Truth Magazine

By Keith E. Clayton

“But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (John 10:2-5, NKJV).

I did not leave the Episcopal good as another; therefore, it made little difference to me what church I belonged to. After several classes I was “confirmed” into the Episcopal Church. But, I still knew nothing of God’s Word. We never opened a Bible even one time in the confirmation classes I attended. I did not regard that as strange at the time, not having any real personal working knowl- edge of God’s Word. Consequently, I “converted.”

I was moderately active in the Episcopal Church. I was a “lay read- er” for St. James’ Episcopal Church in Church because of any personality clashes with anyone. I had friends in that denominational body of folks. I was personally friendly with many people in the congregation of those adhering to Episcopalian beliefs in Essex Junction, Vermont. I person- ally liked the Episcopalian priest. I was not disgruntled with anyone at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church. So, you may ask, why leave? Even more importantly, you may wonder, why write this article? I pray that both of these questions will be fully answered by the time you finish your thought- ful and open-minded reading of my journey out of the Episcopal Church. My purpose in writing this article for you to read is rooted in my own desire to have you also be sure to fol- low the Shepherd and not the voice of a stranger. Please let me explain . . . and read with charity. I write in love for the Lord, for his Word, for your soul.

I was twenty years old and about to marry my childhood sweetheart at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Benning- ton, Vermont. It was suggested that I take some classes, that a religiously mixed marriage was not a good idea. I don’t recall who suggested it, except it was regarded as good advice by me. Since I had no real Bible training or knowledge, I agreed to the classes. I had been reared in the Congregational Church. That’s where my parents occasionally took me as a child, but I learned very little Bible there. We were Christmas and Easter attendees, with a few other outings for church thrown in. For “Sunday School” we just played and had arts and crafts — no Bible training. The sermons had precious little Scriptural content. So, I grew up thinking one church was as Essex Junction. There were no Bible classes, nor training or education in the Scriptures themselves, offered by St. James’ Episcopal Church. As a “lay reader,” I would get up to read publicly at the prescribed time as required by the particular liturgy that was being followed. I began to notice that I needed more study of the Word of God so that I could better under- stand what I was publicly reading. I found a Bible study group in the home of my neighbors, Gene and Linda Dumas, who were also Episcopalians before learning the Truth. I began to really study the Truth, the Bible.

The more I studied, independent of my denominational biases and without sectarian prejudice, the more I could see that what I was practicing was not what is found in the pages of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

The differences between my own beliefs and what the Scriptures taught became more and more glaring. I began to feel hypocritical — to claim to be a Christian and not be following the teachings of Christ, the Shepherd of the sheep. But, I had a problem. I wanted the Episcopal Church to be the church described in God’s Word, in name, practice and source of authority. I did not want to leave the Episcopal Church. My roots were sunk into her. I wasn’t going to give up the Episcopal Church without a fight. And fight and argue I did. I was an antagonistic stu- dent, at times, in the Bible class I was attending. I was seeing that the Truth was different from what I wanted to believe. I did not want to change my beliefs. What would I do? I was in a terrible predicament. The folks I stud- ied with had no denominational axe to grind. They were simply Christians only, believers in the Lord through the Word of the Lord.

Just before I departed the Episcopal Church, I wanted to give her every benefit of the severe doubts that study of the Scriptures had infused into my mind. The doubts were not about the inerrancy of God’s Word, the Bible. The misgivings and suspicions were this — how could the Episcopal Church be so wrong on so many things? Impossible, I thought and ar- gued with myself and others as I could see passage after passage of God’s Word teaching differently from the Articles of Religion (found in the back of the Book of Common Prayer, the creed book for the Episcopal Church). What I had believed to become an Episcopalian was decidedly different from what the New Testament taught I must believe in order to be a Christian. This was a crisis! I had always thought myself to be a Christian, even as an Episcopalian. I thought I would go to Heaven with all other Christians. I thought, and I thought. My soul was too important, my only eternal possession, to be mistaken about the practice of religion. Even though I didn’t like what I was seeing when I compared myself and beliefs with God’s Word, I still didn’t want to change. But, if the Episcopal Church’s teach- ings were not that of Christ, the Shepherd, then they would not lead me to for- giveness of sins and a home in Heaven with Almighty God. I had to be sure, before I left the Episcopal Church, that leaving her was the right thing to do. Who else could I go to for this last chance at trying to remain an Episcopalian? I went to Alex, my friend and the priest at the congregation in Essex Junction. This church did at least claim allegiance to Christ. There must be some reason- able and good explanation. I hoped there would be such.

