have “unity in diversity.” My brethren, any movement towards unity which does not allow discussion and change regarding the matters which originally divided us is naive and destined to failure. We simply cannot be united until that which is divided us is removed. Any union which might be obtained would compromise the convictions of one group or the other.

However, there is a way to have unity. We can all go back to the Bible and become more and more like the church which we read about in it and we will inevitably become more and more like one another. Unity will be the blessed by-product of our return to the Bible. We do not have to choose between unity and restoration; unity can only be obtained through the restoration of the New Testament church.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, pp. 355-357
June 9, 1977

By Don R. Hastings

You may think that this subject is not very important, but it is one that produces an argument in almost every Bible class when it is discussed. I have been accused of not believing what the Bible taught because I said that the word “corn”, found in the King James Version, has reference to grain. Many brethren, when they see the word “corn” in the King James Version, naturally think of corn as we know it. But, does the word “corn” have reference to what we call “corn”? We should want to know and teach the truth in all matters.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, makes this statement while commenting on Matthew 12:1: “The word corn, as used in our translation of the Bible, has no reference to maize, or Indian corn, as it has with us. Indian corn was unknown till the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything of it. The word was applied, as it is still in England, to wheat, rye, oats, and barley. This explains the circumstance that they rubbed it in their hands, (Luke VI. 1,) to separate the grain from the chaff.” In England, the word “corn” is a general term for grain. This explains why the King James translators translated the Hebrew and Greek word for grain as “corn”. The American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version and many other versions will invariably use the word “grain” where the King James has the word “corn”.

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24) The passage reveals clearly that the word “corn” has reference to grain as it is translated in the American Standard and other versions.

All this means that the disciples did not eat raw corn, but wheat or barley. Pharaoh did not dream of “seven ears of corn” as we think of corn, but “seven ears of grain” which was probably wheat (Genesis 41:5). Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy wheat, not what we call “corn”.

While on this subject, let us notice another misunderstood passage. In Luke 15:16, we read of the prodigal son’s desire to eat “the husks that the swine did eat”. I wondered for a long time how anyone could be hungry enough to want to eat corn-husks. Now I know that the Greek word translated “husks” has reference to “the pods of the carob tree”. (See the footnote in the American Standard Version.) William Smith, in his book, A Dictionary of the Bible, describes these pods and tells how the seeds were used as food by poor people and swine.

After I had enlightened a Bible class on this important matter, Sister Meta Given, who is the author of a cookbook, came to me and asked if I had ever eaten carob. I assured her that I had not. So she invited my family to her house for a carob drink, which was like hot chocolate, and some carob cake. She said that the carob looks and tastes something like chocolate, but that it is better for you. If you want what the prodigal son wanted, you can get it in most health food stores.

Truth Magazine XXI: 23, p. 354
June 9, 1977

By Larry A. Bunch

The subject of “church discipline” is often a neglected and misunderstood one. Many times when churches “act” on this matter, they do so in haste with little or no preparation. Consequently, many times harm is done and brethren are embittered against the church acting in this realm. Our purpose in this article is to thoroughly study the subject from the Bible so as to completely understand it and be able to act in agreement with God’s will.

The Necessity of Discipline

Where there is no penalty attached to the violation of law, there is neither respect for the Law nor for the Law-giver. Juvenile delinquency results from a lack of discipline (Prov. 13:24; Eph. 6:1-4). We all recognize the necessity of discipline in the classroom and that the civil government requires punishment upon criminals (Rom. 13:1-4).

God has never tolerated trifling with His Laws. Confusion would result if there was no punishment for violation and God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Adam and Eve were punished for violation of God’s instructions (Gen. 3:17-24; 2:17). The whole world, with the exception of eight righteous souls, perished in the flood because of wickedness (Gen. 6). Nadab and Abihu presumed to offer “strange fire” to the Lord and were consumed by fire from heaven (Lev. 10). Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Lord and fell dead at the apostle’s feet (Acts 5).

Similarly, there must be discipline in the church today. Note that I said similarly — not exactly like the above cases, but discipline nevertheless. There are two main differences between the above cases and discipline in the church today: 1) God does not deal directly with violators of His Law today and 2) God does not deal out punitive discipline either directly or indirectly (through agents) unless Hebrews 12 is an exception of this. Even though this is true, there is still discipline. If there is no discipline, then the effect would be the same as in the situations mentioned (classroom, parents, government)-there would be no respect for God or for His Law.

