Truth Magazine

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

By P.J. Casebolt

The use of parables (setting one thing beside another) is an accepted and effective method of teaching (Matt. 13:1013).

When we are blind to the truth, a familiar secular practice can be used to convey a spiritual lesson. Nathan used such an approach to teach David a lesson (2 Sam. 12:1-7). One of the prophets used this method in order to teach Ahab a needed lesson (1 Kgs. 20:30-43). Jesus taught many spiritual lessons by pointing to flocks, herds, fishermen, and tillers of the soil.

One common practice associated with farming is allowing the government to pay farmers not to farm. While this practice had its origins in good intentions, the fact remains that human solutions often end up being more ridiculous than the problems which they were intended to solve.

Brethren, without stretching a point to fit the title of this article, I believe that in many instances we are paying preachers not to preach. We may think it is humorous at best, and pathetic at worst, to pay fishermen not to fish, and farmers not to farm. But there is nothing humorous about a practice which pays preachers more not to preach than to preach.

We would not deny that sectarian preachers are paid to preach human creeds and dogmas, and that they would lose their wages if they started preaching the doctrine of Christ. We would even concede that some churches of Christ will pay some preachers well, provided they don’t preach the whole counsel of God.

But what I’m talking about is the practice of paying preachers to do everything except what they are supposed to do -the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). And, the principles involved have nothing to do with a preacher locating with one congregation or even doing the work of an evangelist under the oversight of elders.

I know that there are congregations which emphasize, and support, the preaching of the gospel. God bless them, and may their number increase. And, if it is necessary to stop here and prove that the preaching of the gospel deserves such emphasis, someone is ignorant of what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place, and any further pleas would fall on dull ears in the second place.

While we may believe in congregational autonomy, and do not believe that recreation and entertainment belong in the mission of the church, we may still be guilty of paying preachers not to preach. Congregational autonomy is one thing, but congregational selfishness is something else; keeping the home congregation solvent is one thing, but keeping the home congregation and the local preacher in luxury while the gospel goes begging is another thing entirely.

Some congregations do not want the elders and deacons to accept their God-given duties, but are willing to pay a preacher to be a “church manager.” If the preacher will do the visiting, tend the flock, be a secretary, and maintain favorable public relations between the local congregation and sister congregations in the area, and represent the church in the eyes of the community, he will be paid, and often paid well.

It matters not that the members can be worldly and derelict in their duty and attendance, or that discipline and spiritual growth can be non-existent. As long as the preacher’s presence gives an air of respectability to a group of adults “playing church,” we pay the preacher.

But, if that same preacher or another one wants to preach the gospel to the lost, wants to help weaker congregations, or establish and confirm the cause of Christ in some near or distant place, the gospel goes begging, or starving. We will pay the preacher well to preach 52 Sundays a year, but if he is willing, able, and has the opportunity to preach twice that much, we will cut off his support.

Another area where our parallel between preaching and farming becomes obvious is in the length of the sermon. Quantity does not necessarily mean quality, but all things being equal, one can preach more Bible in 45 minutes than he can in 20 or 25 minutes.

In spite of all the rationalization we can offer, the fact remains that some congregations will pay a preacher more for a 25 minute sermon than they will for a 45 minute sermon. And, some members would rather listen to 25 minutes of a social gospel than they would to 45 minutes of the saving gospel.

Every congregation from the first one in Jerusalem down to the present hour was established by the preaching of the gospel. When the church of the Lord starts paying preachers not to preach, congregations will cease to be established, and those in existence will not only dry up, but will eventually have their candlesticks removed (cf. Rev. 2:5).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 430
July 19, 1990

By Burl Young

One of the most conflicting signals I have ever seen given, is presently being given by a major beer company. After spending millions of dollars encouraging people to drink, they are now attempting to gain respectability by telling their customers that they must at times drink in moderation. They are doing this with the slogan, “know when to say when.” It will be the purpose of this article to show that the real time to say when is before you begin.

In our country there are countless numbers of injured, maimed and murdered individuals who have had their civil rights violated by the drunkard on our highways. With proper research it can be shown that these drunkards are costing millions of dollars and are doing countless damage to lives and property. All of the above costs and damages can be eliminated by knowing when to say when. The time to say when is before you begin.

We should say when before we begin because drinking intoxicating beverages is a sin before God. The Apostle Paul says, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” If we say “when” before we begin, we will never be lost because of drunkenness. This alone is proof enough to not partake of the evil brew.

Another reason to say “when” before we begin, is the heartbreak that strong drink may cause. The likelihood of divorce is closely associated with drinking. Not every time, but often, those that would not otherwise be unfaithful to their spouse will be during an intoxicated state. Therefore if one loves his spouse, he will not drink intoxicating beverages. He will say when before he begins.

We should also say “when” before we begin if we want to maintain respect in the community. As hypocritical as it may seem, other drunkards are less tolerant with their peers than the general populace. Often times we have seen a drunkard laughed at when he was unable to function and unable to conduct himself in a respectable manner. The very ones who drink, have little or no patience for one out of control. They should say when before they begin.

Still another reason to say “when” before you begin is a monetary one. Even if you are not a Christian, you should seriously consider the consequences of drinking before taking the first drink. No one ever sets out to become an alcoholic (one who will not quit drinking), but does so after he becomes accustomed to its effect both mentally and physically. If that drunkard had not taken the first drink, he would not have become a drunkard at all. If he had only known when to say when. The time to say when is before you begin.

I will now examine what the Bible says about knowing when to say when. It is apparent that otherwise strong Christians are having a hard time learning when to say when. Even though many times not imbibing themselves, they defend those what choose to take a little wine. What would ever cause a person that loves the Lord, his Church and other Christians, to be foolish enough to advocate something that Paul, Jesus and virtually every New Testament writer opposes? The same passages that condemn drunkenness, also condemn effeminacy, idolatry and adultery. Could the person involved in that activity continue to do so as long as he did not do it a lot? We know when to say when, we must say when before we begin.

But even if the above argument were not true, (which it is) there is still another reason that one must not begin to be a drunkard. That reason is the influence that a Christian must have to influence others. Surely, one would not appreciate the stench of strong drink on the preacher’s breath as he entered the pulpit! Can you imagine the influence a godly elder would have in trying to counsel the ungodly after himself drinking a simple glass of wine? Even though not intoxicated, he would no doubt have lost his influence with those people. Actually, he knows when to say when. Of course, it is before he begins.

In conclusion, if all would say “when” before they begin, there would be no market for the rotten garbage, none would be killed by drunken drivers and not one elder, preacher or other godly person would lose his influence and finally his soul because of it. Let us not give respectability, credibility or any other thing of value to the plague of drunkenness. Yes, as Solomon asked long ago, “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath babbling? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes?” The answer is, they that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine (Prov. 23:29, 30).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 429
July 19, 1990