Truth Magazine

By Vernon Love

Christ commanded the apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19-20). As we search the Scriptures, we find the apostles obeying their Lord by taking the gospel to the lost of the world. It was not long until many others like Stephen, Philip, Timothy, and Titus were also preaching the gospel. Then we find Aquila and. Priscilla teaching Apollos, working for Christ (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:3). The churches also were taking the gospel to the world so it could be said, “The gospel was preached to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23).

Today, we are to do the same as the Christians of the first century. There is a willingness of many over the world to take the gospel and many are doing so at their own expense. There are those in the church who are not showing the same kind of faithfulness to their Lord as those of the first century. Many churches have no desire or intent to teach anyone who is not in the assembly. When approached about this very serious matter, all kinds of excuses are offered that indicate a lack of faith.

There are many in the world who will not let you come to their house and teach them. If you try to go door to door, they sometimes will treat you like you are one of the sects that do the same. Our society is rapidly changing so that it is getting more difficult to make contact with the lost of the world. There are many areas in which you are not allowed to contact anyone living there unless you have their approval. If you do not know them, you have no way reaching them.

There is a “postcard” that you can buy (a hundred for $2) at the Bible bookstore that advertizes a Bible correspondence course. You can put your address on the front, and “give or send it to a friend anywhere.” In every correspondence course we mail out, we enclose a “postcard” with a note attached saying “give or send to a friend.” Many of our students have passed them on to people we do not know or have no way of making contact with them.

Another way you can use the “postcard” is to always put it in every letter you send in the mail. Also, every bill you pay by mail, put a “postcard” in it. You can also carry a few postcards with you and leave them in offices you may go to.

You will be amazed where these cards come from and one cannot describe the joy of making contact with a lost soul somewhere you did not previously know. Brethren, let’s take the “gospel” into all the world!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 100, 119
February 15, 1990

By Phil T. Arnold

Sometimes labels can be very helpful. They can allow us to identify the harmful or beneficial contents of some product. They allow us to better judge the political position of some individual or even to evaluate the religious beliefs of some people. But often those labels can be used to bias and prejudice minds against consideration of the truth. The name “anti” is not new. It has been used among churches of Christ quite extensively for nearly four decades now. Often it is accompanied with statements which have caused the majority to “write-off” the “anti’s” as a small group of discontents who hate orphans, potlucks, and spreading the gospel. This conclusion is generally reached without a full consideration of the real issues which divide us and the scriptural basis for this division.

Since the term “anti” simply means “against” or “opposed to,” everyone is an “anti,” being opposed to something. And every Christian in a very real sense must be “anti” sin and Satan or else he does not belong to Christ. But since the term has and is used in a more special way in connection with those of us at the 84th Street Church of Christ and other congregations similar to us, we would attempt to give a brief summary of some of the things which we oppose which have provoked this label. We cannot speak for all those who have been called “anti” and, like anyone else, we resent being lumped together with other groups which believe and teach differently than ourselves. Therefore, we will attempt only to speak for ourselves in an effort to better convey what we are and are not opposed to.

At the outset, to help eliminate some of the false and prejudicial thinking, let us affirm that we are not opposed to Bible classes and multiply containers for the Lord’s Supper because we believe there is Bible authority for such. Nor are we “anti” anything simply to be “anti.” We are “anti” doing anything for which we cannot find scriptural authority. Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). The Bible is filled with numerous examples and statements stressing the need to respect God’s authority as manifested through the word (Lev. 10:1,2). We are constantly warned not to alter God’s word (Rev. 22:18,19), not to accept any other teaching (Gal. 1:8,9), not to go beyond what is written in the Word of God (1 Cor. 4:6), and not to go beyond but abide in the doctrine of Christ if we are to have God (2 Jn. 9). So if God does not authorize a thing within his word, then we are not authorized to do it and we are “anti” that teaching or practice.

We are not opposed to mechanical instruments of music but we are “anti” the use of those mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. Throughout the New Testament the pattern is clear. God has authorized “singing” as the music which he desires in worship of him. Passages like Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 and many others reveal the will of God that people “sing” and make melody in their hearts to the Lord. Thus we have Bible authority for “singing” and so practice. But the Bible is silent concerning a mechanical instrument of music in Christian worship and thus is without Bible authority. Therefore, we are “anti.”

