Truth Magazine

By Robert C. Welch

The apostolic examples are to be observed by men today just as in the day when first given. Denominations, digressive people of all kinds, and the human institutional and sponsoring church brethren in particular, attempt to deny the force of such examples. The reason for this is that they do not want to follow these examples. So far as they are concerned they would like to see the examples and the requirement to follow them removed from the Bible. The Methodist hates the example of the apostle Paul and the Colossian saints in their burial in baptism (Col. 2:12); he wants to sprinkle. The digression of the last half of the past century hates the example of Paul and the churches in their joint participation in evangelism; it conflicts with their missionary society. Those brethren today who want the church to support their human institutions of benevolence, education and evangelism hate the examples of churches doing the work themselves with one church sending to another church where the need exists, and the church sending to the evangelist; the examples omit their institutions.

Modernism is the basic attitude behind all of this denial of the authority of approved apostolic example. Some who espouse it may not recognize it, and those who do will not admit it. In fact, very few modernists admit that they are. Modernism denies either the sufficiency or the authoritativeness of the Scriptures, in part or in whole. This basic fallacious attitude toward the Scriptures explains the gradual omission of other requirements when they omit the first scriptural requirement, and the continual addition of unauthorized practices when they include the first addition. There is no stopping place.

A Recent Case

Harold Littrell had recently moved to Blytheville, Arkansas, to try to build an orphan home, Herald of Truth Church, waging a fight against the two churches of the Lord in the town which have made great strides in spreading the gospel there and elsewhere and in harmoniously building up the body in that city. As such men have done ever since Ahab called Elijah the troubler of Israel, he piously claims that he is not causing any trouble but that those who have built the two substantial and active churches are causing trouble!

His basic modernist attitude adequately explains his actions. And he expresses in terse sentence the attitude which is behind the institutional digression of this era. In his bulletin he says: “It has to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods.”

This same modernist attitude has already led many of them to say that the specified day on which the disciples met to break bread is not binding on disciples today. It has led them to deny that the church is limited to praying, singing, teaching, communion and contributing in its assembling and worship. They have added the functions of recreation and entertainment. The same modernist attitude has led them to add to the work of evangelism and assistance to the needy, by putting the church into business and civil politics. As long as this attitude is present, there is neither logical nor practicable limit to that which they will teach and practice.

By Express Command

Emphatically, it does not have to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods. The Bible pointedly stresses that we are to do that which is exemplified by these inspired men. And then it just as pointedly stresses that we are to go no further than their expressed teaching and example.

The book of Hebrews compares the tabernacle of the Old Testament with the church of the New Testament. In one place the book speaks specifically of the structure of the tabernacle and applies it as a type to the care with which we are to follow the inspired description of the church. “Who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” (Heb. 8:5). We have a pattern of the church shown us, just as surely as Moses had a pattern of the tabernacle. That pattern is in the New Testament. If this passage does not teach that, it teaches nothing.

Paul himself says: “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). With such a direct command as that, no one but a modernist could without sense of guilt say that we do not have to follow Paul’s examples.

More specifically, Paul gives an example of his support in evangelism in the book of Philippians, showing that the church at Philippi at one time, but not always Philippi alone, sent to his need. The church gave, he received (Phil. 4:14-17). Almost immediately preceding this example he says: “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9). With this command and example presented in the same letter and same chapter, none but a modernist can read it and say that it has to be assumed that the methods by which Paul was assisted by churches forever limits churches of Christ to the same methods. We are commanded to do that which we learn, receive, hear and see in Paul.

Hebrews speaks of those who gave us the revealed word, which is our rule, in this command: “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word ot God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7). The example of their life and faith is given us by them in the word of God; we are commanded to imitate it. The modernist denies this. The man of faith believes, teaches, and imitates their faith.