My meeting with Alex was tense. He knew I had come for answers to discrepancies I had found between the Word of God and the teachings of the Episcopal Church. He knew I wanted to talk about the things people are to believe in order to be Episcopalians (Articles of Religion — 39 of them), and ask why they differed from what the Shepherd taught in the Word of God. I learned that following the Shepherd will bring forgiveness of sins and a home in Heaven. I had to be sure. I wanted Alex to dispel my doubts about the differences. Alex appealed to no Scripture to answer my questions. He made one final statement, “Keith, you’re going way back. We’ve left that, progressed, and we don’t go by just the Bible.” That sealed my thinking. There was no pretense in Alex’s answer. He had no intention of supporting the proposition that in order to be a Christian one must follow only Christ’s Word. In essence, Alex had told me that the Episcopal Church is free to make up her own rules and it wasn’t necessary to fol- low the Christ, except whenever the Episcopal Church saw fit to do so. In other words, it was all right with Alex if the Episcopal Church did not follow only the voice of the Shepherd. Yet, the inspired text of the gospel, from John 10:2-5, clearly teaches that the Lord’s true sheep hear his voice only and will refuse to follow the voice of a stranger, that is, the voice of him who teaches anything different from or contrary to the teaching of the Shepherd.

A crisis had arrived. Whenever one’s life is in error, and it is con- fronted with Truth, therein arises a predicament. We can either ignore the tension between our error and the Truth; or we can be true to God, hum- ble ourselves, and adjust (repent) our lives to be in line with God’s Word. One path is sincere and the other is hypocritical or dishonest. Whichever path one chooses in this crisis, know this, that such a one will never be the same again. Truth commands our at- tention and will affect our consciences one way or the other. One path will lead to true blessings from God and the other will lead to a false sense of peace with God when there really is none. Peace with God is on his terms (as given in the New Testament), not ours. Forgiveness of sins and the promise of a home in Heaven is bound by the authority of God, revealed ex- clusively in the pages of his Word, the Bible. My crisis was real. My conster- nation was great. My hopes at a truth filled meeting with Alex, wherein my error could be shown to me, had been completely dashed. I responded to his declaration about “going way back” with this statement — “Yes, Alex, I am going back, back to the Bible, the Word of God.”

It is the Word of God alone that can direct the ship of our lives and secure the destiny of our eternal souls in Heaven. I’m not unique in how that is accomplished. That’s why I am trying to share this journey with you, so you will know why I had to leave the Episcopal Church. God is not one to show partiality (see Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; 1 Pet. 1:17). Truth is not arbitrary or malleable. Truth for one person is the same truth for the next person. God has not spoken in unclear ways, or with “forked tongue.” The Lord has spoken one message, and he has forbidden mankind to tinker with it (see Deut. 6:4; Mark 7:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 John 9; 2 Tim. 2:5; Rev. 22:18-19; Prov. 30:5-6). Please take the time to look up and read the referenced passages of Scripture from God’s Word. You will see that God is not a plastic God with a “tinker toy” church, wherein men can form their own churches in neglect of the total authority of Jesus through his Word over his church.

Please read carefully the following comparisons and “The church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith” (Book of Common Prayer, 607, Articles of Religion, Article XX). The church has authority to teach whatever she wants, even though the Article continues to state otherwise. The church can write the Articles of Religion and require such to be believed. The church can name itself however she wishes, including the directed by our physical heads. Therefore, could Christ name Episcopal Church for the collective, and Episcopalian for the individual members. The church can vote from time to time to change their beliefs and liturgy. In other words, a human organization is the “head” of the Episcopal Church.

The Bible Teaches

“And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23, NKJV). Jesus built his church just as he wanted it. He is the head of his church, his body. His church believes and practices only what the head directs, just as our physical bodies are

I marvel that you soon from that are turning away so who called you in the grace of Christ, to a dif- ferent gospel, which is not an- other; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert t h e  g o s p e l  o f Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9, NKJV).

The answer is no, other teachings are not allowed, even if they come from an angel. Only the Bible is inspired by God. The Shepherd speaks to us only through his Word, regarding what we are to do to follow him. Certainly an angel is a higher being than mere men. Yet, angels are not allowed to make changes, deletions, or additions to the Word of God. Certainly men are not allowed to do so either.

Should anyone be called “Father” as a religious title?

The Episcopal Church’s Practice

Their priests are called both “Father,” and “Reverend.” Some of their priests take on even grander and elongated titles of honor and elevation.

The Bible Teaches

“Do not call anyone on earth your fa- ther; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9, NKJV). Such titles were never worn by the Lord’s inspired contrasts between what the Shepherd (Christ) has said in his Word and the practices and writings of the Episcopal Church. The contrasts are not presented in any sort of ranking order in importance. The fact that these teach- ings do not align with the Truth in the Bible is what I am demonstrating — that the Episcopal Church cannot be the church of Christ described in the Bible for they teach other than what the Master taught. The Episcopal Church therefore has some other “head” and follows the “voice of a stranger.” Take into account . . .

