Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Perhaps you are familiar with the classic conversion experiences of those in denominationalism. They cite their “testimony,” or give their “experience of grace,”. relating how they “received Christ as” their “personal Savior.” Generally, upon their confession that “God hath for Christ’s sake” pardoned their sins, they are presented to their denomination as a candidate for baptism. At the next appointed baptism service (some weeks later), they are baptized into their particular denomination.

It seems not to matter to such people that their process of pardon is not found in the New Testament. They rely on their “calling,” “feel led of the Spirit,” and are quite satisfied with their “church home.” That they are led by a spirit, I do not deny, but the Holy Spirit of God does not lead them into an experience, a confession, a church and a baptism unknown to the Bible.

Christians have always pointed out the contradictions noted above and appealed to the word of God. Not a few have been truly converted to Christ. This is as it should be. Beguiled souls can be redeemed when they have been “taught of God” (Jn. 6:44-45).

Now, though, there are even some Christians who are telling of their mid-life conversion experiences. They sound something like this:

For years, I felt a chafing sense of legalism as I witnessed Phariseeism. in the church. Now, I have always been a member of the Lord’s church, and I don’t question my roots in the body of Christ. However, the harder I prayed and the more I went to church, the more frustrated I became. But a few years ago, I cast, off the yoke of brotherhood bondage. Today, my prayer life is more meaningful. I smile more often. Even my wife has noticed it. Our faith should be a happy faith! Everyone smile out there! That’s better. And it didn’t break your face, either, did it?

Brethren, we have “Nadabed and Abihued” the world to death. We have made laws out of some of our traditions, and that’s exactly what they are – traditions. We need a more positive gospel of love, and we need to learn to emphasize God’s grace. We’re turning people off with our commands and our laws. I’m afraid we’ve almost become the Pharisees of our day that Jesus condemned.

Now, don’t misunderstand me (some have in places where I’ve preached these things), but since I have allowed Jesus to be in my heart more than rules and regulations for the church – well I’ve been a changed person, and I feel more secure in my salvation. Honestly, I used to think I’d probably go to hell. I thought God probably hated me and was just waiting for me to do something wrong so he could condemn me, but now I don’t feel that way because of the change in my life.

Sound Familiar?

Brethren, have you heard a reasonable facsimile of the speech above? Keep your ears open. “Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). “Take heed . . . how ye hear” (Lk. 8:18). You may hear such things, for they are being said. They are being spoken with great piety and sincerity, which makes them even more dangerous.

So, I hope that after this week, you’ll feel better, too. I trust that you’ll have the joy of knowing Jesus in your heart as I do and not just the drab and dreary knowledge of the laws and barriers in the church that some well meaning but misguided brethren have erected.

But one aspect is not clear. Why is it that a sectarian’s “testimony” of his “conversion experience” is unacceptable, but a Christian’s “testimony of his mid-life conversion experience is acceptable? If a. brother’s “personal testimony” of his conversion is to be a pattern, then why not receive the sectarian’s story of his conversion? One is as good as the other. But since when is a man’s “personal experience” to be my guide? Tell me why I must reject one as a pattern but accept the other. Until someone does explain that question, I shall reject both and cling to the word of God, for it “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

If a man needs a mid-life correction, he should have it. He must regret, renounce and repent of anything that turns him, from truth. But I do not need to take Alka-Seltzer because someone else burps.

Phariseeism In The Church

The Pharisees constituted “the most straitest sect of our (the Jews) religion” (Acts 26:5). The condemnation of the Pharisees consisted of their:

(1) Doctrine – Matthew 16:6, 12.

(2) Hypocrisy – Luke 12:1; 16:15; Matthew 23:5,14, 23-31.

(3) Covetousness – Luke 16:14; Matthew 23:14.

(4) Outer Form vs. Inner Purity – Luke 16:15; Matthew 23:5,23-31

(5) Human Tradition vs. Divine Commandment – Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:9-13.

(6) Self-righteousness – Luke 18:9-14.

Phariseeism is not:

(1) Strong Conviction. Some equate firm, certain belief or conviction with smug, self-righteous Phariseeism. Paul, Peter and John were men of strong conviction (2 Tim. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:3; 1 Jn. 4:6). Luke wrote of “things which are most surely believed among us.” He “had perfect understanding of all things” and wrote “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (Lk. 1:1-4). Timothy was to continue “in the things which thou hast learned and has been assured of” (2 Tim. 3:14).

