Truth Magazine

By Ben Vick

In 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS) was established. A constitution was written, setting forth the organization, objectives, and purposes of the society. Its objectives and purposes are clearly set forth in the preamble of its constitution. It reads:

That the world may the more fully come to know Christ, the Son of God; that all men everywhere may increasingly appropriate for themselves His way of life; that a world of Christian brotherhood may be realized, and that the unity of God’s people may be achieved, this Society is established.

To this end the Society shall aid in the preaching of the gospel of Christ at home and abroad; shall create and foster a program of Christian education and training to the end that men’s minds may be enlightened concerning the Christian way of life; shall lend encouragement and assistance to local congregations with a view of helping them to become as efficient units of the kingdom of God as possible; . . .

Soon after the news had spread that the ACMS had been established, there was opposition from congregations and preachers. Jacob Creath, Jr., was one of the first, if not the first, among gospel preachers to raise his voice in objection to his unauthorized organization which purposed to rob the church of her work. Others later followed the example of Creath in his objections, stating that the Society had no right to exist. Benjamin Franklin, at the first, lent his influence toward the ACMS but then turned and ferociously attacked its right to exist. Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb and others opposed the ACMS as well.

In the fall of 1908 a crucial debate took place between W.W. Otey of Lynn, Indiana, and J.B. Briney of Louisville, Kentucky. The questions discussed were instrumental music and the societies. The second proposition read: “The use of such organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, etc., is authorized in the New Testament scriptures and acceptable to God.” Briney affirmed; Otey denied.

Though surely most in our brotherhood would give lip service to the position taken by Otey in this debate, yet, many in the Lord’s church could not in consistency deny the above proposition, as did Otey, and continue in their practices, for they are involved in nothing more than missionary societies. Paul wrote, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?”

Now, before going any further, let it be understood that I do not have anything personal against the individuals to be named in this article. I am simply naming them for identifying purposes. In fact, I regret to have to call names; but I am not better than Paul; and if he did, then, under similar circumstances, so must I (2 Tim. 1:19-20; 2:17-18; 4:10) Besides, how will we mark and avoid, as the New Testament commands, if we do not know who the errorists are (Rom. 16:17-18)? And if proved to be wrong on any of the organizations to be mentioned, this brother will gladly repent and correct his error.

Another point to be considered is that I am not opposing the orphan home and scriptural sponsoring church cooperation. This writer has defended both in writing and from the polemic platform and would gladly do so again if the opportunity arose. Just to say the orphan home and sponsoring church are like the missionary society does not make them such any more than to call a man a monkey makes him a monkey. A man may swing from trees and eat bananas, but that does not make him a monkey.

The missionary society is sinful and has no right to exist, because it is an organization separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work of the church. It is wrong because it displaces the work which belongs to the church. It is not the purpose of the missionary society to which we stringently object; but it is its very right to exist that is unscriptural! The orphan homes do the work of a home, not the church. The sponsoring church is simply the church at work; and other congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor. If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?

Brethren, we need to get our eyes open! We have missionary societies among us which have no right to exist. Therefore, we are speaking out against them – not because their purposes are not good and commendable, but because they are organizations separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work of the church.

World Christian Broadcasting Corporations (WCBC) is nothing more than a missionary society. It is separate from the church. It has its own president, Robert E. Scott, and board of directors. Checks are to be made payable to WCBC and are deductible for income tax purposes. In a letter dated April, 1980, the then president of WCBC, B.E. Davis, quoted Matthew 28:19 and mentioned the number of souls in the world today in need of the gospel. He then stated, “The World Christian Broadcasting Corporations has been devised as a way to overcome this obstacle.” Though a number of well-known brethren have endorsed the work, this writer says it is nothing more than a missionary society attached to the church. It seeks church support; but at the same time, it remains autonomous. It even has its own “voice” for raising money called the WCBC News. It is an organization which has no right to exist. Those brethren involved in this work could not oppose the missionary society of the Disciples of Christ and be consistent.

