Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“And at that time there was a great persecution against the church . . . and they were all scattered abroad” (Acts 8:1). “I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not” (3 Jn. 9). The “church” is “they,” “them,” the saved.

Saul breathed “out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1). He laid waste “the church ” (Acts 8:3). Saul did “much evil . . . to (the Lord’s) saints” (Acts 9:13). He “persecuted the church of God” (Gal. 1:13). Saul “destroyed them which called on (the Lord’s) name” (Acts 9:21). He “persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9). Saul put “many of the saints . . . in prison” (Acts 26:10). He was zealous, “persecuting the church ” (Phil. 3:6).

The believers whom Saul beat and imprisoned were the saints which called on the Lord’s name – note it well – “in Jerusalem” (Acts 9:13,21). Who were these people “at Jerusalem “? They were the ones who believed, repented and were baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” “at Jerusalem” (Acts 2:5,36-38). These people are collectively referred to as the “saved,” “the church” (Acts 2:47; 5:11), “which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1).

People in Antioch heard the preaching of the Lord, “and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” Further, “much people were added unto the Lord.” These saved people were “the disciples (which) were called Christians first in Antioch.” Collectively, they referred to as “the church” (Acts 11:20-26).

Why Such Repetition?

Why be so redundant about a point that no Christian denies; in other words, the saved are the church? First, the fact often is acknowledged without its implications being fully appreciated or clearly understood. Second, certain brethren are uncomfortable with the “exclusivistic” nature of the church. They rail and revile against being “legalistic, narrowminded, bigoted,” but they offer no scriptural alternative to the body of the saved. Third, many devout souls in denominationalism repudiate “the one true church” concept. Their prejudice against the truth is born partly of ignorance. They need to be instructed in the way of God more perfectly. Fourth, sincere believers, hearing the taunts of brethren and religious friends, begin to question the truth which they mentally accept. They must be reminded, grounded and settled, rooted and built up in Christ and established in the faith.

Ask Yourself:

(1) Does the Bible teach the saved constitute the church, the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23)? Are there saved people who are not members of the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:12,13,20)?

(2) What must one do to be saved (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:36-38,41; Heb. 5:8,9)? What does it mean to obey the gospel (Rom. 5:1; 6:3,4,16,17; 10:9,10)?

(3) When the Bible refers to “the church,” does it refer to a Protestant denomination, i.e., a Baptist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran Church? Does it refer to the Roman Catholic Church? If not, to what does it refer? If yes, prove it.

(4) If one contends for the New Testament system as outlined in the first segment of this article, is he doing wrong? If one argues for something other than what the New Testament reveals as shown in the first section of this essay, what authorizes him to do so (Gal. 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:11)?

(5) Were the saints and disciples, whom Saul persecuted, redeemed by the blood of Christ? Since this group is the church, are they the church which Jesus “purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28)? If not, what church was it?

Finally: No sympathy should be extended to compromising, apologizing brethren who seem bent on blurring the New Testament’s vision of the church. No Christian should feel guilty or ashamed of the truth regarding the church. Rather than draw back unto perdition, the saved need to be more bold, more militant in their efforts to make known the spiritual nature of the body of Christ. The church is the sphere of salvation. It is the room and realm of the ransomed and the redeemed. It is the glorious church, the product of the glorious gospel. It is th6 blood bought Spirit born, heaven bound, kingdom of the Prince of Peace. God purposed it, promised it, preached it, perfected it. Jesus loved it and gave himself for it, and all who have been born again are in it.

The greater man’s unbelief of these fundamental, elementary facts, the more aggressively they must be pressed and presented. When brethren who ought to know better begin to hedge and equivocate and throw out sops for denominational consumption, when they insinuate that the kingdom’s borders may include those in alien camps who have not obeyed the gospel, then the faithful must open their mouths and speak boldly as they ought to speak. There is nothing to be feared in proclamation and declaration of the truth regarding gospel obedience and the church. Do not cower; do not blush, but stand and speak the truth in love, in faith, in hope. Souls are not saved by obscuring and perverting the truth. The lost do not need to be consoled with the thought that they may be in the kingdom though they have not obeyed the gospel as it is written. No, they do not need to be comforted. They need to be convicted and converted. Only the truth heard, believed and obeyed can accomplish that. Preach the word.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 431
July 19, 1990

By Bobby R. Holmes

I call your attention to the introductory remarks that are noted in part 1 of this series and to the verses of Scripture used thus far (Exod. 32:1-6,15-28; Mk. 6:14-28). The charges against dancing continues:

E. Dancing and divorce go hand in hand. On the dance floor, men and women are attracted together and time and time again, an affair is begun that ends not only in adultery, but in divorce as well. Again, there is ample evidence that could be used from the divorce courts to prove this.

