Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Introduction

Among the people of God, there appears to be a tendency to swing from one extreme to another. Even in the New Testament times, there were those who were moving away from truth to error (Gal. 1:6,7; 5:1-4). There is also the tendency in some brethren to become obsessed with one point and look at everything through this perspective. Consequently, one’s thinking becomes clouded and the observations made are warped, Exegesis of Scripture becomes eisegesis because the point of obsession causes the Scripture to be explained so as to advance this one point that seems so centrally important and pivotal.

Apparently it did not take long for the early church to leave the simple mission for her expressed in Scripture and to become a bureaucracy with layers of officials and titles. The functions and duties associated with these officials and titles did not conform to the scriptural teaching. Throughout the history of religion, as soon as a restoration of New Testament religion is accomplished there is already at work the deterioration into a bureaucratic structure with functions and titles that again violate the scriptural teaching. When these excesses occur, an attempt to correct then also occurs. Sometimes, there is an over reaction to the abuses manifested in another arrangement that likewise does not conform to scriptural teaching.

Our generation is witnessing such a phenomenon. In responding to the error or a highly bureaucratic, institutionalized arrangement, some brethren have ignored plain scriptural teaching that in effect denies the New Testament arrangement. This article is addressed to this issue.

Meaning of Some Basic Terms

Church in English translations of the Bible and ekklesia in the Greek text are terms the understanding of which is crucial to a correct understanding of the New Testament arrangement. Ekklesia means an assembly or company of people. The particular context in which it occurs must define the nature of the assembly or company. It could be a mob gathered from the street in a place of meeting (Acts 19:29,32,41). On another occasion and in a different context, the term can mean an assembly as provided by law and regularly constituted (Acts 19:39). Another sense might be a group of people called into being under the leadership of one individual (Acts 7:38). It can also mean the group or company of people built by the Lord upon the bedrock of his deity (Matt. 16:18) and this would include all such people throughout the world for all time. The term is also applied to disciples of Christ called out of the world into special relation to him and residing in certain geographical areas but never meeting in a single assembly (Acts 9:31). A group of people persecuted in their homes and possibly other places but viewed as being part of a company or assembly (Acts 8:1,3; 22:4-5; 26:10-12; Phil. 3:6) is also referred to by the term. Sometimes the term is used to refer to the assembled group during which assembly certain rules or laws are to be observed relative to order, number, and gender of those who are permitted to address the group or company that is assembled together (1 Cor. 14:23-35). It should be observed that in all the uses of the term in all these contexts, although the precise meaning is different, the basic meaning of company or assembly is evident. The company may be assembled as a body or dispersed but in the broader sense they are still a company or an assembly. This company of believers, when it refers to those saved by the Lord Jesus and laid upon the foundation of his deity may be in the whole world in all generations, in a single locality (1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 20:17; et. al.), in more than one geographical region, assembled in one group, or disassembled.

Those constituting the body of Christ are saints (1 Cor. 1:2, et. al.) but among them in a local assembly there are elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17,28; 14:23) who must possess certain qualifications prior to being appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). Presbuteros, elder, refers to one who is older and experienced in the word of God and its application to one’s life. Bishop, episcopos, is used interchangeably with elder (Acts 10:27,28). These two terms refer to one and the same. Poimen, pastor or shepherd, also is used interchangeably with elder or bishop (1 Pet. 5:1-4). The elders are to pastor or shepherd the flock with Jesus being the chief shepherd. These persons are given specific responsibilities in relation to the saints among whom they are elders, bishops, or pastors (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12-14; 1 Tim. 5:17-20). A church when fully constituted, without lack, will have elders (Tit. 1:5). It is obvious there is a differentiation of functions among members of the church (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Appoint, cheirontoneo, originally used in connection with showing of the hand in the Athenian legislature, was used in the New Testament to indicate a recognition of someone for a special function or service. It was used when Paul and Barnabas appointed or ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23) and in connection with churches who chose certain individuals to convey their contributions to the poor saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:19). In this latter case, it is obvious that the collective group took the action of choosing the individuals.

Another word for appoint is kathistemi which means to set apart an individual to a position or office. This is the word used in Titus 1:5 which reference to elders,

The churches of Galatia and the church at Corinth were given charge to lay by in store on the first day of the week and what they laid by in a treasury was to be conveyed by messengers of the church that produced the treasury (1 Cor. 16:1-3). The funds the brethren contributed were stored or in a treasury to be conveyed to those in need in Jerusalem. It was to be stored up so that when Paul arrived there would not be the need to take up a collection. The treasury jointly built up by divine arrangement was to be conveyed by messengers whom the church chose also by divine arrangement. This is clearly collective action of the assembly of disciples.

