Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Yes, I. know many have not wanted to see any real problem on the grace-unity-fellowship error of recent times. Some no doubt thought it had been discussed enough, if not too much, after the first article was written on it. Others may feel the subject should have been brought out into the open, but that now we should turn our attention to other things. h myself have wished for signs of correction being made or of the problem abating; for, though it is necessary, it is never pleasant to deal with error and erring brethren.

While it is true many brethren are more informed and alert after this problem has received a good deal of exposure, it is not true that it is time to drop the subject. The main spokesmen and’ followers of the new unity movement are still very much alive `and active. Several events of recent months have forced some modification of their tactics, but their loose ideas and goals are still the same. One or two who have managed to get reports circulating that indicated they were reforming themselves have in fact kept right on sowing their lawless seed-as by recommending papers like Mission and Integrity to their friends as the finest available, along with Mission Messenger and Restoration Review.

But there is another angle to this lawless spirit which has still not received much, if any, attention. It is time to say something about it. Brethren have often pointed out that Israel’s moral drifting generally was accompanied by doctrinal drifting, and her doctrinal drifting generally was accompanied by moral loosening. Relativism in reference to the church contributes to the attitude of general looseness which leads to relativism in reference to moral and ethical principles of the Bible. You never saw a Modernist or Liberal who took a strong stand against worldliness. 2 Peter 2 and other passages show how easily doctrinal looseness and a worldly spirit go hand-in-hand.

Even so, brethren who have promoted change recently in faith or practice on grace-unity-fellowship are very loose in their attitude toward worldliness. In preaching, they have imbibed the spirit which loves ethereal generality and “evangelical” openness and denominational broadness and high-sounding “principles” without direct application to the sins of the day. This is their whole thrust in regard to preaching on institutionalism, centralization, social-gospel-ism, instrumental music, premillennialism, pentecostalism, and just about any other doctrinal subject. They consider plain preaching with direct application to the liberalism of the last 25 years as uncouth. In exactly the same way, they consider plain preaching with direct application to the worldly practices of the day as boorish, if not downright clownish! They like to caricature preachers who do such preaching as back-woodish, unsophisticated, slow students, uneducated, prudish, narrow-minded, bumpkins. Make no mistake about it, these “sophisticated” brethren long for the dawn of a “brighter day” all across the board. Their sugar-coated, sweet-spirited concepts of compromise will not stop with the organization, mission, worship, discipline, and doctrine of the church revealed in the New Testament. Their sweet syrup will also drown out plain, direct preaching on Worldliness.

I have been told to the face by one of the most outspoken of these compromisers that the “hard line” we have taken against social drinking represents “the Southern, rural temperance viewpoint” and not the application of New Testament principles. Another who has done some “missionary” work came back bragging about how he told brethren in foreign countries that they were perfectly at liberty to drink alcoholic beverages so long as they did not get outright drunk. A new convert in the Mid-West asked one of these bright young scholars whether he could continue drinking beer in his home now that he had become a Christian; said scholar boldly told the fellow that would be perfectly in order for a Christian! And he was not ashamed to tell me this personally. Not much of this shows in their public writing to this point-though there are occasional references-but they not only will discuss it, they are promoting this spirit through more “private” channels right now. That is how they started out in regard to the doctrinal problems they have imposed upon brethren.

It seems one of our young princes preached for a time where some of the families went in mixed swimming with one another-and, no, I .do not mean in their Sunday-go-to-meeting suits, either! He and his wife did not mind “taking a dip” with the brethren there on the ancient theory “while in Rome, do as the Romans do.” But now they live in an area where much plain preaching has been and is still being done on such worldliness. Do you think they go in mixed swimming now? Do you think they reveal their former practice to brethren? Ali! What a sweet spirit. They do not want to “offend” anyone or stir up controversy: So, they simply do not oppose the practice in their preaching, they are silent on it, nor do they mention their own escapades. Like sheep, the brethren are none-the-wiser. All is bliss, and the brethren would be quite upset if some “outsider” were to charge this “fine brother” with looseness and worldliness. “Why, we have never heard him advocate anything like that!” Exactly. And you have never heard him oppose it either! Mum is the word! In the meantime, the young people drift into these worldly practices through a lack of teaching. Before long, brethren will be wringing their hands in dismay, “I just do not see why our young people are compromising with the world . . . .” The danger is not so much that our new breed of broad-minded preachers will mislead brethren by advocating worldly ways publicly, but it is by failing to oppose such ways!