We, too, are to “know the truth,” “the doctrine which (we) have learned” (Jn. 8:32; Rom. 16:17). We are to “hold fast the form of sound words,” “that which is good” (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:21). We are commanded to understand what the will of the Lord is, and we can understand it when we read what the apostles wrote (Eph. 3:4; 5:17; 2 Cor. 1:13). Some apparently have strong convictions that such an attitude is Pharisaical. Are they Pharisees for their strong stand against Phariseeism?

(2) Keeping (Obeying) Commandments. Some insist that we are Pharisees if we demand obedience to commands, but the Pharisees did not keep the commandments of God (Matt. 23:2-4; Mk. 7:9). Jesus said, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51). Was he advocating Phariseeism? Is it Phariseeism to say, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (Jn. 14:21)? “If a man love me, he will keep. my words . . . . He that loveth me not keepth not my sayings” (Jn. 14:23, 24; cf. 14:15; 15:14). “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46) “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). Those who say. Phariseeism is demonstrated by stressing obedience to commandments and “rule keeping” have a problem. They have a rule against keeping commandments. Is their rule against rule keeping a form of Phariseeism?

(3) Condemning Error And Its Advocates. Since the Pharisees questioned Jesus and the disciples (Matt. 12:2; 15:2), some say Christians are guilty of Phariseeism. when they rebuke denominational doctrines. Is this true? Jesus answered the arguments of the Pharisees. He did not challenge their right to raise legitimate objections. He condemned their motives and confounded their allegations, but he did not deny one’s right to question another (1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 2:2; 1 Thess. 5:21). Was Jesus a Pharisee since he rebuked error and its exponents (Matt. 7:15-28; 11:2024; 12:39; 15:13,14; 23: 1 ff.; 22:29)?

Was the apostle Paul a Pharisee in the negative sense? Observe his open and pointed reproof and rebuke of Peter and Elymas (Gal. 2:11-14; Acts 13:8-11). See his strong words of sarcasm and condemnation in Galatians 1:6-9; 4:12; Romans 16:17; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 4:2-4; Titus 1:9-13; Philippians 3:2. If one does as Paul did, and is a “Pharisee,” then Paul was a Pharisee, too. “These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15). Are those who condemn the “error of Phariseeism,” Pharisees for doing so?

(4) Pattern Theology. It is argued that exclusive, binding patterns are a symptom of Phariseeism. Some spit out the words “pattern theology” and “pattern mentality” as though they were vile terms. In short, if you believe the Bible is a blueprint, a pattern for one’s work and worship, then you are a Pharisee (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

Is initial obedience to the gospel Phariseeism? There is a “form (mold) of doctrine” to be obeyed (Rom. 6:17,18). Is there a pattern for becoming a Christian? Is there a specific body of truth to be known, believed and obeyed, or is becoming a Christian a nebulous, ephemeral, hazy, subjective thing that “just happens” (Jn. 8:32; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 1:22)? If there are specific, certain terms or conditions to be obeyed,,i.e., a pattern, is this Phariseeism (Mk6 16:16; Acts 2:38; 19:1-5)? Was Jesus’ mercy and longsuffering in the salvation of Paul a case of Phariseeism? It is 46a pattern” for us (I Tim. 1:16). Was Jesus guilty of Phariseeism in saving Paul via this “pattern”?

Ironically, those who charge Phariseeism go to the Bible to prove their position. Is the Bible a pattern for teaching non-patternism? If so, do they have a “pattern theology,” a “pattern mentality,” and are they Pharisees when they use the Bible to prove non-patternism?

False Concepts

Those who have had a “mid-life conversion experience” and charge the church with being Pharisaical often hold to false concepts. First, they confuse biblical worship with “traditional, rote, going through the motions” religion. Those who make the charge often ref~r to their own “traditional past” when they “did all the right things,” but were devoid of “true love.” Well, that is their problem., Because they were once self-confessed Pharisees does not prove that others are. One may do things by rote and ritual and leave his first love, but that does not mitigate against the form of true worship (Rev. 2:2-5). Because Ananias and Sapphira, went through the motions of giving (Acts 5:1-11), does not justify a Monday night collection. Because the church at Corinth perverted the Lord’s supper with their tradition (1 Cor. 11), does not authorize a Thursday night communion. Nor do those examples make one a Pharisee if he contends for the biblical pattern (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

Second, they say, “Our church laws and traditions, though essentially correct, turn others off.” No one should devise human laws and traditions, whether they repel or compel others. But what specific items, though “essentially (scripturally) correct,” should we reject so as not to offend some people – immersion for the remission of sins? Elders in every church? Lord’s day communion and contribution? Singing without a piano? What? Preaching Jesus as the Son of God “turns off” many people (Acts 9:20; 18:4-6). Should we abandon this as a “church law and tradition”?

