The Neglected Book

By Larry Ray Hafley

There is an extremely useful and profitable book in my library by F. W. Farrar entitled Texts Explained. It was purchased from a Methodist College Library after it had been “discarded.” The book was printed in 1899. It is yellow and musty with age. This informative and valuable book has approximately 15 per cent of its 372 pages still stuck together. Evidently when the book was published, the pages were not properly trimmed, thus, as I peruse the book, it is necessary for me to perform a little surgical separation. Now, imagine what that means. Here is a book that is more than three quarters of a century old, yet it has been ignored and neglected. Why else would many of the pages still be uncut? I cannot conceive of such a good book receiving such a good letting alone. If the book was of no use, I would not bother to trim the edges, but it is an excellent book to study.

How many of us allow good Bible study helps to remain closed? The pages may as well be sealed so far as we are concerned. Better (or should I say worse?) still, would it make much difference if the pages on your copy of the Bible were uncut? Would it bother you, would it be a hindrance if perhaps 15 per cent of the pages of your personal Bible were like the book I described? Texts Explained has been abandoned for years, at least, the copy I have has been, and that is a shame. If your Bible has been neglected, that is a sin.

Truth Magazine XIX: 54, p. 861
November 27, 1975

Denominationalizing the Church (X)

By Roy E. Cogdill

Many of the brethren are contending today that it is scriptural and right for the churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent “organizations” to do the work of caring for the needy that God has charged the church to do. This proposition has been debated numerous times between brethren all over the country though its proponents have evidently decided that it is unscriptural to debate or that it is unwise, for they seem no longer willing to mount the polemic rostrum and try to defend their “benevolent societies.” They have tried numerous methods of defending them and none has seemed to work.

Unscriptural Arguments for the Benevolent Societies

They have asserted that such organizations as they have formed, viz., Ontario Children’s Home; Boles Home, Inc., Tipton Home; Tennessee Orphan’s Home; Southern Christian Home; Sunny Glen Home; etc., are necessary because the civil law requires such organization in order that the church may care for its needy. This has been proven untrue and they have had to desert it. It is obvious to anyone with any conception of truth and right, that the requirement of it by the law would not make it scriptural, but it was resorted to when they had no Bible passage with which to defend their position. No federal or state law in this country requires the church to form a human organization for any reason. It would be unconstitutional if it did and it would still be unscriptural even if it were constitutional.

Then they tried the contention that such benevolent organizations were merely for the purpose of giving legal protection to those who directed its affairs and had the oversight of its work in case they were sued or prosecuted by someone. When it was shown that such corporate organizations were not merely for the purpose of holding title to property but were formed and actually functioning as the controlling and directing agency in the work being done and that the directors were empowered by their very charter, which gave the organization existence, to control and direct its work and, hence, it was entirely removed from any supervision or control by any church, they had to surrender this contention.

They argued that it was “kingdom business”-the actual work of the church being done by the church, and that the organization was only a method employed by the church by which to do its work, such as the Bible classes on the Lord’s Day. It was shown in answer to this that an organization is not a method but that an organization employs or uses methods. It was further pointed out that if the church can charter a human institution to do its work of benevolence scripturally, and such an organization was merely the work of the church in the field of benevolence, like the Bible classes are the work of the church in the field of teaching, then the Bible classes could be incorporated under a Board of Directors just like the benevolent organization and that such a board could be scripturally authorized to carry on and direct the work of teaching. This obviously got them in trouble with the brethren who charge that the Bible classes are a separate organization from the church and delivered these institutional brethren into their hands so they had to abandon that contention.

Are Such Societies “Homes?”

In the evolution of their attempts to defend these human benevolent societies they eventually got around to the argument that such institutions are actually and only “homes” and that the “home” is a divine organization, separate from the church, and that its function cannot be a part of the work of the church and therefore elders cannot oversee such an institution or work. Therefore, it must be under a Board of Directors. They further argued that such Board of Directors were actually the parents, in fact, of the children cared for. But they have found this position just as indefensible as all of the others. In answer to this sophistry it has been clearly established that such an institution or organization is not a “home” in any Bible sense even though they may be known by such names.

The English word “home” comes from different words in the original language of the Bible but in all of their usages there are only four senses: a. a place of residence; b. figuratively the family living in such a place of residence; c. the family plus the household servants living in such a place of residence; and d. the estate of such a family.

It should be easily discerned that any kind of a “benevolent organization” is not a “home” in any of these senses. The organization is not a “place of residence.” The charters of every one of these institutions state that such organization is formed in order to “provide a home” or place of residence for orphan or destitute children. Surely in no sense is the organization or Board of Directors a “place” of any kind.