These young princes think we should read a verse or two about “modesty” and let applications take care of themselves. One of these outspoken princes recently tried to discourage a faithful brother from printing an article written in good taste but dealing specifically with the sin of immodesty. “Such articles just stir up trouble,” he said, which sounds like Billy Graham’s reason for not being specific and direct on baptism: “It’s too controversial.” Of course, this approach is old hat to our modern-minded sages; they have been advocating that we read a verse or two about elders overseeing the flock, and leave applications to take care of themselves when preaching before our institutional brethren. Once in a while, brethren who are centralizing the work of the church through the Herald of Truth will find a fanatic who thinks it is wrong to preach via TV; instead of meeting the real issue, they will then caricature “the anti’s” as a bunch of nuts opposed to TV preaching. In like manner, instead of meeting the issue that when a woman wears a skirt much above the knee she cannot bend or sit or even walk modestly, our young princes caricature preachers who do plain preaching on modesty as a bunch of nuts running around with tape measures trying to find someone with a skirt an eighth inch above the knee.

A thousand such her-haws and wise cracks will not deter faithful men from rebuking the worldly spirit in its many specific manifestations today. Tobiah guffawed at Judah’s effort to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, “Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall” (Neh. 4:3). The faithful kept right on building. That is exactly what faithful preachers will do in regard to the plague of worldliness which is decimating the church in our day just keep right on fighting it, exposing it, rebuking it, and building on the solid foundation of God’s word.

The young princes of the new unity movement may not be the only ones neglecting to cry out against such sins as social drinking, immodesty, and dancing. Let all of us examine ourselves. Remember, God said through Hosea, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” It is “out of season” to preach on such sins; perhaps in some cases, other battles have turned the attention of brethren away from such matters. Let us not assume the new generation constantly coming up will automatically understand these things. Let us not be intimidated by frowns and hardness of hearts; we are not responsible to make people obey God, but we are responsible to teach them His will. But how long are we expected to teach on such things when “nearly every one is doing them today?” Isaiah asked a similar question. “Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate” (Isa. 6:11).

Until the Lord burns this old earth up, it will be the duty of faithful men to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” One thing is certain. The lawless, soft spirit of the new unity movement cannot and will not respond to such a call when it comes to popular sins of worldliness. It is time to say so. And, it is time, as always, for all of us to heed the words of Paul, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor. 13:5). “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16-17).

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 684-685
September 11, 1975

By Irvin Himmel

What does it take to give life to a congregation? A fine building? A large membership? Wealth? Involvement in community projects? Special activities for the young? Dinners and parties? Recreation and frolic? Organized visitation? Zoning and committees? Vast outlays for general benevolence? Educational Directors, Associate Ministers, Secretaries, and Youth Directors? A kindergarten? Subsidizing of colleges, benevolent organizations, and missionary societies? A Jiome for unwed mothers? A slum project or intercity mission? Workshops? Rap sessions? The sponsoring of a work beyond the means of the congregation and necessitating appeals to the brotherhood for assistance? Fund drives? Attendance drives? A bus ministry? Contests and prizes?

A local church may engage in all sorts of activities by which it makes a name for itself. By highly advertised humanitarian enterprises widespread attention may be gained. A fabulous edifice may be the envy of religious neighbors. Numerous schemes and plans will bring in crowds. Promotionalism packs pews, prods people, produces pecuniary proceeds, propagates popular programs, pleases pride, and procures public praise.

Warning to “Big Name” Churches

One little fact often is overlooked. A church may make a name for itself-a reputation that it is a live congregation, but the Lord’s appraisal. may be the reverse. Such was the case at Sardis in Rev. 3:1. The Lord said, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”

What a tragedy that a church gains the reputation of being alive, sound, and great, whereas the Lord pronounces it dead!

This brings us to the important question, What does it take to make a live church in God’s sight? It matters not what men may judge to be indicative of interest, growth, and vitality; what is the Lord’s requirement? The church at Laodicea said, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.” This congregation supposed it was in excellent condition. But the Lord pronounced it “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). What a contrast between the human and divine evaluations!