We are not opposed to the care of orphans and the needy of the world, but we are “anti” assigning to the church the work of general benevolence. God never intended for the church to take care of the needy of the world. I know this because through his word he has revealed his will. And in every case in the Bible where we find benevolent work being done by the church, it was always for the “saints” (Acts 2:44,45; 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8,9; 1 Tim. 5:16). The Bible again is silent concerning the church working in the realm of general benevolence. Yet, brethren have set up institutions to care for the needy of the world and called upon churches out of their treasuries to support them. This is a very emotional issue that unfortunately is often decided only on an emotional basis. Some passages of Scripture referring to individual’s obligations in this realm are often appealed to (Jas. 1:27; Matt. 25:34ff; Gal. 6:10), but they are twisted so as to make them applicable to the church as a collective unit. Again, we do not oppose providing a home for orphans or assisting the needy of the world. Every individual Christian has a responsibility in this realm as he has opportunity and ability. But we are “anti” God’s church doing anything without Bible authority and that authority comes only through the Scriptures. The Scriptures are silent concerning church-supported benevolent human institutions such as many of our brethren advocate and sponsor. Therefore, we are “anti.”

We are not opposed to preaching the gospel, making use of radio and T.V. to do such, or supporting missionaries in other lands. We are “anti” one congregation becoming a “clearing house” or “sponsoring church” through which other congregations may do a part or all of their work. We are “anti” one eldership exercising any control over the members, work, or resources of another congregation. Elders are limited to overseeing the local flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:14). Yet, the sponsoring church arrangement is presently being used by many churches to promote projects like the Herald of Truth, World Radio, Search, etc. Our opposition to such projects has nothing to do with the message they preach nor the methods they use as long as it is the gospel that is preached and as long as the congregation that is doing the work is able to finance it. This is in harmony with the principles set forth in the N.T. that every congregation see to its own work. This does not mean that we are opposed to church cooperation. In the N.T. churches cooperated, but they did so concurrently and not through centralization or the sponsoring church set-up. Churches cooperated in the support of preaching and preachers by sending directly to the preacher and not through another church (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15,16). No church in the N.T. made another church its agent in forwarding, handling, or distributing its funds. There was no brotherhood projects as commonly spoken of today, no pooling of resources, and no loss of autonomy. Since the word of God does set forth a pattern for churches to do their work in supporting the gospel and still maintain their complete autonomy, and since the Scriptures are silent concerning the sponsoring church concept; we therefore are again “anti” those things for which there is no Bible authority.

We are not opposed to fun, recreation, sports, eating a meal together and socializing. We are “anti” such things being paid for and sponsored by the church. There is not a single passage of Scripture that even hints of such being a work of the church. Yet, churches dip into the Lord’s treasury to provide for the facilities, transportation, and means for such. I cannot read in the Scriptures about a “fellowship hall,” or a “family life center” (better known as a gymnasium), “church skating parties,” or “church softball teams,” etc. Since I am an avid fan of both sports and food and find few things more enjoyable than socializing with my brethren, I would be the first to join in if only a passage of Scripture could be found authorizing such as a work of the church. There is no doubt that the people in 1 Corinthians 11 were abusing the Lord’s Supper when Paul told them, “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:34). But the practices of many brethren in turning the church into a “social center” rather than a “soul center” would undoubtedly draw the same response. The Scripture authorizing “church sponsored social fellowship” cannot be found. Again, we are “anti” what the Bible does not authorize.

Brethren, the only difference between the church that belongs to Christ and any denomination you can name is simply that we have Bible authority for all we do! Our practice has been and must continue to be to make an appeal to the Bible for what we call ourselves, our worship, our organization, our plan of salvation, and all that we teach and practice. Where is the authority for the church supporting benevolent human institutions to care for non-Christians? Where is the Scripture that authorizes centralization of oversight and the sponsoring church arrangement? Where in the Bible are we taught that church sponsored social fellowship is authorized? They are to be found right along side the Scripture which authorizes instruments of music in Christian worship.

We raise these questions and voice our opposition because of our love for truth, men’s souls, and peace with our brethren. What is your response? Brethren, we must have Bible authority for all that we do. Even the denominations have Bible for some of the things they teach and practice. If we do not have Bible for all we preach and practice, then we are only making a distinction between ourselves and the denominations without there really being a difference. Study, think, and pray upon these things.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 102-103
February 15, 1990

By Robert F. Turner

The original writings of the New Testament were completed before the end of the first century, and they clearly describe an existing, functioning “church.” Paul wrote “unto the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). He said, “As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye” (16: 1). Paul took wages of churches (2 Cor. 11:8). “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16). The “saints in Christ Jesus which (were) at Philippi” had overseers and servants (Phil. 1:1), and as a unit this “church” (taking a singular verb, 4:15), sent support to Paul.

