Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

Have you ever talked to the older preachers among us and heard them describe the meetings of years gone by? It is not unusual to hear them relate instances of baptisms by the score. I have heard of ten, twenty, even forty baptisms during a single gospel effort. Today, if a gospel meeting results in one or two baptisms, it is unusual and highly uplifting. But more often than not, we have to be satisfied with the thought that “though there were no visible results, the local church was edified.” This lack of baptisms has caused some to question the validity of gospel meetings in our age. Seldom are meetings planned around those who are not Christians but usually, today, we plan lessons that deal with social issues, motivation or the like. Also, instead of meetings that last over a “protracted” period of time or even ten days, or two Sundays, we have reduced most meetings to one week (Sunday-Friday) or, shorter yet, a two or three-day meeting over a single weekend. And, sad to say, many times we have to depend on visitors from other congregations (mostly the preachers), since local members do not attend.

I certainly do not want to be counted among those who feel that the time of gospel meetings is gone, nor do I wish to be viewed as cynical about the use of various types of efforts (long or short, to aliens or saints, or addressing any needed subject). However, I am realistic enough to know that we are not “stirring the waters” of the baptistry as in years gone by. There may be isolated instances of churches that are baptizing a large number of people, but it is safe to say that this is not the usual case. I feel a personal sadness in that I can tell a difference between the results of efforts when I first started preaching and now. I can tell a difference in the manner of attendance by local members. Many just don’t bother to attend at all. I can tell a difference just by looking at the meeting house and remembering times when chairs had to be put in the aisles to accommodate the crowds. I can tell a difference in the vigor (or lack of it) of singing that once accompanied gospel meetings of which I have personal memories. What was once the type of singing that “raised the roof,” now has become a mere whisper by comparison.

Though it might be said that memories are faulty and that we tend to bask in the “good old days,” I do not think that it is erroneous to say that, by comparison, our efforts are not reaching out to the lost as in times past nor are our assemblies as fervent in worship. Generalizing can be a faulty way of reaching conclusions, but I truly feel that we need to look objectively at what is, in truth, a situation less favorable than the past and certainly less favorable than that of the New Testament age. Simply put, why aren’t we baptizing more people than we are? Unless we assess what is wrong and take steps to remedy the situations, we tend to go off into radical directions such as the Boston/Crossroads heresy or opt for a “quick-fix” by mocking some denominational scheme to draw the crowds. I am a firm believer that God’s way works! We don’t need to invent new doctrines or change the Lord’s church to preach the gospel, reach the lost and edify the saints. What we do need is to learn what we are doing wrong and set about effecting the change. What is wrong? Is it the times in which we live or are we doing something wrong?

The Times, They Are A Changing

It is not a “cop out” to realize that we live in a different age with different values than even a generation ago. When churches had large crowds in attendance “back then,” they did not have to compete with the pernicious influence of television. Today, a new phrase has entered our language because it describes what many have become: “couch potatoes.” In actual terms, this means that both men and women have adopted a lifestyle so sedentary that it has affected our health, social customs, buying habits and, yes, attendance at worship services. People stay home and watch TV rather than assemble with the saints! Further, a generation ago (at least before World War II), most families did not have both husbands and wives working at full-time jobs. We must realize that not only has the home suffered because Mother is always busy with her career and nobody is minding the children, but Mother is tired when she comes home and is not eager to go out again to attend a gospel meeting. She is ready to take off her shoes and rest, not get into the car and go again. Remember that the backbone of many churches in the past has been the dedicated wives and mothers who were the driving forces behind faithful attendance. Today, many of these are just too tired to bother.

Additionally, we must recognize that technology, education, sports and businesses have so complicated our lives that we are no longer an agrarian, pastoral society that, once the crops are “laid by,” has long hours to be filled with optional activities. We are living a complicated existence. Such things vie for our attention and, though we may have lost our priorities, something must be given up. With many, religion is the first thing to go.

To the untaught, religion does not have much to offer anyway. In the eyes of many, religion is judged by the Jim and Tammy Bakkers, the Oral Roberts, the Jimmy Swaggerts of the world. Those of us who live moral and dedicated lives are often tarred by the same brush by a cynical public who needs little excuse to cut religion out of their lives. Their minimal need for God can be satisfied by an occasional drop-in at any denomination. Who needs this business of attending three services a week and every night of a gospel meeting when, even among us, men such as Charles Holt say that organized religion is just so much “pay and obey.”

