Truth Magazine

By Richard Boone

What has brought us to the present day? What lies ahead in the future? To answer these and other important questions, it is wise and useful for us to study our past. That is what this article is all about.

For the last 40 years a division has existed among churches of Christ concerning human institutions and their relationship to local churches. In recent years another battle has arisen among those churches which accepted institutional thought and practices from the 1950s – abandonment of the Scriptures in authority, teaching and practice. Legion are the sermons, articles, tracts, books and lectureships which are trying to stem this swelling tide of apostasy.

I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with my position on the relationship of human institutions to the local church is from the same mold as many of the leading voices currently heard among institutional brethren (i.e., Rubel Shelly, Mike Cope, Randy Mayeux, Max Lucado, etc.). In fact it has been quite refreshing to hear several among institutional churches reemphasize the need for Bible authority in teaching and practice in recent years. I cite the following as evidence: the 1990 Dallas Meeting (especially the session on Biblical authority), Goebel Music’s Behold The Pattern (1991), Rightly Dividing The Word (Vols. 1 and 2; lectureship of the Shenandoah Church of Christ, San Antonio, TX; 19901991; edited by Terry M. Hightower), the Freed Hardeman University “Preachers and Church Workers” Forums (19891991), the 1993 Spiritual Sword Lectureship (“The Restoration: The Winds Of Change”), articles in The Spiritual Sword, etc. I rejoice that there is a renewed interest in biblical authority! However, my joy is tempered by two important facts: (1) the reality that these brethren still employ the sponsoring church arrangement and advocate church support of human benevolent organizations, and (2) the rhetoric which is used to justify these practices. It is the same justification which was used in the 1950s.

I believe the justification of the 1950s for these practices planted seeds which, over time, led to a change in views toward biblical authority, the mission of the church, the worship, etc. For me to believe this is one thing; to document it is another. To the best of my ability and as objectively as I could, I carefully studied and documented the reasoning used in advocacy of these practices from four major debates. Frankly, I was surprised at some of theological and weak arguments used to support the sponsoring church arrangement and church support of benevolent organizations. While some may disagree with my conclusions, I believe they are historically accurate. As we pursue matters pertinent to this historical connection, all I can ask of each reader is that he will read objectively and that we will strive to handle the Scriptures and the historical records honestly. I now beseech your careful attention to that end.

The Danger of Self Deception

One of the greatest dangers in evaluating any problem is self-deception. When one refuses to remove his “rose-colored glasses,” he will not face problems objectively, therefore analyzing and solving them is difficult, if not impossible. The Bible warns about the danger of being self deceived.

In the context of reliance on human wisdom Paul plainly stated, “Let no one deceive himself ” (1 Cor. 3:18). Pertaining to proper self evaluation he also said, “For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself’ (Gal. 6:3). In a book which is most practical for daily Christian living, James warned that Christians should not deceive themselves (Jas. 1:22,26). The apostle John admonished Christians not to deceive themselves about sin in their lives (1 Jn. 1:8). How are these warnings relevant to the subject at hand?

We can deceive ourselves about ourselves – our relationship to God (2 Cor. 10: 18), our brethren (2 Cor. 10:12), or the spiritual condition of the local church of which we are a part (Rev. 23). Self deception can also skew our perspective of history. When we do not want to admit mistakes or failures, we can choose to ignore persons, places, events and/or concepts which are more than mere anecdotes. It is the reasoning which says, “Don’t acknowledge what anyone might bring up and it will be as if it had never happened.” It appears (to me at least) that this is often the perspective of those who continue to hold to institutional thought and practices. Don’t mention what was said (orally or written) or done. Just ignore “antiism” and it will go away. This sentiment has even been expressed. Lest institutional brethren rain fire down upon me for that assessment, let me make some further remarks.

While there were sinful attitudes and actions on the “liberal” side of this division, there were also the same on the “conservative” side of it. Borrowing from Steve Wolfgang’s historical material presented at the 1988 Nashville Meeting, “It is no doubt true that there may have been many instances of no institutional brethren who used `mirror logic,’ vacating the premises before they were invited to leave, displaying rancorous attitudes in the process, heaping derision and vilification upon their ‘liberal’ opponents. I am not arguing that noninstitutional brethren always behaved themselves as they should; surely there is enough sin to go around in this or any other division” (“History and Background of the Institutional Controversy,” Guardian of Truth, XXXIII:9 [May 4, 1989], 16). This present article does not claim perfection in attitudes and actions during the 1950s from the “conservative” side. It must also be candidly stated that we can err in our view of the history of this division. That is an ever-present danger for us, too. I am sure that there are institutional brethren whose historical view of institutionalism is much different from our own. The best I know to do is to be as objective as possible in hearing and learning from what history has to tell us. None of us can afford to be self deceived!

Error’s Methodology

“For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). This is not a surprise to diligent students of the Scriptures. Jesus warned that false teachers would come as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15). Such is the means of Satan – working under a false guise. It should not shock us, therefore, that if Satan and his messengers work by such means, that their fruit – error – accomplishes its destruction by the same means. In fact, we are taught just that via several comparisons in the Bible.

Leaven: This term is used in good and bad ways. We are concerned here with its use in describing the work of error. Originally, this term referred to dough which was soured and wine which was fermented. This was done by the chemical change of the substance whereby the atoms of soured dough or fermented wine continue their motion until all of the substance became leavened or fermented. From this background came its spiritual application to false doctrine or toleration of ungodliness among Christians (Matt. 16:6; Mk. 8:5; Lk. 12:1; Gal. 5:8; 1 Cor. 5:68). This is why we must be so vigilant (1 Pet. 5:89). The continual and unobservable work of error sneaks up and seizes us before we realize what has occurred. This is why error can be so powerful in an individual, local congregation or the brotherhood.

