Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Our Lord equipped the church with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11-12), but why use them, when we can have educators, scientists and engineers? Just another meaningless question about a hypothetical situation? Hardly.

Evidence is mounting that brethren, allegedly conservative, are more and more turning to people of perceived intellectual distinction in an attempt to edify the saints (especially younger saints) in the faith. Brochures keep coming to our mailbox urging brethren to attend, or at least send their children to “specials,” emphasizing that the speakers (or teachers) will not be ordinary people, but ones who have distinguished themselves in the intellectual world of academia and high technology. We have seen enough to make us feel the need to hang out the yellow flag of caution for those who might be tempted to run on that fast track.

We have been fairly effective at persuading brethren that the church is all-sufficient in organization and mission to do any work that God wants it to do. Lines, in most areas of the country, have pretty well been drawn between those who hold to this all-sufficiency principle and those who advocate additional organizations and works. By now, we pretty well know where everyone stands. For this we can be thankful.

Now, even some who have stood firmly for the all-sufficiency of the church are showing signs of a lack of faith in the sufficiency of the simple teaching and preaching of the word of God to produce and maintain faith. It is not at all uncommon for a congregation to conduct “seminars” or “workshops” featuring educators, scientists, engineers, etc., in an effort to boost the faith of its members and other Christians in the area, especially younger ones. One advertisement, after listing the intellectual credentials of the participants in the special event two or three times, made a point of emphasizing that these people were not preachers. What a “revolting” development” that would have been.

Plain vanilla personnel (evangelists, pastors, and teachers equipped with Bible knowledge) just won’t cut it these days. We must have folks with scholastic credentials in education, science or technology to produce and maintain the fundamentals of faith in God and his Son.

Dear brethren, if this concept does not go against everything the New Testament teaches about the power of the gospel to produce faith and save souls, then I don’t know what it would take. The whole tenor of New Testament teaching on this matter is that the gospel, in the hands of “earthen vessels,” is more powerful and has more real wisdom than anything this world has to offer. Even when New Testament preachers were learned men in the affairs of this world, such as Paul and Luke, it was played down rather than magnified as a qualification to speak the unsearchable riches of Christ.

I understand the concerns and motivations of those who turn to this kind of thing in an effort to shore up the faith of young people. Our young people are exposed to the teachings and influences of faithless educators, scientists, engineers, etc. from grade school through graduate school. Brethren feel that they are at a disadvantage, so they are trying to level the playing field by bringing in Christians who are as academically qualified as those that the youngsters are daily exposed to and often admire. They feel that this will make a greater impression on the minds of these young folks than just a plain preacher (evangelist), elder, or Bible teacher  without scholastic credentials. That is the problem. It levels the field too much! It pits academics against academics  intellectual against intellectual. In reality, it takes away the real advantage that brethren have. The simple “word of faith which we preach” (Rom. 10:8,17), from the lips of “earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7), has a distinct advantage over all the academic, technological and professional wizards in the world. When we come to feel that we must somehow shore up the “word of faith” with academic, technological and professional credentials, we are, wit-tingly or unwittingly, advertising our lack of faith in the inherent power of that word to produce and maintain faith.

What is our next step in this one-upmanship in impressing our folks and their neighbors that we have people with as many smarts as anyone? We have folks, young and old, who are impressed with the academic power of denominational “pastors.” Would not these folks be more likely to listen to doctrinal discourses from people who are at least equal to those “pastors” in academic training? So, rather than regular gospel meetings, we could have workshops on the gospel plan of salvation or meaningful worship featuring our own seminary graduates with the Bachelors or Doctors of Divinity or Theology. Now, that ought give our people an opportunity to impress their friends that we are not a bunch of ignoramuses. For shame!

It makes a difference to God as to where our faith stands. Paul makes it abundantly clear that he did not want the Corinthians’ faith to stand in the personal or fleshly power of the speaker (read 1 Cor. 20). He declared that he did not come to them with “excellence of speech or of wisdom” (though he was evidently scholastically qualified to do so) and that he was with them in weakness (vv. 1,3). His speech was “not with persuasive words or human wisdom” (v. 4). There was a reason for all of this  “that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (v. 5).

