Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

Cruciform: “Shaped or arranged in a cross.”

Non sequitur: “The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; an inference that does not follow from the premises.”

Most of us are aware of the danger of drawing unwarranted conclusions from faulty premises. If Newton had inferred that the sky was falling because an apple dropped on his head, he would have been guilty of a non sequitur. If one defines a belief in Christ and the church based upon a “gospel” that excludes “doctrine,” one’s premise is likewise faulty.

In religion, irrelevant conclusions are extremely common and, accepted at face value, become guideposts that lead into a spiritual wasteland. It helps little that the non sequiturs are committed by scholars with college degrees; in fact, a facade of scholarship disarms the initiate. Clothe this scholarship in the mantle of one of “our” colleges and non sequiturs assume the weight of biblical inerrancy.

Few books known to me are as full of non sequiturs while masquerading under the guise of scholarship as The Cruciform Church, a publication from Abilene Christian University Press. Written as a trilogy, The Cruciform Church (C. Leonard Allen) complements two earlier works: Discovering Our Roots: The Ancestry of Churches of Christ (with Richard T. Hughes) and The Worldly Church (with Hughes and Michael Weed). Speaking from the lofty pinnacle of professorship at ACU, brother Allen strews one non sequitur after another throughout the entire book, with all the fervor of a man with a vision. Though a poor prophet, he is an excellent “blind guide” (Matt. 23:16), leading the unwitting into many ditches. His vision of the future misses the mark on numerous details. Though valid points are made, readers should exercise the caveat: “Let the reader beware.” Allow me to provide some examples of Allen’s faulty reasoning.

Non sequitur: The Past Controls the Future

In the preface, brother Allen commits the first error, asserting: “It is one of the great conceits of our time to imagine that we can sweep away the past and simply begin all over again at the beginning. We cannot.” Stating here what is repeated many times later, brother Allen claims that we are shaped by our past traditions and are unable to begin with a clean slate as though we are “historyless.” Thus, churches of Christ are unable to think, act or decide on direction without carrying our baggage from past generations into the future. We are captured inescapably by our traditions.

That this conclusion is unwarranted, one has but to note that Paul, the persecutor, blasphemer, and Jewish apologist said of the past: “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Phil. 3:7, 8). Further, it was Christ who warned of the danger of traditions since they “made void the commandment of God” (Matt. 15:6). Restorationism demands constant renewal to the New Testament ideal of revealed Christianity by the shedding of traditions. True repentance makes this possible, even as the church at Pergamos was challenged to put away the Nicolaitans. Contrary to Allen’s assertion, we can be converted to Christ to the degree that we excise the past completely and begin a new in Christ.

Non sequitur: “Accepting a Past”

It is a non sequitur to deny that “one’s own church or movement stands above mere human history” (p. 5), if by “one’s own church” one intends “the Lord’s church.” The Lord’s church is unique and divine in origin, guided by the Spirit through the Holy Scriptures. This is true of no denomination. While we may reflect cultural mores in some areas, it is distinctly possible for the Lord’s church to stand above human history and remain true to its heavenly mission in spite of past or present human influences. As Paul said, “Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed. . .” (Rom. 12:2), and this in the midst of the Hellenizing influence of the Greek culture. “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:14-18) is a divine imperative, permitting no fellow-ship with darkness of any kind.

Whether the author has a real grasp of the Lord’s church is doubtful. When he includes “Churches of Christ” in the “larger story of Christianity” (p. 5), he calls for us to accept that our “past” includes “Churches of Christ” as a denomination among denominations. He decries judging “most all of Christian history” (particularly Protestantism) as only a “tragic story of decay and corruption” (p. 6). This is strengthened when he accuses N.B. Hardeman (among others) of unfairly dealing with Luther and Calvin and others of the “Christian past” (p. 8) and advises that “we take Christian traditions other than our own with great seriousness” (p. 11).

