Truth Magazine

By Greg Gwin

On November 8th and 9th, 1990, David Padfield met Don Phillips in debate on the subject of Bible baptism. Brother Padfield preaches the gospel in Evansville, Indiana, and labors with the Eastside congregation in that city. Mr. Phillips is the “senior pastor” of the First Baptist Church in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Anticipation for a profitable debate ran very high for several reasons. First, the debate propositions were very plainly worded and struck to the very heart of the important issue of baptism’s role in God’s plan of salvation (see below). It looked as though there would be no attempt by either debater to quibble or side-step the points of controversy. Second, the debate was to be held in the building of the First Baptist Church in Terre Haute where Mr. Phillips is the “pastor.” This congregation boasts a membership in excess of 1,000 persons. It appeared that an incredible opportunity to teach a large number of denominationalists had developed. In fact, some expressed a certain amazement that the Baptists would so freely offer an audience for such a discussion. Finally, Mr. Phillips seemed to be a worthy opponent. He has a doctorate degree, has taught in Baptist seminaries, and has engaged in other debates. The outlook for a good debate could hardly have been better.

While everything appeared to be good in advance, disappointment set in as the debate began. Attendance was good for both nights, ranging from 150 to 200. Brethren from 10 states were in the audience, coming from as far away as Texas and Florida. Some from institutional churches of Christ in Terre Haute, Evansville, and Illinois were also present. But, the Baptists did not come. Only a handful from Mr. Phillips’ large congregation came out to hear this important discussion.

On the first night of the discussion, brother Padfield affirmed the proposition: “The Scriptures teach that water baptism is for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” He affirmed that men are saved by faith, but not faith alone. In an interesting opening speech, Padfield used John 1:12, which is sometimes a Baptist “proof text,” and showed that believers have the “power (right) to become the sons of God,” The question for the rest of the debate was, “How do believers exercise their right to become the children of God?” In his other affirmative speeches, Padfield used the examples of the Ethiopian Eunuch and Saul of Tarsus to answer the question. He made reference to passages like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and others.

In his rebuttal of Padfield’s affirmative arguments, Mr. Phillips demonstrated his lack of respect for the inspired Scriptures. He claimed that our own personal “experience” is a fundamental part of interpreting God’s word. Phillips insisted that salvation was totally unconditional. He maintained that faith was not a condition, rather a response. He argued that most of the references to baptism in the New Testament had to do with Spirit baptism, and some that seem to discuss water baptism had actually been incorrectly interpreted. Finally, he stated that some of the passages that Padfield had used did not really belong in the inspired text, they had been added later by copyists and commentators. Padfield produced a large pair of scissors and urged Phillips to specify which passages should be cut out of the Bible. Mr. Phillips refused to make such a specification.

On the second night of the debate, Mr. Phillips affirmed the proposition: “The Scriptures teach that salvation comes at the point of faith, before and without water baptism.” It was very difficult to determine any definite line of argumentation that he used to try to prove this proposition. At one point he spent several minutes talking about the difference between the left and right side of the brain. He maintained that “legalists” like Padfield are using only the left side of their brain, while God had actually designed the Bible to speak to the right side – the artistic side – of the brain. He argued that the apostle Peter was himself a “legalist.”

Brother Padfield was obviously hampered in rebuttal because Phillips had not given any concise argument in his affirmative. Padfield continued to press some of the points that had been made on the first night. He rebuked Phillips for placing more reliance on psychology than the Bible. Padfield used his final speech to discuss in detail the conversion of Cornelius. He demonstrated that salvation was not attained by Cornelius’ morality, his “experience” of being visited by an angel, or by simple faith. Rather, Cornelius was saved by hearing and obeying the words of the gospel – including baptism.

While Mr. Phillips, credentials were impressive, he was a disappointment in the debate. There was good reason to wonder if he had spent any time in preparation for this discussion. Brother Padfield, on the other hand, did a masterful job of presenting the truth on this vital subject. His many hours of preparation were obvious to all. He had done a very professional job of preparing over 130 charts for the debate. It is unfortunate that he was able to use only about 40 of these because of the poor job that Phillips did.

We are confident that good resulted from this discussion. The truth was defended, brethren were strengthened, and several non-Christians heard the gospel for the first time. The discussion was conducted in a very orderly fashion. No points of order were called by either moderator. (John Welch from Indianapolis moderated for brother Padfield.) We learned later that a man who had traveled nearly 200 miles to hear the debate was baptized for the remission of sins a few days later. He credited the truth he had learned at the debate as a prime factor in his decision.

A debt of thanks is owed to Troy Bell and the brethren in Casey, Illinois, who were instrumental in arranging for this discussion. Troy is a member of the church in Casey and drives a UPS delivery truck in Terre Haute. He had engaged Mr. Phillips in private study and had then convinced him to enter into a public discussion. Troy’s zeal and enthusiasm for the truth is obvious to all. Special thanks is given to several other Christians in Casey who opened their homes to those who had traveled to attend the debate.

