Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In this series of articles on handling aright the word of truth, I have laid considerable emphasis on the importance of recognizing distinctions that must be made in various areas. Those that have been discussed thus far are, for the most part, distinctions that have been either ignored or overlooked by the denominational world, and thus resulted in denominational doctrines and practices.

In this article, and in others to follow, I propose to point out some important distinctions that have been either overlooked or ignored by some who profess to speak where the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent. This failure is found chiefly among those who promote human institutions, and other forms of human organization to do the work that God ordained to be done by the church. The distinction to which attention is directed in this article is between

The Church-Universal And Local

In his monumental work on the restoration movement, and the controversies that preceded, attended, and followed the formation of that American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, Brother Earl West ascribed the introduction of the society to an effort on the part of its proponents to activate the universal church in the work of evangelism. In a later series of articles on the subject of congregational cooperation he pointed out that universal church action was the taproot of the sponsoring church concept of evangelism. This led him to make this timely observation, and, shall we say, challenge:

“Some day somebody will do the cause of Christ a real service by taking the concept of the church universal, and giving it a thorough analysis, based upon the scriptures and upon church history for the past two thousand years” (The Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 2, page 55).

While I have no illusions that the thoughts that I shall present will measure up to, nor even approximate the scholarly treatment of this subject suggested by Brother West, they are nevertheless offered for what they are worth.

Definitions of Terms

The word, universal, is defined as, “General; existing everywhere; pertaining to, or characteristic of all” (Webster). As the word universal relates to the church, it has reference to the general sense in which the church is referred to in the New Testament as being composed of all baptized believer, throughout the world. As the kingdom of heaven, it is made up of all who have been born again (John 3:3).

It is in this universal sense that the word, church, is used in various passages. Following Peter’s confession of Christ’s Sonship, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). It is used in the universal sense by Paul when he declared that God “gave him (Christ) to be head over all things to the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22,23). And it is used in the same universal sense by Paul when he said that, “The church is subject to Christ” (Eph. 5:24).

In this universal sense the church is also spoken of under various descriptive names. It is called the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19). This emphasizes its governmental feature. Christ is the king. We are his subjects. It is called the body of Christ (Col. 1:18). This emphasizes the headship of Christ, and the closely-knit relationship of members one to another (1 Cor. 12:1426). The church is called the household of God (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15). This emphasizes the family feature. God is the father. We are his children (Gal. 3:26). The church is called the temple of God (Eph. 2:21). This emphasizes the worship feature (Eph. 3:21).

The word, local, is defined as, “pertaining to place; restricted to a particular place” (Webster). As it relates to the church, it therefore has reference to God’s people in any given city or community. It is spoken of in this sense by Paul when he addressed his epistle to “The church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). It is also used in the local sense when the writer of Acts wrote of “the church which was in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1). The writer of Acts also tells us of “the church that was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1). In fact we can say that out of the one hundred and some times that the word, church, or the plural, churches, occurs in the American Standard Version of the New Testament, eighty of these passages refer, without doubt, to a local congregation, the locality either stated or implied.

The plural form, churches, as used by Paul when he said, “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16), and by John when he wrote to “the seven churches of Asia” (Rev. 1:4), referred not to denominations of diverse origin; faith, and government, but to local congregations.

Other Points of Distinction

While the church, universal and local, is distinct in its scope, there are other important distinctions.

1. The church universal has no earthly government. There are no elders. It is ruled from heaven by Jesus Christ whom God “gave to be head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22,23).

2. The church universal has no earthly place of assembly. It is called by the writer of Hebrews, “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23).

3. The church, universal has no mission. It is not a functional body. It does not edify its members. It does not send out, nor pay preachers’ wages. It does not have a treasury. It does not operate in the field of benevolence: It does not discipline unruly members.

In short, we may say that the church in its universal sense is simply a relationship that Christians sustain to Christ, and in which all God’s people are joined to him by the common tie of obedient faith.

