Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

Like “Instrumental Music in Worship,” this topic has become aged and worn, and many may turn the page to something more current. But experience tells us both problems continue, and “Independence” is by far the least understood. It is not unusual to hear lengthy discussions on the “sponsoring church arrangement” where congregational independence is only mentioned in passing instead of being treated as the basic issue. This is not to question the valid arguments that are made, and institutional brethren are usually charged with violating independence. But we may expect a greater understanding of the subject than really exists, so that our hurried charges fall on ears unable to appreciate our concern or make application of our argument to their practices.

With few if any exceptions our brethren preach that each local church is “independent and autonomous.” So did Alexander Campbell, first president of the American Christian Missionary Society. So do dozens, perhaps hundreds of various religious groups whose organizational structures (as regards a plurality of congregations) range from episcopacy to monarchy. Perhaps the following material from my Arlington Meeting script, can best express this thought.

The Handbook of Denominations in the United States, by Frank S. Mead (edition of 1951), lists 137 different religious groups in our country. A surprising number of these denominations claim to believe in “congregational independence”; but a wide eyed look at their practices reveals some startling contradictions. Here are a few samples. “Congregational in government, each local church is completely independent. The churches are grouped in five districts and five annual conferences; over them is a national general conference, which meets biennially.” Another: “Local churches are left quite independent in polity and in the conduct of local affairs. District officers have a pastoral ministry to all the churches and are responsible for the promotion of home missions. Work is divided into forty districts in the U.S., most of which follow state lines, each with a district Presbytery, which examines, licenses, and ordains “pastors” (pp. 18, 23). There are many other like examples. In each case, if we read only that portion I have emphasized we might think this was written about the Lord’s church. But those first lines do not tell the whole story. Is this the kind of “independent” congregations we believe the Scriptures authorize? Surely not!

We must do more than just say we believe in congregational independence. The “framework of the local church” is not some scheme for district, churchhood, or universal collective action. It is God’s limitation of collective action – the extent to which God authorizes organized church functions. If this is not the case our use of the words “local church government” is as meaningless and ambiguous as that of the denominations cited above. If we used a county frameword to run a national function – say, let the Burnet County sheriff serve as Commander in Chief of the nation’s armed forces, receiving operating funds from over the nation, and functioning in the national interest; would this mean we had no armed force on a national scale? To ask is to answer, even if we continued to call him “Sheriff.” And yet, many seem to think no brotherhood (churchhood) action is being taken although the elders of some local church have the additional control of a churchhood project.

We must come to a more accurate understanding of such matters; agreeing on scriptural “independent” church government, and giving particular attention to those things which violate this independence. In our own history, as in that of many other religious groups, independence has been given away, yes given away, under the name of “cooperation.” Bear with me for one more quotation from Mead’s Handbook of Denominations. “In 1814 the Baptists organized their own separate General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America. This convention, representing a national Baptist fellowship, marked the first real denominational consciousness of American Baptists.” This has a familiar ring to those who know our history well.

How do we prove this congregational independence we so freely claim? Most knowledgeable saints will cite Acts 14:23, “elders in every church” or 1 Peter 5:2, “Feed (shepherd, rft) the flock of God which is among you.” These Scriptures indicate (1) each congregation is on an equality with reference to oversight; and (2) oversight is on a local level, not on a district, churchhood, or universal scale. Does this limit organizational structure to the local church level? We usually agree that it does. Our reasoning, if we stop to analyze it, is that God has spoken on the subject, and there is no authority for organization on any other level. God must intend that each congregation be independent and self-ruled. I believe this is sound scriptural reasoning. Of course we understand that we speak of “rule” from the viewpoint of coordinating oversight in matters of judgment necessary for collective action of saints. Christ is the sole Ruler of his citizens in matters of faith, and in this sense the church has but one overseer.

Another proof of congregational independence has to do with the church treasury. Collective action requires not only the acceptance of a common oversight, but also the pooling of means and abilities, money being the usual medium through which a plurality act as one. As the scale or extent of oversight indicates the level of operation which God approves, so also does the scope of the pooled fund by which the joint operation is powered. 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 reads: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.” The funds were accumulated on a local scale, each church being instructed alike, each providing its own fund; and they were controlled on a local basis (“whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters . . . your liberality”).

An “independent church is “not dependent,” the “in” being a negative prefix on “dependent.” An independent church “has a competency” to function in all things essential to its existence (see Webster’s or any other standard dictionary). We believe God intended each congregation to function with its own oversight, selected from among the flock to be served; and that is regular means of funding its work should be contributions from its members according to their ability. We do not question some visitor’s right to drop something in the contribution plate, nor voluntary gifts from a friend; but the independent church, like an independent individal, should be expected to act commensurate with its own resources, and function according to its own ability (see 2 Cor. 8:11-12). An independent local church would fulfill its purpose before God, if there were not another congregation in existence.

