Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

Here is a lesson from history that needs to be learned by the Independent Christian Church, institutional, and non-institutional brethren alike. It has been said, “About the only thing we learn from history is that we refuse to learn anything from history.” A shame, but often true. Israel refused to learn from their history. Things written aforetime were written for our learning.

1. “No Pattern” in the work of the church. The Missionary Society had its inception in 1849. It was argued that the Lord did not tell us “how” to do our evangelism and benevolence, therefore, whatever seemed expedient should be used. The Missionary Society (which also had an arm for benevolent work) violated the pattern God gave for evangelism (Phil. 4:16-18; 2 Cor. 11:8) and for benevolence (Acts 6:1-7; 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 8,9).

2. “No Pattern” for the organization of the church. The Missionary Society affected a change in organization. A centralized organization sought to oversee the “brotherhood.” Today, the Disciples of Christ (D of Q are in the process of electing a President for that body.(1) Since Jesus is the only officer in the universal church and he did not ordain “brotherhood” (actually, a “churchhood”) oversight, this violated his pattern for local churches (I Pet.5:2; Acts 20:17,28; 14:23).

3. “No Pattern” in the worship of the church. Instrumental music became an innovation into the worship in the late 1850s. One of the earliest cases was when the melodeon was introduced into Midway Christian Church, Midway, Kentucky (1859), since “the Scriptures did not forbid it.” In a 1987 debate, a preacher for the Independent Christian Church argued that there is no pattern to the worship. “Worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it.”(2) This violated the specific teaching of the Scriptures that we worship by singing (Eph.5:19; Col.3:16, etc.). The Scriptures did not say sing only, but they only said sing. We have no right to generalize where God specified, and no right to specify where God generalized.

The D of C also have a number of ordained women preachers.(3) This violates the Lord’s pattern that preachers be men (1 Tim. 2:11,12; Tit. 2:15).

4. “No Pattern” in the plan of salvation. The D of C have become one of nine denominations which formed the Consultation On Church Union (COCU). The COCU-nuts (as they whimsically refer to themselves) have a total membership of 23 million. Each, in their ecumenical way, has accepted the baptism of the others, which includes Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians.(4) The D of C now accepts those sprinkled in infancy. Their position is that there is no pattern to the plan of salvation (one may be baptized without believing) and there is no pattern to baptism (sprinkling and pouring are as acceptable as immersion). This violates God’s pattern on the purpose and nature of baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom.6:4; Col.2:12; 1 Pet.3:21).

Their ecumenical error has led the Lexington Theological Seminary to form an alliance with the Catholic Diocese of Covington, Kentucky. The seminary offers a Master of Arts degree in Catholic subject matter to those who will use the degree to teach the Catholic faith. The material covers the Sacraments of Initiation, Eucharistic Rites, Doctrinal and Moral Teachings as well as a History of the Roman Catholic Church.(5)

5. “No Pattern” in morality. At the 1987 biennial general assembly of the D of C that body refused to pass a resolution that would call homosexuality a sin.(6) Michael K. Kinnamon, dean of Lexington Theological Seminary, is all but a shoo-in -to be President of the D of C at their election in October, 1991. He is being opposed by a small minority because he feels that homosexual behavior is acceptable before God. Said Kinnamon, “My own concern is not to condemn homosexuals, but to stand where Jesus stood. In a society that tends to exclude and reject them, the church needs to stand with them . . . I would advocate ordination of any persons called of God, whether heterosexual or homosexual, who are prepared to carry out the tasks of ministry.” This is saying God has no pattern for morality. It violates God’s pattern of one man and one woman (Gen. 2,3; Matt. 19:3-9; 1 Cor. 7:1-5; Eph. 5:22-33).

6. “No Pattern” on the number of saviors or the number of bodies. Also at the 1987 general assembly, the governing body refused to pass a resolution declaring that “there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ. . . Many Disciples said they believe that calling Jesus the only Savior would be detrimental to ecumenical relations.”(7) They want to leave room for Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, etc. This violates God’s pattern, for there is one body (Eph. 4:4) and one Lord (Eph. 4:5). He is the only way to come to the Father (Jn. 14:6). There is no salvation in any other name (Acts 4:12).

7. No resurrection. When I preached in Owensboro, Kentucky, I lived three blocks from a D of C group whose minister did not believe Jesus was literally resurrected. He said it was “a resurrection of the cause.”

8. No atonement. I have no evidence that the “figurative resurrection” view is widespread among the D of C. If it is, how could there be any atonement for sin?

This is just a step from agnosticism and then total atheism. The alarming thing that should grab Independent Christian Churches, institutional, and non-institutional brethren, is that a little over 100 years ago these would have been our brethren! While we often think apostasy occurs slowly, this one has occurred at breakneck speed.

