Truth Magazine

By Stan Cox

This series of articles contains much of the material I presented at the annual Dallas/Ft. Worth Truth and Freedom Forum on October 5, 1991. In the September issue of The Examiner magazine, Charles Holt advertised that event, and in doing so gave a description of our discussion which took place that Saturday. Following is his description, Holt stating that it would be a “Discussion of the elders, who they are, what is their role, and do they have authority over the church and the people. One man will affirm and one will respond.”(1) I accepted their invitation to state my believe concerning the office and authority of elders, and Bobby Hoover was chosen to present the alternate view. It was not my purpose in the speech to question or judge their motives or heart. However, as I mentioned in my speech, I thought it necessary to examine their position as revealed in the writings of The Examiner magazine.

These articles will examine the three main points of the above quote. The questions I will answer by going to the word of God are as follows: (1) Who are the elders? (2) What is the role of the elders? and (3) Do the elders have authority over the church and the people?

Who Are Elders?

First, what does Holt believe? He writes in the March 1986 issue of The Examiner, “Yes, definitely, I believe in elders and always have! Rumors to the contrary are false. I am an elder! I am a ‘Senior Citizen.’ The word elder’ simply means ‘older’ or senior.’ We have taken our ‘pattern’ from Rome and the denominations and have given the word ‘elder’ an ecclesiastical meaning; indicating that an elder is a church officer or official. In this usage it is a title or name. In the NT it had no such meaning . . . You do not, can not, make someone an ‘elder’ by ordination or appointment.”(2) But does the New Testament truly teach that “elder,” as we use the term in our discussion, simply means an older person? Are we truly to believe, as Holt states, that “you do not, can not, make someone an ,elder’ by ordination or appointment”? Or are we to take Paul’s word for it, as he exhorted Titus in Titus 1:5, “that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.” They talk around it, they try to twist it, they use all of their sophistry to try to wiggle out from under it, but in the end it remains that Paul told Titus to do what they say can’t be done.

Some quick definitions are appropriate. The first term to define is the word “elder.” The Greek term is presbuteros and simply means older, senior, or old. One passage in which this term is used is 1 Peter 5:1-4. It is the height of simplistic thinking to look at the literal definition of the word, and use it to deny what the context of the passage clearly teaches. This is exactly what The Examiner writers do. I do not believe the word presbuteros means anything other than older. What I do affirm, is that context and plain Bible statements in such passages as 1 Peter 5, show that the inspired writers used the term in certain places to indicate a special office to which a man might be appointed. You can’t ignore the context!

Now, the second term bishop or overseer. The Greek word is episkopos and is best defined by that idea of oversight. This term is found in 1 Timothy 3:1.

The third term is, pastor or shepherd. The Greek word is poimen and literally means a shepherd. It is used in this sense in Ephesians 4:11. In Acts 20:28, Paul exhorted the elders of the church in Ephesus to, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” The phrase “to shepherd” has its origin in the Greek term poimaino, which means to do the work of a shepherd.

Not everyone qualifies to serve the Lord in this capacity. You must be qualified before you serve. Note the statement of Paul in 1 Timothy 3, verse 2, “A bishop then must be and then he goes on to give a list of qualifications. But notice, a bishop then “must be. . . ” Holt states that all senior citizens are “elders.” He even intimates that older women are elders. Well, they may be older, but in the sense that Paul is using the term in 1 Timothy, they sure can’t serve as a bishop. Why? Because Paul says they must be, must be, . . . the husband of one wife. For a complete listing, read through verse 7. No man can serve with God’s approval if he does not fit the profile established by God. And, if a man’s life and character conform to this profile, he is qualified to fill the “office” of a bishop.

Being qualified does not automatically place one in the position and work of an elder. Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 teach that men are chosen for that work. Notice the plain statements of the inspired writers. Acts 14:23, “So when they (Paul and Barnabas) had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” You might notice again the statement of Holt, quoted earlier. “You do not, can not, make someone an ‘elder’ by ordination or appointment.” It amazes me that someone of his knowledge and age would make a statement which so very obviously contradicts what Paul and Barnabas plainly did. Not only did Paul appoint elders in every church, but he also exhorted Titus to do the same. Notice again his instruction in Titus 1:5, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.”

