Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

Dear Brother Kearley,

I was perplexed at your November, 1991 editorial in which you praised and thanked the 4000 congregations which participated in the “One Nation Under God” Campaign.

First, you said it was a success because it has stirred our minds to remember the Great Commission. I suppose one should say the same about the Boston and Crossroads movements, the missionary society, and the Billy Graham Campaigns. But we don’t need these or the “O.N.U.G.” Campaign to remind us of our duty.

Second, you said the campaign did more to unite the “fiercely independent” churches of Christ throughout the nation. “I believe the Bible teaches congregational autonomy and that each is to be independent from the other.” The Sycamore church and the contributing congregations are practicing the opposite of what you say you believe. When the contributing congregations joined the campaign, they delegated a portion of the oversight of their work and resources to the Sycamore elders. God has limited the oversight of elders to “the flock which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28). Whatever pertains to the local flock (its work resources, worship, edification, discipline), is what they oversee.

What would have been readily recognized as a society had the overseers of the campaign identified themselves separate from the church, was obscured by the fact that they assumed the title of “elders” in both roles. To call themselves elders in both the role of overseeing a local church and overseeing a multi-church or churchhood project is deceptive, whether intentional or not. They were already overseeing the local work at Sycamore. But when they took control of a National Campaign through which all other churches function, they assumed a dual role and became more than local elders. To refer to themselves as “elders” in a role God never gave elders (overseeing a churchhood function) is a misnomer. When the scope of their oversight became larger than a local church they overstepped God’s boundaries for oversight. They corrupted the organization of the church and have developed a “brotherhood” (churchhood) oversight. This is the point at which they sinned, and so did the contributing churches. Regardless of anyone’s sincerity, we can only know them by their fruit.

Third, you said the benefit of the campaign was related to unity and brotherhood. “Tragically, a sense of fragmentation has been running throughout our brotherhood for a number of years.” Yet you said the 4000 contributing churches comprised only 33 percent of all congregations. So which is the fragment? Your 33 percent, or the 67 percent that did not participate in this corruption of the organization of the church?

Continuing your quote: “Some have been moving toward liberalism, while others have moved toward . . . Legalism. ” The focus of too many has been upon agitation, argumentation, and hostility.” Brother Kearley, were you agitating, argumentative, hostile, and being legalistic when you opposed the Boston/Crossroads Movement in the pages of the Gospel Advocate? What is legalism except insisting that we do all things according to the pattern?

Fourth, you called the campaign a “positive effort. ” Is it positive to violate the limitations God has placed on the scope of elders? No, a person is being positive when he is moving along the lines of scriptural authority, not when he disregards God’s will and involves a sizable segment of God’s people in error.

The Herald of Truth has split the brotherhood twice. The “O.N.U.G. ” Campaign not only maintains a division over the sponsoring church but has divided institutional brethren, some of whom have spoken and written against it. Is this positive? Is this expedient?

Fifth, you said “visible results demonstrate success. ” But they don’t demonstrate that the “Sponsoring Church” concept is scriptural. Again, one could say the same about the Boston/Crossroads Movement, the Missionary Society, and the Billy Graham Campaigns. You told us that more than 250 baptisms have been reported. Since $10,000,000 was the amount needed, that figures to approximately $40,000 per baptism. We can do better than that in gospel meetings for a lot less than $40,000! Many of the responses may have obeyed anyway as a result of some of the local churches conducting their gospel meetings in conjunction with the campaign. I suspect 4000 congregations could each conduct a gospel meeting and have as many baptisms without having to corrupt the organization of the church. Further, $10,000,000 will support 357 American preachers for a whole year (at an average of $28,000 annually). Surely, each of them could convert one person in a year’s time! That’s more than 250 even if they convert a minimum of one per year. The “O.N.U.G.” Campaign was not expedient even from a financial point of view.

Brother F.B. Shepherd said, “There is absolutely no precept or example in the Holy Scripture for the existence of any organization, federation, or society which embraces more or less than one local congregation through which to perform the work of the Lord in the furtherance of the gospel” (Gospel Advocate, 2/25/32).

