Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

DALLAS (AP)-The Texas Legislature should legalize prostitution, according to the opinion of the congregation of the Richardson Unitarian Church.

Herb Croner, chairman of the church’s Social Action Committee, told newsmen Wednesday that the legislature should make provisions for legalized and controlled prostitution which would make exploitation of the profession by criminal elements impossible.

Corner said the congregation “goes on record strongly condemning the Dallas city ordinance which empowers a nonlegally trained person (police officer) to judge whether or not a person Is prostitute or a panderer.”

The Dallas City Council recently passed an ordinance to combat open prostitution in the Cedar Springs-Osk Lawn area Croner, whose seven-member committee was authorized to take the stand by a recent majority vote of the church’s 75 members, said that a section of the city could be set aside for “declared prostitutes” to practice their trade.

He added that it would be illegal for them to do business outside that area.

“Other Unitarian churches In the area mar not share out viewpoint on the issue,” Croner said.

The foregoing article appeared in the Amarillo GlobeTimes on Nov. 18, 1976. It is another remarkable manifestation of the social / spiritual climate in which we must live. With strong “religious” forces such as this, Satan need not lift a hand in bringing us to condemnation as a people. We might very likely handle his job more rapidly than he would himself. Through the years if a solid stand of conviction had been taken against sin and wickedness by religionists, Satan would have at least had a more difficult battle. Ironically, however, as religious leaders have joined his forces, he has not had to fight. Preachers, such as the one in this newspaper article, have joyfully brought entire congregations into the ranks of the Devil. They have stepped forward to be the leaders in open rebellion against God and His Will. And many are wondering if there is any point at which these people will stop!

Perhaps to understand the Unitarian Church would be somewhat enlightening. This is a fellowship where one is encouraged to develop his own individual faith. No formal statement of faith and conviction is required to enter this fellowship. You can believe in God, Christ, the Scriptures, etc., but such is not required to become a member of this denomination. The “Supreme Being, whatever you perceive Him, Her or It to be” concept is the reigning principle of Unitarianism. So, with a group of people unable to even agree on the existence of God, it should not be too surprising what they might say or do respecting simple morality. Above all, we must guard ourselves that we not embrace these watered down, humanistic, damnable views respecting those things which God has legislated.

If God has spoken on any subject, He has spoken concerning fornication, and prostitution is fornication gone to seed! He spoke of the Gentiles being filled with fornication (Rom. 1:29), and declared their condemnation. He enjoined that men flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18). He pronounced that among those works of the flesh which will prevent entrance into Heaven is the sin of fornication (Gal. 5:19ff). Among the saints, the Lord decreed that fornication should not exist (Eph. 5:3). The Christian is to put to death or mortify sins such as fornication (Col. 3:5). God said His will is that men abstain from fornication (1 Thess. 4:3). Sodom and the cities of the plain were overthrown because they gave themselves unto fornication (Jude 7). Can there be any doubt about God’s will?

There is absolutely no way to misunderstand God’s will on this subject. And, persistence in it is to defy Almighty God and live in open rebellion against Him. This is precisely what has been and is being done in regard to prostitution. Since men are insistent upon practicing such, regardless of the cost, the criminal element of society has profiteered by making such filth available. And, to and behold, instead of crying out against the sin, some silly Dallas religious committee has advanced a solution for the world. If people are going to do it, legalize it! That is a most wonderful solution. And, their liberal, broad-mindedness will be extolled by many as the zenith of wisdom. To be sure, it is “wisdom,” not of God, but of this world! And, the wisdom of this world is the curse of humanity and it always will be.

But, why not try applying this solution (?) to other acts of men. It should be obvious that men are going to steal, just as they will go to the prostitutes. So why not have the state legislature legalize stealing? And men are going to lie. Why not legalize lying? And men will murder other men. Why not legalize murder? Why didn’t the Associated Press ask the spokesman for this Unitarian committee about these other forms of vice, crime and corruption?

The Apostle Paul, by inspiration, issued a warning. We would be well advised to heed that warning in the adoption of attitudes and actions with regard to moral conduct. He wrote, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Apparently some religious organizations are deceived into thinking that civil authority can legislate God’s Law out of existence. No! They only act to place a social stamp of appproval upon sin. Actually, these religious leaders are only encouraging men to continue to defy the Living God. And, God shall not overlook this rebellion or those who lead in it!

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 680-681
November 3, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Major Contribution or Characteristic in Approach to Unity: During the period of the Renaissance Councils, neither popes nor secular rulers were the center of unity; the councils themselves claimed greater power. In various kinds of quarrels, the popes had weakened their position and created division. In the early 1400’s, three different men claimed to be the true pope at the same time. “Men looked with new hope to the great series of Councils which began with Constance” in 1414 (Rouse and Neill, p. 22).