Yes, the times have changed and we must realize that this does affect our ability to reach the lost. But we must also realize that the Roman Empire had its peculiar problems that opposed faithfulness to God, and so does every age. We must not let these problems cause us to cease our efforts or become so discouraged that we lose faith in the gospel as the “power of God unto salvation” in every age. Though one age will allow a freer course to the gospel than others, every age needs the gospel. We must remember that God has chosen man as his earthen vessel to sow the seed and we must not be found wanting in our own age. What others did in past generations was done in the context of their own opportunities and hurdles. We must do the same in our age. But there are other considerations.

Where Is Guilt When You Need It?

Guilt has been almost expunged from modern society. We are told by psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. that guilt is bad and that we must learn to rid ourselves of it by detaching it from anything we do. The modern amoral climate says, “I am okay, you are okay, we all are okay” whether homosexual, pornographer, adulterer, liar or cheat. From the White House to the insane asylum, people are told to do what they want to do “so long as they do not harm anyone else.” We hear of “victimless crimes” (prostitution, sodomy with consenting adults, etc.) and crime without punishment (criminals just need rehabilitation). Try preaching repentance to people who have been conditioned to feeling no guilt! In fact, one national writer stated that anyone who preached the possibility of hell was actually mentally ill. Are we failing to proclaim guilt to a society that desperately needs to understand it? Who is going to walk down the aisle to be baptized or admit to sin in his life if he does not believe himself to be guilty?

Peter and the apostles on Pentecost stated, “You by the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay” (Acts 2:23), and “this Jesus whom ye crucified” (2:36). Like the prophets of old who preached that sin “separated from God” (Isa. 59:2), New Testament preachers laid guilt on sinners and taught them to repent (Acts 2:38). Jesus himself had taught, “Nay, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” (Lk. 13:3).

Are we failing to preach plainly enough about sin? Are we as fearless as John the Baptist or have we become too polite to proclaim the message? Has the truth been divided into the “positive” and “negative,” with only positive motivational messages designed to make us feel good about ourselves becoming the theme of our meetings? Understanding and accepting guilt for sin, brethren, is necessary to the conversion process. We must not fall for the ruse that our job is to make people feel good and be happy, regardless of adultery, child neglect, doctrinal error, etc.

One of the reasons why we are not “stirring the waters of baptism” more, I believe, is that we are not confronting people with their sins and making them understand that they are lost without repentance. This means that we must be willing to pay the price of stirring animosity by the impenitent. But those who are of “good and honest heart” (Lk. 8:15) will make the desired response. Listen, my preaching brother, are you preaching so as to convict those in sin and turn them to the Lord? This distinctiveness and fearlessness of the gopel message must not be replaced by the Peale message of positive mental happiness. True preaching may make some uncomfortable until they repent and are saved. But the Peale message, while making us all feel happy, will save no one.

Is Sin Really Sinful?

Another factor that keeps many from obeying the gospel in our age is that sin has been white-washed. It is now the common idea that anyone can sin with impunity. And, after all, sin is lots of fun. Did not Moses understand that sin could be pleasurable (Heb. 11:25)? Why would anyone give up a practice that is pleasurable and acceptable to society? Las Vegas spells out in neon letters that gambling is exciting, nudity and prostitution are titillating (and legal in Nevada), and that sin can be practiced either in broad daylight or around the clock without criticism by anyone. Even the local cheerleaders have costumes that leave nothing to the imagination and some elders’ daughters lead the parade. Beer drinking is defended at business meetings and many members imbibe and defy the preacher to preach against it. Doctrinally, we have been told that the grace of God will cover any deviation from the truth and that we are not to be alarmed when brethren practice “another gospel.” Immorality is not sinful any longer. Doctrinal impurity is not sinful anymore. Divorce is acceptable in nearly every case, for any cause. Why should anyone get excited about sin? The world has wrapped it in a glittering case of respectability and too many of us love to have it so.