Cancer: What dread and fear this term strikes into our hearts when the diagnosis has been made! Why? Because we understand the undetectable and destructive nature of this disease within the human body. The method and consequences are no different in the spiritual realm. In fact, Paul described it this way: “But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:1618; italics mine, rb). Like cancer, this is how error accomplishes its devastation – slowly and undetectably.

Drifting: Timothy was charged as a young preacher to wage the good warfare with faith and a good conscience lest he, like Hymenaeus and Alexander, “suffer shipwreck of the faith” (1 Tim. 1:1820). The journey of a Christian toward heaven thus has its parallel to a ship’s journey. Again, this is where error is so dangerous.

We are warned to “give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away” (Heb. 2:1; italics mine, rb). To better understand the necessary implications of this phrase, consider the remarks of W.E. Vine who says that this term literally means “to flow past, glide by, is used in Heb. 2:1, where the significance is to find oneself flowing or passing by, without giving due heed to a thing” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words I:339). This describes the nature of most apostasies from the faith. They occur slowly over a period of time. Before we realize it, we are far removed from the truth. A careful study of the Ephesian church’s history in light of Revelation 2:17 is helpful in under standing how easily, slowly and unnoticeably drifting can occur. That is why we must always be careful and pay close attention to what we hear, say and do lest we contribute to the apostasy of individuals or local churches.

The Rhetoric of the 1950s

Before proceeding with the reviews of debates from this decade, I should explain how I did my research. From each debate, I wrote the arguments presented in defense of each position (regardless of my personal view) and documented them by page number. By the time I finished, I had 35 pages of single-spaced notes. I then grouped the arguments of each debate into sections – scriptural, logical reasoning, history, personal, etc. From these groupings I chose the material which is here presented. I triple checked all materials used for accuracy. I have tried my best to be objective in preparing this article. If you judge otherwise, please attribute my failure to weakness of the flesh, not the spirit.

The Indianapolis Debate (W.L. Totty/Sterl A. Watson and Charles A. Holt; Garfield Heights church of Christ; October 1822, 1954): This debate included three subjects. Totty and Watson affirmed: (1) the right of local churches to support colleges, (2) the right of local churches to support benevolent organizations, and (3) the sponsoring church arrangement (such as the Herald of Truth program) for evangelism as scriptural. Holt denied these (7,69,185). My review of Totty’s and Watson’s material falls into two categories.

Attitudes toward authority: Several statements manifest weakness toward authority and the need for scriptural support of a proposition. Space permits only a few examples to be listed. The standard of authority often called upon was the beliefs and practices of the pioneers and the generation of preachers between 19001950 (1416). Furthermore, a December 6, 1950 letter to Robert Welch from W.L. Totty said, “There are many things in church work which are not directly commanded by the Bible” (157). Totty listed various methods of traveling, telephones, typewriters, etc. While these are not directly commanded by the Bible, they are authorized under generic authority. But to parallel and include colleges and benevolent homes under the same reasoning simply will not work. There is a vast difference between helps in completing a task (modes of travel, phones, typewriters, etc.) and changes in the organization doing that task (from God’s – the church – to a human organization – college or orphan home). Moreover it was stated that the church could do like its Head (234,259260,306). Just as Jesus healed all and preached to all, so should we use every means – including benevolent homes and sponsoring church arrangements – to show mercy and preach. Finally, since every detail of every benevolent case in the New Testament could not be given, how could one say that the New Testament churches didn’t have benevolent homes (167169)? These were the types of reasoning used to “justify” institutionalism and the sponsoring church arrangement in this debate. Frankly, I was shocked!

Scriptural argumentation: For the right of the church to support colleges, it was affirmed to be a “good work” (Tit. 3:8; 13,31). It was said that parents should send their children to Bible colleges to avoid leading them into temptation at state universities (Matt. 6:13; 57). Wherever the gospel is preached (and it is in the college according to Totty), the church can support it (1 Tim. 3:15; 57). Parents are to nurture their children (Eph. 6:4; 57). For church support of orphan homes, Gal. 6:10 and Jas. 1:27 were cited (7778,111,168,172), as was 1 Timothy 5:910 (132133). Benevolent homes are a method, an expedient, therefore justifiable (114). Since the individual and the church are the same, they can do the same things (132). To support the sponsoring church arrangement in evangelism, the following passages were given: Matt. 28:1920 (187,285286), Eph. 2:10 and Tit. 3:8 (194195), and 2 Cor. 8, Acts 11, and Rom. 15 (216,261265). Also, what Jesus would do came into play here (234,306).

The Harper Tant (#2) Debate (E.R. Harper of Abilene, TX and Fanning Yater Tant of Lufkin, TX; held at Abilene, TX; November 2730, 1955): Officially, the propositions said, “The Gospel Guardian, with her associate organizations or companies, is scriptural in design (purpose), teaching and practice” (Tant affirmed; Harper denied; 2), and “The church of Christ, South Fifth and Highland, in Abilene, TX, is scriptural in organization and in her teaching and practice in congregational church cooperation” (Harper affirmed; Tant denied; 94). However, Tant succinctly stated the real issues under discussion in this debate with three questions: “(1) Does the New Testament furnish a pattern for the cooperation of congregations?.. . (2) If there is a pattern for cooperation, is the kind of cooperation in the Herald of Truth according to the pattern? (3) Is the pattern (if one is set forth) obligatory on churches today, or do they have freedom to cooperate in ways not embraced in the pattern?” (2). Now to my review of Harper’s portion of this debate.

