Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

Proposition: “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.”

Definitions: “The Scriptures,” the 66 books of the Bible. “Teach,” instruct by commands, approved examples or divine implications. “Elders,” men who are scripturally authorized and appointed (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1) over each local church (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2). “Local church,” the congregation in a given locality in its corporate entity (Phil. 1:1). “Authorized,” empowered, permitted. “To assemble,” meet in their eldership capacity (Acts 20:17). “Privately” (Gk: idios) “pertaining to one’s own; ‘.o do one’s own business (1 Thess. 4:11), apart (Matt. 24:3)” (Thayer, p. 296-7). “To make decisions,” come to a conclusion. “In matters of judgment,” distinct from matters of faith. “For the local church,” represent, act on behalf of, in the interest of the local congregation. “Before,” in advance of. “And without,” lacking, in the absence of. “Calling together,” summoning, requesting. “The whole congregation,” the ekklesia.

This debate is not about: (1) An abuse of that which is scriptural. Abuse of civil government does not mitigate against authorized government (Rom. 13:1-7); abuse by husbands does not mitigate against headship (Eph. 5:23); “lording it over God’s heritage” does not mitigate against oversight (Matt. 20:25-27; 1 Pet. 5:2-3). (2) Excluding the congregation from the decision-making process. While elders make final decisions as overseers, they seek advice and counsel from the congregation. (3) Excluding women since “congregation” includes women.

This debate is about: The error propagated by Vance in his book, Confusion or Consensus, which includes: (1) Charging elders with sin when they make a private decision for the church (p. 47, 51); (2) A demand that women be included in congregational decision-making (p. 3); (3) A claim for a pattern that demands congregational decision-making in every instance even when there are elders (p. 44); (4) Substitution of consensus for oversight of elders (p. 24); (5) Voting instead of elder oversight (his aff. #2). These errors violate the clear NT teaching of eldership oversight which permits them to make decisions on behalf of the congregation.The proposition which I affirm will be supported by three major arguments. The first will be a word study of the biblical language fromwhich we perceive the authority of elders.

Arguments: Words are vehicles of thoughts and inspiration has chosen the exact words to explain the scope of the elders’ authority, the congregation’s relationship to elders, and woman’s subjection. “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13). When one is a “bishop” and exercises “oversight,” he is and does expressly what the Holy Spirit teaches. Divine concepts (“spiritual things”) are expressed through divine precepts (“spiritual words”). Human concepts (congregational decision-making) are expressed through human precepts (consensus, voting) and constitute “human wisdom.”

Word Study: (1) Elder, presbyter (presbuteros), Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5: “(3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches” (Vine, Vol. II:21). (2) Bishop, overseer (episkopos), 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent . . . spec. the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church” (Thayer, p. 243). “Lit, an overseer … (2) . . . is rendered . . . `office of a bishop,’ lit. `overseership,’ there is no word representing office. Note: The corresponding verb is episkopeo, which, in reference to the work of an overseer, is found in 1 Pet. 5:2 .. . ‘exercising the oversight … taking the oversight”‘ (Vine 129). (3) Pastors, shepherds (poimenas): “a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks (not merely one who feeds them), is used metaphorically of Christian `pastors,’ Eph. 4:11. Pastors guide as well as feed the flock; cp. Acts 20:28, which, with v. 17, indicates that this was the service committed to elders (overseers, bishops); so in 1 Pet. 5:1-2, `tend the flock, exercising the oversight;’ this involves tender care and vigilant superintendence” (Vine 167). Also (4) Feed (verb, poimaino), Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2: “to act as a shepherd,” (quoting Trench) “The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals, but they are incidental in comparison with the feeding” (Vine 87, 88). (5) Appoint (kathistemi): “prop. to set down, put down … (a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it), Acts 6:3 . . . (b) to appoint one to administer an office, Tit. 1:5” (Thayer 314). Compare its usage: Matt. 24:45, 47; Acts 6:3; Tit. 1:5. (6) Rule (proistemi), 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim.3:4; 5:17: “to set or place before; to set over. a. To be over, to superintend, preside over, rule” (Thayer 539); (hegeomai), Heb. 13:7, 17: “to lead, is translated to rule” (Vine 307).