But we must see sin as God does, to really understand its nature and evil. “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). Sin caused Jesus to be crucified in order that God could righteously pardon the sinner (Rom. 3:21-26). We must preach about sin so clearly that all men can see the sinfulness of it and turn in abhorrence and repugnance from it. Only then will we start to baptize the lost and regain the fallen Christians. As someone has said, “It is not our job to ease the afflicted, but to afflict those at ease.” Hasn’t this always been the task of God’s workmen?

Conclusion

What I am saying, then, is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the gospel, the church, or any part of the Divine order. We do not need to do reconstructive surgery on God’s revealed plan. What we do need, however, is to reassess what we are doing with what God has given us. Realizing that we do live in changing times, we must accept that the gospel will not be as effective in one era as it has been in others, and will be again. We must not become so discouraged by the lack of results that we seek to change God’s will. But, with renewed vigor, let us preach the old Jerusalem gospel as plainly as it ever has been. Paul knew what he said when he cautioned Timothy to preach “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). It may be that our time is one that is “out of season” when people don’t want to hear it, but we must preach it regardless. The only hope we have to turn our age around is to “preach the word” and not spare. Other “gospels” may seem to be more effective for a while, but there is only one true gospel. It is this that we must preach and not be ashamed of (Rom. 1:16) and with effort, prayer, and God’s good grace, we may yet see the day when people are walking the aisle, stirring the waters of baptism and turning to God. I long to see the day when the aisles have chairs in them, when singing is loud and fervent, when the word grows and multiplies. May God grant that we live long enough to see it in our times.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, pp. 200-201, 212
April 5, 1990

By L.A. Stauffer

When I began preaching in the late ’50s, what we commonly call “immodest apparel” was worn only by Weak and indifferent members of the church. Women who seldom attended Bible classes and only assembled once or twice a month had few scruples against wearing shorts, halters, one-piece swim suits, low cut dresses, skin tight pants or jeans, etc. These same ones donned the mini-skirts, two-piece swim suits, and bikinis when they became popular a few years later. Men, except for wearing swim suits at public pools or beaches, weren’t involved as extensively in immodesty.

But now that has all changed. 1, for one, am convinced that we have all but lost the battle against lascivious apparel. When the middle-aged generation of today is gone and our new generation of youth become the core and backbone of the church, I shudder to think of the meager clothing that will be accepted. Preachers, elders, deacons, Bible-class teachers, and other stable members in many sound churches are caving in to the demands of young people and the numbing influence of an ungodly world. What is mind-boggling and disturbing is that this includes the wearing of immodest apparel by the children of some of the most dedicated members of the church – brothers and sisters who themselves would not think of dressing as their kids do.

These very parents will let their kids spend a day of vacation on the beach, permit them to sunbathe in full view of the neighbors, allow them to wear swim suits and short shorts to work in the yard or wash the car, encourage them to wear low-cut, backless dresses to formal parties or join the pom poms, ignore the tight-fitting pants or tops that vividly outline appealing parts of their anatomy, etc. And what’s really sad is that many of these kids have high moral standards otherwise. Why, then, has this become so prevalent?

Many answers, no doubt, can be given. But the fact is that kids do it because they want to, like to, and think nothing of it. A humanistic philosophy dominates today’s society – the schools, print media, movie and TV productions, advertisements, commercials, etc. And that philosophy has bombarded us with “do your own thing,” “you only go around once in life – get all the gusto you can,” “take care of number one,” etc. They have also sold everything from toothpaste, to big “K” cereal, to health-spa memberships with lewd, sexually enticing commercials. Displays of near nudity have become so commonplace in our homes that kids view it as a normal part of life.

What all this hype brings to mind is an important fact of life. We are reminded daily that God made the bodies of man and woman attractive to one another. He made them pleasant to look upon and created in each a desire for the other sexually, It must be, next to eating, the strongest urge of the flesh. And when he finished this creation be saw that it, along with all things, was “very good” (see Gen. 1:27-31). But God from the beginning placed boundaries on man and woman, limiting their desires for one another and the fulfillment of those urges to marriage. Only there they can become “one flesh, ” only there the bed is “undefiled, – only there “thy desire shall be” to a man, only there shall a man “looketh upon a woman to lust after her” (see Gen. 2:18-25; Heb. 13:4; Gen. 3:16; Matt. 5:27,28).

