Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

The Yellow Tag of Quarantine

Although discussions of these issues would persist and churches would continue to divide for at least another decade, by 1954 the editor of the Gospel Advocate was quite willing to entertain a motion that the “yellow tag of quarantine” (the stigma of which probably cannot be realized except by a generation which knew not antibiotics and the post-World War II “wonder drugs”) be hung on the door of the infested “antis” in order to contain their contagion.(1)

In such an environment, the pressure on other institutions (particularly the newer schools such as Florida Christian College) to “go along” and “line up” could be resisted only at great risk to the financial health and “brotherhood prestige” (read: ability to attract tuition paying students and potential donors) of its administration and faculty. Business ventures (such as the CEI bookstore, for example) were boycotted if the positions of their owners and operators were considered heterodox.

Nor were the pressures any less on churches, many of which at least partially rationalized a $10 or $20 monthly orphanage donation on the grounds of “showing that we’re not anti.” Deacons and church treasurers who dared to reveal reservations about church support of institutions are known to have been told either to write a check to an institution or resign and go elsewhere.

For that matter, individual preachers, too many to be merely anecdotal, have reported cancellation of meetings, threats of termination of job or outside support (“if you espouse such a doctrine you won’t have any place to preach”) and occasional firings from local congregations because they dared to preach (or to preach against a majority view) on such controversial subjects. “Confessions” of wayward souls who repented, recanted, and were reclaimed from the heresy of “anti-ism” were featured prominently in the Gospel Advocate and included a stellar cast: Earl West, Pat Hardeman, Hugo McCord, C.M. Pullias, John D. Cox, and a host of others.(2)

The list goes on: “no anti need apply” in solicitations for preachers: “the closest thing to an anti church in the New Testament was “Anti-och”; fertilizer bags waved from the pulpit; “James 1:27” and/or “Galatians 6:10” printed in church ads and painted on church signs dotting the landscape. Lawsuits over property disputes, paraded across the pages of daily metropolitan newspapers for all the unbelieving world to see, while not commonplace, were not unknown.(3) Instances of fisticuffs and scuffles in the lobby were not uncommon. Carnality and ugliness abounded.

In short, by the early 1960’s a clear message had been delivered to the minority tagged “anti” by the majority. Delivered with all the smug superiority and condescension of an older sibling, it said, “Go away, kid – you bother me.” As Filbeck has demonstrated in his chronicle of the missionary society controversies,(4) a similar mentality had evolved which was no longer willing to consider optional what had been first defended as mere expendiencies. The colleges, orphanages and other institutions appended to the churches now seemed to many to be indispensible – absolutely necessary – to the work of the church. Seen in this light, it was an easy step to elevate their value well above whatever questionable virtue the maintenance of fellowship with the cantankerous “antis” might possess. Noninstitutional brethren could be deemed expendable if they could not agree to go along and get along. Many seemed to believe their fellowship less valuable to the cause than the emerging network of colleges and other institutions erected and funded by the churches, ostensibly to the greater glory of God.

It is no doubt true that there may have been instances of non-institutional brethren who used “mirror logic,” vacating the premises before they were invited to leave, displaying rancorous attitudes in the process, heaping derision and vilification upon their “liberal” opponents. I am not arguing that non-institutional brethren always behaved themselves as they should; surely there is enough sin to go around in this or any other division. Whatever the case, the division over institutionalism was clearly induced by much moreAndamental causes than that some brethren on either side behaved themselves in a manner unbecoming to Christians – which is at least part of the reason why it will take more than simply “talking” orforming newfriendships with each other to heal this breach. Division did not come simply because brethren mistreated each other (though no doubt some did), but was due to much more basic causes. It will not be reversed unless and until those more fundamental problems are remedied.

And whatever may be said of the conduct of individuals of either persuasion, it is certainly true that the levers of brotherhood “power” were clearly with the institutional majority, and the message they sent, perceived by their non-institutional brethren was a rough equivalent of “Go play in the traffic.”

Separation, Growth and Development

And so they did. Despite the disdainful portrayals and reports of impending doom quoted at the beginning of this paper, “antiism” seems not to have perished from the earth just yet. A clearer, more objective view is provided by Bill Humble: “The most serious issue that churches of Christ have faced in this century is church cooperation and ‘institutionalism.’ Led by Roy Cogdill, Yater Tant, and the Gospel Guardian, a substantial number of churches have come to oppose such cooperative programs of evangelism as the Herald of Truth and the homes for orphans and aged, as they are presently organized. During the past 15 years many debates have been held, churches have divided, and fellowship has been broken. This is the most serious division, numberswise, that churches of Christ have suffered. Whether the division is final, or whether it can be healed, is yet to be determined.”(5)

Perhaps the note of hopeful optimism struck here was induced by the Arlington Meeting, conducted about the time Humble’s book was being written, and in which he participated. Although one can applaud the good intentions and positive tone of that meeting (the book which came from it is one of the best tools for study of this controversy), time has revealed, however, that Arlington accomplished little in healing division, restoring fellowship, or reversing any of the trends which produced the division in the first place.

I enter this section with trepidation, since what I propose to do is objectionable to some as an attempt to “number Israel” or “count the faithful” – thankless tasks which would perhaps be scripturally objectionable even if they were not impossible. Some have even objected to gatherings such as these as attempts to “line up” churches and brethren into groups or to promote a “we-consciousness” which might be viewed as a precursor to behaving like a sect. I share some of these concerns, but in an attempt to provide some dimensions to the problem, I venture the following information.