These words clearly define that elders have the authority of God to oversee, exercise the oversight, see that things are done rightly by others, to be set over, to be a leader, to rule. There is no ambiguity here. It is inconceivable that elder oversight excludes the ability to make even one decision, much less that they sin by doing so. The Holy Spirit “makes” bishops (Acts 20:28) by the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and defines their authority by these words that describe them. It is ludicrous to use the terminology without applying the definitions. To admit oversight and superintendency is not to stretch a single word from its meaning or context. This is what elders are and what they do, not in name only. To strip elders of decision-making ability is to deny elders what they do by definition: “exercise the oversight.” It is notable that the same word “appoint” used in Acts 6:3 authorizing “deacons” to decide about tables is also used in Titus 1:5 regarding elders. Are deacons permitted to do that which is forbidden to elders: make decisions about their work? Elders are not to “lord it over the flock,” nor act as Gentile masters, but there is legitimate oversight (else words have no meaning), not to be confused with abuse (1 Pet. 5:3; Lk. 22:25-26). As a father rules his house, so an elder rules the “house of God” (1 Tim. 3:4-5). Must a father rule by consensus or by majority vote without the ability to make a single decision without the whole family, including the children, being in agreement? In any collective (whether a family or a congregation), information may be sought from every member by the overseer, but someone must make a final decision. In the family, this is the father (Eph. 5:23). In the church, these are elders. Vance denies this to elders. Would he also deny it to fathers?

Word Study: Congregation’s role toward elders: Submit (hupeiko): “To resist no longer, to give way, yield, metaph. to yield to authority and admonition, to submit, Heb. 13:17” (Thayer 638). Obey (peitho): “1. To persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe; . . . 2. a. to be persuaded, to suffer one’s self to be persuaded . . . b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with, Acts 5:36-39; 23:21; 27:11; Rom. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 5:1; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 3:3″(Thayer 497). Study the cited Scriptures carefully. Elders cannot be excluded from this work since it applies to those who are to “rule” over the church and elders are specifically charged with this duty. They are the only scripturally qualified men so charged.

Word study: Woman’s subjection (hupotage), 1 Tim. 2:11: “1. the act of subjecting, 2. obedience, subjection, to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection” (Thayer 645). Vance must make up his mind whether women have decision-making authority or not. In those congregations with a majority of women, the men must either submit to the authority of the women or over-ride their decision-making authority. If elders are present, they must defer to the women if the women decide to go against the judgment of the elders. If this is not true, women have no decision-making authority. The Bible requires women to be in subjection; Vance requires them to have decision-making authority. If “being in subjection” allows decision-making authority, why would not “being in subjection” also allow women to serve the Lord’s table, preach, or teach mixed adult classes so long as they did so “under male leadership”?

Summary: The words of the Holy Spirit define an elder and his authority. There is no need to stretch these words beyond their legitimate definitions to determine that elders can make a private decision that is binding on the church. The church is not a democracy that empowers itself to make corporate decisions (consensus) but a theocracy that has a mandate from Christ as head to submit in judgment matters to the qualified elders who are “over” them “in the Lord.”

Questions: (1) Do parents, husbands and magistrates have the right to make decisions relating to the oversight of their province (Eph. 6:4:1-4; 5:22-23; Rom. 13:1-2)? (2) Do bishops have the right to make decisions relating to the oversight of the church (1 Pet. 5:1-3)? (3) Do elders “lord it over God’s heritage” every time they make a decision for the congregation (1 Pet. 5:3; Matt. 20:25)? (4) If so, why is a woman not having “authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12) when she exercises decision-making authority in the church? (5) Do you believe an eldership should be removed from a congregation when it makes private decisions for the church?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 10-11
November 17, 1994

By Don Wright

Sin is repulsive. It was sin that made it necessary for God to go to extreme measures to redeem mankind. God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). The conquering of sin, however, required more than the manifestation of God’s Son in the flesh. His Son had to be willing to die in the stead of man. This Jesus was willing to do. On a cross just outside of the city of Jerusalem, in a place call Golgotha, Jesus was wounded for our transgressions (Isa. 53:4-6). On that cross Jesus paid it all for us. Surely we should glory in the cross (Gal. 6:14).