The word “church” identifies a “called out” body of people. The word may “assemble” metaphorically all those in Jesus Christ (“I will build my church” Matt. 16:18); or it may refer to those saints distributively, the units which make up the whole (Acts 5:11). But it also is used with reference to a local body of saints treated as an entity, having overseers, servants, collecting funds, paying wages, etc., as we see above. The word may even be used to characterize the saints’ regular assemblies, common for worship or other “church” work. The Greek of 1 Corinthians 11:18 is simply “when ye come together i church (en ekk1esia). ” Significantly, however, “church” is never used in the N.T. for an universal functioning organization or institution.

The “establishment” of the church in its universal sense, was more accurately the declaration of Christ’s rule (“both Lord and Christ,” Acts 2:36), so that now those who submit to his authority are saved from sin (2:38). The Abrahamic promise of blessings for “all nations” had reached its fruition (3:25f), and those blessed were designated by collective terms such as “church” or “flock” (20:28). The Word of God was the seed of this kingdom (Lk. 8:11); and it was the Law and Word of the Lord, not some universal institution, that went forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3). Henceforth, wherever that “good news” was preached and received (Acts 11:20f), the resultant saints were units of the “church” in its universal sense, and were expected to function together as a local “church.”

A proper understanding of “church” is essential to understanding what “fell away” in the apostasies of later centuries, and what must be restored. The Mormons, adapting the priesthood concept of Romanism, believe “authority” was lost and had to be restored. So John the Baptist (Aaronic priesthood) and Peter, James and John (Melchizedek priesthood) had to appear and restore such “authority” (Restoration of the Gospel, Osborne Widtsoe; p. 64f). They also believe the Word of God was so corrupted as to need restoration (1 Nephi 13:24f), which is accomplished by Mormon “latter day revelation.” Before you get too carried away with ridiculing these absurdities, explain to yourself your own concept of “falling away.” Was the true church “lost,” and if so, just how was it lost?

I fear some have the little red wagon concept of “church.” Some saving institution was set up on Pentecost, and those who climb in may ride to heaven. But as time went on, the little red wagon broke down (the changes of apostasy) so it could no longer take people to heaven. So the Reformers tried patching it up. They put on new but less than standard parts. They striped the sides; they put on different sized wheels. But the little red wagon was in the disrepair of denominationalism and could not take people to heaven. So one fine morning Alexander Campbell awoke, stretched himself, and said, “Think I will fix the little red wagon today.” He replaced all non-standard parts with genuine G. 1. He knocked out the dents, sanded her down, and put on a fresh coat of paint. For the final touch, he lettered “Church of Christ” on the side panel. Now that restoration is over, people can jump into the little red wagon and ride home to heaven. Of course, this makes the church the Savior when in reality it is the saved. Surely you do not accept such a concept.

The church is an institution in much the same sense as marriage. Particular marriages may need restoring, but the “institution” itself has never gone anywhere – it is just like it was when God instituted it. The institution has not changed but the people may have, and if so the people need restoring – to the God ordained purpose and principle of marriage. Likewise, the scriptural concept of God’s people, coming to Christ and serving in keeping with his instructions, is “established” for all time. The declarations, commands, and approved examples and implications of inspired messengers are recorded for us in the New Testament. They were written so they could be understood (Eph. 3:3f) and so we could have them after the messengers were long dead (2 Pet. 1:15; 3:1-2). This “seed” is incorruptible (1 Pet. 1:22-f), and capable of producing genuine Christians today as it did in the first century.

If Alexander Campbell “restored the church” at all, he did so only in the sense of teaching people to be content with the church revealed in God’s word. To the extent some followed divine instructions they became genuine saints who made up the church of his day. But we have no less need, no less obligation, to be “restorers” today. This is an ongoing process that will continue as long as there are those who add to, take from, or change God’s revealed pattern for his people. It is dangerous, indeed, to think that the need for restoration was limited to Campbell’s day. The church of his day is not our standard. In fact, brethren of the first century were warned about “measuring” and “comparing themselves among themselves” (2 Cor. 10:12f). The ideal or perfect standard is found in the N.T. record only by observing the composite picture: noting some things approved and others disapproved by God’s inspired messengers.