Brother Lynn has turned his energies in the last decade to the gathering of factual data about numbers of congregations, etc. Using some of his information, I am led to believe that as of 1987 there were approximately 1,959 congregations which could reasonably be identified as opposing centralization and cooperative endeavors in the work of the church. Although the number of members in those churches was not easily available. I put pencil to paper and, based on older data he provided me several years ago, calculated that the average membership in a “non-mainstream” church was a fraction less than 95 members per congregation (and a fraction larger, in fact, than the average for “mainstream” churches – which simply shows that aside from the “100 Largest Churches of Christ” which used to be listed occasionally in the Gospel Advocate’ it is apparent that the average churches on each side are quite similar to each other in size).(6)

Among the members of these churches, there is enough interest in religious journalism to support a number of papers which still reflect the non-institutional viewpoint. The largest of these are the monthlies Christianity and Searching the Scriptures with about 6500 and 5500 subscribers, respectively. Guardian of Truth (result of the 1981 merger of the Gospel Guardian and TRUTH Magazine), is issued twice monthly, has about 4500 subscribers, publishes books, tracts, and Bible class literature, and operates bookstores in Bowling Green, KY and Athens, AL. Other journals include Faith and Facts, Gospel Anchor, Sentry, and Torch, which are monthly or quarterly publications with smaller subscription lists.

Florida College, in suburban Tampa, is an accredited junior college which also offers a four-year Bible curriculum. Existing for years without soliciting or accepting contributions from churches, it is patronized largely by members of churches of Christ which oppose such church support of institutions. It currently enrolls 380 students from 35 states and seven foreign countries.(7)

A fairly popular feature in the training of younger preachers has been an “apprentice”-type relationship in which a congregation with an older preacher will employ a young man for a period of time (usually a year or so) to study with the older man, share preaching and teaching responsibilities, and “learn by doing.” Several congregations, notably in Washington, California, Kentucky and Florida, have had more extensive arrangements of “special classes” for the instruction and training of young men desiring to preach.

Although most churches of the non-institutional persuasion obviously do not participate in evangelistic projects such as Herald of Truth, various churches have for years maintained wide-area radio broadcasts on clear-channel stations (Arch Street in Little Rock, for example). Over the last fifteen years, however, a more popular approach has been.the proliferation of local “call-in” type programs on local radio (or, more recently, local cable TV outlets). Churches in several major metropolitan areas have found mass mailings of correspondence courses using city directories to “target” areas to be successful in reaching new converts.

In foreign evangelism, non-institutional churches have usually opted for other means than sending “American missionaries” overseas for extended periods (though non-institutional churches presently support about twenty such men in England, Ireland, Norway, West Germany, Chile, Argentina, Australia, Japan, People’s Republic of China, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and elsewhere). Sometimes foreign nationals are brought to the U.S. for a period of study and then supported for a period of time in their native culture by American churches (examples of men trained in this way include Canada, Australia, and other places). Other native preachers converted (either by Americans or foreign nationals trained in America) and working in their own culture are heavily supported by American churches. I would estimate that a fairly high percentage of non-institutional churches have supported men engaged in foreign evangelism.(8)

Obviously, churches of the non-institutional persuasion do not donate financially to benevolent institutions; instead, they have “practiced what they preached” and provided such care individually. In 1965, Eugene Britnell surveyed 60 preachers who opposed church support of institutional orphan homes and accumulated a list of 450 orphans and widows cared for by such Christians (“Our Defense to Those Who Falsely Accuse Us”). In documentation assembled for the Willis-Inman Debate (1966), Cecil Willis gathered information demonstrating that 17 children had been adopted or cared for by the faculty at Florida College, which at that time consisted of about 25 families; and that the eight families represented by the editorial staff of the Gospel Guardian had provided homes at one time or another for at least ten children who were not the natural offspring of those families. (This is perhaps also the place to notice that a reading of the Advocate and Firm Foundation for 1958-1962 demonstrates that the “institutional” brethren came very near fragmenting themselves over whether orphanages could be organized under a corporate board or must be overseen directly by elders of a church.)

Current Perceptions

As I prepared for this meeting, it occurred to me that some attempt to gauge how the non-institutional brethren see their counterparts among the institutional churches might prove useful. To that end, I mailed more than 100 questionnaires to various preachers, elders, and members of my acquaintance from coast to coast. As I explained earlier, I make no claim for it as a scientific polling device, but I received about 50 completed questionnaires from people in fifteen states, who took the time to share with me their perceptions of the past controversy, the current state of affairs, how they felt about the past, present and future of the churches embracing the two persuasions, and where they feel the “institutional” churches are headed. As time permits, I would like to share some of their reactions with you.(9)

As one might expect, they were not generally appreciative of institutional brethren, although when I asked them to list what they saw as positive features of institutional churches, most listed zeal, sincere willingness to reach the lost, and similar traits. Several of the preachers who personally participated in this controversy observed that (in the words of one who says he “was one of the first gospel preachers to be ‘fired’ because of my stand on the issues”), “we could have been more temperate and patient with those with whom we differed.”

