Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Do 1 John 3:13-17 and Matthew 5:22 refer to mankind in general as offspring of Adam, or to only Christians, when the term “brother” is used? The same goes for James 2:15 and Romans 10:1 and Paul’s use of the term brethren in the book of Acts?

Reply: The term adelphos, brother or near kinsman, may be and is used in several different senses in the New Testament. It sometimes refers to male children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 4:18,21; 10:2; 14:3; Mk. 1:16; Lk. 3:1;16,28; 20:28; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:2,19). Sometimes the term refers to people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom. 9:3; Acts 23: 1). At other times the word refers to any man or a neighbor (Matt. 5:22; 7:3,4,5). It also refers simply to mankind (Heb. 2:17). Numerous passages use the term in the sense of those who share a spiritual relation in Christ, having been begotten of the gospel (Acts 10:23; 11:1, 12,29; 15:23; 20:32; Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 11:9; 2 Thess. 3:1,6,15; Phil. 1,7,16; Jas. 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:15).

Many other passages illustrating the above usage could be cited. However, these are sufficient to show some of the senses in which the term brother or brethren is used. Certainly, its use in the New Testament is not limited to one meaning, although the root meaning adheres in both the literal and the metaphorical senses.

In 1 John 3:13, brethren is set in contrast to the world. Obviously, this contrast limits brethren to those who have a common bond in Christ. In this sentence then, brethren has the meaning of ones having a common spiritual birth and relation in Christ as God’s children. Those whose souls are purified by obedience to the truth are to love one another from the heart fervently (1 Pet. 1:22). In 1 John 3:14, this generation is demonstrated by the love for those thus regenerated. Brethren here means other Christians. Contextually, brother and brethren refer to one’s fellow Christian or Christians in 1 John 3:13-17.

The use of brother in Matthew 5:22 is with the sense of any person or neighbor to which one might have some relationship in life. It means that one should call no man Raca or fool.

Romans was written to the saints (1:7) who were called to be Jesus Christ’s (1:6). It was these persons he addressed as brethren in 10:1. Therefore, brethren in 10:1 refers to those who are sons of God in Christ with Paul. In a sense similar to 1 John 3:13-17, brethren is used in James 2:15 to refer to those in Christ Jesus. The special obligation Christians owe to one another is emphasized.

Paul’s use of the term brethren in the book of Acts must be determined by the precise context. Sometimes he uses the word to mean simply a fellow Jew from common ancestral relation to Abraham (13:26,38; 22:1; 23:1,5,6) and he sometimes uses the term to mean one related to him in Christ (20:32).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 421
July 19, 1990

By Luke P. Flynn

As a decade has been completed, speaking for myself, I am glad to see it go. It seems that every generation through the years has been given a particular name. Such names as the “in generation,” the “now generation,” etc. have been applied to the various decades of time. The ’50s, ’60s and ’70s all had their special title. Now as we look back at the ’80s it is being called the “me generation” and rightly so. During this course of time we have seen example after example of those in the world looking after one thing and one thing only – themselves! Humanism has been around a long, long time but we saw it explode during the ’80s. “You are number one!” was the cry heard far and wide. Evidence of this was also seen in the E.R.A. movement and the abortion on demand issue. It was also found in the classrooms of our schools as children were spoon fed situation ethics. Teachers promoted the ideas to their students that whatever situation arose, they were to place their wants and desires first.

Unfortunately this problem didn’t stay out in the world but somehow found its way into the Lord church. During these past ten years we have seen congregations split like we have never seen before. We have experienced brethren fighting with brethren over petty things that could be settled if brethren would stop being hard headed and be more soft hearted. From every rampart we have heard the cry of brethren, “If I don’t get my way, I’m leaving!” “If things aren’t done to my satisfaction then I’ll start a faction!” I have not seen as much hated and self-centeredness as I have seen in these last ten years.

