Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

The Church And The Individual

In my previous article under the above heading, it was pointed out that the practice of church support of colleges and benevolent institutions operated by brethren has been based on the assumption that what the individual is obligated to do in the way of good works, the church is also obligated to do. In this article I want to give special attention to a statement made by a strong proponent of the above theory and practice. In a tract entitled, Questions And Issues Of The Day In The Light Of The Scriptures, Brother Batsell Barnet Baxter of David Lipscomb College said regarding any distinction between church action and individual action:

“No such distinction is taught in the scriptures. If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the responsibility falls equally upon individuals and upon the church, for individuals are the church.”

Since Brother Baxter claims scriptural support for what he teaches and practices regarding the church and the individual we therefore raise the question, “What do the scriptures teach with regard to the church and the individual?” The attention of the reader is directed to the following facts with their supporting scriptures:

Distinction As To Identity

While it is true that the church is composed of individual Christians, it is also apparent that the scriptures recognize a distinction as to the identity of each. This is obvious from the following scriptures.

1. In Romans 12:4,5 Paul likened the church unto our physical body. “For even as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another.” The import of Paul’s language is that though all the members (individual Christians) combined form the one body in Christ, yet these members are distinct from one another in that all have not the same office.

2. That Paul recognized a distinction between one member (the individual) and the body of Christ (the church) is obvious from 1 Cor. 12:14. “For the body is not one member, but many.” To say, therefore, that what the individual can do, the church can do, or that when the individual acts it is the church acting is tantamount to saying that the church is one member and one member is the church, which Paul declared is not so.

3. A distinction between the identity of the church and the individual is also apparent from the language of Jesus in Rev. 2:13. Addressing the church at Pergamum he paid a tribute to “Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you where Satan dwelleth.” Obviously Antipas (an individual) had died for the faith. But who would said that the church had died?

Distinction Between Church Action And Individual Action

Because the scriptures recognize a distinction between the identity of the church and of the individual, they also recognize a distinction between what constitutes church action and that which is individual action. Consider the following examples.

1. The reader is requested to turn to and read carefully Matt. 18:15-17. There Jesus was giving the formula or solution for the settlement of differences between brethren. In this scripture Jesus prescribed three steps to be taken.

(a) The wronged brother is to go to the brother is error and tell him his fault (individual action).

(b) If that fails, take two or three brethren and go to him again (group action).

(c) If that fails, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to hear the church, let him be disfellowshipped (church action).

Is it not a good work to restore an erring brother? But if it is true, as affirmed by some brethren, that what the individual does the church does, then in that case the church was acting from the very beginning when the individual first went to his erring brother. Therefore, the church knew about it all the time. Thus the words of Jesus, “tell it to the church,” would be pointless.

2. In the fifth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul gave instructions to the church at Corinth as to the action to be taken regarding a member who was guilty of fornication. Paul said: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The expression, “deliver such a one unto Satan,” obviously meant withdrawal of fellowship. Thus Paul commanded church action to be taken against the man guilty of fornication (individual action).

Distinction As To Financial Resources

The scriptures also make a distinction between the financial resources of the church and those of the individual, both as to how they are acquired and as to how they are used. The individual can acquire his resources in the form of wages paid to him for work (Eph. 4:13). Or, he may operate a business for profit (James 4:13). The church, however, is limited to but one way in which to acquire its resources, and that is through the contributions of its members on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

There has been some confusion in the minds of some brethren regarding the status of an individual Christian’s own funds and those that have been contributed on the first day of the week and which constitute what is commonly called “the church treasury.” This confusion is evident from a question that has been asked. “Do dollars become tainted with some kind of taboo as soon as they fall into the church treasury?”

That the scriptures recognize a difference between the resources of the individual and those that have been contributed into the church treasury is obvious from the words of Peter in the fifth chapter of Acts. Ananias and his wife Sapphira, following the example of others, had sold some land. But they had conspired to make it appear that they were giving the entire selling price of the land, while keeping back a part of it. In exposing their hypocrisy Peter asked, “While it remained, did it not remain thine own. And after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” The point is obviously this: they owned the land. They were not obligated to sell it. Having sold the land, the money realized from the sale was theirs to give or not to give. They were not required to give all of it, nor any of it, for that matter. Their sin was in the conspiracy to make it appear that they were giving the entire selling price of the land when they were, in fact, giving only a part of it.

