Truth Magazine

By Terry F. Sanders

Sin is clearly defined in the New Testament as transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4, KJV). Another version says sin is lawlessness (Jn. 3:4, ASV). These translations center around the Greek word anomia which is a compound word from a, negative, and nomos, law (Vine’s). Sin is acting against or without law. This same compound word is also translated in the New Testament as “iniquity” (Matt. 7:23) and “unrighteousness” (2 Cor. 6:14).

The law that we refer to is God’s law. In the Garden of Eden God gave a law (Gen. 2:15-17). Man transgressed it (Gen. 3:16). Man, in doing so, sinned (Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:14). God later gave a law through Moses (Jn. 1:17). Those who transgressed that law sinned (Num. 14:40-42). Today we have the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). To transgress that law is to sin (2 Jn. 9). From all of this, we ought to be able to understand the basic meaning of sin. It is acting against the law given by God! I say this so we understand that sin is not acting against our personal likes and dislikes. Let me give you an example of what this means. I don’t like accordion music or yodeling personally but a brother or sister who engages in either one has not sinned. Do you get the idea? If so, can you make the same distinction consistently? Can you limit sin to transgression of God’s law?

Sin has a price. That price is separation from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8). But man is not without the opportunity for forgiveness.

Forgiveness

God was not without a plan for helping man overcome sin. He had a remedy. God decided that the shedding of blood would play an integral part in the remission of sins (Heb. 9:22). In old times the blood of bulls and goats was utilized (see, for instance, Lev. 1-5). Yet the blood of those animals only kept the sins committed in remembrance (Heb. 10:1-4) until the time came (consider Gal. 4:4) that true remission of sins became possible.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Lk. 19: 10). He spoke of his blood being shed for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28). This was accomplished on Calvary’s cross (Jn. 19:34). This was shed for redemption and forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:;7; Col. 1:14). His blood also remitted the sins of those of old times (Heb. 9:14-15). It is his blood that can cleanse from all sin (1 Jn. 1:7).

The remission of sins by the shed blood of Christ is available to man through baptism (Acts 2:38). Can you see the connection? Both the blood of Christ and baptism are for (in order to) the same end – remission of sins (compare Matt. 26:28 with Acts 2:38). The former is what God has done through his Son in order to make the remission of sins a reality. The latter is what man must do in order to obtain the remission of sins.

The child of God who has received this remission of sins may fall into sin again (2 Pet. 2:21). We have an example of one person who actually did fall from grace. Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized the same as everyone else (Acts 8:13). Dare we say his conversion was any different? If so, how so? No, it was not different at all. He was as much a Christian as anyone else who believed and was baptized. But Simon sinned after his conversion (Acts 8:18-23). Once again was Simon in iniquity (or sin). He was told to repent and pray that he might be forgiven (Acts 8:22). He also confessed his guilt (Acts 8:24) while exhibiting compliance with the instruction given. What was all this toward? It was toward once again obtaining the cleansing from the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7,9).

No one, whether an alien sinner or a Christian, fallen in sin can obtain forgiveness of sins separate and apart from the blood of Christ.

With this forgiveness comes a change of relationship to God. God’s face is no longer away from the sinner, but favorable toward him (1 Pet. 3:12). In a very colorful description forgiveness is pictured as God casting sins behind his back (Isa. 38:17). The guilt is gone. God now looks upon man with favor and that which separated man from him is cast aside. How encouraging is this thought! God will forgive man! Even when man won’t forgive, God will! Remember that forgiveness means that guilt is over. However, while guilt may be removed, the consequencs of sin may still remain.

Consequences

One has said that to every action there is a reaction. That is true. Let us consider this statement. “To every action there are consequences. ” I believe this is equally true.

Probably the best example of consequences existing and continuing after sin was forgiven is found in David’s life. David sinned in the matter of Bathsheba, Uriah the Hittite’s wife (2 Sam. 11). David was guilty of adultery, theft, lying, murder, and covetousness.

Compounding the evil of the action was the fact that the enemies of the Lord were handed an occasion to blaspheme God (2 Sam. 12:14). A prophet of God by the name of Nathan was sent by God to confront David. This was done by way of a parable. David could clearly see the guilt in the parable (2 Sam. 12:1-6). Nathan then applied the parable to David (2 Sam. 12:7). Nathan pointed out the punishment that would come to David as a consequence of his sins. Violence and shame would be prevalent in his family (2 Sam. 12:9-12). The child born of the adultery with Bathsheba would die (2 Sam. 12:14b).