We commend David Padfield for his stand for the truth, and for the long hours of work which preceded this debate. For those who may be in a position to help, we note that brother Padfield has recently lost a sizable amount of his financial support. If you can help, please contact him at 2612 S. Villa Drive, Evansville, IN 47414 (phone: 812-477-9433).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 38-39
January 17, 1991

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Society is plagued by a soaring crime rate. Churches are hindered by an ever-rising number of open and flagrant sins among the members. Families are torn apart by ungodliness. Who is responsible? Who can we blame for all of these problems?

This may be a bit old-fashioned, but maybe the answer is found in the Bible: “The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). Is it too incredible to think that the responsibility for crime in society lies with the criminal or, that flagrant sin in the church ties with the sinner, or that the responsibility for homes broken by ungodliness lies with the ungodly person? Ezekiel deals with the matter of personal accountability in chapter 18.

When Ezekiel prophesied, Israel was in Babylonian captivity because of her sins. Yet, in spite of its plight, this generation of Israelites seemed to be having trouble accepting responsibility for its sins. They were using a proverb that shifted the responsibility away from themselves to their fathers (vv. 1-3). Rather than accepting responsibility and repenting the), were blaming their fathers (v. 19) and even God (vv. 25, 29).

Ezekiel tells them that each father and child would bear the responsibility for his own sin. Each must give an account of himself and could not shift the responsibility to the other. Furthermore, one could not excuse himself by appealing to what had happened in his past life – a bad childhood or otherwise. If a wicked man would now turn from his wickedness, his past wickedness would not be held against him by the Lord. If a righteous man turned from his righteousness, his past righteousness would do him no good now (vv. 21-29), So, the solution that Ezekiel gave to Israel was: “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin” (vv. 31-32).

Any doctrine or philosophy that allows one to shift the responsibility for his sins away from himself encourages two great hindrances to genuine repentance: self-pity and self-justification. As long as one engages in either of these he will not fully repent of his sins. If he is allowed to think that someone other than himself caused his sin, then he can look with pity upon himself as a victim rather than a transgressor. He can justify himself in his mind, because it was not really his fault. Somebody made him do it.

For generations Calvinism has shifted attention away from personal accountability for sin and righteousness. The Calvinistic doctrine of imputed sin relieves the sinner from personal responsibility for his sins. Classic Calvinism not only teaches that one inherits his father’s guilt, but also his father’s “sinful nature.” He must sin. He cannot help it. He inherited it from his parents. (There is vast difference in “all must sin” and “all have sinned” – one is in the Bib1c, the other is not.) The Calvinistic doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Jesus relieves the Christian from much of his personal responsibility to struggle against sin and keep himself pure. The idea is that the righteous life of Christ is imputed to the sinner, so when the sinner faces the Great Judge he will not be judged by his own life, but by the righteous life of Christ. The Bible says each will be judged by his own works: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10).

The modern liberal sociological philosophy of crime and anti-social behavior in society has not only affected our criminal justice system in society, it has affected the way brethren approach open sin in the church. The bottom line is to take the heat off the guilty and place it elsewhere. The result is that the crime rate continues to worsen and discipline in many churches has become non-existent. People are being allowed to march right on into hell, secure in the feeling that they should not be held accountable for their problems (sins). Let us notice four popular approaches to crime and sin.

The Decriminalization Approach

If an evil becomes too difficult to control and the penalty too hard to consistently administer, then decriminalize or legalize it. If the laws against drug abuse (including alcohol), prostitution, homosexuality, etc. are problems for society to enforce, then there must be something wrong with the law. So, the cry goes out to solve the problem by legalizing the sin.

If a sin becomes very prevalent among brethren and hard to weed out by discipline, then make it acceptable or at least put it in the “gray area.” It is amazing how uncertain brethren can become about a thing that only a few years ago would not be tolerated in churches – as the thing becomes commonplace among them. It is assumed that something must be wrong with the rule by which the thing was formerly condemned or with our methods of applying the Scriptures – anything but that more brethren are becoming guilty of sin.

This approach takes the heat off the sinner and places the blame upon the law or upon those who are faithfully trying to apply it. It is not the sinfulness of the individual, but the harshness of the law that must bear the responsibility. God’s law is neither sin, nor does it produce sin (Rom. 7:7-12). It is the rebellion of the individual against that law that is the problem.

The Distribution Approach

Another way to take the heart off the transgressor is to spread the guilt around. This tactic assumes that one’s crime or sin must be shared by others. A crime is committed, so what is done before the criminal can be punished? The victim, the police, the judicial system, and society must first be put on trial. After all, somebody must have failed or provoked this good follow into committing his crime.

A man takes up with his secretary. Before we criticize him we must first investigate his wife, children, parents, or just about anybody to see if they drove him to it. It would be absurd to think that a fellow’s own Just caused him to sin.