However, there are some enemies of the cross (Phil. 3:18). Who are these considered to be such? Let’s listen to Paul.

1. Those who serve the lust of the flesh. In Philippians 3:19 Paul said that these people had their God in their bellies. In other words they live for self-indulgence and sensual gratifications. So, those who serve self instead of Christ would surely be enemies of the cross. They make the sacrifice on Calvary vain in their lives by their disobedience. They encourage others to place a higher value on their own wants than they do on serving Christ. Certainly any who encourages others to sin, whether it be verbal encouragement or demonstrative, are enemies of the cross.

2. Those who conduct themselves shamefully. There are some things that are simply shameful to the child of God. We know as Christians what sin is  a transgression of God’s law. It is missing the mark. Anything that runs contrary to God’s will and opposes his law is sin, and we as Christians ought to stay away from such things. Those ungodly things that once delighted us should now cause shame in our hearts (Rom. 6:20. 21). Enemies of the cross, however, have no shame (Phil. 3:19). They boast about and are proud of their sin. Remember, Jesus died on the cross to remove sin; therefore, to glory in sin is to treat the cross and the sacrifice thereon in a profane way.

3. Those who mind earthly things. Paul concludes his description of these people by saying they mind earthy things (Phil. 3:19). The heavenly calling has no attraction to them. They only think of and are interested in the base things of this world. This again runs contrary to the purpose of the cross. Jesus died so that we might live forever in heaven. To emphasize the earthly is to suggest that the purpose of the cross was foolish.

Make sure that you as a child of God do not become an enemy of the cross.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 7
November 17, 1994

By Vance E. Trefethen

Introduction

As before, my articles represent my own views and not those of any church, eldership, or other saints. Quotes from Tom’s material are italicized, as are Greek words.

The Problem

Many are stuck between the false choice that elders either privately decide all matters of judgment, or else they have no authority or function at all. Since the latter is wrong, many are driven to the former. But there is a third way  the Bible way. In the Bible, elders perform authoritative spiritual leadership by calling and presiding over assemblies, teaching the flock, rebuking sinners, convicting false teachers, correcting the erring, counseling, visiting and lifting up the weak, leading in prayer, admonishing (warning) and showing less mature saints how to get to heaven. Both of the extremes described above have bad consequences. The first (“elders privately decide every-thing”) led to many of the disastrous consequences of the Boston Movement. The latter (“elders are just older saints with no leadership authority”) is associated with a break-down of the meaning and purpose of the local church. The Affirmative position accepts the first extreme in its zeal to avoid the second. The Negative denies both extremes in favor of the Bible pattern.

Definitions

I challenge the Affirmative definition of “assemble” because (1) It’s not in any dictionary; and (2) It assumes something under debate; what “eldership capacity” means. I agree that elders (and teenagers, preachers, women, etc.) may meet privately. The question is, can private groups decide things for the church without ever including the whole congregation?

More Definitions

“Lord”  katakurieuo (1 Pet. 5:3; Matt. 20:25), “control, subjugate  exercise dominion over” (Strong, p. 40). “Lord”  katexousiazo (Matt. 20:25), “to have (wield) full privilege over” (Strong, p.41). “Leader”  hegeomai (Heb. 13:7,17, NASV), “chief” (Lk. 22:26; Acts 15:22). “Necessary”  “resulting from necessity; inevitable” (Webster Collegiate Dictionary 5th ed., p. 664).

What the Debate Is Not About

“Excluding the congregation from the decision-making process.” Really? But the proposition says “before and without” the congregation. Exclude means “to shut out” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, p. 250). This debate is already over and conceded to the Negative if we agree the congregation cannot be shut out of the decision-making process.

