Truth Magazine

By Tom Roberts

My worst fears are being realized in that, as the debate advances, Vance is progressing deeper into error, affirming a position with dreadful consequences of feminine equality and denial of eldership oversight which some will accept. The negative requires that I answer his material yet not allow him to side-track me into debating other men or affirming a non-existent GOT position. I fear he confuses criticism of a public position with persecution (Matt. 5:11).

Observations. Congregational participation under male leadership is our practice in most assemblies and does not contradict elder oversight or allow women equal authority in decision-making. Vance grants women decision-making authority without admitting leadership. Conversely, he speaks of elders having leadership without making decisions. But decision-making is a form of leadership and elders who decide nothing are figureheads and not leaders.

Pattern continents: I do not misrepresent his test of fellowship since he advocates a “pattern” (his book, pp. 24, 26, etc.), and any alternative is “as foreign to the New Testament as is instrumental music” (p. 107, quoting Lynn Trapp). As with music, he has drawn a line. Acts 15 the sole pattern? My affirmative will show passages in addition to Acts 15.

Authority of Elders Comments: If evangelists are to “speak with all authority,” but make no decisions, is this true of elders? No, evangelists and elders occupy separate functions and elders are specifically charged to “exercise the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2). His reference to GOT [4/21/94] is a misapplication. The author denied anyone the right to “enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ.” I agree. The church is not a democracy but a spiritual body with Christ as its head and the law of Christ is eldership oversight, not consensus! Though not in his proposition, consensus is taught repeatedly in his book and is the heart of this debate. Now he has gone beyond consensus and specifically endorsed church voting instead of eldership oversight. One person/one vote is a subversion of truth! Every voting person has an absolutely equal voice. Vance denies believing in feminism but a church vote knows no gender, acknowledges no maturity, and respects no sub-mission. Voting changes female participation to female leadership and female majority gives women control of the church. He cannot give women the vote in one breath and deny them leadership with the next. Subjection does not exist in the ballot box. Consensus might include persuasion but voting is raw majority rule, removes women from their subjection to men (1 Tim. 2:11-15), and the congregation from submission to elders (Heb. 13:7, 17). Once the principle of female leadership is introduced, the door cannot be shut. Others will allow co-teaching in Bible classes, women serving the table or preaching.

What A. Campbell said about voting is as irrelevant as what he said about the missionary society and wrong in both cases. The “casting lots” of Acts 1:6 decided nothing but indicated God’s choice (1:24). Vance’s quote on Acts 15:22 is misleading. Thayer says of “seemed good”: “1. To be of opinion, think, suppose… 3.b. it seemed good to, pleased, me; I determined” (p. 154). It is also used in Acts 15:28 and his “interpretation” would reduce the Holy Spirit to a vote no greater than that of the youngest female member! Compare its use in Acts 14:23: did Paul and Barnabas “vote” or “appoint” elders? Vine explains that stretching forth the hand “is not to be taken in its literal sense . . . . since it is said of God, Acts 10:41,” and adds: “It is also said of those who were appointed (not by voting, but with general approbation) . . . 2 Cor. 8:19” (Vine, p. 69).

Private Decision Comments: Acts 6. He asserted it is “without divine authority” for private decisions to be made without the whole church. But my negative cited seven private decisions of the apostles, and his assertion changes nothing.

Acts 15; Galatians 2. Private meetings with elders and other men took place as specifically stated (Acts 15:2, 6; Gal. 2:2). Decisions were made for the whole church regarding matters of judgment: to accept Paul in fellow-ship (Gal. 2:9; Acts 9:26-28); spheres of service (Paul to Gentiles; Peter to the Jews); that Titus would not be circumcised (indifferent to God, 1 Cor. 7:19, but with congregational implications, Gal. 2:4-5). So Galatians 2:9 doesn’t backfire on me. Elders cannot alter the plan of salvation (Acts 15:70, but they can oppose false teachers, support truth and decide in areas of judgment.