All these New Testament terms clearly indicate that there are to be actions taken ip a collective sense. The local assembly acts as a unit to accomplish an objective which God has charged to be done. It is true that the actions authorized are not designed to be accomplished only by a complex bureaucratic organizational structure. However, on the other hand, neither does the New Testament demand that there be no collective or unit action. When a church does what the New Testament charged her to do, that church does not become an institutional one in the bad sense of this term. When a church contributes to the doing of what God commands the church to do in the manner in which he commands, there is not the building up of an institutionalized arrangement which runs counter to the New Testament teaching. True, the church may become institutionalized in a sense that would violate scriptural teaching. On the other hand, an arrangement can be set up that circumvents the collective action commanded by God. Brethren need to observe Scripture and not create figments of their imagination that in fact cause them to violate Scripture.

Collective Actions

The whole church can come together in one place (1 Cor. 14:23). In this case, the assembly at Corinth gathers together in one place. It is the assembly assembling. Saints are not to forsake the assembling of themselves together (Heb. 10:25). On the first day of the week, saints laid by in store (in a treasury) to carry out a work authorized by God (1 Cor. 16:1-2). When the church assembles, edifying takes place through teaching and exhortation (1 Cor. 14:26). Those engaged in such edifying are worthy of their hire (1 Cor. 9:7-14). It is obvious that the assembly can provide the place of assembling which act (assembling) is commanded by God. Further, the evangelist who preaches the gospel should live of the gospel as ordained of God (1 Cor. 9:14). Therefore, the treasury put together by the contributions of the saints on the first day of the week when they assemble can be used to do what God commands. This is made clear in the instruction given concerning the putting together of a collection for God given purposes (1 Cor. 16:1-3).

When the church assembles on the first day of the week, the Lord’s supper is to be observed (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:2334). Being instructed to observe the Lord’s supper in assembly (1 Cor. 11:33), the church is certainly authorized to provide that which they are commanded to do when assembled in one place. Collective action is authorized to provide what is necessary to carry out the command which is the obligation of all of them and not just one of them. To carry out these instructions as an assembly is not to institutionalize the church in a bad sense. In fact, to raise the issue of institutionalizing in this context is preposterous.

The Lord commands on occasion that, when assembled together, certain brethren overtaken in sin of which they are not repentant shall be committed to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:4-5). This is an action taken by the assembly in assembly. Since all things are to be done decently and in order in an assembly of saints, it follows that some collective decisions would need to have been made (1 Cor. 14:40).

Churches that put together collections for a purpose which God commands, make the choice of how the collections are handled (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23; 11:8-9). This required collective action, that is the congregation acted as a unit. The same is true in the case of Acts 11:28-30 when the brethren in Antioch sent relief to the saints in Judea. Paul and Barnabas were the ones the church chose by whom to send their contribution to the elders in Judea (Acts 11:30).

Evangelists in areas remote from contributing churches were and are to be assisted in proclaiming the gospel (Phil. 4:15-17; 2 Cor. 11:8-9). Of necessity, the contribution had to be collected into one treasury and then a decision had to be made about how to convey it to the evangelist. Furthermore, a prior decision had to be made by the congregation about which preacher would be assisted and by how much. Doing all this does not involve the church in violation of the will of God by institutionalizing it as some are wont to say. When a church does what God authorizes, without violating some other instruction of the New Testament, one cannot charge that there has been a departure from God’s way.

Churches with poor among them who need assistance certainly should contribute to their necessities (Acts 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:30). When the brethren make a collective decision about whom to help and in what way, they are doing what God commands if they do not violate some other command in the doing of it. The fact that collective action occurs is not sinful. The church is not thereby institutionalized.

On the other hand, in seeking to carry out what God commands, it is possible to create arrangements or organizations which would violate scriptural teaching. Institutions may be created outside the church or arrangements made within the church that would be wrong. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, we ought to do what God commands without omitting obedience to all that he has commanded (Matt. 23:23).