Non sequitur: We Must Rethink The Bible

Allen asserts that “Churches of Christ must rethink our traditional way of reading the Bible” as a “blueprint” or “a rigid `pattern,’ as a collection of case law,” (p. 20) because this leads to spiritual malnourishment. The “traditional approach,” we are told, “elevated inorganic, impersonal, and mechanistic models of the Bible, the church, and the Christian life” (p. 31). Weighty charges, indeed. Assuming the extent of influence by John Locke and other Scottish Common Sense thinkers on Campbell, brother Allen concluded that it was impossible for Campbell to study the Bible independently, without being a “child of his times” (p. 25). It is surprising to learn (according to the author) that it was Francis Bacon and “Baconianism” that gave rise to the “stringent `pattern’ orthodoxy” (p. 29) of Moses Lard. Did you realize it was human dogmatism and not true biblical exegesis that suggested “command, example and necessary inference” to understand the Bible?

According to this non sequitur, it is impossible to know truth without being influenced by the leading philosophy of the age. Can, then, inspiration be free of contamination? Is the Bible understandable apart from philosophy? One is led to wonder if Gamaliel unduly influenced Paul in writing Scripture or if the school of Hillel colored Jesus’ thinking about divorce. Can any Bible doctrine be understood in its purity? If Locke, Newton, et al, influenced the thinking of the pioneers about their approach to doctrine (commands, examples, inferences; facts, commands, promises), how can we be sure that Mark was not influenced by the Gnostics when he wrote the gospel about Jesus? Or that Luke was not influenced by Plato, Aristotle or others unknown to us?

But wait, there is hope, brother Allen implies. There are mysteries at work in religion that cannot be fathomed by this “analytic-technical” mindset that insists on book, chapter and verse preaching. We are informed that “God works through and beyond our limited, time-bound ways of reading his Word to draw people of searching heart” (pp. 37, 38). I fear that his later inferences are worse than the first.

Does God work “beyond . . . reading his Word to draw people of searching heart”? If so, how? Is the message of the cross not sufficient to “draw” (John 12:32) men to God? Do we hear that part of the “mystery” of the gospel that we are unable to fathom is the work of the Holy Spirit, apart from the Scriptures, drawing men to God? Allen’s earlier work already mentioned, The Worldly Church, lends credence to this view. Supplying what he believed to be some of the answers to the problems among today’s churches, Allen said it must include “a new openness to the power of God’s Spirit in our churches.” But when we try to let the Spirit work, “our tradition may present obstacles” because our doctrine is “shaped more by modem rationalism than biblical revelation” (pp. 74, 75). He proclaimed the answer to include the “indwelling Spirit who enlightens our minds to the things of God . . . . who assures our spirits…” (p. 75). The early church had the “guidance of the Spirit at crucial points in the church’s early history:.. . Pentecost … death of Stephen . . . baptism of the first Gentile … beginning of the first overseas mission…. Today we need this same openness to the Spirit as we face the continuing secularization of the church” (pp. 76, 77). This unfounded conclusion (claiming that miracles from the Holy Spirit in the past necessarily imply their continuance today) would lead him into Pentecostalism if consistently followed.

Non sequitur: Strangeness

Most of us are aware of the mysticism of the Orient. We have avoided the pitfalls of such error, however, because of the emphasis in the Scriptures on knowledge (John 6:44, 45). God addressed a revelation to man (universally, not just of the East) and required of him that he understand it (Eph. 3:4; 5:17; etc.), knowing that it will judge him in the last day (Jn. 12:48). The Gnostics claimed to have access to some “higher” knowledge (1 John 2:4) by which they could live sinful lives and still please God. This produced a “spiritual elitism” that refused to acknowledge or be restrained by the written word. Some refused to accept John’s epistles (3 John 9).

Mysticism claims that there is more to a message than what is stated: objective truth is displaced by intuitive imagination, what is felt is more important than what is stated. This spiritual existentialism requires truth to be filtered through human permission for it to be truth. We must remember John 17:17: “Sanctify them in thy truth: thy word is truth.” It does not need my permission to be so.