1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Congregational action in chapter 5 does not negate the private decisions in chapter 6. There, individual judgmental matters having congregational implications were decided by one or more. Personal disputes should be handled by wise men in the church and not the heathen (6:1). Using hyperbole, Paul asked if there is not even one “among you” (the church, v. 5) who could “judge between his brethren.” The wisest in the church ought to be the elders who “judge” (decide) disputed matters between members so that it does not destroy the whole congregation.

Acts 11:27-30. It is understood that the money that came to the needy churches from the messengers, Paul and Barnabas, was sent and received for benevolence. A decision by a receiving eldership to buy a “new meeting tent” would have been sinful. Vance missed the point. The elders, having received the money for benevolence, yet had to make decisions: who was to receive it; how much was each to receive; how long was it to be given, etc.

Male leadership in absence of elders. His syllogism is faulty since he shifts terms from A to B. “Male leadership” is not the same as “men and women in decision-making.” He assumed what he failed to prove.

Scandalous Matters, Sensitive Matters. The whole church can be involved in discipline without requiring that every member (babes in Christ, weak in faith, young in age) know the sordid details. Consideration by mature elders is not the same as baring it to those whose faith might be destroyed. “Fornication” before the church is one thing; the shocking evidence that proves fornication is another. Benevolence can also be sensitive. The church should be aware of the needs of brethren without financial disclosure that would discourage and embarrass those in need. A wise eldership can avoid congregational problems by privately dealing with scandalous and sensitive information.

Past questions: (1) See material on voting above. (2) Since Vance accepts that an “agency” acting is the same as the church acting, he needs to tell us what is wrong with an eldership acting “for, or on behalf of the congregation. In Acts 6, the seven men acted “for, or on behalf of ” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation caring for the needy saints. In Acts 11:27-30, the eldership received the funds “for, or on behalf of ” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation receiving the funds. He accepts agency provided “the congregation has asked an `agency’ to act on its behalf.” But God has commanded agency: eldership oversight. Let the reader choose: “Tend to the flock of God which is among you, (arriving at consensus), (counting the ballots), (giving women equal authority) or (exercising the oversight).” (3)

Vance said “No,” that a majority of women cannot rule over a minority of men. But he approves of voting and each vote counts. A majority of women who vote outnumber a minority of men who vote. Why is that not overturning the decision of men? Why is that church not controlled by women? (4) Vance accepts that deacons can “decide the multitudes of decisions” about buying supplies for the church. But why are deacons qualified to make decisions “before and without calling together the whole congregation” and elders are not? If deacons are “appointed” (Acts 6:2) and elders are “appointed” (Acts 14:23), why are deacons empowered to make decisions, and elders not empowered? The qualifications relate each to the work to be done. (5) Vance described a stalemate in consensus when “leaders disagree with the multitude.” Exactly! Every collectively must have a mechanism for avoiding stalemates. In a democracy, voting provides it; in the home, it is husbands (Eph. 5:23); in the church, elders are appointed to make decisions for the collectivity.

Vance’s Questions: (1) A “rump meeting” of a few rebels is an unauthorized meeting and violates 1 Peter 5:5b, among others. Elderships have authorized meetings (1 Pet. 5:2). (2) Jesus has been given “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) and as law-giver has ordained elders be appointed to “oversee” and “shepherd” the collectivity. Vance under-stands this with deacons but objects to it with elders. (3) Yes. (4) I did not concede that women are authorized to attend business meetings. Acts 6, etc., authorizes congregational meetings in which women are present under male leadership. In these assemblies, women may participate short of assuming decision-making authority. God has placed women in subjection under men (1 Tim. 2:11-15) but Vance’s voting would make them equal. Men do not prohibit women from doing any authorized activity.