Another missionary society among us is The Center for Church Growth, of Houston, Texas. The president is Joe D. Schubert; and the executive director, according to my latest update, is Tim. E. Matheny. This organization, separate from the church, has its own board of directors which includes a chairman, John R. Bolestawski; vice chairman, Arlen Ashley; and a secretary/treasurer, Dale E. DeCarlo. Some of the board, as of January 27, 1986’s letterhead, include M. Norvel Young and Allen Isbell. “Their purpose?” you ask. It is to help congregations grow. Is it a worthy goal? Yes. But the organization has no right to exist. Will Schubert or Matheny or anyone else connected with this organization defend publicly its right to exist? Peter tells us to grow in grace and in the knowledege of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). This organization is attempting to do that which the church should do through the preaching of the gospel.

Another missionary society among us is Leadership and Church Growth International, of Florence, Alabama. Its president is Jerry Humphries; the executive director is Jim Denison; and the board of directors is made up of five men, one of whom is Jerry Humphries. What is this organization’s reason for existing? Humphries says, ” . . Ao provide Christian leaders and workers the opportunities to receive the training they need without their having to leave home.” Well, that’s wonderful. But what is the church doing? Cannot these individuals be trained by the simple preaching and/or teaching of God’s word without having an organization separate and apart from the church which is attempting to displace the church? This, too, is a nonprofit organization. Why cannot the church do the same work and let God receive the glory through the church rather than through some humanly devised organization? We are told in the LCG International News that LCG International is in harmony with God’s word. But it will take more than telling us; it must be proved to us (1 Thess. 5:21).

There are a number of “organizations” which are “under” different elderships which have no right to exist, for they are nonprofit organizations (considered by the government to be separate and apart from the church) which are attempting to displace the church. Some of these organizations have selected certain elderships which will just “rubber stamp” whatever the organization desires. If the eldership balks, the organization just finds another “yes” eldership. One of these organizations which comes to mind is the Way of the Cross, of Dallas, Texas. It is “under the oversight” of the elders of the Rockwell Church of Christ in Rockwall, Texas. It has been in existence fifteen years. Checks can be made payable to “Way of the Cross” and are tax deductible. I have been told that this organization, Way of the Cross, is a mission outreach to the highways and hedges of the United States and endeavors to plant churches in areas where none exist. When the Way of the Cross publications comes out, it talks of “our” mission and “our” mission workers.

Why cannot we be simply gospel preachers and members of the Lord’s church and spread the gospel and edify the saints? Why do some brethren think they must have some organization separate from the church through which to do the work of the church? Was Paul a member of some organization such as Leadership and Church Growth International or Way of the Cross? Why cannot brethren be content with the Lord’s organization?

This does not mean it is wrong for brethren to go into private business, selling Bibles and good religious material. The Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate are businesses. Churches have the right to buy their services, their material, etc.; but the church has no scriptural right to make a donation, or contributions, to such businesses in order to keep them afloat. If so, I am willing to hear the proof.

Brethren everywhere need to rise up and oppose these mini-missionary societies among us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 720, 723
December 7, 1989

By Richard Boone

Purpose: To show scriptural, sensible reasons why Christians should not marry unbelievers.

Introduction:

1. A problem that faces every Christian when he comes to adult age is that of whom to marry.

2. In our day, when infidels out-number Christians, it is made more difficult because it seems as though there are so few Christians available.

3. I want to give some scriptural, sensible reasons why Christians should not marry unbelievers.

4. This lesson applies to all of us because young people will be making their choices, and parents and other relatives should be providing the proper training along this line.

5. Before I proceed any further, let me make two specific statements:

a. While marrying an unbeliever is not a sin (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-13), is is unwise.

b. Although it is possible that the unbeliever can be converted (cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-2), statistics do not favor the Christian.

6. With those remarks made, please consider carefully the following reasons why a believer should not marry an unbeliever.