So Peter’s words teach very forcefully and conclusively that there is a difference between the individual’s own resources and the money that has been dropped into the collection basket. The individual is at liberty to spend his or her money for, or contribute to, anything that is morally right. But once money has been dropped into the collection basket on the first day of the week, it becomes the Lord’s money and can be used only for what is scripturally authorized.

It may be objected at this point that all money is the Lord’s money, whether in the church treasury or in the individual’s bank account. In a sense, yes. But is not the money in the church treasury the Lord’s money in a sense different from that of the money of the individual? Consider the following parallel: Through the prophet Ezekiel, God said, “All souls are mine” (Ezekiel 18:4). But while all people belong to God, there is a special sense in which Christians belong to God which is not true of people of the world. Christians are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). In the same way, there is a sense in which all money, whether it be that of saint or sinner, is the Lord’s money, for “The earth is Jehovah’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). But when the Christian’s money is dropped into the collection basket, he relinquishes control over it, and it becomes the Lord’s money in a special sense, to be spent only as the Lord has authorized.

Distinction As To Individual And Church Obligation

Here, the reader’s attention is directed to the fifth chapter of First Timothy. Paul was giving instruction regarding the care of widows. Let us notice the following points: (1) In verse three Paul said, “Honor widows that are widows indeed.” (2) In verse five, however, Paul said, “But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” Thus Paul taught that it is the individual that has the responsibility of caring for a widowed mother or grandmother. In further elaboration of that point Paul said, “But if any provideth not for his own, and especially his own household, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

(3) This brings us to verse sixteen, where Paul said, “If any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” In the light of this passage, who can deny that the scriptures make a distinction between the responsibility of the individual and that of the church? Did not Paul specifically charge the individual with a responsibility with which the church was not to be burdened? But if it is true, as we have been told, that what the individual does the church does, then the church was being burdened all along in the action of the individual in caring for a widowed mother, and thus Paul’s words, “Let not the church be burdened” are meaningless.

So to handle aright the word of truth, we must recognize the distinction that the scriptures make between the church and the individual, in identity, in financial resources, in action and in obligation. To burden the church with that which is the responsibility of the individual is a corruption of its mission.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 774-775
December 15, 1977

By Mike Willis

Last week, a personal friend of mine sent me a complimentary copy of A Journey Toward Jesus. This book is a 48-page, paperback co-authored by Edward Fudge and Bruce Edwards. It is subtitled “16 Letters on Salvation by Grace through Faith, and its implications for the People of God.” The sixteen letters are the personal correspondence of Bruce and Edward which spans the period from November 9, 1973 to April 23, 1975. My personal impression of the book is that the correspondence is conclusive proof that Bruce Edwards has accepted the positions advocated by Edward Fudge and others associated with the new unity faction.

In the beginning of the correspondence, Bruce comes across as Edward’s antagonist. In the close of the correspondence, Bruce is writing to Edward for advice on how to conduct himself now that he has accepted the new doctrines. The correspondence will demonstrate that Bruce Edwards has accepted the position that institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music, etc. should not be grounds for the breaking of fellowship.

It is with no small amount of sadness that I write this rather detailed review of A Journey Toward Jesus. Bruce is a former staff writer for Truth Magazine. On November 7, 1974, Cecil Willis announced the addition of Bruce to the staff of Truth Magazine and commended him very highly. I met Bruce shortly after that and was very impressed with him. Shortly thereafter, I begin to receive his bulletin which was published by the church in St. James, Missouri and named The Helper. Before too long, I begin to read articles in The Helper which were upsetting to me, so I started saving those copies. I soon began to correspond with Bruce regarding some of the things which he was writing in his bulletin, expressing disagreement with them. His letters reassured me that he had not gone soft, so I threw away my stack of his bulletins fully accepting his word. But, the tone of his writings did not change; they were very definitely leaning in the wrong direction so I began to collect the bulletins again and to correspond with Bruce further.

Those who were acquainted with the nature of the present apostasy were able to see that Bruce was gradually adopting all of the cliches and arguments which those who believe in unity-in-diversity are using. We could see the direction which Bruce was taking and were very concerned about him. The digression of Bruce is not yet complete but it has gone far enough now that he needs to be exposed as a false teacher, a propagator of the unity-in-diversity concept. To show that this is happening, I want to review the book which Bruce and Edward have jointly authored.

In the first letter which Bruce wrote, he took issue with some of the concepts taught by Edward. Edward replied with a lengthy letter in which he taught his doctrine of salvation through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. I have not read anything from Edward’s pen which states his position on the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ as clearly as does this letter. In Bruce’s reply, he did not oppose Edward’s comments on imputation; indeed, he was silent on the subject. After reading the book, I telephoned Bruce to ask him, among other things, if he accepted the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. In essence, he replied, ‘No, but I come out about the same place.” (These are his words as nearly as I can reproduce them from memory.)