We are aware that some first century churches became dependent, and other churches sent them alms. Our next article

will deal with these circumstances, and coordinate such scriptural information with our study on congregational independence.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 581-582
October 5, 1989

By Dan Walters

Romans 2:7-16, especially verse 14, has been used by James Bales and other brethren to prove that alien sinners are not under law to Christ and are thus exempt from the marriage law contained in the Gospel. This verse says that “when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” Other brethren have taken this further and are teaching that these “Gentiles,” alien sinners who have not heard the Gospel, will be judged by this “law unto themselves” and will then be saved, if obedient to this law, without the Gospel.

It is noted that Paul speaks, in the present tense, and so if is assumed that what is said here of Jews and Gentiles still applies in the Gospel age. But remember that Paul here speaks of both Jews and Gentiles in a parallel sense. He writes in verse 12: “For as many as have sinned without law shall be judged by the law.” If it is true that Gentiles may be saved by obedience to their unwritten law, then it is also true that Jews may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (v. 11). This argument proves too much; it proves that the law of Moses is still in effect for Jews and that they may be saved under its provisions if they have not heard the Gospel. Since Paul speaks of Jews who were responsible to the law, he has to be speaking of those who lived under that law before it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). The same is true for the Gentiles; he speaks of those who lived before the Gospel came into effect.

Men are taking Paul’s argument and reversing it. Paul was establishing the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were in an equally lost condition and were equally in need of the gospel of Christ. The modern reasoning is that both can be saved without it. There is a difference between the way God judges people today and the way he judged them before the cross. This is seen in Paul’s words to the men of Athens: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30).

Is forgiveness of sins promised today to those who obey the moral law, but have not heard the Gospel? If so, where in the Scriptures is this clearly taught? Cornelius was a Gentile and a good moral man (Acts 10:1,2). If Peter had never gone to him with the Gospel, would he have been saved anyway due to his obedience to the unwritten law? The angel told Cornelius that Peter would “tell these words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts If: 14). Some brethren have said that the ignorant are already in a saved condition, and that the reason we should preach the Gospel to them is the same reason we cultivate a crop of corn, to make it a better crop. But if Peter’s words would save Cornelius, this clearly implies that Cornelius was lost before he heard the words. If Cornelius, as upright a man as he was, was lost, does this leave us much room to hope for the salvation of those today who have never heard the Gospel?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 580, 594
October 5, 1989

By Dr. Fred Schwarz

Otis Galewood was a prime mover in foisting the centralized sponsoring church digression upon churches of Christ in the 1940s-50s. In recent years, he has been hailed as a hero among brethren who are plummeting deeper and deeper into the abyss of apostasy. He is a promoter par excellence and speaks “great swelling words” with much enthusiasm (Jude 16). His work was aimed at defeated Nazi Germany in earlier years, but later he spearheaded an effort based in Austria to reach into communist countries. Alas, brother Gatewood appears to be as ignorant of the real doctrines of communism as he is about the true doctrine of Christ! While arousing liberal brethren to support his programs designed to convert people from communism to Christ, brother Gatewood needs to study both more carefully himself. We are reminded that enthusiasm and good intentions are not enough. The following is by Dr. Fred Schwarz, Christian Anti-Communism Crusade (bulletin), 15 May 1989, P. 0. Box 890, Long Beach, CA 90801-0890. Schwarz is a Baptist.

Evangelical Misinformation Concerning Communism

If a prize were to be awarded to the individual who could compress the greatest amount of false information into a single paragraph, the author of the following statement would be the likely winner.

Communists Are Advocates of Practical Christianity

The communists themselves are in some ways advocates of Christianity. They teach truthfulness, honesty, thrift, industry, dedication, equality of all, monogamy, chastity, sobriety, diligence, obedience, humility, patience, love and honor in the family, productivity, fruitfulness and erect great schools and hospitals, and give support to their aged. All these things are fruits of Christianity. The communists, in practice cannot be said to be heathen. They are in many respects, practicing Christians, even though with their mouths they deny Christianity. One communist guide in Kiev pointed with pride to the statue of prince Vladimir, on the banks of the Dreiper River, who brought Christianity to the Soviet Union. I asked: “Have things been better since Christianity was brought to the Soviet Union?” She replied: “Very definitely because before Christianity came here our people worshipped stones. Now we worship God.” They deny God, yet they confess him, not only in action, but also in words.

This statement is contained in an article entitled, “The Communists As Ministers of God,” which is authorized by Otis Gatewood and published in the magazine, World- Wide Contact, Vol. XXIII, No. 3. The masthead of the magazine proclaimed that it is “Communicating Worldwide Evangelism in the 20th Century. ” Dr. Otis Gatewood is listed as one of the editors, and his address is given as: Box 15, A-1235, Vienna, Austria. The other editor listed is David Gatewood with the address: Christian Counseling Center, 424 No. Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California 91101.

The statement that the Communists teach the qualities listed is egregiously false. The truth is that the Communist leaders teach the exact opposite of what the statement alleges concerning most of the qualities.

Since it would require a book to present what the Communists teach on each of the qualities listed, I will select “equality for all” and document what the Communist leaders, such as Marx, Lenin and Gorbachev have taught concerning it.