A youngster terrorizes his teachers and classmates. Before discipline is administered, we must look at his teachers, peers, and school administration, It is just impossible to think that he could be a little brat on his own.

A Christian rebels against the Lord’s way and walks disorderly. Rather than holding him responsible for his deeds, the church, its elders, preachers and others are often held accountable for his apostasy.

It is the age old “look-what-you (they)-made-me (him)do” approach. Adam blamed his sin on the woman God gave him. Eve blamed her sin on the serpent (Gen. 3:12,13). Aaron blamed his calf worship on the people (Exod. 32:22).

This approach places all imperfections and mistakes on the same level. Any mistake the police, victim or society makes is considered as bad as the action of the criminal, so these forfeit their right to prosecute. Any flaw that parents might have removes their right to firmly discipline. Any shortcomings that brethren might have cancel their right to discipline the flagrant offender.

It discourages all parties from accepting and facing up to their respective responsibilities. The transgressor feels little need to repent if others are as responsible for his actions as he is. Those responsible for discipline in society, the home, and the church are often convinced that they have no right to administer correction since they themselves are imperfect. The results: society and the church suffer from crime and sin out of control.

The Deprivation Approach

One is not depraved anymore, just deprived. If murderers, rapists, and drunkards had not been deprived of love by someone, parents or otherwise, surely they would not have turned to their evil ways. If society had not deprived the thief of the prosperity of his neighbors, then surely he would not have stolen. If an unfaithful Christian had not been neglected and deprived of attention by his brethren, then surely he would not have turned to walking disorderly. So the beat goes on.

So, what is the fashionable solution? Rather than punishment or discipline, simply shower the offender with those things that he allegedly has been denied and everything will be fine. Try to make him understand that his problem is not really his fault, but the selfishness of those who deprived him. If folks will run all over themselves to supply his every need or want, then the whole problem will be solved.

By understanding the supposed real underlying cause of his badness and knowing now who the real villains are those who deprived him – he can feel less ashamed, more comfortable and less need to repent of his actions. After all, it was not really his fault. He can take refuge in self-pity because he sees himself as more victimized than those he has sinned against. Rather than being brought to repentance, which involves mourning over one’s guilt, he is encouraged to down play personal accountability and shift the blame to his parents, society, church, or anyone who may have neglected him.

The Disease Approach

How long has it been since you heard of an old-fashioned sinner? You see, there are not any really bad folks anymore – just sick folks and people “with a problem. ” So, punishment and discipline are obsolete. After all, you don’t discipline a patient – you treat him with tender loving care. Rather than give him to understand that he must repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, you must show more understanding for his “problem.” Who can blame a sick person? He is a victim. So, one can no more be blamed for murder than he can for malaria; no more for licentiousness than for leprosy; no more for drunkenness than for diphtheria; no more for homosexuality than for hypertension; no more for fornication than for flu; no more for adultery than for allergy. So, no longer do we need to call for his repentance and reformation, just call for a physician and a prescription.

We are not denying that sin can become a sickness with some people. But, it is a sickness that is self-inflicted, for which the individual must accept personal responsibility and repent before he can be right with God. We are also convinced that the disease approach to sin is far over played by brethren to avoid accepting the responsibilities to mark, rebuke sharply, warn or withdraw from sinful brethren (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6).

Sin is a disease – a spiritual sickness. The prescription of the “Great Physician” is calling sinners to repentance as the only cure (Mark 2:17). Sinners do have a problem – sin – a problem that can only be solved by accepting responsibility for their actions, repenting, obeying the conditions of forgiveness and changing their lives to reflect their repentance.

Conclusion

Brethren, we must face up to our responsibility to deal with internal sin by reproving and rebuking as well as exhorting (2 Tim. 4:2) – even stronger discipline when words fail (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). We will not do this until we stop thinking that we have to be completely mistake free before we can correct those who are openly defying God’s will. We will not have effective church discipline until we stop looking around to find another cause of scandalous behavior other than the sinner’s own sinfulness. Nor will we get the job done until we quit allowing rebellious brethren to send us on a “guilt trip” concerning their sins. We need the courage of Paul who, even though conscious of his own sins (I Tim. 1: 15), would not let those whom he was rebuking blame him for their sins. To the Corinthians, whom he had rebuked sharply in the first letter to them; he wrote, apparently in response to a charge against him: “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one” (2 Cor. 7:2). To the Ephesian elders he said, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26,27). To one Jew who rejected his correction, he said, “Your blood be upon your own head, I am clean” (Acts 18:6).