F. Dancing and lust go hand in hand (Mk. 6:22-23). The same is true today!

G. Galatians 5:19-21 pronounces the condemnation of God on those who become involved in the works of the flesh. One of these “works” is described as “lasciviousness” (v. 19). W.E. Vines says of it (p. 310 of Dictionary of Greek N. T. Words), “A work of the flesh. The prominent idea is shameless conduct.” Henry Thayer says of the word “lasciviousness” in his Greek Lexicon (pp. 79-80), “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence . . . wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling (emp. mine, bh) of males and females.

On the word “revelling” that is found in verse 21 of Galatians 5, Thayer says, “. . hence used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry.” These are accurate and true descriptions of the dance and what takes place both physically and mentally. No one can truthfully deny these things!

I want to note some arguments made in defense of the dance.

A. “There is nothing wrong with a good clean dance. Even the P.T.A. sponsors them.” Answer: I have already pointed out that there can be no “good clean dance” and the P.T.A. should stop sponsoring them. They are contributing to the moral decay of youth.

B. “Dancing is alright if it is well chaperoned. ” Answer: Who, beloved, can guard or protect the mind?

C. “I only dance for the exercise. ” Answer: Other forms of exercise are much better and do not stir evil thoughts (walking, etc.).

D. “Dancing is alright if it doesn’t bring the bodies together.” Answer: Note Mark 6:22-23. What stirred Herod’s heart to lust?

E. “What about square dancing?” Answer: To say the least – your influence as a Christian is lessened. Note 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 in light of this truth.

I want to conclude with some arguments against the dance.

A. Dancing destroys modesty and shamefastness. Thayer says, regarding the word “shamefastness” (p.14, Lexicon), “a sense of shame, modesty . . . is prominently objective in its reference, having regard to others . . .it precedes and prevents the shameful act” (emp. Mine, bh.)

B. Even if you could truthfully say that you can dance and not lust, what about your partner? Note the admonition of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Note also James 1:13-16. What will make a man want to caress the body of a woman he is dancing with? It is lust aflame!

C. The dancer is always in bad company at a dance. The worst moral characters always attend the dance. Note the admonition to Christians to abstain from evil companionship (1 Cor. 15:32-33). You cannot convert people to the Lord on the dance floor. Try it if you doubt it. I once heard of a young lady who took that challenge and tried to talk to her dancing companion about the Lord. She asked him if he was a Christian. He replied, “No, are you?” She answered that she was and the young man asked, “What are you doing here then?” The world and the Lord don’t mix (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)!

The dance, the road to hell! Read carefully Galatians 5:19-21 and 1 Peter 4:3-5. These verses not only include the dance (revelling, lasciviousness) but also include the things that accompany the dance (“and such like, Gal. 5:21). Inspiration says they who do such things “shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” It is the road to hell! We need to have the heart of Joshua who said, “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your father served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:14-15). To those of you who preach, who teach Bible classes, who are elders or deacons, who are parents, who are Christians, stand up and be counted! I’m not an “old fashioned” preacher or “living forty years ago.” I’m standing for what is right and against what is wrong! Wrong will never be right no matter how long one waits for it. “Choose ye this day.” “Who is on the Lord’s side?”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 425
July 19, 1990

By Robert H. Farish

The local congregation is the only organization for church function which exists by divine authority. Each church is to be under the direction of its own elders. This is taught by the example of apostolic action recorded in Acts 14:23: “And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.” Furthermore the Scriptures teach that elders are limited in their functions as elders to the church over which they have been made elders. Paul told the elders of the church of Ephesus to “take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops” (Acts 20:28). When this is studied in connection with the apostolic action of appointing elders in every church, it is readily seen that the elders are limited in their oversight to the local flock. Additional teaching on this point is in 1 Peter 5:2 where the elders are charged to “tend the flock of God which is among you” and are limited in their oversight to the “charge allotted to” them. The “charge allotted” by divine authority to elders is “the flock of God among you,” that is, the flock of which they are members. No arrangements are given in the Scriptures and, hence, no divine authority exists for any super organization through which a number of congregations are to function. There is no organization by divine authority through which a “brotherhood” or church universal work is to be accomplished. The church has no headquarters on earth. There is no scriptural authority for any man or group of men to direct a church universal or as some prefer to call it, a “brotherhood work.” Any time a “brotherhood work” is launched, either in benevolence or evangelism, it must be solely on the authority of human wisdom, for no authorization for such can be found in divine revelation. If a thing is without divine authority in its beginning, it does not become scriptural by being practiced. It makes no difference how well accepted and widely practiced a thing may be, that doesn’t make it right, for such is not the proper standard by which religious practices are to be measured. There is no statement, example or inference in the Scriptures by which a “brotherhood work” can be justified. It is without divine authority.

