Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, “church of Christ,” perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited “the churches of God.” However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of “the church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God.” In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned “the churches of Christ.” Since the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God,” what is the singular of “churches of Christ”? (If you do not know the answer to that question, there will be no need for you to worry, or to read further. Bless your heart, God will take care of you.) 

Over the years, some have said it would be best if we ceased to put the name, “Church Of Christ,” on our meeting houses. Various reasons have been given. “It’s confusing.” “People with a negative view of the church won’t attend when they see the name.” “It’s too traditional.” What shall we say to these objections?  

If we drop the name “Church of Christ,” and replace it with “Christians meet here,” we will confront the same set of problems and objections. The name “Christian,” too, is “confusing.” When we use it to tell folks what we are religiously, many wonder “what kind of Christian” we are — Baptist-Christian, Methodist-Christian, Catholic Christian? Others have a “negative view” of it (cf. Jas. 2:7 — “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”). It is a very traditional term, used widely and loosely around the world. Since the name “Christian” is greatly abused and misunderstood, shall we, therefore, cease to call ourselves “Christians”? 

Shall we quit referring to “elders” because certain ones may link us with the Mormons and their “elders”? Obviously, we dare not call our elders, “pastors,” for that would certainly confuse most people (even some of our own brethren!). 

Shall we drop references to “baptism” since it is a traditionally used and often misunderstood term? “Baptism” makes some think we approve of “sprinkling,” for that is their concept of it. Thus, they are misled about what we believe. Does that mean that 1 Peter 3:21, like the name, “church of Christ,” must go by the way side, for it employs that confusing, traditional expression, “baptism doth also now save us”?  

Neither can we speak of being “born again,” for that designation is misunderstood and misrepresented. To use it would identify us with Protestant churches. 

Obviously, we dare not speak of the Holy Spirit, or “Holy Spirit baptism” or “tongues,” for those are “buzz words” of wild-eyed faith healers in particular and Pentecostalism in general. Of course, we absolutely must not even breathe the word “miracle,” for everyone knows what would be assumed of us! 

If we must cease references to “churches of Christ,” to be consistent we must do away with these other terms — Christian, elder, pastor, baptism, Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, and miracles. However, the truth is that we need not dispense with any of them. Rather, without shame or apology, we must teach the world the truth and use every opportunity to show the distinction between the words of men and the word of God (Acts 17:23; 1 Pet. 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521

By James P. Needham

Recently, 67 brethren signed a letter to the administration of Florida College opposing the erroneous teaching of one of its faculty members and a brother who appeared on the annual lectureship. These brethren interpret the days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time, maybe millions of years, rather than six contiguous solar days of 24 hours. Rather than repudiate such teaching, the president has skirted the issue and assured us that he does not so view the days of Genesis 1, and the head of the Bible department has said he prefers to believe that the days are solar days, but leaves room for others to interpret them differently (unity-in-diversity). It appears from this that some believe we can’t see the Bible alike. He uncharacteristically proceeds to reflect unfavorably upon the motives of those who signed the letter, calling it a creed, etc. Others of like persuasion have also joined that chorus. Now, to the question, when is a creed a creed? Or when is a creed not a creed?

That depends upon what one means by “creed.” The word is derived from the Latin credo, meaning “I believe.” One can find this information in any good English Dictionary. But he also will find this modern usage definition: “A brief authoritative formula of religious belief, a set of fundamental beliefs.”

Here is what we have done: We have condemned denominational creeds to the point that the word carries certain prejudicial connotations. So, realizing this, the brethren who called the open letter a creed were appealing to this known prejudice whether or not they realized it. With some anything labeled a creed is bad news. I’ve even known brethren to deny that we have a creed. That is saying we don’t believe anything. It is bad for Christians to pander to prejudice. Prejudice is the lock on the door of a closed mind. This is similar to what has happened to the word “gay.” It is a perfectly good English word, meaning cheerful, or happy. But, it has been used so often to describe the homosexual community, that it is a gross insult to say that one is a gay person.
 
