Truth Magazine

By Roland Worth, Jr.

American religion plays great lip service to the Bible. It is on every pulpit; in most churches there is at least some type of reading from it every Sunday; the creed books declare it to be their standard. It is the world’s best seller every year.

Yet do people really accept the Bible? Do they accept what it teaches?

Thanks to public opinion poll data we can answer this question with more than just speculation based on personal experience. At least two major polls of religious belief have been taken in recent years:

In 1965, the Catholic Digest sponsored a nationwide survey of opinion (both inside their church and outside it) as to what Americans believe on a wide variety of subjects connected with religion. The findings of this survey were reported in What Do We Believe? The Stance of Religion in America (Merid ith Press, New York: 1968), with an analysis by Martin E. Marty, Stuart E. Rosenberg, and Andrew M. Greeley.

In 1963, another major survey was undertaken, in this case by the University of California at Berkley and concerned religious opinions in four northern California counties. The findings are reported in Rodney Stark and Charles Y. Glock’s volume on American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment (University of California Press, Berkeley, California: 1968).

From these two sources we can gain a reasonably accurate understanding of what the typical American religionist believes. We could present a lengthy refutation of the popular misconceptions that these studies revealed. Since most of my readers are already Christians and know the truth on these matters, I will refrain from doing this. I will let the figures speak for themselves, without comment.

(The charts and figures that follow, though they are based on those found in the above two volumes, are seldom a verbatim reproduction; in other words, the format has normally been at least slightly changed in order to emphasize the points we are trying to make.)

What Was Jesus?

The Catholic Digest survey (pages 224-225). The “supernatural” column below lumps together those who believe that Jesus is “God” and those who label Him “Son of God.” The “Human” column is for those who simply considered Him as “another leader.”

DENOMINATION	SUPERNATURAL		HUMAN
	1952	1965	1952	1965
Roman Catholic	92%	89%	6 %	51%
Protestant	83%	76%	10%	13%
Baptist	91%	85%	6 %	9 %
Methodist	83%	73%	9 %	14%
Lutheran	79%	73%	12%	17%
Presbyterian	82%	71%	12%	15%
Episcopal	76%	64%	17%	25%
Congregational	64%	53%	24%	29%

The California survey (page 32). This survey reveals that the shift away from belief in a supernatural Jesus may grow in the future due to the large number who have “doubts” on the subject.

The “Human” column below lumps together the two categories “Jesus was only a man though an extraordinary one” and “Jesus was a great man and very holy, but I don’t feel Him to be the Son of God any more than all of us are children of God.”

DENOMINATION	“DIVINE SON OF GOD”	“SOME DOUBTS”	HUMAN
Roman Catholic	86%	8 %	4 %
Protestant	69%	17%	11%
Congregational	40%	28%	28%
Methodist	54%	22%	20%
Episcopal	59%	25%	13%
American Lutheran	74%	18%	8 %
Disciples of Christ	74%	14%	8 %
Presbyterian	72%	19%	7 %
American Baptist	76%	16%	6 %
Missouri Lutheran	93%	5 %	1 %
Southern Baptist	99%	0 %	1 %

Virgin Birth of Christ

The California survey (page 34) found that the following percentages of church members that would accept as “completely true” the Biblical teaching that Jesus was born of a virgin.

DENOMINATION	PERCENT
Roman Catholic	81%
Protestant	57%
Congregational	21%
Methodist	34%
Episcopal	39%
Disciples	62%
American Lutheran	66%
American Baptist	69%
Missouri Lutheran	92%
Southern Baptist	99%

Return of Christ

There were the following answers to the question: “Do You Believe Jesus will actually return to the earth some day?” (California survey, page 34).

