Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

Why am I a member of the church of Christ? Because when I obeyed the Lord’s conditions for the forgiveness of sins, he graciously forgave me and began to count me as one of his people  that is, a member of his church.

In accordance with scriptural usage, I use the term church of Christ to refer to the people belonging to Christ  those who are saved. The term translated “church” (ekklesia) was used to refer to a group of people, and it was used with reference to different kinds of groups. When Jesus promised to build his church, he meant that he was going to have his group (Matt. 16:18). His group consists of those who are saved through his blood and on his conditions, which are set forth in his testament. When one obeys those conditions, therefore, he is saved and, consequently, added to that group of saved people (Acts 2:38, 41, 47).

This group may be described as the church of Christ because it belongs to Christ. I, therefore, sometimes refer to the saved as the church of Christ. At other times I refer to them as God’s people, the body of Christ, the church of God, the Lord’s body, and other such terms that accurately describe the people belonging to Christ. I am a member of that group because I obeyed the conditions for salvation.

If you ask me why am a member of the particular local church of Christ with which I am identified, my answer is different. I have chosen that local church for four reasons: (1) It consists of those who have met the Lord’s conditions for salvation and are therefore members of his church. (2) Like the churches we read about in the New Testament, it is independent, not affiliated with any denominational organization. (3) Those making up that group are devoted to letting the Scriptures guide them in all their activities; hence, I can participate with them in their worship and work with-out engaging in unscriptural activities. (4) I am located near enough to its place of assembly that I can regularly assemble with that local group.

The religious world is confused with respect to church membership. There are many denominational organizations among those professing to be Christians. Many people think any of these is fine; other more conscientious souls may believe that they should find the one that most closely follows the Scriptures. In fact, no denominational body is scriptural, for the Scriptures do not teach that local churches should organize themselves into denominational bodies.

In the New Testament, one set of congregations were not organized into one denomination while another set of congregations were organized into another denomination. There were no denominational bodies. There was no such thing as an individual searching to find which denomination he should join. The term church was used sometimes to refer to all the saved (Matt. 16:18) and other times to refer to the saved in a locality who banded together to work and worship as a unit (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 11:8; Rom. 16:16). It was never used to refer to a denominational body.

Rather than searching for which denomination he should join, one should search for what to do to be saved. That search should lead him to discover that when he meets the conditions for salvation, he will then be a part of the Lord’s church; he will not have to search for it. Then he must search for a local church consisting of Christians with whom he may participate in the congregational activities God has ordained in the Scriptures. The only searching for the right church that is required is the search for a scriptural local church.

In explaining why we are members of the church of Christ, Christians must be careful to avoid giving the impression that we have selected a denomination called the Church of Christ because, of all the denominations that exist, the Church of Christ is the one that is right.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 5
July 17, 1997

By Steve Wallace

Richard Copeland came to Kaunas, Lithuania, in late February followed by Bill Bynum in mid- March. Steven Deaton and this writer arrived the last week of March, working with brother Bynum for much of the time we were there. Bill had already made good progress in getting studies going with non-Christians and this trend continued throughout our stay in Kaunas. Dennis Scroggins and Joe Price are presently there. They report that two have been baptized as of the time of the writing of this report. Also, studies continue with contacts made prior to their coming and new contacts continue to be found. Much of all workers’ lime in Kaunas has been spent in such studies. We put ads in the paper for “Free Bible Studies” in both English and Lithuanian. These brought good response.

The attendance at Sunday services of the church and at the weekly Bible lectures was encouraging, with a high of 17 in attendance at the former and 12 non-Christians at the latter. With three men there at one time, Bill, Steven, and I were able to branch out and work with the Christians in both Vilnius and Siauliai during our time there, while still covering our responsibilities in Kaunas. Jay Horsley and Ron Lloyd are presently in Vilnius, working with the church there and doing evangelism.

More time was spent on the tedious, time consuming work of proof-reading translated material and other work related to publishing some of the books we have been working on. Larry Ray Hafley’s booklet, The Church and Denominationalism, was published during my stay there. We have finished proof-reading Jimmy Jividen’s book, Glossolalia Roy Cogdill’s New Testament Church has been proof-read and is being retyped to smooth out the rough edges which exist in all such translations.