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. said, “For one church to help another church bear its own burdens, therefore, has scriptural precedent. But for one church to solicit funds from other churches for general distribution in other fields or places, thus becoming the treasury for other churches, is quite a different question. Such procedure makes a sort of society out of the elders of a local church, and for such there is no scriptural precedent or example” (Gospel Advocate, 5/14/31).

F.B. Syrgley said, “The agency system of collecting funds from many churches, even if it is done under some eldership, is without authority, ties churches together and has a tendency to destroy the initiative and independence of the local church. . . . The greatest objection to the whole scheme is that it is not in the New Testament” (Gospel Advocate, 11/1/34).

Numerous and similar quotes can be produced from H. Leo Boles and several others, all from the pages of the Advocate. It was known as “The Old Reliable.” But what must be said of the Advocate, brother Kearley, now that you are teaching that all congregations may do evangelistic work under the oversight of one centralized eldership? Does this not make them a “churchhood” eldership? You say churches of Christ are “fiercely independent” and you believe that they should be. But there is a vast different between what you preach and in what you praise and practice. It is similar to the Southern Baptists who claim to be fiercely independent while promoting the Southern Baptist Convention. You bemoan that some have been moving toward liberalism. Brother Kearley, “thou art the man.”

For the sake of truth above all else, Dick Blackford.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 166-167
March 19, 1992

By Clark C. Buzbee

“These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:8-9). Isaiah first said it, and Jesus quoted it, making application of it to those who had nullified the word of God by what they “said” when compared with what they “did.”

The application of this Scripture is very simple. When we honor God’s commandment with our mouth but practice something else, we are guilty of sin in that we make null and void the word of God. There are several Scriptures that relate to this sin, and there are numerous Bible examples of those who were guilty of this sin.

This article will deal with specific examples of this sin as it is practiced today. As noted in the title of this article, this is a common sin in the denominational world. It is also true that some of my own brethren in the Lord in this area have failed to keep what they say consistent with what they do; therefore their flagrant inconsistency will be pointed out in these studies also.

We must teach the truth (Jn. 8:32; 17:17), and our practice must be consistent with that truth (Matt. 23:1-3). Otherwise, we will be eternally separated from God (Matt. 7:21-23). With these facts in mind, all of us should be able to see the importance of striving to keep our activities consistent with God’s word!

An example of an individual who “said” that he had “done” the will of God when in fact he had not, is found in 1 Samuel 15. Saul said, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord,” but the noise of the animals was compelling evidence to the contrary. The bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen stood in district contrast to what Saul was saying.

Likewise, today, the “noise” of what some are doing stands in sharp contrast to what they are saying.

The Scriptures Are Complete

The words used to express it may be different, but most religious people who may be called “conservative” claim to believe the Bible to be a “complete rule of faith and practice.” Therefore it is common for preachers to say, “The scriptures are complete and contain everything necessary for us to please God in this life and live in eternity with Him.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17, Jude 3, and 2 Peter 1:1-3 certainly establish the truthfulness of the above statement. The Bible is complete! It does furnish everything necessary for us to please God!

When we “say” this, we are also saying that God concluded his revelation with the giving of the New Testament. We must therefore reject all claims to any “new” revelation today. This is where “lip service” enters the picture.

While claiming to believe the Bible to be God’s complete revelation to mankind, many preachers (without so much as a blush) are constantly claiming that “God spoke to my heart and said” thus and so. Just a few days ago I heard a “preacher” say, “The Lord said to me, there is someone watching today who . . .” Then he continued by saying, “The Lord spoke to me, and told me to tell that person . . .” Such claims as this to direct communication with God, and God telling these various preachers what to say and do have become all too common.

These men are either self-deluded or outright deceivers, or both! They “say” they believe the Bible is complete, but what they are claiming and doing speak to the contrary! I would walk twenty miles, barefoot, to hear these men explain why we are to heed the things they claim God has said to them, and not listen to the claims of men like Joseph Smith who “said” that God spoke to him!

Every single one of these people who “claim” God has spoken to them are much like the prophets of whom God spoke when he said in Jeremiah 23:21, “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.”

Saul said, “I have done what the Lord said.” Samuel said, “What is all that noise I hear?” Men say, “I believe the Bible is complete.” We need to ask, “What are all those claims to current revelation I hear?”