Body:

I. The Scriptures Speak Against Inter-Marrying With Unbelievers.

A. They speak by direct statement (Deut. 7:1-5).

B. They speak by example (cf. Rom. 15:4).

1. Abraham did not want Isaac to marry a Canaanite (Gen. 24:1-4).

2. Esau’s wives were a “grief of mind” to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26:34-35).

3. Rebekah did not want Jacob to marry a Canaanite (Gen. 27:46-28:5).

4. Solomon’s heart was turned away by non-Israelite women (1 Kings 11:1-8).

5. Peter had “a sister, a wife” (1 Cor. 9:5).

C. The Christian will have trouble with his spiritual “father-in-law” (John 8:44)!

II. Problems In A Religiously Mixed Marriage.

A. Marriage partners should have the same goal (Gen. 2:24; Prov. 31:10-12).

1. While marriage between Christians won’t be without problems, the chances of solving their problems are greater because they are working toward the same goal – heaven.

2. In a mixed marriage the Christian is trying to work toward heaven, and the unbeliever is not.

B. Just between the marriage partners, there may be conflicts over:

1. Worship (cf. Jn. 4:23-24):

a. Your attendance may be affected (Heb. 10:25).

b. Your Bible study may be affected (2 Pet. 3:18).

c. Your praying may be hindered (1 Thess. 5:17).

2. Marital responsibilities (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Eph. 5:22-23; 1 Tim. 5:8,14; etc.).

3. Morality (Eph. 4:25ff; Col. 3:5-17).

C. When children are born, there may be trouble over:

1. Religious upbringing (cf. Deut. 6:4-6; Eph. 6:4).

2. Discipline (Prov. 13:24; 22:6; Heb. 12:5-11).

D. As this only scratches the surface, there are many other problems that can exist in a marriage between a Christian and one who is not a Christian.

1. The Scriptures warn us about inter-marrying with infidels.

2. We see some of the problems that can exist in a religiously mixed marriage.

3. Let us make it our aim to marry faithful Christians and teach young adults to do the same!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 719
December 7, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Elsewhere in this issue, see Ben Vick, Jr.’s article, “We Are Going to Have to Defend the Truth Among Our Own Brethren (II)”.

Brother Vick’s central point sticks the institutional position in its vital areas. Brother Vick’s argument pricks the bubble of societies which purpose to “rob the church of her work.” He is to be commended for his expressed attitude and his manifest courage in attacking liberal bastions. However, do not expect that his article will be met with a similar reasoned response from his “own brethren.” Do not think that his “own brethren” will summarily dismantle their “unauthorized” organizations. They will not. Brother Vick had better prepare for stone-cold silence from some, emotional epithets from others and for malicious misrepresentation.

This review will not seek to take a negative, repelling tact, designed to further alienate and isolate brother Vick. Rather, it shall strive to: (1) Help our brother to see his inconsistency; (2) Assist him in understanding that the principles and pattern of truth which he advocates he also violates. To do this will require direct, pointed argument, such as brother Vick himself employs against his “own brethren.”

Remember, too, that brother Vick’s institutional concepts are, at least in part, responsible for the societies which he opposes. It is impossible to have “a little” liberalism, for a little liberalism liberalizes the whole lump. Brother Vick does not accept this. He does not perceive it, conceive it or believe it, but it is true nonetheless. In the 1950s, brethren of brother Vick’s persuasion were nearly unanimous in the position for which he contends, but a gradual leavening has occurred in the intervening years. The institutional leaven has affected a lump, infected a generation and effected an apostasy. The lump is now a mountain, a towering precipice of crystallized societies of every stripe, scope and size. Brother Vick’s leaven helped make it all possible. Compare the corollary history of the nineteenth century digression.

WCBC and Herald of Truth

World Christian Broadcasting Corporation (WCBC) is the first missionary society that comes under fire from brother Ben. See his comments. Ben, if WCBC was under an eldership, after the model of Herald of Truth, would it be scriptural? If I could show that Herald of Truth has its own directors, that checks can be made payable to Herald of Truth and are deductible for income tax purposes, would you say that Herald of Truth is an unscriptural missionary society? Further, suppose I could show that Herald of Truth has “its own ‘voice’ for raising money.” Ben, would you oppose it, then?

Would WCBC, “Way of the Cross” and “a number of ‘organizations’ which are ‘under’ different elderships” be scriptural if they were truly controlled by sponsoring churches?