Teaching about the sole authority in the church belonging to Christ:

The Episcopal Church Teaches

In the practice of religion, is any book other than God’s Word, the Bible, authorized for Chris- tians?

The Episcopal Church’s Practice

They use and bind the Book of Common Prayer with its enclosed Articles of Religion for religious practices.

tion are forbidden among disciples of Jesus. Such titles are the voice of a stranger, not the Shepherd.

What should the followers of Christ be called?

The Episcopal Church teaches: “Episcopalian.”

“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26, NKJV). Any name that is not scriptural causes division among those who profess to follow Christ, and is not approved by God’s Word. Consider 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. It is obvious that no follower of Jesus in the New Testament ever called himself an Episcopalian. It is the voice of a stranger since it is not authorized by the Word of the Shep herd. The very use of an unscriptural name causes division. It also shows a lack of reliance upon the voice of the Shepherd. Jesus speaks only through his Word and he never directed his people to be called any denominational name whatever, either as a collective or an individual. His people as individuals will wear only his name, the only name authorized, “Christian.” They wear such because they are truly his disciples, and disciples of no one else. The local church, a collective of Christians in a given locale, would not accept any unscriptural or misleading designation.

Original guilt for sin (inherited sin), does the Bible teach that babies and small children are sinners, in need of redemption?

The Episcopal Church Teaches

The reason Christ came as a Man was to “reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men” (Book of Common Prayer,  603, Articles of Religion, Article II).

The Bible Teaches

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20, NKJV). Jesus told his disciples not to hinder the little children from coming to him for “such were the kingdom of Heaven.” He spoke of their innocence and humility. Episcopalian teachings on this subject is not only an addition to God’s Word, but also a contradiction of the Shepherd’s word. Jesus didn’t come to the earth for “original guilt” of sins. Worse, God did not need to be “reconciled” to man. The process is actually the opposite of this teaching. God didn’t sin, man did. God didn’t need reconciling, man did/does.

Are we justified and saved by faith only?

The Episcopal Church Teaches

“We are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort” (Book of Common Prayer, 605, Articles of Religion, Article XI).

The BibleTeaches

“You believe that t h e r e  i s  o n e  G o d . You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works i s  d e a d ? ” Wa s  n o t Abraham our father j u s t i f i e d  b y  w o r k s when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:19-24, NKJV). The Episcopal Church has presented us with another contradiction of the Shepherd’s voice.

Will a “Sacramental” system (meaning special observance of the Lord’s Supper and baptism) save a person?

The Episcopal Church’s Practice and Teaching

Article XXV on page 607 definitely teaches the concept of salvation by the “sacraments.” In short, a person can re fuse to hear God’s Word and reject submission to the Truth all his life, yet, if he was “baptized” as a baby (one of the two Episcopalian sacra- ments) and is a partaker in the Lord’s supper; then, he will be saved from his sins.

The Bible Teaches

There are no verses of Scripture which use the word “sacrament” or “sacramen- tal.” The Bible does not even hint that there is any such thing as a “sacramental salvation.” Consider, “One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination” (Prov. 28:9). The clear teaching here is that no matter how many times one might ingest wafers and wine, or have had water poured upon him as an infant, no one can ignore the Word of God and expect any remis- sion of sins or favor from God at the Judgment Day.  The teaching of the Episcopal Church on a sacramental system of salvation is the voice of a stranger and not the Shepherd.

 

Baptism of infants and small children is a common prac- tice. Does such a “baptism” have power to make a soul right with God?

The Episcopal Church Teaches and Practices

In the Book of Common Prayer (608, Article XXVII), we see the teaching of the “Baptism of young Children” is put forward. The practice is in hopes that such an infant so baptized will take upon this act as his own act when he is old enough and becomes “confirmed.”

The Bible Teaches

There is no verse in the New Testament which teaches any need for chil- dren to be baptized. They are not sinners. They have no inherited sin, nor guilt of sin. They do not have a sinful nature. In every case of conversion to Jesus in the New Testament, the folks who were converted were of the age of accountability. They were sinners. They were first able to hear the Truth. Second they were able to understand and believe the Truth. Third they examined themselves by the Truth and counted themselves as guilty of sin in the eyes of God. As a result they voluntarily and gladly submitted to being baptized (immersed — not sprinkled  — the only baptism authorized in God’s Word) in water, into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3-7; Acts 8:35-38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21), for the remission of their sins. (See Heb. 11:6; Rom. 10:17; Acts 2:37-38.) This is not a process that one person can do on behalf of another person, such as what happens in infant “baptism.” An infant certainly cannot do it for himself, and he doesn’t need to. None of the Episcopalian practice regarding sprinkling infants is in God’s Word. It is the voice of a stranger.

What is the name for the Lord’s church?

The Episcopal Church Teaches: “Episcopal Church.”