Back to the Bible

Only by going to the Bible can we determine what the Lord expects of the church. A study of the book of Acts will reveal what the apostolic congregations did that brought divine approval. The epistles of the New Testament, including the letters to the seven churches of Asia, make known what God endorses, and what lacks divine sanction. The local church should pattern its activities and program of work according to the Scriptures, not current popular plans and expectations.

The local church that follows the Bible will be different, radically different, from the rank and file of modern churches. It will omit humanly-devised claptrap, fanfare, and superficial show. It will leave off unscriptural offices, titles, functions, and objectives. Stressing genuine godliness and spirituality, it will include all that the Bible authorizes for its program of work and worship. It will be remarkably simple. Many will view such a congregation as peculiar and strange. Some will speak of it with contempt and ridicule, declaring that it is narrow and outmoded.

Congregational Vigor

Christ’s church can make no better contribution to the general welfare of the community than through the preaching and living of the gospel. No higher work can be accomplished abroad than assisting in the spread of the gospel. The most valuable thing the church can do for young people is to teach, train, and discipline them in the gospel. Whether people are young or old, in the slums or high-class suburbs, educated or uneducated, their common need is the gospel, The primary mission of the church is evangelization-the proclaiming of the good news.

The church at Thessalonica was commended for sounding out the word of the`Lord (I Thess. 1:8). The church at Jerusalem sent forth Barnabas to teach and preach in Antioch (Acts 11:22). The church at Philippi was praised for sharing with Paul that he might preach (Phil. 1:5; 4:14-16). The churches of Macedonia supplied Paul with wages that he might do service for the Lord elsewhere (2 Cor. 11:8).

A congregation belonging to Christ, whether large or small, in the city or in the country, will come to the rescue of saints in need. The believers in Jerusalem sold lands and houses that none among them would lack (Acts 4:32-37). Disciples in Antioch sent relief to brethren in Judea in time of famine (Acts 11:27-30). Paul taught the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to contribute to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25 27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4).

The church that is truly alive will resist false doctrine. The church at Pergamos was rebuked because some held to the doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:14). The church at Ephesus was congratulated for finding false apostles to be liars (Rev. 2:2). Paul left Timothy at Ephesus to charge that no doctrine be taught except the doctrine of Christ (1 Tim. 1:3).

A live congregation is wade up of God-fearing, pure, zealous people. They are alert to their individual duties. They put God’s word into action in their daily lives at home, at school, at work, and on vacation. Christ lives in them.

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 683-684
September 11, 1975

By Roland Worth, Jr.

In the December 6, 1959, issue of the Russian Communist publication Pravada, there appeared a major article on page four, entitled “Rejection of religion-the only correct course.” It was signed by Alexander Osipov, a prominent individual in the Greek Orthodox Church. He wrote,

“Yes, I, Professor of Old Testament and Classical Hebrew at the Leningrad Ecclesiastical Seminary and Academy, formerly Inspector there, Master of Theology and Archpriest; have broken with the Church and with religion. I have publicly professed my atheism, attained logically by study and scientific method after a considerable and protracted inward struggle and a complete reconsideration of my outlook on life . . .

“In studying the Bible I kept coming up against the problem of the so-called divine inspiration of the scriptures. Students of the Leningrad Seminary and Academy will, I expert, remember how often I used to say in lectures and classes: `According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church’ or `Orthodox theology considers . . . .’ I used to do this in every case when I could not inwardly agree with the teaching which, as a professor of an Orthodox seminary, I was obliged to impart and elucidate to my pupils. At the same time, moreover, independent study of the problems of biblical theology, together with the arguments and discoveries of genuine scientific method, led me to discover that the Bible had been put together gradually, that it had developed century by century in the course of the historical life of the Jewish people, and that its individual books do not in any way belong to those authors to whom tradition ascribes them. I found that in the Bible (certainly necessary as a work of ancient literature for the scientific study of history) there are, closely interwoven, myths and tales of the ancient Orient, the legends of chronicle and folklore, ancient stories and poetry and magic charms from the age of primitive man–in a word, it has nothing to do with the revelation of God on earth” (quoted by Michael Bourdeaux, Opium of the People: The Christian Religion in the U. S. S. R., The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York: 1966, pages 109, 112).

