Response From Marty Pickup

June 9, 2004

Dear brother Roberts:

Yes, you continue to grossly misrepresent me. I did not say, nor do I believe the false idea you attribute to me: “We should consider the account of the serpent was a pagan myth.” I never said in my FC lecture, nor do I believe, that the serpent of Genesis 3 might be a pagan myth. I never said, nor do I believe, that the serpent of Genesis 3 might be mythological. Such views are just as repugnant to me as they are to you.

I asked you to read the clarification statement I posted on the Watchman website and published in Truth magazine, yet you never referred to it in your letter. If you have read this clarification statement, I fail to see why you still do not understand what I meant in my lecture. I have enclosed a copy of this statement for you to read again. I don’t see how I can make it any clearer, but let me try once more: I meant that the language Moses used to designate the one who tempted Eve - the name “the serpent,” a “beast of the field” – may have been the name that the people of Moses’ day used for Satan. Ancient literature suggests that people of that time used such terminology as a name for a wicked spiritual being. I was never suggesting that the serpent of Genesis 3 or anything else in Genesis was mythological.

Your letter sounds to me like you are unwilling to accept my word about what I meant in my lecture. I would hope that my repeated clarifications would enable you to understand what I meant, but in the final analysis, brother Roberts, whether or not you understand what I was saying shouldn’t matter. What matters is the fact that I, your brother in Christ, am affirming to you before God that I do not believe what you have charged me with. I do not believe the serpent of Genesis 3 was a pagan myth and I was never suggesting that it was! That should settle the matter. Please be good enough to accept me at my word.

The same thing is true about your attempt to defend your statement that “[Marty Pickup] raised the question of the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude in another lecture.” My entire lecture was a refutation of those who question the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude. I discussed how post-apostolic Christians had concerns about whether Peter and Jude were the actual authors of these documents because forgeries in the name of Peter and other apostles and prophets of Jesus were circulating in the 2nd century (e.g., the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, etc.). My entire lecture was a response to this issue and a refutation of the view that 2 Peter and Jude were also forgeries. (If you listen to a tape of my lecture you will see all of this.) It is therefore unfair and dishonorable for you to pluck out a paragraph from that lecture and make it appear to your readers that I espoused the other view. Again, please be good enough to accept me at my word. Brother Roberts, a fellow child of God deserves better treatment than this.

In Him

(Signed) Marty Pickup

Response from Tom Roberts

June 30, 2004

Address omitted

Dear brother Pickup:

I am at a loss to understand your inability to reconcile what you have written with our quotations of your writings. Words are vehicles of meaning and your words convict you.  All the protestations of misrepresentation are ineffective against the cold, hard evidence of what you have taught. Though there may be those who will accept your word without investigation, I cannot ignore what you have written. You simply cannot have it both ways: saying in one sentence that you have been misrepresented and in the next sentence repeating what you previously affirmed. If you wish to repudiate what you have written, we would be happy to start all over in our discussion, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

In your previous letter, before you asked me to read your clarification statement on the Watchman website, I had already done so. What I had already become aware of was that you clearly refused to state to brethren Gibson or Osborne that there was a “serpent,” a beast of the field snake, in the garden. I understand the gyrations you made concerning the “name” as it applied to “Satan.” But you evaded the main issue. Let me put it clearly, so there can be no misunderstanding.

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent is an actual, physical beast of the field.

Yes ____________No ____________

(Sign your name to the statement you accept)

What you said, in contrast:

“It is also worth considering that the account of these events may be, to some degree, accommodative and symbolic. Genesis may use the serpent motif because it is borrowing the imagery from the mythological culture of that day regarding a cosmological foe of deity. Old Testament writers commonly take features of well-known pagan myths and rework them in order to present the truth of Israelite monotheism… It is possible, therefore, that Genesis recounted man’s primeval fall using the language and symbology that was best suited for its original audience. Since ancient creation myths gave a serpentine form to the being who opposed the order of creation, it was fitting that the tempter in the garden be depicted in this way (Boyd 156). Such a literary device may have been quite obvious to the original audience of Genesis” (Marty Pickup, “The Seed of Woman” 2003 Florida College lecture book, pp. 49-78; “Identifying the Serpent” pp. 55-62).

