Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

“The church described in the New Testament was not a denomination.” We understand that sentence. We have heard it all our lives. We mouth it to friends and to neighbors. We courageously affirm it before fellow Christians. We are thoroughly and categorically convinced that it is true. But do we fully realize the implications of this deceptively simple group of words?

It implies that the Lord’s people are not denominationally organized. Search the Scriptures, up and down, and you will find that in the first century there was no “national headquarters” (no, not even in Jerusalem) for the church. You will find no centralization of funds. You will find no “Sunday School boards.” You will find no institutionalism whatsoever. In fact, you must conclude that each congregation was independent and autonomous, fully capable of handling its own evangelism and edification, including discipline, free of outside intimidation or influence.

It implies that the Lord’s people are not subject to denominational leadership. Each local church was Scripturally led when there were a plurality of elders and deacons present. There was no clergy-laity caste system. All were “ministers.” All were individually responsible for teaching and preaching the gospel. No one was permitted or encouraged to allow “the minister” to do the evangelistic work for them in that location. There were no “lay-ministers,” no “arch-bishops,” no “cardinals,” no “presidents,” and no “reverends” in the first century church. In fact, you must conclude that each and every Christian was on an equal basis before God, each with his own responsibility to teach the word.

It implies that the Lord’s people are not guided by nor subject to denominational creeds. All beliefs and practices of the early church were founded upon the word of God. You will find among them no appeals to The Book of Mormon, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Plain Truth magazine, Calvin’s Institutes, Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health, the Methodist Discipline, nor anything else to establish Divine authority. In fact, you must conclude that each Christian was individually answerable only to God and was eminently capable of understanding and practicing God’s will on the basis of his own judgment free of “official creeds,” “papal encyclicals,” or “brotherhood editorials.”

It implies that the Lord’s people do not possess a denominational name. The church in the New Testament is labeled variously as, “the saints,” “the brethren,” “the church of God,” “the kingdom of heaven,” etc. There was no attempt on the part of the early Christians to set themselves apart in a denominational way by “name.” In fact, you must conclude that they met in synagogues or buildings they did not own or private homes, and worried little about the “proper designation” that may have hung on the front door. What “names” that were employed identified them merely as God’s people, set apart unto His Son, “names” given by the Lord Himself, free of any attempts to glorify any particular man, doctrine, or practice.

It implies that the Lord’s people are to dwell in unity. The very term “denomination” implies division. Any attempt to justify divisive groups, each proclaiming allegiance to a peculiar theologian or theology, from a Biblical standpoint is futile. The very idea that God could ordain and approve of all of today’s “roads to heaven” is in itself ludicrous. In fact, you must conclude that the early Christians were united in Christ through His word denying any sectarian or denominational concepts or beliefs.

The comment, “the church described in the New Testament was not a denomination,” is often made casually, almost nonchalantly. In reality, it is the most profound truth that confronts “modern Christendom.” Let us not mouth these words as an empty slogan or catch-phrase; rather let us drink deep its significance, letting it influence our thinking and application in our approaches to His service. Christ’s church, His ekklesia, is not a denomination! What wonderful freedom this truth brings!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 9
September 19, 1974

By Steve Wolfgang

(Editor’s Note: The following remarks could as fittingly be applied to the editor of any of the other journals who speak as the divine oracles speak. With the great admiration which I have for the long deceased Benjamin Franklin, I would feel much more comfortable if you were to read the following article with him only in mind, without any reference to the editor of this paper. If one can have favor with God, it matters not whether he has the praise of men, or their recriminations.-Cecil Willis)

Recently, while researching some back files of Benjamin Franklin’s American Christian Review,1 we came across an article printed nearly a hundred years ago,2 over the pseudonym “Evangelist.”3 Seeing many possible applications to some current situations, we have reproduced the article (in edited and abridged form) below. While some of the circumstances then and now differ (the article was occasioned by Franklin’s death on October 23, 1878), and while we certainly do not foresee for “the current editor” of Truth Magazine an end similar to that of Franklin’s successor, John F. Rowe (years later, Rowe acquiesced to the use in the worship of “a small organ,” but not, “O ye gods,” said he, a large one!),4 yet some of the comments of a young “Evangelist” are as appropriate now as they were then.