The first thing that should be noticed is that Osipov was apparently sincere in his conversion to atheism-though personality conflicts may also have played a role in his leaving the Russian Orthodox Church (pages 117-118). This should be stressed because many of those theological Modernists whom we criticize for their repudiation of the miraculous element in the Bible are quite sincere in their error. However even sincere men can be wrong.

Secondly, once committed to atheism, he started playing even grosser games with Biblical and historical truth. Michael Bourdeaux, from whom we have quoted Professor Osipov’s statement, had the opportunity to attend one of the professor’s lectures on atheism while doing graduate work in the Soviet Union. The Professor contended that Jesus never existed. As proof he cited the Dead Sea Scrolls: “The information they contain about the Teacher of Righteousness illustrates a variant form of a legend current about two thousand years ago-that of a dying and rising god-and common to several Near-Eastern mythologies. Christianity is merely the most successful formulation of the legend. Jesus Christ was invented by the early Christians to compensate for their deprivations at the hands of the Romans” (page 120).

Bourdeaux’s reaction was the same most of us would have, “I was appalled at the impossible logic of this answer and its intellectual dishonesty. He quoted the documents as ‘virtually proving’ something on which they have only a marginal bearing (as all but a few sensation-seeking writers in the West would agree). This would have been laughable, if his Russian audience had any access to the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they had none then and have had none since” (page 121).

Thirdly, if you will closely read the second paragraph of our quote from Professor Osipov you can .not miss the unmistakable similarity in his description of the origin of the Bible with what is currently taught in most American universities and seminaries. “Myth,” “gradual accumulation,” “folklore,” and the other rhetoric is shockingly familiar. What is different is that Professor Osipov acted on the logical conclusion that such rhetoric leads to: The complete rejection of faith in the Bible and the open embracement of atheism. Most American Modernists will never go that far, but that is where the train they are riding ultimately stops for those with the courage to complete the journey.

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 682-683
September 11, 1975

 

By Roy E. Cogdill

The church of the New Testament, designed by the God of heaven from eternity, built by the Lord Jesus Christ, and set forth in its identity by the Holy Spirit on the pages of New Testament teaching was not then, and is not now, if it exists upon this earth, any part of anything and in no sense was a denominational institution. It is distinct and separate from every human institution on earth.

This church for which Christ “gave himself” (Eph. 5:25) and over which he is the only “head” (Eph. 1:22) and of which He is the Savior (Eph. 5:23) was planned by the G6d of heaven in eternity, before time began Eph. 3:10-11) and built by Christ according to that plan (Matt. 16:18).

The divine plan calls for a divine relationship (the church) separate and apart from every human plan and arrangement. Men have no right to lay their unholy hands upon it to change a single detail that divine wisdom has built into it. The religion that is pure and undefiled is from above and human modifications and arrangements adulterate and defile it and make it vain and void (James 1:27; Matt. 15:7-9). It must remain unspotted from the world, not only in character, but also in name, doctrine, organization, worship and work.

However, its undenominational character must be maintained and it can be done only at the price of eternal vigilance (Acts 20:25-31). Apostasy was imminent even in the New Testament day (2 Thess. 2:7). Paul warned against this danger of becoming careless in respect for divine law and authority (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:1-5). But in spite of divine warnings apostasy came and with sectarianism and denominationalism. The church was corrupted by human organizations and arrangements by which men sought to improve on God’s ways. The apostasy culminated in the growth and development of the Roman Catholic institution that plagues the world even until today and that will continue to do so until the Lord comes again and destroys this mother of harlots with the breath of his mouth (2 Thess. 2:1-12).

People do not often profit by history. The same mistakes are made over and over again in the religious world just like in the political and financial world. We allow world conditions to worsen and develop into war. Financial inflation is continued until the bubble bursts and depression and destitution come. Human corruptions of the religion of Christ are tolerated until full grown departure and apostasy results in the sprouting of another denominational movement right out of the heart of the Lord’s people. Some brethren talk of the “main stream” of the church. Well, this is the part that has always been corrupted and out of it has come unscathed the purified body of Christ stripped of human creeds, human organizations, and human wisdom. Indeed: History does repeat itself (1 Cor. 11:19).