What the Debate Is About

My book? No, it’s about the proposition Tom agreed to affirm. The key to this debate is whether “privately deciding all collective judgments” is the necessary inference from words describing the work of elders, or whether there are other inferences required by Greek grammar, context, and the use of these words in other passages.

Word Study

(1) Elder, presbyter (presbuteros). I agree with Tom’s quote of Vine on this word more so than Tom does. Vine says “spiritual care of’ the church is the oversight they carry out. That’s exactly what I believe. But affirmative wants “spiritual care” to be changed into privately deciding all matters of judgment.

(2) Bishop, overseer (episkopos). Tom should have quoted Vine on “oversight” (episkopeo) to show what overseers do: “to look upon (epi, upon, skopeo, to look at, contemplate) . . .” The rest of Vine’s comments do not pertain to the definition until he reaches Hebrews 12:15, where it means “looking carefully” (Vine 152). Secret decision-making is conspicuously absent from Vine’s definition of “oversight.”

I hope Tom doesn’t believe his quote defining a bishop as head of any Christian church. Bishops who see that things done by others are done “rightly” (as opposed to “wrongly”) are leading people in matters of faith, not privately deciding matters of judgment. When something is a matter of “right” and “wrong” it is not a collective judgment. Thayer’s definition shows the work of elders in matters of faith and says nothing about deciding matters of judgment.

(3) Pastor, shepherd (poimenas). The definition of “pastor” as a “shepherd” is fine. God (not commentators like Trench) decides the work of shepherds, since he owns the flock. Ephesians 4:11-13 defines the work; “He gave some … pastors … for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith. . .” Pastors are for the unity of the faith. The definition of “matters of judgment” (“distinct from matters of faith”) means the word “pastor” has no application to this proposition.

(4) Feed (poimaino). Vine’s definition of poimaino is “to act as a shepherd.” Ezekiel 34:2-3 is an inspired commentary on shepherds’ work; feed the sheep, strengthen the weak, bind up the sick, heal the injured, bring back the strays, search for the lost. Pastors make the difference between sheep being “lost,” “injured,” or “weak” and being saved, healthy and strong. This is leadership in matters of faith, not secret decisions in matters of judgment. No one is “lost” over matters of judgment, and the feeding done by shepherds is in matters of faith (Eph. 4:11-13).

(5) Appoint (kathistemi). This word pertains only to how leaders are placed “in office,” and does not explain what kind of authority they have thereafter.

(6) Rule (proistemi). (1) I’m disappointed at the incomplete quote from Vine on this word. Here’s the full quote; “Proistemi, lit `to stand before,’ hence, to lead, attend to (indicating care and diligence), is translated to rule (Middle Voice), with reference to a local church, in Rom. 12:8; perfect active in 1 Tim. 5:17; with reference to a family, 1 Tim. 3:4 and 12 (Middle Voice); ver. 5 (2nd aorist, Active). See MAINTAIN” (Vine 307). “Lead” “attend to,” and “care and diligence” explain what “rule” means, and also contradict the Affirmative position, which is why they were omitted. These are consistent with the work of elders being to lead, help and “maintain” others in “the faith” (Eph. 4:11-13). (2) If proistemi means “privately decide all matters of judgment,” then all saints should privately decide everything because proistemi applies to all Christians in Tutus 3:14. “Privately decide everything for the church” cannot be necessarily inferred from proistemi. Since it’s not in the lexicon, it shouldn’t be inferred at all.

Fathers and Elders

No, elders do not rule (attend to, care for, lead) a church exactly as fathers do a family. There is a similarity in some aspects (proistemi), but there are two other words that sharply distinguish them; “head” and “lord.” The husband is “head” over his family (Eph. 5:23). Elders aren’t “head” of the church, and I call on Tom to retract this doctrine. The word “lord” applies to the husband’s relationship to his wife (1 Pet. 3:6, Do you still believe I’m a radical feminist?). Heads and lords can privately decide things and bind them on others. Both are granted to fathers and forbidden to elders.