History: Much was advanced for cooperative efforts based on what brethren have done in the past. The Hardeman Tabernacle meetings, the Louisville, KY meeting with Foy E. Wallace, Jr., the Fort Worth, TX Norris Wallace Debate, the Houston Music Hall meetings (all of these before 1950) were listed as the universal practice of brethren in cooperative efforts (910,3435). Why were these practices now being repudiated by some (169170)? Tant appropriately responded by showing that a practice is not proven to be scriptural or unscriptural by appealing to history, but to the Bible and the Bible alone (178). Amen!

Scriptural argumentation: Although Harper was to deny that the Gospel Guardian setup and practice were unscriptural, he never produced a single Scripture showing wherein it erred. Not one! He referred often to history and maligned the Guardian and its writers much. The only statement of significance in his opposition to the Guardian was one which showed a weakness toward authority: “There is no `exclusive pattern,’ there is no `pattern exclusive,’ the one to everything else, by which a man is `bound’ and that he has no way on earth of doing it in any other manner…. There is no bound, exclusive method of cooperational patterns that excludes any other method” (910).

In defense of the sponsoring church arrangement for evangelism (which includes the Herald of Truth radio program), Harper said that as Noah had liberties in building the ark, so we also have liberties in choosing our methods in preaching the gospel (105106). He referred to the New Testament examples of benevolence as the pattern for the sponsoring church arrangement in evangelism (1 Cor. 16; 2 Cor. 89; Rom. 15; 91,108109). There are no distance limitations on the Great Commission (100101,143144). 1 Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 28:1920 place upon us the responsibility to preach to all nations, therefore we can use whatever means are necessary to accomplish this task (112,167). If we have to stop the worldwide spread of the gospel through such arrangements it would be lamentable; almost “the end justifies the means” philosophy (81). Harper mentioned his “component parts” argument (152155) which Tant readily refuted (160161). He continued to urge all to work together (Eph. 4:16), that isolationism would not help (171). Tant responded to his appeal by admonishing all to continue to go to the Scriptures in study and discussion and stand thereon. Thereby unity will be maintained (173178).

The Porter Woods Debate (W. Curtis Porter of Monette, AR and Guy N. Woods of Memphis, TN; Garfield Heights church of Christ, Indianapolis, IN; January 36, 1956): During the first two nights of this debate brother Woods affirmed, “It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Boles Home, the Tipton Home, and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us” (7). Brother Porter denied this. On the last two nights of the debate brother Porter affirmed, “It is contrary to the Scriptures for churches to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Boles Home, the Tipton Home, and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us” (133). Brother Woods denied this. Now to a discussion of brother Woods’ material.

Scriptural argumentation: Woods began as though the point of discussion was the care of the needy (Eph. 4:28; Jas. 1:27; Acts 20:35; Mk. 14:7; 1 Tim. 5:16; 910,7071). This was not (and is not) the point of difference. Furthermore, Acts 11:2730 and 2 Corinthians 89 were introduced to show that churches could cooperate with one another in satisfying benevolent needs (77). Again, this has never been disputed. The point of difference centers around this question: Is the organization advocated by Woods (a chartered, corporate benevolent home business) necessary to accomplish the church’s work of benevolence as exemplified in Acts 11 and 2 Corinthians 89? Woods also cited Galatians 2:10 saying that it required what he advocates to “remember the poor” (182). This is, essentially, the sum of Woods’ scriptural arguments.

Other comments: One of Woods’ main lines of reasoning throughout the debate was that the New Testament examples of benevolence gave no specific details of the methods used, therefore we are at liberty to use whatever methods we deem expedient (10,30,31,36,4647,54,79, 94,103,116,119,146,79,215). Since we don’t have the specifics, how could Porter oppose orphan homes? Porter responded twofold: (1) The discussion is not just about methods of accomplishing benevolent work, but about which organization shall do it – a corporate business benevolent home or the local church, and (2) the same reasoning which Woods uses to allow benevolent organizations (“no specifics on how to do it”) could just as easily justify missionary societies (4546,69,80,127128,163164,171173). In fact, Christian Church preachers have used the same reasoning in defending the Missionary Society (see the Otey Briney debate).

Woods also used Thomas Warren’s “The whole of a thing is the sum of its parts” argument (7578,147148,276 278). In essence this says, “(1) We must care for orphans and the aged. (2) Local churches can assist in doing this. (3) Churches can cooperate in benevolent actions.” With none of these statements is there any objection. The problem with the premises is, though, that they do not take into account what Woods calls for in his proposition – that corporate benevolent organizations be chartered. Furthermore, Porter presented a “deadly parallel” to Woods’ use of this reasoning that would, on the basis of the same reasoning, justify missionary societies (166168,197199,278279). It is an inevitable and inescapable conclusion.

The Cogdill Woods Debate (Roy E. Cogdill of Lufkin, TX and Guy N. Woods of Memphis, TN; Phillips High School Auditorium, Birmingham, AL; November 1823, 1957): During the first three nights of this debate Cogdill affirmed, “It is contrary to the scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Child haven and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us” (11). Woods denied this proposition. On the last three nights of the debate Woods affirmed, “It is in harmony with the scriptures for churches of Christ to contribute funds from their treasuries in support of the Herald of Truth Radio Program conducted by the Highland church of Christ, Abilene, Texas, as a means of cooperating in accomplishing the mission of the Church of the Lord” (193). This debate equally discussed the relationship of benevolent organizations to the church and the sponsoring church arrangement for evangelism. A review of Woods” material now follows.