Questions for Vance: (1) What passages permit deacons the right to make decisions on behalf of the congregation but prohibit elders from making decisions? (2) How can a woman vote her conscience yet remain in subjection when she disagrees with her husband and the elders? (3) Does voting give women leadership authority? (4) Can a woman co-teach a Bible class in the church so long as she is under subjection to her male co-teacher?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 21-22
August 18, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

The statement of our title appears only a few tunes in the Bible. Achan, Saul, David and the wandering, squandering son all said, “I have sinned” (Josh. 7:20; 1 Sam. 15:24; 2 Sam. 12:13; Lk. 15:18). How often have you said it? Perhaps, like myself, you have not said it often enough. Even when we know we are wrong, even when we see our errors, we still find it difficult to say, “I have sinned.” It is easier to say, “Well, I was mistaken, or “I should have known better.” Somehow, we just cannot find a way to simply acknowledge, have sinned.”

How much happier would your home be if you would say, “Honey, I have sinned, and I am sorry for treating you the way I did. Will you please forgive me?

Children, how much more pleas-ant would life be if you were to go to your dear mother and father and say, “Mom and Dad, I have sinned against you in what I did, and I am sorry, Will you please forgive me?”

Many families and many relationships could be restored if we would all repent and confess that I have sinned.” Broken homes, embittered hearts and divided brethren could again be united in sweet love aid fellowship if some soul would, simply say, “I have sinned.” “Lord, as it I?”

Ultimately, all sin is against God, as the texts that cc parry our topic indicate. I must say t the Lord “I have sinned” If you know you need to do so, why not do it now? You will never be more loving and lovable than when you say, “I have sinned.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 13
August 18, 1994

By Mickey Galloway

In referring to the backbone of the church I have in mind the firmness, the moral courage, the stand for the truth, the spine of the church itself. There are certain “straws” that we should be alarmed about because they are breaking the church’s back. What are some of these “straws”?

Sin Is Ignored

Worldliness is not rebuked and lukewarmness is prevalent. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebuked the Corinthians because fornication was among them and they were not alarmed. The apostle Paul tells them, “And ye are puffed up and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you” (1 Cor. 5:2). Lukewarmness is not to be tolerated. God certainly will not tolerate it. Revelation 3:16 says concerning the church at Laodicea, “So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

Lack of Conviction

Men either act from conviction, because they believe a thing with all their heart, or from convenience, because a thing is as easy to do as not to do and there is an advantage to be gained from doing it. Why do you attend the assemblies? Is it because you want to worship God (cf. John 4:24; Psa.122:1)? Is it a matter of conviction (cf. Heb. 10:24,25) or are other things more appealing because they are more convenient? Have you obeyed the gospel from the heart (Rom. 6:17) or have you not found a convenient time?

Conviction is illustrated in the decision of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as they spoke to king Nebuchadnezzar. When asked if “it is of purpose . . . that ye serve not my god nor worship the golden image which I have set up,” these brave young men responded, “. . . Be it known unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” These were determined to do what is right regardless of the consequences. May the Lord increase their kind.

Changes in Preaching

Efforts are being made to change our preaching, re-model the gospel and modernize the church. I was in the audience when a young man spoke disparagingly of those who would preach on such things as “adultery, instrumental music and institutionalism.” This young man stated that “these things are not relevant to salvation anyway.”

Others have stated “that God does not expect us to be completely, doctrinally correct.” Statements such as these emphatically illustrate the truthfulness of the apostle Paul’s statement to Timothy, “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lust; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.”

What Is the Cause of Such Dangerous Tendencies?

Certainly the cause can be attributed to any number of things. Possibly it is success which makes it easy to outgrow our plea for simple New Testament Christianity. Maybe it is that we have less opposition. Once it was hard to be a Christian because of great hardships and persecutions which apparently strengthened the early church (Rom. 5:3-5). There is little indoctrination and that is certain to result in tragic consequences. The church is filled with people who know little about the doctrine of Christ and thus fail to abide in his doctrine (2 Jn. 9). Maybe compromise with our religious neighbors in attitudes toward doctrine and morality has shared in causing these modern trends within the church.