But, someone may say, David confessed his sins and was forgiven. That is true and is revealed in language as plain as ever was written (2 Sam. 12:13). The guilt was taken away, but the consequences remained. David’s family became shambles. His son Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1-14). In revenge Tamar’s brother Absalom had his half-brother Amnon killed (2 Sam. 13:22-29). This same Absalom rebelled against his father in an attempt to usurp the throne (2 Sam. 15-17). Absalom even lay with David’s concubines in the sight of all Israel (2 Sam. 16:22). Another son, Adonijah, later rebelled and made his own attempt at the throne of David (1 Kgs. 1:5). Despite David’s intercession for the unnamed child born to him and Bathsheba, it died (2 Sam. 12:16-23). Truly, the consequences of David’s sins remained even after he was forgiven. The consequences of our sins remain after forgiveness in the same manner. A person may kill someone in an auto accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. The sin may later be forgiven, but the consequence of a life snuffed out remains. A husband and father may commit adultery and later be forgiven, but the consequence of hurt and misplaced trust on the part of the wife and the family will remain long afterward.

Can we not see the importance of this? Should we not pay closer attention to our actions because of what they might bring forth? I most definitely think so! “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9; 1 Cor. 5:6). Please, think about it. We cannot take this lightly. Our actions and the consequences of them will determine whether or not our light will be shining on a hill or a reproach in the eyes of others.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 141-142
March 5, 1992

By Lindsay A. Allen

As God in his wisdom ordained, the world failed to find him by its wisdom, and he chose to save those who have faith by the folly or the gospel (1 Cor. 1:21 N.E.B.).

If there were no other passage in the Bible on preaching, this passage alone would impress upon all of us, especially those who preach, the great need or preaching the gospel of Christ. The need for preaching the gospel never changes. The need remains constant in all ages under all circumstances and conditions. It may appear that in certain periods and places in history the need for gospel preaching was much greater and urgent than at other times. When the forces of evil are wide-spread and Satan seems to be in the saddle exercising control over the passions of men, there seems to be a much greater need for gospel preaching. However, it must be recognized that sin is sin, transgression of God’s law, whether it is a violation of moral or spiritual law, and if persisted in, it will bring eternal death (Rom. 6:23). The sins of immorality appear to be more serious than so-called doctrinal sins because the former bring social disorder and discord. But this is not the way God views the matter. While those who practice the works of the flesh come under divine condemnation, those who teach for doctrine the commandments of men will also be lost (Matt. 15:6-9,13; Lk. 7:29-30). The gospel must be preached to the good moral man who has not obeyed the gospel as well as to the immoral. Thus Paul instructed Timothy to “preach the word. Be urgent in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). The N.E.B. renders this passage “press it home on all occasions.” There is never a time to soften or let up in preaching the gospel. As long as sin and false doctrine are in the world, the gospel must be preached, for there is no other remedy for sin.

History, secular and divine, is a silent witness to man’s need in every age for the gospel of Christ. For four thousand years man carried on a persistent and continuous search for God apart from divine revelation. Philosophers, theologians, and scientists (the scholastic cream of the ages) carried on a relentless search for the true knowledge of God with dogged determination, under the most favorable circumstances, and utilizing the best resources available. Yet, in spite of all the skills of learning applied with diligence and industry, the search always ended in a blind alley. As Adam Clark has so well said, “No wisdom but that which came from God could ever penetrate and illuminate the human mind.” This failure to find God through human learning and wisdom may appear strange in the light of man’s accomplishments in other fields of endeavor. Man has been able to unlock doors to many of the secrets of the universe and reveal secrets thus far unknown to bring material comfort and satisfaction to his fellows. However, no man or group of men, ancient or modern, have been able to lift the veil that clouded man’s understanding of God. So it shall ever be, for as the above passage states, “As God in his wisdom has ordained.” Man seems slow to learn that God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordered and arranged the plan of salvation to make it impossible for man to come to a true knowledge of God apart from divine revelation. Moreover, history shows that the more man searches for God through human devices, the farther he wanders from God. Sin is added to sin until the lowest level of moral degradation and corruption is reached. In Romans 1, Paul gives a horrible, yet vivid, picture of the sad plight of the Gentile world because they refused to have God in their knowledge and launched out on their own wisdom. The only remedy for such conditions is the gospel of Christ. The need today is the same. Nor will the time ever come when the gospel will be out of date. The gospel is God’s power to save in every age and every clime. The gospel has been “once for all delivered” for man’s salvation. No other revelation will be forthcoming.

