Truth Magazine

By Frank Drover

This may appear a simple question, but attempts to answer it has been the occasion of much disagreement and misunderstanding. The general view toward any religious group is denominational. Any way the word “denomination” is used, is as a part of the whole, and that is precisely what a denomination is-one among many, all together forming the whole. Thus, we would have the “Church of Christ” made up of many churches, many faiths, no two alike, all divided. Is this the Church of Christ? Can this be the meaning of the Apostle Paul when he said, “There is one body,” Ephesians 4:4?

The Bible never reveals the church in this light. It is always one, singular. Jesus built it (Matthew 16:18). He alone is its head (Ephesians 1:22, 23, Colossians 1:18). It is entered by baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13). It is composed by its members (Acts 2:47), each sustaining his own spiritual relationship to God.

The Church of Christ is not the name even of the church we read of in the Bible. It simply designates the church that belongs to Christ. In most cases in the Bible it is simply referred to as the church.

Twenty miles south of Fort Collins is a children’s home with a big sign in front, “Supported by Church of Christ and friends.” First, what is the Church of Christ as c here? If it had been Methodist church, Mormon church, Catholic church, etc. I would have known, but what is Church of Christ? We have long been taught that church of Christ is not a denomination, but few know why. We still speak of it as one.

Back to our illustration above. The children’s home supported by “Church of Christ.” I ask again, what is in the New Testament church is not a denomination, ho this possible? Designations of religious orders gene refer to the whole in the singular, because it is understand to have a central governing administration for collection of all local churches, and all this makes up church” of that particular order. This makes it a denomination. But the New Testament church, the Body of Christ, is not a denomination, and consequently is of this arrangement, and therefore cannot scripturally be identified in this way. Yet it is so spoken of, especially in connection with the act of combining local churches for common function, and with united support and maintenance of “our institutions. This is one of the many dangers of institutionalism. Besides being unscriptural itself, it is necessary to create a denominational concept of the church to maintain it. There is no way to create organization unauthorized of God, without corrupting perverting the organization God has authorized, in order to support and maintain it. Thus, one unscriptural prat leads to another.

The New Testament church that saves, and perfects in his relationship with the Lord, is a spiritual relation not a visible and active function to carry out the purposes of God. It was God’s will for local communities of people (local churches) to perform this latter work. Each of these is to function by itself, independently, as not the others existed. They are not considered collective making up the whole church. This is getting back to the denominational idea again. Some brethren have never been able to learn this lesson. “Our” big internal radio program (Herald of Truth) thus presents itself, “The churches of Christ salute you.” I can well remember in the early years of this program, they claimed about 12% of the churches were supporting their work. Very recent statements from themselves claim about the same percentage even today, yet they present themselves to the world, “The churches of Christ Salute You!” Another danger of these combines and institutions is misrepresentation that results from misleading statements and expressions of support, endorsement, and identity with the church, or rather churches, which they do not have. The wisdom of God in this design and arrangement is sufficient. If we would only be content to strengthen the resources of the local churches God has given us, large or small, to function after the divine order, more and more could be accomplished to the spiritual good of the world and the glory of God, than through our present machinations of our own human wisdom. I hope to write soon on the potential of growth and fruitful service in the independent function of local churches.

Truth Magazine XXI, 3, pp. 41-42
January 20, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

The word of God is composed of both milk and meat (Heb. 5:12-14). The Bible includes both simple principles and “some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). At best, we all have challenges to overcome in studying God’s word. We need to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). Just as inspired men were gifted to “speak as the oracles of God” and were to speak only God’s word, so we are to “speak the things which become sound doctrine” and nothing else (1 Pet. 4:11; Tit. 2:1; Rev. 22:18-19). As we immerse ourselves in the Bible and Bible language, we equip ourselves to “call Bible things by Bible names.” The more we understand about God’s word, the purer our speech should become.

Some individuals have the knack of creating needless confusion. They think they are teaching the brethren a pure speech at times when they are only making pointless distinctions. Some seem to pride themselves in discovering supposed gross inconsistencies in language commonly used by brethren. Perfectly good synonyms in the English language are labeled “the language of Ashdod,” and speaking a Bible language has been made by some to mean speaking the King James English of 1611. Speaking Bible language and calling Bible things by Bible names does not mean freezing James’ English for ever more, amen! We speak as the Bible speaks when we teach exactly what it teaches-and that does not necessarily mean constant rote recitation of a Bible verse in King James English.

Some think they have discovered earthshaking distinctions by moving, removing, or otherwise rearranging commas, question marks, periods, colons, and other punctuation marks. Occasionally, an observation on some punctuation mark can bring a point into clearer focus; but here again, some brethren seem to pride themselves in juggling the punctuation marks to discover some great truth overlooked by others (and amazingly missed by the translators and grammarians who have spent a lifetime studying such matters!). Doubt and confusion is thus created regarding commonly accepted and sound use of scripture.

