Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

“While there are a few places where ‘anti-ism’ is still a real threat to the true faith, it is generally of no consequence. Isolated little groups of ‘antis’ still meet; but they are withering away and are having no appreciable effect on the brotherhood at large.” This analysis of the dreaded “antis” written by a young preacher at the end of the 1960s, probably summarized the “majority view” in Churches of Christ toward “non-cooperation” churches. This “false doctrine” was not only considered “antagonistic to clear Bible teaching” but the typical gand’ usually cut his own throat by his arrogant and malicious acts and statements” and was “quick to draw a line of fellowship and exclude himself from the larger portion of our brotherhood.”(1)

A decade later, the editor of the Gospel Advocate reiterated the “dying-on-the-vine” theme in an editorial in which he estimated that the “antis” composed 5 percent of churches of Christ and pleaded with them to “come back home . . . to the old paths . . . and preach again in the great churches,” alleging that “anti doctrine cannot build great churches, inspire missionaries, and encourage pure and undefiled religion.”(2) A well-known church-supported-college professor argued not long afterward that those who teach that Christians could “visit fatherless and widows by taking them in your home” have “taken the narrow, crooked pig-path of radicalism.”(3)

As one might expect, such florid rhetoric was often answered in like manner. One young preacher on the other side of the controversy, describing a college lectureship which included at least four sessions of “anti bashing,” accused those who made a hobby of being anti-anti of having a “denominational concept of Christianity” and “a blind spot with regard to establishing authority regarding matters which divide us.” Other assessments of the “liberals” have included descriptions ranging from “ignorant” to “deluded” to “malicious.”(4)

How did it come to this? What produced such rhetoric, and the divisive actions which often accompanied it? In this speech, I propose to do several things: (1) I wish to attempt a brief historical chronicle of the events which elicited the comments just quoted. Some may know that I am preparing a biography of Roy Cogdill, and much of my insight into this issue comes from that preparation. I intend for this section to be history, fairly told, rather than propaganda. To that end, I bring whatever historical training and ability I may possess. Most historians long ago abandoned any illusions of being totally “objective,” but like most, I want to be fair. Like everyone else, I have a viewpoint which despite my best efforts will occasionally bob to the surface, and fairness and honesty as a historian impel me to recognize it rather than hiding behind the fictional mask of “objectivity.”

I believe that the record will demonstrate that this division was not “one-sided,” as it so often has been portrayed, blamed on a bunch of cantankerous nuts who couldn’t think straight, wanted to be big fish in a small pond, or were just plain mean. One surely might find examples of all of the above, but such generalizations simply will not float as historical explanation. Should I fail in my attempt to be fair and even-handed, I am sure brother Lynn and brother Ramsey will call it to my attention.

(2) In addition to playing historian, I want to wear the hat of a reporter of more current concepts for a moment. Within the last two months, in preparation for this meeting, I circulated more than 100 questionnaires to various preachers, elders, and members of “conservative” or “non-institutional” churches of Christ. I make no claims for it as a “scientific” polling device, but I did try to circulate it among what I perceive to be a typical, or “representative,” sampling of those opposed to centralization of churches and church support of human institutions. More than fifty completed questionnaires were returned, and I will draw on the comments of several of them where they are germane to the discussion. In so doing, I seek to answer at least part of the question, “How do we view each other?” The answers provided in these questionnaires are candid (in exchange for which I promised anonymity), and they are perhaps not always objective, but they express feelings honestly held. Some might question the accuracy of the perceptions they reveal, but the expressions of their views may help us as we seek to understand each other.

(3) I sometimes tire of the attempt to be “objective,” and thus the third thing I wish to attempt is some sort of “analysis” of all this information in an attempt to answer not only “what happened” or “how,” but “why.” Some may not like what I say, and one is surely free to reject it if he wishes. All I ask is a fair hearing, without being dismissed out of hand.