Brother Vick says, “The sponsoring church is simply the church at work; and other congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor.” Which “church,” brother Vick, is “at work”? Is it the “sponsoring church?” Are the “other congregations” “at work,” too, or are they simply “having fellowship in the endeavor?” If it is the work of all the participating churches, who or what determines who shall have “the oversight thereof?” If it is the work of all the churches, the sponsoring church is overseeing at least a part of the work of all the other churches. If it is not the work of the contributing churches which “are having fellowship in the endeavor, ” why do they participate at all? Surely, it will not surprise brother Vick to learn that nineteenth century advocates of the missionary society argued that “the missionary society is simply the church at work and congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor.”

“If It Can Be Done In Benevolence”

Brother Vick asks, “If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?” What brother Vick does not recognize is that what was “done in benevolence” is not what he is doing “in evangelism.”

Even brother Vick does not believe his own rule which asks, “If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?” Though they “go hand in hand , ” he does not believe that what “can be done in benevolence” may also be done “in evangelism,” for he believes an organization which is “separate and apart from the church” can be funded by churches “in benevolence,” but that societies “separate and apart from the church” have no right to exist” “in evangelism.” So, according to brother Vick, what goes “hand in hand” cannot always hold hands.

Brother Vick does not believe that the benevolence of 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 was limited to the “poor saints.” Could the church, therefore, send money to a Catholic “orphan home,” since, according to brother Ben, “orphan homes do the work of a home, not the church”? Using elements of his own rule, we inquire, if it can be done in benevolence among poor saints (i.e., churches contributing to societies operated by brethren), then why not in benevolence among Catholics (i.e., churches contributing to societies operated by Catholics), “since both go hand in hand?”

Man, Monkeys and Societies

Brother Vick anticipates the parallel of benevolent societies and missionary societies with his man-monkey comparison. If the “errorists” brother Bick assails (Joe D. Schubert, M. Norvell Young, Tim E. Matheny, Jerry Humphries, Allen Isbell, etc.) want an easy answer to brother Vick, they may simply feed him from his own spoon. Vick says the organizations he cites and indicts are “nothing more than missionary societies.” If I were the above named “errorists,” I would reply, “Just to say our works are like the missionary society does not make them such any more than to call a man a monkey makes him a monkey. A man may swing from trees and eat bananas, but that does not make him a monkey.” It is likely that Ben would not consider that much of a response. Neither do we.

A man and a monkey are alike in that they may swing from trees and eat bananas. True, that comparison neither makes a monkey a man, nor a man a monkey. No one says it does. However, they -are still similar in those respects. Likewise, comparing a benevolent society (“orphan home”) and a missionary society does not make a benevolent society a missionary society nor a missionary society a benevolent society. Again, no one says it does. However, they are still similar in those aspects. No one argues that a man is a monkey because he eats bananas and swings from a tree. No one argues that a benevolent society is a missionary society, but the parallels still exist. Both are human organizations. Both seek to do the work God assigned to the church. Both are unauthorized by the Scriptures.

Churches are authorized to “relieve” certain needy ones (1 Tim. 5:16). Churches are authorized to preach the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8). In evangelism, the church is not a means or method of preaching the gospel. It is an organization, created by God, that must use means or methods to preach the gospel. It is an organization, created by men, that must use means or methods to preach the gospel. In benevolence, the church is not a means or method of relieving the needy. It is an organization, created by God, that must use means or methods of relieving the needy. A benevolent society is not a means or method of relieving the needy. It is an organization, created by men, that must use means or methods to relieve the needy.