Most reported little, if any, contact with institutional brethren, although one older preacher in the West reported that “I have had a pleasant relationship with ____________. We have coffee together and have discussed our differences. We have mutually shared problems which are experienced in both liberal and conservative camps. . . . I see no hope for [unity] if we mutually isolate ourselves from all communication.” But a California preacher’s comment is typical of several responses: “The more ‘conservative-liberals’ don’t seem to be as susceptible to discussions. Still seem to have the attitude promoted by the Gospel Advocate of ‘ignore them, don’t acknowledge them, and they’ll go away!. . . Most of those who reported having discussions with institutional brethren found them amiable, despite the common notion that discussions promote disharmony. One well-known conservative preacher opined, “When we pull in our horns and show kindness and less disagreeableness, they generally are more receptive.” But most seemed to be of the opinion that “bad attitudes” or “hot-headedness” were not major factors in the controversy, and certainly not the basic reasons which produced division.

Many respondents seemed frustrated that most institutional preachers did not, in their opinion, seem to realize what it is that disturbs the “conservatives.” One young conservative preacher reported initiating informal discussions with an older “institutional” preacher who has had at least one formal debate on these issues. The older preacher admitted “not fully understanding” any distinction between the individual and the church, and reported “never getting bro. Turner’s point about the church not being composed of congregations” – both points which to conservative brethren seem basic and fundamental. But perhaps more than anything else, the respondents registered an air of resignation borne of their past experiences that nothing much has changed even in the best of circumstances; that institutional brethren seemed, in their experience, totally unwilling to yield in their allegience to their institutions. One Florida preacher, in a discussion with the superintendent of a church-supported orphanage, asked, “If all the money you are now receiving from churches could be replaced by money from individual contributions, would you take your hand out of the church treasuries and thus stop the division of churches over this matterT He answered no, he would not.”

When asked where they see the institutional brethren heading, most responded by noting the growing fissures evident among brethren who have been united in the past in their support of institutions. Many agreed in essence with the analysis of one young preacher who left an institutional church after attending both Lipscomb and Harding Graduate School, and who from that perspective predicted, “they must divide – they are already divided in many cases. Their differences between one another are too great for them to continue to work together.” One Texas preacher noted specifically that “the more liberal element in institutionalism continues to control highly visible institutions (colleges, etc.). The more conservative element in institutionalism is being left behind and is trying to form a coalition through lectureships and journals. Yet some of the most vocal conservatives are amazingly tolerant in having fellowship with the more liberal element.”

Endnotes

1. B.C. Goodpasture, “An Elder Writes,” Gospel Advocate 96:46 (November 18,1954, p. 906; and “They Commend the Elder Who Wrote,” Gospel Advocate 96:49 (December 9, 1954), p. 962; Cecil B. Douthitt, “The Yellow Tag of Quarantine,” Gospel Guardian 6:35 (January 13, 1955), p. 1.

2. See Earl West, “A Statement and an Explanation,” Gospel Advocate September 19, 1957, p. 594, and other statements in succeeding issues over the following year.

3. See James P. Needham, The Truth About the Trouble at Taylor Boulevard (Louisville, KY, privately published, 1964). That the old “fertilizer-on-the-yard” argument is alive and well is readily apparent in Furman Kearley, “By All Means Save Some,” Gospel Advocate 130:11 (November 1988), p. 5.

4. Filbeck, The First Fifty Years, 36-46.

5. Humble, Story of the Restoration, p. 74. The note of cautious optimism struck here may be due to the Arlington Meeting, held about the time Humble’s book was written and in which he participated. However, the positive tone produced by Arlington was short-lived. An attempt at a follow-up meeting at Leakey, TX a year later produced the following exchange: One preacher said, ‘Give us the Scripture authorizing the things you are doing and advocating; that is all we ask.’ A prominent preacher retorted, ‘Give us Scripture! Give us Scripture! You can teach an old green parrot to say “Give us Scripture.” That is all you fellows say.’ I was amazed! . . . Some churches could surely use an old green parrot to cry out, ‘Give us Scripture! Give us Scripture!’ . . . Few preachers are saying it” (Joe Fitch, “An Old Green Parrot,” in Plain Talk [Oaks-West Church of Christ, Burnet, TX] 6:2 [April, 1969], p. 3; see Robert F. Turner, “That Leakey Meeting,” Plain Talk 5:12 [February, 1969], p. 2).

6. The Guardian of Truth Directory of Churches of Christ 1989 lists approximately 2,265 congregations in the United States; other information from Mac Lynn to Steve Wolfgang, September 29, 1987 (letter and enclosures: “Statistical Summary” and “Congregational Character” for 1987 edition of Where the Saints Meet); 1981 data reported in Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr., “Reasons for Optimism Regarding Prospects for Church Growth,” Gospel-Advocate 123:11 (June 4, 1981), p. 327. The figures for average members per congregation are 94.97 for all “Churches of Christ” (12,706 congregations with 1,206,799 members), with the average for “mainstream” churches (10,165 congregations with 965,439 members) marginally smaller than those for “non-mainstream” churches (2,541 congregations with 241,330 members). Figures for 1997 indicate 13,364 total “churches of Christ” with 1,275,533 members; noninstitutional churches number 1,959 (about 15 percent of the total congregations claiming to be “churches of Christ”; no-class and one-cup churches comprise 1085 congregations. For a discussion of various aspects of “counting the Christians” see Mac Lynn, “The 100 Largest,” Gospel Advocate 121:22 (May 31, 1979), 344345; Carl W. Wade, “Where Are We Now?” Firm Foundation 96:42 (October 16, 1979), p. 659; and periodic issues of Mac Lynn’s Missions Bulletin, issued from 1977-1987 by White Station and Ross Road Churches, Memphis, TN.