The Last Fifty Years

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear – the prime time of N.B. Hardeman, G.C. Brewer, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr.; of Daniel Sommer, J.D. Tant and Joe Warlick; of H. Leo Boles, James A. Allen, and a cast of thousands. By all accounts, both the economic prosperity of the 1920s and the Depression of the Thirties were years of solid growth and development among churches of Christ. Although it is impossible to gather precise numerical data, the Census of Religious Bodies for 1926 reported more than 433,000 members for churches of Christ; several reliable sources estimated their numerical strength at upwards of half a million.(5) Not only were they growing numerically, but the gospel was spreading geographically, across what a later generation would dub the “Sunbelt,” and into the “Rustbelt” of the industrial North, into places like Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and the West Coast.(6)

Institutionally and educationally, various para-church organizations were also growing and prospering. Nashville Bible School had become David Lipscomb College, and Harding College settled in Searcy, Arkansas in 1934 after sojourning awhile in Bowling Green, KY, Odessa, MO, Cordell, OK, Harper, KS, and Morrillton, AR.(7) When George Pepperdine college joined the ranks of these and other schools such as Abilene Christian and Freed-Hardeman College a band of colleges stretching from Tennessee through Texas to the West Coast was completed.(8) Orphanages, beginning with Tennessee Orphan Home in 1909, included other institutional orphan care facilities such as Potter Orphanage (Bowling Green, KY, 1914), Boles Home (Quinlan, TX, 1927), and Tipton (Tipton, OK, 1928).(9)

New technologies such as radio, the automobile and the infant airline industry allowed rapid and widespread dissemination of the gospel. So frequently was the gospel heard on WLAC in Nashville that the station was dubbed, “We Love All Campbellites.” Wide-area broadcasts such as the one on KRLD in Dallas shared by two young preachers and law-school students, W.L. Oliphant and Roy E. Cogdill, were commonplace.(10)

It was also, arguably, a period marked generally by doctrinal harmony and unity. Although it would be difficult to get the entire cast of preachers named above to agree on every issue, and while it is true that strong egos resulted in various frictions, by and large the period since the division of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches until World War II was primarily one of significant doctrinal harmony. Even the few instances of disagreement prove the rule: those who deviated could be expected to be, and were, roasted as heretics.

Even the most vocal and visible divisive issue, premillennialism, serves as an illustration of the relative doctrinal unanimity among the churches. Although the issue created quite a disturbance (seemingly as much because some did not criticize it extensively enough to satisfy its most vocal opponents as for the specific issue itself), the number. of churches actually espousing the doctrine was quite limited. By and large, it was effectively contained in a small number of churches localized in Kentucky, Indiana, and Louisiana – churches which a generation later numbered only about 100 with perhaps 10,000 members. The quickest and most effective way to tar a church or college in the 1930s was to label them “premillennial sympathizers.”(11)

Perhaps a portion of this relative internal harmony can be seen in the numerous widely-publicized and well attended debates during the period. N.B. Hardeman’s debates on instrumental music with Ira Boswell of the Christian church and with the well-known Baptist Ben Bogard; G.C. Brewer’s discussion with “companionate marriage” advocate Judge Ben Lindsey; Foy E. Wallace’s skirmish with Texas Fundamentalist J. Frank Norris, and a host of others literally too numerous to mention revealed a remarkable unanimity in the church on fundamental issues, as well as a manifest militance against all perceived threats to the faith. Certainly, to their religious neighbors, the church surely looked like a coherent, united, militant and growing religious body.(12)

“Unity efforts” of a sort were underway as well. When Daniel Sommer, estranged for thirty years from his co-belligerents in the instrument/missionary society controversy, embarked in 1933 on an extended tour of the South, his visits to Nashville, Henderson, Memphis, Dallas, and other places resulted in significantly decreased tensions over the right of colleges to exist and of churches to employ local evangelists and use Bible class literature. The failure of his alliance with F.D. Kershner of the Christian Church to promote harmony between the two groups may have given impetus to the Witty-Murch “unity meetings” of the next decade, but also reminds us that churches of Christ were largely united in rejecting such overtures.(13)

In summary, when one looks at churches of Christ a half-century ago, one can easily make a case, at least on the surface, for a high level of doctrinal unity and harmony; an agreement on the spiritual nature and work of the church, and the kind of distinctive, no-nonsense preaching which was common knowledge both among members of the church and their religious neighbors.