Brethren, have we forgotten the Bible? Have we forgotten the principles taught us by the Lord in his letter of love? Have we come to a time when our desires and wishes come before the Lord’s? Have we just given up on the church? It saddens my heart to look back over these past years. I can only imagine the thoughts of our God. Preachers and elders alike have taken a harsh beating because the people say, “Speak unto us smooth things” and they will not! So, the brethren have left and the congregation splits and, as the finger of fault is spun, it usually lands on the preacher and/or elders.

This entire past decade has seen brethren who have forgotten how to sacrifice, how to give in to others for the expedience of the church and how to love one another from the heart. It seems we have rewritten passages such as Philippians 2:3 – “Doing nothing through faction or vain glory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself,” and have changed this passage to say, “Do anything through faction and vain glory, but through high mindedness make others count you better than themselves.”

I am not trying to leave the reader with the impression that nothing good has been done in the ’80s. On the contrary, there have been churches that have grown and disciples too. Some good has been accomplished and brethren have shown love to brethren. For many though, these past 10 years have been one big headache! I praise the Lord they are gone and I will continue to praise him in the years to come. What tag will be placed on the next ten years? Only the Lord knows that. I only hope I won’t have to ask for the aspirins.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 420
July 19, 1990

By Cecil B. Douthitt (1896-1911)

Able and sincere brethren in Christ differ on the work the churches should do, and on how they should do it.

All agree that a “work of faith” (1 Thess. 1:3) has been assigned to the churches, but all do not agree on what that work is. Some say that it is right for the churches to do every kind of work that is right for Christians to do, while others say that individual Christians may do certain kinds of work which the churches have no scriptural right to undertake.

It is admitted generally that preaching and teaching the word to the whole world and ministering in the material needs of life’s unfortunates are duties assigned by the Lord to the church. How then, did the churches cooperate in these two classes of work, when under the direction of inspired men?

1. Teaching the truth of God’s word to every creature in all the world is a divinely appointed work of the church.

The church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). God purposed eternally in Christ Jesus that the unsearchable riches of Christ, the mystery of the ages should “be made known through the church” (Eph. 3:8-11). With apostolic approval the church of the Thessalonians “sounded forth the word of the Lord” in Macedonia, Achaia and elsewhere (1 Thess. 1:8).

The church at Philippi preached the gospel in Thessalonica and increased fruit to their own account by sending contributions to Paul while he actually did the work (Phil. 4:15-17). These contributions from the church were for Paul’s work of preaching the gospel, which also was the work of the Philippian church; they were not contributions to Paul’s tent making business. Making tents for profit, though a “good work” for Christians like Paul, Aquila and Priscilla, is not a “good work” for the church to do. This point will be discussed more fully in a later article.

Churches taught other churches by their example of faith and zeal. By the example of the riches of their liberality, the churches in Macedonia taught others to give liberally (2 Cor. 8:1-8). The faith, hope, love and joy of the church in Thessalonica made them an example to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:1-7).

Churches cooperated in preaching the gospel in distant places. While Paul preached in Corinth, 9 ‘other churches” cooperated with one another and with Paul by sending wages to him (2 Cor. 11:8).

Churches cooperate by appointing and using the same messengers” to go and teach other churches their duty ,I toward the poor saints in Judea (2 Cor. 8:19,23).

Two significant facts should be noted here: (1) these messengers or missionaries were “appointed by the churches” that cooperated, and not by just one church in the cooperating number; (2) these messengers were the “messengers of the churches,” and not just one of the cooperating churches; they were the messengers of all the cooperating churches.