What Is the Solution?

The solution is greater respect for the authority of the Scriptures and more firmness in practicing New Testament Christianity. Consider: Jude 3; Ephesians 4:14,15; Titus 1:13,14; Galatians 1:6-9. From these it is evident that truth is fixed, unalterable and unchangeable. Preaching truth is certain to disturb some. Paul asked the Galatians, “So then am I become you enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16) Genesis 1:1 disturbs the atheist. Exodus 20:3 disturbs the heathen. Hebrews 11:6 disturbs the moralists. Yet Paul told Timothy to preach the word (2 Tim. 4:2). Paul commanded the Ephesians to “stand” (Eph. 6:13,14). One cannot stand for something and not stand against some-thing, for truth stands against error.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned from the past. Apostasy soon came in the first century church as was prophesied (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:3,4). What has happened can happen again if we allow too many worldly straws to collect on the backbone of the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 8
August 18, 1994

By Karl Diestelkamp

It has been many, many years since we, in the greater Chicago land area, have had an opportunity to attend a debate between brethren occupying different positions in reference to the benevolent work of the church. David Padfield of Zion, Illinois, met Mac Deaver of Wellington, Texas, June 20, 21, 23 and 24, in debate, with the first two nights held in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Schaumburg church and the 23rd Street church in Zion challenged Padfield for the debate and endorsed Deaver. The Lewis Avenue church in Zion endorsed Padfield and provided the meeting house for the last two nights.

Attendance was 176, 125, 183 and 147 for the four nights with by far the greater number of those attending being from non-institutional churches. The debaters and those who came to hear manifested courtesy and a good spirit demonstrating that debates can provide a wholesome atmosphere for study of subjects on which brethren disagree.

The first two nights Deaver’s affirmative proposition was, “The Scriptures teach that a local church may grant benevolent aid to alien sinners.” His main support for his proposition was expressed in the following syllogism:

1. “All things that the individual can do because he is a Christian are things the church can do.” (Some-times expressed as “on the peculiar grounds of being a Christian.” K.D.)

2. “Helping deserving needy non-saints is a thing that the individual can do because he is a Christian.”

3. “Therefore, helping deserving needy non-saints is a thing the church can do.”

When Padfield pressed him to give Scripture for his first premise and to list some things which “the individual does on the peculiar grounds he is a Christian” that the church can also do, Deaver’s response was: “It is axiomatic” or self evident and he made no effort to establish this first premise from Scripture or that it is truly “axiomatic.”

Deaver stated: “It is wrong for the church to render benevolent aid to saints only,” and introduced Matthew 5:43-48, claiming the church is to “practice a higher ethic than the world” and demonstrate that we are “sons of God” by helping the non-saint. During the course of the debate he would say, “If I can help him (a non-saint, K.D.), you can help him, and we can help him,” implying that the “we” is the church. When Padfield argued that Matthew 5 did not involve the church treasury, Deaver asked where the church treasury was “excluded” or how did Padfield “get the treasury out of Matthew 5.” Since Deaver claimed the church was in Matthew 5, it was his responsibility to show that the church treasury was “included” in the passage, but he did not do so. Rather, he asked Padfield where the individual’s “billfold” was in Matthew 5.

Another telling admission was made by Deaver when Padfield asked him to identify what he meant when he used the word “church.” Deaver said:

He wanted me to identify the church. It doesn’t matter if I mean the church local (like the church at Laodicea), the church regional (the churches of Galatia), the church universal (the brotherhood), the church ethnic (the churches of the Gentiles), congregational collective (the churches of Christ). It doesn’t matter what I mean. I mean that whatever an individual can do upon the peculiar grounds that he’s a Christian, the church can do, the brotherhood can do, the regional churches can do it, the local church can do it, groups of churches can do it, the ethnic churches can do it. It doesn’t matter.