One need not be an “anti” to have such perceptions; a recent book by several historians among institutional churches states the obvious: “There was a time when Churches of Christ were widely known as a people of the Book. All who knew us knew that we hungered above all for the word of God. They knew that we immersed ourselves in its truths and sacrificed dearly to share the gospel with those who had never heard. These were our most fundamental commitments. We knew it, and others knew it.” Although these authors disdainfully reject “the hard and ugly sectarian spirit which did incalculable damage to our movement for so many years,” they make a strong case for the invasion of secularism as “American members of Churches of Christ have spiraled upward to a much higher socio-economic plane.” While I reject the solution they propose, and their pejorative use of terms such as “rigid, dogmatic, sectarian spirit” which produced a “posture of aloofness,” I believe they are substantially correct in their analysis of the present, if not their representation of the past or their proposals for the future.(14)

Two recollections by well-known older preachers who began preaching in those days well summarize the case. When asked to compare the church and its members in the 1980s to those of the 1930s, a recent president of David Lipscomb College responded, “I don’t think they see the glory of the church, unencumbered by denominationalism, as I did . . . when I was growing up.” Furthermore, he opined, “I don’t think members of the church think the church, is different from Protestantism. When I started preaching members of the church believed Protestants needed to be saved. We’ve lost a lot of that. It goes back to an understanding of the distinctiveness of the church. At an earlier time they really felt the gospel was a lot better than Protestantism.”(15)

These sentiments are echoed succinctly by G.K. Wallace, recently deceased, as he described his earliest preaching days in the 1920s and 1930s: “Most of the baptisms were from the denominations. In those days denominational people would come to our meetings. . . . Denominational people do not come these days to our meetings and if they did they would not, in most places, hear anything that would lead them out of false doctrine.”(16)

But other forces and factors were at work, as well, as the following summary by Bill Humble well illustrates: “larger and more expensive buildings, the more affluent middle-class membership, the number of full-time ministers, the increasing emphasis on Bible schools and Christian education, and missionary outreach all reflect a gradual but impressive growth. . . . After World War II the church enjoyed a remarkable growth in urban areas. As its members climbed the economic and educational ladder, the church moved ‘across the tracks.”‘(17)

While I concur that World War II was a watershed in the history of churches of Christ, even before Pearl Harbor there were harbingers of what was to come. Although several colleges unobtrusively had been accepting contributions from church treasuries for years, G.C. Brewer created quite a stir at the 1938 ACC lectures when “many who were present understood Brewer to say that the church that did not have Abilene Christian College in its budget had the wrong preacher.”(18) A decade later, N.B. Hardeman and others would revive this controversy in a public attempt to attract financial support for colleges directly from church treasuries.(19)

Endnotes

1. Rubel Shelley, “Some Basic Errors of Liberalism,” in The Church Faces Liberalism: Freed-Hardeman College Lectures, 1970 (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), pp. 33-34.

2. Ira North, “Our Anti-Cooperation Brethren Should Come Back Home,” Gospel Advocate, 121:19 (May 10, 1979), pp. 290,294.

3. Tom Holland, Challenge of the Commission: Sermon Outlines from Acts (Brentwood, TN: Penman Press, 1980), p. 20. See also Gayle Oler, “No Soup,” Boles Home News, March 25, 1954, p. 1: “Infidelity, agnosticism, and ‘anti-ism’ have much in common. None ever brought a helping hand or healing ministry to the unfortunate of earth living in want and misery. Nor have they ever built a home for homeless children or a hospital in which to minister to the sick.”

4. Steve Wolfgang, “Do You Have Time?” Weekly Reminder 15:21 (February 9, 1977), pp. 1-2 (Expressway Church of Christ, Louisville, KY). See also exchange of letters with William Woodson, ibid., 15:39 (June 15, 1977) pp. 2-3. Other comments from questionnaires returned to the author in October-November, 1988.

5. U.S. Bureau of Census . . . Religious Bodies, 1926. Washington, D.C., 1930,11, 394, 396; see H. Leo Boles, “Query Department,” Gospel Advocate 69 (January 20, 1927), 62; G.A. Dunn, “Brother Batsell Baxter’s School,” Firm Foundation 42:30 (July 28, 1925), p. 3; John Allen Hudson, “New Census Incomplete,” Gospel Advocate 82:50 (December 12, 1940), 1180.