One of these apostles who has thus lived and given us the example and the charge to follow their examples, places a limitation upon that which we are to teach and practice. Paul expressly says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). This excludes addition to the teaching of the Scriptures concerning churches support of the evangelist, as well as addition to the teaching concerning singing and baptism. This is God’s law of exclusion. No sponsoring church through which a number of churches contribute to the preaching of the gospel is in the teaching and example of the New Testament: God thus excludes it. No benevolent society through which the church functions is given in teaching and examples in the New Testament; God thus excludes it (Gospel Guarthan [26 Sept 1963], pp. 326, 332).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 402
July 5, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. Fifty years ago, a prominent preacher warned:

“The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sand-bar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in the missionary society but scruple not to form organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans, and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. Of course it is right for the church to care for the fatherless and widows in their affliction, but the work should be done by and through the church with the elders having the oversight thereof” (Guy N. Woods, A CC Lectures, 1939, p. 54).

B. Using commonly accepted terminology as employed in the quote above, the Scriptures shall be our authority in this study of institutionalism (2 Tim. 1:13; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

C. Topics to be discussed:

1. Is there a Bible pattern?

2. How is scriptural authority established?

3. What is the church?

4. What is the work of the church?

5. What is the issue?

II. Discussion:

A. Is there a Bible pattern?

1. Noah had a pattern (Gen. 6:22).

2. Moses had a pattern (Exod. 25:8,9,40; 26:30; 27:8; cf, Acts 7:41,44; Lev. 10:1,2; 1 Sam. 15).

a. “Works of their own hands” (Acts 7:41 vs. God’s, v. 44).

b. “Obey better than sacrifice” (1 Sam, 15:22).

c. Cf. Jereboam – “devised of his own heart” (1 Kgs. 12:33).

3. New Testament pattern (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:5; 3:16,17).

a. For gospel obedience (Rom. 6:17,18; 1 Tim. 1:16).

1. If not, cannot bind baptism.

2. If not, cannot forbid infant baptism.

3. If no order, no disorder.

b. For worship (Col. 3:16,17).

1. If not, Lord’s supper on Saturday.

2. If not, piano, beads, candles.

3. If no order, no disorder.

c. For organization (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2).

1. If not, one man pastor plan of Protestants?

2. If not, accept priestly caste of Catholics?

3. If no order, no disorder.

d. Some want to pick and choose which patterns they will follow – “Lazy Susan” patternism.

e. Others use the Bible to show there is no pattern! Is the Bible a pattern for “no patternism”?

B. How is scriptural authority established?

1. Direct command, statement – “Take, eat” (1 Cor. 11:24-26) – Observe Lord’s supper.

2. Approved apostolic example – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7) – When to observe Lord’s supper.

3. Necessary Implication – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; Exod. 20:8) – Frequency of observance.

4. Generic and Specific authority:

C. What is the church?

1. Universal body of all obedient believers (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27,28).

2. Local congregations (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11,20).

3. Cf. Eunuch and Saul – both members of the church, but a member of no local church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:13; Acts 8:26-40; 9:26; 2:47).

4. A plurality of local churches did not move, act or work in concert as a single unit – no “churchhood” concept.

a. If so, cite head, organization, work, treasury. b. If so, what are entrance qualifications? Officers qualifications? How appointed?

D. What is the work of the church?

1. Preaching (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 11:22).

2. Edification (Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 14; Acts 11:22-26).

3. Benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16).

4. Recreation, Entertainment? No Scripture.

a. “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down on the plains of Ono to amuse and entertain” (B.C. Goodpasture, Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1948).

b. “Building recreation rooms and providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of the church is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament” (Gospel Advocate Annual Commentary, 1951, p. 229). E. What is the issue?

E. What is the issue?

1. In evangelism:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should preaching be done.

2. “How” should preaching be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain missionary societies to do work God gave the church to do.

2. In edification:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should saints be edified.

2. “How” edifying should be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain colleges to do the work God gave the

church to do.