“Critics, sharpen your pens; he is a good subject to work on. . . . Measure him by your own various. and variable standards, and you will find him defective all over; measure him by the Divine word, and you will pronounce him a fair specimen. Cull out his unhandsome expressions and harp upon his mistakes, and you will probably have something to do; meditate upon the excellent in what he writes, and you will have but little time for that other ungenerous business. Assume prophetic afflatus and predict the downfall of (Truth Magazine), and you will injure that which you cannot destroy; utter not all your mind, but keep it until afterward, or, better still, increase the circulation of (Truth Magazine) and you will perform a nobler part.

“Editors and scribes of other journals, I invite your special attention. Here is a rare chance for you. (Cecil Willis) is not wiser than Solomon, nor meeker than Moses, nor patienter than Job, and even if he be, I will tell you how to treat him so as to make him appear at a disadvantage. Get up some side issue . . ., advocate some unscriptural or antiscriptural enterprise, or do some other un-apostolic thing, and he will oppose it just as certain as you live. Then regard him as ‘a hindrance to the cause’ and not entitled to fair treatment. Do not PREsent to your readers what he may say, but REPresent it. Or, pass over his premises and present his conclusions by themselves. Comment thereon in your severest style and make him appear as unhandsome as possible. Unless he detect in this the devil’s trap for him, though set by good men, he will say (and all know he can say) some severe things. Then quote against him the severest of the severe, publish them to your readers, refusing to let him be fully heard, while representing him as scurrilous and unscrupulous…. On the other hand, treat him fairly and the merit of his pen will, at least, command the respect of those whose affections it may not win. As for my own part, I fully purpose to increase his number of readers whenever I can, and assist in filling his columns with the clearest, concisest, soundest articles which my youthful pen can produce.”

“EVANGELIST”

Footnotes

1. Historian David Edwin Harrell, Jr., has said that during Franklin’s maturity, “the most influential Disciples journal was the American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin” The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume II (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 17.

2. The actual date was November 26, 1878 (American Christian Review, 21:48, p. 377).

3. “Evangelist” was one of the pen names used by Daniel Sommer, then 28 years old.

4. See Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume 11, 1866-1906; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), p. 315.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 7-8
September 19, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

There are few examples in the Scriptures when the Lord displayed anger while on this earth, but it is interesting when we note the occasions he did show displeasure.

(1) “And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he said to the man which had the withered hand, >Stand forth!’ And he said unto them, >Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life or to kill?’ But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them in anger, being grieved for their hardness of heart, he saith to the man, `Stretch forth thy hand.’ And he stretched forth his hand and it was restored whole as the other” (Mark 3:1-5).

(2) “And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them `Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God'” (Mark 10:13,14).

(3) “Jesus went up to the temple and found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of the money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, `Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise!’ And his disciples remembered that it was written: `The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up'” (Jno. 2:12-17).

Man Or The Sabbath?

Jesus was able to deal with most injustice and ignorance with patience and longsuffering. What is it that so moved the Lord to anger in these three instances? Do they all have something in common?

In the healing of the cripple Jesus was angered at the Jews for putting observance of ritual over real service to a fellow man. The learned Rabbis held the “common people” in great contempt. Jesus saw each soul, regardless of his ability, education, or background as a person worth more than all the riches of the world (Matt. 16:26). Jesus came to “heal those who are sick,” and ate with publicans and sinners. When he preached, he invited such to draw near unto him. To the pious Pharisee and scribe, this kind of behaviour drew contempt that later changed to malice.

But beyond their contempt for the humility of Jesus, they held him guilty for presuming to lay aside their orthodoxy for the petty needs of one of these “common people.” On the Sabbath day all work was forbidden (Ex. 20:8-11). But the Jews had determined that healing was work. According to Barclay, “Medical attention could be given only if a life was in danger. To take some examples – a woman in childbirth might be helped on the Sabbath. An affection of the throat might be treated. But, a fracture could not be attended to. Cold water could not be poured on a sprain. A cut finger might be bandaged, but no ointment could be put on it” (Mark, D.S.B., p. 62).

The Jews did not see the Sabbath as a servant of man, but man as a servant of the Sabbath. Jesus had previously shown that the needs of man came before any ritual law (Mk. 2:2428). Jesus was angry because of the rigid way in which these Jews sought to please God by putting a system above the needs of people. He openly defied their insular code by healing the withered arm, and knowingly brought down the enmity of these religious leaders upon his head.

Bother Or Blessing?