We do not charge each member of the D of C with approving all these doctrinal changes. But because of the pyramid structure (President, General Assembly, etc.), the rank-and-file are helpless to stop it. Caught in their own trappings.

What This Means to Independent Christian Churches

Some of them are already on the fourth step downward, a few steps behind the D of C, having accepted denominational baptisms, the social gospel, instrumental music, conventions (though not identical to some denominational conventions they assemble to partake the Lord’s Supper, something that only local churches are authorized to do).

What This Means to Institutional Churches of Christ

They have lectured and written tracts advocating that “there is no pattern” to “the work of the church.”

By their “brotherhood” elderships in the Sponsoring Church and their boards for doing benevolent and evangelistic work, they have said there is no pattern to “the organization of the church.” Some who are leading the way are on the same step with Independent Christian Churches. They believe instrumental music is premissible, thus no pattern to the worship. Freed-Hardeman University has volunteered to be a battleground by hosting a discussion from men on both sides of this controversy on October 12, 1991.(8) Women have been singing solos and teaching classes over men, such as at the “Nashville Jubilee” (1989-91).(9) Some are teaching that we are saved by grace alone, totally apart from any human activity.”(10)

Two groups are emerging. Some are trying to hold the line at the second step. They are now teaching “Pattern Authority.” Robert Taylor spoke on this topic at the Southwest Lectures (reprinted in In Word and Doctrine, July-September, 1991). Sounding like an “anti,” he said “Pattern authority undergirds every fundamental facet of the Lord’s church.” He then enumerated the areas: the Christian life, our worship, the organization of the church, the names we wear, the mission, our fellowship, the plan of salvation, etc. But he forgot to tell us about a pattern of cooperation in evangelism and benevolence. Since he believes “pattern authority undergirds every fundamental facet of the Lord’s church,” he must believe there is a pattern for church cooperation. None of them has ever told us what that pattern is. They have always denied that there was one. Brother Taylor will have to go against a whole line of institutional brethren, tracts, and articles who have argued that “there is no pattern.”

Brother Taylor and others are trying to put the brakes on, but they are too late and their opposition is weak. The brakes are greased with a little “liberalism” and won’t hold. They can’t afford to argue too strongly that there is a “pattern for every facet of the church” without having to give up their sponsoring churches, benevolent societies, “fellowship” halls, day care centers, kindergartens, etc. If brethren are going to preach “pattern authority” they need to begin with the work and organization of the church. This is where apostasy began for the Disciples of Christ and it is where it began for institutional churches of Christ.

What It Means for Non-Institutional Churches of Christ

I don’t know of any non-institutional brethren who are headed down these steps at the present, but some who have gone out from us are on step number four and are engaged in ecumenical relationships.(11)

It means we must not grow weary in pressing the issues with institutional brethren if we are to salvage any of them. It means we must put ourselves and our people in remembrance, though we may have grown tired of preaching these truths “lest haply we drift away from them” (Heb. 2:1). It means we must be more militant in attacking error and pointing out where some of these “seemingly harmless” views lead. Each step downward represents a degree of unbelief in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures to furnish us completely.

Before you head down these steps, take a look at the bottom one.

Endnotes

1. George W. Cornell, “Theologian Is Tapped for Top Church Office,” Associated Press, Jonesboro Sun, Jonesboro, Arkansas (Aug. 9, 1991).

2. Given O. Blakely, The Highers-Blakely Debate (Apr. 12-14, 1988).

3. George W. Cornell, ibid.

4. George W. Cornell, Associated Press, Owensboro MessengerInquirer (May 16, 1987).

5. Intercom (Apr., 1987).

6. Carol Elrod, “Church Rejects Stand Against Homosexuality,” Indianapolis Star (Oct. 22, 1987).

7. Carol Elrod, ibid.

8. From the Calendar, Gospel Advocate (Aug. 1991).

9. The Spiritual Sword, published by Getwell Church of Christ, Memphis, Tenn. (Apr., 1991), pp. 45,46.

10. Yokefellow, published by Memphis School of Preaching (Apr. 15, 1991).

11. Edward O. Bragwell, Sr., “Where Are They Now?”, Guardian of Truth (Jan. 7, 1988).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, pp. 684-686
November 21, 1991

By Douglas Matlock

While watching a television interview with Mickey Rooney, the fact of his many marriages came out. I believe he said he had been married and divorced eight times. It was amazing to me that he stated, “the one real love of my life I have never married.” Perhaps if he had, he would have concluded that she was not so great and divorced her also.