“Two songs, a prayer and another song” are rote, ritualistic worship; it is too trite and traditional, or so we are told. Well, is it scriptural? Do you pray before your meals three times a day? If so, is it “trite and traditional”? Worse yet, is it Pharisaical? Sectarians have objected to serving the Lord’s supper every Sunday for the same reason. It makes it too common, they say. Should we dispense with the weekly communion because they consider it too formal and rigid?

Shall we have spontaneous singing to break out of the rut of this alleged ritualism? How about during preaching and praying? Should we sing then? Some think humming hymns during the Lord’s supper is “a nice touch.” How about humming during prayer or preaching? After a while, though, humming during the Lord’s supper would become trite and traditional. That is the way of all fads. When a fad gets old, it becomes a tradition – sprinkling, instrumental music, beads and candles – all are examples.

Some like applause after a sermon. How about hissing and booing a poor sermon? Some prayers are better than some sermons. Shall we clap for them? If your wife and kids hummed hymns while you gave thanks for breakfast and applauded after you were through, would you commend them for “breaking out of the rut of trite and traditional” thanksgiving?

Third, some say, “We have freedom in Christ. God did not deliver us from one law simply to enslave us under another one.” Certainly, we have freedom, liberty in Christ (Jn. 8:32,36; Gal. 5:1). Paradoxically, our freedom is contained in “the perfect law of liberty” which we must look into and continue in (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). Even Galatians 5:1 commands us to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Are we “free” to disobey that command? Liberty has its bounds, its restraints (1 Cor. 8:8-13). “For, brethren, ye have been called into liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

Some who promise liberty make themselves the servants of corruption (2 Pet. 2:19). Some who promote and promise freedom in Christ become servants of human traditions and enemies of divine truth. Diotrephes was not “free” to oppose apostolic doctrine. Was John a “Pharisee” for opposing him (3 Jn. 9-11)? Hymanaeus and Philetus were not “free” to teach their views without Paul exposing them (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Was Paul a “Pharisee”? The Corinthians were not “free” to cause confusion with their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14). Was Paul a “Pharisee” for putting limits, for setting rules and restrictions on their exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:23-33)?

Frequently, an appeal is made to Romans 14 for freedom. The very first verse of that chapter contains a command and a prohibition! One must receive the weak brother, but not to doubtful disputations.” Am I “free” to disobey? The strong brother is not free to despise the weak brother (v. 3). One is not free to cause his brother to stumble (v. 13). One is not free to exercise his rights if they cause a brother to stumble (vv. 14, 21). Usually, when a denominational preacher is hemmed in and cannot justify his doctrines, he will flee to Romans 14, but the chapter has rules in it, the very thing he is trying to avoid.

But while we are speaking of freedom, I, too, am a “free man in Christ.” As such, am I free to:

(1) Preach and bind baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts. 2:38)?

(2) Preach that sprinkling is not baptism (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12; Acts 8:36-38)?

(3) Preach that Jesus built his church, not Martin Luther’s, or any other man’s (Matt. 16:18)?

(4) Preach that Jesus is the head and Savior of only one church (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23-25; 1 Cor. 12:20; Rom. 12:4,5; Col. 1:18,24)?

(5) Preach that the Lord’s supper should not be carnalized with a common meal (1 Cor. 11)?

(6) Preach that some will subvert your souls by teaching doctrines not found in the word of God (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Thess. 2:1-3,15; 2 Jn. 9; Matt. 15:8,9)?

Will those who spout and flaunt their “freedom” tell me whether I am free to preach the things above? Am I free to oppose them when they, under the cloak and guise of freedom, endeavor to bring in their doctrines, or am I bound not to do so? Or is their “freedom doctrine” a one way street? They want freedom, but they usually deny it to those who oppose them. Finally, if, freedom is as broad as they say, am I not free to be a Pharisee? Or is there a law against one being a Pharisee? (For a more complete and thorough study of Phariseeism, see James D. Bales’ book, Faith Under Fire, from which I shoplifted many of the above thoughts. The rest I simply plagiarized.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 304-306
May 18, 1989

By John A. Smith

The ad reproduced below appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader (January 15, 1989) and is part of a terrible lie and deliberate homosexual recruitment program funded by the Lexington area homosexual community. Like Lot in ancient Sodom (2 Pet. 2:7-8), righteous souls today need to be sorely vexed when such lies are spread and sin is greeted with acceptance.