6. For a general history of this period see Earl West, Search For the Ancient Order, IV, 1987. Themes in this paragraph are developed more specifically in Steve Wolfgang, “Myths and Realities: Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century” (paper read at the Restoration History Conference, Bethany College, July 1977); and Wolfgang, “From Dissent to Consent: Twentieth Century Churches of Christ” (paper read at the American Society Church History Meeting, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, March 1979).

7. For an account of the Harding/Armstrong cluster of colleges, see Lloyd Cline Sears, For Freedom. The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1969).

8. See M. Norvel Young, A History of Christian Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ (Kansas City, MO: Old Paths Book Club, 1949) for a history of the growth and development of various schools and colleges.

9. On Potter Orphanage, see Ben F. Taylor, History of Potter Orphan Home (Bowling Green, KY: Potter Orphan Home and School, n.d.). For related developments see “Christian Colleges” and “Education and Benevolence” (Chapter 9 and 10) in Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order, III, pp. 234-304. An example of a typical appeal on behalf of an orphanage can be found in Childhaven News 1:6 (October 1949), pp. 1,4. Abuses at this particular home have been featured prominently in the secular press as well as various papers reflecting the non-institutional position. See Birmingham News, Sunday April 22,1984, pp. IA, 10A; Ken Green, “The Childhaven Affair, Searching the Scriptures 25:9 (September 1984), pp. 197-201, which featured an interview with a preacher who lived at Childhaven from 19631972 while a child. See also Jack Holt Jr., “Victims of Institutionalism,” Gospel Anchor 10:2 (October 1983), pp. 28-31.

10. “Our Messages” (from E. A. Timmons, M.D., Columbia, TN), Gospel Advocate 69:1 (January 6, 1927), p. 8; see William S. Banowsky, The Min-or of a Movement: Churches of Christ as Seen Through the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), p. 319.

11. Steve Wolfgang, “The Impact of Premillennialism on the Church,” Guardian of Truth 30:1 (January 2, 1986), pp. 1315, 29; Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey. Contender for the Faith (Akron, OH: by the author, 1964), pp. 264-267, 304, 310312; William Woodson, Standing for Their Faith: A History of churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950 (Henderson, TN: J&W Publications, 1979), chapter 11; and Banowsky, pp. 196-199, 223-224.

12. The relationship between churches of Christ and other religious bodies is explored in Wolfgang, “Churches of Christ and the Fundamentalist Controversy” (paper read at the American Academy of Religion meeting, Atlanta, GA, 1981).

13. See Steve Wolfgang, “Controversy Concerning Unity Movements Among Churches of Christ” in Their Works Do Follow Them: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1982 (Tampa, FL: Florida College, 1982), pp. 213-239; Wolfgang, “Consequences of Factionalism, ” in Factionalism: A Threat to the Church (Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1983), pp. 90-96. Both are based on James Stephen Wolfgang, “A Life of Humble Fear: The Biography of Daniel Sommer, 1850-1940” (M.A. thesis, Butler University, 1975).

14. C . Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed, The Worldly Church: A Call For Biblical. Renewal (Abilene, TX:ACU Press, 1988). Quotations are from pp. 1-2, 6-7.

15. Robert E. Hooper and Jim Turner, Willard Collins. The People Person (Nashville- 20th Century Christian, 1986), pp. 116, 118.

16. G.K. Wallace, Autobiography and Retirement Sermons (High Springs, FL: Mary Lois Forrester, 1983), p. 17.

17. Bill Humble, The Story of the Restoration (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1969), p. 70.

18. Willis, W. W. Otey, 287. See also Athens Clay Pullias. Information Concerning Financial Gifts to David Lipscomb College by Congregations of the Church of Christ, 1891-1968 (Nashville, privately published [DLC?], n.d. [1968?]).

19. N.B. Hardeman, “Spending the Lord’s Money,” Gospel Advocate 92 (May 29, 1947), p. 372, and “The Banner Boys Become Enraged,” Firm Foundation 64:43 (October 28, 1947), p. 1; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Bible Banner, September, 1947, p. 16; Wolfgang, “Unity Movements,” pp. 220-21, 234; Willis, W. W. Otey, pp. 321 ff.; on Hardeman, see J.M. Powell and Mary Nelle Hardernan Powers, N8H., A Biography of Nicholas Brodie Hardeman (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1964); and James R. Cope, “N.B. Hardeman: Orator, Evangelist, Educator, and Debater,” in They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College, 1981), pp. 133ff.