We have no trouble understanding what you teach. You teach that we should “consider” that the account of the serpent is “accommodative and symbolic,” a “motif,” rather than an actual, real, beast of the field. You teach “the possibility” that the “symbol” of the serpent is “borrowing imagery from the mythological culture of that day,” that the account of the serpent is “symbology,”  “a literary device.” You state in your letter of June 9 that “the language Moses used to designate the one who tempted Eve - the name ‘the serpent,’ a ‘beast of the field’ – may have been the name that the people of Moses’ day used for Satan.” It is clear that you use “such terminology” about Satan, but it is equally clear that you dodge around the issue. You refuse to state that “serpent” is more than a name for Satan! You refuse to say that it was a literal, actual snake! That is the issue brother Pickup.

You ask me to accept your word as a fellow Christian about what you meant in your lecture. You say, “whether or not you understand what I was saying shouldn’t matter.” I could just as well ask you to accept me at my word, as a fellow Christian, that I have not misunderstood you. But you, as a teacher (especially of young college students), should recognize the importance of speaking so as to be understood. If many other brethren have read your material and have come to the same conclusion as I, you should recognize that the lack of clarity lies with the writer rather than the reader.

The fact of the matter is that others have understood you to say exactly what you said and have written you about it. Your patent answer is “I am misrepresented” or “misunderstood.” However, great care has been taken by your brethren to accurately represent and understand what you have said.

In the following correspondence with another brother, you make even clearer what you have previously written to me. You say,

The serpent of Genesis 3 is to be identified as Satan… There is a legitimate question, however, about Moses’ use of the term “serpent” (Heb. nahash) to describe the one who tempted Eve in the garden. Did Moses mean by this terminology that an actual snake talked to Eve? Perhaps.  Since the NT writers identify the serpent with Satan, the usual explanation most people give along this line is that Satan came to Eve with the body or with the appearance of a snake. But another possibility is this: evidence from ancient Near Eastern literature suggests that in Moses’ time, the word “serpent” (nahash) may have also been used as a symbolic term for an evil spiritual being. If so, then Moses may not be using nahash in Genesis 3 to mean that a snake talked to Eve, but that an evil spiritual being talked to Eve.

So, the serpent is “terminology;” it is a “term;” it describes the one who tempted Eve. But is it an actual snake? “Perhaps,” you say, and then add another possibility that “serpent” is a symbolic term and that Moses may not mean that a snake talked to Eve, but that an evil spiritual being talked to Eve. Was it a real snake or not? But to be sure the entire context is available, the letter is reproduced below.

On May 13, 2003, you responded to inquiries by Aaron Erhardt of Louisville, KY, about your material:

[Personal comments opened the letter, tr]

I appreciate your contacting me. I don’t understand why you would have had “obvious concerns” with what I wrote in my FC lecture, but you certainly have misunderstood me if you think that I was suggesting that Genesis 3 is an unhistorical, figurative story. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, that’s the very liberal view that I refute throughout the section of  the lecture entitled “Identifying the Serpent” (pp. 55-62). I suggest that you reread this entire section; see particularly p. 56.