After receiving Edward’s reply to his second letter, Bruce wrote,

In a way I’m feeling a sense of exhilaration, a sense that I’m on the verge of putting some things in perspective that were formerly out of line, and It is very exciting and gratifying) To be sure, it is an awesome task to re-evaluate long held conceptions and beliefs, and it Is surely a slow process, but I hope that with God’s guidance, I can truly understand His will (p. 21 ).

Although Bruce was writing to me that he had not changed his convictions, he was writing to Edward that he was on the verge of giving up some long-held convictions. I cannot help wondering how a twenty-one year old boy could write about “long-held” convictions!

At other places in the correspondence, Bruce comes, across as an antagonist of Edward again. However, he resembles the fly that has been caught in the spider’s web which makes a few attempts to escape before he is killed by the spider’s poison. From that point on in the correspondence, Bruce begins to accept more and more of Edward’s points of view. It seemed significant to me that during the same period in which I was becoming upset by Bruce’s bulletin that Edward wrote him, “You have had some good material in your bulletin on the undenominational nature of the church. That is an important thing to remember” (p. 27).

In the eleventh letter, Edward wrote these things to Bruce:

It seems to me that if the Lord would forgive people who sinned with knowledge, He would ail the more forgive those who through no fault of their own were ignorant when they sinned. Doesn’t that sound reasonable to you? You are right, of course, that Scripture presents no “rosy picture” for those who sin ignorantly. We cannot tell folks: “Just go on ignorant and you’re sure to be forgiven that way)” Anybody who did that would either be stupid to the point of being a fool or else would be the worst sort of antinomian and perverter of God’s grace. But there is a great deal of difference between acknowledging that, on the one hand, and going around saying, as so many seem to do (there is no point in calling names here, the principle Is what matters), “you cannot be saved because you do not understand ‘x’ issue the same way I do.” Especially when both are Christians, both are honestly seeking to know the will of God, and both concede that “x” issue is not something God has specifically spelled out in Scripture or attached importance to in a specific manner at all, but rather Is something men of the 19th or 20th centuries have seen to be an important bane, growing out of the cultural, economic and corporate concepts of the world around them. . . .

Why do men who agree on music, institutionalism, etc., nevertheless still disagree among themselves on women in the church, women’s apparel, movies, smoking, war, women’s covering, Sunday night communion, a multitude of “moral” issues) mixed swimming, dancing, etc.), and many other things actually involving practice, not to mention all the differences on what the Bible means in certain passages and on particular subjects (the Holy Spirit’s Indwelling, the meaning of Eph. 4:12fi, aspects of prophecy, etc., etc., etc.) I do not believe that we can say they are therefore not true believers, necessarily, though that is a possibility with any of them. If we see the point there, why do we not see it among those who have become children of God, who differ on I mental music, institutionalism, etc.? Someone may say, “But there affect the work and worship of the church” we have already talked about that. Some may say, “But these affect others necessarily, while the things you mention do not affect anyone except the individual involved.” That is true, but so what, so far as this point is concerned? It is true that they can more easily worship under the same roof and disagree on individual matters than if they disagreed on what they have do together, but the principle of understanding God’s will and being men of faith while they sometimes differ is the same . . . .

On the preacher from the Christian church in your town:

I believe your relationship with him would have to depend on the particular situation. Until recently there was no such thing as a Christian Church denomination, though it was developing for a long time, but now there officially is, and those in it use the name “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” These are usually, though not always quite liberal on many points, is involved in the ecumenical movement, and all that. Many of them accept people for membership who have not been immersed, much less with an understanding of Acts 2:38.

On the other band, many who call themselves a “Christian church” are as much against denominationalism and those things as we are, and have no connections whatever with the Disciples. They usually refer to themselves as “the independent brotherhood of churches of Christ and Christian churches.” And even there the spectrum is about as broad as among non- instrumental churches of Christ. So it really depends on the situation.

Of course you can never either engage in or encourage anything you do not believe to be right. At the same time, if the fellow turns out to be a New Testament Christian, you at least have that in common, and a starting place from which to work toward further common biblical understanding. I would not say that such a man is a part of a denominational body, unless he is in fact a part of the existing denomination with headquarters in St. Louis. Because a man attends a congregation which uses the instrument does not make him part of a denomination–unless we conceive of our particular part of the non-instrumental wing of the restoration movement as precisely equivalent with the Body of Christ universal, and lump everybody else under the category of “denominational.” That is something neither the Bible nor the restoration pioneers would have allowed, and, although many do it today, I am not one of them.