The Bible Teaches

There is no one proper name given to the Lord’s church, the church he died to build. However, there are descriptive phrases used in the Bible to describe his true church. Any of these phrases is appropriate to use whenever we refer to Christ’s church.

“Church of the Firstborn” (Heb. 12:23, NKJV)

“Church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16, NKJV)

“The church” (Acts 11:26, NKJV) “House of God” (1 Pet. 4:17)

“Church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15) “Church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2)

Both the name, Episcopal Church, and the attached denominational hierarchy are foreign to the Word of God. Therefore, it is the voice of a stranger and not that of the Shepherd.

In actuality, I could write an entire book on this subject. I spare you that in hopes this article might cause you to also consider the evidence for “Why I Left the Episcopal Church.” The discussion of these matters in this treatise is but a small portion of what could be discussed. Truly, it is just a smattering of the evidence I was confronted with over 25 years ago. The eternal destination of your soul may hang in the balance, hinging upon how you may treat the issue of truth vs. error. Or, put another way, the Shepherd’s voice vs. the voice of a stranger.

I left the Episcopal Church so that I could become a Christian, and only a Christian — not a perfect person, but a forgiven sinner, saved by grace and truth. Grace is connected to truth (see John 1:17). Grace is never discon- nected from the truth of God’s Word. I wanted to follow the voice of the Shepherd and receive the forgiveness of my sins in reality, and be added to his church, the church of Christ. I wanted to be Heaven-bound. I want that for you, dear reader, desperately. Every soul is precious and invaluable. “Every” includes your soul, too.

The Episcopal Church has digressed even further since the day I left her. She now accepts practicing homosexuals membership roles, without repentance. Such is certainly the voice of a “stranger,” and not that of the Shepherd (Rom.

1:18-31; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).These folks cannot get into Heaven while refusing the voice of the Shepherd and accepting the voice of a stranger. Jesus said that “repentance” and “remis- sion of sins” (Luke 24:47) would be preached in his name. Repentance always comes into the picture the Shepherd paints of salvation from sin’s just and eternal penalty.

I know there are good and friendly folks in the Episco- pal Church of which I was once a member. Some of my relatives are still members of the same. The sad part is this — they have been given the illusion of peace with God. But, the reality of peace with God only comes from following the Shepherd. So, while they are following the voice of the “stranger,” they have perhaps become resistant to the voice of the Shepherd, like I was. Worse, maybe some are even closed-minded to the Lord Jesus and his Word. So, while they live upon this earth, they think they are right with God, when they are deceived into such thinking by the voice of a stranger. Such deception from the “stranger” shuts them off from the Truth, the voice of the Shepherd, because they think they are right  with God already and need no examination by the Truth. This is both sad and needlessly tragic, having eternal consequences.

Conclusion

In closing, please consider the consequences of being deceived by error while mistakenly believing it to be the Lord you are following. This underscores the need to re- main open to study of the Word of God, even if it isn’t what we want to hear initially. What a pity it would be to get to the end of life, and to the Judgment Day, to have been fooled into accepting the unlawful and lawless religions of the denominational world. We could go around, claim- ing we are doing what we do for the Lord, but if his Word hasn’t authorized our actions, then they are in vain (Mark 7:7). Worse, unscriptural actions, no matter how sincere we are, will not give a good answer at the final Judgment. We will still be lawless relative to God’s Law if we refuse to hear and follow his pure Word, and reject the voice of the stranger. What a terrible fate, to believe error to be Truth, only to be lost for all eternity. Think about studying God’s Word without denominational spectacles in place. Your soul’s destiny not only may hang in the balance, but, most certainly it does!

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves . . . Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall” (Matt. 7:13-15, 21-27)

My best to you in your study of the Truth. It is the “road less traveled”; but, it will “make all the difference.” Be one of the few, as in the days of Noah!

By David Dann

The apostle Paul writes of the Lord’s “intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10-11). The New Testament makes clear to us the fact that God has a plan for the church. In fact, each lo- cal church is on a special mission from God. We find that every church is to be involved in the work of evangelism, edification, and benevolence (1 Thess. 1:8; Eph. 4:11-12; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 5:3-16).