In contrast, the local church, or congregation has local organization. It is composed of saints with the bishops (elders) and deacons (Phil. 1:1). It has a local place of assembly (1 Cor. 11:18; Heb. 10:25). It has a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1,2). It is a functional body. It can edify its members (1 Cor. 14:26). It can discipline unruly members (1 Cor. 5:4,5). It can send out evangelists and pay preachers wages (Acts 11:22; 2 Cor. 10:8). It can relieve those of the afflicted who are its responsibility (1 Tim. 5:16).

The government of the local church is strictly congregational. God’s order is, “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5). Their jurisdiction is limited to “the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops” (Acts 20:28). They are to “tend the flock of God which is among you” (1 Peter 5:2).

From the foregoing comparisons between the church universal and the church local, the conclusion emerges that God never intended for the church to function in the universal sense, and has set boundaries that forbid universal church action. All that God has ordained that the church should do is to be done through the local congregation under the oversight of its elders, who have no authority outside of the congregation where they have been appointed. That churches may cooperate is not denied. But cooperation must be such as recognizes and honors the autonomy of each congregation, which rules out the centralization of the resources of cooperating congregations under one governing head, whether it be the directors of an incorporated institution or the elders of another congregation.

Departures From God’s Order

While a proper handling, or correct division of the word of truth requires that we recognize the above distinction between the church in its universal sense and in its local sense, it is one of the sad facts of history that it is the failure to recognize and honor this distinction that has been of the prime causes that have eventually led to apostasy.

The mystery of iniquity, which was at work even in the days of Paul (2 Thess. 2:7), had its beginning in a corruption of church government. Concerning the elders of the church at Ephesus whom he was addressing, Paul said, “And from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30).

In the beginning, as already pointed out, God ordained that there be elders in every church, thus establishing congregational government. The terms, elder and bishop originally referred to the same office (Acts 20:17,28). But in the course of time a distinction grew up between bishops and elders with the former claiming precedence over the latter. The struggle for increasing power continued through many centuries and reached its culmination in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, with the pope claiming the title of universal bishop and the authority to rule all churches throughout the world.

While the Protestant reformation spearheaded by Martin Luther has shorn the pope of much of his power, most Protestant bodies today, though denying the claim of the pope, have some form of universal government in the form of synods; conferences and associations that determine the policies of their respective denominations, and to which local congregations are accountable.

In an article to follow I shall point out that the same concept of universal church action has been responsible for some modern departures from the New Testament pattern.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 677-678
November 3, 1977

By Mike Willis

Last week’s editorial considered the price of Christianity from the standpoint of what it cost Jesus. In this week’s editorial, I want to consider what Christianity costs the individual who decides to become a Christian. Because of the charge that some of us are teaching salvation by perfect obedience, let me quickly state that I do not believe that the things which man does in response to the gospel of Christ can be considered meritorious works. The full price for man’s redemption was paid by Jesus when He shed His precious blood. Yet, the figure of the counting of the cost of Christianity is perfectly biblical when applied to what it costs man (cf. Lk. 14:26ff). Hence, I would like to consider the price of Christianity to those who are disciples of Jesus Christ.

Separation From The World

One of the first things which Christianity costs man is the price of separation from the world. God’s demand is, “Come out from their midst and be separate. . .and do not touch what is unclean” (2 Cor. 6:18). Hence, those who are Christians must be men who have decided to forego whatever pleasures immorality can bring and to give themselves to the service of God. There is no way that the disciple of Christ can live in sin. John said, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” (1 Jn. 3:19).

Separation from the world will mean giving up the things which are wrong. The fornicator must cease to practice fornication; the adulterer must quit practicing adultery. The gambler must cease to gamble. The drunkard, social drinker, etc. must quit their drinking. The one who uses profanity must cease doing this so that his speech might be pure.

The life of a Christian should distinguish him from the non-Christian. Peter wrote, “For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Pet. 4:3-4). Notice that Peter expected the Christian’s moral conduct to be different from that of the non-Christian.