If the letter is a creed, meaning it contains what is sincerely believed by those who signed it, it is not a creed in the same sense as a denominational creed. It is not authoritative in the sense that it is bound on anyone. A denominational creed is an authoritative document legislated by the organization that contains more or less than the Bible to which one must subscribe to become a member of the organization.

Nobody can truthfully say that the open letter was such a document. It was not legislated by a human organization, and nobody was threatened with expulsion or exclusion for not signing it. It is a creed in the sense of the original meaning of the word, that is, a statement of belief, but it is not a creed in the sense of a denominational creed. Those who signed the open letter did so voluntarily, and those who preferred not to sign it suffered absolutely no negative consequences. This cannot be said of any human creed known to me. There was no human religious organization from which the no signers were excluded as a penalty for not signing. Those who have called the open letter a creed need to answer this question: If the open letter had stated that the signers believed that baptism is for the remission of sins, or that instrumental music in worship is sinful, or that it is sinful for the church to do its work through a human institution, would they have signed it? If they were to do so, would it be a creed in the denominational sense?

A denominational creed is the authoritative official statement of belief of a human organization and sets the conditions of membership; the open letter was a statement of the individuals’ belief who signed it and set no terms of membership, or rejection. Surely, these brethren know the difference between an individual and an organization; if not, where have they been the last 40 years? If the open letter is a creed, let those who make that charge tell us the name of the organization that legislated it and bound it upon its members. Let them also tell us who has been excluded from that organization or suffered other negative consequences for not signing it.

It is extremely sad that a sincere effort to correct a bad situation has received this kind of response. It has only made a bad situation worse by skirting the real issue and tends toward strife and polarization. In the minds of many brethren it has done serious and immediate damage to Florida College. Several good brethren have said they planned for years to send their children to FC, but will not do so under the present circumstances. One family known to me had planned to send their son to FC this year, but now has sent him elsewhere because of this matter. This will be repeated many times over to the detriment of the school. It is difficult for me to understand how the protection of one teacher and his erroneous position is worth the price the school is paying and will pay down the road.

It is saddening to see these good brethren at the school act out of character. It does appear that the winds of change are blowing at FC. Sad indeed! It is not too late to deal with the situation properly, but time is running out. The college is at the crossroads. The choice is theirs and if this matter is not handled properly, Florida College will have a different image in the years to come, and will be deprived of the patronage of many of the good brethren who have been her lifeblood over the years. Calling the open letter a creed is like calling a cat’s tail a leg; that doesn’t make it one.

This whole thing is a tragedy that easily could have been prevented had it been properly handled. I think it is even possible at this late date to stop the bleeding. First, the administration needs to stop trivializing the issue as a tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing. Second, they need to ask brethren of good will and sound judgment who signed the open letter to come to a meeting and discuss the situation as brethren, and stop the name calling. Third, every effort to portray the signers of the open letter as enemies of the school, out to “get” someone needs to stop. I have confidence that if this is done, it will have a positive effect, and we can put this behind us as a bad chapter in the history of the school.

“Taken out of Context”

One of the first rules of quoting others is “keep it in context.” That means one must not lift a quotation out of its setting and cause the author to say something he neither said nor meant. To deliberately do this is to act dishonestly. To do it honestly may indicate a lack of comprehension or proper analysis. In either case the author is unfairly treated.

There are different ways to take a quotation out of context. (1) By quoting only part of a given passage, leaving off the author’s complete thought or explanation of his meaning. (2) Applying what an author says on one subject to another subject when it may not be applicable. (3) Making an unnecessary inference from what a writer says. There are at least three kinds of inferences: (1) Reasonable, (2) Necessary, and (3) Unnecessary. A reasonable inference often is not necessary. An unnecessary inference often is just a presumption without proof, and a necessary inference is undeniable due to the facts stated.

“Taken out of context” is sometimes a false defense of error, and an effort to divert attention from a given subject and place suspicion upon the person who is quoting. It is easier to charge that a quotation is taken out of context, than to deal forthrightly with the issue at hand. To say that a quotation is taken out of context when it isn’t, is as wrong as taking something out of context. “Taken out of context” is an overused charge that often is a false charge and is used to try to reflect unfavorably upon a writer or speaker and divert attention from the real subject.