Of course, we need to examine ourselves often to avoid sinning against the Lord and our brethren. We must try to avoid being stumbling blocks to others – thus, to a measure, contributing to their sins (Rom. 14:13). Yet, when dealing with brethren who are subject to correction, they must be brought to understand that they cannot blame their sins upon us or anyone else. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 18-20
January 3, 1991

By Wayne Goforth

Each year, Freed-Hardeman hosts a forum for the discussion of “a topic on which there is tension in the brotherhood” (from 1990 flyer). This year, due in part to the impetus of the “new hermeneutics,” the hottest topic among the institutionals is that of the woman’s work in the church. The question under consideration at this year’s forum was: “Are the biblical prohibitions (for the public use of women in the church, AWG) only cultural ones?” Two men were on either side of the question, each giving his apologies. The two affirming the prohibitions to have been cultural were Bob Randolph and Lynn Mitchell, both of whom are at the more liberal end of the institutional spectrum. The two denying the cultural question were from the more conservative end of the same spectrum, being Ralph Gilmore and Don McWhorter. Randolph preaches in Brookline, Massachusetts as well as working with the Institute of Technology there. Mitchell serves as an elder with the Bering Drive church in Houston, Texas (where Ed Fudge has also served as an elder in a rotation system) and works as Scholar of Religion at the University of Houston. McWhorter preaches in Fayette, Alabama, while Gilmore is a teacher at Freed-Hardeman and preaches for the Campbell Street church in Jackson, Tennessee. Ira Rice, Garland Elkins and Paul Kidwell were among those in the audience, which seemed to have an overall more conservative view of this question.

Randolph’s position was that Scripture can mean practically anything that culture determines, saying that the “church has always listened to culture.” He cited as examples the eating of meats and the practice of wearing an artificial covering. His view was that women in every age have been allowed to do in the church as much as culture would permit them to do everywhere else. His unprovable example was that the Corinthian women were allowed to preach before a public assembly of men and women as long as they recognized their submission and showed it by the wearing of the veil, and that 1 Corinthians 14:34 only prevented women from learning and teaching in a “shameful way.” Randolph, in the question and answer period, even went as far as to say there were female apostles in the New Testament, giving Romans 16:7 as his “proof-text” along with, of course, Phebe as a deaconess in Romans 16:1. He likewise stated he had no problems with female elders, since it was obvious he believed that elders were simply older Christians we look to for guidance. He rather met himself coming and going on various occasions during his speeches. On the one hand he stated that Jesus was radical in his day and went against the culture of his society by eating with publicans and talking to a Samaritan woman, and therefore the church should also break out of the prejudiced image of women we have learned from the world by allowing them to preach and serve publicly. On the other hand, he stated that Paul was very concerned with not offending social customs and culture at Corinth, adapting his message to it. Which is it to be? Adapt culture or defy it? He thus had Paul and Jesus preaching different gospels. He said there are many questions we have never considered, such as: If women can read in Bible classes, why not from the pulpit? And, if women are to serve, why not let them serve the Lord’s supper?

Mitchell, on the other hand, was not willing to go as far as Randolph. His position was that of hermeneutical agnosticism, saying we cannot know for certain either way, and we must trust the grace of God more. As Gilmore pointed out, “No wonder Mitchell agreed to come since he presupposes such.” Mitchell stated that the Bible does not supply us with enough information on this, and no one is infallible enough to supply it for us, thus we cannot know for sure. Both Mitchell and Randolph continually appealed to the new hermeneutics claim that “we can know what it meant then, but it is different to ask what it means now,” and argued that Bible questions are not just a matter of “splitting Greek participles.” They denied knowing what was meant by the “new hermeneutics,” but used new hermeneutic arguments and quoted new hermeneutic writers. Hence, if one walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and hangs around with ducks, excuse me for saying he must be a duck! Likewise did they equate the veil of 1 Corinthians 11 with the “silence” of 1 Corinthians 14, observing that if one gives up the symbol of submission, they may in the same way give up submission itself. Neither was willing to make this a test of fellowship saying that “God has specified what is a matter of salvation” and that unless you are “willing to posthumously disfellowship everyone who has believed differently on this, you better not bring a rift with those who are alive on it.” Mitchell concluded with an ominous prophecy that “this will split churches of Christ wide open,” and that perhaps “no family will be spared from the pain.” With men like this forcing it in, it may well be true. But, who will be causing the split? Those who oppose it or those who bring it in? He who drives the wedge splits the log!

To hear brethren Gilmore and McWhorter, one would almost have thought they were hearing men who would surely be opposed to the church support of human institutions and church sponsored recreation, for the arguments they used on Randolph and Mitchell would certainly apply to these unscriptural practices as well. But, as is always the case, the “legs of the lame are not equal.” McWhorter stated correctly that Paul uses the word “pattern,” and that if we recognized there was a pattern for these things, “we would settle this in about five minutes.” He observed that the passages of 1 Corinthians 14, and of 1 Timothy 2 were both against the culture of his day, for the Romans and those in Asia Minor made no distinction between the sexes, according to Ramsey. It was also against the culture of the day, for Paul said “women are to learn in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11), yet, women were not permitted by the rabbis to study Scripture. The Talmud stated “better that the Torah should be burned than given to a woman.” The fact is, the passages are not cultural, but instead are tied to God’s “normative law of -creation.” Each time Paul mentions submission, it is the order of creation he states as the reason (1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:12-14).