Congregational Independence

The scribes and Pharisees said they honored their parents, but what they did was disregard the needs of their parents (Matt. 15:1-9). They, by a deceitful “explanation” of God’s commandement, taught that you did not actually have to honor your father and mother.

Let us focus on the Bible fact that each local church of Christ is to be independent and autonomous. Some brethren say they believe this, but what they have done compares to the noise of thousands of sheep and oxen!

What is meant by the term “autonomy”? I once read what I believe is an excellent description of this Bible principle. There were six points. A congregation of God’s people is authorized by God to: (1) control its own resources; (2) control its own work and worship (within the doctrine of Christ); (3) manage its own affairs; (4) exercise congregational discipline; (5) provide for its own; and (6) govern itself in matters of judgment. All of the above are to be done under the oversight of a plurality of elders when and if men are qualified (scripturally).

In the New Testament each congregation was indeed independent and autonomous. No congregation was ever authorized by God to become involved in the affairs of another congregation. God limited the oversight of a group of elders to the local church of which they are a part. There is no Bible authority for elders of one congregation to exercise oversight of another congregation; there is no authoritry for them to control the resources of another congregation; there is no authority for them to own and control the property of another congregation; there is no authority for them to transfer ownership of that property to a third congregation; and there is no authority for that congregation to sell the property and thereby force the church meeting on the property to leave their place of assembly.

But, all of this was done, and it was done by those who say that they believe in the independence and autonomy of each local church. No wonder Jesus said, “These people . . . honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matt. 15:8)”

I would walk twenty miles, barefoot, to hear someone try to scripturally “justify” such control and “oversight” of elders. I would walk a second twenty miles, still barefoot, to hear a preacher seek to give Bible authority for a church to receive and dispose of another congregation’s property!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 163-164
March 19, 1992

By Louis J. Sharp

“Hellenism is the name we give to the manifold achievements of the Greeks in social and political institutions, in the various arts, in science and philosophy, in morals and religion” (ISBE 1371). “It is difficult to define this spirit, but one may say that it was marked from the first by an inclination to permit the free development and expression of individuality subordinated to the common good. A healthy social life was the result for those who shared the privileges of citizenship, and also, in hardly less degree, for those resident aliens who received the protection of the state. Women also, though not so free as men, enjoyed, even at Athens where they were most limited, liberties unknown to the Orientals (includes the Jews, LHS) . . . their lot was mitigated in general by a steadily growing humanity” (Ibid. 1372).

Pfeiffer submits that “Alexander the Great had been a missionary as well as a conqueror. Alexander continued to think of himself as one who was bringing the blessings of Hellenism, as the Greek way of life is called, to the more benighted parts of the world” (Between the Testaments 83). “Fine buildings were erected. A gymnasium was built for that culture of the boy which the Greek always stressed. An open air theatre was built to entertain the populace. Greek dress was observed in the city, with people speaking the Greek language and subscribing to one of the schools of Greek philosophy” (Ibid. 83-84). “Palestine itself was not so far removed as to be untouched. Especially the educated classes were enamored with the Greek way of doing things. The amphitheater and the gymnasium were attractive to the young, and a strong Hellenistic party emerged. In Judea . . . an anti-Hellenistic party arose which considered the Greek manner of life a threat to Judaism. The emphasis on things material, the nude appearance of athletes in the gymnasium, the neglect of Jewish rites, were regarded as evidence of defection from the law of God” (Ibid. 90).

Do not these happening sound very familiar today? I see a strong parallel between the influence of Greece in the ancient world and America in our own era. Our emphasis seems to be the same as was theirs. Edward J. Young wrote of the development of Hellenism under Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in his commentary on Daniel.

It was under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes that the Jews particularly suffered. When he came to the throne the Jews were being subjected to a process of Hellenization, which Antiochus continued. Under the leadership of Joshua, a brother of the high priest Onias III, many of the Jews were willing to fall in line with Antiochus’ policy of Hellenization. By means of a bribe, Joshua, who had changed his name to Jason, induced Antiochus to depose Onias and to place himself in the office of high priest. He immediately set about to permit an influx of Grecian customs, even establishing a gymnasium (an exercise-ground) under the citadel in Jerusalem (303).