In the present controversy over the false teaching concerning Genesis 1 by Shane Scott and Hill Roberts at Florida College, Ferrell Jenkins has used “taken out of context” as part of his defense of these men. Several have quoted from Ferrell’s writings in defense of these brethren, and Ferrell has charged that every quotation from his lecture has been “taken out of context.” He does not bother to prove his charge. He just makes it and passes on. To charge that one has been “taken out of context” obligates one to prove it and explain how it is the case, then declare his true meaning.

If Ferrell’s charge that quotations from his writings are “taken out of context,” this implies that he said something in the articles quoted that denies what he is charged with saying, and this is just not the case, so his charge is false. If the author said something in the article that denies what is quoted, he is guilty of contradicting himself. If that is not the case, then he has not been “taken out of context.” It is incredible and unreasonable to think that everyone who has  quoted from Ferrell’s writings on the present controversy has taken him out of context. There is just no way this can be true. If it is, the brethren are a lot less intelligent or more dishonest than I ever have known them to be. I beseech Ferrell to prove his charge or retract it. Is Ferrell willing to deny that he said he believes the six days of creation are literal solar days, but he leaves room for those who take a different position? Where did he say something in context that denies that?

Brother Jenkin’s Double Standard

In Ferrell’s introduction to the transcript of his class held in Puckett auditorium, February 8, 2000, he states, “Several people have quoted from the speech without my permission, but everyone I have seen have the quotations presented out of context” (Emphasis mine, jpn). Then sometime after the above statement was made Ferrell wrote an article entitled “James P. Needham Joins Those Who Don’t Know” (that is, those who don’t know the age of earth, jpn). Then he quotes a paragraph from my article “without my permission.” (Not that I think he needed it.) I about dropped my teeth when I read that incredible statement! I hate double standards, but brother Jenkins obviously has one. How can it be right for him to quote from me “without my permission” but wrong for others to quote from him without his permission? I was unaware of the article in which he quoted me until a friend called it to my attention.

When people practice double standards they are not dealing fairly and squarely with an issue, and appear to manifest a feeling that their writings possess an egocentric superior quality that’s not characteristic of the writings of others. Somehow their writings are sacrosanct, but others are not. Would brother Jenkins be willing to declare that he has never quoted from others without their permission? To those of us who have known and read after him over the years would consider that a travesty on truth. All of us have done it, and brother Jenkins is no exception. I have never thought I needed permission to quote from a brother who has written or spoken publicly. That which is expressed in a public forum is fair game for public review. If a brother doesn’t want his name attached to his teachings, he ought to stop teaching.

There is a certain squeamishness about quoting others and attaching their names to what they have said. This offends some. To avoid practicing a double standard they should also be offended at Paul and Peter, and Christ and other inspired writers for they practiced it freely. As Cled Wallace used to say, we should not have better manners than Christ and the apostles!

Several brethren are saying we need to stop this discussion on this Genesis 1 issue. I agree. I will even go further than that and say it should have been stopped before it started. It can be stopped now that it is started, but it must be stopped in the right way by Ferrell and Colly admitting that they have used poor judgment and have wrongly defended false teaching at Florida College. All the whining and seeking to impugn the motives of the 67 who signed the open letter will not stop those who have at heart the good of the college and its students.

In earlier times a certain journal copyrighted its articles to keep brethren from quoting from and reviewing them. This was considered reprehensible, and the journal took a lot criticism. How things change! Now many brethren are attaching a copyright notice to what they write in journals. For what reason? Will one be prosecuted for quoting from them without permission?

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789

By James Hahn

While living in south Florida in the mid 1960s I received announcements from churches in the area of plans to have special activities for the young people (especially juniors and seniors in high school) near the end of the school year. These activities included an annual “track and field meet” of the (as one group announced it) “south Florida district of the churches of Christ.” Another event in 1966 was a “Junior-Senior Banquet” with entertainment provided by Pat Boone (remember, this was 1966) and the “Belles and Beaux” of Harding College. Also, a “senior king and queen will be crowned” during the banquet. After the banquet they had all night bowling and then a breakfast served in the “fellowship hall” of one of the area churches. Those promoting these activities said they wanted to provide wholesome activities so the young people would not be attending such activities as the school sponsored proms. The newspaper article promoting these activities quotes the person they interviewed as saying, “The event is not underwritten by the churches, but by the interested parents and friends.”