In chapter 1, he reminds the Corinthians (and us) that “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom form God  and righteousness and sanctification and redemption  that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord” (vv. 26-31). You see, God, by design, chose the foolish, weak and base things of this world over the wise, mighty and noble so that our faith would stand in the power of God rather than the wisdom of men  to the glory of his Son.

The reason given for God’s placing the gospel revelation in earthen vessels (the apostles) was that “the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:7). The apostles, for the most part, were “unschooled, ordinary men” (NIV) or “uneducated and untrained men” (NKJV, Acts 4:13). Equipped with divine revelation, they were a powerful force for producing faith. The apostles and prophets, with their direct divine revelation, have completed their work. We have their work in the written revelation. However, evangelists, pastors and teachers still remain. Faithful evangelists, pastors, and teachers armed with a knowledge of the “word of truth” are perfectly capable of meeting the challenge of the wise and powerful according to flesh. They are perfectly able to do battle and meet the arguments of the fleshly intellectuals: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (fleshly  eob) but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5, emphasis mine, eob).

Let us just suppose that one would be more inclined to receive those with powerful academic, technological, and professional credentials than he would be to a plain vanilla teacher or preacher. Let us suppose that he is persuaded by the teaching of these intellectuals when he would not be by ordinary men, armed with the same truth. Where would his faith really stand? Would it really be in the power of the word of God, or in the academic power of the intellectual?

I think that, deep down, we all know the answer to that question.

Now, lest anyone be inclined to call me an “anti”that is anti-education, anti-technology, anti-scientific or anti-intellectual  let me make something crystal clear. I am not anti any of these things. I encourage folks to get all the education that they have sense enough to use.

“Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise!” (2 Cor. 11:18-19) Among those of my own children and their spouses (all of whom, thank God, are faithful Christians and Bible teachers in the congregations where they attend regularly) are those who have earned or are working on degrees in the following fields: engineering, journalism, business, medical, mathematics, and education. I do not claim total objectivity here, but I think they all have done pretty well in their respective fields. I only bring this up to counter any idea that this writer is against higher learning among Christians  or against using brethren as teachers and preachers who happen to have higher degrees. I have a stack of canceled checks that will testify to the contrary. But when it comes to their work of teaching the word of truth in an effort to produce and maintain the faith of the saints, they must put their scholastic credentials on the back burner, and be-come as “unschooled, ordinary men,” with Bible in hand, so their work can produce a faith that does not sand “in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

Brethren, I pray that I never see the day when brethren will generally feel that they must turn to the wise of this world to produce, maintain, or strengthen the faith of Christians either young or old. If that day comes, “unschooled, ordinary men” will no longer be needed as “evangelists, pastors and teachers,” no matter how much they may have studied the Scriptures and have the ability to use them to cast down arguments and convict the gainsayer. We will turn to our engineers, doctors (M.D.’s, Ph.D.’s, LL.D.’s, Th.D.’s, D.D.’s etc.), scientists and other intellectuals to do this for us. It may very well be that the qualifications of an evangelist, elder, or teacher may come to include degrees in these fields  so that they can better relate to a more educated membership. Sound far-fetched? Dumber things have happened. Color me green and call be stupid if you like  I really believe some brethren are headed in that direction.

Let us continue to hold to the principle of the all-sufficiency of the church to produce and maintain the work that God wants the church to produce without turning to human inventions. Let us also maintain the principle of the all-sufficiency of the word of truth to produce and maintain the faith that God wants without turning to human wisdom. Let us “preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5), in a way that the faith of our hearers will stand in the power of the message and not in the wisdom and/or fleshly credentials of the messenger.

