Truth Magazine

By Roy H. Lanier, Jr.

It has been puzzling to me as I read some of the new papers, magazines, and bulletins seen recently across our nation. Somehow I have been missing something. I cannot quite understand what is being said.

Then it dawned on me that I was not using the right dictionary. When I stumbled across the idea of this glossary and began to use it, things began to clear.

If you wish to understand some of our brethren, take note of the following definitions:

Conservative: a person with selfish motives steeped in tradition and ignorance.

Liberal: an altruistic person with pure, high, and holy motives for the church, who has a higher level of learning, and who waits patiently for conservatives to be enlightened.

Ultra-conservative: any conservative who disagrees with a liberal, resists change, and does not accept the higher level of learning and sophistication.

Ultra-liberal: no such word, never used, never heard of it!

Right-winger: anyone who disagrees with a liberal and is hurting the church by outdated preaching; a “proof-texter,” and a “Bible-spouter,” can only quote a lot of scripture.

Left-winger: no such person in the church today!

Women’s freedom: free at last, praise God, free at last; at least to compete with men for all activities, especially those that pertain to public appearances.

Authentic woman: one who holds liberal views, demands equal time and pay with men, vigorous, outspoken, aggressive, willing to attack preachers and elders to show them their dinosaur ways.

Progressive: connecting to the culture, speaking to the “boomers and busters,” fulfilling human potential, and responsive to youth and authentic women.

Traditional: refuses to connect, fulfill, or be responsive, set in ways of dinosaur worship and study.

Extremist: anyone critical of “change agents.”

Tolerance: one who accepts identity with other streams of the “American Restoration Denomination,” broad-minded and loving enough to accept denominational brethren.

Victims: anyone suffering criticism from traditional right-wingers.

Worship change: realizing freedoms and potentials of all folks to ape denominational forms of worship.

Equality: a woman doing every-thing a man can do, no submission, no following, but showing the beauty of feminine potential and power.

Church renewal: changes to suit teens and young teens and young twenties, the worldly, and all the friends in denominations.

Worship renewal: making enough changes in worship songs and forms so that all well-known songs and ways are never used again.

Non-sexist: a man who will agree with a woman liberal.

church of Christ (lower case “c”): one in the New Testament.

 

Church of Christ (upper case “C”): one of three denominations born of the American Restoration Movement, and the one that is presently in the U.S.A., and the one that is perhaps, just perhaps, closest to the Bible.

Change agent: a person in a congregation helping a traditional Church of Christ to be a church of Christ.

Old hermeneutic: inadequate interpretive methods used only by legalists, proof-texters, Bible thumpers, and such as ignore context, history, culture, and eschatology.

New hermeneutic: an enlightened new method in response to being better educated, one that understands and applies New Testament teaching ac-cording to our modern culture.

New Testament: a love letter from the Lord.

Core gospel: teachings found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the only applicable teachings to our enlightened and educated generation.

Epistles: only the way certain first century teachers tried to apply the true “Core gospel” to their congregations and cultures.

(With apologies to the Wall Street Journal, January 21, 1994, p. A14 in an article by Dennis Prager!)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 8
September 1, 1994

By Tom Roberts

The responsibility of the negative in a debate is to follow the affirmative and answer his arguments. I have done this and Vance’s proposition has failed. I will affirm a proposition in a second debate to be carried later in GOT.

Fellowship: Vance labels as sinful the practice of elders making decisions. Will he fellowship what he considers sinful? His views will divide brethren in local churches.

Leadership & Authority: Collectivities (congregations, families, etc.) require decision-making to reach a common mind, whether by elders or church votes. Leader-ship and authority are inherent in decisions. Evangelists and Bible class teachers have no authority but elders do (1 Pet. 5:3). This oversight includes private decision-making (Acts 6, 11, 15, etc.). I refuse to debate Luther Blackmon or any other than Vance. But if Christ has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) without delegating any, explain why resisting authorities (magistrates, fathers, husbands, elders) is to resist God (Rom. 13:1-5; Eph. 6:4; 5:22; Acts 14:23).