Furthermore, such an organization is in no sense a “family.” God, who ordained marriage and the family relationship, gave it form just like He did the church. That is, the husband and wife relationship, out of which grows the parent’ and child relationship. This “benevolent organization” does not even generally resemble such a relationship. Who ever heard of a family with a “Board of Directors” organized into the form of “President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer,” etc.?

When it was argued that under the law, the Board of Directors of such an organization are “en loco parentis” and that such constituted a parent and child relationship, it was pointed out that such is purely a fictitious relationship. This board does not live with the children. They do not even live in close proximity to them. They have no common place of residence. More than that, the board only infrequently visits the children. They do not themselves provide for the children of whom they are supposedly the “parents.” They beg others to provide for them. They do not teach, train, nor care for the children, but hire others to do so. They do not perform the function of “parents” in any sense actually, but are the “legal guardians” of these children and that is all. More than all that, by the very expression “en loco parentis” is meant not “parents” but “in the stead or place of parents.” Many, in fact, most of these children have living parents, who either have deserted them, refused to care for them, or in some other way have failed in their duty.

Conclusion

Such organizations are not churches of Christ in any sense. Neither are they “homes” in any sense. What are they? They are humanly designed, state authorized, statute controlled, benevolent societies run by a Board of Directors. They have the same status with reference to the work God has given the church to do as the missionary society. If churches can build and maintain such benevolent organizations, there is no rule or reason that would make it wrong for’ them to build such organizations to do their work of evangelism. The missionary society is just as scriptural, and for the same reasons that make the benevolent society scriptural. It is a package deal-swallow one and you cannot “gag” at the other!

Truth Magazine XIX: 54, pp. 860-861
November 27, 1975

What the Cigarette Commercials don’t Show

By By Hugh J. Mooney

In cigarette country, television commercials show two or three handsome, rugged cowboys on beautiful horses. Or there are sports cars, planes or scuba gear. The scene is always one of clean, windswept health. The people have a look of supreme confidence; the lovely girls all smile.

I know another country. It is a land from which few return. In this sad region there are no strong men, no smiling, pretty girls. Executives and store clerks there look very much alike, not only because they wear the same clothes, but because people living on the raw edge of a thin hope somehow get the same haunted expression on their faces.

I am referring to cancer country. I have been there.

I am 44 years old, and have a wife and two small children. By 1963, I had a comfortable salary with an insurance firm, and the future seemed bright. In May of that year, I developed a slight difficulty in swallowing. Our family physician said that if it persisted for another week, he would arrange an appointment for me with a throat specialist. It did persist. The specialist diagnosed it simply as “a case of nerves”-a diagnosis that he was to reaffirm in October. Finally, in January 1964, convinced that it was more than a case of nerves, I entered a hospital. And there the doctor told me, as gently as he could, that I had cancer of the throat.

The first thing that occurred to me was that I would die and Eileen, my wife, would have to give up the house. What a shame that my children would not be able to grow up in that house! We had bought it only two years before.

The doctor suggested that I enter a well-known Eastern hospital. Two days later, Eileen and I drove there. I was assigned to a four-bed room on the seventh floor of the east wing. This is known as Seven-East.

When I saw the three other patients in my room, I didn’t want to believe my eyes. It was suppertime, and the patients were eating. It wasn’t much like the television campfire scene. These men stood by their beds and carefully poured a thin pink liquid into small glass tubes. Then they held the tubes high over their heads. The fluid drained down out of the tubes through a thin, clear plastic hose which disappeared into one nostril.

They had to eat this way because throat, mouth, tongue and esophagus had been cut away in surgery. I could actually see the back wall of their gullets-the entire front of the throat was laid open from just below the jaw down almost to the breastbone. Each of them had a large wad of absorbent bandage under his chin to catch the constant flow of saliva pouring out of his throat.

The sight of these “tube feeders” shocked and depressed me more than anything since the day I learned 1 had cancer. As soon as I had changed into pajamas and robe, I rushed back to the solarium where Eileen was waiting. Shaking, I lit a cigarette and stared about me at all the other patients, some of whom would be dead in a week or so.

The doctor assigned to my case found us there in the solarium. I made it clear to him that I never wanted to become like those other patients. I said that I would rather die than be cut up that way. He told me not to think about it, that perhaps such drastic surgery would not be necessary in my case.

A heavy snow was falling outside. Eileen had to leave to drive the 60 miles home. I walked with her to the elevator, pretending a lot more optimism than I felt. “Drive carefully,” I said, and kissed her good-by. The first few hours after the elevator doors closed behind her were probably the worse of my life.