I brought in more computers for translators when I came in (coming by car). Dennis Scroggins brought in hardware to upgrade some of the existing computers. The progress with the computers, an effort that started last year, has been slow. It is our hope that our present work will result in greater ease in both translating literature and in getting proof-read material into final print form.

Our time with the brethren in all the cities mentioned herein was well spent. Besides meeting with them for regular assemblies, we were also able to have private studies with a good number of them. In addition to the above, we were also able to help some of them in various ways with problems or obstacles in their personal lives.

The only dark spot in our work this year was the street work. Spring is late in Europe this year. As of this writing, it still has not arrived in Germany. We continued with our work in setting up the table full of literature on the main pedestrian thoroughfare. However, the number of people taking literature was lower than usual. It was simply too cold and/or rainy most of the time that Bill, Steven, and I were there. We hope to hear of more activity at the table as the summer draws nearer.

The changes that have come to Eastern Europe are a subject often noted by those who have worked there. One change I noticed during a brief visit to Vilnius which I think all readers can appreciate is the following: There is now a McDonalds about 150 yards up the street from the spot where we used to set up our table. All who were there during 1991 and 1992, when the changes were all so new, will indeed find this hard to picture!

Conclusion

We are all greatly encouraged by the response and growth we are seeing in the work in Lithuania. Much work remains to be done and all are optimistic about the future.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 16
July 3, 1997

By Richard Boone

Recently actress/comedienne Ellen Degeneres “came out of the closet” about her homosexuality. She appeared on the cover of Time magazine with the caption, “Yep, I’m Gay” and was interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC’s 20/ 20 (April 25, 1997). In her sitcom, Ellen, aired by ABC on April 30, her character declared she was gay. All of these illustrate that homosexuality is more acceptable to our society.

My comments here, though, focus on the larger problem  immorality and its acceptance. There are different mindsets in society  following God’s will or following one’s own will (which is, in reality, a form of following Satan’s will). There are different lifestyles and justifications which arise from these different mindsets. While older generations may not face the battle as long, their children and grandchildren, my children and grandchildren will have to face the problem. It is not going away; we cannot ignore it.

I want to mention some of Degeneres’ remarks from the 20/20 interview and comment on them. I hope they will help to explain why there are still many people opposed to homosexuality and its promotion.

Ellen Is A Homosexual By Choke

I was surprised that Ellen admitted this. The current societal view is that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but a product of genetics. Ellen mentioned that she could have, by choice, been a mayor’s wife right now, and greeted that former boyfriend by name. In reality, all homosexuals are such by their own choices just as the Bible has said all along.

In Genesis 19 two angels came to Sodom and Lot provided for them. However, the men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and wanted his guests so they could know them carnally (v. 5). Lot refused and offered his two virgin daughters instead (v. 8). They refused his two daughters; they made a choice!

In Romans 1:26-27, Paul said that the Gentile women “exchanged” the natural use of the man, and that men “leaving” the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts for one another, committing what is shameful. Did you notice these verbs  “exchanged” and “leaving”? These words describe choices, not automatic processes due to genetic coding.

Ellen Was Hurt By Her Family’s Reaction

When they learned that Ellen was a lesbian, her father and step-mother asked her to move out of the house. She was deeply hurt by this. While I do not gloat in the fact that she was hurt, we can also understand why they asked her to leave by considering the biblical descriptions of homosexuality.

It is an “abomination” to God (Lev. 18:22), punishable by death under Moses’ Law (Lev. 20:13). God described homosexuals as “perverted ones” and “dogs” (Deut. 23:17-18). In Romans 1:24-27, notice this list of adjectives: “uncleanness,” “dishonor,” “vile passions,” “against nature,” and “shameful.” Not a pretty picture, is it? Jude 7 states that homosexuality is going after “strange” flesh. Should we be surprised, then, when people are repulsed at such behavior? I don’t think so.

Ellen Took A Stand Because She Couldn’t

Change Who She Really Was

She finally mustered the courage to stand, and in de-scribing her stand, compared herself to Rosa Parks who refused to relinquish her seat on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama years ago. Parks was black and could not change who she was; Ellen is gay and, by her own reasoning, can-not change who she is.