Now it is in order to inquire, What is gospel preaching? No man is prepared to preach until he knows what the gospel is. Far too many are attempting to preach who have little conception of what the gospel really is. This writer is in agreement with the late Curtis Porter when he said, “We have entirely too much preaching that means nothing, and the need of the hour is for men who have the courage to preach a distinctive message” (Truth Magazine 24:46). Another worthy preacher has said, “All preachers need a check-up once in a while.” Every preacher who loves the truth and the souls of men will run a check on himself examining his attitude toward God and his word, and the manner and content of his preaching. Too much is at stake to treat preaching lightly. Now, what are some of the features of gospel preaching?

1. Gospel preaching is Bible preaching. The Bible, the word of God, is the one and only textbook. While the preacher may consult dictionaries, commentaries, histories, etc., as aids to a better understanding of language, etc., such aids should never overshadow the word of God. He must remember that he is a messenger delivering the word of truth. The following excerpt is taken from Ministry, a Seventh Day Adventist publication, and is given here to show that even among some denominations there is an understanding of preaching even though misapplied: “A sermon idea, then, is of no value unless it is Biblically oriented. A Biblical preacher will keep in mind, first of all, that the only truth he can or will preach is Bible truth. Every idea that he uses must have a solid foundation in the word of God. There is no exception. If you cannot find scripture that will match the idea, you can perhaps give a good talk, but you can’t preach a Biblical sermon, because sermons are based only on the word of God.” The late H. Leo Boles often told the preacher-boys, “Boys, there is a great difference in preaching the gospel and making a talk on a Bible subject.” Let the news media take care of the social and economic problems, and let the preacher be about his business of preaching the gospel.

2. Gospel preaching is Christ centered. The very heart and core of the gospel is good news about the Savior. The coming of Jesus into the world to save a recreant and ruined race through the offering of himself upon the cross is the theme of the Bible. This is what gospel preaching is all about. To fail to point men to the Lamb of God is to fail to preach the Gospel. Men must be made to understand that Jesus “gave himself for our sins.”

3. Gospel preaching is distinctive preaching. The story of the cross and the plan of salvation God devised to save man is a very distinctive message. Gospel preaching identifies these truths and thus draws a sharp line of distinction between the gospel and the vagaries of denominationalism. The great difference between the truth of the gospel and false teaching must be set forth with clarity so that those who hear may understand the difference. There is something wrong when those who are steeped in sin and false teaching can listen and go away feeling comfortable. All who hear may not obey the gospel, but at least they know what the Bible teaches. Again, we quote from the same article by brother Porter, “Preaching that is not distinctive enough to make the lost realize they are lost is not the kind of preaching it takes to save men. Whenever an unfaithful brother, one guilty of sin against high heaven, or with an ungodly attitude toward the work of the Lord can sit under a man’s preaching without feeling any discomfort or alarm, there is probably something wrong with his preaching.” Preaching that does not disturb those in sin could hardly be called gospel preaching.

4. Gospel preaching identifies and separates. Gospel preaching identifies and brings to light the different classes of hearers. The value of the gospel depends not only on the preaching but also on the condition of the heart of the hearer. Those who are insincere and do not love the truth will soon be identified and weeded out. These who are living ungodly lives will either repent or separate themselves from the Lord’s people. Those who love God and his word and have an honest heart will be strengthened and thus make strong disciples. This kind of preaching keeps the church pure and by so doing will prevent many church problems. Brethren, encourage the preacher where you worship to “lay it on the line” and tell it as it is written. This is the only kind of preaching that will save souls and build up the Lord’s church.