Agreeing with McWhorter, Gilmore pointed out that the reason for submission was creation and there was little or no culture yet developed when Adam and Eve first lived in the Garden. He used a transparency chart labeled with the words “Tied to Creation” in each speech and in answering each question until either Randolph or Mitchell would acknowledge it. This seemed to have made a big impact on the audience. Gilmore also pointed out that submission is not tied to worth or quality, and therefore we are not trying to make women “Secondclass-Christians” as Randolph charged. A good example of this point is the submission of Jesus to the Father. Even though the Father and the Son have different roles, this does not mean Jesus is in any way inferior (Jn. 14:6-9). In the same say, when Christians are to be submissive to their elders, it does not indicate worth or value, but only different roles and responsibilities.

Gilmore agreed that Jesus was indeed radical, but he also selected twelve men as apostles, and seventy men as disciples. McWhorter drew upon this illustration further, stating that if Jesus had wanted to make it clear that both men and women could serve in leadership roles, he could have selected six men and six women apostles, or thirtyfive men and thirty-five women disciples. Gilmore was not willing to say this was a matter of salvation, only that it was a serious matter and God would judge. McWhorter, however, stated that sin is the transgression of the law, and this is the law of God pertaining to the place of woman. Any sin unrepented can cause one to be lost.

Observations

It was through the Bering Drive church (where Mitchell serves as an elder) that I first became aware of the 4~greater use of women” in the church. In 1984, the Bering Drive church sent a notice to Abilene Christian College which read, “Wanted: Youth Minister. May be male, female or couple. Please send your resume to chairperson, Mrs. ______.” Then, to this writer’s surprise, a female co-student from Freed-Hardeman became a “campus minister” for a church in east Tennessee. The justification for this was that these women do not preach publicly, and there is nothing wrong with women teaching non-Christians. But, where is the authority for such “ministry specialization” as this? Thus, the institutionals have set themselves up for this problem over the years. Now that some have gone a step farther in saying that we do not have to have authority for anything Oust another logical progressive step of the institutionals saying we have to have authority for some things but not for others) they are bemoaning what even they would call ” liberalism. ” But, it is impossible to use one hand to open the floodgates of liberalism, and then try to hold back the tide with the other. They thus love the kittens but hate the cats!

Given the fact that many Freed-Hardeman graduates have now left institutionalism, including several of us who were students of brother Gilmore, it would seem that one of the forums would be directed toward a discussion of Bible authority as it applies to joint church cooperation and church sponsored recreation. Why is it “anti-ism” to demand a pattern and authority for these practices, but not “anti-ism” for Gilmore and McWhorter to demand the same for other practices? “If we respected Bible authority, this could be settled in about five minutes,” brother Gilmore! Where is the pattern for the Campbell Street church of Christ softball team? Did Jesus die to establish a softball team? Where is the pattern for the Campbell Street church to have a softball field built on the church property (which is now under construction)? Is this the purpose of the church of our Lord, brother Gilmore?

Why should all of this concern conservative brethren? After all, we demand a pattern for all things, and we do not practice “ministry specialization” nor do we advocate the new hermeneutics. This should concern us for two reasons. Number one, this shows that there is no stopping place once we advocate the idea that we do not have to have authority for all things, and should therefore serve as a warning to us lest we forget. Too often today we hear conservative preachers not using book, chapter and verse, and quote only from the book of second opinions. Number two, there will no doubt be some trickle effect felt in some conservative congregations. Several among us are already advocating and some congregations are already practicing, allowing women in the business meeting of the church. I know of numerous congregations in different parts of the country who have had problems with women seeking to “run the congregation” behind the scenes or by telling their husbands how to vote in such meetings. McWhorter correctly pointed out that Paul uses the Greek word oude in 1 Timothy 2:12 which indicates she is not to usurp authority over a man by public teaching or in any other way either!

Will Freed-Hardeman open a forum for the topics of joint cooperation, church sponsored recreation, and the church support of human institutions such as Freed-Hardeman itself? Or, are they too afraid that some church might cease to contribute to the school, since Freed-Hardeman depends on such? This will remain to be seen.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 10-11
January 3, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

The African Christian Hospitals Foundation

• is a tax-free, non-profit organization made up of a group of 58 Christian men, all active members of the church of Christ, whose purpose is to promote mission work through the use of medicine administered by Christian medical professionals.
• receives and distributes funds, medical supplies and equipment, recruits medical professionals and seeks churches of Christ to sponsor them. Many individuals also contribute to this program.
• avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church. The ACHF is responsible for maintaining a relationship with government agencies and insuring that the medical works are run professionally (from “Facts about African Christian Hospitals Foundation,” p.2).

“Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?”

Jesus showed compassion for the sick, healed man, sent his disciples out to teach and to heal (Lk. 9:2,6) and taught us to let our lights shine by letting others see our good works and thus bring glory to God (Matt. 5). In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus told of the compassion of the one who gave medical care to the man who had fallen among thieves and was severely beaten. The good Samaritan then paid the innkeeper to continue this care (Luke 10). Jesus also pronounced woes upon the Pharisees who had neglected the “weightier matters of the law,” which are mercy, justice and faith (Matt. 23:23). When the question was asked in the judgment scene, “Lord, when did we see you sick and ministered to you?” the answer was “Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it unto me” (Matt. 25:39,40).

Providing medical care is pure religion (Jas. 1:27). It shows the love of God (1 Jn. 3:17). It fulfills the “law, of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). It changes our words to deeds (1 John 3:18). It proclaims our faith (James 2:17) (From “Nigerian Christian Hospitals,” p.2).

“Dear bro. Hafley, Please notice how many Scriptures are given in answer to the question, ‘Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?’ (pamphlet enclosed). Why do you and others in the Guardian of Truth oppose these good works? Shouldn’t we be united in supporting medical missions?”

The note above is a good one, especially since it gives occasion for further teaching. Its spirit is appreciated. Whenever a disciple pleads his case on “many Scriptures,” he deserves to be given a fair hearing. Certainly, if “many Scriptures” establish a thing, none should “oppose” it. Since the Scriptures furnish us completely, utterly and totally “unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17), no one should array himself against anything they authorize. Indeed, brethren should “be united in supporting” all “good works” of Scripture (2 Cor. 10:5; Phil. 1:27).

Be assured, therefore, that neither I nor “others in the Guardian of Truth oppose” scriptural “good works.” It is not the approbation or condemnation of myself or of “others in the Guardian of Truth” that means anything. Human views and values are nothing. Divine truth is everything. The word of God, the truth given through the Spirit, is all in all. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them” (Isa. 8:20).

So, Why Oppose?

The paragraph headed, “Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?” contains no Scripture referring to the work of the church – no, not one. However, if a passage did authorize the church to provide medical care, it would not authorize contributions to a “Medical Mission,” an organization separate and apart from the church, which is designed to do the work God assigned to the church. The church is to sound out the word of the Lord (1 Thess. 1:8), but it is not authorized to organize a separate society to do its work. Thus, even if the church were authorized to provide medical care, it could not turn that work over to a human organization.

The pamphlet cited above appears to recognize this when it says that African Christian Hospitals Foundation (ACHF) “avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church.” One wonders if a missionary society could “avoid being” a missionary society if it, too, insisted “that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church”? In this way, the missionary organization, like the ACHF, could be “responsible for maintaining a relationship with government agencies and insuring that the (missionary) works are run professionally. ” So, if this were done, would it be scriptural for churches of Christ to fund and finance that organization? If not, why not? Will any of our institutional brethren say yea or nay?

Now, let us apply the same rules to a veterinary clinic. Remember that the Lord showed his approval of being kind and helpful to animals (Lk. 13:15; 14:5). God takes note of the death of a sparrow (Matt. 10:29). The Lord made use of animals during his missionary ministry (Matt. 21:2-7). Shepherds attended his birth (Lk. 2). The good Samaritan used “his own beast” (Lk. 10:34). The care of animals would demonstrate mercy (Matt. 23:23). Horses were used to assist the apostle Paul (Acts 23:23). Numerous noted and noble Old Testament characters cared for sheep (Moses, David, etc.). The animals were saved in the ark. God has used animals to teach spiritual lessons. Hence, a veterinary clinic, an African Christian Veterinary Foundation (ACVF), would be justified (?). Churches could contribute to it and those who brought sick animals could be taught. This veterinary organization would not be a missionary society if it were insisted that veterinary missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church while the organization itself maintained relationships with governmental agencies and insured that veterinary works were run professionally. What say ye, brethren? Would such an organization be “Scripturally Sound”? Or would you howl against it?

Would it manifest pure religion, demonstrate the love of God, fulfill the law of Christ, change our words to deeds, proclaim our faith, allow us to teach and heal, and let others see our good works and glorify God? If so, is it “Scripturally Sound”?

Recreation Foundation

How about an African Christian Recreation Foundation (ACRF)? “Love feasts,” “Fellowship Halls,” “Family Life Centers,” and church owned and operated campgrounds are approved by our institutional brethren (e.g., Bill Jackson, Furman Kearley, Rubel Shelley, Garland Elkins, Calvin Warpula, Dub McClish, Randy Mayeux, Ray Hawk, Richard Rogers, Roy and Mac Deaver, Lewis Hale, Guy N. Woods, Ben Vick, Jr., Bill Swetmon, Gary Workman) to some extent or another. Granting that these various men approve of these items to some degree, what would be wrong with the following recreational missionary mission?