The entire one-in-ten hypothesis is without foundation having been built upon questionable data gathered by Dr. Alfred Kinsey in 1948. Edward Eichel, a New York psychotherapist, in his book Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud documents the bias associated with Kinsey’s report. Abraham H. Maslow, one of Kinsey’s colleagues, warned Kinsey about the bias in his “representative sampling” which included men in prison where normal relations would not have been an option. Lionel Trilling, a contemporary of Kinsey, questioned the scientific objectivity of the study and attacked its assumptions and many positive statements as highly debatable.

What Are the Facts?

If Kinsey’s 10 percent is not correct, or at best flawed, what then are the facts? Dr. Stephen C. Joseph, New York City Commissioner of Health, estimates the homosexual population of New York to be closer to three percent. The National Institute of Health estimates the national figure to be closer to 1.5 percent. Charles Turner, writing for the National Research Council, objects to the 10 percent of Kinsey and says that realistically it is no higher than 3.3 percent of the U.S. population. Even Playboy, with all its liberal biases, places the figure not higher than 1.5 percent!

Why the lie? It is an attempt to gain sympathy and acceptance for their perverted lifestyle. If the homosexual community and those in sympathy with them can inflate the numbers then it is easier to assert that homosexuality is a healthy and normal expression of sexual desires. It is easier for them to recruit young people who may have had a passing and troubling homosexual fantasy. They can more easily advance the myth that it is biologically predetermined. (A myth that even the Masters and Johnson report discards.) By deliberately misrepresenting the facts they hope to spread their perversion and silence the opposition.

What Does the Bible Say?

The first mention of homosexuality is in Genesis 19:1-11 where the men of Sodom preferred Lot’s two male visitors rather than his two virgin daughters. It is stated that the men of Sodom wanted to “know” Lot’s visitors. Even a quick glance at the context will give one an understanding of “how” they wanted to know them. The New King James inserts in italics the word “carnally” which makes the meaning even clearer. This disgusting episode is included in the biblical record as an example of how depraved and perverted these people had become.

Lot did not accept their “alternative lifestyle” neither did he uphold their right to practice “reproductive freedom.” Lot rightly condemned them and declared that they had done “wickedly.” God was so sickened by their actions that he destroyed them! It is apparent that God does not approve of homosexuality regardless of the numbers!

Under the terms of the Law of Moses, homosexuality was a capital crime! Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. ” Israel was told that if they defiled themselves with sexual sins (including homosexuality) as did the inhabitants of Canaan, the land would vomit them out for their abomination (Lev. 18:22-30). Even the land is pictured as being sickened by homosexuality!

The teachings of the New Testament uphold the repulsive nature of homosexuality. In 2 Peter 2:6-8 the men of Sodom are once again mentioned and said to have been ungodly men who practiced filthy conduct. God continued to condemn the wickedness of homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-11 and Romans 1:26-27 homosexuals are described as not being able to inherit the kingdom of God, insubordinate, lawless, ungodly, and depraved men who are storing up for themselves the penalty due them.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly condemn the act of homosexuality and no amount of human deceit or trickery can change God’s attitude toward it.

Conclusion

But what of our attitude toward the homosexual? Are we, as the ad suggests, teaching our children to hate gays when we teach them the truth from the Bible? Should our reaction toward these people be hatred? Not at all! We need to love them, just as God loves them while at the same time despising the filth of their actions. We need to recognize that the Gospel of Christ can change their lives just as it did some in Corinth (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Even the homosexual can be washed in the blood of the Lamb and be made pure again in the sight of God.

Sources

Buchanan, Patrick, “Dr. Kinsey’s biggest He is exposed,” Orange County Register, Monday, September 26, 1988.

Associated Press, “Study: 20 percent of men have tried gay sex,” Orange County Register, Friday, January 20, 1989.

Sheldon, Lou, Shape, “Homosexual Propaganda Exposed,” Vol. 6, No. 2, February 1989, p. 6.

Lexington Herald-Leader, January 15, 1989.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 302-303
May 18, 1989

By Frank Jamerson

The concepts. that people have are extremely important. Our convictions and actions basically come from our concepts. It is also important that we study history that we may learn from the mistakes of others. Restoration history is interesting, though we are not disciples of the “Restoration Movement,” but of Christ.

About two years ago a college room-mate and I had occasion to visit and talk about events since school days. He has finally finished his Doctorate in History and changed his faith to the degree that he can preach for the Christian Church without it bothering his conscience. He insisted that the “Restoration leaders” were not opposed to denominationalism and therefore that he should not oppose it.