I strongly deny the validity of this comparison. Race is unchangeable and not a matter of choice. Homosexuality  a behavior  is totally a matter of choice. Furthermore, just as she chose to be a homosexual, she can choose to cease being a homosexual. In fact, we have a Bible ex-ample of people who did just that.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul declared that certain ones will not enter heaven; among them are homosexuals and sodomites. But then note verse 11: “And such were some of you …” (italics mine, rb). Yes, among the church at Corinth were former homosexuals. The truth is they changed  through the gospel of Christ! They heard and believed it, and were baptized (Acts 18:8). When they were baptized, they were washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). If the Corinthians could change and be forgiven then, Ellen Degeneres, other homosexuals, and sinners of any kind can be forgiven now!

Ellen’s Definition of “Normal”

Diane Sawyer asked Ellen if she understood why people objected to her behavior and announcement since homosexuality was not considered normal by many people. Ellen was very uncomfortable during this portion of the inter-view and did not like the term “normal.” I’m not surprised; if you admit that there is “normal” behavior, then you admit that “abnormal” behavior is also possible.

Ellen went on to say that “normal” to her meant “what-ever makes me happy.” There are several flaws in her definition of normal! First, it is a subjective standard. One can determine what is right and wrong in his own eyes by such a definition (Judg. 17:6; 21:25). Second, it allows for one to have a clear conscience no matter what he or she does. Paul plainly says, however, that a clear conscience does not justify one before God (1 Cor. 4:4). Finally, while Ellen may be content to stop with her application of “normal,” others will follow who will not be content with that. Like error, sin never sits still  it gets worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13).

Ellen Prefers “Gay” Over “Lesbian”

She did not like the term “lesbian,” preferring “gay” instead. Why should we be surprised? Softening the description makes it more palatable and acceptable. If she didn’t like “lesbian,” she and others certainly don’t like the biblical descriptions of her manner of life previously mentioned.

We see this all around us. Homosexuality is no longer perversion; it is an “alternate lifestyle.” Drunkenness (a sin) is no longer acceptable; now it is “alcoholism” (a sickness). Abortion is not about murdering innocent human life; it is the “termination” of a “fetus.”

This happens among Christians, too. We don’t commit sin; we just have “bad judgment.” Local churches don’t have problems caused by sinful attitudes and actions; brethren just have “personality clashes.” Unity in understanding and application of Scripture is unrealistic; we just have “more than one possible interpretation.” We could go on and on with such Ashdodic examples (Neh. 13:23-24).

But again, we should not be surprised that Ellen prefers “gay” over “lesbian,” that the world prefers certain terms instead of biblical descriptions, nor that brethren sometimes change language to avoid biblical realities. Even among

God’s ancient people there were those who told the prophets to prophesy “smooth things” (Isa. 30:10-11).

Ellen Was Accepted And Applauded By Her Staff

After taping the episode of Ellen in which she “comes out,” Ellen’s staff applauded the completion of it and threw her a “coming out” party. They even gave her a cake which said, if I remember correctly, “It’s good to be gay!” What about those who, though not necessarily practicing homosexuality (or other sins) would approve of such?

In Romans 1:32 Paul spoke of the righteous judgment of God. Those who practice such things described in Romans 1 (homosexuality is included) are “worthy of death.” Not only are those who practice such things worthy of death, but those who “approve of those who practice them” are also worthy of death. That is why we must be so careful, lest we share in another’s sins and fail to keep ourselves pure (1 Tim. 5:22).

Ellen’s View Of Jesus As Loving

And Non-Judgmental

Frankly, I got “boiling mad” when Ellen said that Jesus was so loving and non-judgmental that he would never condemn anybody, suggesting that we ought to be the same. Counteracting my anger was the sadness in my heart at the ignorance manifested in that statement. Ellen is an example of one whose mind is blind and past feeling because of the ignorance of God’s will that is in her (cf. Eph. 4:17-19). While it is true that Jesus was loving, it is totally erroneous that he was non-judgmental.

Though I could reference many examples, I’ll use just one  his last public discourse (Matt. 23). Here he delivered some of the sharpest rebukes ever known to man: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” This was stated several times. Jesus judged and was stern in his rebukes, but it was not because he was unloving. He did this be-cause of his great love for lost mankind!