One of the reasons that Christianity has had such little impact on the world around us in recent years is that the distinction between the world and the Christian is blurred. My friend, I can guarantee you that the difficulty in distinguishing the Christian from the non-Christian is not caused by the moral purity of the world. Rather the problem lies with Christians who have become convinced that there is no reason to break adulterous marriages, that there is nothing wrong with social drinking, that mixed swimming is all right, that gambling is not so bad after all that there is nothing wrong with dancing, and that there is nothing wrong with off-color jokes. That is not the way Christ intended it; the Christian is to practice a standard of living far superior to that of the world. Hence, Christianity will cost him separation from the world.

Persecution

Christianity will also cost the Christian persecution. Paul wrote, “And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). Generally, the persecutions which we are facing in this age are much less intense than those which first century Christians had to face. Nevertheless, we do face persecutions.

The man who lives the moral life demanded by the Bible is socially ostracized. Because we do not participate in the telling of filthy jokes and in going with our fellow man to the taverns, bars, night clubs, and office parties, we are considered “outsiders.” We are not with the “in” crowd. Hence, we are socially ostracized. We are considered “crazy” for giving sacrificially. Those who attend all of the services of the local church are considered “religious freaks.” Anyone who reads his Bible regularly is a “Bible-beater.” If we think that salvation is available only in Christ, we are considered narrow-minded, bigoted idiots. Yes, those who follow Christ will be persecuted. That is one of the things which Christianity costs the Christian.

Time

Christianity also costs a man his time. Paul wrote, “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:15,16). There are times when the service of Jesus Christ calls the Christian away from activities which he enjoys. There are times when I would prefer to be in bed asleep, at home with my family, or just having a good time that I must be about the Father’s business. Yes, Christianity costs a Christian his time.

I sometimes wonder what our conditions would be like if God treated us like we treat Him. Suppose we said, “Father, give me this day my daily bread,” and He said, “I am sorry, but I am too busy for you today.” I am afraid that we would die of starvation. Yet, I am exposed to a number of “Christians” who are “too busy” to worship God. My brethern, those who are “too busy” to worship and work for God are “too busy” to be saved. God will not save those who are so preoccupied with the things of this world they cannot serve Him. Hence, Christianity costs us our time.

Our Life And Talents

Christianity also demands that I use my life and talents in the service of God. For different persons, this will mean different things because each of us has differing abilities. However, for me, the service of Christ means spending my life as a gospel preacher. I can remember when I left home to go to college that I planned to become some kind of an engineer. Then, I was going to get a good job (translated, that meant only that I was going to make big money) and live comfortably ever after. Then, I realized that God had given me certain abilities for which I was accountable (Mt. 25:14-30). Consequently, I felt a responsibility to use my energies in His service.

I remember hearing Brother James P. Needham preaching in Marion, Indiana on this very subject. He made a statement or two about this which has frequently come to my mind. He said, “Any excuse which God will accept from you who are in possession of the ability to preach for not giving your life to gospel preaching He will accept from me as an excuse to quit preaching.” Though I had no desire to quit preaching, I thought about that for many years. I still believe that it is true. Apparently, Paul felt the same way for he wrote, “for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16).

Christianity costs us the use of our life and talents in Christ’s service. You who have the ability to lead singing must use that in Christ’s service. You who have the ability to become elders and deacons must use that in Christ’s service. Whatever talents you have in your possession, you must use them for Christ. That is what Christianity costs the Christian.

Money

Christianity costs me my money as well. Every week, I donate a pretty good portion of my income to the Lord. That money could be used to buy me a boat, clothes, a second car, etc. just as easily as the world uses its money to satisfy itself. Yet, I do not begrudge the money which I give to my Lord. After all, He is the one who gave me the ability to earn a wage. Moses said, “for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth” (Deut. 8:18). What I give to Him is but a small portion

of what He has so bountifully given to me.

Really, the money which I give to Christ is the only money which amounts to anything anyway. One poet expressed it like this:

“Use your money while you’re living,

Do not hoard it to be proud.

You can never take it with you,

There are no pockets in the shroud.

“Gold can help you on no farther

Than the graveyard where you lie.