Why do we fail to learn lessons from history? What happened in reference to the Hellenizing of the Jews has occurred in the “social gospel” in the church of our Lord in this century. The perceptive student of history cannot help but see that history is “repeating itself” under different labels, yet motivated by the same spirit. John cautioned, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 Jn. 2:1517).

Lord, help us to follow Thee being led by Thy Word without addition, subtraction, or alteration. May we ever speak “as the Oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, p. 169
March 19, 1992

By Lewis Willis

Most of us live busy lives which require just about all of our effort to take care of our own business. The increased demands upon our strength and time over the last 25 years have made this problem more critical. It is possible to observe the “wear and tear” in the tired faces of most of us. As we have sought to deal with these increasing demands, I am afraid we might have over looked a very important responsibility we have as Christians.

When it is difficult for us to attend to all of our own duties, it is easy to forget that we have a responsibility to each other that is also important. The Hebrew writer set forth that responsibility in these words: “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works” (Heb. 10:24). The very nature of the statement – the language used – establishes beyond any shadow of doubt that this is a duty, not an optional matter. Therefore, as the Christian contemplates his duty to his own affairs, he must remember and consider others. This is not an obligation to simply think about others, but it sets forth a requirement that we do for them what we can for their good.

This brief article is not intended to catalog specific things we are to do for one another, It is intended to get us to stop and think about the effect we have on others in the things we do, the way we act, and in the things we say. Unless we are thoughtful of others, we will frequently cause them harm by our words and deeds. It would not be possible to meet the demands of Hebrews 10:24 without considering how our lives affect people around us and, in the case of Christians, how we impact other Christians. What do other people think when they look at us?

Would they think that we are arrogant? Proud? Self-righteous? The Word of God says, “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:5-6). Clearly God rejects an arrogant, self-righteous demeanor. It not only looks bad, but it is deceptive. “For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himse1f” (Gal. 6:3). I have met a few Christians who appeared to be as arrogant as they acted. However, most who are charged with this sin just do not realize how they are affecting other people. It is not intentional, but it has the same effect.

The concept of Christianity which many people have is frequently that which they observe in the lives of people they consider to be Christians. It would be a mistake if Christians did not stop to consider that they are having this impact on people around them, especially those who are babes in Christ.

I like these words from the song, “The World’s Bible.” I think they capture for us the essence of our duty to “consider one another.”

We are the only Bible the careless world will read, We are the sinners gospel, we are the scoffers’ creed; We are the Lord’s last message given in deed and word, What if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred?

Non-Christians look upon us in the way described in the song, and so do some Christians, especially new Christians. Thus, we must consider them in the things we say and do. Unless we are very careful, we might cause them to be disappointed in us, particularly if our conduct is not consistent with what they regard to be proper conduct. If they are struggling with living the Christian life, and if they have looked to us for direction, it would be an easy thing to discourage them by our conduct. It could reach the point that a new Christian could suffer great damage to his faith. On reflection, it should be added that even mature Christians could be hurt in the same way by the conduct of other mature Christians. No one, knowing the will of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:32; Rom. 14:13), wants to do injury to another.

It must be noted that this is “a two-way street. ” We must learn that we are following the Lord, not other Christians. We must remember that people – all people – have problems living righteous lives consistently. All of us sin, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). A new Christian has no more right to demand perfection of other members of the local church than those members have to demand perfection of the new Christian. We must all try to help each other, because we all need help. This is not an easy lesson to learn, but it is learned when we “consider one another.” What I am saying is that thoughtfulness and consideration must flow from both.

Thus, the warning of God’s Word is before us. No one wants to hurt, disappoint, weaken or destroy another Christian. We want to prompt each other to involve ourselves in things of love and good works. When we become aware that we have adversely affected others, we should strive to correct the matter. If the matter is not correctable, we should resolve that we will not allow it to happen again. One thing that will prevent a breakdown in relationships is to remember we are serving the Lord, living by his Word, trying to learn and we are aware of the imperfections in each other. Then we will all be acting in the interest of the Lord, and of one another.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, p. 168
March 19, 1992