5. Gospel preaching is kind and compassionate. There is the mistaken idea that gospel preaching that draws a sharp line between truth and error is caustic and unkind, driving people away. This is certainly not true. A review of preaching in the New Testament will show that gospel preaching was firm, straightforward and uncompromising, yet with kindness and compassion. Brethren, let us be firm, but with kindness.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 131-132
March 5, 1992

By David L. Eubanks

(Editor’s Note: Shortly after the following article appeared in the 10 November 1991 issue of Christian Standard, I contacted Editor Sam Stone and obtained permission to reprint this article. Having obtained permission, I prepared a reply to the article and sent it to brother Eubanks requesting permission to reprint his article and extending to him an opportunity to answer my reply in the same issue of Guardian of Truth. He wrote giving me permission to publish his article but declining the offer to answer my reply.

Eubanks has written a good explanation and defense of the unity-in-diversity approach to the issue of mechanical instruments of music in worship. This is the popular approach to the instrumental music question which is having a great impact among our institutional brethren. Too, a similar appeal for unity-in-diversity has been made among us for fellowshipping those who are teaching and practicing loose doctrinal positions on divorce and remarriage. For these reasons, this material deserves a rebuttal. Please consider this article carefully and my reply to it which begins on p. 18.)

I have the greatest respect for many of our brothers and sisters who prefer to worship without the instrument, particularly those who do not believe that it should be made a test of fellowship. I even respect the zeal and commitment of many of those who believe that it is a matter of faith, although I do not agree with them.

At the same time, I am forced to the conclusion that the devil has used this controversy to sow the seed of discord among the brethren and hinder the growth of the church of Jesus Christ.

In this article I wish to explain my reasons for believing that the use of instrumental music in corporate worship should not be made a test of fellowship. I would sincerely hope that this paper would be the source of healing and harmony rather than productive of more discord over this troublesome question.

The use of instrumental music in corporate worship should be considered a matter of preference and forbearance. There is some indication that singing with instrumental accompaniment was prophesied and commanded of Christians. Psalm 87:5-7 reads, “As of Zion it shall be said . . . ‘the singers as the players on instruments shall be there: all my springs are in thee.”‘

Many Bible scholars agree that these words were a prophecy of the church of Jesus Christ and are fulfilled in the church. If so, then the psalmist prophesied that there would be the players on instruments as well as the singers in the church.

In Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 Paul commands us to admonish one another with psalms. In James 5:13 we are commanded to sing psalms when we are merry. The words psalmos (noun) used in Ephesians and Colossians and psallo (verb) in James – in their root meaning – refer to striking, twitching, or twanging on a musical instrument. There is little doubt that in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament they refer to singing with a stringed instrument, generally a harp.

Some people consider the above Scriptures alone to constitute a positive command that instrumental music be a part of the worship of the New Testament church. Why then would it be a matter of forbearance?

First, because an understanding of these Scriptures requires a measure of interpretation. Some Bible scholars do not feel that Psalm 87 refers to the church. If they are honest in their questioning, then their consciences must be considered. Some scholars suggest that, although psallo and psalmos referred to singing a sacred song with the accompaniment of a stringed instrument in the Old Testament, they refer merely to the singing of a song of praise in the New Testament.

From my study, I would say that the arguments on both sides are inconclusive.

Perhaps my major reason for treating it as a matter of forbearance is that we have no New Testament precedent for the complete list of complements to a corporate worship service.

Acts 2:42 indicates that the Jerusalem church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. From this text and others, we conclude that these elements should be included in the Lord’s Day gathering of the church.

However, if this text is considered to provide complete instruction for corporate worship activities, then singing itself would be excluded. Such is not the case. Paul recognizes that one or more people in the Corinthian church had presented a psalm in the assembly and seems to approve the practice if it were done decently and in order.

In the absence of any inclusive list of expedients for corporate worship in the New Testament, we must be forbearing in the use or non-use of musical instruments to accompany singing. It is not facetious to suggest that church buildings, hymn books, Bible-school literature, tuning forks, and other expedients for corporate worship that have been commonly accepted fall into a category that also includes musical instruments to accompany singing. An expedient is not a necessity but an aid to those who use it wisely.

It is argued that musical instruments have been misused n the corporate worship of the church. Indeed, sometimes they have. So have church buildings, but they are not rejected as sinful simply because of that fact.

Making instrumental music in worship a test of fellowship is inconsistent with one of the most precious principles of the New Testament and the restoration movement. The issue over instrumental music is not a subject on which there is a clear “thus saith the Lord.” To make the use or non-use of it a test of fellowship is to reject the founding principle of our movement: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

Speaking where the Scriptures are silent can be almost as dangerous and divisive as failing to speak where they speak. Those who follow such a course have difficulty stopping with instrumental music. Many of them have also divided with brothers over Bible-school literature, orphans’ homes, the use of multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.