In the event within the coasts of Judea, Jesus was angered at his disciples because they rebuked the parents who had brought their children for Jesus to touch. It is difficult to think of the disciples as being boorish, unloving men. They were probably trying to shield Jesus from the bother of a crowd of little children and their doting parents. They were trying to “protect” Jesus from the crush of the masses by eliminating those who would only “waste” his time.

But, here again, we see the indignation of the Lord blaze out against those who would put form or convenience above people. In every one, whether cripple or young, Jesus saw an immortal, God-given nature capable of fellowship with the Creator, and always of infinite worth. Jesus felt very strongly that his disciples were misrepresenting him by sending anyone away, and inflicting great wrong upon those who sought to come to him. We can see the true character of the living Word, in that it was with affection and compassion he took them up in his arms, and laid his hands upon them. He blessed them and gave them his gracious care and protection. “Of such” he said of these infants, “are the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Profit Or Piety?

When Jesus’ wrath was brought down on those who bought and sold in the outer Temple courts, he was emotionally moved at the exploitation of the hearts of men in their service to God. Here, within the precincts of the building set aside for the worship of God, men made money from the religious service of pious people. In a place where there should have been prayer and communion with God, there was the noise and hubbub of the market place. In a place where there should only have been sacrifice, there was the selling of birds and animals for a profit. In a place where men should have been giving their offerings to God, there was the rattle and scraping of the money changers. To the religious leaders of the Jews, the hard earned coins the pilgrims brought from home were “unclean” and unfit to offer to Jehovah. So they offered “clean” coins at a considerable profit. Likewise, home grown sacrifices were not acceptable. One must buy the “special” doves, sheep, and oxen that the Priests would readily make available-at a definite profit.

The service men sought to give to God was seized upon by those who saw a way to make money from it. Men and their worship had become merely objects to be manipulated for profit. Jesus was so moved by such behavior that he used violent means to purge his Father’s house of that “den of “thieves.”

What Do They Hold In Common?

What is it that these three examples hold in common? Just this: Jesus was driven- to outrage by the total selfishness and callous indifference demonstrated by “religious” men to human need. Jesus reacted to this attitude in men consistently with passionate anger. He left all to come to this world to take men’s sins away on the cross of Golgotha. In the face of the cross, he was confronted with men who were so wrapped up in the physical or the ritualistic that they ignored the needs of those for whom he was willing to die. No hotter contempt is found anywhere than Jesus’ words to the self-centered scribes and pharisees (Matt. 23; “Woe unto you. . . .”). Nowhere else in the scriptures do we find more cutting portrayals of the hypocrisy of the “religiously pious” Jews than in the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23-35), the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14), or in the Marriage of the King’s Son (Matt. 22:1-14).

But, Am I Guilty?

Today we have men who will use brethren and churches to advance their own causes. Whether for prestige or pocketbook, they make merchandise of the simple people who seek to please God. We have our modern money changers who see the church only as a vast resource to be tapped for their own schemes. This attitude can be seen in those preachers who use the pulpit as a means to push everything from soap to their latest scheme in personal work. On a larger scale, we see it in all the “projects” thought up by brethren around the world-that all ultimately bring glory or income to the one pushing his “godly” product.

We see this attitude in those self-serving preachers who move from one place to another motivated only by a desire for more. We see it in churches who hoard their resources while the needs of the Gospel go wanting. They “hang on” for a day that will never come. We see this attitude in those brethren who have never converted one, nor made an effort. These brethren believe that their “faithful” attendance and paltry contribution weekly will assure them of God’s approval. We see this attitude in the discrimination and snobbery practiced against those who have nothing to offer in the way of prestige, power, or glory.

Yes. It is easy to understand why the Lord was angry. We must wonder what his words will be to us when we meet him in the Judgment. Will they be, “Come ye blessed of my Father. . .”? or will they be “Depart from me, ye cursed . . .”? The answer lies in how we treated men while we were on this earth (Matt. 25:31-46).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 6-7
September 19, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Missouri: A sister in Christ has written asking several questions. We shall take up each one and comment separately. Actually, her first question is the heart of her queries.

