Truth Magazine

By Frank Jarnerson

Contrary to the thinking of many today, there can be no true liberty without law. Lawlessness would result in anarchy, not freedom.

In sports events, there must be laws (rules) in order for anyone to have the freedom to participate in the game. Though true sportsmanship will not try to take advantage of the rules, that does not mean that no rules are necessary. In civil government, there must be laws so that those who want to do right will know what is expected of them, and those who violate those rules will be punished. Without laws there would be no security. It is not possible to even conceive of living in a country without laws, yet there are some brethren who so dislike the word “law” that they have convinced themselves that we are free from God’s rules.

James said, “But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does” (Jas. 1:25). It is called “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2), “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27), “the implanted word” (Jas. 1:21), or “the faith” (Gal. 3:23). The New Law is a “law of liberty,” not because we are free from law, but because obedience to it truly liberates us from sins, in contrast to the temporary forgiveness under the Old Laws (Heb. 10:4). It gives us “freedom from law” in the sense that perfectly keeping law is not the means of justification. The law of Christ provides genuine forgiveness through the blood by which it was dedicated (Matt. 26:28). The rejection of the law would be a rejection of the blood of Christ.

What did Paul mean when he said, “for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14)? First notice that if this teaches that we have no law, it would negate the need for grace, for “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15). Second, notice that the fourth chapter teaches we are free from “works” (in the sense of perfect works), but this does not mean that we do not have works to do. There is a difference between earning our salvation by meritorious works, and striving to obey Christ while depending upon his grace for our failures. Chapters five and six talk about freedom from sin, but that does not mean that we never commit sin. There is a difference between committing sin and living a life of sin. Likewise, being “free from law” does not mean that we have no law, but that our justification is not on the basis of law-keeping. The law through which we are justified provides for failure, but that does not justify failure to respect the law! When John said, “For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17), he did not mean that there was no “grace and truth” under the Old Law, nor that there is no “law” under the grace and truth. The “truth” is the law, or rule of right and wrong.

We may not understand why God gave some of the rules, but love for Him will result in sincere effort to obey in all things, realizing that our justification is through His grace, and not through our perfection in law-keeping. Our efforts to obey should be from a heart of love, but those who do not strive to obey do not love him. God did not say “love is the only law a Christian has.” He said, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:2,3) The one who despises law despises the law-giver.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, p. 294
May 21, 1992

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Tom Alexander, “And this is a church of Christ,” Image 8, No. I (January/February 1992): 20-21,31.

Despite the “revelations” which emerged at the Nashville Meeting in December 1988 regarding the extent to which increasingly liberal brethren have strayed from New Testament practices, there seem to be some who cannot admit how far “we are drifting,” as J.D. Tant was known to say.

The following sections from an article in Image magazine should remove all doubt about the present or future course of such brethren and the churches which tolerate and encourage them. Consider the author’s description of three young preachers among “mainline Churches of Christ.”

 They are all in their thirties.

 They were all raised in very conservative and very active church of Christ families.

 They are all graduates of Christian universities that are operated by members of the churches of Christ.

 Their fathers are either elders or full-time ministers, faithfully serving in churches of Christ today.

But as you might have ascertained, these three men are obviously much more progressive than their forbearers, both in their attitudes and their demonstration of what it means for them to be followers of Jesus in the church of Christ of today – especially when you consider the kind of religious climate they grew up in.

And if I had to describe them theologically, in terms and practices we all could relate to (although these are just the tip of the iceberg), I would have you note some common beliefs they each hold strongly to, after much study and prayer:

1. All three ministers advocate and are aggressively implementing a much more active and visible role for women in their congregations by: increasing their teaching role beyond that of children, including them in leadership roles such as deaconnesses or servant-leaders in various ministries, permitting them to pray and start songs in mixed groups, and as a church, listening while a woman shares her faith with the church family.

And let me re-emphasize – they didn’t just start doing this on a whim or because it’s trendy – no way! As a church, they have spent months and months studying the enhancement of women’s roles in their congregation, and they are still studying today.

2. They are each aggressively pursuing Christian fellowship with others who are outside the traditional boundaries of the brotherhood of Churches of Christ, who they believe and perceive have also yielded their lives in submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ; and they are treating them as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

3. They each believe strongly, strongly that baptism is fundamentally part of the plan of God, and they preach it as such; but they refuse to tell God he cannot work in the lives of people before they are baptized.

And their plea is this: “The churches of Christ are not the only ones who follow Christ in this world; but we sure want to be some of the ones and to do everything we can to reach people who don’t know the Lord with the gospel.”

4. These three ministers, again whom many of you know and appreciate, believe instrumental music to be a nonissue; and though none of the three are actively pressing for it in their Sunday assemblies, they have not found those classic passages in Ephesians and Colossians to be prohibitive of such, and so they have no scriptural problem with it, nor is it a conscience barrier for them.