Oversight: Voting is leadership authority or minorities and women would not insist on their right to vote. Vance avoided the consequences of my questions regarding women voting. A vote is an absolute expression of authority that knows no gender and respects no higher authority; there is no “submissive” vote and does not “meekly express an opinion for the group to consider.” Even more than consensus, voting opens the door to female equality in decision-making. A 13-year old Christian girl would have the same power in voting as elders (Acts 20:28). The lexical definition he seeks: Bishop, overseer (episkopos), 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, . . .” (Thayer, p. 243). Jesus is overseer, elders are overseers and it means the same in both cases (1 Pet 2:25; 5:3). Vance says Jesus as overseer can make decisions but elders as overseers cannot make decisions. We do not agree on oversight; it clearly permits decision-making.

Vine, Voting and Consensus: Vine on voting (cheirotoneo, p. 69) is not confusing. Noting the primary meaning, he states that it is “not to be taken in its literal sense” (cf: Acts 10:41; 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19). Dokeo (Vine, p. 340) does not support voting (Acts 15:22, 28). Vance’s “authority” (The Interpreter’s Bible) is a commentary, not a lexicon, that likewise says Paul is “less than Christian” (Vol. 10, p. 126) in his view on women (1 Cor. 11:2-16)! Is that scholarship? “General agreement in matters of judgment” is not guaranteed by consensus or voting. Either the voting majority decides the issue (51% wins  49% loses) or chaos results. God’s way is to have qualified elders who conclude the discussion. Congregational meetings (Acts 6, 15, etc.) do not negate private decision-making in those same passages any more than faith in Mark 16:16 negates baptism. But voting and elder oversight are mutually exclusive.

Hebrews 13:7,17: Are there “chief men” like Judas and Silas today? If so, what are there qualifications? If those of Hebrews 13 were considered “chief” because they “spoke the word of God,” would this not authorize evangelistic oversight? Vance wants us to “obey” and “submit” to “chief men” (with no stated qualifications) but rejects “obeying” and “submitting” to elders who have stated qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). Vance assumed “obey” referred to matters of “the faith” and not “judgment.” If “hegeomai isn’t limited to elders,” could we agree that hegeomai applies to elders at all? Is it scriptural to submit to and obey elders?

Acts 6: Vance knew that I did not believe elders can decide matters of faith and cannot appoint women to be leaders. Radical feminism will never trouble the church which accepts scriptural elders but it will when matters are decided by the vote! Vance has opened the door to female leadership. Decisions were made in Acts 6 before and without calling the congregation together (the apostles selected 7 men, not 6 or 8, surely a matter of judgment). If you want to use this to take the Lord’s supper on Tuesday, it will be your decision, not mine.

Acts 15:22: Galatians 2 with Acts 15 shows that there were private decision meetings with the apostles and elders that did not include the whole church. Acts 16:4 states that the decrees were “determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” These facts destroy Vance’s proposition. Private decisions by elders are authorized by the word of God.

Acts 15:6-7: Not all matters of Acts 15 referred to matters of salvation; some included items of judgment. Refer to my previous negative. We do not agree and our difference is clear.

Galatians 2:2-9: Consideration of my previous negative material will prove that I responded to Vance’s material. Not all decisions of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 were matters of faith. Titus’ circumcision, a religious liberty (Gal. 5:6), affected the whole church and a private decision was made not to circumcise. Private decisions on matters of liberty are authorized.

1 Corinthians 5: Vance’s inexperience fails to realize that scandalous matters can destroy the faith of the weak and babes and they should be protected (Rom. 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7, 9-12). While sin must be dealt with in the congregation, the lurid details must be contained by mature brethren.

1 Corinthians 6: How can this passage be an individual matter since verse one suggests going to law (court) before “saints” and was addressed to the church? Paul used hyperbole (v. 5) to emphasize “is there not a wise man among you, not even one” (more than one is implied) who could settle the dispute. The decision affected the whole church in that the “wise men” acted on behalf of the church to keep the matter out of Gentile courts. The last step of Matthew 18 could be handled identically to 1 Corinthians 6:1 after the first two steps are handled individually. The congregation can be represented by agency (2 Cor. 8:23), either by messengers or by wise men who settle disputes for the church. Authorized agency action is church action.