Conclusion

It is clear from the preceding study that collective action of the church is authorized or commanded by God. When the church does what is authorized in the manner in which God commands, there is no sin. But if one moves the church into acts not authorized, structures the church with officers and functions not authorized, or builds appendages to, or creates organizations through which the church seeks to accomplish what God commands, then there is an institutionalizing of the church in a sense that God never authorized. But let ut not condemn as sinful the doing of that which God commands.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 594-595
October 4, 1990

By Calvin R. Schlabach

You’ve probably seen the same bumper sticker on cars that I have. “Don’t follow me, ” it says, “I’m lost, too!” Certainly, the way some people drive, their cars ought to have some kind of warning posted, but that particular bumper sticker caught my attention the other day. It occurred to me that those words of warning could be very appropriately applied to some others we need to be warned about.

I thought of those words a few days ago when I was watching one of our local television “evangelists.” When he wasn’t blowing his own horn about all the “good” he was doing or begging his listeners to send more money to God (but be sure to make your check out to this fellow), he was preaching a “gospel” that would condemn men’s souls rather than save them (Matt. 23:15; Gal. 1:6-9).

When he was telling people that they could be saved by faith alone (Jas. 2:24), or that they could just pray to God for salvation (Acts 2:37-38), or that he had led hundreds of thousands of people to Christ (2 Pet. 2:18), or that people could follow him and he would lead them to heaven (Jn. 6:68), I felt angry that there wasn’t a warning flashing across the bottom of the television screen! “Don’t follow me! I’m lost, too!”

But people didn’t see any such caution, and most people never see the warning that Jesus gave us in the Scriptures. “Let them alone,” he says of such false teachers. “They are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). Yes, that “evangelist” was lost, and most people will not open God’s word to learn this for themselves. Instead, they will blindly follow men like him into the pit of eternal condemnation.

Those words of warning would also be appropriately applied to some of our worldly neighbors. I am often amazed at my brothers and sisters in Christ who will engage in some activity that is at best questionable, and then try to justify it by saying, “But everyone’s doing it! “

Friends, don’t we realize that these people are lost? Should our standard of conduct come from people who know nothing of God and his will for men (Rom. 12:2)? When we are tempted to adopt their life style, ethics, priorities, or goals in life, let’s remember the warning: “Don’t follow me. I’m lost, too!” Following their lead may take us somewhere we really don’t want to go (Matt. 7:13-14).

Wouldn’t it be a good idea, too, for us to apply a similar caution even to other Christians? I am concerned when I see members of the Lord’s church who blindly follow wherever they are led. They never bother to study the Bible for themselves; they never question the things they are taught; they just accept whatever comes from the preacher or the Bible class teachers without stopping to examine things for themselves (1 Thess. 5:21).

Fortunately for many Christians, most of those in teaching positions in the Lord’s churches are capable, honest men, good students and teachers of God’s word. But should I be content to blindly accept whatever a preacher says and hope that he’s not wrong? Should I have that much confidence in him or that little concern for my own soul? No! I made that mistake when I was in a denomination and was trusting my “pastor” for guidance. I’ll not be foolish enough to risk condemnation again!

The lessons of history, from the days of the apostles (Gal. 1:6ff) until the present time, demonstrate clearly that when Christians cease to study God’s word for themselves, to question and examine what they are being taught, they become easy victims of error. Have we so quickly forgotten how liberalism and institutionalism swept through and devastated the church within the last generation? Many Christians at that time were so enamored with “great leaders” that they never bothered to ask where they were being led – they never bothered to ask whether these things were of God. And we know the results. Let’s be careful about blindly following even good men.

Let’s remember that the only one whom we can completely trust to safely lead us in all things is Jesus Christ our Lord. He calls men to follow him (Jn. 12:26), and we need not worry if we do so. He set the perfect example that will lead us through all of the problems and pitfalls of this life and on to eternal glory with the Father in heaven.

In the book of Revelation, those who are eternally saved are described as, “the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (14:4). He “shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them to springs of the water of life” (7:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 559
September 20, 1990

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Charles Holt’s editorial in the May 1988 issue of The Examiner was entitled “What Do We Do If There Is No Local Church Institution?” The opening sentence says, “Over and over in this paper I have pointed out that there is actually no ‘church’ (of any kind) in God’s word.” Brother Holt goes on to say, that it is assumption to affirm that “the Lord has provided a ‘pattern’ and the church institution – ‘the local church’ – is to be built according to this pattern. ” He holds that the “Lord did not prescribe any organizational entity or structure, no institution, which his disciples must ‘join’ or in which they must ‘place membership.”‘ He further teaches that, “There is nothing the Lord wants us to do that is not done by us as individuals. There is no corporate or institution responsibility. The Lord has never assigned any work to a Church organization. There is no such thing as ‘collective responsibilities.”‘ In summary, he says, “There is no ‘local church’ institution, such as we have today . . . set forth in God’s word.”