Lest there be an attempted sidestep here, let’s quickly define what the term “appoint” means. In Acts 14, the Greek word is cheirotoneo, and is defined by Strong, “to be a hand-reacher or voter (by raising the hand), i.e., (generally) to select or appoint: choose, ordain.” The same word is used in Acts 10:41, and refers to the witnesses that God chose or appointed to see the resurrected Christ. God selected or ordained certain individuals to see the resurrected Jesus, and Paul and Barnabas selected or ordained certain individuals to be elders. That does not mean that Paul and Barnabas went up to men and women and said, “We select you to be older people.” To say such is ridiculous. Paul and Barnabas went up to qualified men and ordained them or selected them to a particular office or work. This cannot be denied. The same is true of the term translated appoint in Titus 1:5.

Many other scriptural arguments could be cited, but these serve to prove that elders are qualified men, appointed to serve in a divinely ordained office. This, of course, is something denied by Holt and his followers. Our next article will answer the question, “What is the role of elders?”

Endnotes

1. The Examiner, Vol. V1, No. 5 (September, 1991), p. 9.

2. The Examiner, Vol. 1, No. 2 (March, 1986). “Questions and Misconceptions,” p. 11.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI :7, pp. 202-203
April 2, 1992

By Wayne S. Walker

(Author’s note: In the meeting house of the congregation with which I labor, there is a question box. It is not used very much, except as a depository for lost items, but recently there was a question in it. I thought that the question and my response to it might be of general interest since it is a topic that I have heard discussed at various times and places. Yet I have seen very little written on it.)

“I believe something should be done about the selling of Avon, Tupperware, House of Lloyd, and Home Interiors (to name a few) in the church during services. Is there a lesson that can be brought concerning this situation?”

Such a subject probably could not be worked up into a full-fledged sermon, but I believe that perhaps an article might be appropriate. The Bible does not deal with this issue specifically, so it must be handled by the application of general principles. Furthermore, some judgment must be involved, so no one answer is going to satisfy everyone. Some are rabidly opposed to any private commercial transactions between individuals on church property whatever, while others make their living by discreetly providing products and/or services to other members when seeing them at the church building.

First of all, I seriously doubt that there is “the selling of” anything “in the church during services.” If I saw buying and selling going on while the congregation was singing, praying, listening to the sermon, taking the Lord’s supper, or giving, I would be among the first to oppose it. I have an idea that the question concerns “the selling of” things at the church building before or after services.

We all recognize that the meeting house of a church is an expediency. It is authorized by general authority under the command to assemble (Heb. 10:25). The church is commanded to assemble. Thus, a place to assemble is necessarily authorized. The church building itself is not “sacred” in the denominational sense. It is not a shrine or a sanctuary. Rather, the church itself, made up of saved people, is God’s temple or sanctuary (Eph. 2:19-22).

At the same time, the building should not be used as a public auditorium for just any and every purpose. It exists as a place for the church to do what God has authorized it to do. Therefore, whatever activities are planned and promoted within the church building must be authorized by God for the church to do. This, of course, prohibits the church from using its facilities for that which pertains to social affairs, recreation, and entertainment (cf. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:22,34).

However, we also recognize that there are incidental uses of the building. It is not a highway rest stop, but we do have restroom and drinking facilities. Their use is incidental to our assembling for study and worship. Also, the church building is not a lounge, but we do take the opportunity to visit with one another before and after the services (and in between, too), to talk about our children or grandchildren, the weather, sports, and many other subjects. Again, such is incidental to our coming together as God commanded.

Normally, in the instances contemplated by the question, very little actual selling goes on at the building, although sometimes this is the case. Usually, orders are taken at a party in someone’s home or over the phone. Then members use the opportunity of seeing one another at the building before or after services to deliver the merchandise. Even if orders are taken at the building, these are private transactions between individuals and really have nothing what ever to do with the planned activities of the church in the building. They are simply incidental to what we have come together for.

The only passage which I can imagine that someone might use to condemn this kind of thing is John 2:13-17 where Jesus drove the money changers from the temple. But remember that this was done while the old law was still in effect, in the temple which was indeed a sacred or holy place under that law. The situation then is simply not comparable to individual transactions before or after services today. The lesson in this passage for us is not to take that which is spiritual and make it into something which is purely physical or material.