Submit and Obey, Hebrews 13:7,17

(1) Elders are not the “only scripturally qualified men” who are “leaders” (hegeomai). In Luke 22:26 it refers to the Apostles and any others who might be considered “chief’ among brethren. In Acts 15:22 hegeomai distinguishes Judas and Silas from the “apostles and elders.” In Acts 14:12 it refers to a man disqualified from the eldership. (2) God’s definition of hegeomai in the church is “those who spoke the word of God to you” (Heb 13:7), “leading in speech” (Acts 14:12, New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, 379). Hegeomai in the church are those who publicly teach and admonish from the word. Elders are among hegeomai since they must teach the Word, butepiskopeo and presbuteros are not synonyms for hegeomai, and not all hegeomai are elders. Elders are not mentioned anywhere in Hebrews 13. Assuming elders are the sole hegeomai of Hebrews 13 is an unnecessary inference. Judas, Barsabbas, Silas, and Paul are overlooked in this erroneous assumption. (3) Even if this were about elders only, it defeats the proposition. His definition of obey is yielding to persuasion, but the proposition says “before and without” the congregation. There is no persuasion when things are done privately without the congregation.

(4) The only matters mentioned in context are “the word of God,” “imitate their faith,” and “strange teachings” (Heb. 13:7-9). The Word, faith, and strange teachings are not matters of judgment.

Woman’s subjection (hupotage), 1 Tim. 2:11. This passage says nothing about anyone deciding things before and without the assembly. In singing, Bible class, and the Lord’s supper, women participate under male leadership. If women might attempt leadership in these things, the solution isn’t to ban women from participating. Why is that the only solution Tom has for reaching “one accord” (Acts 15:25) in matters of judgment? Violating NT examples (Acts 6:5; 15:22) is never the solution to anything.

Circular reasoning. How do we know episkopeo means privately decide everything? Because it’s used of elders. How do we know elders should privately decide everything? Because episkopeo applies to them. The pre-conceived idea proves the preconceived definition, which proves the preconceived idea. But notice: (1) Episkopeo is used on non-elders (Acts 1:20: Heb 12:15) and therefore gives others private decision-making authority, if that’s what it infers; (2) No lexicon defines it as “privately decide all matters of judgment.”

Confusion on authority. Affirmative wrongly assumes two things are equal because they have something in common. Example: Elders and fathers have something in common (proistemi), so all their authority is the same. Here’s the flaw: A policeman can rebuke and punish my daughter if he finds her speeding. As her father, I have similar authority. Do I therefore have all the same authority as a policeman? No. I can’t arrest people, drive a police car, etc. We have one type of authority in common, but many others are forbidden. So, with bishops and fathers.

Answers. (1) Episkopeo (oversight) isn’t in the pas-sages cited. Rephrase the question using Bible words in Bible ways and I’ll answer it.(2) Do you mean elders have the same authority as fathers and governments? Headship? Using the sword? How far will this go? Episkopeo doesn’t necessarily infer deciding matters of judgment for others (Heb 12:14-15). If you affirm it does, you must prove it. (3) Only if they do so in matters of collective judgment before and without including the congregation. (4) Because she isn’t overruling or leading the males, nor is she deciding things “for” the church. The whole group together reaches “general approbation” (2 Cor. 8:19), as your scholar said. (5) No. Nor should a preacher quit if he learns he was wrong about something he taught. He should just do things differently in the future.

Questions. (1) Do episkopeo and proistemi inevitably infer private decision-making? (2) Do elders wield full privilege (have total control) over decision-making? (3) Give a lexicon and a Scripture defining hegeomai as “elders-only.” (4) Does obeying the hegeomai of Hebrews 13 apply to individual or collective action, matters of faith or judgment, or what combination of the above? (5) Do the kings in Matthew 20:25 and Luke 22:26 rule by privately deciding things for the people?