When the men of God married wives of Ashdod, their children grew up to speak the language of Ashdod and their identity was imperiled by this corrupted generation. God condemned and cursed them with severe punishment (Nehemiah 13:23-24). A corrupted speech has always been evidence of a corrupted people. The language of spiritual Ashdod today among God’s people indicates the peril of lost identity and a complete departure from divine law and authority. It is the ear mark of a new denominational body arising from among the churches of Christ. Such a corrupted speech is heard on every hand and in “high places” among the brethren. To call attention to it and warn against it will not correct the situation Unless we can reach the hearts of those guilty and restore their respect for divine wisdom and authority. It is the spirit of “lawlessness” that lies at the root of the trouble.

Nevertheless, warnings are in order and they should be given earnest heed lest we let them slip. For as certainly as a corrupted speech is evidence of “the spirit of iniquity already at work” so along with it comes accompanying departures from divine wisdom in the corruption of the divine organization, doctrine, worship, and work. He that will disrespect the will of the Lord at one point will do so at any and every other point when it suits him or he thinks the time is expedient (James 2:10). When one breach occurs and continues, there is no way to keep out the flood. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the past.

We are hearing a language strange to the people of God in the years of the past when the spirit and determination to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent” was so evident in the effort to, restore New Testament religion. It is common on every hand in the “high places” among brethren such as “Christian Colleges” to hear in use the terms of distinction among brethren that a few years ago would have been quickly condemned. “Doctor” So-and-So is quite the popular thing today. It is excused on the ground that such men have reached high educational attainments in the world. But is such to be recognized in the church? Are we to create an educated “clergy” set apart from the rest of the brethren of common and ordinary attainments? Is this in harmony with divine will? Who will affirm it? Yet it is covered up with subterfuge and deceitful hypocrisy and these learned great men continue to be set apart in the church with complete abandon of both the spirit and teaching of the Christ. He refused all titles of distinction and applause and taught that they should be given only to God (Matt. 19:16-17). He taught his disciples to use no such terms of distinction among themselves and rebuked them when they sought distinctive seats and branded all such as hypocrisy and vain glory (Matt. 23:5-12). Is this instruction of the Lord out of date? Is it not our obligation to respect it? Why then all of this “doctoring” of the great ones among us? Do we not know that in our generation these great men would not have a place to teach in schools supported by Christians (and in many cases unscripturally supported by churches of Christ)! Indeed, they would not even have a congregation to support them when they preach if it were not for the “undoctored” preachers who made the sacrifices of a generation ago to plant churches and spread the gospel of the Kingdom without any instruction at all except self-instruction. Men like J. D. Tant, Joe Blue, and multitudes of others that could be named. These were not ignorant men, except by the standard of the world. They were learned in the word of the Lord and unafraid to preach it. But the more “doctoring” a man gets these days, the less gospel he preaches and the less respect he has for the law of the Lord. Try to call upon him to respect divine law and he will brand you as “simple-minded,” “untrained,” “legalistic,” etc.

How long have you heard such terms as “responses,” “reconsecrations,” etc.? Today huge numbers of additions are reported in meetings, excuse me! “campaigns” all over the country-hundreds respond-many of them among the most faithful workers in the churches-reconsecrating themselves (whatever that is) and relatively few are baptized. Even many of those who are baptized are “rebaptisms” but they are responses and a great display made and the whole thing is propagandized in ridiculous worldly fashion. One out of five of the reported responses may render primary obedience to the requirements of the gospel but it sounds good and swells the appearance of the thing. It is good psychology and advertising.

And then how long have the churches of Christ been putting on “campaigns for Christ,” “youth forums,” “youth camps,” and “youth rallies?” How many years have “retreats” and “workshops” and “youth revivals” and “women’s meetings” been around? “Youth fellowship” gatherings and “fellowship dinners” are new comers on the scene also. These all have accompanied other departures that have marked the inter-marriage of many of the churches with “spiritual Ashdod” and characterize a generation of spiritual offspring that has lost its identity as the children of God. Rather than “glorying” in such things, we should rather be “mourning” because of defiling and corrupting of the Lord’s church.

Truth Magazine XIX: 43, pp. 679-680
September 11, 1975