Acts 11:27-30: I’ll state it again: since the elders received the money, they had to distribute it. Decisions necessarily inferred: who are needy? how much do they need? how long will they need it? The elders had to make these decisions. As messengers, Paul and Barnabas could make no decision but to deliver it to the elders who accepted the responsibility of oversight.

Without elders: Vance may affirm a pattern of a congregational consensus under male leadership all he wants to, but when he advocated the vote he abandoned male leadership for feminine equality. We have congregational meetings every week in which women participate in authorized activities (singing, praying, etc.), none prohibiting them. But it does not follow that women are authorized in business meetings to cast equal votes any more than they are authorized to preach. 1 Peter 5:5 must not be arrayed against 1 Timothy 2:12 nor 1 Peter 5:2. If “being submissive” (1 Pet. 5:5) means women in business meetings with equal votes, it also means women in the pulpit. Apostasy will not stop with voting and Vance has opened the gate!

With Elders: The KJV and NKJV states: “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men. . .” (Acts 15:22). It is clear that a congregational meeting took place in Acts 15, but equally clear that private meetings took place in which decisions of judgment were reached. Vance’s error creates an eldership figurehead that makes no decisions while voting (including women) decides everything for the congregation. This is oversight?

Acting by Agency: Though it “baffles” Vance, when the seven men of Acts 6 took care of the widows, the church acted through them. This is corporate action by agency: deacons at work, preachers at work, elders at work. Must every member visit every widow or can the church act through the deacons? Must the whole church be involved in every decision or does the church act through the elders (Acts 11:30)? Elders are authorized to exercise oversight even as Christ and the apostles exercised oversight (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:25; 2 Cor. 5:20). Not all oversight is of the type elders have (Heb. 12:15), but elder oversight includes acting for the church.

Vance’s Questions: (1) Vance did imply that deacons made decisions when he answered my question 1N #5: “the church gathered and chose servants (diakoneo) to do that in Acts 6.” Deacons may decide (without a congregational meeting) how many loaves of bread to buy. If deacons can make judgment decisions without consulting the congregation, so can the elders. (2) A woman voting her conscience is not “meekly expressing her opinion.” A vote is a decision equal to that of a man (a violation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12). A woman is not in subjection while voting; her vote nullifies her husband’s or another male’s vote. (3) Vance doesn’t understand authority if he thinks voting doesn’t give a woman authority. He has opened Pandora’s box for the feminists. (4) Vance’s position on voting gives women leadership authority. It is inconsistent of him to deny them leadership in teaching or public worship.

Dictatorship, Democracy, and the NT: The whole church can come to “one accord” (Acts 15:25; 1 Cor. 1:10) under eldership oversight and godly submission (Heb. 13:7, 17): the expressed will of God (1 Pet. 5:3). Consensus and voting is human wisdom. God’s way works.

Conclusion: Vance’s proposition has not been sustained; we don’t agree. On the other hand, we have proven beyond doubt that private decisions by males (apostles, elders) were reached without the congregation being present. Eldership oversight that permits private decisions in matters of judgment is scriptural. Consensus brings confusion. “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Gr Rom. 14:19). My affirmative arguments which follow will sustain eldership oversight.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 26-27
August 18, 1994

By Jamie Hinds

The debate over the necessity of baptism for salvation has raged for centuries. The bottom line seems to be, though, that baptism is  according to the simple reading and understanding of the Scriptures  absolutely essential to our eternal salvation.

The Lord himself said, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). To many, this verse is clear and very much to the point  if we believe and have been baptized, we will be saved. Yet, it has been argued by faithless men and women that one can be saved by believing only, that baptism is a mere sign of an inward feeling. Such is not only unscriptural, it is an open attack upon the authority of Christ given to him by God. Too, it is a demonstration of a heart that does not believe in God’s omniscience or in his ability to communicate accurately his will to his creation (2 Pet. 1:3).

According to the gospel of Luke, “And when all the people and the tax gatherers heard (Jesus’ preaching), they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John” (Lk. 7:29-30). How did the people and the tax-gatherers acknowledge God’s justice? By being baptized according to John’s baptism. And being baptized according to the baptism of John. I believe Luke 7:29-30 is parallel in application to Mark 16:16.