The clearest answer to the controversy over instrumental music in the restoration movement is the solution Paul gave to the church at Rome over the issue of eating unclean meat. The great apostle contended that there is room in the church for both those who eat meat and those who do not. There is room in the church for those who prefer to sing with an instrument in corporate worship and those who do not.

The redeeming principle is that no person judge his brother (or sister) in these matters. That position belongs to Christ alone (Rom. 14:4,10).

Thomas Campbell made this same point in his Declaration and Address of 1809. He wrote in proposition three: “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.”

Again in proposition six he affirmed: “Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word: yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so.”

What do these propositions say to the controversy over instrumental music? They say the same thing that Paul said in Romans 14. One may infer from the New Testament ‘that instrumental music should or should not be used in worship. He may even consider his deductions to be the teaching of Scripture. He cannot, however, judge the conscience of a congregation in this matter.

J.W. McGarvey, who was strongly opposed to instrumental music in worship and belonged to a non-instrument church, did not believe that it should be made a test of salvation. In fact, he was a contributing editor to the Christian Standard, which took a different position than he did on the subject. He stated his personal views with force and conviction, but he refused to judge his brother’s conscience on this nonessential issue.

Most of the passages of Scripture that are used to condemn instrumental music in corporate worship are used out of context. One such text is Ephesians 5:18,19 (similar to Col. 3:16), which reads, “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” It is certainly doubtful that the plucking implied by the word is on the strings of the heart. Besides, the fact remains that the text is neither describing nor prescribing a corporate worship service.

The context deals with the daily Christian walk, the lifestyle of believers. If instrumental music is excluded when Christians gather for their assemblies, it should also be excluded at all other times, just as husbands are to love their wives at all times, not just when the church gathers.

Many other texts (such as Matt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:12; and Jas. 5:13) are cited to condemn instrumental music in worship. Each of them enjoins singing, but none of them prohibits musical accompaniment per se. Not one of them refers specifically in context to congregational singing in what we would call a corporate worship service, with the possible exception of the texts in Matthew and Acts, both involving extraordinary circumstances. If the Scriptures that are generally used to condemn instrumental accompaniment to singing in corporate worship are being accurately treated as such, they also would condemn the use of instrumental music of all kinds at all times – a position few would hold.

Conclusion

If I do not believe that instrumental music in worship should be made a test of fellowship, and I know that others are offended by its use, why do I not get rid of it for the sake of unity? If the issue were that simple, I would be glad to do so. If the controversy were simply over offending or not offending a brother’s conscience, I would be glad to follow Paul’s admonition in Romans 14:20,21.

But the situation is more complicated than that. Some years ago we had a married family come to Johnson Bible College months before the husband was to enroll in classes. They lived in Knoxville much nearer to a church that did not use the instrument than to one that did, so they began worshipping at the former. They agreed with what was taught, were warmly treated, liked the people, were faithful to all services, and soon walked forward on a Sunday evening to place membership with the congregation.

Their action had apparently taken the minister and leaders of the church by surprise. A hurried conference with the couple revealed that, before they could be extended the right hand of fellowship, they would have to declare publicly before the congregation that they considered the use of instrumental music in worship to be a sin. They, of course, could not declare something which they did not believe, so their relationship with the congregation ended on a sad note with the family deeply hurt by the whole affair.

Granted, this situation does not repesent the sentiments of all those who prefer to worship without the instrument. It does represent the sentiments of a large number, however. Some of these people would even require someone who came from a congregation that used an instrument in worship to be immersed again before that person could be accepted into fellowship.

Perhaps such experiences help us to understand what Paul meant in Colossians 2:16 when he wrote, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” We must resist legalistic attitudes in which some Christians try to bind the consciences of other believers over matters that are not essentials, for which there is not a clear “thus saith the Lord.”

At the same time, we must exercise a loving spirit of forbearance among brothers over this extremely sensitive matter. I am convinced that we could resolve the issue if we were willing to follow the important principle of maintaining unity in essentials, allowing liberty in non-essentials, and demonstrating love in all things. We must practice this vital message which we have preached so long.