Brethren, are we drifting  again?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 15-16
September 15, 1994

By Lewis Willis

There are many people in churches of Christ today who are not familiar with the terminology, “Missionary Society.” Many of these people are not even aware that at one time churches of Christ and what we know as the Christian Church were united in one body. However, almost 150 years ago a division occurred over questions of authority relating to the work and worship of the church. Two principal questions were the focus of the dispute: (1) The Missionary Society, and (2) Mechanical Instruments of Music in worship. In 1849 a Missionary Society was formed by liberal brethren meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1859 L.L. Pinkerton introduced the organ into the worship of the Midway, Kentucky church. Prior to those dates, neither of these things were present in churches of the Restoration Movement. The Movement was an effort on the frontiers of America to cast aside humanly devised programs and actions, and return to the way things were done in the primitive church as recorded in the Scriptures.

The Missionary Society created by these brethren was a human organization. They solicited funds from churches and individuals for the operation of this human organization. The Missionary Society, then, selected preachers and their fields of labor and sent them forth to preach. The preachers were under the control of the Missionary Society which supplied their support. The only control the church had over this matter was to decide whether or not to support the Society. There was one fundamental thing wrong or sinful with the arrangement: God had assigned the work of preaching the gospel to the church  not to a human institution. That made the liberals no difference, and they pushed their human society until it divided the church. That division was generally complete by the year 1900.

Let us make one thing clear: God organized the church and assigned work to it. Note what Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:11-12: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” God assigned the work of evangelism to the church, and he gave it all of the organization it needed to accomplish that mission. Paul went forth preaching and he was never supported by a Missionary Society. To the Corinthians he said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service” (2 Cor. 11:8). We know that he was supported by the Philippian church. He said, “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity” (Phil. 4:15-16). Finally, he said that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This is the scriptural case which establishes that the church is to do the work God assigned to it, and it has no right to turn its work over to a human institution.

Not all of these human institutions have been called Missionary Societies. Some are called by names such as David Lipscomb University. I have before me a letter dated June 1, 1992, from a young Lipscomb student who is trying to raise money to go to Prague, Czechoslovakia. He is asking churches and individuals to support him in his work of taking the gospel to that former Communist country. The letter came in an envelope bearing the name and seal of David Lipscomb University, from the “Department of Bible.” The letter says, “Contributions may be made out to David Lipscomb University with a cover letter explaining that the money is to be used for my trip. These checks are tax deductible if you leave the memo space blank.” He then gives the address where the money is to be sent: David Lipscomb University, Bible Department, Box 4188, Granny White Pike, Nashville, TN 37204-3951. Lipscomb will receive the money and dispense it to preachers who will preach in that foreign country. Considering that the University is doing the same thing that was done by the Christian Church’s Missionary Society, it would be very easy to confuse them with the Missionary Society, wouldn’t it? I seem to find a lot of uses for the analogy, but “if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers, it is a duck.” It seems to me, folks, we have another duck here. It is another Missionary Society calling itself David Lipscomb University.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 5
September 15, 1994

By Bobby R. Holmes

In the September 30, 1993, and December 31, 1993 issues of Sentry brother Shane Scott had an article entitled “The One True Church.” Brother Scott is a very talented young man who does a good job in writing. However, he used a portion of an article that I wrote entitled “Bible Baptism vs. Baptism For the Remission of Sins” in which he grossly misrepresented me. I have no desire to harm brother Scott in any way and have written him (November 9th, December 8th, and December 28, 1993) urging him to correct this, but he has refused to do so. I am left with no alternative but to correct the misrepresentation myself lest I be labeled as one who believes and teaches falsely regarding the Lord’s church.

My article appeared in “Guardian of Truth” (June 3, 1993, page 330). When my article appeared in GOT brother Scott challenged it and wrote a response to it. After talking to Mike Willis, editor of GOT, brother Willis urged him to talk with me about it before presenting his response for publication. Brother Scott wrote me a letter June 29th in which he stated that he disagreed with some of the points I had made regarding the church of Christ being the one true church. He also included a copy of his response to be published. I immediately called brother Scott and we talked about my article.

Brother Scott thought from my article that I believed that the church universal was made up of local churches. After we talked, he under-stood that I did not believe that. I told him clearly that I had never taken that position. I told him that I did not claim to be a writer and perhaps could have worded my article better had I been one. I suggested that he go ahead and send his article to GOT for publication if he so desired and I would answer it to the best of my ability. He stated that it would not be necessary to do that since he now knew that I stood for the truth on the subject. We had a pleasant conversation and I thought that the subject was closed.