I fled to the solarium, unwilling to face the surgical horrors in my room. Yet everywhere I looked there were patients whose tongues, pharynxes, jaws, throats, chins or noses had been removed. Many of them were waiting for plastic surgery to reconstruct their faces and necks.

For this, it is necessary to grow extra pieces of flesh. Through some sort of surgical miracle these pieces of flesh-called pedicles-can be made to grow anywhere on the patient that the surgeon decides is best. One patient had flesh growing out of the side of his neck in a tubular U, like the handle on a suitcase. Another man had one growing from between his shoulder blades over his right shoulder to a spot in his throat just below the chin. It must have been 18 inches long.

I was torn between horror and pity. What might I look like soon? I reminded myself that surgery might not be necessary, and kept my eyes on the walls, the floor-anywhere but on the other patients.

The television set was on, and the cigarette commercials droned along, extolling the wonderful taste of the product. But these people who had smoked all their lives could no longer taste cigarettes-or anything else. Their food was poured through plastic tubing. There are no taste buds in plastic tubing.

All the people in the commercials had wonderfully appealing voices, young and vibrant. But the patients around me in the solarium did not have very nice voices. 1n fact, many had no voices at all; their vocal cords had been cut away.

These voiceless wraiths carried pad and pencil to communicate. Others, whose throat openings had been closed, were able to use an electronic device that looked something like a flashlight. You hold it against your throat, and it picks up vibrations from the section where your vocal cords used to be. It produces a tinny, electronic voice-faint, but understandable.

Next morning, I was taken to the operating room for a bronchoscopic examination. This is very much like sword-swallowing. You tilt your head back as far as you can, and doctors slide a metal tube through your mouth and all the way down into your trachea. Your gag reflexes go crazy trying to eject this tube, and you find that it is completely cutting off your supply of air. All this time two or three doctors are taking turns looking down the pipe.

Occasionally they take a sample for a biopsy — lowering something down the tube that snips off a specimen of flesh here and there. I passed out from lack of air during the examination, and came to back on my bed. 1 was told not to eat or drink anything and to remain in bed for at least two hours.

In an effort to save my voice, so important in insurance work, it was agreed that radiation treatments would be tried. The treatments were not effective, and in August 1964 the doctors told me I would have to undergo surgery.

The night before the operation, knowing that I would never speak again, I tried to tell Eileen how much I loved her and the children. She was very brave. The next morning, on my way to the operating room, I remember praying and repeating the name “Jesus” over and over. It seemed somehow right that this should be my last spoken word.

Eleven hours later, I was brought back to my room. Except for an hour in the recovery room, I had spent all that time on the operating table. Next day, I learned that the surgeons had removed my larynx, my pharynx, part of my esophagus and a few other random bits and pieces. I was now one of those “surgical freaks” whose appearance had so shocked me some months before. From this time on, I would breathe through a hole at the base of my throat called a stoma.

Knowing how odd my open throat made me appear, I felt completely cut off from humanity-a mere biological specimen, It was a difficult and lonely period of adjustment. Eight subsequent operations were required to reconstruct the front of my neck. Television helped pass the time. All of us there in Seven-East were, I confess, morbidly fascinated by the cigarette commercials. After smoking approximately 19,000 packs of cigarettes, I-we all-had turned out a bit different from those handsome fellows and beautiful young women.

Young people today are great believers in realism. It might be interesting, therefore, if some advertising agency were to do a cigarette commercial featuring a patient who had lost his throat to cancer caused by smoking. They could choose a man growing one of those flesh pedicles. Or the camera might slowly pan around the room, showing all of us still faithfully smoking brand X or brand Y-those of us who still had a complete mouth to put a cigarette into. They might even show the one total addict I met who smoked by holding his cigarette to the hole that led into his windpipe, through which he breathed air into his lungs.

We don’t ride horses or helicopters or sports cars in Seven-East. We ride wheeled tables to the operating room, and if we’re lucky we ride them back. Seven-East is only a part of cancer country. They treat lungs on the third floor. I thank God that I have not yet had to visit there.

Truth Magazine XIX: 52, pp. 821-822
November 13, 1975

Denominationalizing the Church (VIII)

By Roy E. Cogdill

In our last article, we emphasized the Lord’s plan for the government of the church by the appointment of qualified men as elders, bishops, or pastors over the local church. The divine plan is a plurality of these in every church. They have the “rule” of the church committed into their hands by the Holy Spirit. It must not be done by their own arbitrary will, or be lording it over the church, but God has committed to them the “oversight” of the flock and charged them with the responsibility of directing its affairs in harmony with His will. We have suggested that it takes two things to make a man an elder in the church of the Lord, qualification and appointment. When men are thus selected, they are made “bishops” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) just like men are made Christians and deacons or evangelists by the Holy Spirit; that is, through the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit through divine truth.