7. Florida College News Bulletin, October 1988, p. 1. The congregation at Danville, KY for a number of years has offered special training classes, taught by the local preacher, one of the elders, and other preachers. About 75 men have been in the program; many of them are now preaching in fifteen states was well as Canada, Mexico, South America, Spain, and West Germany.

8. For current information on various aspects of foreign evangelism by non-institutional churches, see Sewell Halls monthly columns in Christianity published monthly at Jacksonville, FL).

9. In order to encourage the respondents to speak as candidly as possible, I promised that no one would be quoted by name. It is clear, however, that both my questions and many of my respondents’ answers have been heavily influenced by the historical interpretation advanced by Ed Harrell. Anyone who really wants to understand the conservative mentality of non-institutional brethren needs to read, for example, “The Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination” (reprinted many times as a tract; originally in Gospel Guardian 18:40, 41, 42 [February 16, 23 and March 2, 1967); “Some Practical Observations on the Middle of the Road,” Gospel Guardian 20 (September 5, 1968), 273-278; “Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination Update,” Vanguard 5:2 (January 25, 1979); and Harrell’s 1981 Florida College lecture on B.C. Goodpasture, op. cit.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 272-275
May 4, 1989

By Bill Dodd

The young man Elihu rightly asserts that great men (men of renown) and aged men are not always wise (Job 32:9). That charge was so in that ancient time, and that charge is still true today.

Some Applications

First, great men of the world, for the most part, are not wise when it comes to reckoning with spiritual things. Paul describes the great man: “For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Cor. 1:26). Paul’s charge to the Corinthians is that they will not stake their immortal souls based upon “who’s who” in the church. Brethren sorely need to learn this lesson when the dark clouds of division loom and threaten to wreak havoc among God’s people. “Great” men often take the side of error. Speaking of being misled by great men, this writer received some invaluable counsel from brother C.C. Nichols back in 1966. Brother Nichols was the only preacher that took a stand for truth on -the institutional question in our home county of Fayette, Alabama. He told me that he would get this kind of reaction from sermons preached on the local radio station, “Carey, do you actually think that your brother Gus could be wrong?” His stated reply was, “Certainly he can.” He also said, “It is not the cornfield preachers who lead God’s people astray.” He considered himself a cornfield preacher and his brother Gus a “big-timer.” Truly, “Great men are not always wise.”

Secondly, great men are not always wise when it comes to adjudicating the affairs of divided congregations. Suppose, for instance, a congregation is beset with a veritable Diotrephes. There is no way that an outsider can in a short time plumb the depth of this odious problem. Preachers holding meetings need to give heed lest they lend support to an ungodly situation. Preachers and all outsiders need to encourage truth and right attitude and practice what they preach about congregational autonomy (Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Thirdly, preachers need to steer clear of giving the notion of “expertise” in all affairs of life. Preachers should stick out a “shingle” that advertises to uphold all things “that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). On a lighter note, let me tell you something about the beloved and venerable Homer Hailey during my student days. My room-mate asked me to help him look for a used car. He found a 1955 Pontiac. Sammy said, “Let’s take it to brother Hailey to see what he thinks about the matter.” I don’t recall brother Hailey claiming to know a great deal about mechanical things, but he did tell Sammy that he guessed thecar would be alright. The car turned out to be a twenty-fpur carat lemon. It has occurred to me that brother Hailey knew the prophets, but he did not know a thing about Pontiacs.

Conclusion

Let all greatness be measured based upon compliance with the message of the “great I am” (Exod. 3:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, p. 263, 265
May 4, 1989

By Jimmy Tuten

As we view the unusual things that are taking place in the Lord’s church, we are apt to conclude that they are new features. The fact is that the various phenomena have been around a long, long time. The numerous denominational trends that are popping up among God’s people can be traced back to the early apostasies of the first century church. The expressions of those trends can be found in the period known as the Reformation. What is taking place in the church today is simply history repeating itself. We simply have not learned its lessons. We have not listened to what history was telling us.

But there is more. National trends have made inroads within the brotherhood. One of them is the social emphasis which has weakened our appeal to Scripture for faith and practice. More and more brethren are heaping unto themselves “teachers, having itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:3) and like a raging flood many “turn away their ears from the truth.” The desire to please the listening car is taking the distinctiveness out of our preaching. In its place.is the “don’t tell them who you are, you might scare them” philosophy. The result is a new language whose vocabulary is void of book, chapter, and verse. The blind lead the blind (Matt. 15:14).

The “eliminate the negative” approach to preaching “the man and not the plan” has already resulted in what some call the “church preacher” vs. the “Christ preacher.” In 1970, Go Magazine reported that one of the fifteen things changing emphasis was “church emphasis to Christ emphasis” (“Campus Evangelism”). No wonder, as one brother put it: “There is a denominational aura hovering like a lowering cloud over many of our congregations clamoring for appeasement rather than atonement, for self-satisfaction rather than for self-sacrifice” and where the order of the day “is to be served rather than be used in service to others.” The nothing is to focus upon the sin in one’s life has given way to feel good about yourself. Its no wonder that so few today know so little about the necessity of the church in the salvation of man. We are witnessing the fruit of “our preachers” departing from biblically oriented, unadulterated doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). It’s time we preachers started “shelling corn” instead of throwing out husks as we step into the pulpits. If one is not a “for hire” preacher then he had better start “firing from the hip” (Hos. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:2). Denominationalism is getting the draw on us. Many in the body of Christ now believe that our high “mortality rate” is due to over-emphasis of indoctrination on such things as the one church, etc.