We do not mean to question the sincerity of all brethren who may feel safer using one verse than another to teach some Bible truth, or who may raise points for study. We recognize that some even hold personal opinions on some such matters, but they have the good sense to recognize them for nothing more than that-personal opinions. But some are creating needless confusion over such matters. Brethren, there are enough difficulties, challenges, and problems at best. It would be well to use extreme caution, common sense, and patience in further examination before blurting out some “new-found discovery overlooked by most of the brethren.”

Ever so often we are treated to an “appeal for Bible language” by an elimination of the expression “members of the church.” The ignorance of this appeal has probably been exposed a thousand times through the years, but every so often some bright new “scholar” does an “in-depth” study and “discovers” it all over again. It is currently circulating in several places again, so we shall look at it again.

What Is the Church?

The word “church” as used in New Testament times was not just a religious word or used only in a religious context. It meant any “called-out” group. In the Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine points out church “was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of State, Acts 19:39” and even of “a riotous mob” (Acts 19:32,41). The word was applied to “companies of Christians,” either “the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era” (Matt. 16:18) or “a company consisting of professed believers” as in a given locality (1 Cor. 1:2). Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says “the Greeks” used the term church of various gatherings of people, then “the Israelites” used it of their various assemblies; the word could be used of “any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance” for whatever purpose; because the word basically meant any “gathering” or “assembly” of people, it was properly used of “an assembly of Christians gathered for worship” or “a company of Christians.” The original word is ekklesia.

What are some English words used today which represent the idea found in the Greek word ekklesia. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary reports there is an English word church which is currently used of “a body or organization of religious believers” or “congregation.” Ekklesia is a body or congregation of believers, so “church” is a good translation for today. Searching for synonyms, we find company would fit well because it means an “association” or “fellowship,” “a group of persons.” Assembly will also work, since it means “a company of persons gathered for deliberation, and legislation, worship, or entertainment.” Obviously, many different kinds of groups can be called an assembly and obviously a group of God’s people gathered for worship can be called an assembly.

Some translators have suggested community, which will also convey the idea of ekklesia. A community is “a unified body of individuals,” “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest,” “a group linked together by common policy,” “joint ownership or participation,” “fellowship.” Congregation is sometimes used, and correctly so; it is “an assembly of persons: gathering.” The common, humble word group works very well, meaning “a number of individuals assembled together or having common interests.” The ekklesia is certainly a number of individuals with common interests.

But what is a member? Webster reports it is, “one of the individuals composing a group,” “a constituent part of a whole.” One of the individuals composing the ekklesia is a member of the ekklesia! If the ekklesia is a group, one of its individuals is a member! Since a congregation is “an assembly of persons,” then any one person is “a constituent part of (the) whole”-a member. A community is “a unified body of individuals” and a member is “one of the individuals;” a community has members. An assembly is “a company of persons” and any one person of the whole is a member. A company is “a group” and “a group” has members. A “church” is a body or group or congregation, and any “one of the individuals” composing it is a member-“a constituent part of a whole.” If it is proper to translate ekklesia “church” (or “company,” “assembly,” “community,” “congregation,” “group”)and it is – then it is proper to speak of members of the church.

When the Holy Spirit chose ekklesia, he chose a word which designates a whole or a group. Every whole or group has parts or members, so it is necessarily implied that the ekklesia has parts or members. Yet one cannot find in the Bible the expression “parts of the whole,” “parts of the church,” “members of the whole,” or “members of the church.” The concept of members of the church is revealed through the very word ekklesia. A rose is a rose by any other name-the church has members regardless of how one may choose to express it. Brethren are at liberty to use a synonym for “member” if they wish, but not a liberty to create needless confusion over the matter.

Institution, Organization?

Sometimes brethren object to the expression “bloodbought institution” to describe the church. “The church is not an institution or organization-such terms are not found in the Bible-they are `the language of Ashdod!’ ” Brethren will labor long and hard on such points as though their speech were more sound than others’, then demonstrate their own absurdity by calling the church “an aggregate.” As a brother who witnessed one of these performances said one time, “Since that term was not in the Bible either, I had to go home and look it up in the dictionary!” Some who urge the use of “collective” to the exclusion of other terms apparently have not noticed that it is also in the dictionary but not in the Bible.

A collective is “a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole,” “a collective body: group,” “a cooperative unit or organization.” That describes the church all right, but so does “institution.” Any “significant practice, relationship, or organization,” any “established society” is an institution. Taking another source along with Webster, we learn an institution is “that which is instituted or established,” as under certain principles and laws.

