Truth Magazine

By The Elders – East 102 Church of Christ

The following “disclaimer” appeared near the beginning of Vance Trefethen’s first affirmative article (Guardian of Truth, Aug. 18, 1994). “The views expressed in my article are my own and are not intended to represent in any way the views of the elders or members of my home congregation.”

The brief disclaimer is certainly true, but we feel that it is not as emphatic and forceful as it should be. The purpose of this letter is to not only disclaim all of Vance’s views on his proposition, but to indicate our displeasure in him, as a member of this congregation for putting him-self as well as us in the public spotlight. We feel that this discredits our sound objectives in holding fast to God’s simple truth and associates us with the things that Vance has “locked” himself into.

Vance was approached on this matter shortly after we learned of his position. He has been here a couple or three months before we read “Confusion or Consensus” by Bobby Holmes (Guardian of Truth, Dec. 2, 1993) which is how we first heard of his views on the subject. We then ordered, received, and read the book, Confusion or Consensus, for ourselves. We cannot control his thoughts of course, but we requested and he assured us that he would honor our request not to spread his views among our members, nor would he cause us any problems. As far as we know, he has honored our request. A short time ago, we learned that Vance was about to engage in a debate with Tom Roberts on this issue and because Vance is one of our members, this disturbed us.

Since we disagree so strongly with Vance’s conclusions, we regret that this debate has be-come a reality. If it were within our power, we would certainly insure that no further articles were affirmed, denied, or even printed on this because of the possible negative influence that could result from them. Bobby Holmes and Tom Roberts are truly to be commended for their fine efforts in successfully refuting Vance’s arguments, but this does not remove the necessity of this congregation having to respond to questions about what we honestly believe and practice. The die is already cast and we regret it. We encourage all concerned to be assured that we disavow any proclamation of Vance’s views on this subject and hope that no one will feel uncomfortable or skeptical about their worship with us. We are a sound congregation and we sincerely pray (and request your prayers) that we can maintain that soundness, not only on Vance’s “hang-up” but all matters that deviate from the truth. This eldership is striving to function the way God intends for it to function regardless of what Vance or anyone else tries to promulgate.

By Donnie V. Rader

As a lack of respect for Bible Authority increases among brethren, we are being challenged by the plea for a “new hermeneutics” and a call for change within the church. We are being told that the church much change or else it will die and our children and grandchildren will leave it. The church, we are informed, must get modern to meet the needs of man in this generation. Evidence abounds that some churches are heeding the call for change. We hear of changes in its nature, structure and purpose. Indeed the “winds of change are blowing.” Other articles in this special issue define and examine the new hermeneutics. My assignment is to show the avenues through which the “doctrine of change” is being sounded.

The Nashville Jubilee

1. What is the Nashville Jubilee? It is a gathering of thousands (9,500 the first year) of members of the church for “Vacation  Inspiration  Celebration” (Nashville Jubilee advertisement, 1989). Their advertisement says they have exhibits, classes, lectures, family fun and activities, famous-name gospel groups and singing “with thousands.” The first year this three day jubilee “offered 35 workshops or study groups on diverse subjects, including evangelism, AIDS, Latin America, marriage and family, deaf ministry and prison ministry” (The Nashville Banner, July 26, 1989). The next year The Tennessean (June 23, 1990) carried an article that called the Jubilee a “national fair” for Christians “offering preaching, fellowship, singing, programs for young people and more than 200 booths for the display and sale of books, audio tapes and video tapes.”

2. Its beginning: The first Jubilee took place July 6-8, 1989 at the Nashville Convention Center. The Madison and Woodman Hills churches were the sponsors the first year. The Antioch church sponsored it the following year.

3. Featured speakers: Some of the names that have been connected with the Jubilee are Rubel Shelly, Landon Saunders, Marvin Phillips, Max Lucado, Mike Cope, Randy Mayeux, Steve Flatt, Lynn Anderson, and Prentice Meador. Those familiar with these names know the kind of liberal thought that would be presented by them.