DENOMINATION	DEFINITELY OR PROBABLY	POSSIBLY	PROBABLY NOT OR DEFINITELY NOT
Roman Catholic	57%	16%	23%
Protestant	54%	20%	23%
Congregational	21%	28%	48%
Methodist	33%	25%	39%
Episcopal	37%	29%	28%
Presbyterian	54%	23%	20%
Disciples	46%	26%	18%
American Lutheran	66%	18%	13%
American Baptist	68%	17%	11%
Missouri Lutheran	83%	6 %	5 %
Southern Baptist	98%	0 %	2 %

Miracles of Christ

The California survey (page 36) provided three categories of answers to the questions of whether there were miracles : (1) “Miracles actually happened just as the Bible says they did,” in other words, a full acceptance of what the Bible teaches on the subject; (2) “Miracles happened but can be explained by natural causes;” (3) doubted or denied miracles.

DENOMINATION	DOUBTED OR DENIED	NATURAL EXPLANATIONS	FULL ACCEPTANCE
Roman Catholic	9 %	9 %	74%
Protestants	17%	19%	57%
Congregational	32%	32%	28%
Episcopalian	27%	22%	41%
Methodist	24%	31%	37%
Disciples	14%	16%	62%
Presbyterian	14%	20%	58%
American Lutheran	13%	14%	69%
American Baptist	9 %	16%	62%
Missouri Lutheran	5 %	4 %	89%
Southern Baptist	3 %	0 %	92%

Life Beyond Death?

The Catholic national survey produced these figures in answer to the question, “Do you think your soul will live on after death?” (Page 246).

DENOMINATION	NO	YES	UNCERTAIN
Roman Catholic	3 %	83%	14%
Protestant	7 %	78%	15%
Episcopal	15%	68%	17%
Presbyterian	11%	70%	19%
Congregational	11%	65%	24%
Methodist	7 %	75%	18%
Lutheran	7 %	78%	15%
Baptist	5 %	81%	14%

The California study resulted in these figures (page 37),

DENOMINATION	PROBABLY OR DEFINITELY NOT	PROBABLY TRUE	COMPLETELY TRUE
Roman Catholic	5 %	16%	75%
Protestant	9 %	24%	65%
Congregational	21%	40%	36%
Methodist	13%	35%	49%
Episcopalian	13%	31%	53%
Presbyterian	7 %	21%	69%
American Baptist	7 %	19%	72%
American Lutheran	5 %	23%	70%
Missouri Lutheran	4 %	10%	84%
Southern Baptist	0 %	3 %	97%

Does the Devil Exist?

The California study found that religionists gave the following replies (page 37),

DENOMINATION	PROBABLY NOT OR DEFINITELY NOT TRUE	PROBABLY TRUE	COMPLETELY TRUE
Roman Catholic	14%	14%	66%
Protestants	43%	15%	38%
Congregational	78%	13%	6 %
Methodist	66%	15%	13%
Episcopalian	60%	16%	17%
Presbyterian	48%	17%	31%
Disciples	38%	34%	18%
American Baptist	29%	17%	49%
American Lutheran	26%	20%	49%
Missouri Lutheran	10%	9 %	77%
Southern Baptist	1 %	5 %	92%

Original Sin?

The belief in “original sin” is widely spread throughout American religions in spite of the fact that the Bible does not teach it. The California poll asked “A child is born into the world already guilty of sin?” The answers were (page 40),

DENOMINATION	COMPLETELY TRUE	PROBABLY TRUE	PROBABLY OR DEFINITELY NOT TRUE
Roman Catholic	68%	10%	19%
Protestants	26%	6 %	65%
Missouri Lutheran	86%	4 %	9 %
American Lutheran	49%	12%	37%
Southern Baptist	43%	3 %	55%
American Baptist	23%	9 %	65%
Presbyterian	21%	7 %	68%
Episcopalian	18%	7 %	71%
Methodist	7 %	4 %	87%
Disciples	6 %	2 %	90%
Congregational	2 %	2 %	94%

Heaven and Hell?

The Catholic survey enquired whether people believed in the existence of a Heaven and Hell after death (pages 248-251).