That editorial is typical. In it, as in his other writings (before and since), brother Holt expresses concern about the word “church” and its implications. Words must be scripturally defined. “Baptism,” for example, must be defined but brother Holt does not refuse to use the term. Nonetheless, ekklesia is used over one hundred times in the New Testament and it must mean something!

I am certain that most of us who are dedicated to the will of Christ as taught in the New Testament are as concerned as brother Holt about preserving undenominational Christianity and avoiding institutionary development within the church of Christ. We do not desire to make an “institution” (in any unscriptural sense) of the local church. Likewise, while wo do not share some of brother Holt’s views concerning elders, we agree that if elders see their function as institutional executives or “business managers” they have missed the point of their service in the Lord’s body. I do not believe, as brother Holt seems to do, that brethren almost universally abuse God’s will regarding the assembling of saints by allowing the local church to control and order their lives; but if they do, such does not argue that we are never taught in Scripture to act collectively. We need to cut through brother Holt’s rhetoric and indentification of abuses (which we oppose as much as he) and ask some simple questions.

1. Did God conceive of his people together in Christ and recognize them in any collective sense? The answer is “Yes.” God used the collective term ekklesia (“assembly” if “church” is objectionable) to describe all his people in the Gospel age who are collected in spiritual relationship. We all “think people” when we think of the church because it is composed of Christians, but one person (Christian) is not the ekklesia or assembly in any sense (universal or local).

The Lord also used the term “body” and said that “the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor. 12:14). “All the members do not have the same function” but we are “members of one another” (Rom. 12:4-5). Christ is the Head of this body (Eph. 1:22-23) and, incidentally, the body (soma) is the church (ekklesia).

2. Did God provide for any actual local collective arrangement and identification of his people? Again, the answer is “Yes.” In the very beginning years, brethren were locally identifiable in both Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 11:22,26). The disciples “came together” locally for specific purposes (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Paul spoke of the need for brethren to understand their responsibilities to one another in the local group of Christians associated together. He said, “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,” etc. (1 Thess. 5:12-15). Peter spoke of the “flock of God which is among you” and of all being “submissive to one another” (1 Pet. 5:1-5). The writer of Hebrews called for brethren to “consider one another in order to stir up to love and good works” and admonish them not to forsake the “assembling” of brethren together (Heb. 10:24-25).

3. Is the term ekklesia used in the New Testament to describe the actual local collective? “Yes” is the answer. Paul addressed the ekklesia at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), the ekkiesia at Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1), and the ekklesiais (plural) of Galatia (Gal. 1:2). He spoke of the ekklesia in the house of Priscilla and Acquilla (Rom. 16:5). That these were individually identifiable is indisputable in the fact that the term ekklesia is used in the plural: “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16); “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2); “the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22); etc. John said that he was instructed to write to the seven ekklesiais (plural) in seven specific locations in Asia (Rev. 1:11). In chapters two and three the term ekklesia is used to refer to a collectivity of brethren in each location.

4. Is the local ekklesia an independent functional entity or is it a spontaneous, occasional, amorphous gathering of saints? An “entity” is a single person or thing, or a collected group of persons or things, considered as having distinctness in itself. “Functional” suggests the capability of action, operation, or work. The ekklesia of Christ when viewed in the New Testament as comprising all saved persons is an “entity.” It is not, however, a functional entity because the people are not commissioned to come together to act or work collectively. They, therefore, have no capacity for collective action. The ekklesia in a particular locality is seen in the New Testament as both an entity and functional. Each local church has both the commission and capacity to function collectively. Each local church is independent of the others; hence it is not dependent on any other for the authorization, support, oversight, or performance of its function(s). Paul and Barnabas assembled with the ekklesia at Antioch for “a whole year” (Acts 11:26). Paul and Barnabas “gathered the church (ekklesia) together” and “reported” to it what God had done with them (Acts 14:27). The ekklesia sent Paul and Barnabas on their way to Jerusalem; and when they arrived, they were received by the ekklesia at Jerusalem (Acts 15:3-4). The church at Antioch was known by Paul. He came to and went from the regular, on-going assembling and functioning of those brethren.