Benevolent organizations: Woods offered the following passages in advocacy of local church support of benevolent organizations: 1 Tim. 5:16 (7071,182), Jas. 1:27 (128,182), and Galatians 6:10 (163164,183). Strangely, he even denied that Acts 6 was a case of benevolence (66). Besides these verses, Woods used many other avenues of reasoning. He argued that the church has the responsibility to restore a broken home (en loco parentis) (30,3233,160162). What Woods never met on this question was the fact that God never gave the church the responsibility to restore a broken home. Yes, he does teach that needs are to be met, but never that the church should restore that home once it has been destroyed. He implies that since Cogdill offers no “positive” plan for orphan care, he has no right to object to what Woods advocates (29,179). He says that benevolent homes are justified by the numbers of children “we” help (106107). Although totally false (as numerous articles could show), Woods argued that opposition to church supported institutions was a “new” idea just started in the 1959s (124). Ultimately, Woods said that the methods he advocates were expedient (162).

Sponsoring church arrangements: Woods began his defense of this by stating that the Great Commission “alone justifies that program (network radio and TV efforts, rb) and similar efforts” (195; see also 251,359). He further said, “Without some sort of cooperative effort, it is impossible for this commission to be carried out” (196). Cogdill later responded to such remarks (318,342). Woods asserted that there was no exclusive pattern for cooperative work, therefore the sponsoring church is just one of many acceptable methods (196197,252,328329). He later added that if Cogdill could not produce a plan whereby more people could hear the gospel preached on Sunday mornings, he ought not to complain about what the Herald of Truth was doing (271). This also involves the “numbers” game (see 237). He attempts to make Highland’s setup with the Herald of Truth program parallel to Acts 11, but the work and circumstances are different in both instances (200201,232). He argued that the Highland/Herald of Truth arrangement parallels 1 Cor. 16:12, 2 Cor. 89, and Rom. 15, but they clearly do not mirror each other (260261,288289). Finally, one interesting observation: the only night in which Woods came out from the start basing his position on scripture was the last night. He used Matt. 28, Mk. 16, 1 Cor. 16:12, 2 Cor. 89 and Rom. 15 (318322). It is sad that all of his speeches were not so conducted.

Conclusion

One of the main lessons I have gleaned from studying and reviewing these debates is that when one seeks to justify a desired or current practice, several types of argumentation will be presented. It will make little difference how weak or skewed the reasoning is. The solid, scriptural appeal that characterized many brethren in previous decades was not found in their argumentation and reasoning to support institutional practices. This weakened reasoning, when digested by later generations, has eventually led to an abandonment of the Scriptures. The men who initially supported these efforts have not totally abandoned the Scriptures or the appeal to them for authority, but they planted seeds whereby further apostasies have arisen. To deny this is to deny the available historical evidences.

I cannot close without a word of warning for those of us on the noninstitutional side of this division. In matters of morality, doctrine and congregational activities, seeds have been and are being planted which lead us away from sound biblical interpretation, teaching and practice. Those who have led the way will not go as far as subsequent generations will go. My worry is this – where will we be 20, 30, or 40 years from now? Think about it, brethren. It can happen to us, too!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 16-20
October 6, 1994

By David Hartselle

A year ago, while sitting in a Chinese restaurant in Czechoslovakia, I spoke with another American preacher. I asked if he believed that Christians could scripturally worship God with mechanical instruments of music. He said, “Yes.” He then suggested that the Bible was not really a pattern at all but rather a “general guide.” Later, as I thought about our conversation, it occurred to me that many today, even some from “Churches of Christ,” view the Bible in much the same way – as a general guide but not a pattern. And yet, the Bible plainly admits to being a pattern, one that should be carefully followed. “Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim.1:13). As we examine the New Testament, God’s pattern, we learn many things about the worship, work, and organization of Christians. This article will give emphasis to the scriptural organization and cooperation of God’s people. But it will also expose some of the unscriptural practices that have been started by our brethren.

Jesus chose to organize Christians very simply. His way is designed to exalt the wisdom of God Almighty (Eph.3:10). Early Christians were organized into local congregations; no earthly organization (head, council, treasury, . . .etc.) was given to the universal church. Rather, local churches were ideally to consist of elders (bishops), deacons, and other saints. Elders had the authority to “shepherd” only the congregation that they were members of (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet.5:13). Of course, all Christians – including elders – were under the headship of Jesus Christ (Eph.1:2123). Bishops had no right to establish a pattern where Jesus had not. And, all faithful Christians recognized that the writings of the Holy Spirit gave foundation to the church (Eph.2:1920; 3:36). God’s word prescribes that each local church, as well as each Christian, should do only the work that they are capable of doing. Their responsibilities in the work of the Lord extend only so far as their abilities, resources, and opportunities will allow.

Naturally, first century churches were active in spreading the gospel. The Jerusalem church chose a preacher, Barnabas, and sent him to Antioch to encourage the new Christians there (Acts 11:2224). Later, Antioch sent out both Barnabas and Paul to preach the gospel throughout Asia Minor (Acts 13:13). The Philippians were the first to send material assistance to Paul (Phil.4:1516). But eventually other churches supported Paul by sending “wages” directly to him (2 Cor.11:8). In a sense there was cooperation among these churches. Obviously, when different churches sent to the same man, Paul, for the same purpose then cooperation occurred. But in each case every church decided on its own whom, how much and how long they would support in the preaching of the gospel. (Of course, methods change. Today, local churches may use vehicles such as T.V., radio, newspapers, . . . etc. to spread the truth.) Each local church was autonomous and, therefore, independent from all other churches in making such decisions. No New Testament church ever sent to another church to assist it in preaching the gospel.