However, it is not enough to haphazardly approach these God-given tasks with the attitude that the “end justifies the means.” We must realize that there is a “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) which must be adhered to as we strive to do the Lord’s work. We must be zealous to do the Lord’s work, but we must also be zealous to do it in the way that the Lord has prescribed. It is important for us to be aware of some dangerous practices that are a threat to our ability to carry out God’s plan for the church. Some threats to God’s plan for the church are:

1. Confusion over the “local church” and the “universal church.” The Scriptures use the word “church” in two dif- ferent senses. The Bible uses the word “church” to refer to the spiritual body of Christ that is made up of everyone who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, whether living or dead (Eph. 4:4; 3:14-15; Col. 1:18). However, the word “church” is also used to refer to each local congre- gation of the Lord’s people meeting together to worship and carry out the Lord’s work (Acts 13:1; 1 Thess. 1:1). According to Paul, the local church consists of “saints in Christ Jesus . . . with the elders and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). The New Testament clearly sets forth the pattern by which each local church is to organize itself and properly func- tion as a collective body. On the other hand, the universal church has no physical organization, and never functions as a collective unit as far as the Scriptures are concerned. Man-made schemes that encourage thousands of churches to act on a brotherhood-wide level make a flawed attempt to activate the universal church. These brotherhood schemes.

2. Centralized control and oversight of the work of a plurality of churches. According to the New Testament pattern, each local church is responsible for implementing and overseeing its own spiritual work. The local church stands alone as the largest functioning body of Christians in a given area. As for the role of elders in controlling and overseeing the work of local churches, the apostle Peter instructs these men to, “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers” (1 Pet. 5:2). It is im- portant to notice that the elders are not told to shepherd several different flocks (churches), or the work of many different churches. They are only authorized to shepherd the church which is among them. In other words, each church is autonomous and independent of all others. Man-made schemes, such as television and radio programs, which solicit contributions from several churches, and place the control and oversight of the work of many churches under the eldership of a single church constitute a departure from the New Testament pattern. These schemes seek to centralize control of the work of many churches, which not only threaten God’s plan for each church, but is also a determined step toward denominationalism.

3. Failure to make a distinction between the work of the church and the work of the individual. Some insist that the local church, as a collective body, is authorized by God to do whatever an individual Christian is authorized to do. In other words, if an individual Christian can support and operate a college, then the church can do so as well. Or, if an individual Christian has authority to contribute to an orphans’ home, then the church has authority to do the same. However, the New Testament makes a clear distinc- tion between individual action and the collective action of a local church. While instructing Timothy with regard to the care of Christian widows, Paul writes, “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows” (1 Tim. 5:16). Paul draws a clear line between the work of “any believing man” (the indi- vidual) and the responsibilities of the church. While there are many worthwhile activities we may involve ourselves in as individual Christians, we must remember that God has a special plan for the church. Confusion concerning the work of the individual and the work of the church creates a threat to God’s mission for the church.

4. Recreation and social activities sponsored by the lo- cal church. Many churches have followed after the popular denominational trend of promoting social activities and recreation for their members. A good number of these churches have spared no expense in building facilities such as gymnasiums, “fellowship halls,” and “family-life centers,” to help them meet the social needs of the member- ship. The Lord’s money is used not only in providing such facilities, but also to cater to the various social activities that are regularly promoted by the local church. However, God’s plan for the church is spiritual in nature. In fact, the New Testament knows nothing of the church involving itself in social and recreational activities such as we see today. “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). God’s plan for the church is placed in jeopardy when the church chooses to involve itself in recreational and social activities.

5. A misunderstanding of, and misapplication of “fel- lowship.” The term “fellowship” is one that is used in the New Testament to mean, “sharing together,” or “joint par- ticipation.” Some churches attempt to justify the practice of organizing and paying for social activities based on the assumption that such will provide a great opportunity for “fellowship” among the members of the church. But, ac- cording to the Scriptures, fellowship is a term that refers to spiritual activity, rather than social activity. Concerning the spiritual nature of fellowship, the apostle John writes, “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The Scriptures never speak of fellowship with regard to social activities, dinners, or entertainment. While the Lord’s supper is referred to as “fellowship” (1 Cor. 10:16), the Corinthian brethren were sharply rebuked when they attempted to turn that “fellowship” into a social event (1 Cor. 17-22). God’s plan for the church is often compromised when brethren broaden the concept of fel- lowship to include social activities.

6. Supporting human institutions to do the work of the church. Some churches wish to carry out the work of evangelism through supporting a man-made plan such as a sponsoring church arrangement. Others seek to provide for the work of edification by financially supporting a Bible college. And still others seek to do their part in benevolence by donating sums of money to support orphans’ homes and homes for the aged. According to the New Testament, God’s plan is for each church is to carry out its own work in all of these areas (1 Thess. 1:8; Eph. 4:11-12; Acts 6:1-

7). If the local church can dispatch its responsibility in any area by simply sending funds to a human institution, then there is really no need for the church at all. However, God has given the church a special mission, and he expects the church to be faithful in carrying out that mission. It should be sufficient to note that if God wanted the church to work through human institutions then he would have provided instructions concerning this type of work. He has provided none. When a church supports human institutions to carry out its work, God’s plan for that church is severely threat- ened, if not entirely discarded.

Conclusion

“I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Lord did not ask for the opinions of men when he set forth the New Testament pattern for the work of the church. Each local congregation has the God-given responsibility to carry out its work according to his plan. Are you helping or hindering the progress of that work?