Summary: Please join me in ejecting the proposition because:

1. It gives elders headship and lordship over the church.

2. It demands unnecessary and contradictory inferences from the Scriptures.

3. It changes the lexical definitions of Bible words.

4. It ignores Apostolic examples of congregational decision-making (Acts 15:22)

5. It confuses matters of faith with matters of judgment.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 13-14
November 17, 1994

By Mike Willis

The October 1994 issue of The Spiritual Sword featured an article by editor Alan E. Highers entitled “Who Are We?” The article introduced the issue, which was devoted to that theme. It was designed to show that the church of Christ is not a denomination, but is a Christ-centered, peculiar, Bible-believing people. This is a good issue of the journal. Brother Highers lamented that a significant change had occurred because members were “leaving the church” to become members of various denominations. In a former time, members rarely “left the church” to join a denomination.

Why? It was because members of the church at the time were nearly all grounded in the faith. They knew what was wrong with denominations, even if they did not always live up to what they knew was right. They might become unfaithful, but they could not bring themselves to join some religious institution they could not find in the Bible. A large percentage of the members never fell away at all. They were faithful members of the body of Christ all of their lives.

In this day, of course, it is not uncommon to hear about members leaving the church and uniting with a denomination. The change may be because of business interest, social advantage, marital harmony, or life style. In any case, their action represents a lack of understanding about the nature and identity of the church. We are reaping the harvest of twenty-five years of non-distinctive preaching. Many of our young people no longer know the difference between the church of the New Testament and the ecclesiastical kingdoms built by men (1).

From what I can read in the journals and books circulating among our liberal brethren, I conclude that the “winds of change” are blowing. These destructive winds have swept the larger churches and nearly all of the institutions supported by our liberal brethren into the “new hermeneutic” movement. A movement away from “legalism” to more grace oriented preaching is advocated. The new hermeneutic brethren are calling for “cruciform” preaching which is defined as preaching Christ rather than the distinctive features of the New Testament church.

Brother Highers attributes these problems to 25 years of non-distinctive preaching. That would mean that non-distinctive preaching began in the 1960s. Our readers may recall brother Dick Blackford’s October 21, 1993 article in Guardian of Truth which laid the blame for liberalism at the feet of those who introduced the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, old folks homes, etc.), and church sponsored recreational activities. Brother Highers protested brother Blackford’s assessment and wrote “A Response” which was published in the November 4, 1993 issue. Despite his protest, the fact remains that institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and church sponsored recreation were all part of the same movement as non-distinctive preaching.

The Herald of Truth shows were one of the chief examples of non-distinctive preaching (see Memphis Meeting With Representatives of the Herald of Truth, September 10, 1973, p. ii).

I remember contrasting the bulletins which I received from liberal churches with those published among us in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Liberal church bulletins were usually filled with positive, feel good articles. What they wrote was not contrary to the word of God, but they just did not teach the fundamentals to show men the difference between divinely revealed and humanly devised religion. This seed has been planted for twenty-five years and now the harvest is coming. Our more conservative liberal brethren refer to their more liberal children as “the new hermeneutic” brethren.

Brother Highers related a conversation he had with one of these brethren:

Some time ago a preacher/editor said to me: “Our young people are not buying the old arguments against instrumental music.” I replied: “No, our young people are not hearing the old arguments against instrumental mu-sic.” Some of them are soft on the issue of instrumental music  not because they have rejected what they have been taught, but because they have never been taught at all. They do not understand the principles involved. They have never heard the old arguments relating to Bible authority, speaking where the Bible speaks, and remaining silent where the Bible is silent. They have grown up in “socialized” churches where the youth program was strong, but the teaching program was weak. They have majored on minors and minored on majors. They studied Bible school literature that never dealt with distinctive differences with denominationalism because the literature was produced by denominational publishers in the first place and merely adapted for brotherhood use. They were never exposed to “book, chapter, and verse” preaching. Some of them grew up on a style of preaching in which the favorite text was “what is wrong with the church.” The old preachers, the old ways, and the old message, so dear to many of us, became to them an object of scorn and laughter, as they were incited to mirth by a new breed of preachers and youth specialists. It is little wonder that some have abandoned the church in our day!