Physical emergencies did occur in early churches. At times, Christians were in need of the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, and shelter. The Jerusalem church experienced this from the very beginning. And some members of that church sold their property, laid the proceeds at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to the needy saints there (Acts 4:3235). Eventually however, the Jerusalem church could no longer adequately care for its own. Therefore, other churches sent to the destitute at Jerusalem (Rom.15:26; 1 Cor.16:14). Some contributing churches knew that other groups were sending to Jerusalem. But the Scriptures present independence of action by each church. Also, the Bible reveals that such aid was sent to the elders of the destitute groups (Acts 11:2730). Again, this sending from one church to another was exclusively for the relief of saints from physical want. Furthermore, it was to occur only for a specified period of time. Paul addresses the limits on this giving while encouraging the Corinthian brethren, themselves in poverty, to follow through with their commitment to give to the poorer saints in Jerusalem.

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack – that their may be equality (2 Cor.8:1314).

Equality from want is to exist among Christians. When it does, the sending from one congregation to another should cease!

In the mid 1800s brethren divided over the support of a human organization: The American Christian Missionary Society. Its mission was to take the gospel to the world more efficiently and effectively than local churches could. This society solicited and received funds from numerous churches. Its board of directors then decided exactly how the money was to be spent. When faithful brethren stood with open Bibles and asked for a pattern or principle for such practices, none was given.

Years passed and faithful brethren continued to follow the New Testament in doing the Lord’s work. But a century later, again problems arose. Some said that the missionary society was wrong because it is a human organization, separate from the church, which is true but only part of the problem. Many brethren who objected to the missionary society, introduced a new invention of human wisdom: the sponsoring church. Supporters of the sponsoring church argue that it is not a separate human organization but simply a church of the Lord directed by qualified elders. Consequently, they maintain it to be a scriptural arrangement. One of the earliest and best known examples of a sponsoring church was the Fifth and Highland congregation in Abilene, Texas (an organization: The Herald of Truth). The elders of this local church announced that they had decided to oversee a great work of taking the gospel to the whole world. The work was enormous and so was the cost. In fact, they could not pay for it out of their own treasury. So they appealed to all Churches of Christ to send contributions to this “great work.”

Since that time, there have been other such efforts. One recent “brotherhood work” was begun by the Sycamore Church of Christ in Cookeville, Tennessee. It was called “One Nation Under God.” The Sycamore church, like Fifth & Highland, assumed the responsibility to take the gospel to all. They planned, first, to target the United States and then later to push this effort around the world. The cost for the U.S. work, they estimated, would be $17 million. Sycamore pledged $200,000 and reported that some other congregations would send from $5,000 to $25,000 toward this project. The Sycamore elders gave several reasons why they decided to enact this plan. One of those reasons was: “We believed that God would help us accomplish something He had commanded us to do” (Sycamore brochure, 1990, page 2). But had God indeed “commanded” this local congregation to oversee such a brotherhood work? Let us briefly examine this statement.

God, of course, promises to help every congregation and Christian do what he has told them to do. But God gave every local church, no matter how large or small, the same responsibility to use its manpower and finances to support the spread of his Word. God judges based on what we do with what we have, not with what we do not have (Matt.25:2130; 2 Cor.8:12). God will not be displeased when a church uses its own money to preach the gospel to the best of its ability.

Furthermore, when one eldership asks other congregations to send to them in the sponsoring church arrangement, they take on more authority than Christ has given them. Brother Peter, himself an elder, commands that elders are to oversee the “flock that is among you” (1 Pet.5:2). Elders are not lawmakers and the scope of their authority and oversight extends only over a single congregation. When they receive funds from other churches they are making decisions about the use of other churches’ resources. Someone may say that the elders of the contributing churches gave of their own free will. Who gave them that authority? Could Abraham have relinquished his responsibility to sacrifice Isaac by asking his chief steward to do it? Of course not. God specifically told Abraham to carry it out! Neither can elders shift their God-given responsibility, in part or wholly, to another eldership. The Lord did not command the Sycamore elders, the Fifth & Highland elders, or any elders to assume such responsibilities.

Sometimes brethren will argue that it is simply a matter of methods. They will suggest that though God has said what to do (preach the gospel), he has not specifically said how to preach it. Though it is true that God did not specify every method to be used, this argument does not really meet the issue at hand. It is not a matter of “how” to preach the gospel but of “who” will oversee the work. And the “who” is the eldership in every local group of God’s people.

Why, insist on doing things according to the pattern? Are we a radical fringe? Are we cranks? No, rather we are people who believe that to do things God’s way is the simplest and best test of our faith in him. New Testament Christians did not have human institutions or sponsoring churches to carry out God’s work. They had only their zeal and faith that God would help them to do what he had commanded them to do – in the way he had directed. And it worked! For in that first century the gospel was taken to “every creature under heaven” (Col.1 :23).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 10-11
October 6, 1994

By Marc Gibson

“And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, `Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Thus began what Luke describes as “no small dissension and dispute” among brethren in the first century. Issues and problems arise from time to time in the Lord’s church that threaten the unity and work of the people of God. Issues ranging from personal opinions to false doctrine have challenged God’s people from the beginning of the church. We should not be so concerned as to the fact of these problems as much as how we handle them. God now speaks to us through his Son (Heb. 1:12), and has given us all that we need to be “complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:1617). The revelation of the New Testament establishes the authority of God for us until the end of time. Our task is to search/study the Scriptures (Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) and determine to “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).