I fear that many brethren have the concept that whatever Restoration leaders believed must have been right, therefore we should accept those things. Now, I appreciate what those men did in calling men back to the Bible as the standard of authority, and leaving denominationalism, but I am not a member of the “Restoration Movement.” I am a member of the body of Christ and subject only to its head.

My concept of New Testament Christianity does not permit me to endorse or. be a part of denominationalism. The church revealed in Scripture is not composed of denominations, but of saved individuals. Local churches are not parts of the universal church. The universal church is composed only of individuals, and though these same individuals are to join themselves together in local churches, there may be individuals who have not done so. (The Ethiopian eunuch was in the body of Christ when he was baptized, but we do not know where or when he met with others in a local assembly.)

Those who are so concerned about the “Restoration heritage” are constantly concerned about “which group” is right. This views God’s arrangement in a denominational way. The primary concern that we should have is: Am I doing the things that God authorized?

Yes, I believe that the concept of “restoration” is the biblical concept. We must accept that, or believe in continued revelation, or that it makes no difference what we do! If the Bible is not a “pattern” for us, then it “matters not what we speak, nor whether we speak at all” to quote Bill Humble when he believed in “pattern authority”). We must “restore” New Testament teaching on every subject, but I am not overly concerned about what some in “the movement” thought or believed.

My friend insisted that he had not “left the church of Christ” because he had preached for several years for the Christian Church! That reminds me of brethren who quit assembling with the saints for years but they “never quit the church.” Well, as one preacher put it, “If they were going to quit, what would they do differently?”

The church that Jesus established was not a denomination, though it was accused of being “a sect” of the Jews’ religion (Acts 24:5,14; 28:22). The word “denomination” means “a sect,” and a sect is a party, or denomination that represents division and a group that holds peculiar and false teachings. It is a work of the flesh (heresy or party in Gal. 5:19). It is division with an attitude to defend the party which Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 1. Christ died for the church (Eph. 5:25), but he certainly did not die for a work of the flesh.

Let us guard our thinking about the church of the Lord. It is not a product of the “Restoration Movement, “but of the word of God. Following the word of God never made, and will never make, a denomination. When we “restore” the New Testament teaching, we restore what the New Testament established – churches of the Lord!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, p. 300
May 18, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Since I have already used this speech to act as historian, preacher, and reporter, I will go ahead and try my hand at prognostication! About a decade ago, a preacher from the institutional persuasion asked me two questions at the conclusion of a gentlemanly discussion of our differences: (1) Was this division preventable or inevitable, and what might have been done to preclude the division of churches? (2) Is it reversible – is there any possibility of the restoring of fellowship and a feeling of brotherhood and good will to any level even approaching that of a generation ago? I would like to answer the second question first.

My answer is, “No” – although I hasten to add that I would be happy to be proven wrong and to be relieved of my cynicism. A wiser historian than I has stated the case fairly starkly, however, in terms with which I must concur. Remarking on the aftermath of the Arlington Meeting, Ed Harrell asked, “Does anyone seriously believe that … the thousands of unscriptural promotions dreamed up will . . . suddenly, or slowly, begin to disappear? Of course not. No man could bring it off; not 20 or 50 or 200 men could bring it off. And not only could they not, they will not bring it about.”(1)

In essence, what those of us you call “anti” are asking of our brethren is what you have been asking of the Christian Church people with whom the Joplin-type “Restoration Forums” have been conducted over-the last several years – or what H. Leo Boles asked of them at the “National Unity Meeting” in Indianapolis in 1939,(2) almost a half-century ago: that you give up the practices which divide us. Sadly, we recognize that you are not likely to react positively to such a suggestion. Indeed, it was the recognition of the fact that this was not going to happen which caused thousands of conservative brethren to renounce the many loyalties in this world – to alma mater, congregations where they once worshiped, past friendships, even family – and go their own way.

Such a movement to turn the clock back would require that institutional brethren in thousands of places make a conscious decision to place fellowship with their noninstitutional brethren on a higher plane than the support of human institutions – and I think everyone here knows that simply isn’t going to happen. Again, I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but everything except my wishful thinking tells me otherwise.

Furthermore, the situation seems to be moving in the wrong direction for anything like this to happen. Just as some of you have discovered that your differences with even the “independent” Christian Churches (to say nothing of the “Christian Church/Disciples of Christ”) involve far more than just instrumental music, so most of us who have tried to follow what is developing among institutional brethren perceive a steady shift away from the church described in the New Testament. As one of the respondents to my survey put it, “It isn’t just supporting an orphanage anymore. The liberal church in town here split this congregation almost eighteen year ‘ s ago over the orphanage issue – but ironically doesn’t support one to this day! What they have done is to accept people we have withdrawn from, no questions asked; or accept in full fellowship people who have left here after hearing, preaching- they didn’t like on divorce and remarriage, the role of the Holy Spirit, examination of premillennial claims or of the Masonic Lodge -all of them ‘shaken in’ with the clear understanding that they will not hear any preaching on those or any other controversial issues. Don’t let someone tell you it’s just ‘sending a few dollars a month to an orphanage’ – it’s how we look at the Bible, the church, living the Christian life, and much more. The longer it goes on, the more incompatible we will become.”