4. The call being made at the Jubilee: The call for change in the church is being sounded by some of the participants at the Jubilee. Some examples: (a) Randy Mayeux made such statements as “The day is over when you will expect to stay church of Christ all your life. . . Does it really make a difference if a person is a millennial or premillennial?. . . Women need to be represented in leadership…I think we are losing them because our music is not today’s music…” (July 4, 1991). (b) Keynote speaker Mike Cope was reported as saying, that doctrinal differences should be put aside and we should behave like “porcupines in November.” He said that we “Sometimes don’t see eye to eye. We just have to accept each other. No matter what” (Los Angeles Times, July 15, 1989, as quoted in Contending For The Faith, August 1989, p. 1). (c) Marvin Phillips urged solo singing and special choruses in congregational services (Ibid., p. 3). (d) Roy McConnell (an elder of the Robertson County church) wrote a letter to the editor saying, “The Jubilee violated the role of women, 1 Timothy 2:1-12, by allowing men in classes taught by women and allowing a woman to, in effect, lead the assembly in song” (The Tennessean, July 23, 1990). (e) McConnell also reported Marvin Phillips as saying that it was scriptural to jump up, shout and clap in worship. He also stated that Landon Saunders said that environmental organizations were as necessary as the church (Contending for the Faith, August 1990).

New Periodicals

1. Image. This bi-monthly magazine began June 1985 under the editorship of Reuel Lemmons. Denny Boulting house is the present editor. The list of staff writers includes such names as Randy Mayeux, Jim McGuiggan, Landon Saunders, Rubel Shelly, Marvin Phillips, and Rick Atchley among others.

The purpose of Image magazine is well stated by staff writer Randy Mayeux. “This is an era of great change in Churches of Christ. With a solid, biblical heritage, it is now beginning a new chapter. Its history will be set and evaluated by the ideas shaping us as a movement. If you love his movement, you will seek to discern the ideas giving us rebirth. Read and listen, or you will be left behind. IMAGE is a key source of these ideas. I commend IMAGE to you as a loving chronicle of our heritage, a mirror of our present questioning and accomplishments, and a courageous shaper of our history” (Image, Vol. 5, No. 9, p. 30).

In this magazine readers are given ideas of a new hermeneutics (Denny Boultinghouse, Image, Vol. 6, No. 2; Bill Swetmon, Image, Vol. 6, No. 4), unity in diversity (Randy Mayeux, Image, Vol. 2, No. 7) and change (Vol. 6, No. 4).

2. Wineskins. This is a monthly magazines that began in May 1992 with a two year commitment. The magazine would continue beyond May 1994 only if interest and support war-rant it. They confirmed by phone (May 11, 1994) that they plan to continue publication. They now have about 10,000 subscriptions.

The co-editors are Mike Cope and Rubel Shelly. Phillip Morrison serves as managing editor.

All three editors wrote “A Purpose Statement” that appeared in the first issue. They said, “WINESKINS is committed to the stimulation of bold but responsible change in the church of God. The very title is taken from Jesus’ parable about the ever-fresh gospel and its always-frail containers. He warned against putting `new wine in old skins’ lest the skins burst and waste the contents. In his metaphor, the skins are the culturally-conditioned and time-bounded experiences of the people who form the covenant community of God. When those receptacle-carriers of the heavenly message become fixed and inflexible, they no longer serve God’s purpose effectively. . . The church is a `communication vehicle’ for the gospel, as much as television, printing press, or one-on-one evangelism methods. . . It achieves its end by reading and responding to its environment  just as any living organism does.. . The body of Christ must be an elastic wineskin for the gospel wine rather than a brittle liability to it” (Wineskins, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1992). Simply put: Wineskins is about changing the church.