God’s Word and Our Thought Process

One blessing most of us enjoy is a mind and the ability to use it. God, therefore, appeals to the mind of man in the revelation of his mind and will (Eph. 3:15). We are called by the gospel of Christ to surrender our lives by faith in obedience to his will (Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:14). Man must respond in order to enjoy the free gift of his grace – salvation. As Christians we continue to surrender ourselves to God by living our lives according to the precepts and principles of his will revealed in the Scriptures (Rom. 12:12). But how do we determine what God has authorized or not authorized?

Everyday we put forth an effort to understand one another as we communicate through voice, signals, or the written word. Barely realizing it, we use basic methods of thinking and logic accepted by all such as direct statements, commands, examples, and necessary conclusions. Parents give rules to children and we follow the rules of the road when we drive. The concept of precedent is used in judicial rulings and we learn not to touch hot stoves by making some very necessary inferences (I hope you didn’t learn the hard way!). When we endeavor to study and rightly divide the word of God, we use the same methods of thinking. We must look for direct statements and commands from God, approved examples to direct our actions, and draw necessary conclusions from the stories and accounts recorded for our learning. This is not “human wisdom” as we are often accused of, but simply doing what God commanded of us. God revealed his mind; we study, learn, and apply. Is there some other secret, unknowable way to do it? Apparently not, for these are the methods used and accepted by the apostles and elders in Acts 15.

It is totally beyond me as to how people lose their ability to think straight when they deal with religious matters. Suddenly, accepted ways of understanding basic communication are thrown out the door in favor of “new” and superior ways of thinking (or no thinking at all). Talk about human wisdom! The call for a “new hermeneutic” and the reduction of New Testament teaching to the level of simple “love letters” (just suggestions devoid of any real authority) should be repugnant to all who love God and his word, and respect his authority. Thankfully, such an attitude would not win the day on that momentous occasion in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

Our Common Source of Authority

Did the brethren of the first century have a special means of determining and establishing the authority of God? Did the fact that they had apostles, prophets, and spiritual gifts give them an advantage? No, they settled disputes and questions with an appeal to the same data that we have access to – the revealed will of God. It is true that God’s word was in the process of being revealed in its entirety at that time, but it was always the final authority. We now have the faith once delivered, the doctrine of God. It is most timely for us to examine again how men who spoke by inspiration and possessed great faith established the authority of God concerning issues and questions of great importance to the faith and work of the church. You will not read about their “think so’s”; there are no appeals to human testimony. The Holy Spirit recorded their words that we might learn how to respect the authority of God. Are we listening?

Acts 15: The Issue

At the center of the controversy was the question of circumcising Gentiles who had become Christians and commanding them to keep the law of Moses (vv. 1,5). This was a serious issue that threatened the unity of the early Christians. Paul and Barnabas engaged in “no small dissension and dispute with certain men from Judea. There is nothing objectionable about honorable controversy, even in “dispute” (vv. 6,7). Granted there are some matters we are not to dispute about (see 1 Tim. 6:4), yet we are to exhaust every effort to settle important, doctrinal questions. It has been my experience to observe many a false teacher quit a scriptural discussion before it had hardly started. For shame! A faithful Christian should be willing to discuss any legitimate issue no matter how long it takes to search the Scriptures fairly and thoroughly for truth. The brethren of Acts 15 came together for this effort. It saddens me that so many people today are not interested in similar discussions. Such discussions are right and they are needed!

The Speakers: Their Method and Message

Peter took opportunity to remind the brethren how God had by him preached the gospel to the Gentiles (v. 7). This was his experience with Cornelius and his household (Acts 10). The facts were that God “acknowledged them” by the giving of the Holy Spirit and “made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (vs. 89). Peter had learned these truths by making necessary conclusions (inferences) from his experiences with the vision on the rooftop and events at Cornelius’ house. No one could dispute his conclusions any more than the events of that day. Based on those necessary conclusions, Peter describes their contention concerning circumcision and the Law of Moses as testing God and shakes them up by stating that “we (Jews) shall be saved in the same manner as they (Gentiles)” (vv. 1011). Peter, therefore, uses both an approved example (conversion of Cornelius and his household) from which he drew necessary conclusions (God’s acceptance of the Gentiles without the yoke of circumcision and the Law of Moses).

Paul and Barnabas then “declared how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles” (v. 12). They were speaking of work done during their first missionary journey, especially beginning at Antioch where, in disgust with the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, they turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:4249). They had been openly reporting these things to many brethren (Acts 14:27; 15:13). This is a case of establishing authority by approved example, approved by God in the working of miracles and wonders. God had approved the work of Paul and Barnabas in the converting of Gentiles, and no circumcision had been involved. The examples spoke for themselves as to what God had authorized in the salvation of the Gentiles. Approved examples are a legitimate part of the oracles of God. They are binding upon us in demonstrating the authority and wisdom of God. God did not give us “suggestions” on how to do our work as Christians and as his church. He gave us the doctrine of Christ. Are we listening? Are we obeying?

James then speaks by quoting a passage of Scripture that supported the conclusion that Peter had reached. He quoted Amos 9:1112, a direct statement of God concerning the Gentiles being called by his name and a part of the rebuilt tabernacle of David. A direct statement or command speaks for itself in establishing the authority of God. With the direct statement of God, the approved examples, and the necessary conclusions, James is able to make a proper application of truth to the question of circumcision and the Gentile Christians. He concluded “that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God” but only to keep a few important matters that were necessary (vv. 1920). God had spoken. The matter was settled. Men, using the thinking ability of the mind and considering carefully the evidence of God’s revelation, were able to understand the will of the Lord. He speaks to us now through the same revealed word. Can we not use these same scriptural methods to determine the authority of God? If not, why not?