From the foregoing we have learned that the Scriptures teach that each church is to be under its own elders and thus each church is equal in rights and privileges and independent of all other congregations. Does this teaching rule out all types of intercongregational relationship? Are there no intercongregational. responsibilities? The examples of church action which are recorded in the New Testament are of distinct value in teaching the circumstances in which intercongregational action is required. The action of one congregation in relation to another congregation is generally referred to as congregational cooperation. The type cooperation which is currently receiving much attention is the sending of funds from one church to another church. In Acts 11:27-30 there is an account of the action taken by one congregation with reference to another or other congregations. This provides a fine study in intercongregational relationship. “Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius. And the disciples, every man according to his own ability determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.”

This account teaches that an emergency (“famine”) brought about this intercongregational action. A careful study of all the examples of congregational cooperation will reveal that the action of one congregation sending money to another congregation is an action which is limited to emergency situations. By emergency situation is meant a situation in which a church is a real object of charity.

The need which qualifies one church to receive funds from another church must be a need which is peculiar to the receiving church. There is no authority in the Scriptures for a church to assume a work either in evangelism or benevolence which is beyond its power to perform and claim that it is peculiarly its work by reason of having decided to be responsible for the oversight of that work. This is the procedure in the cases of the “sponsoring church.” Elders of a local congregation decide to assume some work of such magnitude as to be beyond the power of the church over which they are properly the overseers and call upon other churches to send to them to enable them to do this work which they have assumed. This, in brief, is the “sponsoring church” arrangement by which the elders of a local church extend their oversight beyond the scriptural province and function in the capacity of brotherhood elders. The human arrangement of the “sponsoring church” ignores the fact that there is no divine authority for one church to obtain funds by soliciting other churches except in an organization.

The case of intercongregational action which is related in Acts 11:27-30 rules out the “sponsoring church” arrangement for intercongregational action or congregational cooperation. In this case it is said that the “relief ” was sent to the elders. The “relief” was for the “brethren that dwelt in Judea.” It was the elders who had the oversight of “the brethren that dwelt in Judea” to whom the relief was sent. We have already seen that elders are limited in their tending to “the flock of God which is among you.” There is no authority in all the New Testament for one congregation to receive and disburse the funds of other congregations except in those cases where the receiving congregation is an object of charity and its elders receive relief, to distribute among those brethren over whom they have the scriptural oversight.

Each church is responsible for performing its own work through the divine organization, the local congregation. No central organization has been provided through which brotherhood action can be taken. In every case in the Scriptures where an intercongregational action is taken there is no “in-between” body; the action is always “between” the receiving congregation and the sending congregation or congregations. If there had been a need for a “sponsoring church” (or any sort of coordinating agency) to coordinate the churches actions, divine wisdom was capable of providing it. The fact that no such “in-between” coordinating agency was provided is evidence that God didn’t want it.

From this study, of intercongregational action, based upon this example recorded in Acts 11:27-30, is seen the fact of intercongregational responsibility. Every congregation has a responsibility toward any sister congregation which is an object of charity. The need is the thing by which the right to receive funds from other congregations is established. The ability of the members of the sending congregation is the thing that determines the extent of the responsibility of the sending church. This was the case with Antioch for it is stated, “and the disciples every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea.” That the disciples had a right to give “beyond their power” is seen from the approved example of the Macedonian churches of whom Paul wrote that “beyond their power they gave of their own accord” (2 Cor. 8:3). This however does not invalidate the principle that responsibility is determined by ability for in this same context the apostle tells the Corinthians, “For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality; your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality” (2 Cor. 3:13,14). Certainly the Macedonian churches had the right “of their own accord” to give more than they were required to give, even as the church in Jerusalem at one time had all things in common. But this does not mean that all churches for all times are required to so act. The apostle’s order with reference to the amount to be given is found in I Corinthians 16:1,2 “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do you. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper . . . … This requires giving according to one’s prosperity or ability.

But sometime we hear quibbles made on the first day of the week collection. The argument is made that this collection spoken of in 1 Corinthians 16 is for an emergency situation and that it is for benevolence. They then ask how can the action of paying a preacher regularly out of this collection be justified?