The Lord approves of setting aside time to rest (Mk. 6:3 1; Jn. 4:6). We should follow his example. Jesus will give the saved “rest” (2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 14:13; Heb. 4:1-11). It is proper to eat and drink and enjoy life. In fact, “it is the gift of God” (Eccl. 3:13). That being true, and seeing that American churches furnish and finance social and recreational activities for their members, and since the editor of the Gospel Advocate contends openly for such church sponsored recreation, I propose the African Christian Recreational Foundation.

The ACRF is to “promote mission work through the use of” recreational activities administered by Christian Physical Education professionals. It “avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all coaches and/or Youth Directors be sent by a sponsoring church. Meanwhile, “the ACRF is responsible for maintaining a relationship with government agencies and insuring that the social and recreational activities are run professionally.”

Will our institutional brethren show us whether they will either endorse or divorce such a proposal? On what grounds do they do so? Are the medical foundations (both human and animal, physical and veterinary) parallel to the social and recreational? If not, how do they differ? Can one accept one foundation and reject the others? If so, on what basis? Institutional brethren need to wrestle with these concepts and questions.

While they are doing so, we might include their institutional orphan homes, homes for the aged, homes for unwed mothers, etc. Could Boles Home and Schultz-Lewis Children’s Home promote mission work as well as benevolent work and “avoid being” a missionary society if they insisted that each missionary was sent by a sponsoring church? Perhaps Ben Vick, Jr. and Guy N. Woods could tell us whether such an “organizational arrangement” would be “Scripturally Sound.” Inquiring minds want to know.

Further, could an African Christian College Foundation (ACCF) be supported on the same basis as the ACHF, ACRF; namely, that its missionaries and math, science and spelling teachers be sent by a sponsoring church while the ACCF looked after relationships with governmental agencies and saw that academic classes were run professionally? Could churches contribute to kindergartens and colleges and avoid being a missionary society in so doing? Remember that Paul “disputed daily in the school of one Tyrannus” (Acts 19:9). And since the Lord said not to forbid little children “to come unto me” (Matt. 19:14), surely we could not deny church support of kindergarten classes and daycare centers. After all, those children have parents who need to be taught!

Just which of these “good works” could we deny? Where is the stopping place? And the end is not yet. If the ACHF is “Scripturally Sound,” all these and myriad others are, too. It is the social gospel gone to seed. Clothing stores could be built and maintained by the principles that would permit ACHF to be called “Scripturally Sound.” “Inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these, ye did it unto me” (Matt. 25:35-40); so, church funded clothing stores could exist (Jas. 2:17) on the very same basis, according to the guidelines of ACHF.

On and on we could go. The truth is that there is no scriptural authority for churches to fund organizations which are established to do the work God gave the church to do. That is true in evangelism and benevolence. The church is not authorized to provide medical or veterinary care. It is not the work of the church to furnish recreation and amusement for its members. There is no Scripture for it.

Concluding Comments and Observations

The pamphlets quoted at the beginning cited Jesus’ sending of the twelve “to teach and to heal” (Lk. 9:2,6). Observe that “whosoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them” (Lk. 9:5). If the passage is applicable, what does ACHF do when a patient, with an IV and a catheter inserted, refuses to believe on the Lord?

What does the ACHF say about James 5:14,15? What of Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25-27), Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23), and the father of Publius (Acts 28:7,8)? As there were no missionary societies, so there were no medical boards supported by churches in the New Testament. There were no benevolent societies built and maintained by the churches of Christ. Churches did not furnish dining rooms, cafeterias, gymnasiums, kindergartens and day-care centers for general use. There were no sponsoring churches wherein one church was the agent for other churches, providing oversight and direction for the work of other churches (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).

In the New Testament, there was singing (Eph. 5:19). So, we sing. There were no mechanical instruments of music. So, we do not use them. There was the breaking of bread “upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). So, we do. There is no “Bible” for taking the Lord’s supper on Wednesday. So, we do not do it. Believing, penitent adults were baptized (Acts 2:38; 8:12). So, we do likewise. There were no babies sprinkled. So, we do not do so. Money was collected upon the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2). So, we do. There were no chariot washes, fig suppers or olive oil sales to raise money. So, we do not have pie suppers, rummage sales, pancake breakfasts or car washes to raise money.

By applying these same principles to ACHF, you will see why we oppose such works. We shall continue to do so. If someone shall supply us with “Scripturally Sound” reasons and answers to our questions, we shall happily and readily receive them.

But, alas, the argument and pleadings above will fall, I fear, on deaf ears, blind eyes and hardened hearts. The twin serpents of institutionalism and the social gospel (“spiritual humanism” if you will) are constrictors whose bodies squeeze every vestige of life from their ensnared, encoiled victims. Their devouring appetites are as silently and subtly deadly as that of an inoperable tumor whose presence is not detected until it has accomplished its murderous mission. It is the nature of the beast.