By Tom M. Robert

One of the wonderful things about the preaching of Jesus (in addition to its wisdom, grace, perfection and relevance) was that it was always open and aboveboard, public in nature, not hidden in back rooms and secret conclaves. Knowing that he had the “words of eternal life” (John 6:68), Jesus proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom openly to the multitudes: “. . . I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing” (John 18:20). In his journeys, Jesus “went through the cities and villages, teaching . . .” (Luke 18:22) in such a fashion that multitudes heard him (Mark 2:13).

From the beginning, Jesus in- tended that the message of grace be free, uninhibited, unbound, and unfettered by human authority. No man or group of men has the right to limit the spread of the gospel; it has been certified by Jesus’ authority as the son of God and com- missioned to the world (Mark 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49). It is an eternal message, to all men of every race. It cannot be fettered by creeds. Its authority cannot be diminished by synods and councils. Translation committees cannot alter the original inscriptions. Private interpretation, in which efforts to teach “another gospel” are waged, are condemned (Gal. 1:6-9). Private and secret groups which seek to subvert or change the definition of truth and who often invoke secrecy and personal privilege will be exposed. Cloaks of darkness cannot hide the light of the gospel.

The message of the cross was not given to a select few within the sanctum sanctorum, to be reserved for the “clergy” and kept from the “laity.” John related that “the common people heard him gladly” (John 12:37). Even on those occasions when Jesus taught his disciples (apostles) privately, it was to give them understanding so the mes- sage could be fully declared later. “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops” (Matt. 10:27). The parables, though concealing truth from prejudiced hearts, were open to those seeking to know the truth. Jesus, when asked why he used parables, explained:

Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand . . . but blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear (Matt. 13:11-16).

The apostle Paul made mention of some minds that were blinded to truth, but it was of their own doing, not the re- sult of the message: “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them” (2 Cor. 4:3-4). In fact, it is God who “commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (v. 6). The same God who commanded physical light to spring into being (Gen. 1:3) is the same God who sheds spiritual light throughout the world by the power of his word. Without physical light, life on earth would die; without spiritual light, mankind will perish in sin. It is unthinkable that anyone would try to keep people in darkness from the light of the gospel of Christ. Yet, in reality, there are those who attempt to hinder the free knowledge of truth.

Clergy Interference

Certain religions establish a “clergy” and “laity” dis- tinction that is foreign to New Testament Christianity. “Clergy” refers to an ecclesiastical hierarchy imposed on religious bodies by which some men are elevated in rank above others. “Laity” defines the rest of people who are ranked beneath the authority of the clergymen. Not only is this system foreign to New Testament Christianity, it is antithetical to it. The New Testament teaches a brotherhood of believers in which each Christian is a holy priest (1 Pet. 2:4-10). Only Jesus is a high-priest over other priests (Heb. 7:20-27). The only structure given to the church of the Lord is that revealed in Philippians 1:2: “bishops, deacons and saints.” A “bishop” is a spiritual overseer (also called an elder, presbyter, and shepherd: 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Acts 14:23; 20:17-38). The work of a bishop is a place of service, not an office of rank. How different is the life of Jesus Christ (who is our High Priest and Chief Shepherd) from those who wear expensive garments of silk and tapestry, with jewels on their fingers and tiaras of diamonds on their head, demanding rank, superior- ity, privilege, and prestige. In contrast, Jesus washed the feet of the disciples and taught that “those who would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven will be servant of all” (Luke 22:24-26).

But the greater danger lies not in the elevation of men to superior rank in religion; these clergymen demand the right to interpret scripture for the lesser laity, “let’s just keep this among us boys!” Declaring that they stand between God and the lower laity, the clergy claim the right to give or withhold Scripture as part of the sacerdotal system of exclusive priesthood. Note this excerpt from an address by the cardinals of Rome to Pope Pius III, which is preserved in the National Library of Paris, folio No. 1068, Vol. 2, 650-651 (via The Sower, Vol. 5, No. 1, Yuma, AZ):

Of all the advice that we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the mat- ter, namely, to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is the book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it.

Not only do they lay claim to control the Scriptures, but they also lay claim to the right to dispense grace as representatives of Christ. Thus, “sacraments” are given or restricted, depending on the decision of the clergy, “the good ol’ boys.” By this sacerdotal system, millions are held in spiritual bondage for fear of losing “grace” through displeasing the clergy who stand between them and God.