The end of the whole matter is Paul’s assertion that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink” (Rom. 14:17). Neither is it singing with or without the instrument. Let us hear the great apostle’s admonition and “follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 144-146
March 5, 1992

By Dick Blackford

The Sycamore church in Cookeville, Tennessee decided to “meet the challenge” of raising $17 million to mail out a brochure to every home in the U.S., purchase ads in leading publications and conduct a TV program. When it became obvious they were not going to get $17 million they went back to the drawing board and decided they could do essentially the same thing for only $10 million. They were about to waste $7 million of the “brotherhood’s” money before they realized this. The thing that kept them from it is that the “brotherhood” didn’t send it. Would you consider it a good risk as an investor in a $17 million project with me if I cut the cost nearly in half when I realized I couldn’t get the full amount?

The Sycamore church is donating about 2 percent of the total. So did they meet the challenge or did they meet only 2 percent of the challenge?

From the Mail-Outs

Numerous high quality, three color mail-outs have repeatedly been sent to thousands of churches begging funds. Add to that video tapes, postage, salary and travel expense for the promoters. It would be safe to say that approximately $1 million was spent on begging. Note what these mail-outs have had to say.

1. The Plan – “Brethren offer $17 million to evangelize the nation. Elders of the Sycamore church of Christ accept oversight of the project.” That’s not quite the way it happened. It didn’t happen in that order (brethren offer, Sycamore accepts). The brethren didn’t offer $17 million. They didn’t even offer $10 million so Sycamore had to mortgage their building and continue to beg (see The Update, July 1991).

If Sycamore “accepted” the oversight, who told them they could have it? Where did those who gave it to them get that right? Who were these people? Who had the authority to make plans for “the brotherhood”? In August, 1989 (before oversight was assumed by Sycamore) there were “brainstorming meetings with brethren experienced in evangelistic outreach, seeking advice and counsel. ” The only officer in the universal church is Jesus. He did not ordain “brotherhood” elders (1 Pet. 5:2). Such authority was usurped. They didn’t “accept” oversight, they seized it! They assumed more than God assigned. And there was no authority for these “brainstorming meetings” (which originated outside any local eldership) to decide anything for the “brotherhood” (actually, a “churchhood”).

2. A message from the elders – “Never before (that we know of) has there been a realistic plan for national and world evangelism. ” They should read more of the Scriptures than the manual on denominational schemes. Paul said the gospel had been “preached to every creature under heaven” during his lifetime (Col. 1:23). Is that not realistic enough? How did they do it? Jesus gave the Great Commission to the apostles who told them to teach others “to teach others” (Matt. 28:19,20). Paul taught the same (2 Tim. 2:2). He taught that the local church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Local churches “sounded forth the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:7,8). This was how they did it. No mention is made of a sponsoring church or brotherhood eldership. Even if they had never heard of a “realistic plan” it would not justify an unscriptural project.

3. What Christians deserve. Christians deserve the opportunity to participate in something bigger than a budget, larger than the local work. ” What did they do to deserve something the Lord didn’t authorize? The Lord didn’t give us anything larger than a local work so he must not have thought we deserved it. Surely his wisdom and knowledge are not so limited as not to see that we needed something larger than a local work. Why didn’t he set up some centralized mechanism for doing it? He didn’t, so some of our brethren did it for him. Some elders have stepped beyond the role of local elders. They think such limitations are old fogey and they have “improved” upon the Lord’s way. But, “My ways are not your ways, saith Jehovah” (Isa. 55:8). Yet all oversight, flock feeding, worship, discipline, and evangelism was done by each local church (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-34; 16:1,2; 14:16; etc.).

4. The Great Privilege. “It allows the individual to feel that he is an integral part of the congregation. ” You mean he wasn’t allowed this before the campaign? That is what is implied. When each member functions in the body as he should (whether he is an “eye,” an ‘gear,” a “foot,” or a “hand,” 1 Cor. 12:15-25), he is an integral part. He was allowed to do this before the “One Nation Under God” Campaign was ever heard of. It was not a privilege that was not allowed when he was functioning in the local church before this churchhood project came along (something larger than a local work).

5. Grand Claims. “Here at the end, is your opportunity to be part of the greatest, most successful evangelistic effort in our brotherhood’s history. ” This was said even before all the brochures were mailed out and the results were known. Is it greater than what happened in Jerusalem beginning on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:5,9,41; 4:4)? Is it more successful than when Paul stated the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Col. 1:23)? Our “brotherhood’s history” goes back to when it began. Promoters are careless to make grand claims (before the facts are known) when they want your money.

