Truth Magazine

By Thomas G. O’Neal

Several months ago the following short article appeared in several church bulletins:

PRE-CAMPBELL CHRISTIANITY

“In a recent article this interesting quotation appeared as a documentary research of .Dr. Robinson, principal of Overdale College, Birmingham, England.

“`In the Furness District of Lancashire-in N.W. England -there existed in 1669, during the reign of Charles II, a group of S churches of Christ. Most of them are not now in existence. An old minute book has been found on the year 1669 and it shows that they called themselves by the name of Church of Christ, practiced baptism by immersion, celebrated the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day and had elders and deacons. There was also a church, of Christ In Dungannot, Ireland in 1904 and in Allington, Dangighshire. In 1735, John Davis, a young preacher in the Fife District of Scotland was preaching New Testament Christianity twenty-five years before Thomas Campbell (Alexander Campbell’s father) was born.’ “

Wanting to check the correctness of this information, I wrote Dr. Robinson on Nov. 20, 1973, quoted the above article and asked him, “Is this correct? Could you give me any more documentation on this? Any additional information that you could supply to me would be very much appreciated”.

I have a letter written by Mr. David M. Thompson’ Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, CB3 ODG, dated April 15, 1975, which is self-explanatory.

“Dear Mr. O’Neal,

Your letter of 20 November, 1973, which was addressed to the late Dr. William Robinson (he died in 1963) has found its way eventually to me, as Secretary of the Churches of Christ Historical Committee in Britain.

“I can give you some help on your quotation, though not much. The churches in the Furness District of Lancashire were, in fact, Baptist Churches-it was common for dissenting churches to use the title `Church of Christ’ to describe themselves (though I don’t think Dr. Robinson realised this). I cannot tell you very much about the churches in Dungannon, Allington and John Davis: but I think the main point Dr. Robinson was wishing to make was that the call for a return to New Testament Christianity did not begin with Thomas and Alexander Campbell, nor has it been found only among Churches of Christ. I suspect that this is as true in America as it is here.

“I cannot help you further at present, though I am expecting to publish a history of the British Churches of Christ soon, which may be of interest to you.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 764
October 16, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

I wonder if anybody else is as tired of hearing about “ministries” as I am. For the past few years one could hardly pick up a “brotherhood” paper or bulletin without reading about some kind of “bus ministry,” “bookstore ministry,” “tract ministry” and on and on. This is of course true only to a limited extent with regard to conservative brethren; it has become an established trait, however, among institutional brethren. It is not hard to trace the source of this sudden invasion of “ministry” terminology: it has been drafted from the nomenclature of the modern denominational world along with such other sub-Scriptural lingo as “devotional,” “chapel,” and “witnessing.” Brethren have appropriated “ministry” as a ready-made suffix to give their various projects a self-consciously pious tone.

Contemporary trends notwithstanding, when the Scriptures speak of a “ministry” they have in mind: (1) the specific “ministry” of the apostles (Cf. Acts 1:17; 2 Cor. 4:1); (2) a specific “ministry” to be performed such as the care of the needy and indigent (Cf. Acts 6:4; 12:25; 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Tim. 4:11); or (3) the general responsibility or “ministry” of all to teach the gospel (Cf. Col, 4:17; 2 Tim. 4:5). The basic meaning inherent in the Biblical use of the word “ministry” is that of serving and serving primarily-not other saints (though that is an obvious by-product)-but the Lord.

But the taking on of “ministry” to one’s activity has become popular of late; it gives an otherwise mundane and ordinary task a certain superficial profundity. It is a term that appeals to man’s pride-it is a term that the “natural man” can appreciate. After all, you must admit it has a flair to it! Many are thus fond of inventing to themselves terminologies that promote themselves and their brainchildren-at the expense of Jesus and His word.

But perhaps even more distressing is the widespread disposition to call preachers by the ostentatious “title” of “minister.” I have been alarmed by the sudden proliferation of articles asking the question, “Why do preachers quit the ministry?” I did not even know that we had a “clergy” to worry about! We have good men who have become obsessed with the appellation, “Minister of the church of Christ,” broadcast to the world on their stationery, bulletins and calling cards. But pray tell, where do New Testament evangelists ever refer to themselves as “ministers” of anything but Christ or His word? Certainly, I would agree, these men “served” or “ministered to” various churches, but they resolutely resisted any temptation to exalt themselves above their brethren with any stuffy titles or self conscious claims to superiority (see Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 1-4). No doubt if Paul and Timothy had been like some of us they would have addressed their letter to the Philippians, “Paul and Timothy, ministers of the church of Christ to the Philippi Church of Christ.”