The liberalism that brother Highers helped to defend in debate has progressed to its logical conclusion. He does not like its product, but he is unwilling to renounce what gave it birth.

Must The Lesson Be Repeated For Us?

Non-distinctive preaching has caught the attention of a new generation of preachers among us. They are enamored with the writings of Swindoll, Lucado, Dobson, Smalling, and other popular Evangelical writers who have little Bible exegesis in their lessons. They too have quit preaching sermons that contrast the organization, names, work, conditions for membership, etc. of the Lord’s church with that of the denominations of men. The believe that such preaching is caustic and will drive away the good, honest and sincere visitors to the services. Church bulletins are full of “feel good” articles but contain little to distinguish the Lord’s church from denominationalism. Preachers use less and less Scripture in their lessons; sermons are preached that are full of stories that make you feel warm inside. And the members love to have it so (cf. Jer. 5:31).

Do you think that the same kind of preaching will produce a different fruit among us? If so, why? If there is not a significant change in the soft preaching that is afraid to call the names of denominations and false teachers among us from the pulpit, young people will grow up not being able to distinguish revealed religion from unrevealed religion. Soft preaching prepares the soil for apostasy. When something is introduced into local churches that needs to be rooted out and exposed, those who have welcomed soft preaching in their pulpits are not willing to tolerate the kind of preaching that is necessary to root out the error and withdraw from the men who are teaching it. Instead, those influenced by soft preaching coddle the false teachers who are traitors to the gospel and castigate and belittle as “guardians of the orthodoxy,” “watchdogs,” and “shoot first and check later sheriffs” those Bible preachers who are calling for the false teacher to repent. The reception the false teacher receives will make him feel comfortable to stay and continue to spread his heresy among the churches.

We take no pleasure in witnessing the movement away from the truth among our liberal brethren. We fear that its influence has and is spreading among us. Let us not bury our heads in the sand, pretending that this can never happen among us. Rather, let us demand “book, chapter, and verse” preaching from the pulpits. Let us demand that revealed and unrevealed religion be contrasted. Let us encourage godly brethren who are willing to bear the blunt of criticism for exposing the false teachers among us and not take pot shots at them. Some brethren shoot their soldiers  those who sacrificially defend the truth against the onslaught of error. Men who say they “agree with what you say” proceed to take pot shots at the soldiers wielding the sword to defend the truth, but these same men coddle the traitors to truth. Yes, we wound and kill our heroes!

Some Distinctives of the Gospel

Let me suggest some distinctives of the gospel:

1. God’s people are distinctive in their love, which serves others while stressing obedience to God (John 13:35; 14:15; 15:14; 1 John 5:1-3).

2. God’s people are distinctive in insisting on the inspiration of the Bible and on the authority of the Bible pattern of teaching (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1:13).

3. God’s people are distinctive in proclaiming the grace of God as to the provision of salvation and the necessity of obedient faith as to the reception of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 1:5,16).

4. God’s people are distinctive in living in the world without living like the world (Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 5:19-23).

5. God’s people are distinctive in preaching Christ and him crucified in all of its fulness, including all the facts, commands, and promises of the gospel; including the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; including faith, repentance, and baptism; and including the work, worship and organization of the local church (1 Cor. 2:2; Acts 20:20,24-27).

6. God’s people are distinctive in pleading for unity in religion on the basis of the restoration of New Testament Christianity (John 17:17-21; 1 Cor. 1:10).

7. God’s people are distinctive in upholding the same principles of morality which were originally taught in apostolic doctrine (Tit. 2:11-14). They will avoid the tendency to become conformed to this world in such matters as abortion, drinking, drugs, easy divorce and remarriage, and such like things.

Each of these distinctives of the gospel, and all others, require standing for what is revealed and standing against any departure from divine revelation. Distinctive preaching involves upholding truth by exposing error at times, including specific false doctrines and false teachers (2 Tim. 2:16-18).

Can we fare any better than our liberal brethren if we depart from distinctive preaching?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 2
November 17, 1994