Respecting God’s Truth and Authority

In the letter that was shortly thereafter sent to the troubled brethren, they were told that “no such commandment” had been given, affirming the respect we should have for the silence of God. Let us only speak as God has spoken, just as Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and James did. If we confine our study and conclusions to the oracles of God and preach the word, no more and no less, we can give credit to whom the credit is due, God. They gave credit to the Holy Spirit (v. 28) for the truth that was understood that day in Acts 15. The authority of God has already been established; we must understand and accept it by faith. Give God all the glory and praise.

Faithless men today may continue to ridicule commands, examples, and necessary inferences as human wisdom and legalism. Apparently some have become so “wise” as to now proclaim scriptural methods as foolish. I make no apologies for using methods used by men who spoke and acted by the direction of God. God recorded Acts 15 for our learning and I intend to follow its example. But I fear that the doctrines and commandments of men are the culprits that have led these ones to deny the faith, deny authority, and deny the scriptural method of determining truth. We must oppose their error with no compromise. They preach peace, but there will be no true peace in the hearts and ranks of those who deny the authority of God. The peace and joy of God reigns in the heart of the Christian who knows and does the will of the Father, because “whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of tire Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). Then, and only then, can we have the same wonderful feeling as those good brethren who read that letter from Jerusalem, for “… they rejoiced over its encouragement” (v. 31).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 3-5
October 6, 1994

By T. Doy Moyer

To have authority for what we do means that we have freedom, the right and permission to act as it comes from one who has the right to order and give permission. Our authority is Jesus Christ. He has the right to order and command. He said: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).

God has the right to tell us what to do by virtue of the fact that he is our Creator (Gen. 1:1,26,27; Acts 17:2431). When man tries to become his own authority, then he is acting according to the same evil desires with which Satan tempted Eve. Concerning the forbidden fruit, the serpent said, “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). Satan was telling Adam and Eve that they could become their own authority (i.e., their own gods). They did not need Jehovah telling them what to do. They could decide for themselves what is right and wrong. This is the message of secular humanism. It is born out of the concept that the highest authority is man; we don’t need any Deity to tell us what to do. Such is a denial of the authority that God inherently has because he is Creator. The foundation for the teaching of authority is thus rooted in Genesis. In order for us to fully understand the need for authority, we must first understand God as our Maker.

Authority Needed Everywhere

Authority is necessary in all aspects of life. Without it, there can only be anarchy and chaos. Without authority in the home, it will fall apart. Without authority in school, there will only be problems. Imagine what it would be like without authority in the workplace. Some may like the idea of having no boss, but unless someone acts with authority, it will be impossible for the business to flourish. Without authority in the nation and government, many citizens will act wickedly with no judgment on their actions. Authority is needed everywhere. This is something that most people freely recognize. No group, organization or nation can function smoothly without someone who can “call the shots.”

The Need for Authority in Religious Matters

The need for authority is seen especially in the religious world. The existence of hundreds of denominations show this. The many divisions that exist, even among God’s people, testify of the need for authority. Divisions and denominations exist because people, at sometime, did not listen and submit to the authority of God. Instead, they became their own authority and acted in lawlessness.

The nature of man requires authority. Man simply cannot provide this authority by himself. Jeremiah said, “0 Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23; cf. Prov. 14:12). When man begins to act on his own authority, then he is trying to do what cannot be rightly done. Some deny that we need authority for all that we do and teach. But if this be the case, would someone explain the grounds for such a position? When people act or teach something without God’s authority, then they must look to one of two things: (1) themselves as the authority, or (2) other men as the authority. Yet, the Bible condemns looking to men as the source of authority (Jer. 10:23; Col. 2:2022; Matt. 15:9; Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 4:6). A position which states that we do not need authority is an unbiblical and sinful position. Without God’s authority, we only have man’s and man’s authority is worthless without God.

Again, the position of humanism is that we do not need God to tell us what to do. We must look to humanity as the highest source of authority. But there is a fatal flaw in this position. If what one man or group says can be the source of authority, then what another man or group says can also be a source of authority, even if what they say contradicts what others say. If one person can appeal to himself or another man as authority, then why can’t another person do the same? Who is to say who is right or wrong? When men contradict each other, how will the issues and questions be settled? Where else can we appeal? Without God, confusion and every evil thing will exist in society. We are seeing this first hand. But the same principle applies to religious matters. When those who claim to believe in God tell us that we do not need authority for a particular belief or practice, they are unwittingly taking the position of humanism. Only division and evil will result. There is no way for us to be united based on the authority of man.

Sadly, this attitude has invaded the Lord’s people. The various and sundry divisions among Christians are the result of a failure to submit to God’s authority. Instead of recognizing that we must have authority for all we do and teach, some are insisting that the pleas for authority are legalistic and unnecessary. “The church must change with the times,” we hear. Such attitudes are nothing short of a total rejection of the authority of God’s Word. It is also an outright rejection of Jesus Christ, who claimed to have all authority (Matt. 28:18; Jn. 12:48).