Now here, some of you may be saying “Uh-ho.” But please hear me out.

One of these three was the final choice of the selection committee to be the youth minister for one of the largest churches of Christ in the country, yet when he went through one final interview with the elders, he was asked by one particular elder if he thought instrumental music was wrong. He said that where he currently was, they did not use it. (They were well-known for having a tremendously enthusiastic singing church.)

But again, he was asked, “Do you think it’s wrong?”

This time he replied, “By ‘wrong,’ do you mean that a baptized believer will go to hell forever because he used an instrument in his devotion to God?” And that same elder stood up from his chair and said, “That’s exactly what I mearil” And this minister, who was incredibly devoted to Jesus, could not swallow his integrity, even for such a tremendous opportunity, and he replied, “No, I do not.” Needless to say, he didn’t get the job.

And I’m just amazed and shocked that that was the bottom line.

Now, why am I sharing with you these few observations that I have seen in the lives and ministries of these three young, dynamic preachers of churches of Christ, from three very different parts of the country?

Because change is taking place all around us, and more is coming!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, p. 298
May 21, 1992

By Louis J. Sharp

It has been said, “Great minds run in the same channel.” We make no claim for “greatness” – but ” kindred minds,” quite often do arrive at the same place. Because we are “like-minded,” this happened with me and a life-long friend.

Last Mother’s Day, I wrote a short article entitled “Childhood Memories of Mother” for our local bulletin. Brother Mike Willis, editor of Guardian of Truth, evidently thought it deserving of wider circulation and ran it in his paper. My friend, Robert L. (Bob) Craig read it, and wrote the following letter, which I print with his permission.

“Dear Louis, I just finished reading your article on your mother, and since I knew her pretty well, I just wanted to say that your article does her justice. I was in one of her classes just as I was in sister Brewer’s (my grandmother, US) and another of your aunt’s whose name I do not recall at this time (Ruth Dowdey, US). And since my mother died when I was only ten, you might say that 1, too, learned some of what I know at the feet or knee of your mother and your kins people. I wrote a little poem this past Mother’s Day that I thought you might appreciate and am sending you a copy.”

Last May, both Bob and I were recalling precious memories of our mothers. I am so thankful I did not lose my mother at ten years as he did, but I am gratified that my mother was able to touch the lives of a number of others whom she taught. Bob’s letter is a great tribute to her memory. Following is his accolade to his own mother, who was taken in his childhood.

Honoring Mother

I heard a man on TV say,

“A broken heart will go away.”

Time will heal

A million things,

But a broken heart

Will still remain.

She was little and pretty,

And very bold.

And I was a lad

Just ten years old.

She doctored my cuts,

Kissed away my tears,

Tended my bruises

And healed my fears.

She slept one night,

And her soul He did take.

A little heart broke,

‘Cause she didn’t awake.

I’m weary and tired,

And my hair has turned gray,

But time has not healed

The heart broken that day.

Night after night

As I pillow by head,

I think of my mama

And honor the dead.

Truly a beautiful tribute to his mother by brother Craig.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, p. 295
May 21, 1992

By Mike Willis

We Christians are committed to the restoration of the New Testament church. We are not interested in “reforming” any established denomination. The denominations are religious bodies established and governed by men. Rather, we are interested in reproducing in all essential parts the church of the New Testament, especially wherein there has been a departure from the faith and practice of the inspired apostles of Christ.

The plea to restore the New Testament church rests upon the conviction that the Bible is an infallible revelation from God which is all sufficient to meet man’s spiritual needs. The Scriptures record Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would “guide” the apostles into all truth (Jn. 16:8). As a result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, what the apostles taught was the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37). The revelation which they communicated to man is sufficient to provide man with all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). There is no spiritual need which man has for which God has not provided in his word.

The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea to return, in all things, to the simple teachings of the Scriptures and a plea for abandonment of everything in religion for which there can not be given a divine warrant. This idea is expressed in the slogan, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

The Restoration Plea Condemned

In recent years, the restoration plea has not only been abandoned by many but also condemned as an instrument of division. In his book The Restoration Principle, A.T. DeGroot, noted historian of the Disciples of Christ, wrote, “Legalistic primitivism or restorationism has stunted the spiritual development and limited the growth of scores and scores of prior movements of this kind” (7). He later added, “From the foregoing survey of the experience of the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, we may conclude that the more specifically the restoration plea has been defined in terms of governmental, organizational, and ritualistic patterns of behavior, the less success it has had as an effective and cohesive force in the Christian world” (160). DeGroot viewed the restoration plea as a hindrance to the unity of the church.