DENOMINATION	NO AFTER LIFE OR NOT SURE	YES HEAVEN	YES HELL	NO HEAVEN	NO HELL	NOT SURE HEAVEN	NOT SURE HELL
Roman Catholic	17%	80%	70%	1 %	7 %	2 %	6 %
Protestant	22%	71%	54%	3 %	15%	4 %	9 %
Episcopal	32%	54%	17%	10%	38%	4 %	13%
Congregational	35%	58%	25%	4 %	37%	3 %	3 %
Lutheran	22%	66%	49%	3 %	22%	9 %	7 %
Presbyterian	29%	61%	39%	3 %	22%	7 %	10%
Methodist	25%	66%	44%	3 %	17%	6 %	14%
Baptist	19%	78%	68%	1 %	7 %	2 %	6%

Nature of the Bible

The Catholic survey asked, “Do you believe the Bible is really the revealed word of God; or do you think it is only a great piece of literature?” (page 228).*

DENOMINATION	GREAT LITERATURE	WORD OF GOD	OTHER OR DON’T KNOW
Roman Catholic	9 %	82%	9 %
Protestant	10%	85%	7 %
Episcopal	25%	71%	12%
Congregational	19%	70%	11%
Presbyterian	16%	78%	7 %
Methodist	13%	81%	10%
Lutheran	13%	79%	8 %
Baptist	5 %	91%	4 %

*Figures sometimes “add to more than 100 per cent since some people gave more than one response.”

Conclusion

What such figures as these indicate is that, regardless of claims, many denominationalists are in dissent from clear Biblical teachings. Regrettably, what Stark and Glock say of the Episcopalian Church has application to other groups as well,

“During. . . attempts to try him for heresy, Episcopalian Bishop James A. Pike defended himself as having merely told the laity what the clergy have taken for granted for years. Bishop Pike charged that modernized interpretations of doctrine which are commonplace in theological journals have been kept secret from ordinary church members in the interest of harmony. While it seems quite true that the new theology has rarely been preached from the pulpit in Episcopalian churches, which supports Bishop Pike’s Contentions, nevertheless the average Episcopalian has adopted these modernized views. Indeed, the majority of Episcopalian church members in our sample hold theological views quite similar to Bishop Pike’s. This presents the ironic picture of Sunday services where both pastor and laymen reject or at least doubt the theological assumptions of the creeds they recite and the rituals in which they participate, but never acknowledge this fact” (page 209).

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, pp. 330-332
May 26, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

Ever since the week I obeyed the Gospel I have observed that my brethren have had problems. At the tender age of eighteen I was confronted with my first taste of animosity between brethren. The preacher spoke out against worldliness. A brother with sore toes and a “pricked” heart called for an “emergency business meeting.” He demanded a public apology or a new preacher. When neither seemed to be forthcoming and his bellicose demands did not cow the brethren into “firing” the preacher, he dramatically stalked out in a rage, slamming doors and spraying gravel all over the parking lot as he took “his contribution someplace else!” Oblivious to the embarrassed chatter of the brethren I could only weep with incredulity that such could happen among my brethren. I thought I had left all that kind of behavior behind in the world.

Years later, I still weep sometimes at the way brethren treat each other, but such behavior does not come as a surprise anymore. What is surprising is that brethren still believe they can act that way, treat their brethren like animals and expect to stand justified before God without any effort towards repentance or reconciliation. There is no place in the Lord’s church for sin, and God has given us the tools necessary to deal with unrepentant sinners.

What is Sin?

Scripture defines sin as violation of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17), violation of conscience (Jas. 4:17), or presumptive living (Rom. 14:23).Basically the man approved of God is one who acts to please God and not himself (Rom. 15:3). The “unrighteous” man is one who acts without firm conviction that he is pleasing God with his action. That faith, knowing God approves, comes only with the written testimony of God. When I am unsure that I am doing right, but I act anyway without the written approval of God as my source of action, I sin. When I assume that God will approve my deed, my faith is then based upon my will and not God’s and I sin. And when I break God’s law, whether presumptively, ignorantly, or intentionally, I sin.

How Do I Treat Sin?

How one treats sin in this life determines ones “mental health.” Mental health is actually the Christian’s right relationship with man and God. God has promised us that living righteously will bring peace (Jas. 2:18), love, joy, (Gal. 5:22), and confidence (Psa. 42:11). But the scriptures also point out that sin, guilt for sin, lack of true repentance and reconciliation produces not only ultimate spiritual death but physical and mental strain that brings intense pain in this world (Psa. 38:3; Prov. 14:30).