In this magazine readers will find articles that (1) question the virginity of Mary and the inspiration of the New Testament (Nov.1992, as quoted in Spiritual Sword, Oct. 1993),(2) teach grace covering doctrinal imperfection (Aug. 1992, as quoted in The Preceptor, July 1993), (3) plea for change (October 1993), and (4) endorsement of material that advocates women taking on leadership roles including preaching (Sept./ Oct. 1993, p. 18).

Books Which Advocate

The New Hermeneutics

And Promote Change

1. The Second Incarnation  A Theology for the 21st Century Church by Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris (1992). The book is given its title because the church should take what Jesus was in his incarnation and put it into a second incarnation.

The message of the book is “change” (pp. X, XII, 19, 35, etc.). They speak of our “flawed” at-tempts to understand the scriptures and suggest that there is no infallible method of interpretation (pp. XV, 18, 19). The book rejects the idea of “pattern theology” saying that there is no absolute blueprint for building the church (pp. 31, 36,65).

2. The Cruciform Church by C. Leonard Allen (2nd Edition, 1990). Allen calls for “careful alterations” in the church. He says that the church with these changes (like an altered garment) “can yet serve me well” (p. 10). The book suggests that our methods of interpretation are flawed (v. 25). Law and keeping the law are ridiculed (pp. 63, 71). Again the message is a new approach to the Bible and thus a change in the church.

3. The Church In Transition by Jim Woodroof. Like the other books discussed in this article, this one pleas for unity in diversity (pp. 16, 17, 20, 117, 128). Woodroof makes a separation in the gospels and Acts and the letters (p. 34). Likewise he separates adherence to Jesus from adherence to his word (p. 35). This book calls for the same changes that the other materials do.

4. The Core Gospel: On Restoring the Crux of the Matter by Bill Love (1991). F. Furman Kearley, editor of the Gospel Advocate, reviewed the book saying, “… the thesis of the author is basiclly threefold: First, the core of the Gospel is to preach about the Cross or the suffering, death and atonement made by Christ. Second, that earlier preachers in the Restoration Movement did not understand the core Gospel nor preach the Cross nearly as much as they should. Third, that preachers today should preach more about the cross and less about Christian doctrine, the church, its worship, organization and daily Christian living” (Gospel Advocate, March 1993, p. 36-ff).

Yes, the call is being heard. Loud and clear! The call is an effort to do away with Bible authority and do what we want in religion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 14-15
October 20, 1994

By Steve Curtis

In Ephesians 3:9-11, Paul establishes the fact that the church is the “eternal purpose” of God. Like an architect, God planned and organized the church from eternity, long before man was created. The idea Paul is trying to establish is that the church was purposed throughout the ages. Therefore, the church we read about in the New Testament was not specifically created and organized for the culture of the first century, but by God’s wisdom it was designed for all cultures or ages.

However, the fact that different cultures have affected the church, as our culture today does, cannot be denied. The question that has to be answered is to what extent can culture affect the church before it violates God’s eternal purpose, his design of the church.

The Church Manifests the Manifold Wisdom of God

Concerning the church Paul states, to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church” (Eph. 3:10). When God purposed the church, it was planned in such a way that its organization and work might make known the many-sided wisdom of God.

No one can know the mind of God unless he reveals it (1 Cor. 2:11,12). This is true no matter what subject is being discussed, including the church. Therefore, let us look to the Scriptures in order to learn God’s will.

God’s will concerning the church was first made known to man by his Son. Jesus’ public ministry was a preparation for the establishment of the church (Matt. 4:17; 6:33; 16:17-19). After the death and resurrection of Christ, this responsibility of revelation was given to the apostles (Matt. 28:18-20; Jn. 14:25-26; 16:13; Lk. 24:49). In Acts 2, the apostles received the power of revealing God’s will and began preaching the gospel of the kingdom which Jesus has revealed and died to establish.