The argument advanced by Hardeman that the orphanage and the college “stand or fall together” would be championed more successfully fifteen years later (to a more receptive audience) by Batsell Barrett Baxter, Questions and Issues of the Day in the Light of the Scriptures (Nashville, 1963), and reviewed by James R. Cope, Where Is The Scipture? (Temple Terrace, FL: by the author), 1964; and James P. Needham, A Review of Batsell Barrett Baxter’s Tract: “May the Church Scripturally Support a College?” (Orlando, FL: Truth Magazine Bookstore [reprint], 1970). Another advocate of church support of colleges, and a discussion of other related issues, is J.D. Thomas, We Be Brethren: A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press, 1958). pp. 186-194.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 208-211
April 6, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our Lord was an exceptionally practical man. He encountered diverse and complex situations. He faced complicated questions. He met both with practical actions and answers.

When the disciples quarreled over who should be the greatest in the kingdom, Jesus “took a child, and set him in the midst of them” (Mk. 9:36). There was no confusing philosophy, no theoretical discourse. He did not demean the disciples and describe his greatness and power, which he surely could have done. He did not say, “I will be King of kings, and you will be lowly servants, if you are lucky.” No, he rather taught them the true character of citizenship in the heavenly kingdom (Lk. 22:27; Matt. 18:1-5; 20:20-28). Plain, practical and to the point; that was the method of the Master.

When the scribes and Pharisees questioned his association “with publicans and sinners” (Lk. 5:30), Jesus compared his work to that of a physician. A doctor goes among the sick, not because he is sick, but in order to heal. Likewise, he went among sinners, not because he was a sinner, as they implied, but in order to save them. “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Clear, concise, practical-, that was Jesus the Christ.

When the disciples of Jesus were challenged about their failure to fast, the silent charge was that they were not as devout as the disciples of John and of the Pharisees who did fast. This neglect of human tradition made Jesus’ disciples appear apathetic toward Divine truth and piety. Jesus did not cite another attribute of his disciples to make them seem more spiritual. Rather, he made a specific comparison. Bridal parties do not fast while the groom is present; no, they rejoice! However, when the groom leaves, then they fast (Mk. 2:18-20). Fasting as a formality has no inherent value. It may even diminish one’s ability to appreciate the fellowship of Deity. Precise and practical judgment; that was our Lord’s manner.

The gospel accounts of the Savior’s life are filled with evidence and examples of the most practical man who ever lived. Can you think of a few cases? The study will enrich and reward you.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, p. 199
April 6, 1989

By Rodney Pitts

There was a time when all churches of Christ seemed to be standing for the truth of the Scriptures. People had basically accepted the idea that one did not have to wonder what would be taught or practiced in churches of Christ in different areas, but could simply walk into any building bearing the name and never worry. There were no liberal and conservative congregations, for all churches were thought to be basically conservative in their approach to Bible authority and its application in matters of the work of the church, etc.

In the 1950s, however, the church faced tome serious problems that had actually been boiling for some time. As a result of differing views concerning Bible authority and institutionalism that were just beginning to show up in full force, various churches began to split and the brotherhood was divided. The terms “liberal” and “conservative” took on special meanings in relation to this split. Congregations that favored the use of institutions to do their collective work were labeled “liberal” for their lax or loose stance on Bible authority. Those who disapproved of these innovation were labeled “conservatives” or “antis.” People had to begin asking questions concerning doctrine and practices of churches that they had at one time visited and worked with in harmony. Families and friends were divided, and in most cases, remain divided today.

Yet in the face of all this division, people began to make the same type of mistake as was made before the division in believing that for the most part, one could determine a congregation’s stand for truth by simply asking a few questions concerning the work or-organization of that church. It was thought that if you could determine that a church took a “conservative” stance on these matters of institutionalism, you could then rest assured that everything that was practiced or taught at that particular congregation would likely be in harmony with God’s will. And, it seems that this standard for judging a congregation’s soundness still lingers on today. This is done despite the fact that many of these congregations or their leadership may have already accepted certain beliefs that are foreign to the Scriptures and that deny their very basis for a stance against institutionalism.