For “he who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be damned.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 4
September 1, 1994

By Vance E. Trefethen

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).” I ask each reader to join me in affirming this proposition.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in my articles are my own and are net intended to represent in any way the views of the elders or members of my home congregation.

Definitions: “The Scriptures”  the 66 books of the Bible. “Teach”  instruct by command, example, or necessary inference. “Pattern”  “anything proposed for or worthy of imitation” (Webster College Dictionary 5th Ed.). “Decision-making in matters of congregational judgment ”  actions of a local church that involve (1) choosing between several scripturally authorized courses of collective action by selecting the one most advantageous under that congregation’s circumstances; or (2) making a determination in some matter affecting the congregation that God has left to human reasoning to figure out, while following whatever inspired principles may govern the matter in general; distinguished from “matters of faith,” which are doctrines and principles decided by Deity. “Include”  “to take in or comprise as a part of the whole” (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary). “Whole church (including women)”  all the male and female members of a local ekklesia, or congregation, of Christians. “Under male leadership”  subject to the instruction, teaching, presiding or chairmanship over a group by one or more male Christians, as is commonly practiced by male adult Bible class teachers and male song-leaders. “All local churches (both with and without elders)”  every congregation of Christians, regardless of whether they have pastors (or bishops, or presbyters, all of which are synonymous with elders).

What this debate is not about: (1) It is not about Feminism. We both oppose the evil influence of Feminism on the church and the family. (2) It is not about women serving as preachers or bishops. I object to such violations of God’s plan for women. (3) It is not about whether churches should have elders or whether elders have leadership, oversight, or responsibility in the local church. (4) It is not about whether elders or a few Christians may ever meet privately to discuss the work of the local church. I’ve met privately many times with fellow-Christians, elders, and family members to talk about the work of the local church, and the Bible contains approved examples of such private meetings.

What this debate is about: This debate is about what constitutes the Bible pattern for congregational decision-making in matters of judgment and whether private meetings have authority to make decisions in matters of judgment and bind them on the congregation at large. It will be accompanied by another debate, which I will publish along with this one in a single volume, in which Tom will affirm that matters of judgment may be decided privately without the whole congregation.

Some believe elders may, should, or must decide some or all congregational matters privately. (The qualifiers are supplied because all who believe in private decision-making don’t agree on all the particulars.) And some teach that churches without elders should have men only business meetings as a “substitute” for elders to privately make decisions in matters of judgment for the whole church. There are lots of other private methods of decision-making churches might want to use as well. But any system of decision-making proposed for any local church must stand or fall solely on the basis of whether it is authorized in the Bible. If the NT shows churches making decisions privately by elders or men’s business meetings or some other private method, then churches should follow that pattern, to the exclusion of all other methods. But if the NT shows that churches always decided matters of judgment by involving the whole church under male leadership, then that is the pattern churches today should follow to the exclusion of all others.

Arguments: 1. Acts 6:1-6. It is a matter of divinely revealed faith that males should lead congregational work, and a matter of faith as to their qualifications. It is a matter of judgment to select which particular males meet the qualification and should be appointed to do the work. The easiest way to handle this would have been for the apostles to hold a private meeting and decide everything for the congregation. Instead, they followed a more cumbersome course of action and “called the multitude of the disciples” together to handle the matter. The Apostles explicitly avoided the most “expedient” method in favor of involving the whole church. Anyone who would have prohibited women from attending this meeting would have been encouraging the women to violate the Apostles’ command. It is disturbing that some may prohibit women from doing what the Apostles command women to do (cf. Rom. 10:2).

“And the saying pleased the whole multitude” (6:5) shows the presence of the whole church. “. . . And they chose Stephen, a man full of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus. . .” (6:5). The antecedent of “they” is the whole multitude, which is synonymous with the “whole church” of my proposition. “They chose … [7 men]” meets the definition of decision-making among scripturally authorized alternatives. The inspired men gave the qualifications, while the whole church exercised judgment in choosing men who met the qualifications. The whole church was called together, the whole church agreed to appoint men, and the whole church chose the men, all under male leadership (the Apostles, with 7 other males selected as leaders over the benevolent work), in a congregation where no elders are mentioned. Acts 6:1-6 meets all the requirements of my proposition for a church without elders.