Too much emphasis on the church? Not as long as brethren apologize to the religious world for being sectarian (Restoration Review, February 1984), or publications among our brethren like The Worldly Church (Allen, Hughes and Week, Abilene Christian University Press), The Examiner (Charles Holt), Free in Christ, (Cecil Hook), etc. send forth their venomous slander against God’s people today, and not as long as brethren continue to believe that the New Testament church is a “dissenting, or schismatic religious body.” We must keep stressing that:

The Church Is Not a Sect

The church is undenominational and is not sect because it is made up of all the saved (Acts 2:47). It is not a fraction df the body, for it is the body. It’s not a part of the kingdom; it is the kingdom. It is wrong to refer to the primitive church as a sect and its members as sectarian. This must be stressed again and again. It is not a time for silence on the matter.

Salvation Is in the Church

We must continue to emphasize that salvation is in the church. The shedding of the blood of Christ confirmed and ratified the New Testament (Heb. 9:15-22; Gal. 3:15). In it we are told that salvation is in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:10). What does this have to do with salvation in the church? Simply this: the church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23). When one is in Christ, he is in the body. If not, why? Can one be in Christ and not be in the body? Christ purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5). If one is saved out of the church, he is saved out of the body and without the blood of Christ. Those saved by the blood are in the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13). Here’s why:

(1) Sinners are redeemed and saved by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19).

(2) That which justifies lost sinners (the blood) also sanctifies the church (Eph. 5:26-27).

(3) Therefore people saved are in the church (Acts 2:47). They were added to it. How can one be saved outside of something that the Bible says the “Lord adds him to” when he saves him? Furthermore, since Christ and the church are one (Eph. 5:31-32), can we be “in Christ and not be in that which is one with Christ?” Apparently we have not stressed this enough.

The Church Is the Family of God

The church you read about in the New Testament is the family of God (Eph. 3:14-15). The inspired apostle referred to it as “the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). A man’s house is his family (Acts 16:31). Noah’s “house” was his family (Heb. 11:7). Since the church is God’s family, how can one be a child of God and not be in his family? Does God have illegitimate children, children outside of his family?

The “It” of Ephesians 5

We need to emphasize that the “it” referred to in Ephesians 5 is the same “it” that we need to belong to. The “it” of the context is the church. Hence, Jesus:

(1) Loved the church (v. 25).

(2) Sanctified and cleansed the church (v. 26).

(3) Presented it to himself a glorious church (v. 27).

Now if we want to be a part of that described in Ephesians 5:22-32, we will have to be in the church so described. If not, why not? Do you belong to it? – The “it” that was loved, sanctified, etc.?

Conclusion

We need more stress and emphasis on all the features of the church. When we do, we can expect two charges from those who “are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

(1) “You are preaching churchianity instead of Christianity because you are saying the church saves.” The charge is false for the simple reason that the church does not save, but rather it is the body to which we are added when the Lord saves us. We are added to the church because it is the body (Col. 1:18) and it is into this body that we are baptized (I Cor. 12:13). It is baptism that saves the sinner (1 Pet. 3:21) through the blood of Christ.

(2) “Your primary concern is what you call ‘the church,’ and its reproduction and maintenance. You are a preacher and defender of ‘the church,’ not Christ, not the preaching of the gospel . . . not the truth” (The Messenger, Charles Holt, February 21, 1979). While it is admitted that some do abuse the word “church,” this too, is a false charge. A more complete discussion does not fall within the purview of this writing. But it should be noted that one cannot speak of Christ and not speak of his body, the church (they are the same, Col. 1:18). His body of saved people, in its universal sense, includes all the redeemed in Christ who jointly share all the blessings that are in him (Eph. 1:3,22-23). Sometimes it, i.e., church, refers to the redeemed within a limited designation such as Corinth, etc. (1 Cor. 12:27; 1:1-2). Improper emphasis of this scriptural use of the word “church” can result in denominationalizing it. But it should be remembered that ekkiesia, regardless of how it is translated, always means “a body of people.” In the context of this writing it is a body of saved people who are in Christ and because they are in Christ, they are saved. I preach Christ and the fact that the obedient are added to his body, the church, when saved in him. The charge under consideration is a false accusation, pure and simple! It is false because a person can be a member of the New Testament church without being a member of something other than the church (“now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular,” i.e., individually, 1 Cor. 12:27). The church cannot exist apart from its members (body of Christ). Too, one disciple is not the church. All the members together are the church!

Has the fear of such charges caused us to back off from stressing the church? Brethren, this is not a time for silence. God’s purpose is not served when we remain silent regarding the church. These are great times of danger for the kingdom and we can offset the spirit of sectarianism therein only by speaking out boldly. Fulfilling the desire for “smooth things” (Isa. 30:8-13) among God’s people today can only result in drinking from “broken cisterns” (Jer. 2:13), as in days of old. “Preach the word. ” This includes what the Word says about the New Testament church. Let’s get back to emphasizing the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 259-260
May 4, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

World War II

In truth, although there were such previews of what was to come, World War 11 can be seen as a chronological line of demarcation. First, as one generation passed from the earth, another was coming to prominence. In one eighteen month period during 1940-41, as the nation prepared for war, a number of well-known older preachers (Daniel Sommer, J.D. Tant, Joe Warlick, F.B. Srygley – household names in many places in the brotherhood) passed away, and were “replaced” in positions of editorial responsibility by much younger men such as B.C. Goodpasture.(1)