On the day of Pentecost, those who gladly received the words of the apostles obeyed them and were added to the church (Acts 2:41,47). Were those being saved added to the church eternally purposed by God, or were they added to some type of infant church which could grow into the one eternally purposed by God?

Despite the arguments from some of the advocates of the “new heremeneutic,” New Testament Christians were added to the church eternally purposed by God. Did they know on that day God’s will concerning the work of benevolence? More than likely they did not. Did they know on that day that each congregation was to maintain its autonomy? Again, it is likely they did not. However, this does not make the church we read about in the New Testament an under developed church.

The apostles still had the ability and responsibility to make God’s will known. In fact, Paul in the text of Ephesians 3 lets us know that it was his responsibility to make known the church. Which church? There is only one (Eph. 4:4). Paul made known the one eternally purposed by God which manifested his manifold wisdom. An under developed church could not be spoken of as “eternally purposed,” nor could it make known God’s man-sided wisdom. There-fore, the New Testament church completely manifests God’s revealed will concerning its organization and work.

Along with the spoken works of the apostles, the early church had their written word to furnish them completely unto every good work (2 Thess. 2:15; Col. 2:16; 1 Pet. 12-15; 1 Tim. 3:14-15). The apostles’ work was aided by gifts of revelation given to individual Christians (Mk. 16:17-18,20; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:28). By this process, we know that each congregation we read about had the ability to know God’s eternal design of the organization and work of the church.

The New Testament Reveals

A Pattern for Us to Follow

There is no doubt that the infinitely wise architect of the church has made known his will concerning it. God has revealed his will to us in the New Testament Scriptures. This revelation is complete. For every aspect of the organization and work of the church, we can know God’s divine will (2 Tim. 3;16,17; Jude 3).

The written words of Paul were a pattern for Timothy to follow (1 Tim. 3:15). The spoken words of Paul constituted a pattern for Timothy as well (2 Tim. 1:13). Timothy was instructed to teach these to other Christians. Peter’s written word served as a reminder of the truth revealed by him for Christians to have after his death (2 Pet. 1:12-15). Someone might say, “Yes, but it was a pattern for the New Testament Christians. Not a pattern for us.” On the contrary, remember the apostles were not making part of God’s will known concerning the church and establishing an infant church. They were revealing the church that God had purposed throughout the ages.

At this point, let us establish some facts concerning the pattern of the church in the New Testament. First, the pattern was not man-made by early Christians. Secondly, the pattern revealed was not a pattern demanded by culture but a pattern given by God. Thirdly, the pattern revealed to us makes known the will of God concerning the organization and work of the church for all ages. Therefore, if we want to please God, who designed the church, Christians today must follow the New Testament pattern.

Any alteration of God’s pattern is an attempt by man to make “better” that which is complete. Who is man that he should question the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:13)? “But the Lord is in his holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before him” (Heb. 2:20).

The New Testament pattern for the church is God’s pattern, not man’s. It is applicable to every culture of any time. Each culture should conform itself to his word instead of conforming God’s word to the culture. This is clearly demonstrated with the matter of circumcision. In order for Abraham’s descendants to keep the covenant God made with him, it was necessary for all males to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14; Lev. 12:3). However, at Christ’s death, circumcision was nailed to the cross and was no longer necessary (Col. 2:14). At that point, circumcision became part of the Jewish culture.

Many of the Jews still continued to practice circumcision after Christ’s death. Did the apostles try to stop them from being circumcised? If they did, we have no written record. It was no more wrong for the Jews to be circumcised than it is for males to be circumcised today. However, when the Jews tried to bind their culture on the church, the apostles determined that it was a violation of God’s will and they tried to put a stop to it (Acts 15:6-29).

Circumcision is just one aspect of the Jewish culture which some used in an attempt to pervert God’s purposed church. The observance of new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, and the eating of certain foods were all part of the Jewish culture which affected the New Testament church (Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:9,10). If culture is to be used to determine doctrine, organization, and work of the church, then why was the Jewish culture dogmatically opposed by inspired men of God?