People Are Unequal – Basic Communist Doctrine

Karl Marx taught that people are fundamentally unequal. They are divided into two unequal classes by the circumstances of their birth and upbringing. One class is good, the other evil; one is destined for life, the other for extermination.

These two classes are the proletariat or working class, and the bourgeoisie, the middleclass owners of property.

In the famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Karl Marx states:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and proletariat (p. 41, Progress Publishers, Moscow edition).

You must, therefore confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible (p. 66).

When the Communists have conquered power, their practice has been guided by these statements of Marx. Under Lenin, “justice” was administered by considering the class to which the defendant belonged. As an official of the security apparatus, the Cheka stated:

We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not lookingfor evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Sovietpower. Thefirst question we ask is: to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education, or profession? These questions define thefate of the accused (Destructive Generation, p. 289).

One recent example of the extermination of the “unequal” class, the bourgeoisie, by the Communists, is the hideous slaughter of all who could read and write, or who had soft hands, by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. To have been a doctor before Communist conquest was punished by death.

Every Communist leader, from Marx to Gorbachev, has repeatedly stressed the inequality of people and classes. Let us skip over Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Mao Tse-tung, and come to Gorbachev. He states:

On this point we want to be perfectly clear., socialism has nothing to do with equalizing. Socialism cannot ensure conditions of life and consumption in accordance with the principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Perestroika, p. 100).

It needs to be noted that Gorbachev defines socialism as the first stage of Communism. The Soviet Union is ruled by Communists, but these rulers impose Socialism, not “Communism.” The USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Overwhelming evidence could also be presented that the Communists do not teach or practice most of the other qualities attributed to them in the article.

Attention to the instruction of 2 Peter 1:5 is indicated:

“Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge.

Ignorance opens the door to deception and may prove to be as deadly as treason.

(One of our readers sent me the copy of Contact magazine. It is postmarked Mar. 30, 1989. I found no date on the magazine, only the numbers – Vol. XXIII, No. 3. I assumed it was a recent publication, but a careful reading of the contents suggests it was published a decade ago. This rebuttal is 10 years overdue, but the delusions exposed still exist today in many minds.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 564-565
September 21, 1989

By Dr. Fred Schwarz

Sin and suffering are satanic Siamese twins; the latter always accompanies the former.

The evil genius of Abbie Hoffman enabled him to make sin appear glamorous, and he lured countless young people into a life of pain and misery through drugs and disease.

Hoffman was an “activist” in the New Left that ranted and raged in the 1960’s. He founded an amorphous organization called the Youth International Party, commonly known as the Yippies. The members of this “party” sought to employ sex and drugs to de-energize and destroy American society. Hoffman practiced what Herbert Marcuse preached.

He wrote the book Revolution for the Hell of It in which he promoted the use of sex and drugs. He commended girls who ran away from home in their early teens and joined the promiscuous hordes of “street people.” He promoted theft by another book entitled, Steal This Book.

He captivated the news media by promoting the “Theatre of the Absurd,” casting dollar bills over the brokers in the New York Stock Exchange, and claiming to levitate, or lift from the ground, the pentagon, during a protest demonstration against the Vietnam War.

His true character was revealed when he fled to escape arrest for selling a large quantity of Cocaine. When he finally surrendered to the authorities after spending years underground, he was treated as a hero by many in the news media.

In one sense, Hoffman serves as a mirror in which the true character of much of the news media is revealed. I first learned of his death from a program on CNN Television. Judging by the adulation given him by the announcer, it might be thought he was worthy of sainthood. His co-conspirators, Jerry Rubin and William Kuntsler, were presented to eulogize him. Rubin, brushing away crocodile tears, claimed Hoffman had changed the world.

In a sense, Rubin was right. As a pusher of drugs, Hoffman increased drug abuse and its associated disease in the U.SA. and Europe.

Shakespeare states in the play, Julius Caesar: “The evil men do lives after them. ” This is certainly true of Hoffman Many will continue to sin and suffer from the evil which he did. Drugs will destroy lives and children will suffer abuse.

During much of his life he wore the uniform of a clown. While making others laugh, his own misery must have been intense. I am reminded of the story of the man who consulted a doctor because of severe suicidal depression. The doctor prescribed tranquilizers and anti-depressants without success. Finally in desperation he said: “Recently I attended an entertainment which featured a brilliant clown. He provoked roars of laughter from the audience. I have never laughed so much in my life. Go and watch him.”

Sadly the man replied: “Sir, I am that clown.”

The suicide of Abbie Hoffman, in the prime of his life, proclaims to all the world, “I was that clown.”

(This article was written by Dr. Fred Schwarz and appeared in the 15 May 1989 issue of his bulletin, Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, P. 0. Box 890, Long Beach, CA 90801-0890. Many of us remember the rebellion and mayhem promoted by Hoffman. He hated every standard and symbol of authority, both civil and religious. “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” [Jude 81. Hoffman’s tragic suicide confirms what the Bible says of such people: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption ” [2 Pet. 2:19]. Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray St., W. Columbia, TX 77486.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, p. 585
October 5, 1989