To paraphrase brother Vick, “Why cannot we be simply gospel preachers and members of the Lord’s church and spread the gospel, relieve the needy and edify the saints? Why do some brethren (like brother Vick) think they must have some organization separate from the church through which to do the work of the church? Was Paul a member of some organization such as Schultz-Lewis, Childhaven and Herald Of Truth or World Radio? Why cannot brethren be content with the Lord’s organization?” Why, indeed?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 721, 722
December 7, 1989

By Phil T. Arnold

In attending the Oklahoma Christian College lectureship this past January (1989), I heard a speaker ask the audience (the majority of whom I assume were members of “institutional” churches of Christ), “How many of you worship with a congregation that has a ‘fellowship hall.” I was tempted to raise my hand for here at 84th Street we do have a “fellowship hall.” That is, we have a building in which we join together in fellowship in singing spiritual songs, offering prayers to God, studying his word, and remembering his Son’s sacrifice. But I knew, and so did everyone else, that this was not what he meant when he inquired about a “fellowship hall.” Instead, he was referring to a kitchen/dining/banqueting room in which members of the church and their friends and visitors might join together in eating common meals. Such a facility as an addition to the meeting house has, in recent years, become quite common. Brethren have apparently attempted to justify this addition by attaching a biblical expression (“fellowship”) to what they choose to call it. The reasoning perhaps being that by calling their kitchen and banquet room a “fellowship hall” long enough, it will lead others to conclude that such truly is a work of the church and is based on Bible authority.

As the speaker looked around the room a grin came over his face and he commented, I ‘It has gotten to the point that we can’t hear the word ‘fellowship’ without smelling the coffee.” At this point the room filled with laughter and sheepish smiles came across many faces. Rather than being amused, I was deeply saddened to think how far many of my brethren have gotten from God’s truth and how the Lord’s “soul center” (the church) is being turned into a “social center” often rivaling or surpassing the local YMCA. And like Israel of old, brethren today have forgotten even how to “blush” at the mention of their sin (Jer. 8:12). They have also forgotten the plea of Bible authority in all things that has been heralded through past generations in attempting to restore, protect, and preserve the church of Christ. Instead, they follow the path of the “social gospel” and are often only a step behind the most “progressive” (?) denomination in the facilities they offer including (not only “fellowship halls but) gymnasiums, wedding chapels, counseling centers, community centers, etc. The facilities are simply reflective of the activities that have come to dominate such congregations. To all who are concerned about the will of God there are questions that beg to be answered. “Where is the authority for such facilities and such activities?” “Where is the authority for the church to engage in such programs as part of their work?”

And what began among most as simply a plea for “eating on the grounds” has seen no stopping point. Note the following:

Item: From the bulletin of the Richland Hills church of Christ in Dallas we note that their 1988 budget included funds for the Family Life Center (polite euphemism for gymnasium), Financial Accounting, Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation, Employment and Financial Counseling, Life After Drugs, and Real Estate Management.

Item: From the calendar published in the bulletin of the Homewood church of Christ in Birmingham, Alabama are the following notices: Softball coaches meeting, Auditions for the play “He Just Keeps Rollin’ Along,” Boy Scout pack meeting, blood drive, Easter egg hunt, The Homewood Talent Show and Lip-Sync contest to be held in the gym, and a Church-wide Barbecue and Fellowship.

Item: From the bulletin of the Westbury church of Christ in Houston under the heading, “Activities of the Westbury Congregation,” are the following announcements: Table Games Night, Fellowship Meal, Men’s Basketball, Snow Skiing, Kite Flying/Picnic, and Children’s Ice Skating.

(Note: The above items were taken from an article by Don C. Truex published in The Southside Reminder.)

Those things which are mentioned above and even more were formerly only associated with denominations and were almost universally condemned by churches of Christ. Now they are being observed with an increased regularity among our brethren as a large segment of the Lord’s church continues its seemingly unavoidable harmony with denominationalism as distinguishing marks from denominationalism continue to fall. Invitations to come hear the gospel are being replaced today with invitations to “come help eat the world’s largest hot dog. ” One can hardly imagine what brethren are imagining to do. Once the demand for Bible authority is set aside, or at least compromised, the only limit placed upon the church is the desire of the people and the imagination of their leaders.

Through the years we have told the world that we give “book, chapter, and verse” for all that we do. And, if we can’t, we’ll quit doing it. We would do well to return to this stand from which so many have departed and ask ourselves: “Where is the authority for the church to build and/or maintain a gymnasium or a fellowship hall?” “Where is the Scripture that authorizes the church to use its facilities for social and/or recreational purposes?” “Where is the command, example, or necessary inference for the church to enter into the work of entertainment?”