Then on September 30th his article “The One True Church” came out in Sentry. On page 12, paragraph 2 he states:

To illustrate the deficiency of this view, here is a quote from a recent article in a brotherhood pa-per: “There is only one church and that is the church you can read about in the Bible that honors his (Christ’s) name, is organized ac-cording to his dictates, works and worships according to the pattern he has given. No church but the church of Christ can truthfully make that claim” (author’s own emphasis). When this author says that the only church that can truly claim to work, worship and be organized as the Lord instructs is the “church of Christ,” in what sense is he using that phrase? He cannot mean the church in the universal sense, since it performs none of these actions collectively. He certainly cannot be using “church of Christ” in the local sense, since he said there was only one church which was right, and I know of many local churches obeying God’s will. He was using the phrase “church of Christ” to describe some sort of institution that blurs and merges the concept of the universal body and local churches. Such an unbiblical institutional concept has more in common with modern denominationalism than it does with first century apostolic teaching.

Brother Scott knows that I believe that the church universal is made up of the saved throughout the world. He also understands I had reference to the local church in my statement, “the church you can read about in the Bible that honors his name, is organized according to his dictates, works and worships according to the pattern he has given” (1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1). Brother Scott knows what I mean by what I wrote because I told him so before he wrote his article in Sentry.

What brother Scott is reacting to is “church versus church” preaching. My article was written to point out that denominationalism is not the same as the Lord’s one true church! What can be seen of the Lord’s church is seen in the local church! It is “organized ac-cording to his dictates” with its own elders, deacons, etc. (Phil. 1:1). It “worships and works according to the pattern he has given” as it meets regularly to lay by in store (1 Cor. 16:1-2), partakes of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7), teaches God’ s word (Acts 20:7), prays, sings and uses the Lord’s funds in helping needy saints (Acts 11:28-30) and supporting those preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8-9). Who would deny that?

Why the clamor and challenge concerning “church versus church” writings and preaching? It seems to me that there are some brethren who include some of those in denominational churches with the saved of God simply because they were “baptized for the remission of sins.” My article hit a tender spot.

The bottom line of it all revolves around the subject of revealed religion versus unrevealed religion. Revealed religion is seen in the organization of the local church, its work and worship as described above versus the unrevealed religion of denominationalism. In brother Scott’s article Sentry (pp. 11-12), he states:

However, sometimes we use a highly denominational concept of the church when we evangelize. An approach which I used to use (emp. mine, b.r.h.) is what I call the “one true church” approach. I would begin by reading all the verses which talk about the one church. Then I would show the prospect the identifying marks of the “one true church”: It’s led by elders (1 Pet. 5:1-2); uses only vocal singing (Eph. 5:19); takes the Lord’s supper every Sunday (Acts 20:7), etc. But this presentation is based on taking the principle of the one universal church, then applying passages to it that are actually describing the work, organization, and worship of local churches.

When I wrote of the “one true church you can read about in the Bible that is organized according to his dictates, works and worships ac-cording to his pattern” I was writing about revealed religion. Have we reached the point that we cannot preach the difference between revealed and unrevealed religion?

I would not for a moment judge the heart of brother Scott as to his motive for knowingly misrepresenting what I believe but, the fact is that he did misrepresent me and I do not want those who read my article and then read his article to thank that I hold to such false teaching.

It seems to me that he was so desperate to find something that would prove an imagined evil (emphasizing the church to the neglect of Christ) that he was grasping for straws when he used my article as evidence. There may be some among conservative brethren who hold the view that the church universal is made-up of local churches but, brother Scott knew when he wrote this article that I was as opposed to them as he is. Why he left the impression that I believed that the church universal is made up of local congregations, when he knew that was not true, I will leave for him to explain.