Should the word of God be cast upon the waters and drift to some shore where people had never heard of salvation in Christ; it could be translated, studied and obeyed. The “seed” would produce Christians, and the church would have come to that place. (See again, Acts 11:20f.) But human nature being what it is, there could come a time when these people would stray from the truth, even to denying their first love (Rev. 2:4-5), and restoration would be needed. The truth is unchanged, the ideal is still there in the Word, but people often move away from the truth. It is people who need restoring, in the first century, yesterday and today. And this “restoration spirit” must be kept alive in our hearts. We must dedicate ourselves to restoration, and be humble – there is the rub – humble enough to apply its principle to our own practices.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 101, 103
February 15, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

Dear Brother Kearley

Thank you for your brief response. I appreciate the time constraints that forbid you to answer my earlier letter at this time. I shall look forward to a detailed reply.

Brother Kearley, I do not believe that you “advocate gyms,” family life centers, parking lots, or filmstrips per se, but I believe you view all of those items as scriptural, legitimate extensions of the work of the church. Is that not correct?

The command to assemble authorizes a place of assembly (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 14:23; Acts 20:7). If there were no Bible authority for the church to “come together in one place,” buildings for assembly would be unscriptural. See my first letter to you for a list of similar items.

Since I do not find authority in the Bible for the church to provide recreation and entertainment, I do not believe gymnasiums or family life centers are scriptural. If God has so designed and purposed the church in these areas of activity, where is the Scripture?

You state, “I advocate the building of any kind of facility if it is to be used extensively for purposes God has designed for the church, including benevolence, edification, evangelization, worship and continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers, in seeking and saving the lost, in visiting the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, in doing unto each of these as we should do unto Jesus in watching in behalf of the souls of men, women and children.”

Brother Kearley, under which of those designed purposes would you place a gym or family life center? Would you place it under “evangelization”? If so, should not the church construct and staff such facilities in the “inner city” where lost and lonely people can be given a Bible and a basketball?

Would you place gyms under “fellowship”? If so, how could you deny the church’s entrance into the business-industrial world, as per my first letter to you? If gyms are under the general heading of fellowship, that tends to do away with their use by non-Christians on a regular basis, since the lost are not in our fellowship (1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Jn. 1:37).

Before your tenure as editor, the Gospel Advocate led the fight to put colleges and benevolent societies into the budget of the churches. It was argued that since the church is not a home, it must support a benevolent organization, such as Child-haven, which provides a home. Likewise, the church is not a gymnasium. It is not a health spa. Would it, therefore, be scriptural to form recreational organizations and institutions whose purpose is to provide “fellowship” facilities in which games, amusements and entertainment are conducted? It would be a sort of YMCA of the churches of Christ. Churches could fund it on a regular basis and the organization could provide the facilities for recreation and fellowship.

Based on the principles of contributions to David Lipscomb College and Schultz-Lewis Orphan Home from the treasury of the churches, could we form similar organizations for recreational fellowship facilities? Or would you prefer that each church which builds a gym simply handle such matters within their own local work, as it generally done today? Regardless of your personal preference, would a YMCA type organization, designed to provide recreational fellowship facilities for the churches, be scriptural? If not, on what scriptural basis would you deny its right to exist?

Brother Kearley, I am sure the Christian Church sees you as one who makes a constant hobby of harassing and disfellowshipping over their music and missionary societies. They, too, might argue for the best use of buildings, and for the teaching of brethren to move and live in a better way, but when it comes to their music and missions, you appear to them to be making a “constant hobby of harassing them about these things.” I do not believe that you do so, but that is how they perceive your opposition to their practices. The truth is that you simply want them to abandon those things for which they cannot cite book, chapter and verse.

The Christian Church preacher may say he does not advocate trumpets and missionary societies, but be believes they are scriptural. I suspect that our situation, yours and mine, is parallel to that above. I question neither your sincerity nor your desire to do only what God has authorized. Hence, if the Christian Church can show authority for their organizations, we will not oppose their buildings which are used to carry on the work of the missionary society. If they can show Scripture for playing on mechanical instruments of music, we will not oppose their provisions for such things. So, I will not question the existence of a gym if I can be shown that such items are tools to do what God has authorized the church to do.

I, too, pray that this letter has made my position clearer to you. Perhaps, when you have time, a more detailed response from you to my first letter will further clarify our issues of difference. Hopefully, with open minds, open hearts and open Bibles, we can achieve the unity of the Spirit and cherish it in the bond of peace.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 105, 119
February 15, 1990