When men and women dress in a way to create this “lust” and “desire” in someone other than their wife or husband, they promote lasciviousness – inordinate and lewd urges. This includes women who wear tight pants and attractively display an area of the body that entices men, who adorn themselves in clothing that in a sensuous way either accentuates or openly shows the bosom, and who dress in apparel that reveals the most alluring parts of the body, including the legs, and stirs the imagination of the average man. Sadly enough, men now dress in the same manner and women shamelessly and glowingly speak of the impure thoughts this provokes. Paul surely condemns this kind of immodesty when he says: “I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety . . , appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1 Tim. 2:9,10, NIV).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, p. 202
April 5, 1990

By Mark Mayberry

Hypocrisy is an unpleasant word that signals an empty and shallow life. A hypocrite is defined by Webster as “a person who pretends to be what he is not; one who pretends to be better than he really is, or to be pious, virtuous, etc., without really being so.”(1) The English word “hypocrisy” is a translation of the Greek word hupokrisis. Thayer defines this word as “the acting of a stage-player . . . dissimulation, hypocrisy.”(2) In Classical Greek, this word referred to a stage actor. He usually wore a mask, and in speech and action imitated the character whom he represented in the play. There was no inherent connotation of evil or deception involved in the early use of the term. However, with the passing of time, the word took on a bad meaning. It came to denote one who pretended to be what he was not, especially in the areas of religion and morality. The New Testament always uses the word in a evil sense.(3)

What does the New Testament have to say about hypocrisy? Jesus repeatedly condemned the Scribes and the Pharisees for this failure. He said, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1). Matthew 23 contains a scathing rebuke of their fraudulent faith. Seven times Jesus said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23:13,14,15,23,25,27,29) The language of this chapter is harsh, blunt, and severe. Our Lord had no patience whatever with their inconsistency and deception. Jesus said that Isaiah had prophesied of their hypocrisy, saying, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mk. 7:6).

For the hypocrite, religion is but an outward show; he only pays lip service to Christianity. Let us remember that Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees because “they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:3). A hypocrite is a fellow who isn’t himself on Sundays. He prays, “Lord, help me be an influence for good,” and then lives like the devil. He sings, “Have thine own way, Lord,” and then does as he pleases. The hypocrite prays, “Bring us back at the next appointed time,” and then sits home on Sunday evening to watch television. The hypocrite prays, “Grant that sinners may be saved,” but never talks to his friends and neighbors about their souls. The hypocrite prays, “Forgive us of our sins as we forgive our debtors,” but will hold a grudge till his dying day. The hypocrite prays, “Help us raise our children to be faithful to the Lord,” and then leads them astray through his bad example. He sings, “All to Jesus I surrender,” when in fact he is the servant of sin. Let us remember that the Lord has never been pleased with those who “say, and do not.” The same could be said of those who “pray, and do not.”

Paul said, “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:9-10). The Greek word translated “sincere” has an interesting history. In ancient times, certain dishonest merchants would take a damaged vessel, and smooth wax into the cracks to make it look unbroken. The word “sincere” describes that which is found to be whole when examined by the sun’s light.(4) In a moral sense, our lives must be “without wax”! Our outward appearance and our inner character must match.

However, some people attempt to hide behind a mask of pretended righteousness. They try to deceive others and also attempt to fool themselves. They think that as long as their sin is not discovered by men, God won’t notice it either. Hypocrisy is foolish and futile because we cannot hide anything from the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient One who will judge us in that final day. At the day of judgment, our character and manner of life will be exposed for all to see. Every idle word, every evil thought, and every hidden deed will be brought to light. Hebrews 4:12-13 says, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

The wisdom that is from above is “without hypocrisy” (Jas. 3:17). Those who would grow as Christians must lay aside “all guile and hypocrisies” (1 Pet. 2:1-2). We must avoid hypocrisy both in worship (Matt. 6:1-5; 15:7-9) and in judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3,17ff). When the Final Judgment is pictured in Matthew 24 and 25, those who are condemned to hell are assigned a place with the hypocrites (Matt. 24:51). This reveals the ultimate destiny of those who feign righteousness.