6. Something larger and something smaller than a local work. When elders assume oversight of a multi-church project they take on a dual role. They may still be over their local congregation, but they are something more than local elders when they put themselves in charge of a churchhood (misnamed “brotherhood”) project. They are making decisions over something other than and more than their local work (1 Pet. 5:2).

Also, Bible classes are taking collections and forming their own treasuries and taking action under the oversight of someone in the class. They organize and someone acts as treasurer. “___________ and her 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade class have set a goal of $50 to contribute to the ‘One Nation Under God’ Campaign. ” (Other similar quotes appear in the mail-outs). Regardless of good intentions, there is no authority for a functioning organization larger or smaller than a local church. Both have been involved in the “O.N.U.G.” Campaign.

7. Aimed at the “unchurched.” The brochure briefly mentions personal problems such as drugs, materialism, divorce, pornography, but says nothing about the sin of denominationalism, a sin which is causing billions of people to be lost eternally. Concerning their TV talk-show we are told that it is “aimed at 45 percent of the United States population which believes in God, but is not part of any organized denominational group.” Whereas, the gospel is for all (Mk. 16:15).

8. Brotherhood Thinking. “As a brotherhood, we will give an answer as to why we have neglected the Lord’s command to take the gospel to every creature. . . ” Where does the Bible teach we will be judged “as a brotherhood”? No where! If so, a few bad apples in the brotherhood could cause the whole brotherhood to be lost. Our individual salvation would be dependent on what others had left undone. The judgment will be on a personal basis, whether your own name is written in the book of life (Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 25; Rev. 20:13-15).

“Anxiously we await newsfirom the brotherhood that the funds areforthcoming. ” There are numerous references to the “brotherhood.” It seems some “local” elders can think on no other plain. They think “churchhood” when they say brotherhood. A brotherhood is made of brothers, not churches. And then they refer to churches as “sister” congregations! Boy, try making sense out of that! They have drunk too much from the polluted waters of denominationalism and are engaged in the language of Ashdod.

A churchhood is a “hood” of churches. Christ did not authorize a churchhood. Churches are not tied together but are local, independent and autonomous. The only oversight is local. A brotherhood is a “hood” of brothers. Christ is the only officer in the brotherhood and he gave it no function as a brotherhood. It is only mentioned one time in the New Testament and the extent of brotherhood responsbility is specified. “Love the brotherhood” (1 Pet. 2:17). That’s it! The way some sponsoring elders speak and think for the brotherhood you would think it was mentioned on every page of the Bible and in the margin.

9. “Why your congregation deserves a special collection opportunity” for the campaign. “They get to participate in something Biblical, like the ancient Christians. ” As if they were not able to do so long before any “Sponsoring Church” project was ever heard from or thought of! It is hard to believe some know so little about the Bible that they fell for this.

By “special collection” perhaps they had reference to the time when congregations sent relief to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1,2). But consider: (a) Jerusalem was a destitute church. Sycamore is not. They contributed over $200,000 to the campaign. (b) The Jerusalem church did not launch a 10 year program of being destitute. Sycamore launched a 10 year program of begging the “brotherhood” for their churchhood projects. (c) Jerusalem did not launch a massive campaign to solicit funds. Sycamore spent huge sums to beg more money. (d) Jerusalem’s want was in benevolence. Sycamore’s was not. Sycamore wants, but they are not “in want.” (e) Jerusalem’s want was peculiarly theirs. Sycamore’s “want” is no more theirs than it is any other congregation’s. God has not assigned world obligations to one congregation alone. We all have identical and equal duty according to our ability. (f) Jerusalem’s case is in the Bible. Sycamore’s is not. So where is the parallel?

Conclusion

The Sycamore elders have allowed themselves to be influenced by “brotherhood” planners – the “brainstormers.” They seized the oversight of a churchhood project. In doing so, they took more authority than God gave them and involved the congregation in error. The contributing churches have become partakers of their sin. We must strive lawfully and follow the pattern. The Great Commission does not give us a blank check to do anything we want. We cannot “do evil (that which is not authorized, db) that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). We plead with the Sycamore elders to give up their project for the sake of the Scriptures and unity or else have the courage to defend it in public debate.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 112-113
February 20, 1992