2. Acts 15:12-27. There are two types of “decisions” in this chapter. Peter said, “God made choice” (15:7) about the Gentiles hearing the Gospel. Acts 15:28-29 shows that the Holy Spirit revealed what doctrines were binding on the Gentiles. None of the deliberations or activities in Acts 15 could have changed God’s decision. None of our meetings or discussions today can change anything God has decided, either.

But Acts 15:12-27 shows a congregational decision made by the Jerusalem church about communicating a message to the church at Antioch. Acts 15:12 says “the multitude” was present for the discussion of the doctrinal matter of faith concerning Gentile salvation, and the con-text continues with the issue of communication with the Antioch church. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren” (15:22, KJV).

The Holy Spirit did not send or choose the men. The church handled it as a matter of judgment. “22. It seemed good (edoxee), `it was voted’  the Greek word being that regularly used for taking a decision in assembly” (The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 9, p. 205). “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas” (NIV).

Acts 15 shows that “the multitude” (15:12), “the apostles and elders with the whole church” (15:22), “having assembled with one accord” (15:27), decided to send chosen men, and made the choice of Judas and Silas as the particular men (15:22). The process of decision-making included the whole church under male leadership (Apostles and elders, with two males selected as messengers/leaders), meeting all the requirements of my proposition for a church with elders.

3. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13. This passage uses the second meaning of “matters of judgment” given earlier. God has decided that sexual immorality, covetousness, etc., are sinful and that Christians who practice them should be purged out of a local church. The decision we make is a judgment about whether someone is practicing these sins and has reached the point of needing to have this passage invoked upon them. A church must make judgments about erring members: “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Cor. 5:12) How does a church make this judgment?

“In the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4-5). Who gathers together? They are “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), which was made up of male and female members (cf. 1 Cor. 7:15-16). We must infer that this takes place under male leadership from 1 Timothy 2:11,12, which would regulate the conduct of the men and women. Paul said the things he wrote were for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 12). Therefore, decision-making in a matter of judgment must include the whole church (1 Cor. 5:4), including women, under male leadership (1 Tim. 2:11-12) in all local churches (1 Cor. 1:2).

4. Matthew 18:15-17. This is similar to 1 Corinthians 5 because it requires a church to render judgment in the matter of a sinning member, but in this case one accused of sinning personally against a fellow-saint. Christians must follow the steps Jesus gave to resolve the matter privately. If the accused doesn’t hear the individual, or the witnesses, it becomes an issue for “the church.” We’ve all studied the meaning of ekklesia, “church,” for many years. Ekklesia refers to an assembly or congregation, and this passage teaches that decision-making in matters of congregational judgment involves the whole church (ekklesia) including women (because women are part of the ekklesia) under the male leadership (1 Tim. 2:11-12) in all local churches (because Jesus has authority to command all saints to observe this, cf. Matt. 28:16), with or without elders.

Questions for Tom: (1) Can a church ever decide a matter of judgment by including the whole church under male leadership? If so, what passage authorizes it? (2) Is there a pattern for decision-making in churches without elders? (3) Are elders limited by command, example, and necessary inference in the way they lead a church? (4) Is there any example of elders in a NT church deciding a matter of judgment without including the whole church? (5) Does ekklesia ever refer to a private meeting of elders or male-Christians-only in the NT? (6) Does any Scripture authorize any unqualified men to act as “substitutes” for elders?

Conclusions: I used to believe and practice private decision-making. I changed because of two facts: (1) The New Testament gives a clear pattern of decision-making in matters of judgment: the whole church under male leader-ship; (2) No command, example, or inference shows a church handling matters of congregational judgment any other way. Four cases command or exemplify the method of decision-making I affirm. No passage teaches anyone to make decisions without involving the whole church. Please join me in affirming that we must follow the inspired pattern in all that we do in service to God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 14-15
August 18, 1994