A hypocrite obstructs the work of God. After viewing hypocrisy in the church, the statement is sometimes made, “If that is what Christianity is all about, I don’t want any part of it.” In a way this response is understandable. A hypocrite is universally despised. There is no rogue like a godly rogue. He does the devil’s work in the house of God. Let us condemn this sin in all its forms. No excuse can be made for those whose lights have gone out. No defense can be made for salt that has lost its savor. No justification can be given for inconsistency between faith and practice. Christians should live so as to attract rather than repel. However, anyone who would use the hypocrisy of others to excuse himself is “copping out.”

The fellow who is always complaining about hypocrites in the church has the outlook of a buzzard: he overlooks all the live sheep and sees only the dead ones. The famous preacher, Billy Sunday, once said, “Hypocrites in the Church? Yes, and in the lodge, and at home. Don’t hunt through the Church for a hypocrite. Go home and look in the glass. Hypocrites? Yes. See that you make the number one less.”(5) As Arthur Adams once said, “Don’t stay away from church because there are so many hypocrites. There’s always room for one more.”(6)

No justification can be made for hypocrisy. This horrible sin has no place in the life of a Christian. However, don’t let the hypocrisy of others come between you and God. We don’t throw away good money because some bills are counterfeit. By the same token, we should not reject Christianity because there are some phony Christians.

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College ed. (1970), s.v. “Hypocrite.”

2. Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “Hupokrisis (G5272).”

3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Ed. (1982), s.v. “Hypocrisy.”

4. Thayer, s.v. “Eilikrines (G1506).”

5. W.A. (“Billy”) Sunday, as quoted by Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 242.

6. Arthur R. Adams, as quoted by Mead, p. 240.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 181-182
March 15, 1990

By Ray Madrigal

On September 4-5, 7-8, 1989 a religious debate was held in Paducah, Kentucky and in Metropolis, Illinois on the benevolent institutions issue. Plans for such a discussion in the Western Kentucky-Southern Illinois area began in 1987 as the result of several personal studies I conducted with brother Floyd Wiley, a retired preacher among the institutional brethren. Although we discussed the possibility of debating one another, we decided to solicit the services of brethren who would be “representative” of our respective positions. He contacted brother J. Noel Meredith, of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee while I asked brother Carrol R. Sutton, of Albertville, Alabama to debate the issue.

Proposition 1

During the first two nights, hosted by the 32nd Street church in Paducah, brother Sutton affirmed the following proposition:

The Scriptures teach that churches of Christ may not build and maintain benevolent organizations such as Boles Orphan Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and Home For the Aged for the care of the needy.

In his first affirmative speech, brother Sutton built a solid foundation for the discussion by appealing to the need for biblical authority in all matters. He demonstrated how to establish scriptural authority (command, example, necessary implication) by citing various aspects of the Lord’s Supper. Using his patented cloth charts, he ably distinguished generic from specific authority. If God had told Noah to use “wood,” any kind of wood would work. But since God specified “gopher” wood, all other kinds were eliminated. Just as God commanded Naaman to wash in the Jordan (specific body of water), he also specified who is to preach, edify and relieve: the church! All other organizations are excluded when God specified the church (1 Tim. 5:16). Sutton then presented several charts showing the nature of the benevolent institutions named in the proposition. In his chart entitled “Is Boles Orphan Home A Benevolent Society?”, he pointed out that the board of directors make up “Boles Orphan Home” and that this board supervises and oversees the work of caring for orphans. The board provides a home, it is not a home! In this arrangement, the board stands between the churches (who merely send funds) and the work being done (place, facilities, necessities, personnel).

Brother Meredith began his first negative speech by stating that brother Sutton’s chart on authority was “a fine chart.” He agreed with 95 percent of its contents. Yet instead of dealing with the 5 percent difference, which represented the proposition of the debate, he simply ignored it. He proceeded to argue that “there are three divine institutions: the home, the church, and civil government.” Since all three of these can fail or “collapse,” they can each be “restored.” Orphan homes simply seek to restore what was lost (the natural home). He said these “legal homes are divine institutions.” Meredith shifted the focus of the debate by discussing the scope of benevolent work. Appealing to 2 Corinthians 9:13, he proclaimed that “churches can help saints and sinners.” In support of his position, brother Meredith cited quotations from Roy Cogdill, Fanning Yater Tant, Homer Hailey, A.C. Grider and W.E. Bingham.