Certainly, anything can be carried to an extreme and thus become wrong. It may be that some brothers and sisters have been over zealous in promoting some product before or after services. But the same can be said for some of the visiting that we do at the church building before, after, or between services. For the life of me, I cannot see how a group of people can be standing around at one minute before worship time talking and even arguing about football, business, politics, or whatever, then run to their seats and a minute later be ready to praise God.

But such abuses do not make the visiting wrong in and of itself. And the fact that some may not have been as discreet as we might like in taking orders or delivering merchandise at the building does not necessarily make all such private transactions sinful. On the one hand, let us remember that we are coming together for a spiritual purpose and not let any incidental business that we end up doing get out of control. On the other hand, let us exercise love and tolerance for our brethren in such obviously individual matters.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI ;7, p. 211
April 2, 1992

By Harry R. Osborne

A few years ago about this time of year, a story appeared in the newspaper about a strange occurrence in France. It seems that a thief cornered a man in a dark place. He threatened to slash the man’s throat with his knife unless he handed over his money. As the Victim reached for his wallet, the light caught him in such a way that the thief saw his victim was a priest. The robber quickly apologized for his behavior explaining that he was unaware of the fact that he had preyed upon a priest. The priest, still shaken from the incident, pulled out his cigarettes to calm himself with a smoke. As he did, he offered one to the thief. The thief replied, “No thanks, Father. I gave them up for Lent.”

A strange sense of scruples, wouldn’t you say? The incident well depicts the moral hypocrisy seen in this season. This man had no problem with his practice of robbery and violence, at least on anyone except a priest. As long as he “fulfilled his responsibility” in some ritualistic sense by giving up smoking for a forty day period, everything was alright. Evidently, he gave little consideration to the moral consequences of his every day life as a thief!

When we stop to think of the system that fosters such values, we ought not be surprised about such incidents. On the night before Lent begins, this system condones the celebration of “Fat Tuesday” which is nothing but drunken, licentious revelry. It is the culmination of a period called “Mardi Gras” which is full of the same decadence. Just down the road from us in Galveston, the Mardi Gras is advertized as a big party with participants in various stages of undress, drinking plenty of alcohol. New Orleans bills its Mardi Gras celebration as a bigger party with more liquor and less clothing. Rio de Janeiro is famous for a Mardi Gras celebration which is the synonym for licentiousness.

Where in the world do people get such a perverted set of values? It certainly does not come from the Bible. The Bible clearly and repeatedly condemns such sinful actions at any time. In 1 Peter 4:1-5, notice the writer’s clear denunciation of such things:

Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles – when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

In Romans 13:12-14, the Bible again condemns such “works of darkness” as inconsistent with the life of a Christian:

The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in licentiousness and lewdness, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

One is not made righteous because he ceases to do a few things for forty days while continuing to do other things that are just as sinful. Nor is one more pious because he gives up all sinful practices for Lent with the full intent of resuming the actions the day after “Easter.” God’s standard for conduct is much higher.

Notice God’s command: “But as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct ” (1 Pet. 1:15). Not forty days worth, but all of the Christian’s conduct must conform to the commands of God. Or consider the question raised by the apostle Paul in Romans 6:1-23. He talks to those who had been cleansed and justified by the blood of Christ and asks if they should continue in sin. His answer is simple, “God forbid! We who died to sin, how can we live any longer in it.” To the Christian, sin should be a disgusting and detestable path. It should be intolerable for another second!

The contrast is really very clear. The system which proposes Lent advocates a forty day vacation from sin – and then only some sins, not all. God’s Word commands that the practice of sin be put to death:

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you also once walked when you lived in them. But now you must also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds (Col. 3:5-9).

There is a big difference between those two approaches to sin!

Oh yes, it is a more convenient religion for the worldly person to conform to certain outward rituals while one continues to live a life of sin. One might asked, “Then why not choose that kind of religion?” As far as I can see, there are only two reasons to be given:

1. Regardless of how we feel about it, the Bible says such a practice is wrong!

2. Such a religion will lead one to be lost eternally (Matt. 7:21-23).

Let’s follow what God says every day and put sin to death in our lives. We must not desire to join in the sins of the world around us. The Word of God gives this exhortation:

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. . . . And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret (Eph. 5:6-12).