A standard of right and wrong is essential to mankind. The only way that truth and error can be distinguished is by having an objective Standard by which all else is to be judged. This Standard is the Bible, God’s inspired Word (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Without the Bible, we cannot know God’s will. We can only act according to our own will, which will ultimately bring destruction (Prov. 14:12). This is why it is vital for us to plea for “book, chapter and verse” for what we do. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Mock it if they want to, but a firm grounding in and heeding of the Book is the only acceptable starting point for doing God’s will (1 Cor. 2:913). Unless God has revealed something to us in his word, there is no way that we can say we are doing God’s will. There is no way that we can act with authority, unless God has, in some way, revealed it in the Scriptures.

An Insightful Question

The Pharisees recognized the need for authority when they asked Jesus about his teaching and works: “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” (Matt. 21:23) Jesus did not shout them down or tell them they were wrong for asking. He nowhere said, “Why, we don’t need authority. You’re just being legalistic!” His response was to ask them about the authority for the baptism of John: “Where was it from? From heaven or from men?” (v. 25) This response gives even more support to the fact that we need authority. Why would Jesus ask about it if it wasn’t necessary? Jesus fully recognized that authority for practices and teachings is necessary. This question also reveals the only two sources from which a practice or teaching can come: heaven (God) or men. If not from heaven, then a teaching must come from men. Teachings that come from men result in vain service to God (Matt. 15:19). Again, only God is the proper source for authority. For authority to be worth anything, it must come from One who has the power to grant it. Men simply do not have this power.

Illustrated in the Old Testament

Many examples given to us in the Old Testament testify to the need for acting with authority (cf. Rom. 15:4). The account of Cain and Abel shows us what it means to act by faith. Abel acted by faith, which means that he must have heard God’s Word and obeyed it (Heb. 11:4; Rom. 10:17). Cain acted presumptuously and substituted his own will. He was rejected for this.

Nadab and Abihu were condemned to death because they did not act according to the authority of God (Lev. 10:1,2). They used a strange fire which the Lord “had not commanded them” (v. 1). Perhaps they thought that they did not need authority. Maybe they thought, “But God didn’t say not to.” Even if they had good intentions, the fact remains that they acted presumptuously, without authority, and were judged for it.

Uzziah acted without authority when he went into the temple and tried to bum incense (2 Chron. 26:1620). This work was only for the priests (Exod. 20:110). Uzziah was told, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to bum incense to the Lord, but for the priests” (v. 18). It was a good work, ordained by God, but it was for a specific group of people. We need to remember this principle when thinking about the work of the church and the work of individuals. There are things that individuals may do that are not given to the church to do as a collective body. Some things “are not for the church” to do “as a church” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:18ff). The point is that Uzziah acted without authority and was punished for it. We need to be careful not to do the same.

It is interesting to hear some fuss about using examples like these to demonstrate our need for authority. “Not that old Noah argument again. Why, that’s the Old Testament; we’re tired of hearing those old arguments.” Are they telling us that they don’t like to hear examples from God’s Word? Are they admitting that they don’t believe that the Bible is really a good example for us to follow? Are they saying that what was written before is not profitable for us? Friends, if you’re going to accept the Bible at all, then listen to it! If you don’t want to listen to it, then quit pretending to respect the Word of God. At the heart of this issue is the way we look at the Bible. Either we will accept it for what it is, or we will reject it to do what we want.

The New Testament

We are hearing a lot about this “new hermeneutic,” which insists on following Jesus as we think he might have acted or taught. But if we want to know how he would act or teach, then we need to read the Scriptures to see how he acted and what he really taught. He would not do anything today that is inconsistent with his actions and teachings in the first century. His words, which are ever relevant, are just as true today as they were then (Matt. 24:35).

Jesus taught in Matthew 7:2123: “Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

If we had no other Scriptures telling us of the importance of acting with authority (i.e., within the bounds of his revealed will), this one would be sufficient to show why we need it and what happens when people don’t have it. First, Jesus is Lord, which again stresses the fact that he has the right to tell us what to do. Acting without authority is an assault on his leadership. We need authority because he is the Lord and he has all authority. Second, acting without authority (i.e., “lawlessness”) results in eternal condemnation. People may claim many wonderful works in the name of Jesus, but if these works are not done according to the will of God, they will be lawless and sinful (1 Jn. 3:4). Jesus unequivocally taught the necessity for acting with authority. He also taught the penalty for acting without authority. Let those of the “new hermeneutic” persuasion grapple with that, for it comes from the One who changes not (Heb. 13:8).

The apostles likewise taught the need for acting with authority from God. For example, the apostasy is thus born out of a lack of respect for divine authority. Name any unscriptural division that has taken place, and the roots can be traced to a lack of respect for the authority of God and his word.

We are to the endeavor for unity (Eph. 4:16; 1 Cor. 1:10). The only way for unity to be maintained is through respect for God’s authority. We must all recognize the same Standard and abide by it (Phil. 3:16). True disciples of Jesus abide in his word (Jn. 8:3132). We must remain within the confines of the revealed Word of God (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6). To go beyond the Scriptures is to manifest disrespect for our Lord and bring destruction (2 Jn. 9; cf. Rev. 22:18,19). This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament.

Conclusion

“And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). If we are to do all in the name of Jesus (i.e., by his authority), then we are to have his sanction for everything that we do and teach. The body (church) is to be the subject to Christ, the head, in everything (Eph.5:24). Without question, then, the Scriptures teach the need for acting with authority in all that we do and teach. This is the only position consistent with Scripture. It is the only position that will bring honor and glory to our Authority and Creator. Therefore, let us never deride fervent appeals to the Bible. Let us never complain at a “thus saith the Lord.” Let us not mock “book, chapter and verse” preaching. Instead, let us bring honor and glory to God by full submission to his will. Remember who God is (creator), and remember who we are (the /created). And remember: Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 2
October 6, 1994