In the meantime, let me assure you that I have not out grown preaching that contrasts the Lord’s revealed religion (his church) from humanly devised religion (the denominations of men). Brother Scott seems to indicate that he has made some changes in his preaching and teaching as to the subject of revealed religion versus unrevealed religion (note: “An approach which I used to use. . .,” Sentry, pp. 11-12). In a letter from him dated January 11, 1994 he states that he has not outgrown preaching that contrasts the Lord’s revealed religion from humanly devised religion and “categorically denies that he has.” Inasmuch as he has criticized how his brethren abuse “church versus church” preaching and he says he has not outgrown it we will be looking for a series of articles from him to show us how it should be done.

Again, let me say that what can be seen of the one true church is seen in the local church in its God-given organization. No, the church universal is not made up of local churches. It is made up of the saved throughout the world. When one teaches and preaches the difference between the denominational churches (unrevealed religion) and the local church arrangement of God’s people (revealed religion) in organization, work and worship he is preaching the Truth! I have used an illustration that I believe is appropriate. “If you want to see just how crooked a stick is, hold it up beside one that is perfectly straight.” In preaching the difference between revealed religion and unrevealed religion one is doing just that.

I sincerely regret having to publish this correction of brother Scott’s article and only resort to submitting this article after my repeated attempts to persuade him to correct it failed. I do not hold any animosity toward brother Scott, although I believe he has publicly misrepresented me.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 8-9
September 15, 1994

By Norman E. Fultz

“It doesn’t matter what one believes if he is honest and sincere,” we’ve often heard it said. Many prominent leaders in religious circles today advocate it and their attendants accept it, at least on the surface.

But is it possible .. .

That God really doesn’t care what one teaches or believes?

That one doctrine really is just as good as any other?

That one religion is truly as good as another?

You’ve likely heard that sentiment, maybe even voiced it yourself. It is an appealing idea and can do much to relieve the threat of offense to another who is of a different persuasion. But, really now, where did such great wisdom come from? Is it from heaven or is it of men (Matt. 21:25)? Does it matter that it might be of men (Matt. 15: 8-9)? Kind reader, I suggest to you most candidly that it is not of God, but of man; and it does matter. Let’s consider .. .

If it really makes no difference, there cannot be such a thing as false doctrine or teaching! Yet the Bible is replete with warnings against false teachers and false teaching (doctrine). Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing.” He compared them to corrupt trees that bear corrupt fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). He also stated clearly that it was possible for some to worship him vainly because of teaching doctrines whose origin is in men (Matt. 15:8-9). Further, he taught that if one is blindly led by blind leaders, they shall both fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:14), their honestly and sincerity notwithstanding.

Additionally, the apostles who were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13), sternly warned against perverting that which they delivered. Hear Paul in Galatians 1:8-9, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.” First century believers were admonished to “try (test) the spirits (teachers), whether they be of God” (1 Jn. 4:1). Some will teach “fables” to tickle the ears of their audience (2 Tim. 4:2-4). And while it may be difficult to understand, God will allow one to believe a lie to this own condemnation who “receives not the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The very fact that there were Bible characters who were honest and sincere in their persuasions, but whose persuasions did not meet God’s approval is further testimony to the falsity of the thought stated at the beginning of this treatise. Saul of Tarsus who became the great apostle Paul was honest and sincere in the “Jew’s religion” (Gal. 1:14; Acts 23:1). He always labored to have a conscience void of offense before God and man (Acts 24:16), but it was not good enough. The treasurer of Ethiopia was so devout as to travel perhaps a thousand miles by chariot to worship according to the best of his understanding, but Philip the evangelist was commissioned by the Spirit to “preach Christ” unto him from the very scripture where the man was reading. And we learned from him that one who is truly honest and sincere, when he comes into new truth, will readily respond unto it (Acts 8:26-40). And the Roman commander, Cornelius, a worshipper of God, a good and devout man, and a good citizen, was told to “hear words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 10:1-11:18).

Kind reader, it simply is not true that it makes no difference what one believes. If it makes no difference what one believes, ultimately we must conclude that it makes no difference what the Bible says. But the teaching of Scripture is, “If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Being religious or saying, “Lord, Lord” is insufficient (Lk. 6:46). One’s salvation rests upon his doing God’s will (Matt. 7:21-23). Put your religious beliefs to the test of God’s word. Try those who teach, for it does make a difference what one believes.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 7
September 15, 1994