Protestant Creeds

Not to allow Catholics to get one step ahead of them, Protestant churches likewise use the “just among us boys” error in its creedal systems. No denomination can exist without a creed. Thus, denominations form synods, coun- cils, committees, and conferences which formulate the creeds distinctive to that particular religious body. Creeds form barriers from one denomination to another and to be a part of a specific denomination, one must accept the authority of the creed which denominates that body. The Methodist Discipline makes Methodists, not Baptists; the Lutheran Catechism makes Lutherans, not Catholics; the writings of Mary Baker Eddy make Christian Scientists, not Unitarians; the Watch Tower Society makes Jehovah’s Witnesses, not Episcopalians; the Book of Mormon (and other writings of Joseph Smith, et al.) makes Mormons, not Sabbatarians, etc.

Jesus condemned human creeds: “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, and in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matt. 15:8-9).

The apostle Paul condemned division (“denominational- ism” means “division”) when he said, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He further rebuked that church for allowing division based upon following certain men: “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say that, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (vv. 11-13).

How long will it take us to learn that “just among us boys” is an attitude that violates the will of Christ, causes division, permits creeds to multiply and destroys the unity of believers. What right does any man or group of men have to decide among themselves what doc- trines to bind upon others?

Among Churches of Christ

Are those of us who are members of the church of Christ immune from this syndrome that seems so much a part of human practice? By no means! Just as the apostles themselves had bad attitudes about themselves and about their superiority, we can fall prey to the “good ol’ boy” system of thinking. “Just among us boys” describes an attitude of heart that elevates a few above others, that expects privacy and privilege to excuse their error, that extends special treatment to those “within the club” and expects reciprocation. Those as- sociated with Truth Magazine are not beyond this failing if we fail to watch ourselves. If we become so enamored of ourselves that we expect anyone to accept what we say simply because we say it, we have been bitten with the “bug.” If we should come to believe that we speak for the brotherhood, or a segment thereof (which we do not, nor do we seek to do so; each writer speaks only for him or herself), we have the “virus” of spiritual elitism that leads to denominationalism. If we should come to expect prefer- ential treatment from others so that we are above criticism or biblical review, we have fallen ill to the syndrome. If we think we are the “inner circle” of the sanctum sanctorum, expecting privacy to cover our error, we are as guilty as the Pope of Rome, the Lutheran Synod or the Baptist General Convention of promoting denominationalism. Let there be no mistake: “just among us boys” is another word or phrase that denotes an attitude that compromises truth, seeks to cover sinful beliefs and doctrines, and expels from the “in- ner circle” of religious superiority those who disagree.

“Just among us boys” describes those who whisper and gossip among themselves about those who oppose them but who will refuse like cowards to discuss and debate like concerned brethren. “The boys” have been known to whisper around and get gospel meetings canceled, seek to stop a church from hiring a certain preacher with whom they disagree, and tear down a reputation of a fellow Christian without once discussing an issue or meeting face to face with the brother in question.

“The boys” will demand their right to teach error pub- licly and then hide behind Matthew 18 if one does not come to them personally before exposing their sin. Of course, they expect the privilege to expose individuals with whom they disagree without going to them (those in the institutional churches, Christian Churches, denominational bodies, etc.).

“The boys” will expect the right to go across the coun- try and around the world teaching error but will criticize those who oppose them as self-seeking opportunists who are trying to make a name for themselves, who are jealous, who do not respect congregational autonomy and who lack brotherly love.

“The boys” demand the right to teach error and remain in fellowship with brethren everywhere. The “brothers” of “the boys” are willing to extend fellowship to those who teach error in direct contradiction of Scriptures: 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:6-9, etc. You see, it is not enough to avoid evil practices (Rom. 1:18-31). The Scripture also condemns those who “approve of those who practice them” (v. 32). Yet there are those “among the boys” who teach egregious error about adulterous marriages and their “brothers” are willing to associate with them, use them in gospel meetings, support them, and condemn those who oppose their error.

“The boys” have an attitude that they can spread error across the Internet among discussion groups yet plead special privilege or “privacy” and demand that no one be allowed to review their error. After being chastised by one brother quite severely for “violating his privacy” by quoting from his material in a discussion group on the Internet, I was vindicated after the fact by that entire discussion being sold publicly on a CD in a bookstore. It is a strange definition of “privacy” to discuss issues among hundreds and claim immunity as a private discussion. As a child, most of us played a game of “Tag” and would say, “King’s X” if we wanted to be immune from being “tagged.” “The boys” want to use “King’s X” after teaching error because they don’t want to be tagged! Others of this mind-set will teach a group of young men or a Bible class in a home and urge them to “keep our discussions private.” They especially don’t like tape recorders. Tape recorders have an uncanny way of being exact about what has been taught!

“The boys” want to be treated with dignity, love, and gentleness. They decry the spirit by which one brother reviews another’s error. But their desire to be treated with dignity, love, and gentleness (which is usually afforded them) is returned by caustic criticism toward “journal- istic jingoism,” “watchdogs,” “buzzards,” brotherhood supervisors,” etc. One thing is clear: let a brother teach that an adulterous marriage is okay and he will be treated with dignity, love, and gentleness by his “brothers.” But let someone expose the error of adulterous marriages and those who are willing to fellowship that error and he will be boiled in oil!