That this is not just the isolated carping of a disgruntled “anti” is seen, I think, in the 1986 “Expression of Concern” signed by hundreds of preachers of the institutional persuasion.(3) While their concerns are specifically directed toward the theistic evolution problem and other situations at ACU, they also state more general concerns:

I. We are deeply disturbed over the liberalism that is so evident in the brotherhood today. By “liberalism” we mean especially the following items, though not excluding other specifics that could be mentioned:

A. There is a drifting from the Bible-centered, definitive, distinctive doctrine that once characterized our preaching. Presently, uncertain sounds and weak messages emanate from many pulpits among us. Brethren are becoming accustomed to diluted and polluted preaching. We are rapidly approaching the point where many of our people, including preachers and elders, no longer know the difference between true Christianity and the corrupted forms of it so prevalent about us.

B. There is a concerted effort on the part of some of our brethren to restructure the organization, worship and work of the church along sectarian lines, thus tending to denominationalize the New Testament body of Christ.

C. A spirit of doctrinal compromise and fellowshipping of those in blatant religious error has permeated our ranks.

D. The world has made alarming inroads into the church. Instead of the church influencing the world for righteousness, as it should, the world has adversely affected many brethren in matters of morality and conduct of life.

E. The typical emphasis of the denominational world on recreation, entertainment, and solving the social ills of society has been incorporated into the thinking and programs of many congregations, supplanting the God-given work of meeting the desperate spiritual needs of those both within and without the body of Christ.

No “anti” could have stated the case better. Indeed, from attending lectureships in the last five years at Pepperdine, ACU, Lipscomb, Freed-Hardeman and several “evangelism workshops,” my observation is that these brethren are exactly right in their analysis – particularly with regard to the “social gospel” aspects of institutional churches. Just within the past year or two, I have seen articles in the Gospel Advocate encouraging, without rebuttal or rebuke from the editor or anyone else, the use of church buildings not just for fellowship dinners justified as “love feasts” but for “Scouts, quilting groups, exercise meetings, senior citizens, family reunions, receptions, and youth basketball and volleyball teams” in addition to “seminars on aging, divorce recovery, self-esteem, personal finances, stress and biblical exposition of books” – as if all were equally justifiable.(4)

Others, enough to lead me to believe these are not isolated incidents, have advertised secular adult education classes, English as a second language, and GED classes offered by the church; counseling centers, medical-dental clinics, daycare centers, and “counseling services” which provide, among other things, job placement services. Brethren who might have been scandalized even a decade ago by the use of the church building for a “Chris Christian Concert” or a “Day at the Movies” (both with an admission fee) or a youth rally featuring the “World’s Largest Hot Dog” all in the name of the crucified Christ – “ain’t seen nothing'” yet .(5)

Nor is it simply that many institutional churches seem to be hip-deep in the social gospel. Some who seem unwilling to accept or even to wrestle with the implications of following “commands and examples” seem bent on short-circuiting the process by challenging the validity of such an approach altogether. An approach which gratuitously sweeps aside any attempt to discover the details of God’s plan is ultimately as offensive to “conservatives” as some of our reactions may be to those who are set to “re-examine traditional Restoration hermeneutics. ” Indeed, upon reading one such effort produced by an institutional brother on “establishing authority,” one non-institutional preacher remarked, “I could come nearer enjoying unity and fellowship with a conservative Southern Baptist.”

Furthermore, to the historian, the current trend toward abandoning attempts to ascertain what is authorized by utilizing commands, examples, and conclusions drawn therefrom (giving them the back of the hand only to replace them with humanly-perceived “principles”) is old news.