Definitions

More brethren would be in favor of church discipline if they understood the broad meaning of the term. Discipline is defined by Webster as: “noun; mental or moral training; education; subjection to control; military regulation; chastisement; an instrument of punishment. Verb transitive; to train to obedience or efficiency: regulate; chastise” (New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1962). In Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged, 1959, it is defined as: “Noun, (1) training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and efficiency. (2) the result of such training; self-control; orderly conduct. (3) a system of rules or methods, as for the conduct of members of a monastic order. (4) subjection to rule; submissiveness to control. (5) correction; chastisement; punishment inflicted by way of correction and training. (6) anything taught; branch of knowledge or learning. Verb transitive, (1) to subject to discipline; to instruct or educate; to prepare by instruction; to train; as to discipline youth for a profession. (2) to chastise; to punish. (3) to execute the laws of a church on. (4) to keep in subjection; to regulate; to govern. Synonyms: train, form, educate, instruct, drill, regulate, correct, chastise, punish.” We can see from this that discipline does not involve corporal punishment only, but also involves instruction and training. In fact, the instruction and training come first!

The Old Testament equivalent of “discipline” is musar which comes from yasar meaning “to bind, to tame; hence to correct, chastise, instruct, admonish” (“First Century Preaching by Twentieth Century Preachers” by Jimmy Tuten and Floyd Chappelear, p. 81). Some passages to read are Proverbs 3:11-12; 13:24; 22:15; 23:13; Deut. 8:5; Job 5:17; Psalm 94:12.

The word “discipline” (from the Greek sophronismos) does not appear in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. It appears once in the American Standard Version (ASV) in 2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV, “sound mind”). This word means: “1. an admonishing or calling to soundness of mind, to moderation and self-control . . . 2. self-control, moderation…” (Thayer, p. 613).

However, the idea expressed in the Hebrew “yasar” is best expressed in two Greek words: 1) “paideia” and 2) “paideuo.” Thayer says regarding these words (p. 473):

“Paideia: 1. the whole training and education of children . . . Eph. 6:4 . . . 2. whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, esp. by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions; hence a. instruction which aims at the increase of virtue: 2 Tim. 3:16 . . . b. acc. to bibl. usage chastisement, chastening . . . Heb. 12:5. . . .

“Paideuo: 1 . . . . to train children: . . . to be instructed or taught, to learn: . . . 1 Tim. 1:20; to cause one to learn: . . . Titus 2:12. 2. to chastise; a. to chastise or castigate with words, to correct: . . . 2 Tim. 2:25 . . . b. in bibl. and eccl. use employed of God, to chasten by the infliction of evils and calamities . . . 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3. .:19 . . . c. to chastise with blows, to scourge . . . Heb. 12:7, (10) . . . Lk.23:26,22.”

We have seen that discipline is training, rules, submissiveness, corrections, chastisement, instruction, regulation, governing – and since we are talking about “church discipline,” it is discipline pertaining to the spiritual growth and development of the individual Christian in the local congregation and of the attitudes and actions of the members of the local congregation toward one another.

Two Kinds

There are two basic kinds of disciplinary action: (1) Instructive: This is “preventative” in nature. It is designed so the Christian can learn God’s will in order to apply it to his life and please God. Thus, the Christian avoids the second kind of disciplinary action – (2) Corrective: This is “punitive” in nature. It results from inadequate instructive discipline or the failure of the Christian to make application of that instruction to his life. These two kinds of disciplinary action will be discussed next week in the section “The Means of (How To) Discipline.”

The Scriptures Commanding Discipline

Matthew 18:15-17 (the offender is also to go to the offended, Matt. 5:23-24); Luke 17:3; Romans 16:17-20; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; James 5:19-20.

These are some of the passages dealing with “instructive discipline” and all the passages dealing with “corrective discipline.” It would be good to read these passages and keep them in mind as you complete this study. (Continued Next Week). See also the tract on Church Discipline by Cecil Willis.

Truth Magazine XXI:22, pp.349-350
June 2, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

The Defender is the name of an eight-page monthly bulletin put out by a liberal church in Pensacola, Florida. It has involved itself in a great deal of controversy with the ultra-liberal element in the church today, and has carried some good material in that effort. However in the June, 1976 issue, Leon Cole of Florence, Ala., decided to take the “antis” to task in an article entitled “From One Extreme To Another.” I have not yet teen able to decide if he was actually as ignorant of the truth as I suppose I ought to graciously consider him, or to conclude he cared that little about what the truth actually was!