Upon receiving the lengthy letter from which I have taken these few quotations, Bruce wrote back, “Let me say that this letter has so far been the clearest and easiest one for me to understand and study with.”

In the fifteenth letter, Bruce wrote,

As I told you the morning we ate breakfast together, I think I will soon be facing some trying situations–situations which test the foundation of my commitment to Jesus and Him alone. I just hope I have the courage not to back down — but I know that better men than I am have done just that in the face of partisan pressure. I would appreciate your help in encouraging me, whenever you see me “slipping” back into a “sectarian” mold or frame of reference.

It seems to me that this statement shows conclusively that Bruce recognizes that he has left us and is taking a new stand. He is worried about whether he will have the courage to take that stand without turning back and asks Edward’s encouragement during the trying times which lie ahead for him. By this time in the correspondence, Bruce has adopted the basic tenets of the unity-in-diversity faction.

Intellectual Honesty?

There is yet another exchange between Bruce and Edward which causes me great consternation. Bruce wrote to Edward as follows:

How do you present your case for non-sectarian Christianity? How do you make your points such that no one causes a stir — begins a controversy — over your teaching? These are questions I am grappling with now; at present it seems I can effectively lay a groundwork, building slowly, with the pure gospel, and yet I have some friends who think I am not going fast enough.

Yet, should I “spell it out” in “so many words” — what I believe the implications of my lessons are? That is, is it wiser to do it the way I have been, or is that a sign of weakness or cowardice? My friends are convinced that I need to press it more — immediately, and that is what they propose to do whenever possibilities arise. Is it dishonest or unethical to conceal or keep to oneself his beliefs in given situations? Can I have your thoughts on the matter? Am I acting from fear, or wisdom? (p. 44).

In the last letter of their published correspondence, Edward Fudge replied as follows:

When you deal with a passage or topic, therefore, which touches on the things you feel the brethren need to learn, work it in or bring it out, without making a big to-do over it, simply sowing seed for perceptive minds to think about at their own speed. This is far more preferable than rushing into something and “snowing” people before they are ready for it. The thing is, they will only accept what they are ready for and understand anyway, so why upset them unnecessarily by rushing things. And this is not dishonest or hypocritical; it is simply using good teaching methods such as the Lord Himself did. If your motives in this were to direct attention to some human party, or to advance your own personal interests, it would be sinful. But since your only desire is to lead them to the Lord and to help them grow In His Word and be simple Christians, it is an honorable goal and being “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” to do it. Do not ever be deceitful or misleading; always be truthful; and if somebody puts you on the spot, answer truthfully with humility and grace. But do not think you have to get up and say all you know in one sermon. Jesus never did that, and the apostles did not, either.

As to whether you are being dishonest or a coward or unethical to “conceal” your convictions, that depends on what you mean by “conceal.” If you lie about matters, or pretend and intend to give someone an impression contrary to the truth, then of course that is wrong. If, on the other hand, you mean simply that you do not say everything you feel or think, publicly and at once, your present course is not only justifiable, but the only mature and sensible way to behave.

Don’t think you have to say everything you think. You don’t have to go around telling folks, “Say, I have 38 unusual and novel ideas which I want to lay on you right now!!” To do that would be foolish and childish, and could do no possible good. If you hold ideas simply to be novel and unusual, then it might be good to let people know about it. But If you hold ideas simply because you want to know and please the Lord, it is not necessary to tell everybody all you think; simply work 100 per cent toward causing them also to know and please the Lord ….

Be cautious about revealing your thoughts to other preachers. I wish now that I had not been so open with one or two myself. There is no need to stir up opposition from any who may later prove to be close minded and simply eager to bait you, then go off and spread untrue tales and misrepresentations. Thanks to God there are many, many preaching brethren who are honest and are not the way I mention, but you will gradually learn to discern the difference between the two spirits.

I have quoted extensively from this exchange in letters to make the observation that you will have to be straightforward and to the point to get a precise answer from Bruce regarding where he is standing. Bruce, apparently, has accepted the same spirit as those others who have gone out from us. They keep telling us that they are “sound” but give the word “sound” a different definition than I have when I ask the question, “Are you sound?”