Righteousness means simply, “Being right.” One is “right” when he acts “righteously.” Only God has a right to determine the “right” way. God has given us in His word the right response for every situation we may be confronted with (2 Tim. 3:16,17). In our “walk” through life the path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day (Prov. 4:18). The “right way” not only brings right relationships (peace) with God and man (cf. 1 Jn. 1:7), but also produces physical and mental vigor: “Let not wisdom depart from thine eyes: keep it in the midst of thy heart. For it is life unto those that find it, and health to all their flesh” (Prov. 4:21,22).

Many brethren are miserable, unhappy, and make life for their brethren much like their own because they miss this fundamental fact. Righteousness to many saints for years has been centered solely in “doctrine” rather than personal living. The “doctrine of Christ” includes more than the work and worship of the church, and the negative aspects of a life without worldliness. Many define their doctrine mostly in a negative sense, “Righteousness is not using an instrument of music, not using vain repetitions, not fellowshipping liberals/anti’s/legalists/pharisees/digressives, not drinking, smoking, or reading Playboy Magazine.” Many think that they are justified for what they do not do. The scriptures declare “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Being Christ-like does include not doing certain things (cf. l Cor. 6:9-11), but above all, it means doing what is right (Phil. 1:9-11). Failure to do right, to respond with God’s righteousness to difficulties, trials, and temptations, is to sin (Jas. 4:17).

How God Treats Sin

When we react rightly to sin, therefore, we must respond to it the same way God does. God does not overlook sin. He does not consider some sins “petty”. God does not follow double standards, showing respect for people He “likes” and being censorious of those He “dislikes.” God does not minimize sin by saying, “That is just the way some people are.” Changing people from “the way they are” was so important to God that it took the suffering, pain-filled death of His Son to change people. God has given only one way to overcome sin: confrontation, repentance, and reconciliation. Matt. 5:23,24 demands reconciliation between men. Matt. 18:15-18 demands confrontation between brethren because of sin and either reconciliation or discipline. This is God’s righteousness. There is no other way.

“My Soul Is My Own!”

But it is not. God bought it, and it cost the blood of Jesus Christ, and you can no longer use it as you please. You are not entitled to petty hatreds, malice, anger, envy, and covetousness. You cannot let resentments and hurts build up in your heart, finding vent like a jet of steam in hateful talk, criticism, backbiting, and hateful deeds. You are not allowed by God to “worry yourself sick.” You no longer can say to God, “I cannot go to my brother to take the division and hurt away from between us. I just cannot do it.” God has declared that you not only can do it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13; Phil. 4:13) but you must do it.

We must react to sin by rebuke, teaching, exhortation, with a view to change behavior . It is not enough to “go forward” some Sunday or Wednesday when one has sinned against a brother. There must be a reconciliation of those brethren in the Lord (Matt. 5: 2326). Among ourselves we must confront sin in whatever form it takes (Rom. 15:14).

Problems Have Solutions

Man can be lazy, selfish, and ignorant. It takes a great deal of effort to produce anything worthwhile. The farmer toils in the sweat of his brow for the fruit of the earth. The scholar labors in study and searching to produce the fruit of the intellect. The child of God must labor just as diligently to produce the fruit of the spirit: a Christlike life. When the Christian permits events, environment, and things to control him, he is submitting to the Devil and not to God. How many times have you yourself said in defense of your actions., “But did you see/ hear what he did to me? A Christian must take the initiative in life to subdue sin and conquer the world, not be conquered by it. We do not act as a reaction to the world. We are the salt of the earth, and the light of the world. The world has its existence in reaction to us!

Christians solve problems by the power of God. We do not live with a problem we overcome it. We do not reject a problem because it is difficult, we grasp it and battle it with the armor and weapons of God. We are not deflected by sin, we conquer sin. Every test overcome by making a godlike response gives us strength to deal with the next trial (Jas. 1:2-4). We are not responsible for the way the world or the brethren treat us, but we are responsible for the way we treat them. You are responsible before God for what you are.