But let me explain here, perhaps using clearer language, what I was getting at in my lecture. As I showed there, there is no doubt that the serpent of Genesis 3 is to be identified as Satan; the NT writers make this quite clear. There is a legitimate question, however, about Moses’ use of the term “serpent” (Heb. nahash) to describe the one who tempted Eve in the garden. Did Moses mean by this terminology that an actual snake talked to Eve? Perhaps.  Since the NT writers identify the serpent with Satan, the usual explanation most people give along this line is that Satan came to Eve with the body or with the appearance of a snake. But another possibility is this: evidence from ancient Near Eastern literature suggests that in Moses’ time, the word “serpent” (nahash) may have also been used as a symbolic term for an evil spiritual being. If so, then Moses may not be using nahash in Genesis 3 to mean that a snake talked to Eve, but that an evil spiritual being talked to Eve. If so, then the NT writers may simply be acknowledging this sense of  the term when they explain that the serpent who beguiled Eve was Satan (see Rev. 12:7-9; Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 11:3-15; John 8:44, et al.) Now I personally am not sure which of the above interpretations is correct. For most of my life I have only thought in terms of the first view, but I can see nothing in what the biblical writers say that would negate the second view as a possibility. That’s why I mentioned the second view in my FC lecture.

Don’t read into my lecture anything beyond what I’ve just said. This is all I meant. Any idea that I was suggesting that Genesis 3 might be a figurative, unhistorical myth is a gross misunderstanding of my meaning. As I tried to explain in the lecture, some of the literary evidence for the second view of  the term “serpent” comes from ancient mythological literature, but that in no way suggests that the Genesis 3 narrative is unhistorical myth. Again, that false idea is the very thing that I refute throughout the lecture.

I hope this clears up matters for you.

[Personal comments closed the letter, tr]

All the best,                                M. Pickup

Brother Pickup, nothing is more clear than your statement that “most of my life I have only thought in terms of the first view, but I can see nothing in what the biblical writers say that would negate the second view as a possibility.” The “first view” that you held “most of [your] life” is the view that I now hold and defend. You have accepted a “second view” in this part of your life and will not forthrightly admit it. You teach it and when we understand what you teach, you retreat and cry “misrepresentation.”

Will you at least consider the possibility that you have been giving too much credence to “ancient mythological literature,” or “Near Eastern literature” and not enough to the word of God? Nothing in Genesis 3 hints at symbology or literary devices or a motif. It plainly says, “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Gen. 3:1). “And the serpent said to the woman…” (v. 4). “…And the woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me’…” (v. 13).  Paul added, “As the serpent beguiled Eve…” (2 Cor. 11:3). Why is it incredulous to accept the fact that Satan used the actual body of a serpent to tempt Eve?

Brother Pickup, do you believe that an actual serpent, a beast of the field, of the same nature as that “which the Lord God had made” during the seven days of Genesis one, was in the Garden of Eden, and that he tempted Adam and Eve? Yes or no?

Once again, you ask me to accept at face value your word that you defended the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude. But which word shall we accept? The one in which you state that your discussion was a “refutation” of the view they were forged documents or the one in which you were asked: “Now Marty, are you just totally certain about that?” Your response in this instance is to say, “No. Have to be honest. In fact my Lord Jesus demands that I be intellectually honest. I can’t be a follower of Jesus and not be. And I think the evidence tips the scales in favor of their authenticity. And that’s what I would argue, that’s what I’ve tried to argue here. But I would have to say, I can’t just be dogmatic about that, I’m not a hundred percent certain about that” (The Canonicity of the General Epistles, Florida College Annual Lectures, [8 Feb. 2000]. When one invokes the name of Jesus to testify of his honesty and claims, in that honesty, to deny that you are “totally certain,” or less than “dogmatic” and “not a hundred percent certain,” about their authenticity, shouldn’t we take that word as well? Why is it a misrepresentation of your position to note that your defense of 2 Peter and Jude carries the caveat that you are not “totally certain” or “not a hundred percent certain?” I note that you did not address my analogy using Acts 2:38. If you taught that you “could not be dogmatic,” “not a hundred percent certain,” and not “totally certain” about Acts 2:38, would this equate to raising questions about Acts 2:38?