In Matthew 7:1 Jesus warned disciples against making hypocritical judgments (see vv. 1-5), but in that prohibition he did not rule out making any judgments. In fact, in Matthew 7:15 we are warned to beware of “false prophets.” To do so requires that we make a judgment about truth and error. Jesus taught us to make judgments, but he also warned us to make “righteous” judgments (John 7:24).

To believe that we cannot make judgments of any kind logically leads to universalism  where everything is right, and where nothing can be said to be wrong! Even those who say they believe that we should not be judgmental will not apply this principle to its ultimate end. They will certainly judge those who don’t approve of their manner of life! Truly, “the legs of the lame are unequal” (Prov. 26:7).

Conclusion

According to Ellen, all of the above points are true. Ac-cording to God  and this is the most tragic point of all  Ellen Degeneres will be lost unless she receives God’s forgiveness! This can only be done by obedience to the gospel of Christ  she can purify her soul by obeying the truth ( I Pet. 1:22). Let us pray and work to the end that any person who has not yet done so will have more time and opportunity. Let us also pray that God will use us as mouthpieces to speak words which will prick their hearts to do so (Acts 2:37).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 6-8
July 17, 1997

By Bobby Witherington

According to the World Book Dictionary, a denomination is: (1) “a name for a group or class of things,” (2) “a religious group or sect,” and (3) “a class or kind of units.” From the same source we are told that “the presence of many different denominations and sects in a society means that the culture is differentiated into many parts, with differing group interests and view points.”

No doubt, the first of the above definitions is the one which people generally have in mind when they use “de-nomination” in their speech. For example, one may ask another, “of what denomination are you?” The one asking this question is expecting to hear the “Name” of the “group or class” with which the individual is religiously affiliated. However, a denomination, in the religious sense, is more than just something named. Donald Tender, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gives this definition:

“Denominations are associations of congregations  though sometimes it might be said that congregations are localized subdivisions of denominations  that have a common heritage. Moreover, a denomination does not claim to be the only legitimate expression of the church.”

Presumably, in mathematical terms, one could conclude from the preceding definitions, that “the church” represents the denominator, or “the number below the line in a fraction, which states the size of the parts in their relation to the whole.” For example, if there are a total of 300 denominations (in fact, there’s a lot more!), then “300” would be the denominator (“the number below the line”), and the denomination known as the Lutheran Church (or whatever denomination you may choose) would constitute the Numerator (the number above the line). Tragically, the mind set of most people in our society is such that “the church” On its broadest, or universal sense) is “differentiated into many parts” (or denominations), based upon “differing group interests and view points.” Moreover, each congregation is simply viewed as a “localized subdivision” of that particular denomination.

It should be evident that the preceding comments were intended to define “denomination,” and to present the general concept regarding “the church” (universal) as consisting of a hodgepodge of all conflicting denominations. More-over, it should also be stated that this concept of “the church” necessitates not only the tolerance, but also the conscientious acceptance of every denomination as representing “the legitimate expression” of the “group interests and view points” of that particular group. It should further be observed that a conscientious acceptance of the very concept of denominationalism also necessitates a conscientious endorsement of religious division.

But Something Is Clearly Wrong!

As we have plainly shown, the acceptance of the concept of denominationalism constitutes an endorsement of religious division. However, our Lord was definitely opposed to religious division. Shortly before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, saying, “Neither pray I for these alone (the apostles, bw), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” Jesus not only prayed for the unity of all believers; He also died to “reconcile both (Jews and Gentiles, bw) unto God in one body by the cross…” (Eph. 2:16). Moreover, the apostle Paul, one of Christ’s chosen “ambassadors” (2 Cor. 5:20), plainly charged the saints at Corinth, saying, “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Further-more, from heaven’s perspective, “there is one body, and one Spirit, … one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all…” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Jesus Built But One Church

While addressing Peter, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). In this verse “my church” is singular, and is modified by “it,” a singular pronoun. Moreover, the Lord’s “church . . . is his body” (Eph. 1:22, 23); there is “one body” (Eph. 4:4), and those who are scripturally baptized are “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). There is absolutely no way to harmonize the modem concept of denominationalism with biblical teaching regarding the “one body,” or church! This is so plain it should be self-evident.