3. In benevolence:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should needy receive care.

2. “How” should care be done (means, methods).

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent societies to do work God gave the church to do.

III. Conclusion:

A. Compare principles above to church sponsored recreation.

1 1. Note a “what if” comparison:

2. Church does the work, provides gym, games, toys, coaches.

3. Not this:

4. If the church is not a “home” and must contribute to a benevolent society, as some argue, then since the church is not a gymnasium, must it contribute to YMCA’s to play?

B. The local church is all-sufficient to do the work God assigned it to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, pp. 392-393
July 5, 1990

By Hoyt H. Houchen

“Anti” is a very common term in the vocabulary of brethren who are “on the march” and who resent having any of their practices called in question. They attach the term “anti” to those of us who oppose such promotions as the sponsoring church type of cooperation, the church support of human institutions, and the “social” gospel. Brethren who oppose these things are branded as “antis” and any church that does not go along with them is tagged as an “anti” church.

Webster defines the word “anti” in the colloquial sense as “a person opposed to a practice, law, policy, movement, or the like.” The word is also used as “a prefix signifying opposite, against, instead, counter, used in forming nouns and adjectives.” While the word is never used in the New Testament in the colloquial sense, no one ever being referred to as simply “anti,” it is used as a prefix four times, each time “anti-Christ,” designating one who is an opponent of Christ (1 Jn. 2:18; 2:22; 4:3; 2 Jn. 7). As an “anti” is one who opposes a thing or person, his being branded as good or evil is dependent upon what he opposes. No man should be stigmatized simply because he is opposed to something.

The apostle Paul was opposed to unsound preaching (2 Tim. 4:3,4; Tit. 1:10,11; 2:1). He was in favor of sound preaching and it was that kind that he did (1 Cor. 2:2; 2 Tim. 4:2). Paul was not anti-preaching, but he was anti-unsound preaching, the kind that would tickle the ears of the hearers and lead people from the truth. In this sense, Paul was an “anti.”

Paul was in favor of cooperation. He believed in working with God (2 Cor. 6:1), he received money directly from churches for his support in preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8), he had received help from Philippi (Phil. 4:15), and he believed that churches could send funds to churches whose members were in physical distress (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). But Paul was opposed to a sponsoring church, the elders of one church overseeing the work of another church or churches. He admonished the elders at Ephesus to mind their own affairs when he told them in Acts 20:28, “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops. ” Paul was not anti-cooperation, but he was anti-sponsoring church. In opposing this, he was “anti.”

Paul was in favor of Christians helping all men and he urged them to do so (Gal. 6:10). He was aware of each individual’s responsibility. He was opposed to the church’s assuming the obligation of unlimited benevolence because he taught that the church was to help needy saints (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4), but that not even all needy saints were to be wards of the church. He limited the church support of widows to those of certain qualifications (1 Tim. 5:3-16). Paul was for benevolence but he was opposed to the church engaging in unlimited benevolence. In this, he was an “anti.”

Paul was not opposed to eating, but he was opposed to such as promoted by the church for entertainment (Rom. 14:17). There is no indication that Paul was averse to wholesome recreation, but he did not promote it as a work of the church. He understood what the work of the church is and his preaching was characterized by Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Paul was not opposed to recreation, entertainment, and eating in their proper places, but he was opposed to them as the work of the church. He did not regard them as “fellowship” to be found in Christ. He was for the work of the church but he was an “anti” in regard to church sponsored entertainment and recreation.

When the Missionary Society was being promoted about one hundred years ago, the opposers were accused of not believing in “cooperation” or “mission work.” “To feel the indignation of the Society one needed only to let it be known that he was not one of its advocates. Ways and means would be found to limit his influence” (Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 2, p. 69).