To What Extent Does Culture Affect the Church

The fact that culture has an effect on the church cannot be ignored. History shows that culture has affected the church. For example, Christians in the early centuries did not have four part harmony for singing. Four part harmony was something introduced by culture. Early Christians did not have radio and television to aid them in evangelism. These are things introduced by culture. However, these cultural effects did not add to or take away from the revealed pattern for the church.

History also shows culture effects which have destroyed the pattern for the church. This can easily be seen in Roman Catholicism which grew out of a perversion of the over-sight of the elders. Other things such as instrumental music, infant baptism, financial support of orphanages and colleges by congregations, and the social and recreational activities provided by many congregations all demonstrate cultural effects which have perverted God’s pattern for the church.

However, if one opposes cultural changes which manipulate the church designed by God, some will accuse him/her of “patternism” or adhering to a “pattern theology.” Advocates of the “new hermeneutic” movement would like to destroy God’s revealed pattern for the church. “The Bible is not a blueprint or pattern,” they say. “If my method isn’t the same as your method, or if my method isn’t the same method in vogue among the Jews of Palestine some 2000 years ago, then God will torture me in a lake of fire for all eternity” and similar comments like these are made in hopes of destroying the New Testament pattern for the church.

If their arguments are applied to Jewish culture and its effect on the early church, the apostles would have been legalists because they were binding where God had not bound. That is interesting, considering that the Son of God had given them the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Also, Gentile converts of the New Testament would have been forced to adhere to Judaism which Paul spoke of as a perverted gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7). What is even more interesting is that if the church is defined by culture as some are saying it is, notice that the Jewish culture, which was based upon traditions of men, would destroy the church of God (Gal. 1:13-14). Also, if it had been allowed to affect the church, there would have been no justification and the death of Christ would have been in vain (Gal. 2:16,21).

Using the reasoning of the advocates of “new hermeneutics,” if Judaism was to become an issue today, it would have to be accepted. Of course, that is assuming the fact that the church is a spiritual institution designed by God in order for man to use in meeting his own defined “needs.” To disagree with this is to admit that the New Testament Christians had a divine pattern which the Jewish culture threatened to pervert. Also, it would have to be admitted that since the Scriptures provide a divine pattern and not a cultural one, the New Testament church makes known God’s will concerning the work, organization, and work of the church today.

God never intended the church which he eternally purposed to be defined and molded by culture. Cultural effects upon the church that would alter the New Testament pattern are nothing more than perversions of the gospel of Christ, based upon the traditions of men, which will destroy the church of God.

Conclusion

When cultural changes manipulate God’s pattern for the church, they must be avoided. Such cultural effects are nothing more than “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” and should be rejected (Matt. 15:9). Such things as the “new hermeneutic,” the redefining of the roles of women in the church, the Positive Mental Attitude philosophy of preaching, and the redefining of the purpose of baptism are such cultural effects that are changing God’s pattern for the church and must be avoided. Christians can not conform God’s word to culture. We must conform ourselves to God’s word.

The church is a spiritual institution “eternally purposed” by God. He has authorized his Son to have all authority over the church. As such, every aspect of the church  the role of men/women, the work of benevolence, evangelism and edification, worship, etc.  must be done by the authority of Christ according to the pattern which God designed. Even the hypocritical Jewish leaders recognized the proper source of authority, heaven (Matt. 21:23-27).