Padfield pointed out that following Deaver’s argument would allow for activating of the universal church, yet the New Testament gives no pattern or machinery by which the universal church may function.

Ignoring the context of James 1:27, Deaver made an emotional appeal by asking, “Can the church practice pure and undefiled religion?” Padfield responded by showing that “religion” is something possessed and practiced by the individual, not by the church in its collective sense. Deaver then charged that Padfield was saying the church could not practice pure and undefiled religion, even though he had not established that James 1:27 was speaking of “the local church” as his proposition demanded. Padfield showed three things not found in James 1:27: 1. the local church. 2. The local church treasury. 3. The local church contributing to the needy. He also showed from the context that James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 were instructions to individuals.

Deaver argued for “benevolence as a vehicle for evangelism,” and de-fended church support of a clinic in Africa to provide opportunity to teach the gospel to those non-saints who were aided. When Padfield pressed him in regard to “church of Christ hospitals” being built in this country like “Baptist hospitals,” Deaver asked, “Can the church hand out Band-Aids?” Padfield pointed out that hospitals do much more than pass out band aids.

Deaver contended that the “widow indeed” of 1 Timothy 5:3,5,16 is not necessarily a saint (Christian), but rather, may simply be a woman who has nowhere else to turn but unto God. He made a distinction between her and the woman of verse 9 who may be “enrolled” or “taken into the number.” Padfield argued that the text says she “trusts in God” and “prays night and day” which shows that she is a saint.

Several times Deaver said, “Every precisely worded question is either true or false.” He would then proceed to submit a number of questions which he insisted Padfield should answer “true” or “false” without any qualification. However the questions were not asked in a context where anyone could know how he was defining the words used, such as “church.” When Padfield answered with more than a “true” or “false” Deaver complained that the answer was not what he had asked for.

Padfield’s affirmative proposition for the last two nights was, “The Scriptures teach that the exclusive New Testament pattern for the benevolent work of the local church from its treasury is the relief of needy saints.” He used 1 Corinthians 12:14; 1 Timothy 5:16; Matt. 18:15 and Acts 5:2-4 to show the difference between individuals and the church. He used charts to show the New Testament pattern of funds of local churches used to aid saints (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32-35; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1,12,13; 1 Tim. 5:2-16) and illustrating that there is no instruction for, or example of, the local church assisting non-saints.

Deaver dismissed most of Padfield’s first affirmative speech by saying he agreed with most of what he had said. He admitted that all of the passage cited constituted “part of the pattern” but that there was more to the pattern and suggested that James 1:27; Galatians 6:10 and Matthew 5 were part of the pattern for the church to act in behalf of non-saints. He introduced 2 Corinthians 9:13 with less than three minutes remaining in his speech be-fore Padfield’s last speech of the debate but failed to establish that “unto all” includes “non-saints.” Padfield chided him for waiting so late in the debate to introduce his complicated argument that used seven overhead charts and knowing that Padfield would not have time to fully respond in his very last speech.

Padfield showed that by non-saints not being included in the revealed pattern where the local church is clearly involved in benevolent work, they (non-saints) are thus excluded from assistance by the local church. He illustrated this by showing that mechanical instruments of music, Fri-day observance of the Lord’s supper and pizza and Pepsi as elements for the Lord’s supper are excluded be-cause they are not part of what is revealed. Padfield pointed out that “music” in worship is “limited” to the kind that is revealed (authorized) and just so also benevolence by the local church is “limited” to the kind that is revealed  always, and in every case, to “needy saints” or “brethren.” Padfield demonstrated that while the text does not say “sing only,” it only says “sing” and though the text does not say “saints only,” it only says saints when the church treasury is involved.

Interest was high and I believe considerable good will come from this debate. If only more brethren would be willing to put their questionable doctrines to the test of an honorable discussion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 12-13
August 18, 1994