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, pp. 328-329
May 26, 1977

By Johnny Stringer

Baptism is absolutely necessary for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), for salvation (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21), and for union with Christ (Gal. 3:27). Let none deny the importance of baptism. However, let us not make the mistake of attributing feats to baptism which it cannot accomplish. Some seem to have the curious notion that baptism nullifies and erases marriages!

Paul said, “For the woman which hath an husband is hound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she he married to another man; she shall he called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Rom. 7:2-3). Clearly, then, a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives; marriage is a lifetime arrangement; and if she is married to another during the lifetime of her first husband, she is an adulteress because of the fact that she is still bound to her first husband. This is the general rule. Jesus made an exception to it, saying that one who puts his mate away for the cause of fornication is free to remarry (Matt. 19:1-12).

It is argued by many of our brethren that one can divorce and remarry unscripturally and then when that person is baptized, he can continue to live with the second mate without being guilty of adultery. They believe that whatever mate one has at the time of baptism is his scriptural mate and that all previous marriages no longer count. But the scriptures teach that unless he puts away his first mate for the cause of fornication, a person is bound to the first mate for as long as that mate lives. The act of baptism cannot change that. Baptism cannot nullify the first marriage! When one is baptized, he is still bound to his first mate and, therefore, has no right to live with the second mate. Since he is still hound to the first mate, he commits adultery by his relations with his second mate.

Baptism, brethren, is to blot out sins; it is not to blot out marriages! The one who is living in an adulterous union-that is, living with a second mate while still bound to the first mate (Rom. 7:2-3)-can be baptized and have all his past sins blotted out. He can be forgiven for having lived with a person he had no right to live with. But he is still bound to that first mate; therefore, he cannot continue to live with the second mate without continuing to commit adultery.

Not many are willing to give up their adulterous unions. They will not repent of them. To do so is difficult. Whether or not one is willing to do so is a real test of his dedication and devotion to Christ; it shows whether or not he really loves Christ above everyone and everything else (Lk. 14:26, 33). The one who is truly converted will stand the test and cease his adultery. Those who do not want to cease their adultery will often use the children as an excuse not to sever the relationship. It is more than a little interesting that folks do not seem too concerned about the effect on the children when they want to end a marriage for an unscriptural reason, but when it comes to the matter of ending an adulterous relationship which they do not want to end, then they become terribly concerned about the effect on the children. They need to consider the effect that it will have on the children to grow up and learn that their parents are living in adultery! Which will produce the better effect on the children: learning that their parents had such little regard for the word of God that they openly defied it and lived without shame in an adulterous relationship, or seeing that their parents are so devoted to the God of heaven that they were willing to make an extreme and agonizing sacrifice in order to please Him and reach heaven?

Brethren, if you did not put away your first mate for the cause of fornication and if that mate is still living, you are still bound to that mate; your baptism did not nullify that first marriage. You, therefore, have no right to live with another. If you have already begun to live with one other than the one to whom you are bound, cease that adulterous relationship. The brief period of pleasure that such a relationship will bring on earth will not be worth an eternity of agony in hell.

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, pp. 327-328
May 26, 1977

By Robert Jackson

In dealing with the issues that divide us, I have brought to your attention the fact we have been divided within our ranks throughout the years, and as long as brethren have no respect for Bible authority, there will continue to be division, though such ought not to be so. Brethren ought to love the word of God and respect it enough to abide by the teachings of Christ. The missionary society divided us in 1849, then came instrumental music. Then as years went by we had another division within our ranks over the Sponsoring Church, over the benevolent societies, and over the college tacked on to the church. All of these things were without Bible authority. By no means does it mean that we are opposed to a college existing separate and apart from the church, or a benevolent society separate and apart from the church. The thing that we oppose is the fact that they have been tacked onto the church of Christ without any Bible authority whatsoever.

Now then, you know when there comes division within the ranks of the body of Christ and you open the gate for things to take place without Bible authority, there is just no stopping place. Some of my brethren have started preaching, “We can do things without Bible authority.” Well, when you start doing one thing without Bible authority, then somebody else decides to do something else without Bible authority. Then you are just going to have anything and everything taking place in the church, and that is exactly what has happened in our day and time. We have watched, in our generation, things come into the church where there is no Bible authority whatsoever. I have found some brethren who make no claim whatsoever to give Bible authority for it. But yet throughout all the years, the churches of Christ made their plea: We speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent. We still ought to make that plea.