“Church” Used in Two Senses

“Church” (ekklesia) denotes the “called out.” All who are members of the Lord’s church have been “called” by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). However, “church” is used to refer to:

1. Those in a given locality, who have been “called” by the gospel, and who have joined with others of like faith to worship and work together as a local church. In this sense, we read of “the church of God . . . at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), “the seven churches which are in Asia,” (Rev. 1:4), etc. In keeping with this concept, Paul said “the churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16).

2. The church in a universal sense  consisting of all the saved, regardless of locality. When Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18), he was referring to his church in the universal sense and which would be inclusive of all whose names “are written in heaven” (Heb. 12:22).

Distinctions Between The Local

Church and the Universal Church

1. In Number. There is only one universal church (Eph. 1:22, 23), whereas there are many local churches (Rom. 16:16).

2. In Beginning. The universal church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), whereas a local church can be-gin any time a plurality of people obey the gospel, and band together to function as a local church.

3. In Fellowship. Membership in the local church involves fellowship with each other (2 Cor. 6:14), whereas membership in the universal church involves fellowship with God (1 John 1:1-4), a fellowship which death does not terminate (Heb. 12:22,23; Phil. 1:21-25). Whether or not members of a local church enjoy fellowship with God depends upon whether or not they are walking “in the light” (1 John 1:7), abiding in the “doctrine of Christ” (1 John 9-11), and serving God in keeping with his revealed will (Acts 2:42; Gal. 1:6-9).

4. In Organization. The local church, when fully and scripturally organized, consists of “saints … , bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1: I), whereas the universal church has no earthly organization, headquarters, or address. Also, it should be observed that each local church is to have her own officers (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1), with each eldership shepherding the particular “flock of God” of which they are a part (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2).

Note: There are other “distinctions” between a local church and the universal church, but this is sufficient to illustrate the fact that distinctions do exist.

Denominationalizing the Church

“The church,” in the universal sense, consists of “saved” people whom the Lord has “added” thereto (Acts 2:47). “The church” universal does not consist of a multitude of churches; rather it consists of a multitude of people people who function as “branches” in Christ, “the true vine” (John 15:1-6). The idea of the church universal consisting of a multitude either of congregations or of denominations is completely foreign to the Bible. In plain language, every denomination constitutes a religious “plant” which God has not planted, and which ultimately “shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13). Hence, in this article as we speak of “the church,” we have in mind all saved people (universal church), but who also, in keeping with the divine will, are members of a multitude of independent, autonomous congregations or local churches scripturally organized, scripturally named or designated, and scriptural in teaching, function, or work.

Unfortunately, due to environmental conditioning, it is difficult for many to conceive of “the church” in a purely undenominational sense. Moreover, the desire to be like the denominations around us (cf. 1 Sam. 8:1-5) has prompted many in various congregations to mimic the procedures of denominational bodies, instead of being governed by “book, chapter, and verse.” One prominent way in which this is done today is represented by:

The Sponsoring Church Arrangement  an arrangement whereby the elders of one church conceive of a work of brotherhood proportions and then solicit funds from thou-sands of sister congregations for the wherewithal to do this work. Through this arrangement the elders of the contributing churches relinquish the oversight of the funds they send, and the elders of the receiving church become totally dependent upon the funds of the contributing churches to carry out their assumed work. Local church autonomy is hereby destroyed! But more specifically, let us keep in mind that de-nominations, by definition, are “associations of congregations,” and this is exactly what is produced by the sponsoring church arrangement! Ironically, the desire to outshine the denominations has resulted in many “undenominational churches of Christ” becoming denominational by definition!

Another way to denominationalize the church is by forming human creeds. A creed can be a man-authorized written creed (cf. The Methodist Discipline), or it can even be an unwritten creed which people follow instead of the Scriptures. Legion are the churches “of Christ” (?) which take their cue from well-known preachers, or schools, or respected religious publications. We certainly do not oppose preachers per se, or schools per se, or publications per se (you are reading a publication!), but with all our might we do oppose the tendency to follow man rather than God!

Conclusion

Denominationalism, as we know it, is less than 500 years old. It is not of God. But it is so widespread that it has become difficult to even think of the Lord’s church in a purely undenominational manner. This surely pleases Satan no end! Hence, eternal vigilance is the price we must pay to make sure that we continually walk in “the old paths.” Therefore it continually behooves us to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), and to be undyingly committed to the concept of submitting to the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17) in all that we teach and practice. Consider ye well!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 18-20
July 3, 1997