The church is an “organization” because it has “the condition . . . of being organized,” it is an “association, society. ” To “organize” is “to arrange or form into a coherent unity or functioning whole,” “to arrange by systematic planning and united effort.” Yes, the church ,has the condition. of being organized and is therefore an organization. “Aggregate” is also a proper term; it means anything “formed by the collection of units or particles into a body, mass, or amount: COLLECTIVE.” (Notice that “aggregation” is “a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts: ASSEMBLAGE”-it has parts or members!)

The charge is made that when we call the church an institution or organization, we are evidencing the denominational idea of institutionalism. We are told we should do everything possible to get people’s minds away from institutionalism, therefore we should drop the use of “institution.” But there is a difference between institution al-ISM and the church being an institution.

“ISM” frequently denotes “abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing.” Accordingly, the definition of institutionalism is “emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors.” The “ism” carries the significance of undue emphasis, out-of-balance, abuse. The scheme of redemption revealed in the Gospel Age is rational, emotional, and legal in various aspects; it also involves an institution-bought by the blood of Christ, extablished and organized under the direction of Christ, headed by Christ, belonging to him. But the scheme of redemption is not characterized by rationalism, emotionalism, legalism, or institutionalism.

The way to correct the abuse of the gospel by the religious world is not by dropping perfectly good terms and throwing away all helpful synonyms, but by showing what the Bible teaches on each matter in plainness and simplicity. The same is true of terms like grace, faith, love, etc. (To be continued.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, pp. 40-41
January 20, 1977

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

“Do not say, ‘Why is it that the former days were better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this” (Eccl. 7:10, NASB).

How is one to take the sudden fetish in society for the nostalgic? Movies like Summer of 42, The Way We Were and That’s Entertainment as well as television programs like The Waltons and Happy Days which exploit the past become instant hits. Adults and teenagers alike are fawning for the “good old days;” commercials urge us to return to “basics;” aged “rock ‘n roll” stars are making startling “comebacks;” and in the world of fashion there is an obvious throwback to earlier styles and tastes. What does it all mean? Is this just another quirk of a strange secular society? Can we cast it aside lightly as a temporary “fad?” Or is there a subtler, deeper meaning behind this phenomenon? Let us look a little closer at the present situation and perhaps uncover some surprising answers.

“Post-Christian” Age

Author Francis Schaeffer has suggested that we are living in a “post-Christian” age. The implication is that those who hold the Bible to be a revelation from the Creator God and a binding pattern in one’s life are no longer in the majority. There is no longer what we might accommodatively call a “Christian consensus” among politicians, educators, scientists – those making up the core of the leadership in a nation. Instead such ideologies as humanism, communism, atheism and existentialism now hold dominance in the major social institutions. No longer is there a consensus of majority that believes there are absolutes, that there are definite answers to ultimate questions, that God has something to say as to our conduct in this life. The traumatic experience of “Watergate” should alert us to the utter erosion of a moral sense among those in positions of authority. Our children are fed the evolutionist line so “matter-of-factly” that it seems seldom that anyone ever stops to consider that “evolution” is an unproven, faulty human hypothesis. The notion that there is a rational order of meaning behind the universe is rarely pondered by the majority. Hence, we are living in an age where God has been “phased out” by a self-righteous, arrogant society which sees itself too “sophisticated” to be bothered with the possibility of creation as a reasonable answer to the problem of origin.

The aftermath of two generations of persistent atheistic and hedonistic philosophy is that man has virtually cast off all restraints and is speeding headlong into perdition.(1) The most important questions of life, the most fundamental queries of day-to-day living are thought unanswerable by most. Young people have been reared in a skeptical academic atmosphere that affirms man is an animal and only an animal! To our “intelligensia” man is simply a machine, the result of the chance collision of a few molecules, the aftermath of a chemical reaction. No matter how one adds it up, if what today’s “geniuses” say is true, man is a zero. If man be nothing but a domesticated mammal, soulless and Godless, then any appeal to – “rationality” or “common sense” is utter nonsense. And the logical dilemma that these learned men find themselves in is that; if man’s thoughts and actions are merely biochemical accidents, who then can confidently affirm any .explanation for the origin of life or basis for existence-including their own?