And though you are rich while you are living,

You’re a pauper when you die.

“Use it then some lives to brighten

As through this weary world they plod.

Place your bank account in heaven,

And grow richer toward God.”

The Christian recognizes that Christianity will cost him money since he is expected to give sacrificially to the Lord.

Conclusion

My brethren, Christianity does not come to us cheaply. It did not come cheaply for Christ and it will not come cheaply to us. Yet, the rewards which it holds out for us make whatever sacrifices which we must make to serve Christ infinitesimal. The opportunity to escape Hell and to live forever in Heaven comes to me at a small price. I am willing to sacrifice all of this and much more to live forever with God in the bliss of Heaven.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 675-677
November 3, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

Paul was at a place called Troas on his second journey when a vision appeared to him in the night. He saw a man from the country of Macedonia who was saying, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” The apostle and his companions came to Philippi, the ranking city in that section of Macedonia, after concluding that the Lord had called them to preach the gospel in that region. The Romans had planted a colony at Philippi.

Lydia and her household were the first converts at Philippi. Notice what the Bible says about this woman in Acts 16:12-15.

1. Lydia was a business woman. She was a seller of purple. This could mean that she sold a dye that was used in staining fibers, or it may mean that she sold cloth or garments that had been dyed. It is said of the rich man in Lk. 16:19 that he was clothed in purple and fine linen. Lydia did not allow her business interests to keep her from higher interests. Many people use their trade or occupation as an excuse for not serving God. In some cases, one’s business becomes so absorbing that he has no interest in spiritual concerns: Lydia was converted because the Lord was more important than her career.

2. Lydia was a foreigner. She was from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. We are not informed of how long she had been at Philippi when Paul and his coworkers arrived. Her being away from her native land did not cause her to forget about religion.

3. Lydia was a praying woman. Paul and the other preachers who were with him learned that it was customary for prayer to be offered by a river side on the Sabbath. They spoke to the women who resorted to that place. Lydia was among them. It is likely that these women were of the Jewish race. Perhaps there were not enough Jews around Philippi to build a synagogue, so a few faithful women were praying regularly at a designated spot by a river side each Sabbath.

4. Lydia worshiped God. Most of the people in Macedonia were idolaters. People were converted in some cases from idolatrous worship. But Lydia had the advantage of believing in the true and living God before she heard the gospel. However, her being a prayerful worshiper of God did not make her a saved person without the gospel. Paul did not go along with the idea that one religion is as good as another. He knew that Lydia was lost in spite of her devotion.

5. Lydia heard the truth. Paul and his companions “spake” (v. 13); Lydia “heard” (v. 14). This is the first step in converting anyone to Jesus Christ. “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father; cometh unto m8;” said Jesus in John 6:45. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

6. Lydia had her heart opened. The Lord opened her heart. This was accomplished through tile power of the gospel which she heard. The Bible does not say that the Lord opened her heart that she might hear, but it says she heard, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). It is by means of the gospel that the Lord opens hearts. First, Lydia heard the word. Second, by the influence of that word her heart was opened by the Lord. Third, because her heart was opened she gave heed to what she was taught to do.

7. Lydia was baptized. This harmonizes with what Jesus told the apostles when they were being sent forth in Mk. 16:15, 16. “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Lydia was not saved by faith only. She demonstrated her faith in obedience. Jesus requires baptism as a demonstration of faith, and the remission of sins depends on this kind of faith (Acts 2:38, 22:16).

Both Lydia and her household were baptized. To use this case as justification for infant baptism necessitates the following assumptions: (1) that Lydia was married; (2) that she had children; and, (3) that her children were yet infants. Lydia’s household could have been her servants. If she was married and had children, they could have been mature enough to know right from wrong, and would have been proper subjects for baptism. Other passages make it clear that baptism is for repentant believers, therefore infants are excluded.