5. Did God plan any actual collective activity for his people and does Christ direct God’s people in any collective activity? “Yes,” the Lord provided the arrangement for accomplishing collective activity for worship, teaching, edifying, and caring for one another through the local church? The ekklesia at Corinth gathered together and in that assembled body was, among other activities, to exercise discipline (1 Cor. 5:4-5), take the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:17-23), and edify one another in worship (1 Cor. 14:23-40). The ekklesia at Philippi “had fellowship” with Paul and “sent once and again to my need,” he said (Phil. 4:15-16). Other ekklesiais (plural) sent wages to Paul (2 Cor. 11:8).

It is inconceivable in light of the many passages which call for brethren to love one another and to do spiritual things together that some deny that God planned any identification of those persons locally for the purpose of collective function. Again, such is not to claim for that body of saints working together the kind of institutionalized, ecclesiastical or denominational framework apparent among those who go outside the New Testament for their concepts and ideas. Neither does it suggest that we are prepared to band congregations into a larger functional unit. The truth is that the Lord has provided the ekklesia for the very purpose of bringing Christians together to be edified so that they can accomplish God’s work (Eph. 4:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 579-580
October 4, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

The corporation of our title is a siren through which Charles Holt wails and whines. As will be documented in this special series, brother Holt attacks the fact, foundation and function of the church you can read about in your New Testament. Before you become a megaphone or microphone to echo his economy or fund his corporation, you need to remember against whom you are fighting. To persecute the church is to persecute Christ (Acts 8:3; 9:1,4,5). To “withstand the kingdom of the Lord” is to “fight . . . against the Lord God” (2 Chron. 13:8,12), and those who do so “shall not prosper.”

Brother Holt’s organization may prosper; his organizational coffers may “increase and abound yet more and more,” but he shall not prosper. Neither will you if you join his corporation and support its confrontation against the firm foundation of God Almighty. I would as soon stand in the Judgment as the one who pierced the physical side of the Son of God with a spear as to stand there as one who prated against his spiritual body with malicious words.

There may be grievous abuses of truth (2 Tim. 2:16-18); there may be gross violations of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16); there may be corrupt churches and mercenary ministers (Rev. 2:18-3:5; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Grant that it is true. Still, it does not warrant us to war against the King and kingdom of God. Paul was “shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi,” but he did not prate against preachers, chide the churches or evict by edict the elders of the churches. Brethren, before you are taken in by the Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc. in general and by Charles Holt in particular, beware of what and whom you are opposing (cf. Mat. 25:40,45).

We hear the blasting pestilence of brother Holt’s organization against the alleged abuses of the church of God. We read his accusations and insinuations, his slurs and slanders, against the church of the firstborn ones. If it were all true, it would not justify his cause or course. We read of Peter’s declarations and protestations of firm, fearless faith (Matt. 26:33; Mk. 14:29; Lk. 22:33; Jn. 13:37). We hear his base denial – “I know not the man.” We hear him defend his acceptance of Gentiles (Acts 11). We see his hypocrisy and subsequent condemnation because he feared the Jews (Gal. 2:11-14).

What shall we say to this? Do we start a foundation in apposition to the apostles? The hushed howls of Paul’s enemies whispered that he was preaching for ulterior motives begotten of an inferior apostleship. Do we campaign, then, against the apostolic office, work or function? Do we deny and decry all apostles of the Lamb? Do we take the word, “apostle,” and show that it is used in very broad and general ways in the New Testament (cf. Phil. 2:25), and thus negate the special role of the “holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:12)? God forbid!

The Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc. often uses scriptural concepts to taunt true truth and freedom. Its writers speak of “the traditions of the church”; they speak of the “‘powers that be,’ the authoritarian preachers and elders of ‘the Church.”‘ They rant and rail against “mercenary,” “hireling,” “professional preacher” of the “corporate Church of Christ” and insist that they are “free thinkers” who have rebelled against the “party-line” while the rest of us are left to “line-up,” or “goose-step” to the tune of Pied Piper preachers and elders who demand unquestioning obedience to the “status-quo.” Christians in a local congregation, under the oversight of elders (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2-4; Phil. 1:1), are seen as objects of pity, scorn and ridicule. They are pictured and portrayed as blind followers of the blind, as “lowly, voiceless members who must pay their dues to the organization,” and as those who are consigned and resigned forever to “obey and pay.”

Warning From an Elder

Before you parrot the party-line of the Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc., remember these words from an elder in the church:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: . . . them that walk after the flesh . . and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities . . . . But these . . . speak evil of the things they understand not . . . . These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure . . . those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is lie brought in bondage (2 Pet. 2:1-19).

Brethren, they promise you liberty, but it is the “liberty” of a master’s rope, not of the Master’s hope.