Some who have swallowed the social gospel “hook, line, and sinker” often no longer make any effort at all to justify their practices on the basis of Scripture. Instead, they simply speak of “keeping up with the times,” “ministering to the whole man,” and not being so “narrow-minded” concerning such “good works.” Others have sought to justify such practices on the basis of a “new hermeneutic” and “Christ’s life,” apart from his doctrine, as our understanding of what the church is to do. The old stand-by has been to justify such practices on the basis of “expediency.” But in order for a matter to be expedient, it must first be shown to be lawful (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Again, where is the authority for the church to engage in this category of work of “fun and food fellowship”? What is being expedited by such expedients? What work of the church does “fun and food fellowship” help to accomplish? One Oklahoma City area preacher attempted to justify the practice of fellowship dinners as simply as means of advertising the church by comparing it to a newspaper ad of the location and times of assembly of a local congregation. Apparently feeling that the “ends justifies the means,” he also pointed out that spending the advertising budget on food to be served would be more efficient in bringing people to the assembly than a newspaper ad. This reminded me of a discussion I once heard when an elder stated that he “would set up a hot dog stand in the foyer if it would bring more people to church. ” Another preacher in the Oklahoma City area blatantly attempted to justify their “fun and food fellowship” activities by comparing them to the activity of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in gaining an audience for the hearing of the gospel. He went so far as to refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as a “gimmick.” Such brilliant scriptural exegesis and wonderful argumentation borders on blasphemy!

Such sentiments reflect a lack of respect for the will of God and a lack of confidence in the drawing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their efforts to “assist the Lord” are reminiscent of Sara’s advice to Abraham concerning begetting an heir by Hagar, her handmaiden. In 1951 B.C. Goodpasture wrote, “It is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world or even for its own members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its place in the life of all normal persons but it is not the business of the church to furnish it. . . . 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 pl i s of Ono to amuse and entertain. As the church turns its attention to amusement and recreation, it will be shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut. Only as the church becomes worldly, as it pillows its head on the lap of Delilah, will it want to turn from its wonted course to relatively unimportant matters” (1951 Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary).

Recent articles in The Christian Chronicle have lamented the financial “crunch” facing many congregations. Among those things which have so indebated many local congregations is the building and maintaining of all types of social/recreational facilities and programs. Many elderships now feel that such is necessary to compete not only with denominations but with other “churches of Christ” in the area. No longer do visitors simply want to know “when are your times of assembling?” and “what spiritual work is the congregation involved in?” Now they want to know if congregations offer a day care center for the toddlers, a secular school for the children, a basketball team for dad, and aerobic’s class for mom, and “fun and food fellowship” for one and all. Brother Goodpasture’s prophecy is being realized and the church is being “shorn of its power.” Is it any wonder that we are rapidly becoming what some have termed a “worldly church” and are no longer looked upon as a “people of the book” as members are being multiplied by the “loaves and the fishes” (Jn. 6:26,27) rather than love of the truth and faith!

Again, we would plead for peace and unity, but not at the cost of prostituting the church for which our Lord shed his blood. Jesus’ precious blood was shed to purchase the church, a spiritual house with a spiritual mission (Eph. 5:25-27; 1 Pet. 2:5; 1 Tim. 3:15). Wholesome social activities are important in the life of each Christian; but God made a distinction between the responsibility of the home and the responsibility of the church (1 Cor. 11:22; Rom. 14:17). Churches need to specialize in being churches and encourage parents to specialize in building good homes. The church was not established to promote aerobic classes and softball teams and “bodily exercise” which “is profitable for a little,” but rather “godliness” which “is profitable for all things; having a promise of the life which now is and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). What is needed to accomplish the work of the church is not “gimmicks” but the “gospel” of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:16). Yes, the church meeting here at 84th Street has a “fellowship hall” in which we enjoy the greatest fellowship of all – the fellowship of God by abiding within his word (2 Jn. 9). Let us return to allowing the church to be what the Lord planned and not man – a “soul center” rather than a “social center.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 716-717
December 7, 1989