Leon Cole begins with a quote from Olan Hicks, “Boys one extreme always leads to another,” and from that finds comfort in “the often maligned `middle of the road’.” He charges that the early opposition to institutionalism led to the opposite extreme of ultra-liberalism, and that now that they are fighting the ultra-liberals, “antism” is again having a resurgence. First of all, I would like to agree with the first half of his claim. It was the early opposition to institutionalism that led to the ultra-liberalism in the church today, but not as he supposes! Ultra-liberalism got its footing in the loose and anti-scriptural positions advocated during the early fifties of “Where there is no pattern, ” etc. What other conclusion was there left for the next generation to go on and accept? Bro. Cole needs to go back and look at the very roots of the movement they are now fighting! As for the “resurgence” of the “antis,” may I politely point out to him we never disappeared. We have been busy preaching the gospel and growing rapidly in the process. However the liberals have sought to isolate themselves from those of us opposing their pet projects, and thus have closed their eyes to our existence until the fruits of their logic gave birth to a new generation of ultra-liberals. Now they are being forced to back up in alarm at what they have begun to reap, and are finding they are having to return to the arguments we have been using all along-and they do not like getting caught in the middle of their own inconsistency. No wonder they have suddenly begun to recognize we are here-they are now hearing many of our own arguments being used, and this means other pet projects they are defending are going to be questioned again. This affords them no little lack of sleep. So, to minimize this effect, many liberals today have grossly misrepresented the facts so many “middle of the roaders” will not learn too much. When will they ever learn what it was that created that mess in the first place?

But after having branded early opposition to institutionalism as “one extreme,” Leon Cole goes on to admit the opposition “began as a legitimate protest (emp. mine-DPA) to including the colleges in the budgets of the churches, questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted, and an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency or to `glamorize the church’ by watering down the gospel.” This strikes me a bit odd. How can something be an “extreme” and a “legitimate protest” at the same time? Or could it be that now that they have seen the results of the Herald of Truth going into apostasy, men who clearly did abuse their roles then (funny how much better hind-sight is), and the continued rapid growth of the effort to get churches to put the colleges in the budget (yet how can one condemn one human institution and justify another going into the budget-the orphan home?), that they have now concluded those objections were right-but do not want anyone to know they are now recanting and admitting the “antis” were right after all? A thing cannot be a “legitimate protest” and an “extreme” at the same time-it may go to an extreme in objecting, but it cannot start out as both! But Leon Cole charges this “legitimate protest” began sound in its objections (though denied then) and then “degenerated into the formation of a sect.” Well, in the words of the apostle Paul, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers” (Acts 24:14).

The first charge against this “sect” is that it was “led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” This I flatly deny! I could as easily charge those who sought to perpetuate the various institutions among us were those who “sought to have the preeminence,” and in this Leon Cole has already agreed. Note his own statement again. First of all, opposition “began as a legitimate protest.” Now, he charges it was “led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” I wish he could decide which it was! Secondly, he admits that this “legitimate protest” was against “questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted”. That sounds to me like those seeking to benefit from the controversy were those who had something to gain! Certainly those gospel preachers who challenged the scripturalness of such were not benefitting financially as they were being quarantined, maligned, had meetings cancelled, lost meeting places, etc. By his own admission, the defenders of these institutions were the ones seeking to “benefit financially” and to “glamorize the church.” And now he charges those objecting with a “legitimate protest” of being so motivated. Hang your head in shame! Caught again!

He then continues to charge that “it was not long till a creed was formulated.” Now a creed is merely a conviction, but since Leon Cole charges we have accepted a creed, perhaps he would like to inform us when it was drawn up, by whom, etc. Have the churches of Christ accepted a “creed” because we believe baptism is by immersion and for the remission of sins? Was a “creed” involved when we objected to the use of instrumental music in worship to God? Yes, we have a creed, but our creed consists of following the word of God and it only (2 John 9). In that respect, apparently, this amounts to a denial the liberals have such a creed anymore. Have they ceased to follow the Bible altogether?

The “tenets” of this creed which Leon Cole has drawn up and so maliciously assigns to us consists of the following points. “One church may not help another in a cooperative work under any circumstances.” Such is an outright falsehood! That is about as logical (and honest) as the Christian Church charging we do not believe in worshipping God in song because we object to instrumental music. Could it be that Leon Cole has begun to see some of these “questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher” and “effort(s) to make the church a glorified welfare agency” are unscriptural, and this is the only way they could object to ultra-liberal practices without admitting there is a pattern? Caught in the middle again!

The second “tenet” is “Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 are limited to individuals and benevolence by the church is to saints only . . . .According to the teachings of this sect, if a family where the parents are members of the church are destitute the church could not contribute from its treasury to that family if there were children too young to be members unless the parents would refuse to let the children eat.” Again, purely a false statement-designed to arouse prejudice! I flatly deny anyone so teaches and call on Leon Cole to prove it or admit to (1) misrepresentation or (2) ignorance whereof he wrote! It is true we object to the church taking money from the treasury to care for non-saints, but there is a vast difference in this and aiding needy saints while forbidding them to do what God has commanded them to do (1 Tim. 5:8), and Leon Cole knows such to be so! I defy him to name anyone who would let children go hungry if the church had to relieve needy Christians who were their parents! But that does not authorize the church to become another Salvation Army, and again Leon Cole found himself caught in the middle. He believes benevolence is limited too! Note again his statement that we were raising a “legitimate protest” to “an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency.” Now perhaps he would like to tell us how he can object to one without any standard of authority and not accept the other? Yes, that “middle of the road” is a dangerous place when one decides to call for authority!