May I suggest that there are enough critics of the Bible in the world who cast doubts on the integrity of God’s word without brethren raising questions about the text? Preachers of the gospel are to make a “certain sound” (1 Cor. 14:7-8), not an “uncertain” one. If you employ a hermeneutical principle by which you reject a literal serpent in Genesis 3, how do you limit the use of that principle to the serpent alone and not to other persons in that chapter? How can one fail to be totally certain or dogmatic about the inspiration of 2 Peter and Jude without raising questions about their use by brethren? Proper use of the field of evidence does not demand that we abandon faith in the literal text of the Bible or that we acquiesce to every quibble of the revisionists. “Heaven and earth will pass, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Our proposals for open discussion of these issues remain for you to consider.

Yours for truth, Tom Roberts

Editor’s Note:  Brother Roberts edits the Forest Hills church of Christ Communicator, a monthly mail out bulletin.  This article appeared in the May 2004 issue of that paper.  While local references are made, the principles are timely and important for all Christians to note.  As such, we appreciate the opportunity to give his article an even wider reading in this issue of Watchman.

“Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
(Galatians 4:16)

Jesus, the wise and perfect Master Teacher was not gladly received by all who heard him. We must realize that Jesus always had the right attitude, chose the right words, expressed the truth, and spoke with clarity. But some resented the truth that he taught. “Therefore many of his disciples when thy heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it?’ When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured about this, he said to them, ‘Does this offend you?’” (John 6:60-61). Without debate, we can conclude that the fault lay with the listeners, not the speaker. Jesus taught the truth and some hated him for that very reason.

In the title text above, the apostle Paul acknowledged that some among the Galatian brethren also resented him. The Judaizing teachers who did not want the Gentiles to be included in the church fought the gospel and resented Paul deeply. We can know assuredly that Paul taught the truth and that the animosity displayed against Paul was wrong and sinful.

From these facts in the life of the New Testament, we can know with a certainty that when the truth is lovingly and plainly taught, those in error will have certain reactions. They will either “gladly receive the word” and repent (Acts 2:41), turn a deaf ear to it (Mt. 13:14-15), or fight against it (Acts 7:54).  In every case, truth will prevail because it cannot be denied. Resentment, animosity and fighting against the truth only reveal the flaws in those who oppose the gospel. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will by no means pass away” (Mt. 24:35). Anger against one who tells the truth is misplaced!

“The Communicator” is being mailed to approximately 1900 addresses in the Tampa Bay area (including a few hundred across the nation). While other efforts are underway to address the needs of the lost in our community and to “preach the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), this bulletin has a more narrow focus. It is mailed to members of the church of Christ with the goal of opening communication about errors which are currently being taught that have the capacity to, and are, leading Christians into apostasy. We recognize that the subjects being discussed are controversial and that many are reluctant to deal with such matters. But every time truth and error collide, controversy will be a necessary ingredient and we must not be timid when souls are at stake. Every effort is being made to be kind, considerate and loving, but, in the end, truth must be taught and error identified. We make no claim to perfection with regard to attitudes, but insist that we are mad at no one, do not resent anyone, have no hidden agenda, and are open and willing to discuss these issues publicly and privately. We love the truth, love the church of the Lord, and love our brethren, individually. We have no desire to divide churches, alienate brethren, create confusion or inflate matters of no consequence. But, make no mistake, error is being taught and practiced in our area and the truth will open it to the light of examination. Error crosses congregational lines and truth must have the same right of way.

Many brethren in local churches do not know what the issues are all about. Apostasy is quietly being advanced in certain places, changes in doctrine are slowly being advocated, moral issues are adapting to worldly standards and many good brethren do not have a clue about what is going on. Fellowship with error and those who teach it has become widespread, hidden behind a friendly façade of brotherly love and acceptance of familiar names of well-known preachers. The church has gone to sleep and error is creeping in!

Some of the worst culprits among us are preachers. “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (Jas. 3:1).  God is going to look more severely at those of us who teach and preach and we better not forget it. If we fail to speak out against error, if we fail to raise our voices when danger confronts us, if we love popularity more than the truth, we have a certain future of judgment from God. Are we moral cowards or bold preachers of the gospel? Do we allow sin to pass by unchallenged or do we speak out, regardless of the cost? Where are the watchmen of God?

“Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezekiel 3:17-21).

All of us are to “watch” (Mt. 24:42-43; 25:13; Acts 20:31; 1 Cor. 16:13; 1 Thes. 5:6; 2 Tim. 4:5). Not all watchmen are prophets, as was Ezekiel. Parents are to watch out for their children. Elders are to watch on behalf of the church. Christians are to be watchful for one another. And preachers are to watch in their work as evangelists. The sober warning given by Ezekiel about the responsibility of a watchman needs to be learned by our generation. God is going to require it at our hands if we allow sin to pass into the church without raising our voice. Be assured that this is as much your responsibility as anyone else.

What Dangers Will A Watchman See?

How does one recognize danger? The Bible tells us: “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). If you are a careful Bible student, if you know scripture, if you are familiar with the truth, you will recognize error when it appears. Can you tell the difference? Can you discern between good and evil?

In past issues of “The Communicator,” we have been documenting areas of concern. Note again what we have been saying.

Error is being taught about Creation and Genesis 1-2. Shane Scott and Hill Roberts have advocated that the “days” of Genesis 1-2 “cannot be literal” but are figurative, allowing time for the “big bang” theory, stellar evolution to occur, and eons of time to pass before man appeared in Eden. When Hill Roberts passed out a CD-ROM at his Florida College lecture advocating this error, the administration not only allowed it to happen but have not, to this date, exposed his views as the error it is. Instead, Scott and Roberts have been defended and supported by the Bible faculty and administration.  Did you know this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about Genesis 3. Marty Pickup taught in the 2003 FC lectures that we should at least consider that there was no real serpent in Genesis as a beast of the field. Rather, we should consider that the entire story was a pagan myth inserted by Moses to explain the existence of Satan and the origin of sin. Marc Gibson (Lakeland Hills church) and Harry Osborne (S. Livingston  church) pressed him on this error and he refused to state that a literal serpent was present in Eden.  He has also raised the question of the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude in another lecture.  Were you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about fellowship with sin. Bob Owen preached at the Temple Terrace congregation in a lectureship in Sept. 1993, clearly advocating fellowship with the error being taught on the divorce issue. Though he disagreed with Hailey’s views (among others), brother Owen taught that we should not make such error a test of fellowship. Earl Kimbrough’s tract, “How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree” (which advocates continued fellowship even when we differ) was distributed and commended.  He stated: “I’m talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I’m doing it in a context of a series of discussions on the marriage question.”  He further stated: “So let me suggest in the Scripture there are some cases discussed in detail where brethren had some differences of conviction.  They differed in their belief.  They differed in their practice.   And yet they not only could continue to fellowship, but they were taught by Paul, the Lord through Paul, that they should continue to fellowship.”  In Concord, NC in  February 1995, He taught (concerning Romans 14): “So in Rome and in Corinth you had brethren who differed in what they believed.  You have brethren who differed in their practice.  One believed it was a sin to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol, so he wouldn’t eat them.  Another believed that those meats were acceptable and he did eat them.  Now the fellow who thought it could be a sin to eat those meats had to look at the other fellow and think he was sinning.  Had to.  In Rome, the fellow who thought it was a sin to eat any kind of meat would have to think you sinned if you ate a piece of meat.  And yet Paul taught them that they should accept each other.”  This view of fellowship with error is based on his erroneous view of Romans 14 and it has been widely accepted in this area. Attempts to have a public discussion on this subject have been ignored or rejected.  Are you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about Romans 14. Romans 14:1 through 15:7 contains a discussion about matters of liberty (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:23). Such matters of liberty are neither commanded nor forbidden to be practiced, but allowed, if expedient. The text identifies such matters as “clean” (v. 14), “good” (v. 16), and “pure” (v. 20), not inherently sinful. But many (such as Ed Harrell and Bob Owen) are willing to include sinful practices, such as doctrinal error on divorce and remarriage, in this context and “receive one another” (v. 1). The effect of such error will be to allow many sinful practices to be received and false teachers to be fellowshipped.  Are you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about unity in diversity. Christianity Magazine (no longer published) contained a lengthy series of articles by Ed Harrell in which he defended fellowship with brother Hailey and advocated “unity in diversity”. Notice: “Within certain limits, God grants to Christians the right to a private conscience in matters of ‘faith.’ I believe that right is discussed in Romans 14. However, whether or not one accepts my exegesis of that passage, honest minds must acknowledge the reality of a past and present Christian world that tolerates contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions.” (“The Bounds of Christian Unity,” May 1990, 134) In past decades, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett advocated this same error. It led them into complete apostasy and fellowship with denominations of every kind.  Are you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?  Are you ready to embrace unity in diversity?  Many in this area have accepted it fully.