We must always seek to expose the darkness of sin, examine all things in the light of the Gospel and exalt the path God directs in everything that we do.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI :7, pp. 204-205
April 2, 1992

By Donald Townsley

All great movements, good or bad, have started from very small things. The beginning of the Kingdom of Christ was compared by Christ to “a grain of mustard seed” (Matt. 13:31). Small trends away from God’s order brought about a departure resulting in the formation of the Roman Catholic Church: one elder in a congregation became known as the “presiding” elder; he was called the “bishop” and the other elders were called “presbyters.” Later the “presiding” elder of a city church was considered more important than the elders of country churches; the city “bishops” soon had control of country elders, and this grew until the Roman Catholic Church was fully formed with its first “pope” in 606 A.D.

The Christian church was the result of small trends away from the New Testament pattern. “Cooperation meetings” were held (with only a few churches sending “messengers” at first) to make plans to send preachers to destitute places; then in 1849 came the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society. In 1859 came the introduction of instrumental music in worship, and by 1869 it was really making headway in the churches. Then came great doctrinal departures with some even denying the inspiration of the word of God and that baptism is essential to salvation from one’s past sins! By this time many who had, in the beginning, nurtured these “innocent” trends were filled with great grief as they saw the end-result of their work. The younger generation had taken over; they wanted the church to become a full-fledged denomination, and they would not stop until it did! At this point in the apostasy, many became sick of the “things” they had helped to create and began to look back longingly at the people from whom they had separated years before – the people they had called “non-progressive” and “anti,” the churches of Christ. Preachers like brother Hall L. Calhoun left the digressive movement and spent the rest of his days preaching for churches of Christ.

Many “seeds of apostasy” were being sown in churches of Christ in the 1930s and 1940s, and by the 1950s there were many definite trends away from the truth. These “trends of error” were not considered to be “error” by the majority in the church, they were looked upon as “signs of progress.” In fact, any man who would raise his voice against them was to be branded as a trouble-maker, called “anti,” barred from the pulpit and treated as a heretic! Many of us who loved the truth and the souls of men more than popularity and money did raise our voices, and God, who gives the increase, saved a remnant of the church from complete apostasy.

Those who thirty-five years ago thought the “trends of error” (the sponsoring church arrangement and human institutions set up to do the work of the church) were “marks of progress” have now lived to view their work with grief. The “fruit” of these “trends of error” has not caused undenominational Christianity to flourish in the earth; it has borne the bitter fruit of modernism, denominationalism, the “social gospel,” church-sponsored social and recreational activities, every conceivable human organization to do the work of the church and acceptance of the denominational theory of the “direct operation” of the Holy Spirit. Many who have nurtured these “trends of error” are now, with great grief, having to fight day and night against “the unity-in-diversity” error; women preachers; the “no-pattern” doctrine; the “new hermeneutic”; instrumental music along with choirs and solos in worship; Calvinism; the “we cannot understand the Bible alike” doctrine; those who ridicule the idea of “restoring the New Testament church”; those who chide what they call “the old paths mentality”; those who say the New Testament is not “law” but “love letters,” and those who say we should “preach the man, not the plan.”

What these men need to realize is that they are reaping the harvest of their own sowing! There is a period of time between the “planting” of the seeds of apostasy and harvest of the full-grown crop. The first “seed of apostasy” that was sown was that the church is not all-sufficient to do its work (Acts 14:23; 20:28); here they rejected Bible authority and “cracked the door” for all the rest to come in! Many of us warned in years gone by what the end-result would be, but they would not hear. Now they have lived to view their own work with grief! Brethren, please give up your “sponsoring churches” and church support of human institutions, etc.; come back in repentance to Bible authority in all things, and save your souls before it is too late!

Let us all learn a lesson from this – apostasy comes with very small trends away from God’s order; the seed is sown, and in time it will bring forth a full harvest! There are “seeds of error” being sown among us today, and an “attitudinal apostasy” is at work (2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:7). If these trends and attitudes are not changed we will, in time, suffer the same problems of those who are now having to fight against the errors mentioned before. Brethren, let us get back to Bible authority in all things so that we can change these wrong attitudes and stop the trends that we might save our own soul and the souls of those who hear us.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, p. 196
April 2, 1992