In his chart #7, Meredith asked brother Sutton if the following statement was true or false:

All passages which authorize the performance of religious acts, and which make specific reference to the Christian individual are passages which authorize the indicated acts to be performed by the individual exclusively.

This chart was repeatedly presented by Meredith and would prove to be quite damaging toward the end of the debate. He citied texts such as Jude 3, 2 John 9 and Colossians 3:17 in affirming the falsity of the above statement, since these passages apply to both the individual and the church. Meredith asked if “a church could pray for wisdom (Jas. 1:5), be a doer of the word, practice pure and undefiled religion, or keep itself unspotted from the world (Chart 14).”

In his second affirmative, brother Sutton observed that brother “Meredith got off on another subject, the objects of church relief.” Throughout the course of the four-night debate, Meredith diligently avoided the real issue of churches building and maintaining benevolent organizations and focused attention on the scope of relief work. Sutton reminded Meredith that they both had signed propositions on the scope of benevolent work and that he would be glad to discuss that subject for four nights at a later time. But this debate was on church support of benevolent institutions.

Meredith, in his second negative speech, maintained that boards are equivalent to church trustees who hold property and are simply meeting the legal requirements of organized “home work.” Churches, as such, cannot do such work. “Can the church go into a needy home and tell them what kind of beans to buy, what kind of milk, and when to spank? . . . No, we turn that over to parents’ trust, and so with the board of directors.”

Throughout the discussion, brother Sutton showed parallels between the missionary society arrangement and the set-up of these benevolent organizations. Both originated in the minds of men, are of human origin, are designed to do the work of the church, have a board of directors, and have their own constitutions and by-laws among other things. Meredith responded by asserting that they are not parallel. Missionary societies are an ecclesiasticism and have no right to exist. They are “an association of churches, while orphan homes are an association of children.”

Proposition 2

During the last two evenings of the debate, J. Noel Meredith affirmed the following proposition while Carrol R. Sutton denied:

The Scriptures teach that churches of Christ may build and maintain benevolent organizations such as Boles Orphan Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and Home For the Aged for the care of the needy.

In his first affirmative, brother Meredith presented his basic argument, summarized in the chart below:

Chart 1

The Basic Argument

If it is the case that:

1. Needs of orphan children must be adequately met.

2. Care of orphan children is not the job of Christian individuals exclusively.

3. An orphan child’s needs cannot be adequately met without his being part of a home.

4. The church, without any further organization, cannot function as a home.

5. The Bible does not specify the kind of home that must be used to meet the needs of orphan children.

6. Homes structured like Childhaven are homes or benevolent institutions which may meet legal requirements.

7. A church may contribute from its treasury to a home for orphans.

Then it is the case that: (see proposition 2 above)

Meredith attempted to prove that each of his seven basic points was true. Yet while he offered many emotional appeals he did not give a scriptural reference for point #7. In support of point -3, Meredith cited Psalm 68:6. Sutton later thanked Meredith for quoting that passage: “That’s what I contend for; why put them in an institution? He (God) didn’t say benevolent societies, he said families!”

In almost all six of his affirmative speeches, brother Meredith followed the same outline of presentation. He began with his “Basic Argument” (Chart 1); following with a discussion of “The Principle of Love” (Chart 2). Meredith continued his presentation with a discussion of the Greek word for “visit” (episkeptomai) and its significance for the debate. In Chart 16, Meredith offered a syllogism:

Chart 16

Church & Individual

Major Premise: All passages which relate to peculiarly religious matters are passages which apply with equal force to the church and to the individual Christian.

Minor Premise: 2 John 9 is a passage which relates to peculiarly religious matters.

Conclusion: Therefore, 2 John 9 is a passage which applies with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.

He asked the audience to consider other passages such as Jude 3 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. “Are these just for the individual?”, Meredith asked. By the same logic, James 1:27 applies to the church as well as to the individual.