But some will protest, you are just “disputing about words to no profit.” I think not. Our speech betrays the bent in our thinking; there is a decided clerical ring to the vocabulary among us which emphasizes the denominational drift that has made inroads into the Lord’s body. When churches or individuals go out of their way, beyond Scriptural boundaries, to elevate themselves or their activities through the use of contrived, self-centered vernacular, the fatal step to sectarianism has been taken. Clearly, the emphases of many are on the “Church of Christ” as a denominational body rather than on Christ and the gospel. It is no wonder we hear “brethren” speaking in terms of “belonging to the church of Christ” instead of Christ; or of doing something because “the church of Christ teaches it;” or of exhorting someone to “become a member of the church,” instead of submitting one’s will to Christ.

“New Testament Christianity” will not be “restored” until we clean up our vocabularies. Then perhaps we can get down to the very real business of saving souls-without all the promotional gimmicks and egotistical fanfare that accompany them. It would be good for us to reflect upon the memorable words of Harris J. Dark spoken during the Florida College Lectureship of 1955:

“Remember that the church of Christ is a group of people. It Is true that they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. I admit that I am prejudiced In their favor, but after all is said and done, the church Is still composed of human beings. Whatever is said of the church is said of a group of people. This group of people does not constitute a standard of authority. Having been unconsciously influenced by the Catholic concept, Christians sometimes use the expression `the church of Christ teaches’ when they should say ‘Christ teaches.’

“Occasionally someone undertakes to set forth ‘the distinctive plea of the church of Christ: As long as the church follows the Bible, its most unique characteristic among religious groups is that it does not have a plea. The plea-the doctrine-came from Christ, not from the church.

“Many years ago when just a boy preacher, I undertook to write a tract on the topic ‘Our Plea.’ The more I considered the term ‘our,’ whom it included, what right we had to a plea, and what authority or merit our plea would have even if it existed the more I became discouraged. Finally, I decided it would be better to write on ‘God’s plea.’ Let us speak of the plea of Christ, the doctrine of Christ, but not the doctrine or plea of a group of people” (Ancient Faith in Conflict, pp. 33, 34).

In the midst of a flood of sectarian jargon, bro. Dark’s words flow like the breeze of a fresh spring wind. Can we all truly affirm as Paul, “For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness; nor seeking the glory of men, neither from you or others. . .” (1 Thess. 2:5, 6)?

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 763
October 16, 1975

By John McCort

There is a growing attitude among brethren that somehow big churches are detrimental to the growth of a Christian. Many brethren will split up a congregation that is just getting on its feet to, start another congregation. What you end up with is two small, .struggling churches which are accomplishing less than if they had stayed together.

I do not know why it is that this big church syndrome is afflicting brethren. I personally believe this concept is hurting the growth of the church in many parts of the country. Those who make the accusation that big churches are less spiritually minded than smaller churches are usually people who have never worshiped regularly with a larger church. (Sometimes that suggestion is made by people who have never worshiped with a smaller group.) Many times the reverse is true. Often small churches are small because the members do not have the conviction and spirituality to work for the Lord. More often than not smaller churches are small because they have fought, bickered, and divided so much that growth is impossible. Some of the larger congregations have gained their size by hard work and good leadership.

The idea that larger congregations tend to be cold and difficult to oversee again is false. The percentage of people you do not get to know remains about the same regardless of the size of the congregation. There are definite spiritual advantages for young people in a larger group. A larger congregation affords young people an opportunity to associate with more people their own age. One discouraging factor about small churches is that teenagers and young married couples have very few people their own age with whom they can maintain social ties. It is essential to the growth of a weak Christian to maintain social contact with stronger Christians.

The teaching program in a large congregation can be more specialized. Generally, a large church has more teachers and more classroom facilities to conduct some special classes. Weaker Christians can attend classes on first principles while a wide variety of other classes can be offered to stronger Christians. Smaller groups are forced to throw them all into one class and thus some much needed specialty teaching is missed.

Financially it is much more feasible to have one large church than two small, struggling churches. Two small’ churches are going to have two building payments instead of one. Two small churches are going to have to support two preachers instead of one. Usually all outside support must be dropped and very little mission work can be undertaken. A larger congregation can usually afford a radio program, a good bulletin, and other projects that smaller churches, financially, are unable to undertake. Smaller churches can be badly hurt financially if one or two key members move and the work can be damaged while a larger group can have a more stable work and will not be damaged by a few families moving.