2. There is one way in which these churches did not cooperate in the work of preaching the gospel.

Not one of these churches appointed itself or received an appointment from any other church or individual to be “the sponsoring church” for this work of teaching others, and then announced to all other cooperating and non-cooperating churches: “Send us your money. We will select and appoint the messengers and preachers and missionaries and all workers for this preaching program. We will fix their wages. We will decide where they shall go. We will transact all negotiations for this preaching and teaching enterprise. They will be our messengers and workers. This will be our work. The preachers and their work will be under our oversight. We will hire and fire all workers, for they will be our workers. All funds received will be our responsibility and under our control. We will determine how much of this money is to be paid to the messengers, how much is to be delivered to the poor saints; we will decide how much is to be used to grease the machinery of our outfit. Have fellowship with us in our good work!”

That kind of cooperation is being advocated and practiced today by the “sponsoring church” promoters and the missionary society promoters, but there is nothing in all the New Testament that so much as remotely resembles that kind of cooperation. That kind of cooperation creates a centralization of oversight and control of resources destructive of the equality, the autonomy, the independence and the self-respect of the cooperating churches.

Though both the sponsoring church with all its contributing churches and the missionary society with all its contributing churches deny that their centralized method destroys the autonomy and self-respect of contributing churches, that does not make it so.

The missionary society system has some evils which the modern “sponsoring church” system does not have, and the “sponsoring church” system has some evils which the missionary society does not have; they are not identical in all their harmful traits, but they are identical in their methods of undermining the equality and autonomy of the churches. The “sponsoring church” advocates admit generally that the missionary society system of centralized oversight and control of workers and resources does rob churches of their autonomy and independence. And in the light of that admission, one of the most welcome and the most refreshing essays imaginable would be an article by a “sponsoring church” advocate, setting forth the ways that the missionary society system of centralized oversight and control affect congregational autonomy, and that do not have perfect duplicates in the sponsoring church system of centralized oversight and control.

It would be interesting also to read just what the sponsoring church and the missionary society mean by the invitation: “Have fellowship with us in this work.” (Do they mean anything except, “Send us your money”?) Do they want “fellowship” in the oversight and control of the program? In hiring and firing workers? In the appointment of the “messengers”? What do they mean by, “Have fellowship with us,” except, “Send the money to us and we will do the rest”?

That New Testament churches cooperated in the work of preaching the gospel is a biblical fact; that they cooperated after the pattern of the missionary society and the “sponsoring church” is incorrect and absurd.

3. Churches cooperated in benevolent work.

The churches cooperated by sending contributions to the churches in Judea for the relief of poor saints during famines in that area (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1-15; Acts 24:17).

They cooperated in the appointment of messengers to travel among the churches and to teach other churches to give for the relief of the poor saints in Judea (2 Cor. 8:18-24).

They cooperated in the use of the same agents to transport funds to the churches in the disaster area (Acts 11:29,30; 12:25; 2 Cor. 8:20,21; Acts 24:17).

4. There is one way in which these churches did not cooperate in supplying the needs of the poor saint.

These churches did not cooperate by sending funds to any church where the saints in the receiving church were in no greater need than the saints in the contributing churches. That kind of cooperation would have been foolish and dangerous then; that kind of cooperation is foolish and dangerous today.

When the famine in Judea was over, and the saints there were in no greater need than the saints in Galatia, Macedonia and Achai, not another cent from the churches in those regions was received by the elders of the churches in Judea, so far as the Scriptures reveal.

When famine or disaster of any kind falls upon a church anywhere, then churches everywhere should cooperate by sending contributions by whatever means available and honorable (2 Cor. 8:21) to the church in the disaster area for the relief of the saints there, like the churches did in New Testament days. When the disaster subsides and the Christians there are in no greater need than saints in the contributing churches, then contributions from contributing churches should stop, as they stopped in New Testament times. To do otherwise is to fail to abide in the teaching of Christ (2 Jn. 9).