The first thing which needs to be pointed out is that the apostle is not here introducing the first day collection as an item of worship but is simply ordering the churches to obtain their funds for benevolence through the first day of the week collection. True the time for the collection is revealed to us in 1 Corinthians 16 just as the time for eating the Lord’s supper is revealed to us in Acts 20:7, but in neither case can it be properly concluded that the act of worship had not been performed before that time. The fact of the collection is taught in Acts 2:42: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers.” That “fellowship” here is an act of worship is seen in the fact that the other times in which they continued steadfastly are items of worship. The collection was a part of the worship of the church from the beginning and the church from this collection had been paying wages to preachers to support them in preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 1:5; 4:15-18).

The scriptural rule is that the church is to obtain its funds for all its work through the first day of the week collection, the only scriptural exception being those cases where the emergency situation makes it right for needy churches to solicit funds from churches with “abundance.” In no case is there divine authority for the churches to obtain their funds by engaging in secular economic activities such as real estate, oil production, farming, pie sales or ice cream suppers.

We are on infallibly safe ground just so long as we do Bible things in Bible ways (Gospel Guardian, 2 Mar. 1961, pp. 660, 668-669).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 434-435
July 19, 1990

By Lewis Willis

While out-of-town in a gospel meeting, I was given a copy of the newspaper supplement, USA Weekend (April 13-15, 1990). The lead article was entitled “McChurch,” and it centered on activities in what is being called the many “mega-churches” located throughout the country. The primary focus was on the Willow Creek Community Church in South Barington, Illinois, and its preacher, Bill Hybels. In giving his explanation for their rapid growth, Hybels said the key is “Marketing. Ask consumers what they want, then let them (as they say at Burger King) have it their way.” The author of the article, Cindy LaFavre Yorks, put this sub-heading on her article, “To attract churchgoers today, you’ve got to please the consumer. That means high-tech entertainment. Day care. Self-help groups. No pleas for money. No Bible thumping. Happy customers from California to Maryland are eating up ‘fast-food religion’ this Easter.”

In the so-called “worship” of these mega-churches, the idea is not to bore the worshiper. Thus, they use drama, humor and pop music -no “archaic hymns.” The “pitch” goes from “home-baked pies to high-tech telemarketing to day care.” Where is the Bible in this pitch?

I guess there are times when I am not “up-to-speed” about what is going on around me. However, I am still reluctant to think of people who assemble for worship of God as “customers.” I certainly have no intention of buying into the idea that you should produce a worship that “lets them have it their way.” Personally, I happen to like the idea of home-baked pies. I just can’t find any authority for getting pies into the worship of the church. If you are playing to “customers,” I guess it really does not make any difference what you are doing which is really the essence of this matter.

It seems that people have confused the object of their worship. It appears rather obvious that they are not worshiping the same object I am trying to worship. I have had this “archaic” notion that we were supposed to be worshiping God. They apparently have the notion that we are worshiping the “customers.” At least, they are careful to give the “customers” whatever they want and they seem to pay no attention at all to giving God what he wants. And, this is the fatal flaw in this ungodly approach to church development.

I had this subject on my mind before I received the article I am referring to. I had received an invitation to a wedding at a big liberal Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. When I got to the building I found a so-called Church of Christ trying to play to its customers. It was evident just by looking at the building. There was a new auditorium complex to the left, with the old auditorium on the right. Pulling into the parking lot, one was greeted with instruction on the front door of the old auditorium, “Exit Only.” When I got inside I found out why. The auditorium was now the new “fellowship hall.” The former foyer was now a storage area for the pots and pans essential to the “fellowship” of that church. I can remember a time, when these eating houses were being introduced, that great care was taken to explain that the portable partitions in the classrooms only made congregational dinners “possible.” No longer do these apostates even bother to shield what they are doing. The old auditorium I was in formerly had the permanent classroom partitions removed so that they could seat more people for their dinners. The old pulpit was an excellent place for the gift table of the couple being married. The bridal cake was a beautiful thing to behold, sitting in what was an old classroom. But there was one big problem – they had no place to get water for the 100 cup coffee pot, except in the restrooms of the new building. I’m surprised that someone has not suggested that they pipe water from the old baptistry for the congregational coffee pot. I tell you, folks, it isn’t easy turning a place of worship into a playhouse. But, longing for a mega-church status, and being willing to give the “customers” whatever they want, our departed brethren are trying with all their might!

I sat there in the new auditorium for the wedding, then I went into the “fellowship hall,” all the while wondering if I should even be there. I felt certain that it would require armed force to get into that beautiful new pulpit and preach, “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:22,34). 1 know that kind of preaching would be unwelcome there.

I was just thinkin ” then and now, that it was like being in a denominational building. I now realize that I was in the building of a denomination! The Church of Christ would never do such a thing as those people obviously do all the time. It would be a shame if it did. Let the denominations build their “McChurches” let the Lord’s Church continue to struggle along, doing the will of the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 428
July 19, 1990