Brother Meredith went on to discuss the various and sundry needs of children; and if churches may help natural, original homes, they can also assist “restored” legal homes. He then presented a make-shift transparency entitled “Sutton’s Home.” While brother Sutton maintained that a place, necessities, facilities, and personnel could be provided, he would limit such a “home” to “poor orphan saints.” His next chart showed that while Sutton would agree to a church buying $10,000 worth of fertilizer for the preacher’s yard, Sutton would oppose the church spending a dime for milk to feed a starving orphan. Sutton mentioned that Meredith “got a little carried away on the fertilizer (amount).”

While brother Sutton consistently and forcefully met each argument and every question presented by his opponent, Meredith stedfastly refused to do the same. On Tuesday night, Sutton asked Meredith if “the church may give money to a natural Baptist home or to a natural non-religious home?” Meredith said that “the church can give to what an individual can give to.” Sutton pressed further: “May an individual give to a natural Baptist home or to a natural nonreligious home?” Meredith replied: “The church can give to what the individual can give to.”

Although the truth was ably defended and error effectively exposed each night, the final session on Friday night proved to be most devastating to the institutional position. In his first speech that evening (his fourth affirmative in the debate) brother Meredith asked Sutton the following question: “Do you believe that a woman must wear a covering on her head in worship services?” In his next speech, brother Sutton responded: “You’ve got to be kidding? On this proposition, brother Meredith? . . . Is this introduced for prejudicial reasons?” Meredith later tried to explain his query by appealing to the use of the plural pronoun humas used in 1 Corinthians 11. “He (Sutton) understands that a plural number applies to the church in 1 Corinthians 11 but he has trouble with it in Galatians 6:10.”

During his first speech on Friday (fourth negative in series), Sutton presented two transparencies which summarized Meredith’s unscriptural and inconsistent concept of both the home and church.

Meredith’s Home

1. Parents do not live with children.

2. Chidlren do not know who their “parents” are.

3. Children may not ever see their “parents.”

4. “Parents” do not administer discipline (spank).

5. “Parents” do not administer actual care – cook, clean, give shots, etc. NOTE: in these matters the “parents” hire others.

6. The “parents” beg from churches, other organizations, and individuals to supply money (including the United Way, et. al.).

NOTE: Meredith’s home is not a real home. It’s not even close to being a real home! It’s just a 24-hour-a-day day care center.

In his next chart (Transparency 92), Sutton presented a hypothetical conversation between two members of “Meredith’s Church” after they discover an abandoned infant child in front of the meeting house:

Meredith’s Church

(1) Two men find a young child. “What will we do?”

(2) “Individually, we visit the fatherless thru the church treasury.”

(1) “We’ve discharged our responsibility when we gave into the church treasury.”

(2) “The church can’t care for the child. That’s home work. The church is not a home.”

(1) “The church could send a donation to a benevolent society, such as Potter Orphan Home & School – but our treasurer is out of town and can’t write a check.”

(2) “The church could send the child to Potter – but it’s not equipped to care for children under three years old.”

(1) “1 guess we’ll just have to let her starve.”

(2) “Woe be unto us! Why did we ever join the liberals?”

(1) “I have an idea! Let’s call Carrol Sutton. He’ll come and personally care for the child out of his own pocket or he’ll get some of the other anti’s to help.”

Sutton continued to expose Meredith’s inconsistencies and errors as well as reveal the abuses and wastefulness of these benevolent institutions. He maintained that even if such institutions were scriptural, they would not be expedient on the grounds of waste, abuse, and impersonal care.

The debate was well attended all four nights. 175 were present for the first session Monday night in Paducah, with an average nightly attendance of 145. Institutional-affiliated brethren made up about 25 percent of the audience in Paducah and about 40 percent of the audience in Metropolis (unscientific estimates). Every audience was courteous, quiet, and interested in the two-hour sessions each night. Discussions and one-on-one studies are in progress in the wake of the debate, although no immediate “conversions” are apparent. Yet the truth was defended and presented, and will certainly accomplish what God desires.

If anyone is interested in audio or video tapes, just contact me at the above address. May God bless you in your study and in your efforts to reach the confused and those in error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 177-179
March 15, 1990