Even though the events were announced and promoted by the churches and each congregation selected their own “king and queen” candidates and one church provided the place for the breakfast, they contended that it was “not underwritten by the churches.” In the years following many churches got involved in openly providing recreational and entertainment activities to attract the young. One preacher in the area at that time defended such by saying, “Anything that may ultimately lead one to become interested in the gospel would be an authorized work of the church.” This is just another way of saying “the end justifies the means.” See what Paul said about such thinking in Romans 3:8.

Many opposed these activities then, not because they were bad within and of themselves, but because these things were not an authorized work of the church. Even though the claim was made that they were not paid for by the churches they were promoted as a work of the churches.

Recently, some of my brethren who spoke out against such activities as  described above have engaged in the very same activities and making the same claim. They plan a “Teen Retreat” that includes Bible study, prayer, and singing and, the next day, outdoor recreational activities and hay rides with meals provided. They later sent a letter explaining that they understood that recreation and social activities are not the work of the church and that these activities were not paid for by the church. This was the same statement made by those in south Florida in 1966.

I am convinced that all of these brethren are making the same mistake. And the mistake they are making is an insult to our young people. In essence they are saying to the young people, “You are too carnally minded to respond to an invitation to simply study God’s word and engage in things spiritual.” If we truly believe that recreational and social activities are the responsibility of the home then why don’t we let the parents plan and provide such and let the church fulfill its responsibility of teaching and edifying? 

At the summer time of year when many groups have their “Vacation Bible Schools” the announcements of these leave the impression they are, in the words of our own little Paul Watson, “having a party instead of a Bible study.” Whether its “Kool-Aid and cookies” or some of the previously mentioned activities, the appeal is the same. 

Let’s quit insulting our young people by thinking the only way to get them interested in studying God’s word is to make a carnal appeal to them. There are those who desire to “remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth” (Eccl. 12:1). I am convinced that we still have young people like Joseph and Daniel who love God and are dedicated to pleasing him. They do not need some carnal attraction to get them to study God’s word. They respect those who are concerned enough about their souls to provide that spiritual teaching and training they need. They recognize that the social and recreational have their place, but it is not the work of the church to provide such. I am encouraged by the number of young people who refuse to participate in the previously mentioned activities because they recognize that such is not the work of the church and that it should not be made to appear such. In the word’s of many of the older preachers in days past, “Let the church be the church and let the home be the home.”

1212 Melanie Ct., Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342-1724

By Weldon E. Warnock

Various religious groups offer testimonials of “miracles” being worked among them. Each group, regardless of their diversity of beliefs and practices, present the same evidence: human testimonies. Which group are we to believe? Is it the Christian Scientists, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Catholics, or the charismatic groups that include several churches among us?

Many do not understand human anatomy and biological functions of the body. They also don’t understand the power of suggestion, hypnotism, over-wrought emotions, and the adrenal glands. Today’s so-called miracle workers use all of these things to make people believe they have received a miracle. Some respond very well to mental suggestion. The ancient priests of Asklepios, the god of healing, used suggestion to cure the sick. This was practiced at Pergamos, and some were helped, while others returned home in the same condition. Is it any different today?

In my investigation of claimed miracles, I have never corroborated the stories. A woman in Tampa, Florida brought by ambulance to a healing campaign, claimed to be  healed before the audience. But on her return home by the ambulance, she had to be put back to bed. This I saw when I followed the ambulance. The next day I visited this lady and she told me that she was not really healed, but only thought she was. In Dayton, Ohio, a tract was circulated of a man who had been “healed” of blindness, an inoperable brain tumor and emphysema. On checking with his doctor at Lima, Ohio, the doctor told me that he knew nothing of a brain tumor, that his emphysema was simply arrested, not cured, and that his blindness was caused by a mental dysfunction, but was not organic blindness. Strangely, this man who was “cured” was still drawing disability from the government. Dr. William Nolan, a physician, investigated several of Katherine Kuhlman’s “miracle cures” and found not one legitimate case.