If some church, for example, the church in Ephesus, had begun to reason with apostolic approval after this fashion: “Widows, orphans and old people always will need help. Famine, pestilence and earthquake are sure to strike somewhere sometime. We are strategically located between the East and the West, and our elders are men of vision, integrity and ability. Let us put on a brotherhood campaign of collecting funds for charity from churches all over the world. Then let us gather orphans or widows or old people from any place we choose, bring them here in places we have provided, and we will take care of just as many as the funds from other churches and our business enterprises will support. This work will be under our oversight and control”; then, no man on earth could raise any scriptural objection to the principle of centralized oversight and control, which developed the Roman hierarchy. But is there any man on earth who sincerely thinks that the churches in the days of inspiration participated in that kind of cooperation?

Some of the brethren who are advocating that kind of cooperation ought to know better. Have they forgotten all they every learned about the practice of centralization of oversight and control, which inevitably developed the Catholic monster? Or, do they now think that the Catholic system is better after all than the Bible way? (Gospel Guardian [5 Aug. 1954], pp. 200-201.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 400-401
July 5, 1990

By Donald Townsley

In the introduction, let us explain the descriptive terms which we will be using. Webster says that “liberal” means: “not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; not conservative.” The word “conservative” means: “disposed to maintain existing institutions or views; opposed to change.”

I believe these two terms describe the views of churches of Christ today. Many churches of Christ no longer hold to the New Testament as a blueprint that is to be followed in every detail. They do many things for which there is neither command, example or necessary inference. On the other hand, there are many churches of Christ who are opposed to these departures from the New Testament pattern. They believe we must have book, chapter and verse for all we do and practice.

Let us contrast some of the views and practices of the two groups:

Liberal Churches	Conservative Churches
1. Have missionary, benevolent and educational organizations to execute the work of the church.	1. Have no missionary, benevolent and educational organizations to execute the work of the church. They believe the local church is God’s only organization to do his work (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23).
2. Have “educational directors,” “associate ministers,” “youth directors,” and “superintendents” over their human organizations.	2. Have evangelists, elders (pastors) and teachers (Eph. 4:11).
3. Seek to get crowds with “youth meetings,” “rallies,” carnal rewards such as trips to Opryland and all kinds of promotions (such as the “bus ministry”).	3. Engage in none of these things, but seek to draw men to Christ with the preaching of the gospel (Jn. 6:45; Rom. 1:16).
4. Emphasize society and the physical man by appealing to the carnal nature with “church banquets,” “church kitchens,” “church camps,” “fellowship halls,” and all kinds of parties.	4. Do not believe the church is to provide the social needs of man (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:22, 34; Jn. 18:36).
5. Elevate their preachers above the rest of the members by using such titles as “doctor.”	5. Reject all such titles as unscriptural (Matt. 23:7-12).
6. Support and operate schools for secular education, beginning with kindergarten and going through schools of higher education.	6. Do not support or operate any schools. They believe that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)
7. Do much of their work through what they call the “sponsoring church” arrangement – many churches pooling their funds under one eldership to do a general work all churches are equally related to.	7. Reject this arrangement as a violation of the New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation. In New Testament times one church only helped another church when the receiving church was in want (or need) – unable to do its own work (Acts 11:27-30). (Cooperation in such work does not require the centralized “sponsoring church”).
8. Base many of their practices on the silence of the Scriptures, and appeal to the traditions of the past.	8. Base all their practices on the unadulterated gospel of Christ (Matt. 28:18; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
9. Expect their preachers to be modern-day “pastors,” running after the members and visiting the hospitals on a regular basis and to be the “head planner” of all their projects and promotions.	9. Do not expect their preachers to leave the work of God to serve tables (Acts 6:20). They have deacons and godly women to take care of the “physical needs” of the congregation and elders to do the planning (Acts 20:28). The preacher is left free to study, meditate, pray and carry on the work of preaching the gospel to the lost (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:12-16). The preacher is to visit the sick because he is a Christian (Matt. 25:36), not as a “preacher duty.”
10. Have “special singing” in the assembly – different choral groups are invited in to sing.	10. Have nothing but congregational singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

(Truth Magazine, 3 May 1979, p. 290).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 396
July 5, 1990