The Conciliar theory gained credence during the Renaissance. This theory claimed that the Church as a whole had power from God to guard the truth; the Pope was merely “the executive of a power residing in all members” of the body. “The community of the faithful transferred this power to the pope,” but could take it back if he misused it. If the pope errs, the Church, “represented in a council,” can remove him and elect a new pope (Dvornik, p. 69). Thus the council, as a representative of the universal Church, was considered superior to the pope, as a representative of the Church. In short, the council was superior to the pope in stating doctrine and creating unity. The Conciliar view held sway for about a hundred years, but then the popes reasserted “their own position as the centre of unity for the Christian world” (Rouse and Neill, p. 22).

Council of Constance, 1414

Pope John XXIII called this council as a concession to the demands of Emperor-Elect Sigismund. In return, Sigismund pledged to give his allegiance to the Pope. But after the Council convened, the Pope vanished in an effort to wreck the Council; not to be outdone, Sigismund forbad the Council to dissolve! The end result was that this Council asserted the preeminent authority of councils. In the Sacrosancta decree, “the Council declared itself an ecumenical assembly with full jurisdiction given it by Christ. Therefore, all Christians, even the pope, must obey its decisions in matters of faith, of union, and of Church reform” (Dvornik, p. 72).

On another front, the Council condemned early reformers John Wyclif (English) and John Huss (Czech). Huss came to Constance with assurances of protection, but was tricked. He was turned over to “the secular arm” and burned at the stake July 6, 1415. This “provoked a new storm in Central Europe which disturbed the peace of the Church for many years to come” (Dvornik, p. 73).

Wyclif had been dead since 1384, but he managed to die of more natural causes, escaping the clutches of the “authorities” who would have liked his head. The Council continued to meet and act through 1418. In 1415, it “condemned Wyclif on 260 different counts, ordered his writings to be burned, and directed that his bones be exhumed and cast out of consecrated ground” (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, p. 666). Not only was Wyclif hated for his writings and sending out itinerate preachers, both of which plagued the Roman Catholic Church many years after his death, but also “it was due to Wyclif and those kindled by him that the entire Bible was made available in the English of the fourteenth century” (Ibid., p. 664). At any rate, in keeping with the council’s edict and the Pope’s command, Wyclif’s slumbering remains at Lutterworth, Leicestershire, England, were dug up and burned. But this did not stop the rumblings that were to become a deafening roar in the Protestant Reformation. As Fuller put it in his Church History, the ashes of Wyclif were thrown “into Swift, a neighboring brook, running hard by. Thus this brook has conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow seas, then into the main ocean; and thus the ashes of Wyclif are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all the world over” (cited by Charles Knight, Half-Hours With the Best Authors, p. 74).

Council of Basle (Ferrara-Florence-Rome-Lausanne), 1431-1449

The Council of Basle (also spelled Basel) was originally called by Pope Martin V under pressure from the bishops; it was continued by his successor Eugenius IV. But it broke into two factions which continued to meet off and on at separate places for several years. One group moved from Basle to Lausanne, spanning the years 1431-1449. The other group moved from Basle to Ferrara to Florence to Rome, covering the years 1431-1445.

The Council of Basle-Lausanne (1431-1449) strongly asserted the authority of councils over popes. The 1432 session claimed the synod derived “its power directly from our Lord Jesus Christ” and that all men, “not excepting the Roman Pontiff himself, are bound to obey it” (Rowe, pp. 268-269). In 1433, the Council forced Pope Eugenius to revoke his own bull dissolving the Council. Finally in 1438-39, the Council deposed Eugenius from office and a new pope was elected, though some nations recognized Eugenius until he died four years later. The Council was evicted from Basle in 1448 and moved to Lausanne; it finally ended in 1449 after Pope Felix V resigned to make way for unity around a more acceptable candidate. Several other actions of this Council include reconciliation of moderate Hussites (1433), some reform ideas, and efforts at unity with the Eastern Church.

The Council of Basle-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (14311445) represents the papal faction, as opposed to the group pressing the Conciliar theory. In 1437, the Pope tried to transfer the Council to Ferrara, “but the majority of the members revolted, refusing to obey the papal order” (Dvornik, p. 77). A minority group supporting the Pope did convene at Ferrara in 1438, and again at Florence in 1439. This Council convened in Rome for the last time, beginning in 1443. It established union with the Greek Church after agreeing on the nature of the Holy Spirit, on purgatory, the Eucharist, and above all on the primacy of Rome. Other unions were effected with certain Armenians, Copts (an Egyptian group), Syrians, and Cyprians. In 1453, the last Emperor of Constantinople died in battle with the Moslems; Constantinople became the capital of the new Ottoman Empire. A new Patriarch was appointed by Mohammed II and the unions with Rome were repudiated.

Lateran Council, 1512

Pope Julius II called this Council at the Lateran Church in Rome as a means of offsetting a synod convened by King Louis XII of France. Louis XII was extending his power in Italy, an action which the Lateran Council tried to oppose. Also, reforms were effected, but they “failed to attack the most crying abuses” (Dvornik, p. 81). That was nothing unusual. Doubtless some efforts at reform by the Church were sincere; but all too often, they were like the concessions made by the old Roman Empire to the so called barbarian hordes-simply intended to pacify a troublesome party.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 679-680
November 3, 1977

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