Reactions to the war itself, and the discussion of the “carnal warfare” question revealed that an interesting shift of opinion had occurred between the wars as this new generation had come to prominence. As late as World War 1, David Lipscomb’s strong non-participatory stance still held sway among a strong and vocal minority in the church. Objections to Christians serving in war resulted in such incidents as the closing of Cordell Christian College by the local “defense council,” and the arrest and threatened execution of two young Christians who were shipped to, Leavenworth Prison, and lined up before a firing squad to be shot.(2) The Gospel Advocate ceased the re-publication of David Lipscomb’s old articles on “Civil Government” and no-participation in warfare only under threat from federal government either to cease and desist the publication of such anti-war propaganda or be shut down altogether.(3)

By World War II, however, shifting sentiment, the emergence of a new generation, and, to be sure, the surge of patriotic opinion following the attack on Pearl Harbor, produced a strikingly different environment. B.C. Goodpasture needed no government intervention to persuade him to close the columns of the Gospel Advocate to further discussion; by 1943 he did it voluntarily. Indeed, a close examination of some of the early criticisms of the cooperative efforts in preaching in Italy and Germany stemmed from the fact that some of the “missionaries” seemed to their critics much too quick to “apologize” for the devastation inflicted on Europe by American armed forces.(4)

The Post-World War II Era

Even before the army of GI’s returned home in 1945 to marry, continue their education, or launch careers (or all of the above), a new consciousness regarding evangelism and a seeming willingness to try whatever sounded good in spreading the gospel had overtaken many of the churches and those who preached or served as elders over them. The educational boon of the GI Bill also swelled the ranks of colleges across the country – and “Christian colleges” seemed determined not to be a whit behind the chiefest.

Spurred in most cases, no doubt, by well-intentioned impulses to spread the gospel as widely as possible, churches were inundated after the war with numerous appeals: to support cooperative works in Germany, Italy, and Japan (“overseen” by churches in Texas and Tennessee who assumed a centralizing role in such support); or the proliferation of institutions soon swelled to more than thirty);(5) and not least by the “Christian colleges, whose swelling enrollments of returning GI’s helped create a seemingly insatiable appetite for funds to sustain their growth.

That there had been some “historical precedent” for centralized support of city-wide evangelistic endeavors cannot be successfully disputed. The cooperative efforts of the Hardeman “Tabernacle Meetings” of the Twenties and Thirties were reflected in other such post-World II endeavors as the Houston Music Hall meetings, in which the Norhill church undertook to oversee funds from Houston-area churches so that Foy E. Wallace, Jr., could p reach lessons which, transcribed and later published as God’s Prophetic Word and Bulwarks of the Faith, would provide sermon material on which an entire generation of preachers would “cut their teeth.” The local preachers at Norhill at that time were Luther Blackmon and Wallace’s close friend, Roy E. Cogdill, who before long would launch his own printing company largely to be able to publish Wallace’s books as well as his paper, the Bible Banner Oater, the Gospel Guardian – in which Cogdill would later renounce the centralized arrangement of the Music Hall meeting).(6)

Cogdill, Blackmon, Guardian editor Yater Tant, and others who initially supported such efforts were forced by conviction of conscience, and, as they saw it, consistency, to withdraw their support for such collective endeavors in much the same way as men like Tolbert Fanning and Benjamin Franklin, initial supporters and defenders of nineteenth-century missionary society endeavors, eventually withdrew their support for such efforts and indeed became vocal opponents of such works.(7)

For those who began to think twice about centralized foreign evangelistic efforts “under the oversight” of a single large American church, an additional concern was the message preached (or, in the eyes of many, not preached) by the “missionaries” receiving such support. David Filbeck has ably, demonstrated that much of the opposition to the centralized missionary society of the Christian Church was due to the diluted (even modernistic) message of those so supported, and some of the same concerns – as much about message as about methods – are, I believe, reflected in some of the writing in opposition to centralized evangelistic support, where many smaller churches contributed to support preachers in the countries devastated by World War II by sending their contributions to a large, prosperous, “overseeing” church.(8)

What Were “The Issues”?

The proliferation of humanly-arranged institutions seeking church contributions (particularly the increasing volume of educational institutions openly soliciting money from churches) and the growing numbers of congregations assuming the right to “oversee” the work of other churches with the financial support of many more were only a part of the scenario. Combined with the upward socio-economic mobility of members of the church, many of whom experienced the shift from the day-to-day, hand-to-mouth existence of Depression-era poverty to the disposable income and consumerism of the post-war boom which moved the South toward parity with the nation, these factors and more provided a complex scenario fraught with possibilities for differences, disagreement, and division.

By the time a national radio (and later, television) program, the “Herald of Truth,” was added to the list of orphanages, homes for the aged and for unwed mothers, schools, colleges, publishing ventures (Gospel Press, for example) and intermittent appeals for increasing numbers of projects centralized under a few large, prosperous churches, an increasing number of brethren began to question various aspects of these endeavors. The study of “the current issues” (as they were often generically labeled) produced a tension between the boosters of the new projects and those who raised pesky questions about their scriptural validity. That tension was reflected in the increasing vehemence with which both sides pressed their positions in various “brotherhood journals.” Roy Cogdill’s Banner Publishing Company was created in large part to allow Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to continue in the Banner/Guardian his opposition to the increasingly open appeals for church support of colleges, orphanages and other parachurch enterprises which surfaced with increasing frequency in B.C. Goodpasture’s Gospel Advocate and in Texas Firrn Foundation after G.H.P. Showalter was succeeded in 1954 by Reuel Lemmons.(9)