C. Leonard Allen has a lot in common with the Gnostics. His faulty premises are shaped, in part, by a mysticism that denigrates the perception and perceptibility of God’s message: what is said is not what is meant. Common rules of communication, therefore, do not apply and “great mysteries” supersede “commands, examples and necessary inferences.” This suggests that there is more to the Bible than meets the eye: western man cannot fathom the inscrutable oriental mind. Campbell’s western rationalism (and thus, ours, as well) does not appreciate the metaphoric interpretation of Judaic thinking. If there is a mystery in all this, it must be that Allen makes such a charge in the light of Paul being a Roman, influenced by Greek (western) culture. Timothy himself was a Greek.

But Campbell, we are told, “drew upon a modem, western ‘social compact’ theory widely held in the political thought of his own day. He thereby lost the strangeness of this prominent biblical metaphor (of the kingdom, tr)” (p. 46). This failure to understand because of “strangeness” extends to the very knowledge of God. “But another kind of strangeness remains: the strange, and strangely wonderful, ways of a transcendent God. It is this strangeness that we must not  that we finally cannotdispel” (p. 48). “But there is another, very different model for understanding reality, one that confronts mystery and strangeness without driving it out. We can represent it simply by inverting our pyramid. Here the lines of understanding do not narrow and converge to a single, fixed point. Rather, they open out ever wider, reaching always beyond our grasp or control. The more we learn the more we see what there is to learn. The more we grasp the more we perceive what we do not yet grasp” (pp. 48, 49). “But the deeper we enter into the mystery the more it beckens [beckons, tr] and allures, dazzles and surprises. Before it we find ourselves alternately befuddled and enlightened, humbled and exhilarated. Just when we have established the boundaries of the possible, God unexpectedly enlarges them” (p. 52). Such nonsense denies an understanding of finished revelation (Jude 3; Eph. 3:4). And it is but a short jump from this untrue premise to the faulty conclusion held by many that truth is mysterious, unknowable. If one insists on the particulars of the Lord’s church, the Lord’s supper, music in worship, or the role of women in the church, we are reminded that we cannot know the truth because of a cultural mindset that prohibits modem man from a restoration of ancient Christianity. To insist on doctrinal purity is to destroy this “wonderful strangeness.” Paul’s answer to such error was to remind that we know the mystery in Christ (Eph. 3:4; Col. 2:2, 8) when we read the Scriptures.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 11-12
November 3, 1994

By Harry R. Osborne

Have you been to a funeral lately? None of us enjoys funerals, but the reflection demanded by such occasions is good for us. The Bible speaks of the need to learn the lessons that are taught by facing death’s reality. Notice the words of Solomon:

It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; and the living will take it to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for by a sad countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth (Eccl. 7:2-4).

A while back, I entered the house of mourning for an especially thought provoking funeral. The body of a young man who had turned 18 just three weeks before lay in the casket. He died as the result of a car accident which also took the lives of three other teenagers enjoying a week off during

Spring break. Hundreds of teenagers from the local high school were present.

The death served as a vivid reminder that the curse of death that has invaded our world as a result of sin may bring tragedy upon all. This random occurrence of accidental death was well described by one Bible writer of old:

I returned and saw under the sun that  The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all. For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, like birds caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them (Eccl. 9:11-12).

The death of any person we have known makes us face death as a reality. When we attend a funeral, death is not a theoretical proposition  it is a reality! We are forced to contemplate the fact that we too will die just as the one whose memory we honor at a funeral. The admission of that reality brings with it several lessons.

First, we must see the brevity of life. The Psalmist said, “Indeed, You have made my days as handbreadths, And my age is as nothing before You; Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor” (Psa. 39:5).

In the New Testament, James refers to the same thing noting, “For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away” (Jas. 4:14). There-fore, our prayer should be that of Psalm 90:12  “So teach us to number our days, That we may gain a heart of wisdom.”

Second, we are impressed with the frailty of life. When we see the body of one so alive a few days ago now lifeless within the casket, this lesson is impossible to ignore. David speaks of life’s uncertainty by noting that “there is but a step between me and death” (1 Sam. 20:3). Solomon declared the same thing saying, “No one has power over the day of death” (Eccl. 8:8).

Third, we are brought to contemplate what lies beyond this life. The Bible answers that point emphatically by stating, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Whether in youth or in later years, all of us must be prepared to meet God in judgment, “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or whether it is evil” (Eccl. 12:14).