Conclusion

Frankly, I have done all that I know that I can do to prevent Bruce from accepting the position which he has taken. Nevertheless, he has knowingly accepted the conclusions of Edward Fudge and those associated with him. Presently, he poses a threat to the faith of others whom I hold dear. My concern has turned now from Bruce to those who might be influenced by him. They need to be warned and forearmed.

My friend, Lloyd Barker, said that he was not going to waste his time with an “educated liberal.” He meant by that a liberal who is acquainted with the issues and has taken his stand with the liberals. Such a person is not ignorant of the issues; instead, he has taken a studied position. Bruce is exactly such a person. He was reared in one of the strongest churches in Akron, Ohio. He has been taught the truth by some of the best men among us. After that, he enjoyed the privilege of sitting at the feet of the qualified instructors at Florida College. Yet, he has renounced the things which he has been taught and taken his stand with Edward Fudge and his colleagues. Let him, therefore, take the consequences of having taken his position.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 771-773
December 15, 1977

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Sit down in a comfortable chair. Take two aspirin. Calm down. What I am about to say may upset and even anger you. However, it should not because it merely reflects the true facts of the matter. I am referring to Christmas. There is always a lot of talk this time of year about the need to “put Christ back into Christmas.” Frankly, we refuse to. We consider it a joyous secular holiday, a time for fun and games and to relax with close friends and family. But to put Christ into Christmas?

Few things could be more nonsensical. You see, to observe Christmas as a religious holiday is to act totally without scriptural authority. God considers the doing of religious acts that He has not authorized to be outright sin: Lev. 10:1-2 is one of the clearest passages proving that God works on this principle. Furthermore, the Bible condemns the observance of religious holidays that God has not authorized, “Ye observe days and months and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11). Religion has never been given authority to set up religious holidays. Men-yea, uninspired men-usurp the power that rightly belongs only to Jehovah in such matters.

Biblically speaking, there (1) is no command to observe Christ’s birth; (2) there is no example of it being observed; (3) there are no grounds on which to reasonably infer that it was observed by the early church. In short, there is no Divine endorsement for observing Christ’s birth. (Not to mention the “minor” problem that we can not be sure what day it was on or even what month or year it occurred!)

So, friend, enjoy the holiday. Rejoice in your prosperity and in the friends you have been blessed with. But if you wish to honor God on His terms (rather than on those that erring, sinful men invent) keep Christ out of your Christmas. He will be a lot happier about it. Season’s greetings.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, p. 770
December 15, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Kentucky: “I know that we are to put the Lord first in our giving, but does all our giving have to be put in the collection plate on Sunday morning? I ask this question because my parents are aged, and they do not have enough income to live on, and it is necessary for me to help them. Also, there are times when I would like to send money to evangelists that are in need that do not have regular support.

“Another thing I would like to know: I have a grocery. store and a job at the Post Office. Does my giving come before my operating expenses, or out of the profits of my business? It is necessary to have lights, telephone, fuel and employees in the business, and it has bothered me about my giving.”

Reply:

These questions are indicative of a sensitive conscience. They manifest an attitude that is set on pleasing the Lord. Our querist is apparently more interested in doing right than in pleasing self.

No, all our giving does not have to be put in the collection plate on Sunday morning (Rom. 12:13; Eph. 4:28). “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren and to strangers; which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shaft do well” (3 Jn. 5, 6). Here was charity over and above that which was placed in the store or treasury of the Lord’s day.

One must honor his father and mother. Part of this duty involves and includes physical sustenance (Matt. 15:3-9; Mk. 7:1-13). Thus, one must learn to show piety at home and to requite their parents, “for that is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim. 5:4).

We are to give “as God . . .hath prospered” (1 Cor. 16:2). We are to maintain good works for necessary uses and to meet pressing needs (Titus 3:14). Funds required in the operation of the business are not prosperity. They are essential to the maintenance of the company. When Paul made tents (Acts 18:3), he was not prospered the amount used to purchase the goods with which to construct the tents. In the very nature of the case cited, one could not give that which is not actually his. The debts incurred, lights, heat, employees, and phone service, do not represent gain.

For what it is worth, we figure our contribution on our gross income, not on what is left over after all bills are met. I assume that most Christians do this. For example, if our wages are $XXX per week, gross salary, we have a set percentage of that which we have decided to contribute. We endeavor to meet this “purposed-in-our-heart percentage” regardless of the extra items that arise. Every saint must make his own decisions in matters of this kind. God has not bound precise levels. Finally, it is doubtful that our querist is in any danger in this area. With a tender regard for pleasing the Lord, he will, with mature reflection, give as God hath prospered.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, p. 770
December 15, 1977