Let me show some things that divided us again, besides the benevolent society, the college, the sponsoring church and the missionary society, for an example, the recreational craze that is taking place in the churches of Christ. I have never in my life witnessed anything that has gone over the people any more than the recreational craze within the churches of Christ. I recall that before I was a member of the church of Christ people used to say that it was wrong for churches to be engaged in recreational activities, that the church is spiritual and ought to remain spiritual; and that recreation ought to be outside of church activities. But now today all the churches of Christ who claim to be “on the march” are providing and overseeing some form of recreation for people.

Today we find churches where they have built their gymnasiums. They have got their fellowship halls and they have got their baseball teams. They have got just about everything in the world that you can think of, and they couldn’t give you any Bible authority for it if they had to. In John 18:36, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” but my friend, they have made His kingdom a social institution. It is not any’ different than a social country club. You can get just about everything at a country club that you can find at some of the churches. They have got gymnasiums, they have got fellowship halls, and they have got everything that you can think of.

Now if you think I am wrong in this, let me cite just a few things. In the paper in Nashville, Tennessee, there was a young man who graduated from David Lipscomb College. It was his desire to go out and to be a preacher. Here is what he said, “I want a church with a gym where I can work with the kids, teach them healthy living, and keep them off of the street.” Now notice, he said, “I want to have a church with a gym.” Now wouldn’t it be wonderful if he had said, “God said to have a church with a gym”? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this young man, or whoever has taught this young man to have this desire, said, “Now here is the Bible authority for this recreation, and you can build a gym.” When you establish the authority for recreation, then you can build the gym. But so far, no one has given any Bible authority for it. He just said, “I want to have one.” Do you know what the feeling of people is today? “If I want something, I’ll get it!” “Let every man do that which is right in his own eyes!” But that is not so with the teachings of God’s word. There needs to be Bible authority for it.

Notice what else he said, “I think I could do more work because being in shape makes you feel better.” Well, now that is wonderful-get a gymnasium, work out, and you will feel better. But I wonder if anybody can give any Bible authority for it? I wonder if anyone could give a scripture-chapter and verse-where you ought to have a gymnasium? And then he said, “I suppose most people picture preachers kind of fat and disagreeable.” So then, if we build a gym we could slim him down. He would have a very pleasant personality, and everything would go along just fine. But I wonder if they can give us Bible authority for that? We are not concerned about getting preachers any slenderer and making them have a better personality. What we are concerned about is, “Where is there Bible authority for the church to be engaged in such activity as this?” This is what has caused division within the body of Christ.

But let me read to you again in the Nashville papers. I was reading one morning: “The East Nashville League: Dan Mills Club-23, Jackson Park Church of Christ-5.” Now I would like to know where there is Bible authority for the church of Christ to have a baseball team, a basketball team or a football team? They call it the Jackson Park Church of Christ team. But someone will say, “Well, the money is not used from the church.” Then why does it have the right to use the name “Church of Christ”? I don’t read anywhere where anything else has the authority to tack “the church of Christ” onto it. It violates Bible authority. When you talk about having baseball teams and basketball teams, you are acting without divine authority, and when you put the name of “Church of Christ” on anything but the church of Christ. When brethren do this — and they aim to do it and they want to do it — then this is what has caused division within our ranks.

I went in a building not long ago, and the first thing that I bumped into was some kind of a “thing” standing there that said, “See Herman the Monster.” Then I went down the aisle and there they had all of their trophies that they had won in baseball. I just wonder: Where did they get their Bible authority for that? Where IS the authority for it? Now my friends, if you know where there is authority for it, I would be glad to preach it. We would be glad to build a gym. I would like to have a gym to work out in. But I just do not believe that the church has the right to build that gym and support it in that work.