Some Observations

In view of the above, let us make some observations regarding the phenomenon of the obsession with nostalgia. It is apparent that the past has an appeal that present circumstances do not; evidently it represents something substantial which the present lacks. The fact is: society is living on the memory of Christianity. Modern culture has systematically swept away all the foundations for a rational (i.e., Biblical) existence. According to modern ethics there is no reason why someone should not kidnap, steal, murder, rape or perform any of the other sinful deeds mankind is fond of committing; after all, if man is just an “animal” how can we hold him responsible for his conduct? Ironically, however, modern society still lives as if Christianity were true. Men still become outraged at death and pillage and plunder, though theoretically for them there is no reason to be outraged. They are living on a memory! Back there, somewhere there is a feeling among the nostalgic that there was a better or more simpler way that has been lost. Such are wistfully searching for that time – a salve for the deep emptiness and loneliness that fills their souls.. They seek that “Christian consensus” that prevailed over society in those earlier decades. No, not everyone was a New Testament Christian – BUT there was a majority that held the Bible was God’s book and that what it said mattered! Back in “the good old days” more people believed that there were answers and that man did have meaning, being someone unique in creation. But now that belief has vanished from the public domain and three generations cry out in despair for meaning, seeking it in the past.

Now is the time for those who have some answers God’s answers – to stand up and with a loud and clear voice proclaim them! There are many that are searching for truth and now is the golden opportunity to capture them for Christ. Let us have no “uncertain sound” uttered from our tongues, rather let us in unison direct men to the only shelter and antidote to despair that there is . . . Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. From this task we must not back down.

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, p. 7
January 20, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

The Psalmist said, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly . . .” (Psa. 1:1).

Rehoboam, son of Solomon, asked for advice when he was about to be made king. The people wanted their burdens made lighter. The older men advised Rehoboam to be considerate of the people. “But he forsook the counsel of the old men . . .” (1 Ki. 12:8). Turning to the younger men, his contemporaries, Rehoboam was advised to answer the people sternly and to warn that he would increase their burdens. Speaking to them after the counsel of the young men, he said, “My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” Rebellion broke out. Ten tribes revolted and made Jeroboam their king.

Not long after Jeroboam took command of the newly formed ten-tribe kingdom, he said in his heart that the people must not be allowed to go up to Jerusalem to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord. He feared that going to Jerusalem for worship would turn the hearts of the people back to Rehoboam, and they would slay Jeroboam. “Wherefore the king took counsel . . .” (1 Kgs. 12:28). Whoever his advisers were, their counsel must have been wicked. The king set up calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel, and urged the people to worship in their own kingdom. He argued that it was too much to go all the way to Jerusalem. He changed the feast day and ordained men to the priesthood who were not of the tribe of Levi. His greatest desire was to insure his political position.

In the days when Ahaziah, grandson of Jehoshaphat, was. ruling in Judah, evil counsel had a strong influence. Ahaziah’s mother was a daughter of the notorious Ahab. It was said of Ahaziah, “He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly. Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the Lord like the house of Ahab: for they were his counselors after the death of his father to his destruction” (2 Chron. 22:2-4).

Often men feel the need for advice. How careful we must be that counsel we receive is not evil.

Twentieth-Century Examples

Sometimes people with marriage problems turn to professional counselors. A lot of these “experts” in the field of marriage know nothing about the teaching of the Scriptures. They give advice which sets their clients on a course directly opposed to the will of the Lord. Beware of the counselors who are not Christians!

People with emotional problems sometimes seek the advice of psychiatrists. Not a few professionals in the field of psychiatry are anti-religious. They see religion as a major cause of mental disorders. Take heed that your faith be not wrecked by such evil counselors!

And people are constantly looking to preachers and religious leaders for spiritual advice. Unfortunately, many of these do not respect the authority of Jesus Christ. Preachers who are bound up in sectarianism are not good counselors. Preachers who deny the miracles of the Bible are unfit to counsel others in spiritual matters. Preachers who interpret the Bible to suit themselves are not safe advisers. Beware of religious leaders whose counsel disagrees with the word of God!

High school teachers and college professors frequently give advice to their students. Some of these instructions know not God. Many are rank evolutionists. Some of them glory in human wisdom and delight in making fun of the Bible. It is not uncommon for college professors to urge young people to throw off restraints of morality. Beware of these wicked counselors!

One who feels the need of advice about something that affects the course of his life or the destiny of his souls should seek a godly, wise, and respected person to be his counselor. Mature persons are better prepared to give advice, generally speaking, than are the inexperienced.

Weigh all advice carefully by the word of God. No matter what men may say, God’s word is right. His word should be the final word. The only truly infallible guide that we have is the Bible.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsel. . .” (Prov. 1:5). “Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end” (Prov. 19:20).

When people are taught to expect the Holy Spirit to guide them apart from God’s word and they wait for a mysterious operation, the counsel is evil.

When Christians are encouraged to believe that in some manner the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them simply because they are children of God, no matter how they live nor what they believe, that counsel is evil.

When men and women are advised to expect salvation from sin by faith without obedience to the gospel, that counsel is evil.

When people are advised that all truth is relative and none absolute, and that right and wrong depend solely on one’s situation rather than a fixed standard, that counsel is evil.

Do not misled by wicked counsel.

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, p. 38
January 20, 1977