Other papers were begun as well, often for the expressed purpose of examining these issues. The Preceptor, begun in 1951 by several brethren affiliated with Florida Christian College was followed almost a decade later by another Tampa journal, Searching the Scriptures. Halfway between the launching of these journals, and half a continent away, TRUTH Magazine was begun in the Chicago area. None of these upstart journals, however, enjoyed the extended longevity and familiarity (to say nothing of the large subscription lists) ‘ of the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, which were joined by new journals such as the Spiritual Sword in the flight against the “antis.”(10)

The discussion of these “issues” was perhaps most vocally expressed in a series of formal debates in the half-decade beginning about. 1954. From Indianapolis (Holt-Totty, October 1954; Woods-Porter, January 1956) to Texas (Harper-Tant, Lufkin, April 1955 and Abilene, November 1955) to Alabama (Cogdill-Woods, Birmingham, November 1957; Wallace-Holt, Florence, December 1959), men who had once stood shoulder to shoulder and made common cause against all enemies did battle with each other. These debates, published and re-published for wider consumption by various brotherhood printing concerns, reflected hundreds of other unpublished public discussions and thousands of private conversations and arguments which spread to nearly every hamlet in the land where there was a church of Christ. Together with the written discussions in various “brotherhood journals,” they provided an arsenal for anyone who sought to do battle on either side.

The Arguments

In debates, sermons, and various articles in religious journals, non-institutional preachers have normally advanced the following propositions:

1. That God has revealed in Scripture certain patterns for believers to follow in executing their collective duties in congregational work and worship (Heb. 8:5).

2. That these “binding” patterns are expressed in terms of (a) “generic” or “specific” statements or commands; (b) specific accounts of action, and (c) necessary conclusions or inferences drawn from Scripture (Acts 15).(11)

3. That the “general” or more “generic” statements or commands allow differing optional or expedient ways of obeying those requirements, while specific statements or examples provide more restrictive instructions and do not authorize alternative procedures.

4. That the differences between “general and specific” can be detected, and distinguished from incidentals, or from a variety of expedient ways, by correctly following common sense hermeneutical principles.(12)

5. That the Scriptures enjoin upon Christians a broad range of individual duties, obligations and privileges which can be carried out in a variety of optional and expedient ways, that God may be glorified.

6. That, by contrast, the collective duties enjoined upon Christians in their collective congregational capacity, are fairly limited and consist of worshiping God through prayer, vocal music, proclamation of the gospel, and the first day of the week observance of the Lord’s Supper and financial collection to enable the congregation to carry out its collective responsibilities in discharging its own edificational and teaching duties, assisting needy sanits, and supporting preachers in their work of proclamation and teaching.

7. That, while some collective duties may overlap individual obligations (teaching, singing, prayer, for example), individual and collective (congregational) activity are not identical and can be easily and clearly distinguished one from the other.

8. That since collective activity, which requires a common mind, acceptance and agreement to common supervision (by elders, if qualified), and the pooling of financial resources is inherently fraught with possibilities of disagreement in matters of detail, it should be limited to those activities clearly enjoined upon Christians in acting together as a congregation, allowing room to respect the conscience of others, even of weak or untaught brethren (Romans 14).

9. That, in regard to preaching the gospel, Scripture reveals only that evangelism was accomplished by individual preachers, self-supported or remunerated by congregations (by example, directly, without the aid of some itermediary or “sponsoring” church, or “missionary society,” whether called by that name or identified as a “steering committee” or other terminology – 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-18).

10. That Scripture several times records that churches assisted their own needy saints, or sent funds for the temporary relief of congregations in “want,” – but that such relief was temporary, not sent from one prosperous church to another, and never for purposes of evangelism in which each congregation has equal obligations to the limit of its ability. Most conservatives have stressed the independence and autonomy of each local congregation, insisting that twentieth-century “sponsoring-church” conglomerates or other centralizing tendencies, no less than a missionary society or the Baptist associations and conventions, compromise New Testament principles regarding the nature of Christ’s church.(13)

11. That the church Jesus died to purchase is a spiritual institution with a uniquely spiritual function, and is therefore not to be remade into a hybrid welfare organization-country club responsible for alleviating social ills or for the entertainment of its members.

12. That human societies and institutions (colleges, orphanages, publishing companies, hospitals, etc.) which may be utilized as expedient means on a fee-for-service basis, am not be appended to the church and maintain their livelihood by church donations, and that all such attempts to make them parachurch or church-related institutions is foreign to the New Testament.

Endnotes

1. Ed Harrell, “B.C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought, in They Being Dead Yet Speak. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Tampa: Florida College, 1981). Note Harrell’s observations that “Foy Wallace scorched heretics; Goodpasture warned them that they would lose their position in the brotherhood” (p. 250). See also J.C. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: The Life of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1971).

2. Sears, For Freedom, pp. 156-157.

3. Earl West, “World War I and the Decline of David Lipscomb’s Civil Government” (unpublished ms., Harding Graduate School of Religion Library, 1976, p. 11); see West, III, chapter 13. For background on Lipscomb and nineteenth century pacifism. See David Edwin Harrell, Jr., “Disciples of Christ Pacifism in Nineteenth Century Tennessee,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 21:3 (September, 1962), pp. 263-274.

4. Cled Wallace, “That Rock Fight in Italy,” Gospel Guardian 1:36 (January 19,1950), pp. 1,5; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “Going Off Half-Cocked, ” Gospel Guardian 1:44 (March 16, 1950), pp. 1,5; Roy E. Cogdill, “We Are Not Anti-Foreign Evangelism,” Gospel Guardian 1:47 (April 6, 1950), pp. 1,5. See Willis, W. W. Otey, pp. 306f.