One of the main factors to consider is the discouragement factor. If a congregation is started without adequate financial support or spiritual leadership a small work can be very discouraging. Discouraged members in a small congregation can cause the work to stagnate. Preachers can get very frustrated when they are not baptizing as many people as they think they should. Smaller churches require more patience on the part of the preacher than some larger churches. The old adage that success breeds success is very true.

I do not believe it is very wise to break up a good, evangelistic congregation into two small struggling congregations. When a church gets large enough that another congregation can be started with adequate financial support and proper leadership without harming the existing church, then it is time to start another work. When we start new congregations we need to make sure that we are helping, not hurting, the cause of Christ.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 762
October 16, 1975

By Austin Mobley

Nearly everyone, With the possible exception of atheists, agnostics and a few skeptics, agree that preaching is necessary and that, because of it, the world is made a better place in which to live. Nonetheless, a one time or another someone tries to put a bridle on every gospel preacher by requesting that he not speak on certain subjects.

Several years ago the elders of a church in Keller, Texas submitted a “program” under which they demanded that their preacher should do his work. Here are. their rules (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 1, No. 8, June 23, 194, page 8):

1. No first principles need to be preached here. People know what we believe and teach. They resent constant mention of baptism. First principles may be mentioned at the close of a sermon; that is sufficient.

2. All sermons should be directed to the church, the kind that make us feel good-inspirational sermons.

3. Under no conditions may a religious name of other people be mentioned in a sermon.

4. All negative preaching is unnecessary. All error that needs to be exposed can be corrected by preaching the opposite truth.

5. All words such as “denominationalism” and “sectarianism”, etc. are unnecessary to good preaching and should be eliminated.

This is the old denominational concept of “Preach the gospel, but leave others alone.” Unfortunately this attitude also prevails among some professed followers of Christ as illustrated above.

Preachers like to please people. It makes them happy as well as those who hear them. However, should we wish to comply with the request to “Preach the gospel but leave others alone,” what could we preach?

“There is one God” (1 Cor. 8:6)? This would offend both the atheist (no God) and the polytheist (many gods). For example, atheist Madelyn O’Hair objected to Col. Borman’s Thanksgiving prayer and his reading from the book of Genesis in outer space.

“The Deity of Christ” (Matt. 17:5; Acts 2:14-36)? “Christ’.’ means “anointed of God.” Paul preached “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). The Deity of Christ was demonstrated in many ways; His works, His sinless life, and His resurrection from the dead (Ram. 1:4). Nevertheless, when Christ is preached,, unbelieving Jews are offended. A case in point is Stephen who was stoned to death by Jews when he preached Christ (Acts 7:51-60).

“The Bible” (2 Tim. 3:16-17,’ Gal. 1:8-9; Rev. 22:1819)? The Bible is either what it claims to be or it is a complete fraud. Its indestructibility, unity and influence all confirm its claims. But if we preach that the Bible is the perfect and complete will of God, we offend those who believe in latter day revelations. Nearly every denomination has its creed book in addition to the Bible. These contradict one another and are updated from time to time. Denominationalists are so wedded to their respective creeds and so-called revelations that they would prefer one’s criticism of the Bible to that of their man-made tenets.

“One church” (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18; Eph. 4:4; Acts 2:47)? When we preach that there is one church and that every other church was founded by men and will thus be “rooted up” (Matt. 15:13), the denominations are offended. They would have us believe that we may “join the church of our choice,” and that members of all churches are “headed for the same place.”

“One baptism” (Acts 2:38; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21)? Preaching that baptism is essential to salvation and that it is a burial in water is offensive to all those who believe otherwise. Many believe that baptism is nonessential. Many also believe that baptism can be administered either by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Still others believe they are to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and that water baptism is merely an outward demonstration of their having already been freed from sin.

“Faithfulness to Christ” (Rom. 12:1-2; Titus 2:11-12; 2 Pet. 1:5-11J? When preachers teach Christians to put off the works of the flesh, to worship regularly, to grow, to teach others, etc., the worldly minded are offended.

Obviously, it is impossible to “preach the gospel and leave others alone.” True, preachers must use wisdom in the way Truth is presented, and they must “speak the truth in love,” but we must “not shun to declare all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16).

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, pp. 761-762
October 16, 1975