I have not been preaching full-time for very many years, but I have been on both sides of the institutional question. I grew up in institutionalism, but took a stand against this error several years ago. I have now been associated with “conservative” churches long enough to realize that the term “conservative” connected to the word church means no more than the words “Church of Christ” being placed over the door. Brethren, it has been a long time since the division took place, and the Devil has been working overtime!

I am finding more and more that some congregations that may not send money to an “orphanage” or involve themselves in arrangements like that of the Herald of Truth, etc., are no more conservative than those we might term as rank “liberals.” Modernism and. humanism have “crept in unawares” and we are now facing issues and stances that are just as serious as those that divided the church in the 50s. Elders and other brethren who would never stand for $1 out of the church’s treasury to be sent to some institution are now taking strange positions on marriage and divorce, social drinking, abortion, etc. I know of brethren who have faced public opposition from elders and other members because they taught the truth concerning the alien sinner’s need to repent of his or her apparent adultery, immodest apparel, dancing, and even such subjects as situation ethics and abortion. Can we still continue to call these congregations “conservative” where the truth is opposed and false doctrine is taught and even practiced?

Brethren, let’s wake up and realize that God did not place a congregation’s stance on institutionalism as the “ultimate standard” of all judgments concerning its soundness. No one sin is any more acceptable to God than any other. James states that “for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10). Please understand that I am not advocating congregational fellowship or disfellowship as our institutional brethren see it, nor am I stating that I believe that because some members of a congregation are in error that the whole congregation is in error. Neither am I saying that mercy and patience should not be practiced in relation to these people and congregations. But, when truth is censored and false doctrine is taught and even practiced with no repentance forthcoming, we as Christians must take appropriate action concerning those brethren despite their stand against institutionalism.

This article has not been easy for me to write. My thoughts that have been penned here are the result of much sorrow and heartache concerning men and brethren I know and love. Yet, I believe it is the truth and that it needs to be preached without fear or hesitation. For, if we are not careful, we will “strain out the gnat and swallow the camel” (Matt. 23:24).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, p. 197
April 6, 1989

By Harry R. Osborne

While on vacation in San Antonio, my wife and I saw something that caught our attention. We were driving down a street and came upon a rather modem looking building. A large sign identified the structure as the “Holy Spirit Catholic Church.” Wanting to be fairminded about this piece of information, we discussed possible alternatives to our initial reaction that the sign was false advertising. We finally settled on an interpretation which released the maker of the sign from any charge of prevarication.

The connection between the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church is that much of the practice of the latter is spoken of by the former. The Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul speaks of practices which have characterized the Catholic Church, namely fasting and celibacy for spiritual purification. However, the way in which the Holy Spirit spoke of these things is not going to be perceived as complimentary by the Catholics. For instance, in Colossians 2:20-23, he reproves the same idea about fasting which the Catholics promote by calling it “will-worship” (that which originates in man’s will as opposed to God’s will) and declaring it is “not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.” In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, the Holy Spirit says those “forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats” were “giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,” thus, speaking “lies.” We thought of stopping to suggest that such passages be put under the sign to show what connection the Holy Spirit had with the Catholic Church, but doubted that the “priest” or others in charge would take our suggestion with much thanksgiving.

Having noticed a sandwich shop by this Catholic Church building, we came back down the street from the opposite direction that we might partake rather than abstain from meats. As we passed the building a second time we noticed another structure adjoining the church building which had gone unnoticed in our first passing. It too was a modern looking building, even larger than the church building. The sign on the structure proclaimed it the “Holy Spirit Family Life Center.” I am still in the process of seeking to be edified by that sign.

Leslie and I have wondered what connection the Holy Spirit has with a “family life center,” the name most denominations give to a structure designed to house various entertainment and social facilities (i.e., gyms, racquetball courts, volleyball courts, ping pong tables, aerobics classes, weight training rooms, kitchens, hot tubs or even swimming pools). We recalled that the Spirit of God was said to have “moved upon the face of the waters” in creation (Gen. 1:2), but could not think of a reference to such happening in a swimming pool or hot tub. We remembered that the Spirit of Jehovah was said to come “mightily” upon Samson in slaying the lion and wondered if these people thought that may have required weight training. We thought about a number of passages which prophesied or related the Spirit “falling” upon one, but thought that these folks must know that such did not happen as a result of tripping on a basketball or racquetball court. Since the fruit of the Spirit is named in Galatians 5 as love, joy, peace, etc.; we believed these people could not think that fruit, was apples, oranges, and peaches necessitating a kitchen to facilitate the consumption of such. We are still pondering the relation these people saw between the Holy Spirit and their recreational facility.