No doubt if many brethren today had been living during Paul’s time, they would have called him “antis.” But if opposing the things that Paul opposed makes me an “anti” then I gladly and proudly stand with Paul who was one of the greatest “antis” who ever lived! (Gospel Guardian, 27 Oct. 1960, pp. 396-397.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 397
July 5, 1990

By Luther Blackmon (1907-1977)

A church bulletin came to my hands the other day that carried the following short article:

The Drinking Fountain

Many meeting houses now contain drinking fountains in the basement or somewhere in the building. What is the difference in principle in drinking in the basement of the meeting house and in bringing food for a meal in the basement, all apart from the worship, the church assembly (1 Cor. 14:23)? What is the difference in eating to satisfy hunger and drinking to satisfy thirst? Such eating and drinking are both condemned in the church, in the assembly worship, but not in the meeting house (1 Cor. 11:22). Remember the church may meet in a house or home where there is eating and drinking daily by those who live there (Rom. 16:5). – Gus Nichols

The above article is misleading. Whether the writer intended it so to be I would not attempt to say. But I will attempt to point out wherein it is misleading. In the first place, there is no one, so far as I know, who thinks that it is wrong to eat a meal in the church building. I often bring food to the study when I plan to be there most of the day. If I believed that it was wrong to eat in the church building I would not do that. Long ago brethren had to drive long distances to the meeting house, they would often bring their lunch, and after the morning worship was over they would get out under the trees, if the weather was good, spread their lunch and eat it. If it was raining or cold they would get inside the building and eat it. Then they would sit and talk about Scriptures and other subjects until the night service, after which they would drive back home. I never thought of this as being wrong. I doubt that anyone else thinks that it is wrong.

When the Lord commanded his people to assemble for worship there is implied in that command authority to provide a place and facilities for such assemblies. The command to assemble includes a place to assemble; a place to assemble includes a house to get in out of the weather, a stove to keep warm in winter and a fan to keep cool in the summer, a watering place for thirsty people and particularly small children, and rest rooms for both sexes.

Now if brother Nichols will find where God authorized the church to get together for a banquet, I will admit that we have Scripture for a banquet hall, a kitchen and all the other things necessary to having a banquet. If he will find the Scripture that authorizes the church to get together for feasting and merriment, or for a “Fellowship Dinner” then I will admit that the church has Scripture for building a house in which to have feasts and fellowship dinners. The same command that authorizes the church to meet for such an affair will authorize it to provide a place to meet for such an affair. But brother Nichols cannot find that Scripture. You may be sure that if he could have found it he would have used it instead of the ones he did use. Look at them: 1 Corinthians 14:23: “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” What on earth does this have to do with eating in the church building? 1 Corinthians 11:22: “What? Have ye not houses to eat and 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.” True the apostle is rebuking them for perverting the worship, but he still says, “What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” Then Romans 16:5 refers to the church that met in some home or house, and our brother makes a play on the fact that there must have been eating and drinking in this house since it was a dwelling. Let me repeat that I know of no one who thinks that merely eating and drinking in a church building is a sin. That is not the question. The question is, and don’t be mislead: Is it the business of the church to build a kitchen, dining rooms (mis-named ‘fellowship halls”), banquet halls, recreation rooms, and such like? Is it the business of the church to provide for the social activities of its members and others? This is the issue! This is what the brethren are doing all over the country. And this is what brother Nichols and others would like to defend, if there were any scriptural defense for it. But having no scriptural defense they come out shadow boxing with an imaginary opponent, and hope to draw the attention of the people from the real issue.

The Bible authorizes the church to meet for worship, to preach the gospel to the lost, to edify the saints and relieve the needy within certain limitations. Any houses or facilities that are necessary to the church doing these four things, comes within the authority of the command to do them. But until someone finds some Scriptures authorizing the church to have parties and banquets, I will continue to teach that no provisions can be made by the church for such things and although the church building is not defiled because someone eats in it, the church building was built for a place to worship and ought not to be used as a banquet hall (Truth Magazine, Jan. 1963, pp. 92-93).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 13, p. 394
July 5, 1990