Then here was a card that I read in Nashville, Tennessee, where there was a church having a special team night on Thursday, July 13, as a part of the gospel meeting. Now get that my friends, “as a part of the gospel meeting.” “Following the service” (which began at 7:30), “there will be a hooten-nanny party.” Now I want to know where did we ever get the authority for a hooten-nanny party as a part of a gospel meeting? Brethren, just where did we ever pick up all this? The very idea of churches of Christ being engaged in a hooten-nanny party, tacked onto a gospel meeting, and saying that this is going to be a “special team night.” But I will tell you something, brethren, when you start saying that you can do something without Bible authority, that is exactly what you are going to get into. You are going to have people who want to build gymnasiums to make preachers slender. You are going to have people who want to have baseball teams and basketball teams. You are going to have hooten-nanny parties and everything else going on. But you are not going to have any Bible authority for it!

When brethren say we are going to do things like they did in Bible days, they are going to oppose these things and it is going to cause division. The division came not as a result of people opposing the things, but the division was caused over people adding these things on. Now some of the brethren said years ago, “Oh you preachers are making a mountain out of a molehill-there is not anything wrong with the church supporting the orphans home or the college with any Bible authority.” Where are you going to put on the brakes, brethren? Building gymnasiums? Homes for unwed mothers? Hospitals? Where are we going to stop, brethren? There is no stopping place once you let the gap down. There is no way to stop everything from going out, and that is exactly what has happened in the churches of Christ.

Somebody says, “Preacher, you are just anti-recreation.” Why my friends, I enjoy golf. I enjoy basketball. I enjoy working out in the gym. But, I just don’t believe that we have any Bible authority for the church to be engaged in such activities.

Again let me remind you that this also was opposed by brethren before my day. In 1951, the Gospel Advocate Quarterly said on page 229: “Building recreation rooms, and providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of the church, is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament.” Get this: “The church might as well relieve the parents of feeding and disciplining all of the young people at church expense as to take over the job of entertaining and supervising the recreation at church expense.” The Gospel Advocate Quarterly said in 1951 that such is sin, and brethren, I still believe that it is. I want to know, Where is the Bible authority for it? Now, what are the issues that have divided us? The issue that has divided us has been acting without Bible authority — Hootennanny parties, fellowships halls, gymnasiums, etc. have brought division within the ranks of the body of Christ.

But what has this led to? Did it stop there? Why no! It has not stopped there. Today we hear a lot about the “Holy Spirit movement.” We hear about young people getting together and holding hands, and the Spirit moving through them. They “speak” in tongues and they sing spontaneous songs, and have spontaneous prayers, etc. Now where in the world did people ever talk about the Holy Spirit dwelling in anyone personally and giving them this kind of emotional appeal? Brethren, all of this leads up to the fact of the departure from the New Testament order. They are acting without Bible authority. Our young people have been told that you can support colleges, benevolent societies, gymnasiums and such like without Bible authority. Now they are going to have the Holy Spirit movement, and there is not any Bible authority for that either. So how are you going to stop them? Are you going to tell them that they can’t do it? Or are you going to tell them that it is contrary to the word of God? Will you plead with them to come back to the Bible, and speak where the Bible speaks-or are you just going to continue to go on and divide brethren over things for which there is no Bible authority?

What is going to be added next? Instrumental music in the worship! And there are some today who no longer oppose instrumental music in worship. If you can have a gymnasium tacked on to the church without Bible authority, then brethren, what is wrong with bringing a piano into worshiping God without Bible authority? What is wrong with calling the church some other name other than the church of the Lord, without Bible authority? I want you to tell me, where is the stopping place?

Now when we talk about issues that divide us, the thing that has divided us is the fact that brethren have gotten away from speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where the Bible is silent. I believe that the church ought to be the church, that it ought to remain the church, and not be identified as a social club or a fellowship hall or have anything else connected to it. I believe that our young people should respect the church as a spiritual institution. We beg and plead with you to be baptized into Christ, be added to the body of the Lord, and then be identified with a local church which continues to say, We speak where the Bible speaks. Yes, there is division. But division was brought about by a lack of respect for Bible authority!

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, pp. 325-327
May 26, 1977