It made us remember that many of our liberal brethren are evidently of one mind with these Catholics in this matter. They, too, are building their family fife centers to rival the very latest among the denominations. Surely they would not be doing so without believing such was approved by God. However, since the Holy Spirit revealed the mind of God through the apostles (1 Cor. 2:10-13), the record of that complete revelation which we possess in the New Testament must declare that approval. Would it be out of line for us to ask them where they find that approval? They must believe the Holy Spirit is connected with their family life centers, even if they will not state it as boldly as their Catholic allies in this matter. Well, where is the connection? We read about the church being “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Where do they read about the church providing the pillar and ground for the basketball court? We read about providing for the spiritual maturity of saints in the truth (Eph. 4:11-16). Where do they read about it providing a hot tub in which to soak sore muscles after a racquetball or aerobics workout?

Normally, our liberal brethren when pressed for the authority to justify their social gospel efforts reply that they are “expedients.” Maybe this is the connection between the Holy Spirit and their family life centers. The Holy Spirit does speak of expedients through the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). The bad news for our liberal brethren is that both places speak of an expedient as being something which is first lawful. That makes sense. By the very term, we would expect an “expedient” to “expedite” or help something to be done. The question is, “What is being expedited by means of this expedient?” With that question in mind, these brethren still have a problem. What is the work of the church which these family life centers expedite? Evangelism of the world? Education of the brethren? Benevolence towards the saints? I fail to see how a hot tub or volleyball court could teach a sinner about the need for or identification of the Savior. Furthermore, I have the same problem in seeking edification or benevolence furthered or expedited by an aerobics class or swimming pool. No, the appeal for “expediency” to be the connection between the Holy Spirit and their family life centers won’t work!

Those present at the Nashville meeting heard numerous justifications for these recreational facilities built and maintained by churches. One brother said they were a form of advertising much more effective than our newspaper ads. Others said they were not authorized, but were too small a thing to divide over. Another segment of the speakers justified them through their “New Hermeneutic” of a “Christiological approach” to interpreting the Bible. For us simpletons, that means these new thinkers figure Christ would like to have played in and invited others to play in these “family life centers,” therefore the church can pay for them. None of these explanations will work either. They are not advertising an authorized work, but creating a new work for the church in the realm of recreation which is wholly unauthorized. Since Christ revealed his desires for the work of local churches through his apostles without mentioning recreation one time, who are these new thinkers to suppose he must have wanted such? It may be a small thing to our liberal brethren, but it is important to God whether we act in obedience to his will or disobey due to presumptuousness.

No, the connection between the Holy Spirit and these “family life centers” is not found in these feeble justifications. Instead, the connection is found in the same place we found the connection between the Holy,- Spirit and the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit condemns the Catholic Church because it is not in harmony with his teaching regarding the true church. The Catholics go beyond that pattern laid down in the Spirit’s teaching and stand condemned (2 Jn. 9). Likewise, the Holy Spirit condemns our liberal brethren’s digression into the social gospel efforts because they are not in harmony with Ins teaching regarding the work of the true church. The liberals have gone beyond the pattern laid down in the Spirit’s teaching and stand condemned (2 Jn. 9).

Many institutional brethren understand the problem, but are not sure what to do about it. In recent years, several young preachers have left institutionalism because they see the digression brought on by going beyond God’s pattern. The family fife centers are merely one ample of this digression which also has brought the “sponsoring church arrangement,” institutions doing the work of the church, and a variety of innovations totally void of scriptural authority. Given the statements by several at Nashville, that digression is not complete., The denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, verbal inspiration, and the call for a “New Hermeneutic” in an effort to “re-interpret the Bible” suggest the digression is picking up pace. Many of them are not only “liberal” with regard to their views on the authority for their practices, but are “liberal” in the classical sense of the word! May our prayer be that some of our institutional brethren will see the danger and leave this error before it blends imperceptibly into mainstream denominationalism. Let us work to bring the truth on these issues to our erring brethren before it is too late!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 195-196
April 6, 1989