These hoary ideas, laden with nineteenth and twentieth century cultural values, are the very arguments promulgated a century ago by those who were moving to become what we know as the Christian Church (particularly the Disciples of Christ). Once any attempt at a literal understanding of the Bible was abandoned, these concepts were advanced to “defend” everything from instrumental music to women preachers to the “higher criticism” of the Bible. Just as an example, notice this excerpt from an 1893 Christian Standard article entitled “No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches,” in which one writer argued, “A principle may set aside an apostolic precept. It may brush aside an apostolic decree. We do that constantly. We follow the apostolic example whenever we like it; when we do not, we depart from it.”(6)

Given this historical perspective, it is difficult to understand how someone who argues that there is “no pattern” expressed in Scripture regarding the work of the church, and that we are therefore at liberty to do whatever seems best to us, can gainsay the identical argument, which is now being advanced by defenders of instrumental music in the worship.(7)

But the end is not yet: even more fundamental concepts such as the inerrancy of Scripture are being questioned by some. Although the inerrancy of Scripture and other related concepts have been challenged by some on the “fringes” of “Churches of Christ” (in Mission, for instance), it is still startling to read the following assertion by a professor in a “Christian college,” and published in a journal long associated with that institution.(8) “It is consistent to believe that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and practice, but may be incorrect in geographical or historical details. Once a person abandons the concept of divine dictation, he must abandon the idea of inerrancy.” I would like to believe that this is a misprint, or that I have somehow misunderstood the author, but it would not be the first instance of doubt being cast upon the veracity of Scripture by those who are freely accepted and granted the “right hand of fellowship” by institutional brethren. No is it an unexpected development among those who believe it is a work of the church to financially support “the ministry of continuing study toward a doctorate.”(9)

I believe these brethren who “Expressed their Concern” have put their finger on an historical undercurrent which was also revealed in the aftermath of the instrumental music/missionary society division. Those who are on the “pro” side of both sets of issues soon discovered that they were not a homogeneous group, and found (or are finding) reasons to separate from each other. As was the case with men such as J.W. McGarvey or Isaac Errett, first generation leaders who serve as a “bridge” for a little liberalism often discover that succeeding generations are not content to stop where their forebears drew arbitrary lines, and are determined to carry to logical extension the incipient practices of the former generation.(10)

Even before I mailed my survey forms, I received an unsolicited letter from a young, but influential, preacher in what I would identify as the Firm Foundation/Spiritual Sword “orbit.” He was insistent to tell me what I already knew: “that a very deep schism exists now in the institutional churches of Christ and when the final division comes (and it will) it will be greater in scope than that which occurred in 1952-1954.” This young preacher’s observations on developments within the “left wing” of institutional churches of Christ simply confirm Ed Harrell’s prediction more than 20 years ago that “the time will come when the editorial era of B.C. Goodpasture will evoke only embarrassed, apologies from sophisticated leaders in the Church of Christ.”(11)

From a diametrically opposite perspective, a young man who left the “conservative” church in which he was raised , sojourned awhile among the institutional churches, and is now involved in a denominational group on the state university campus where he is a professor – comes this analysis: that among institutional brethren there are “two fractions (not counting the MISSION-types, who are mainstream to liberal evangelicals) – one set is as ‘patternistic’ as conservatives without the common set of ‘examples, commands,’ etc. The other is a ‘grace-unity’ type that wants to retain C of C identity/features without having to defend them rigorously. The latter is a Christian Church with a capella. music.”

Given these circumstances, to ask a question about restoring fellowship with the “antis” is to answer it. It would border on the absurd if it were not a logistical impossibility. And, it appears to me that in answering the second question, we have come a long way toward the answer to the first. Was the division so totally doctrinal that it was caused by the sheer force of logic on the one side and stubborn stupidity in the rejection of that logic on the other? In truth, although logic and doctrine played an important role, division came not just because brethren disagreed (which they did) or because some people misbehaved (which also occurred). They divided because they had divergent concepts of God, the Bible, the church, how to live as a Christian, and a host of other things. That is the sort of thing that likely will not be reversed by this meeting or a dozen like it, unless I miss my guess.

What then can meetings like the “Nashville Meeting” produce? Several things come to mind. (1) It might result in some people changing their rands, their lives, and their convictions about some of these issues. (2) More likely, it will simply reinforce convictions already long held. (3) It will provide an insight for learning about each other, which might be useful even if nothing else results. (4) From my perspective, it may help some of us who are younger resolve that it will not happen again in our lifetime, if we can help it at all. Perhaps such divisions are inevitable every two or three generations as new levels of perceived sophistication are attained. But I would like to think that by learning from the past, by teaching “with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2, NASB), and by recognizing the factors and circumstances which breed division, perhaps our children or their children can avoid a quick rush into another division which can never be healed. Maybe the task is futile – some whose judgment I respect have said as much. But I must try.