Christian Scientists report several “miraculous” cures in the book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. They sound like testimonies from a Bennie Hinn crusade. Here are a few of them: lungs restored, fibroid tumor healed, cataract cured, heart valve healed, cancer and consumption healed, diseased eyes healed. This is the religious group that denies the resurrection of Christ and the efficacy of His blood. Yet, their testimonies sound like we hear today. How can you reject theirs and accept yours?

The Catholic Church exceeds all of today’s testimonials. We are told that St. Deniss, who was beheaded by King Edward, picked up his head and carried it in his hands. His statue, among others, is over the entrance of Notre Dame in Paris. There he is, holding his head in his hands. Why would one deny this “miracle” and accept current testimonies of others? Saint Eustachius was converted by a deer while hunting. He saw the image of the crucified Savior between the horns of the animal, and he responded to a voice he thought he heard from heaven. Many, many “miracles” are attributed to the Virgin Mary at Lourdes.

Ellen G. White, the founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, claimed that she was taken up into heaven, saw a halo around the fourth commandment, to keep the Sabbath, and that God told her to come back and tell it. Can you outdo this testimony?

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, claimed that he was shown by the angel, Moroni, the location of gold plates on which was inscribed Reformed Egyptian language. The angel translated and dictated to Smith these inscriptions into English. This became the Book of Mormon. Mormons everywhere testify to this “miracle.” Why reject their testimony and accept self-acclaimed seers today who are always saying that God is speaking to them. These “miracle workers” are continually saying that the Lord spoke to them. What is the difference in Smith’s claim, and let’s say, Bennie Hinn?

Friends, the miracles of Jesus, his apostles, and disciples were uncontested. They could not be denied because they were obvious to the beholder. This is why we read that they marveled or were amazed. For example, Jesus instantly healed a shriveled hand (Matt. 12:9). The hand was seen before and after the miracle. It was no longer withered, but whole. None of us has seen anything like this. Jesus healed an impotent man or lame man who had not walked for 38 years (John 5:1-9). He immediately walked, yet this man did not even know who Jesus was (v. 13). So, he was healed without faith in Christ. So-called “miracle workers” today blame all their failures on a lack of faith on the part of the afflicted. Jesus healed a blind man who had been blind from birth (John 9:1-7). Do we hear of such miraculous cures now? Absolutely not! Peter and John healed a man crippled from birth. Immediately, he arose and walked, leapinq and praising God (Acts 3:7- 8). There are no testimonials of this happening today. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:37-41). Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead who had been dead four days and his body had begun to decay (John 11:39-43). Have you heard of any testimonies of this kind of experience like Dorcas or Lazarus? Jesus healed leprosy, instantaneously (Matt. 8:1-3). Though leprosy was a loathsome and incurable disease, this did not impede the omnipotent power of Jesus. Why are there no testimonials of miraculous cures from former lepers? Ladies and gentlemen, what vast and obvious differences there are between so-called miracles today and the genuine and indisputable miracles recorded in the New Testament.

Without question Jesus has the power to work wondrous and marvelous miracles. He that made man at the beginning from the dust of the earth could surely make a diseased or afflicted body whole. Jesus did not resort to hypnotism, deceit, fraud, emotional frenzies, or mental suggestions. The issue is not whether Jesus can work miracles today, but rather is he exercising his power?

Many of today’s avowed “miracle workers” have proven to be charlatans, using fraudulent schemes and ploys. Some have been outright crooks and immoral reprobates. Multitudes of unsuspecting people have been duped. John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Miracles were to confirm the deity of Jesus and the words of him and his apostles (John 20:30-31: Mark 16:20). They were also provisional, to bring us an inspired Book, the Bible. They served their purpose and passed away (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8-10). Indeed, God answers prayers for the healing of the sick, but this is not the same as miraculous healing.

87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164