Sometimes, we are given emotional arguments involving people who have been married and divorced (without fornication being the cause) and now are in another marriage with children born to that relationship, and they come to obey the gospel. We are asked, “How could you say they must get out of that marriage in order to repent of their sins and be acceptable to God?” Could we not also use an emotional case and say, “What if Rooney came to obey the gospel with wife number nine, would you say that he would be pleasing to God?”

We are told the alien sinner is not amenable to the law of Christ. That, actually, there are two laws in effect. One for the alien and another for the Christian. That Christ’s remarks in Matthew 19:9 were for those in the church but not for the alien. But look at the verse: we hear Jesus saying, “Whosoever divorces his wife. . . . ” Does that sound like it referred only to church members? Again, let us look at another passage. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus used “everyone who divorces his wife.” Does this sound like a directive to the church only? If Jesus had intended for his words to be applied generally, what other language could he have used?

Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and he would “convict the world in respect of sin and of righteousness and of judgment” (Jn. 16:8). The world, not just Christians were the subjects of the Spirit’s efforts. Paul writes also, “God will judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:16). Were only the secrets of Christians to be judged? Paul said, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30).

But, let us suppose it is true, that the alien is under a moral law that applies only to them; would it be, or could it be any different than the teaching of Christ in the gospel? Paul wrote to the church in Corinth an& stated that the former life of some had been in such sins as fornication adultery, homosexuality, etc., but they had been “washed” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Doesn’t this tell us that they had violated God’s law? Where there is no law, there is no transgression. They were guilty of sin. In obeying the gospel they were called upon to believe and repent (change of mind bringing about a change of life) and to be baptized for the remission of sins. The Jews understood Peter’s words to mean that “God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). The leader of Kuwait has four wives currently. This is the maximum allowed by their law. Could we tell this man that repenting would include putting away his wives, even though he may have children by each of them, or would they all be allowed to remain together?

To ask such questions is to answer them. Men and women need to be impressed with the truth of God’s word on this very important subject and not be carried away with the popularity or person of those who teach such. If we can take the plain passages of our Lord and explain them away, so that it allows the person living in adultery to obey the gospel and remain in a sinful state; then it will only be a short step to twist other passages to allow the Christian to put away a mate for any cause and feel acceptable to God as well.

Matthew 5:32 records the words of Jesus, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery. “

It’s rather amazing that this plain passage could be interpreted to mean that in the event this woman should remarry there would be no adultery involved in that union.

One brother states, “Yes, Colossians 3:5 (please read) indicates people can live in sin by their walk of life, but it does not even hint that anyone lives in adultery within a marriage.”

I heard a denominational preacher say concerning this problem, “You can’t unscramble eggs.- It looks like we have a lot of brethren trying to say the same thing, only they are trying to work out a formula that will put God’s stamp of approval upon it.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, p. 683
November 21, 1991

By Dan K. Graham

During the month of July millions of Americans have received a piece of literature in the mail* from the “One Nation Under God” campaign. This effort is advertised as a work of churches of Christ. Many of our readers already know that not all churches of Christ in the United States chose to take part in this. However, there might be some readers who do not know this, and some of them might not understand why. It is the purpose of this article to help explain why Underwood Heights and hundreds of other congregations have nothing to do with “One Nation Under God.”

God’s plan. First of all, let us be clear that we all understand God’s plan for congregational organization. According to Acts 14:23, each local church is to have elders appointed. Obviously, there is something more to this than just their being aged, for it is something to which they are appointed. Their realm of authority is that local church, period (1 Pet. 5:1-4). Thus, each congregation is autonomous (self-governing) and independent of all other congregations. No congregation has the right to take the oversight of another group, nor does any congregation have the right to relinquish its autonomy to another. Further, no congregation is to pay another to do its work for it. Finally, the only scriptural way for a church to raise funds to pay for the work it does is through the weekly contribution described in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. Later we will see how the “One Nation Under God” campaign violates these principles.

What the problem is not. In order not to be misunderstood, let us clearly state what the problem is not. First of all, the problem is not that somebody is trying to reach the whole nation. According to Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15, the church needs to try to reach not only the whole nation but the whole world. This is not the problem. Second, the problem is not the fact that literature was mailed. In fact, the New Testament itself is in large part “mailed literature.” This is not the problem. Third, the problem is not the use of TV and radio to promote it. Underwood Heights has a radio program. Other sound congregations use TV programs. This is not the problem. Fourth, the problem is not that large sums of money were spent of evangelism. This is the best possible use of the Lord’s money. The church needs to spend as much money as possible to preach as much gospel as possible. This is not the problem. Fifth, the cartoon format used in the flier is not the problem. Some might question the judgment, but it is only a matter of judgment. This is not the problem. Sixth, what was taught in the flier is not the problem. As far as I can tell, the truth was taught about the best way to overcome society’s ills and find salvation from our sins. This is not the problem. Seventh, in a general sense, the problem is not even that churches sent money to other churches. There is scriptural precedent for this in Acts 11:28-30 and 2 Corinthians 8:1-5. However, in a specific sense, this is part of the problem. In the two biblical cases cited, churches sent to other churches to relieve needy saints. There is no scriptural precedent for churches sending to other churches to pay for evangelistic work being done.