Endnotes

1. Harrell, “Middle of the Road,” p. 275. Even after heterodox theology among the Herald of Truth staff was publicly exposed by some of its staunchest former supporters, it quickly became cleaf that the critics were not about to abandon their allegiance to the principle of broadcast evangelism under a large, centralizing church; nor could any influential body of preachers muster enough influence to “kill” such a program. See Memphis Meeting With Representatives of Herald of Truth: September 10, 1973 (n.p., n.d.).

2. H. Leo Boles, “The Way of Unity Between the ‘Christian Church’ and Churches of Christ” (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1985). This pamphlet is a reprint of Boles’ speech which was originally published serially in Gospel-Advocate 81 (May-June 1939 issues), and responded to in Christian Standard 74 (May-June 1939). See also “Unity Urged for Church Branches” (Indianapolis News, May 3, 1939), and Indianapolis Star 36 (May 3, 1939), p. 15; “Disciples Discuss Unity With Churches of Christ Leaders,” Christian Evangelist 77 (May 11, 1939), pp. 499-500. For accounts of Boles’ speech, see J.E. Choate, I’ll Stand on the Rock. A Biography of H. Leo Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1965), and The Anchor That Holds (op. cit.), 147-152.

3. An Expression of Concern (Ft. Worth, TX: Gospel Preachers, 1986). See also Roy Deaver, “Two False Extremes: Anti-ism and Liberalism,” Spiritual Sword 16:2 (January 1985), p. 6; Garland Elkins, “The New Anti-ism” Spiritual Sword 17:1 (October 1985), p. 17; Thomas B. Warren, “Anti-ism Shackles the Church; Liberalism Opens the ‘Floodgates’ of Apostasy,” Spiritual Sword 17:3 (April, 1986), p. 1; Probably the most complete statement of the position of this “cluster” of brethren vis-a-vis institutionalism is Thomas B. Warren, Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press [reprint]; original edition, 1958).

4. Douglas F. Parsons, “Increasing Church Visibility,” Gospel Advocate 130:3 (March, 1988), pp. 24-25. For an interesting and still-relevant exchange on “social-gospelism” among churches of Christ, see J.W. Roberts, “What is the Social Gospel?” Gospel Advocate 104 (July 2, 1959), 419-420; and Ed Harrell, “Thoughts on Dishonesty,” Gospel Guardian 11:20 (September 24, 1959), pp. 312-314; and Harrell, “The Social Gospel,” Gospel Guardian 12:15 (August 18, 1960), pp. 225ff.

5. Ashwood Leaves (Nashville, TN), February 2 & 9, 1986, and October 11, 1987; Bering Today (Houston, TX), July 1978; see Steve Wolfgang, “Social Christianity,” Weekly Reminder 16:46 (August 16, 1978), pp. 1-3).

6. George T. Smith, “No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches,” Christian Standard 29 (October 7, 1893), p. 798. For further discussion and documentation of this kind of reasoning, see David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973), especially chapters I and 13 (Harrell notes in the Preface that “the first and last chapters, taken together, are an interpretive essay on the sociological development of the church”).

7. For the present state of this argument, see Alan E. Highers, “The Status of the Instrumental Music Controversy,” in Dub McClish, ed., Studies in I and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon: The Seventh Annual Denton Lectures, November 13-17, 1988 (Denton, TX: Valid Publications, 1988), pp. 480-493.

8. John T. Willis, review of William J. Abraham, The Divine Inspiration of Scripture, in Restoration Quarterly 29:3 (Third Quarter, 1987) p. 169. For previous discussion of similar statements, see the references to David H. Bobo’s 1960 Abilene lecture in Banowsky, 109-110, 139-140, 145; and Warren Lewis, Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable,” Mission 5:7 January 1972), pp. 195ff; responses in March and April 1972 and rejoinder by Lewis in July 1972 issues of Mission; Lewis, “Let’s Look at the Text – again!” Minion 8:3 (September 1974), pp. 86ff; R. Lanny Hunter, “Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster,” Minion 7:12 (June 1974), pp. 356ff.; editorially truncated response by Ron Halbrook and Steve Wolfgang, “The Approval of God,” Mission 8:4 (October 1974), p. 123.

9. Bill Flatt, “Harding Graduate School of Religion Commencement, 1975” Gospel-Advocate 117:26 (June 26, 1975), p. 404. On the preoccupation with academic degrees and “scholarship” among institutional preachers, see Ralph T. Henley, “Scholarship,” Spiritual Sword 6:3 (April 1975), 35ff.; and Henley, “How to Get A Cheap Degree Cheap,” Gospel Advocate 119:18 (May 5,1977), 276-277.

10. See Harrell, “Middle of the Road,” 274.

11. Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 296-297, 309-310
May 18, 1989