Are You Watching Or Have You Closed Your Eyes?

Much documentation can be supplied as to the reality of these dangers. If you want to verify the truthfulness of these charges, look at Watchman Magazine on the internet (www.watchmanmag.com) and research these issues. Congregations in the Tampa Bay area (and around the nation) have encouraged these dangers by allowing error to be taught and having fellowship with those who are advocating unity in diversity. The facts are there for all to see if blindness does not close our eyes.

We continue to invite readers to read and study the word of God, investigate these issues with discernment and not be influenced by anything other than the word of God. Be of the same sentiment as the Bereans of old who “searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation. We remain open to brotherly discussion of these issues. May we hear from you?

Is the church of Christ immune to error? Should we not have the same attitude of urging our own brethren to read their Bibles, examine our own practices and question the preaching of those who do not provide book, chapter and verse for what we believe and practice? It was said of the Bereans that they “were more noble (fair minded) than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Do we get a free pass to believe and practice whatever we want since we are “the church” and “our traditions” are beyond question?

It is evident that a certain mind-set exists among some that refuses to read, refuses to study, refuses to consider whether or not we can be wrong, refuses to consider that maybe, just maybe, the members of the church need to open their minds to see what is going on, where we are headed, what is (or is not) being taught today. We recognize that people in denominations sometimes have their allegiances misplaced: to a favorite preacher, to a college, to a publication, to a certain party or sect. Could that happen among us who are Christians? Could I be blinded to error because “my preacher” is well known and has a reputation among brethren? Do I have a blind allegiance to a college regardless of what it teaches? Am I so satisfied with the people that I associate with that I have become blinded to their drift away from truth?

Many who are members of the church of Christ today were won away from error in denominationalism because you had an open mind in the past. Someone asked you to study the Bible and religious subjects and you were willing to do so. You left denominationalism because you loved the truth and were willing to study to see what the Bible taught. Some of you left institutional churches because they were practicing things for which they had no authority and a friend or fellow Christian challenged you to study “the issues” and you gave up some unscriptural practices.

Is the need for Bible study over? Is there no danger of error among brethren today? Remember the words of the apostle Paul: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

Brethren, is this a present danger or is it only a historical reference without meaning today? Can we have an attitude where we will not endure sound teaching? Can we have itching ears? Will our teachers turn away from the truth and lead us to fables? Do you even consider the danger of drifting away from the truth of God’s word?

Maybe it is time for us in the church to “Ask Our Preachers” some questions!

“Preacher, why do you have fellowship with those who teach moral and doctrinal error?” The scripture is crystal clear on the subject: “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). The church at Cork, Florida used Homer Hailey for years in gospel meetings though it was known everywhere that brother Hailey taught error on divorce that will send souls to an eternal torment. Certainly that congregation has been willing to fellowship error! But, brethren from many places disagreed with brother Hailey, used him, encouraged him and defended his right to teach his error (which he did, as long as he lived). Has the Cork church ever renounced that error? Does the Cork church continue to hold the same views on this error? Fellowship with Hailey and others (who teach different, but equally erroneous errors on adulterous marriages) was defended by Bob Owen, Ed Harrell and other brethren. Christianity Magazine was used in a long series of articles to defend fellowship with brother Hailey under a misuse of Romans 14. Ed Harrell was willing to “tolerate contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions.” Reader, I challenge you to ask your preacher if he agrees with this statement. Does your preacher approve of fellowship with those who teach error on divorce. Please note that they may not teach the error which brother Hailey taught. But do they believe in extending fellowship to those who teach error? Is your preacher willing to “tolerate contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions?”

