Truth Magazine

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

By G. Archer Weniger

In these days of theological confusion and ecclesiastical compromise, what is the biblical position for a fundamentalist to assume toward heretics and false religious teachers? Are we to patronize them, associate with them, accept their sponsorship, increase their numbers, send them converts, add to their prestige, follow their leadership, identify our churches with them and obliterate important biblical distinctions with them? The Bible’s answer is clear.

1. Try them – 1 John 4: 1: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

2. Mark them – Romans 16:17: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Verkuyl says, “and to keep away from them.”

3. Rebuke them – Titus 1:13: “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” Verkuyl, “Correct them sternly.”

4. Have no fellowship – Ephesians 5:11: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Verkuyl says, “Expose them.”

5. Withdraw thyself – 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.”

6. Receive them not – 2 John 10,11: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Verkuyl says, “Do not extend him your greeting.” To our day false teachings are fostered by misplaced hospitality.

7. Have no company with him – 2 Thessalonians 3:14: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Berkeley Version says, “Do not get mixed up with him, so he may grow ashamed.”

8. Reject them – Titus 3:10: “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.”

9. Be ye separate – 2 Corinthians 6:17: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, p. 111
February 15, 1990

By F. Furman Kearley, Ph.D., Editor of the Gospel Advocate

Dear Brother Hafley

Thank you for your letter. I am sorry but I do not have time to respond to this in detail. I hope to do so later.

Brother Willis called me sometime back in the summer and requested that I write an article dealing with some of these matters. I have intended to but simply have not had the time to do all of the things I need to do plus what I would like to do.

Briefly, I would say that I believe you must not have read my letter carefully. I do not advocate gymnasiums nor family life centers. I do not even advocate parking lots such as ours which cost $22,000, that are built merely for the convenience of the members. I do not advocate church buildings which cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars, yea, even millions, which are used only three to five percent of the hours in a week.

This does not mean that I disfellowship brethren who do these things nor do I make a constant hobby of harassing them about these things. I do not disfellowship brethren who smoke, but I teach them to move and live a better way, and I try to constantly urge all of my brethren to use the money given to the Lord in the wisest and best possible way and to the fullest possible extent, including the buildings that are built with this.

I advocate the building of any kind of a 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.

If you charge me with advocating gymnasiums and family life centers, then you are thereby admitting that these gymnasiums and family life centers are built for and are functioning to accomplish the above stated missions and purposes. I advocate no building anytime, anywhere that is not used, at least eight to ten hours per day in accomplishing one or more of the God-given purposes for the church. I believe it is a sin to spend any of the Lord’s money on items that sit idle and useless, including filmstrips that sit idle on the shelf, while members in their laziness watch TV.

I hope the above statement makes my position more clear. I may tolerate churches, brethren and situations that fall short of the ideals stated above, but I certainly do not advocate them nor am I satisfied with them.

May the Lord bless you abundantly in all of your great work.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, p. 104
February 15, 1990