5. Willis, W. W. Otey, p. 312. In 1949 there were 14 “Orphan Homes and Homes for the Ages” listed in G.H. P. Showalter and Leslie G. Thomas, comps., Church Directory and List of Preachers of Churches of Christ (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1949), p. 212).

6. See Cogdill-Woods Debate. A Discussion on what constitutes scriptural cooperation between churches of Christ (Lufkin, TX: Gospel Guardian Company, n.d. [1958?1, pp. 204-208, 214-215.

7. See James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, TX Sweet Publishing Company, 1969, chapters 10-12, especially pp. 176-181, 187-188, 193-195; Earl West, Elder Den Franklin: Eye of the Storm (Indianapolis: Religious Book Service, 1983), pp. 158-160, 211, 222ff.; Joseph Franklin and J.A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Burns, Publisher, 1879), pp. 304-305.

The discussion of “historical precedent” is an interesting one which one or both sides often adduce to bolster claims, but which is ultimately meaningless since, even if uniform, what the “pioneers” did provides no validity for doctrine or practice unless one accepts an “authority of tradition” viewpoint akin to that of Roman Catholicism. In this context, it simply demonstrates that sincere, intelligent, and honorable persons can and do change their minds and actions for a variety of reasons; or, that people sometimes do contradictory things and are not always self-consistent.

8. David Filbeck, The First Fifty Years: A Brief History of the Direct-Support Missionary Movement (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 36-59. While the objections of some of the opponents of centralized missionary work among churches of Christ did not center around traditional “modernism,” the heavy emphasis on the social gospel aspects of much “mission work” was a definite factor. See the articles cited in note 23 above, as well as Otis Gatewood, Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler (Nashville: Williams Printing company, 1960), pp. 72-75. Though defending his “relief works” in Germany, Gatewood acknowledged that “Problems arose as a result of such work, it is true. Some wanted to be baptized only to get food and clothing.” Furthermore, “all this [distribution of food and clothing] took much time that could have been spent teaching the Bible” (pp. 70, 72).

9. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Fanning Yater Tant, and Roy E. Cogdill, mimeographed letter, March 21, 1949; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “The New Gospel Guardian,” Fanning Yater Tant, “Policy of the Gospel Guardian,” and Roy E. Cogdill, “Publisher’s Statement,” Bible Banner 12:3 (April 1949), 1-2.

10. Harrell reports that “by the early 1950’s the Advocate’s circulation had grown to over 20,000; during the centennial drive of 1954 and 1955, the number of subscribers rose to an inflated figure of over 100,000; by the time of Goodpasture’s death in 1977, the circulation had stabilized at just over 30,000.” Furthermore, he observes: “The Gospel Advocate was the most powerful single center of influence among the churches of Christ of the 1950s. Goodpasture formed strong alliances with other institutions, particularly David Lipscomb College. He was the outspoken friend of all the institutions supported by churches; . . . in return the leaders of those institutions promoted the Advocate” (“B.C. Goodpasture,” in Florida College Annual Lectures, 198 1, pp. 243, 249).

11. See David Koltenbah, “The Three Methods of Argument to Establish Divine Authority and the Three Arguments in Acts 15 (Parts I-III)” TRUTH Magazine 11:10-12 (July, August, September, 1967), pp. 234ff., 255ff., 275ff.; “The Apostles’ Appeal to Scriptural Authority,” in Biblical Authority., It’s Meaning and Application: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1974 (Fairmount, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1974), pp. 80-94. A M.A. thesis by Milo, Hadwin at Abilene Christian College which assails the idea that apostolic examples provide any basis of New Testament authority was published as The Role of New Testament Examples as Related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974). A conclusion, subtly stated on p. 53, is that there is no way to authorize observance of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week from the New Testament evidence (cf. pp. 39, 53). For alternate viewpoints, see Thomas B. Warren, When Is An Example Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” Restoration Quarterly 30 (First Quarter 1988), pp. 17-42.

12. See Roy E. Cogdill, Walking By Faith (Lufkin: Gospel Guardian Company, 1957; 6th Ed., 1967), especially pp. 13-28; Earl West, “Learning a Lesson from History (no. 1-3),” Gospel Guardian 1:40, 41, 42 (February 16, 23 and March 2, 1950); and “Congregational Cooperation,” Gospel Guardian 13:18 (September 7, 1961, pp. 273ff. [reprint)). For contrasting views, see Athens Clay Pullias, “Where There Is No Pattern,” Lipscomb Spring Lectures: Volume I (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 19″, pp. 90-102 (see Cecil N. Wright a lecture in the same volume [pp. 103-11.2], “Principles of New Testament congregational Cooperation,” a summary of his series in the 1951 Gospel Advocate).

13. See Robert F. Turner, “Cooperation of Churches, in The Arlington Meeting (Orlando, FL: Cogdill Foundation, n.d. 11969]), pp. 252ff. This work is probably the most extensive and best discussion of the institutional “issues.” See also Gaston D. Cogdell and Robert F. Turner, The Cogdell- Turner Discussion (Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1983). On congregational independence, perhaps the clearest statement is Turner, “Restoration of Congregational Independence,” in The Restoration Heritage in America. A Biblical Appeal for Today. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976 (Marion, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1976), pp. 213-229.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 240-243
April 20, 1989