But he then charges Gal. 6:10 is to the church because in v. 11 Paul mentioned his letter which was addressed to the “church” (Gal. 1:1-2). But, in v. 12 he goes on to talk about circumcision-I wonder if that was done to churches or individuals? I wonder if churches or individuals were baptized (Gal. 3:27). I wonder if Paul was part of the church here (6:10-“we”)? And then, since 1 Thess. 1:1 was addressed to the “church,” was Paul talking about churches in 1 Thess. 4:9-12-or individuals? Consistency, thou art a jewel! As for James 1:27, he knows better than to touch that with a ten-foot pole! Leon Cole has a problem. He objects to the church becoming a “glorified welfare agency,” yet wants to take a passage that is addressed to individuals and commit the church to “all men.” Caught in the middle!

The third “tenet” (such a short creed!) is “church property is sacramental and eating on the premises is forbidden, some even declare weddings and funerals should be excluded from the church building.” My, my, something happened here. A “creed” has been accepted by a “sect,” and yet “some” question weddings and funerals in the building. If a creed had been accepted (in the sense he implies), why are brethren still studying the issue and examining the authority that is associated with it? Could it be there is still an area brethren are questioning and requestioning, and not a “creed” at all? Could it be maybe the liberals are questioning their “creed” a church must support these benevolent societies being under elders or a board-but must be supported? Could it be the “creed” of “the college in every budget” is still being studied by them? Thank God brethren are willing to raise “legitimate protests” to abuses and unscriptural activities — and may we continue to examine, question and seek the full truth on all issues!

But how does he justify “eating on the premises”? “If we cannot eat on church premises neither could food be eliminated on church premises.” My my, such great scriptural authority! May I suggest he again read 1 Cor.11l and Paul’s criticism — not: “wait and eat a meal later” but “eat at home.” I suppose in John 2, the Jews should have reasoned, “If you cannot buy on these premises, neither can you sacrifice on them.” If you enter a building that says “no smoking,” and you have filled your lungs with the stink and fumes of this poisonous weed, then you could not exhale at all while in there? If you cannot buy clothes in a church building, can you wear them? Such silly reasoning is hardly worth answering. Food is eaten, digested and eliminated much later. Elimination is not something pre-planned and scheduled nor does the elimination of such convert the building into “fellowship halls” for which thousands of dollars of the Lord’s money are spent! Such places as rest rooms are necessary to public gathers because of this time lapse, especially where the public will be gathered for a prolonged period of time and includes in it babies, small kids-and perhaps yourself if you should get diarrhea, etc. An assembly of a prolonged nature could hardly be held in “decency and order” without such, as recognized by many state laws now. And whether we returned to “out-houses” as he accuses us of needing to do, or maintain an “in-house;” such is needful for an assembly-and a silly quibble if ever one was raised. Certainly the same logic that would iustify an “out-house” would also justify indoor facilities as well!

The issue is: Where has God authorized us to convert a building built .with His funds as part of our efforts to worship Him and teach others the gospel of Christ into a “fellowship hall” and place of entertainment? And, if we can so convert it, what limits would one place upon it? I heard one preacher seek to justify the Boy Scouts being sponsored by the church as “good for the morals of the kids,” but objected to Weight Watchers (“good for caring for the body that we might further serve him”?) as not being “religious” in nature. Surely he knows the difference between modern-day “fellowship halls” and the place authorized for the assembling of the saints, built and maintained by the money contributed to further the work of the Lord! But, as he admits, some today have sought to “glamorize the church” with many unscriptural schemes: sponsoring the Boy Scouts, socials, baby and wedding showers, Halloween parties, slumber parties, etc. Yes, “legitimate protests” were raised and still ask, “Where is the authority?” Caught in the middle again!

Swinging to the other side of his own self-declared “extremes,” he goes on to say, “From the extreme of antism developed an attitude not to be against anything,” and that is what is really upsetting the liberals today! His problem is how to draw the line against a full-scale apostasy they introduced, without being forced to consistently go back all the way and accept the full truth. It is a losing battle. They tried it in the last century and lost, and time will show the same thing will be true of the present apostasy. Too late have these liberals begun to wake up and object of where they are going, while seeking to hang on the ‘groundwork they themselves laid at the same time. No wonder they are so grossly misrepresenting the truth — it’s rough getting caught in the middle!

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 347-349
June 2, 1977