If these things are not the problem, then what is? Why does Underwood Heights oppose the “One Nation Under God” campaign and not participate in it?

What the problem is. The problem of the “One Nation Under God” campaign can be summarized under the problems of the sponsoring church arrangement. The Sycamore church of Christ in Cookeville, Tennessee, is the sponsoring church for this effort. They have raised about $ 10 million to pay for it. Most of it has come from other congregations throughout the United States. This kind of scheme, no matter what the congregation and no matter what the specific work, violates the principles discussed earlier as being God’s plan. Such a scheme violates the divine principle of congregational autonomy and independence. No church has the right to take money from others in this way to pay for their work. Neither does a church have the right to relinquish its independence in this way. Also, the church in Cookeville has raised money in some other way than by the weekly contribution. This differs from the New Testament pattern for evangelism. The church at Thessalonica did it themselves (I Thess. 1:8). The church at Philippi did it by supporting Paul in his work (Phil. 4:15-16). There is no scriptural pattern of one church sending its money to another church to oversee the use of those funds in some evangelistic effort. This violates New Testament law.

Questions to consider. If the Sycamore church can oversee some funds of some churches, why not all funds of all churches? If they can do it for this one work, why can they not do it for all works? If they can do it temporarily, can they not do it permanently? If future generations want to establish a regional, national, or international headquarters for the church of Christ, with a board of overseers, and they point to Herald of Truth and One Nation Under God as justification, what passages will supporters of One Nation Under God use to oppose such a move? The truth is that any passage you would use then can be used right now to condemn One Nation Under God as unscriptural.

Finally, do the ends attained justify the means used to attain them? Is it all right to do it this way since there could be thousands baptized as a result? Samuel told Saul that the ends do not justify the means. “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Uzzah’s desire to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and being destroyed did not keep God from killing him when he violated the law by touching a hallowed thing. The way to please God is to do the right thing in the right way. Nothing else will do. Brethren, let’s put all our might into saving souls, but let’s do it God’s way. God’s way cannot be improved upon. It works. Let us therewith be content.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, pp. 679-680
November 21, 1991

By Johnie Edwards

A number of churches of Christ in this area have sent money to the Sycamore Church of Christ in Cookeville, Tennessee to help pay for a ten million dollar evangelistic campaign throughout the United States. The projects was conceived and is overseen by the elders of the Tennessee church of Christ. The Ellettsville church of Christ did not and will not contribute to this project. The Herald Times recently singled out the Ellettsville Church of Christ as one who “abstained” (Herald Times [July 12, 1991]). Some have asked why we have not contributed to the promotional effort. Here are some reasons:

1. The Tennessee elders have planned a brotherhood work beyond their financial ability. Elders of the church of Christ have no scriptural right to plan a work of evangelism beyond the ability of the local church to pay for. When elders try to do a work larger than they can pay for, in evangelism, then the work becomes a brotherhood action, with the receiving church overseeing it. “The Sycamore elders . . . are overseeing the project” (July, 1991 update). Some argue that it is okay to send funds to the sponsoring church and that the sending of funds does not affect the autonomy of the sending church because they decide how much to send. This is also true of the Christian Missionary Society which divided the Lord’s people more than 130 years ago. Try telling the receiving church how to spend the funds!

2. The oversight of elders is limited. Peter said to elders, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2). The oversight of elders begins and ends in the local church where they have been appointed elders. For elders to oversee a brotherhood project like “One Nation Under God” is outside the scope of this page. It is easily seen that the $10 million project is not the work of a local church, but is a brotherhood work being overseen by a local eldership. And there is just no scriptural authority for such an arrangement!

3. No stopping place. Every church is to have its own elders (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). If the elders of a local church can turn some of their funds over to a sponsoring church, what passage of Scripture would stop them from turning all of their funds and all of their work over to them? This arrangement carried out to its fullest would lead to the setting up of a central center through which all churches of Christ could function! If not, why not?

4. Funds sent directly to the preacher. In the New Testament, when a church did the work of evangelism, the church did not send to another church, but directly to the preacher in the field. A good example of this can be seen in these words: “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity” (Phil. 4:15-16). The church doing its work God’s way was able to teach the gospel to “all the world” in a few short years (Col. 1:16). And so can we!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, p. 678
November 21, 1991