We have no guarantee on life. We hold no lease for so many years. If that young man could pass from this life unexpectedly in his youth, so you and I may too pass at any time. We must all learn this lesson often forgotten until driven into our hearts by the house of mourning.

Yes, it is good to go into the house of mourning. It is not enjoyable, but it is still good. The good comes from the fact that we are made better by facing the lessons learned by the occasion and changing our life for the better. Let us all seriously reflect upon our lives in view of our certain destiny to face God in judgment.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 10
November 3, 1994

By Randy Blackaby

School prayer has become the new battleground for the clash between religion and humanistic atheism. But there is danger in making school prayer the focus of the debate. A win eventually could turn into a loss for the supporters of Christianity.

Let me explain.

Supreme Court rulings as late as this week uphold First Amendment rights of the individual (particularly students) to pray and lead a prayer in school. Other rulings ban school-sponsored prayer, that is, the school inviting a religious spokesperson to lead prayer. These rulings actually will protect the rights of Christians in the long run.

Christians rightfully have been incensed at school and governmental regulations that allow free speech (by invitation) from abortion proponents, homosexual lobbyists and political crazies while alleging the Constitution forbids free speech by an advocate of religious faith.

But Christians, like all other people, need to be wary of attempts to legislate the teaching or advocacy of religion or any parts of its practice in the public schools.

Citizens lobbying and demanding that priests, pastors and preachers be permitted to lead students in prayer open the door to constitutional interpretations that will allow the teaching and advocacy of other religions, philosophies and quasi-faiths that will threaten the well being of our children.

We could win the battle and lose the war.

I can remember vividly and uncomfortably the days in the fourth and fifth grade when my elementary school brought in religious instructors to teach us. Some of those teachings were contrary to what my parents and my Bible were teaching me.

No one can stop an individual from praying. The case of Daniel (chapter 6) is a good illustration.

I am delighted to see students meeting in prayer groups and insisting on their right to pray, especially if they are boldly standing up for their faith and not simply jumping on the newest popular bandwagon of protest.

It is important that free speech not be defined solely as humanistic, atheistic or vulgar speech.

But we also must under-stand that constitutional limitations on government advocacy of a religion are critical protections for Christians.

As the percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians shrinks year by year, the answer is not to be found in trying to force Christian principles on children through school prayer or school-sponsored “Christian doctrine” classes.

The answer is to be found in parents teaching their children biblical principles, showing them those principles by example and involving children in the church.

If the day ever comes when more Americans are Moslems or Hindus or idolaters than Christians, we Christians may regret the day we insisted on having the schools become directly involved in religion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 6
November 3, 1994

By Ray Madrigal

It was the last Sunday morning of July, hot, humid and hazy. Poland had not endured a heat-wave of this degree since 1917. And although some TV panelists, weathermen and educators speculated about the ozone problem, it’s obvious that the Poles were more concerned about political uncertainties in 1917 (Bolshevik Revolution in Russia) than about the weather. As we drove across the gently rolling hills of Southern Poland and over the Wista River, I studied Kasia’ s somber expression. She and her father had visited this museum of honor before. We turned into the gate of Oswiecim, better known by its German name: Auschwitz.

As we slowly toured the meticulously clean grounds, exhibits and buildings of Auschwitz and Birkenau (which today more resembles an ivy-league college campus than a death camp), my afternoon sermon was taking shape. How could an all-powerful and an all-loving God permit such atrocities to take place? Why does God allow suffering, and especially the suffering of the innocent? Why are similar crimes taking place today?

Does God Exist?

In many respects, this visit to two World War II concentration camps determined the course of our teaching program during a month-long preaching mission to Poland. The people here are familiar with suffering, oppression, military occupation and survival. Any philosophy, world view or religion that fails to adequately address these issues will be quickly rejected by the modem Polish people. In the course of four weeks, beginning this last week in July 1994, my brother Dan and I were privileged to visit Poland and teach the gospel to many people. We realize at the very beginning that a simplified five-point sermon outline on the plan of salvation would not meet the immediate needs of the Polish people with whom we studied. Their questions were much more basic and fundamental than that. For example, does God exist? How can we know this for sure? Is the Bible the Word of God? Is the Bible subject to many different interpretations, or is there a way to arrive at common truth? Perhaps Christianity only offers a one-way ticket to nowhere. On what rational basis do I reject naturalism and atheism and accept the God of the Bible?