Church and His Corporation Equivalent?

Brother Holt believes his Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. and the Lord’s church are “equivalent human structurcs or organizations.” Note the quote below.

The church/building and the local church/institution are both from the wisdom and will of men. This fact in itself does not mean that they are necessarily wrong or sinful. As an example, Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. is a religious corporation, a legal entity under law, that originated in the will and wisdom of men. I believe it is an expedient method for disciples to combine individual efforts to teach and preach the word of God, as well as do other related “religious” activities. But – and get this fact, please! we do not in anyway whatever think that this human corporation is from God or that the Lord built it or even gave a “pattern” for such.

The facts are, biblically and according to civil law, that Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. and the local C of CC (church of Christ Church – LRH) are equivalent human structures or organizations. The difference is that we know this truth and admit it; but your clergy are “selling” you a human organization as a divine institution, just exactly as the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself (Charles Holt, The Examiner, May 1988, pp. 2,3).

Please read the citation above very carefully. Observe that the local church, as per 1 Corinthians 1:2 and Galatians 1:2, is a “human organization. ” As such, it is “equivalent” to brother Holt’s corporation. If Christians began to preach that the church is not a divine organization and that is does not have a divine “pattern” of operation, one wonders if that would make it acceptable unto God? Brother Holt’s “Ministry” has all the rights and privileges that are appointed to the church in the New Testament. The quotations above and their “Forums” exemplify that fact.

Brother Holt is correct – his “Ministry” is a “human organization.” “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1). “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13), and brother Holt assures us that the Lord did not plant his.

Appeals for Money

The Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. chastens Christians who “lay by in store” as the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 16:2) , as “The lowly, voiceless members (who) must pay their dues to the organization. Obey and pay, that’s the whole duty of the faithful church member” (The Examiner, January 1990, p. 32)! “C of C church members have been brainwashed into believing that giving into the church treasury is their duty, as one of the imagined Yive acts of worship,’ and must be done every Sunday. This is set forth as a ‘sacred duty’ and failure to do so means condemnation by God. Therefore, they ‘fear’ the threats of men and dutifully obey men rather than God. You do not owe the C of C church anything” (Charles Holt, The Examiner, March, 1989, p. 29).

Now, the hook is set. Once you are convinced to cease doing what the New Testament teaches you to do, what should you do with your money? Well, here is brother Holt’s advice on the same page of the last quote above.

Has this paper helped you toward a better understanding of God’s word? Has it made you more aware of the departure from the simple way of the Lord? . . . Have you come to recognize that the C of C churches have become a fullfledged denomination the same as others? . . . Has it helped you to accept the truth that there is no “Lord’s treasury” or divinely authorized “church treasury” into which you are required to pay? . .

If these probing questions can be answered in the affirmative, . . . then YOU have been helped by this paper. . . . Surely YOU do understand this: Freely YOU have received, freely give. Are YOU willing to do this, even as others have done for you?

HELP US FINANCIALLY WITH THIS PAPER! This is very important . . . . YOUR FINANCIAL HELP is NEEDED . . . . It is needed NOW. It is needed on a regular basis.

Note this appeal from brother Holt, “Be a part of this effort, after the manner of the early disciples: ‘. . . and in proportion that any disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the . . .’ publication of THE EXAMINER (cf. Acts 11:29) . . . . We need your financial help” (The Examiner, January, 1990, p. 17). An elder of the church once said, “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2 Pet. 2:3). Once you are talked out of laying by in store on the first day of the week, once you become convinced that is a mere human contrivance of “the clergy” in the “church of Christ church denomination,” what should you do with your money? Why, do like they did in Acts I I send it to brother Holt and The Examiner. He that hath an ear, let him hear.

Conclusion

Brother Holt is obviously a brilliant and talented man. I assume that his motives, so far as they are known to him, are pure. Both this article and special issue are distasteful to me. They give me no pleasure. However, as long as one believes that brother Holt and his organization are teaching error, he must oppose his views. To all who have known and loved him over the years, I urge you to pray for him and to use whatever friendship you have had with him in t e past to encourage him to repent and to preach again the truth and freedom for which he once so boldly contended.

There are those who say that they disagree with brother Holt’s doctrines. They say they agree that his ideas are foreign to the Bible. Yet, they sympathize with him and criticize those who oppose his teachings. Is that scriptural love (Gal. 4:16; Jn. 8:40)? I think not. If we did not love brother Holt and his soul, these pointed efforts would never have been made.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 589-590
October 4, 1990