J.P. Sanders wrote, “The early church was not itself a rigid structure; the development of it, as seen through New Testament letters, shows this clearly. To talk about ‘restoring’ the early church requires that we designate which early church – for example, the one of Corinthians, or the one of the pastoral letters” (Voices of Concern 39). He continued, “Thus, far from being the basis for unity today, patternism or restorationism may become a sure and certain barrier to unity and has, as a matter of fact, resulted in more divisions” (44).

Victor Hunter reached the same conclusion in this comment: “The problem with a restoration theology is that it rests on the premise that the mission of the church is to set up a ‘true church’ in which all the details of church life are exactly like they were in a first century world. It functions on the assumption that there is a blueprint or pattern in the New Testament that the church is to reduplicate in each succeeding generation. Such a theology makes the church’s mission egocentric and past-oriented rather than outward looking and future-oriented” (Mission Magazine V:9 [March 1972] 6).

James O. Baird recently wrote in defense of the restoration plea in the Gospel Advocate [January 1992, 20], “Well platformed and highly profiled men in churches of Christ are mounting a barrage against the validity of the restoration principle which was the germinal idea of the movement to restore the New Testament church.” He then proved his statement by several quotations of his brethren condemning the restoration plea. He concluded that the liberal brethren are facing a major threat from those who have rejected the principle of restoration of the New Testament church.

Max Lucado was quoted by the Tulsa (OK) World as follows:

He said, “I have a gut feeling that we (the church of Christ) have approached the Bible as an engineer, looking for a certain design or architectural code. And I think we find that everyone finds a different code. As a result, we split into 27-28 splinters or factions.

“There is no secret code. The Bible is a love letter as opposed to a blueprint. You don’t read a love letter the same way you read a blueprint” (quoted in Behold the Pattern by Goebel Music, 114).

Rebel Shelly of Nashville, Tennessee said, “Pattern theology has been our undoing. Pattern theology we have learned to generate by a hermeneutic of command, example, and inference . . . it assumes the Bible is all of a kind in terms of literature, that all of it is case study legislation, so you take this system and you put a grid over it and what you come up with is your pattern” (Music 301).

These statements reject and condemn the restoration plea. Similar statements have appeared with greater frequency in journals published among our liberal brethren, such as Image. Also see documented statements condemning the restoration plea quoted in Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern. Added to this is the incorrect perception that some among us seem to have that the restoration plea is a plea to restore the restoration movement. These things being so, I wish to reaffirm the basic principles of the restoration plea in the next several articles.

The Restoration Principle Affirmed

Thomas and Alexander Campbell are not authorities in religion, but they plead for all men to return to the New Testament as the word of Christ and final authority in religion. Let us briefly review their plea for the restoration principle. When Thomas Campbell published The Declaration and Address, these fundamental propositions were believed and accepted by them:

“1. That the church of Christ upon the earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

“2. That although the church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another; yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them to the glory of God. And for this purpose, they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing; and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and the same judgment.

“3. That in order to this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion; but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them, in the word of God. Nor ought any thing be admitted, as of divine obligation, in their church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament church; either in expressed terms, or by approved precedent.

“4. . . . the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members; as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament church, and the particular duties of its members” (16).

The Restoration Plea Is a Plea for Unity

The plea to restore the New Testament church is a plea for unity. Campbell had given up hope of finding peace and harmony “by continuing amidst the diversity and rancor of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions” (1). They thought peace could be found only in God’s simple word. Thomas Campbell wrote, “Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be, that rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men, as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God, we might forever cease from farther contentions about such things; returning to, and holding fast by the original standard; taking the divine word alone for our rule” (1-2).

The restoration plea was the means for bringing reconciliation to brethren torn by division. Campbell desired to see the church return to its original unity, peace, and purity. He asked, “Is there any thing that can be justly deemed necessary for this desirable purpose, but to conform to the model, and adopt the practice of the primitive church, expressly exhibited in the New Testament?” (10)

“Who then, would not be the first amongst us, to give up with human inventions in the worship of God; and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren: that our breaches might thus be healed? Who would not willingly conform to the original pattern laid down in the New Testament, for this happy purpose?” Then he committed himself to give up whatever he believed, taught or practiced for the sake of the unity of the church. “But this we do sincerely declare, that there is nothing we have hitherto received as matter of faith or practice, which is not expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God, either in express terms, or approved precedent, that we would not heartily relinquish, that so we might return to the original constitutional unity of the Christian church; and in this happy unity, enjoy full communion with all our brethren, in peace and charity” (10-11).

The divisions which pose a threat to the Lord’s people today can be healed by a commitment to the restoration plea – a plea to restore the belief and practices of the New Testament revelation of the word of God. In further articles, we shall see just what such a plea is and what it demands.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 290, 309-310
May 21, 1992