Christians must be open to the fact that different cultures will have an effect on the organization and work of the church. When such effects are authorized expediencies and lead to edification, they can be used as aids in fulfilling God’s commands (1 Cor. 10:23; 14:40). However, when such changes call for a perversion of the New Testament pattern of the church, they must be resisted they are nothing more than a rejection of the commandments of God (Mk. 7:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 18-20
October 20, 1994

By Richard Boone

This article is a byproduct of research on the institutional debates of the 1950’s which served as the basis for an article in the recent special issue of GOT, “Bible Authority: Problems Past and Present.” As I studied each debate and considered the argumentation, I was constantly reminded that there was a generation now on the scene which does not know about the division over institutional-ism because the division has been pretty well settled since 1960. In the last twenty years, there has not been as much teaching on these issues as there used to be. That can be dangerous. Without continued teaching on these matters we become ripe for another apostasy (Judg. 2:1-15). In light of this, I want to give a few quotations from those debates which I hope will redirect some of our attention and teaching towards these issues. There is much to be learned from these quotes and the materials which are listed for study.

Basis of convictions: “Brethren, in the moments remaining, can you see the proposition my friend agreed to affirm? Can you find where he has introduced scriptural proof tonight? He has called upon the Guardian, he has read from the Guardian, the Gospel Advocate, and referred to individuals in this audience, and other individuals living and dead. And he offers all of that as proof. He must think it germane. He must think he needs it to establish his proposition. It looks like he has more of a personal grudge, more of a personal animosity in his heart than he does a desire to establish the truthfulness of his proposition. Brother Totty, I hope tomorrow night when you come back that you will have some Scripture for this audience. Some of the word of God, and that you will get down to this issue. I hope that you will not be so interested in talking about Holt or what I may or may have not done; or Cox, or Tant or Campbell or anybody else. I hope you will debate the issue, the proposition to which you have signed your name” (Charles A. Holt, The Indianapolis Debate, p. 126).

Spreading the gospel: “As we close this discussion, it is going to be my earnest plea and my prayer that every person present here tonight will resolve in his heart that he will not be content to rest until he has arrived at the truth of God’s word, and is doing everything within his power to spread the gospel of Christ over all the earth. If that happens, the radio will not be limited. The Herald of Truth program being discontinued will not mean that radio preaching will cease. On the contrary, the gospel will be preached on far more stations than it is being preached on now. Millions of people will hear the gospel who are not hearing it now. The trouble with us is that we get too big ideas. We want to do big things and make a big show. An elder of a church in this state spoke to me not long ago about this. It is a big church, with a big budget of over $2,000.00 a Sunday, and a congregation of 1100 members. He said, `In six months we have baptized fourteen people here, most of them children.’ Here is a congregation in which people take great pride; it is a big church; they can have a big show  but it is not getting the job done! Success comes by earnest, sincere, persistent work, quiet, and unassuming. It is not the Billy Graham sort of thing, sensational, and that shakes the world. It is simply doing God’s work in God’s way. That is that way the church spread in the first century. That is the way for the church to spread today. We do not need any half-million dollar `recreation centers’ for the Lord’s church. The Bible does not provide for such. Let us do God’s work in God’s way” (Yater Tant, The Harper-Tant Debate [Abilene], p. 178).

Historical parallels: Though it has been repeatedly denied, there are parallels between church supported benevolent organizations and the operation of the missionary society. Some of the finest material on these subjects can be found in two debates. In The Indianapolis Debate Charles A. Holt presented his material in charts and explanation (pp. 241-318). Furthermore, in The Porter-Woods Debate, Curtis Porter presented his “Deadly Parallel” material via chart and explanation (pp. 164-168,196-199,276-279). Both of these are worthy of close and careful study.

Establishing and applying Bible authority: There are many sources available for studying the proper establishment and application of biblical authority. However, none of them is any better than the speeches by Roy Cogdill on the first night of his debate with Guy N. Woods. The added benefit of studying them from this source is that one can see direct application to subjects under immediate discussion. I recommend them highly to anyone desiring to study this subject (The Cogdill-Woods Debate, pp. 11-25,43-58).

Fellow gospel preachers (especially those of us who are younger), let us be studying and teaching on institutional-ism lest another generation arises which knows not the truth relative to these matters. God forbid that we should contribute to an apostasy because of our failure to properly teach (cf. Ezek. 3:16-21)!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 21
October 20, 1994