1. ADo you believe it is a sin to drink a glass of wine?” If the wine is what is presently known as an alcoholic beverage, then, yes for me to drink it would be a sin. And it would be a sin for our inquirer since she stated that her husband’s “drinking a glass or two of wine. . . really bothered me for a while and still does to a certain extent.” “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). This does not mean that a thing is right just so we believe it is right; rather, it shows an act that is right in itself becomes sin if we do it while thinking it is wrong. Do not violate your scruples, your conscience. It is the last vestige of restraint between morality and those “who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness with greediness” and eagerness.

Further, it is a sin for our querist because she wonders and worries over “what kind of influence it might have on the children.” My dear sister, you tell me “what kind of good influence” it could have on the children. Will it lead them to greater trust and faith in God? Will it induce them to study the Bible? Will it prompt them to eschew evil? Will it cause them to rise up and call their mother “blessed?” Will it direct them into “the way of sinners” or “the paths of righteousness” which? Will it deter them from lusts, base behavior, and alcoholism? You tell me. You ponder “what kind of influence it might have on the children,” and then tell me if you find anything in drinking that will be for their ultimate and eternal good.

2. “Why did Jesus turn the water into wine at the marriage feast if he didn’t mean for them to drink any of it?” No one argues that Jesus “didn’t mean for them to drink any of it.” Jesus transformed the water into wine so they could drink of it. However, our questioner reasons from a false premise.

She assumes and presumes that “wine” always contemplates an intoxicating beverage. “. . the contention of some of my correspondents that the Greek oinos, always meant fermented and intoxicating liquor is totally inaccurate, and only. arises from ignorance, or prejudice” (Don DeWelt, Paul’s Letters To Timothy and Titus, p. 304). “The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine; nor drugged wine; nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land.

The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country-always fermented, and always containing a considerable portion of alcohol-not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures… An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favour of intemperate drinking… Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favour even of drinking wine such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did not tend to produce intoxication” (Barnes Notes On The N. T., p. 272).

(1) Sometimes the word for wine, oinos, refers to a non-intoxicating beverage. (2) It may refer to a fermented beverage that could only become harmful if consumed in great and immediate quantities. (3) Admittedly, oinos (Hebrew, yayin) may have reference to “strong drink.” In Genesis 9:21 it produced a state of drunkenness in Noah. The context must determine the nature of the wine. In Isaiah 16:10, Jeremiah 40:10, and in Revelation 19:15, “wine” is used to describe the juice of the grape. The same word is used to designate liquor, but even here we observe that “The liquors of this land in the strength of their intoxicating properties differ so widely from the light wines of Palestine that even the most moderate use of them seems immoderate in comparison” (J.W. McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel, p. 118).

3. “Why was Timothy told to drink a little wine for his stomach’s sake if it was a sin? Again, one must grant that this wine is comparable to our modern day wine that is intoxicating, but this we are not willing to grant. Paul here prescribed wine for medicinal, not social purposes. Drugs may be taken in medicinal form that would be sinful to imbibe socially. One who uses this passage should cease to drink water and drink very little wine. Ever know of one who gave up water (Drink no longer water. . .) while he tried to justify his drinking by this verse? Neither have I.

But if it be objected that Paul here admonishes “drink no longer water only or exclusively” (Cf. NASB), then the water is to be mixed with the wine. This would further dilute any intoxicating powers it might possess. Be it remembered, though, that this wine is not what we think or conceive as wine today.

4. “I am trying to think of where the passage is that says for the woman not to be given to much wine wherein is excess. (The verse in mind is undoubtedly Titus 2:3-LRH). Doesn’t this indicate she can drink a little?” When Peter said that brethren did not run with “the same excess of riot” with the world, did he thereby imply that they engaged in a little riotous behavior? Right above, he had mentioned “excess of wine.@ If this permits a little wine, why does not Aexcess of riot@ allow a little riotous activity (1 Pet. 4:3, 4)? When Paul said, ALet not the sun go down upon your wrath,@ are we to suppose he permitted wrath from sunrise to sunset? When elders and deacons are shown to be men who must not be Agreedy of filthy lucre,@ does this justify a lust for ill gotten gain just so it is in moderation?

Let us not see how closely we can live like the devil while claiming life in the Son. This disposition seems to motivate those who want to drink Aa little.@ It is contrary to the tone, tint, and tenor of the New Testament. ABe ye holy; for I am holy@ (1 Pet. 1:16). AWine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise@ (Prov. 20:1). ALook not thou upon the wine when it is red . . . at the last it biteth like a serpent@ (Prov. 23: 31, 32).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 4-5
September 19, 1974