8. Lydia shared in gospel work. After being baptized, she besought Paul and his fellow workers to abide in her house. This offer of hospitality was not a mere courtesy. She “constrained” them. She was indebted to these men who had taught her the truth. She wanted to provide them with lodging as an expression of her appreciation and to show her interest in their important work. Afterward, when Paul wrote to the saints at Philippi, he said, “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine . . . For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now” (Phil. 1:3-5). From the time of Lydia’s conversion to the time of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, the saints at Philippi had shown a willingness to share with the apostle in his good work.

The account of Lydia’s conversion is one of the many impressive narratives showing how people turned to the Lord under the influence of simple gospel preaching in the days of the apostles. The same gospel is still being preached and souls are still being converted.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, p. 674
November 3, 1977

By Jady W. Copeland

In the May 8th issue of Truth Magazine (1975), I wrote an article on “Are Blood Transfusions Wrong?” The conclusion to which I came in that article included my understanding of Acts 15:19-21, namely that this is not a blanket prohibition of the apostles and elders to eat blood in all generations of time, but that it was prohibited then because of the strained relationship between Jew and Gentile. The four things mentioned in verses 20 and 29 were things common to the Gentile Christians as they often practiced them prior to their becoming Christians. However, they seemed to have offended many of the Jews and, thus, in cementing the relationship between Jew and Gentile, it seems to me that Peter and the apostles were telling the Gentile Christians to refrain from these things in view of that relationship. From 1 Cor. 8 and 10 we learn that the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols was not, in all cases, sinful so if Acts 15:19 is a blanket prohibition (even for us today), it seems to me that you have a contradiction. Therefore, after studying the passage further in Acts 15, I have come to the conclusion as stated above.

As many of the Filipino brethren take Truth Magazine and since I was in the Philippines last April along with Brother Harold Trimble, I ran into a number of brethren there who questioned me on my article. Eating balute (unborn chickens and ducks still in the shell, and cooked) is a common practice in the Philippines as well as the eating of blood in other forms. Thus, it is a much greater “issue” there than in the United States. The position of brethren in the Philippines has been, and is, what my position had long been with reference to eating blood-namely that it is simply wrong to eat blood in any form. And since it seems to have caused quite a discussion among Filipino brethren, I have decided to write this article concerning attitudes with reference to such things in the hopes that Brother Willis can print it.

Not only have I changed my mind on this passage, but many brethren in the states do not agree with me. It is one of those “issues” I suppose on which there is a great deal of disagreement, but has never caused much trouble since not many people in the states desire to eat blood anyway. I certainly do not desire to eat it (had no “hankering” to eat balute even in the Philippines) and do not make an issue on the subject with those people with whom I disagree. I do not think any less of anyone who disagrees with me on the matter and (as always) realize the possibility of my being mistaken on the matter. I am willing to be taught. But since it seems to have caused some discussion among Filipino brethren, I wanted to appeal to them, and to all, to study the matter very seriously, and be fully assured in his own mind (Rom. 14:5). It is surely not an issue that should cause hard feelings. I appeal to my many Filipino brethren that I met and love to study the matter, but if it is going to cause any kind of hard feelings, then as the apostles wrote, you should refrain from such. Out of love for one another, and the desire for unity such things can be resolved in practice without any trouble at all. It is not a practice (such as the institutional question) where it would involve the whole congregation, but is an individual matter on which each must decide for himself. But I would, in view of the situation in the Philippines, urge brethren there not to eat blood as it might cause a brother to stumble. Even if one there might decide I am right about it, I think (knowing the situation there) it would be in the best interest of unity and love among brethren to refrain from such a practice. As I told some of the brethren while there, this is my own belief in the matter. Study the question for yourselves, and cause no hard feelings or trouble in the matter. There are a number of things I have had a desire to do in life, but have refrained from doing them because I thought they might harm my influence or cause a brother to sin. I do not eat blood. I do not want to eat blood, and if for no other reason than to keep from leading my brethren into sin, I would refrain from doing so. I would not want them to take me for an example and cause them to do that which they believe to be wrong (1 Cor. 8:7-13).

Truth Magazine XXI: 42, pp. 669-670
October 27, 1977