We found these questions to be honest, sincere and intellectually challenging. The people that Dan and I met were very well educated and intelligent, with or without university training. They asked good questions and carefully considered our “answers” in light of the Bible, the Word of God. Without exception, people who agreed to study with us did so “with much pleasure.” And although we did not always provide adequate answers to their many difficult questions, they were impressed with the fact that we appealed to the Scriptures for all our information. On some issues, the Bible simply doesn’t provide all the answers (Deut. 29:29). All that we do discover about God and his plan for our lives assures us that we can trust him in other areas as well. As Emerson eloquently stated: “All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all that I have not seen.”

Our main contact in Poland was Kasia Bania and her family. Kasia is a bright, 19-year-old university student who was converted to Christ in Paducah, Kentucky last year (see GOT 10/23/93). While the main purpose of our visit this year was to strengthen Kasia’s faith, we also introduced the gospel to Kasia’s family and many of her friends. Each person received us and our teaching with great eagerness and treated Dan and me with wonderful hospitality. And although our teaching efforts centered around a dozen “quality” prospects, we also distributed Bibles and tracts to about twenty other acquaintances and mass-distributed 2500 tracts in the cities of Bytom and Katowice. Although only minimal response has resulted so far from these mass-distribution efforts, we are thankful that the seed has been sown.

During the last week of work, David Diestelkamp and Rick Liggin backpacked their way up from Slovakia to assist our efforts. They helped us “set up” for “Bible Studies in English” in Bytom, helped us distribute several hundred more tracts, participated in Bible studies and offered tremendous encouragement to me, my brother Dan, and to Kasia. We thank God for their dedication and devotion to sowing the seed of the Kingdom everywhere.

English or Polish?

Although Dan and I were able to do a significant amount of teaching, we were very dependent upon Kasia for her excellent translations. We met very few Poles in this region who were comfortable with the English language. Of course, much good work can be done using translators like Kasia. But it is my opinion that the doors to evangelism in Southern Poland will really open when the teaching can be done in the Polish language. As Dan and I fumbled our way through greetings, salutations and other survival situations (where is the bathroom?), the people were extremely tolerant of our language shortcomings and were quite delighted that we were attempting to learn their language. I believe that many doors will be opened and remain open to those who will learn and teach the Bible in Polish.

Will You Help?

I am making necessary preparations to learn Polish and return next year for a 3-4 month stay. Perhaps that visit will lay the groundwork for a more permanent preaching engagement. Remember, we are taking this krok po kroku, step by step. I have tremendous respect and admiration for those preachers, their wives and their families who have taken this big step in foreign evangelism. And while I find many merits to the “short-length” mission trips, it seems obvious to me that “longer” missionary journeys will have longer-lasting impact. Perhaps the greatest merit of the “shorter” trips is that they serve to introduce the gospel to foreign fields and also introduce those foreign fields to gospel preachers.

Next Spring, Lord willing, I will return to Poland to resume my studies with Kasia, her family, her friends and others that we taught this summer. One young student asked me, “What will we do if we become Christians and convert to your faith?” I replied that, although all the necessary information was available in the Scriptures, we would certainly return for further teaching and instruction. I am convinced that several Poles will take that grand step of faith upon hearing more about Jesus (Rom. 10:17). God has promised that his Word is powerful (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 4:12-13) and will accomplish its intended purpose (Isa. 55:11). Although some resistance is inevitable, perhaps the next occupation of Poland will be spiritual in nature; where God controls the hearts of men and Christ himself holds captivity captive. Will you have fellowship with me in this great opportunity? More Bibles, literature and plane tickets will need to be purchased. I am already incurring some expense with language tapes, books and necessary phone calls to Poland. Let’s take this step, krok po kroku, together!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 9-10
November 3, 1994