“The boys” like to “toss out an idea” and be seen as “original thinkers” who are tired of the old “church of Christ traditions” and want to introduce something new. It is often heard, when these “new ideas” are being explored that we are just “thinking out loud to see where this will go” and asking for input from other original thinkers as “iron sharpens iron” (Prov. 27:17). Of course, when they meet a fellow with a “forehead like adamant” (Ezek. 3:9), they become mighty unhappy!

“The boys” want to spread their doctrine of fellowship with error, compromise and unity in diversity in every way possible: a network of religious papers, college campuses, gospel meetings, private discussion groups, via the Inter- net, and house to house. But they don’t want to extend the same privilege to those who oppose them. Those who oppose them have bad attitudes, ulterior motives, are dis- honest, are not trustworthy, have a network, and do all this without love. Yet I have noticed that any amount of love, however great and real, is never enough for the man who is determined to teach error. Love him as you will. When you oppose him, you don’t love him, in his estimation. Isn’t is exceedingly strange that false teachers are always so full of love, and those who oppose false teachers are so full of hate? Did you notice this oddity? Folks, it is not a lack of love that is our problem. Did Paul not love the brother in Corinth that was to be disciplined? Did Paul not love Peter when he withstood him to the face? Did Jesus not love the apostles when he rebuked them for wanting special seats in the kingdom? One of the biggest lies ever told by the Devil (and used by false teachers) is that it is a lack of love that motivates every person that opposes error! But one thing is sure: I love my brethren too much to keep my mouth shut and let them teach error without hearing about it. I love truth too much to keep silent. I love the church too much to allow it to be led into digression without some effort on my part.

In short, “the boys” don’t like to be questioned, chal- lenged, put to the test. They want the right to go about “hither, thither and yon” teaching what they like to whom- ever they like without having to face the consequence of their actions. The Pope would like to spread Catholicism without examination, too. But with dignity, love, and gentleness, we will oppose him.

The right attitude to be found in gospel preaching is that demonstrated by Jesus. Teach the truth plainly. Put it on the housetops. Spread it to the world. Yes, preach the gospel from a heart full of love, but don’t be more dignified that the Savior. Don’t be more timid than the inspired writers. “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Col. 4:5-6).

By Bobby L. Graham

This question often comes from honest people, wondering why some of us do not use mechanical instruments in the worship of the Lord. It is a fair question that demands a fair answer.

All worship of God is limited by whatever divine instruc- tions have been given for our guidance. God has always prescribed what constitutes acceptable worship of him under every dispensation that he has made with mankind. We must conform our efforts to his will and seek never to impose our own wills upon his. A lesson learned from the very first instance of worship recorded in the Old Testament — that of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 — is that we must act by faith in God, based on what he has spoken, if our wor- ship is to please him (Heb. 11:4). The same lesson can be learned from the Mosaic dispensation, in the case of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire to the Lord in Leviticus 10. Whatever God has not sanctified as acceptable to him in worship is unauthorized and constitutes will worship.

We also learn from the New Testament that worship can be will worship — worship established by one’s own will (self-directed worship). Paul spoke about this in Colossians 2:23. The Lord himself declared that worship based upon the doctrines and commandments of men is offered in vain (Matt. 15:8-9). Because no instruction from God under the New Testament shows the use of any music besides sing- ing to be acceptable in worship, a person adding any other kind of music is doing so on the basis of human desires and pleasure, not the expressed will of God. Will worship fails to meet God’s approval, as seen in Colossians 2:23.

New Testament regulations for worship are those that apply to God’s people under the new covenant of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). Old Testament regulations like those during David’s day have no relevance or application to people in the Lord’s church. To use the Old Testament is to burden oneself with the entire Mosaic Law, according to Galatians 5:1-4, including its insistence upon animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. To accept part of the Old Testament practices but refuse others, in the absence of any such direction from the Lord to do so, is to make one’s own thinking superior to God’s thinking and to fall from divine grace.

In spite of David’s use of the instrument or the encour- agement to use such, as in Psalm 150, the New Testament instructs the Christian to sing and make melody in his heart to the Lord. The heart of the worshiper is the instrument that is employed in acceptable worship, and its melody is the only melody that the Lord stresses (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

In view of biblical teaching along the lines discussed in this study, it is important to ask for New Testament teach- ing that authorizes the use of the mechanical instrument of music in worship to God. Anyone using such ought to be willing to provide New Testament justification for its use. Where is that teaching found in the New Testament? If it can be produced, then we should all practice it. If it cannot be found, then all should omit its use in order to please the Lord, which is the very essence of worship.