In the 1940s and 1950s institutionalism was a baby fresh from the egg. All, even its defenders, were aware of its treacherous tendencies and its ill history, but as a wriggling babe it could be controlled or contained, or so they hoped. After all, who can let a poor, little orphan starve and who can deny the need for “Christian” education? So, they fed and clothed it by stuffing its insatiable jaws with money, money and more money. Then, the baby became a monster with hissing in its fangs. It bred and developed corollary institutional structures with even more powerful and voracious desires. Soon the “baby” was ruling the house, demanding similar, subsidiary partners and scoffing with its flicking, forked tongue at the mild and muted protests of its former mentors and masters.

Do you doubt and would you dismiss my morbid, lamented imagery? If so, look about. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. The simple needs of Tennessee Orphan Home have given birth to African Hospitals. Herald of Truth, the initial mother church, overseeing the funds and function of thousands of churches, has evolved into the Crossroads and Boston Church, the epitome and consummation of the sponsoring church concept. Herald of Truth condescendingly ignores its objectors, its former supporters, and preaches its worldly gospel of pap and mush that Lutherans laud and Presbyterians praise. Abilene Christian University teaches evolution and defies its puny opposition with whitewash and ever more liberal teaching while its money, power and influence march on, unabated, unabashed, unimpeded.

“We do many things for which there is no Bible authority,” and “Where There Is No Pattern” (Athens Clay Pullias, David Lipscomb College, 1957) have given rise to the “New Hermeneutics” of Richard Rogers, Randy Mayeux and Bill Swetmon. The Gospel Advocate (How long has it been since you have heard a liberal from the 1950s refer to it as the “Old Reliable”?) is no longer the voice of orphan homes and Herald of Truth. It is the general, vague, soft, above-the-battle underbelly of institutional theology. Its articles arc limp-wristed liberalism, afraid to fight, unable to lead. It no longer rings with power and authority. As such, it is lost to the more conservative minded liberals. It has no teeth to bite and no fists to fight. Indeed, its efforts were the fostering voice of the present developing, enveloping apostasy. It is powerless to turn back. Ironically, it is not progressive enough, not broad enough, for the young princess of the liberalism at Abilene or the denominationalism of Kip McKean and the Boston Church or the Garnett Road church in Tulsa.

The conservative minded liberals of our day (men like Alan Highers, Bill Jackson, Dub McClish, Johnny Ramsey, Ben Vick, Jr., Roy Deaver, Tom Warren, Gary Workman and Garland Elkins) have lost their institutions, the things hev once bred and fed, nurtured and nourished. They have ost Lipscomb, Abilene, Gospel Advocate, Herald Of Truth, nd other lesser known institutional ministries. Within their ~vn ranks, they conduct lectureships, publish books and apers, occasionally spit at the divisive “antis,” and assail veiled, mvstical and mysterious liberalism for which they c unable to account. They see their progeny, their offring, but they deny them. Their slings and arrows against hat they call “liberalism” are as ineffectual as a BB gun ainst King Kong.

What, oh what, would these troubled brethren give if they could turn back the clock! Oh, how fondly must they long for the simple, emotional orphan issue and the mere, harmless presence of a stove, sink and refrigerator in an isolated corner of a “church basement.” Oh, how they would love to hear again the snide little jokes about “Wee Willie, the worried water cooler,” with which they could smite the antis and extend their “kitchen facilities.” Oh, how they would love to see again the innocent, charming face of their muzzled little institutions, nuzzling, gurgling and playing child-like on their breasts! Oh, what would they give to be able again to whip up support for “our” nationwide radio and television program. Devoid of all the choking, denominational machinery and bureaucracy of the present day! But Fifth and Highland in Abilene is now the mother of the Boston Church, in essence. The innocent little Fellowship Hall, which they once compared to old-fashioned “dinner on the grounds,” is now a multi-million dollar Family Life Center, replete and complete with “memberships,” exercise classes, diet center, jogging track, basketball arena, volleyball and badminton nets an the essential locker and shower facilities. That “fifth Sunday” contribution for one of “our” colleges, to support “Christian education,” is not state licensed kindergartens and daycare centers – all of this, of course, is supported by the church, and it is bigger than any fifth Sunday contribution! The dream has become a nightmare.

The men who led the fight for orphan homes, Herald of Truth and for limited Fellowship Hall facilities are now unwelcome in the homes of their children. Oh, how sad it must be to see the abomination of desolation engulf what they have wrought! Oh, how fervently must they crave in the midst of reverie the simple days of yesteryear. But, sadly, those simple days will never come again. They have sown the wind, and they must reap the whirlwind. They have crossed their Rubicon. The bridges have all been burned. Their monsters pay them no mind, and when their greying generation is gone, the apostasy will abound yet more and more. It is inevitable. So history teaches. Read it, observe it and weep.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 12-13, 20-21
January 3, 1991