The Oversight of the Elders

When elders are thus selected and appointed, what do they oversee? Frequently we come across someone who has the idea that the spiritual affairs of the church are under the oversight of the elders but that the deacons are to have charge and the oversight of the material affairs of the congregation. This puts the facilities of the congregation in the way of physical equipment and the financial affairs of the congregation under the direction of the deacons according to this conception. Such an idea is not found in the word of God. The scriptural arrangement is for the elders to have the oversight of the church in all of its work and worship. There is no part of the church that has not been-given to the oversight of elders in the church. They may be made directly responsible for some work under the supervision of the elders, but it must be under the supervision of the elders. The preacher, as a special servant to do the work of preaching and teaching the Word of God, is in the same position as a deacon or any other member-under the supervision or oversight of the elders. Of course, all are responsible, first of all, to the Lord.

What then, do the elders oversee? First, they have the oversight of the members and must watch for their souls as they who shall give account unto God. Heb. 13:17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

Second, they are responsible for the teaching and safeguarding of the truth. This is taught in the required qualifications for an elder; Titus 1:9, “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he maybe able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Then again, Paul charged the Ephesian elders with the special responsibility of protecting the church — Christians for whom they were responsible — against false doctrine and every departure from the truth (Acts 20:28-32).

Third, they were to oversee the distribution of benevolence to the destitute of the congregation under their charge. When the disciples of Antioch sent relief to the “brethren in Judea,” they delivered it by the hands of Barnabas and Saul into the hands of the elders. This gave the elders the responsibility for its distribution or the oversight of its distribution. Of course, our institutional and liberal brethren like Guy Woods, Goodpasture, and others contend that the elders cannot oversee a program of “relieving” the destitute and that such work necessarily requires a “Board of Directors” or some other organization which they incorrectly and deceptively call a “home.” So they set themselves squarely against the divine pattern. In fact, they deny that there is one and thus invalidate, or attempt to do so, the plain teaching of the word of God. But do not other brethren do the same thing when they put the direction of the local church under a “committee,” “preacher rule” or in the hands of a majority? What would be the difference? If we can set aside the oversight of elders in “every church” in one matter, then by the same token we can set it aside in any other.

It is not difficult then, to see that the elders have the oversight of the work of the local church. To this fact we must add that the elders have the oversight of the edifying of the church. This is very definitely taught by Peter, in 1 Peter 5:1-4. They are to “shepherd,” “tend,” “feed,” or “pastor” the flock over which they are bishops. They are responsible, therefore, for the instruction, sustenance, growth, security and development of the flock under their care.

Moreover, the elders are to take the oversight of the disciplining of the flock. This is definitely implied in the demand that members must be subject to them, that they must watch for their souls, that they must be able to convince the gainsayer, etc. All of this has to do with preventive discipline and in the administering of corrective discipline, as at Corinth (I Cor. 5). The elders would be responsible for taking the lead and having the oversight of this public action of the church in withdrawing from the ungodly.

This gives, by scriptural authority, the oversight of the members, resources, worship, work, and discipline or fellowship of the local church into the hands of the elders of the local church. They can delegate none of these to another eldership for to do so would pervert the local nature of the organization God designed. By the same right that they could delegate one part of their oversight they would be able to delegate all of it and this would make elders or bishops over more than just one local church. It would likewise destroy the autonomy, equality, independence, and sufficiency of the local church. It takes “all of the parts to make a whole.” When any of the parts are given away, the “whole” does not remain-rather a “hole” is left and a deficiency created. Page the Fort Worth brain trust of Tom Warren and Roy Deaver! They must endorse this conclusion to their own argument!

Conclusion

The simple facts of New Testament Church organization are these: (1) Qualified men appointed as “elders” in every church. (2) These qualified men to have the “rule,” or have the oversight of all of the affairs of the local church. (3) Elders to have oversight of just one local church. (4) Elders to have the oversight of no other organization in their jurisdiction as elders. (5) Elders to have the oversight of no function that does not belong to the local church.

That is how simple God’s plan for the government of His Church is and He will countenance no perversion or corruption of it. To depart from it is to apostatize and denominationalize the church.

Truth Magazine XIX: 52, pp. 819-820
November 13, 1975