“Preacher, why don’t you preach more against dancing, drinking, gambling and immodesty?”  We need to recognize that sometimes a preacher is known, not so much by what he preaches, but by what he doesn’t preach. Many no longer preach sermons against wearing short shorts, drinking beer or wine, or sermons which condemn the evils of dancing. We have a generation of young people who have been raised without ever hearing such things condemned in clear, unequivocal terms. How long has it been since you heard a sermon against mixed swimming and short shorts (immodesty)? How long has it been since you heard about the evils of gambling?  The works of the flesh (Galatians 5:16-21; Colossians 3:5-11, et al) are “manifest” and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” A number of preachers have decided to allow each member to define modesty for themselves and they poke fun at those who describe exposing the thigh (Exodus 28:42; Isaiah 47:2-3) as nakedness. No, I am not advocating that these kinds of sermons must exclude sermons that edify or that every sermon must oppose something. But one cannot preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) without teaching against moral sins that will send souls to hell. It is not unusual to hear members say that they know other members who drink, who go to proms and dances, who buy lotto tickets and wager on sports. Yes, these things go on among congregations today. Does your preacher sound a clear warning against these sins?

Ask your preacher if it makes a difference what one believes about the days of creation. It has been taught by Shane Scott that the six days of Genesis 1 and 2 “could not be literal.” Hill Roberts teaches that the “big bang” occurred and “stellar evolution” took place before the earth cooled enough for man to be created, much later than “the beginning” (Mt. 19:4). When this issue has been discussed, the usual phrase to dismiss the question is, “What difference does it make.”  Larry Ray Hafley has written explaining it thusly:

“It Matters Because:

“(1) Twice, Moses argued that since the Lord created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day, so Israel was to work six days and rest on the seventh day (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17).  If the days of Genesis one were not six days, in the same sense that the days of Exodus 20 and 31 are six days, the basis of the argument for the Sabbath rest is eroded.  Does that matter?  If the days of Genesis one were “eons of time,” does it matter that the props are knocked out from under the argument of Exodus?

“(2) Jesus said that Adam and Eve were created “in the beginning” (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4, 8).  “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).  However, if the days of Genesis one were multi-millions of years, and since God created them on the sixth day, they could not have been created “in the beginning of the creation,” but, rather, toward “the end of the creation.”  Does that matter?  Does it matter that the Lord was wrong about it?   Does it matter that male and female were not created until “eons of time” after the beginning of the creation, if it be so that the days were hundreds of millions of years in duration?

“(3) Jesus spoke of “the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50, 51).  Then, he named Abel as the first–”from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias.” If, though, the creation days were “eons of time,” and if Abel was not born until after those “eons,” how could it be said that the blood of prophets had been “shed from the foundation of the world”  Hence, the Lord was wrong about their blood being shed “from the foundation of the world.”  Does that matter?”

Does it matter what you believe about this? I challenge you to ask your preacher to see if he says, “What difference does it make?”

How far have we gotten from old-fashioned Bible study? How far have we gotten from a “thus saith the Lord?”  Do we yet speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11)? Do we “speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent?” We have always said that “truth has nothing to fear from investigation.” Is this really true or have we been mouthing platitudes all these years while we chide denominationalism for their closed minds? Is your mind open? Will you study these vital issues?

Ask your preacher. See what he has to say.

There is a sure and certain conflict of interest between academic freedom and Biblical accuracy. Those who endorse academic freedom insist on the right of every position on any issue to have equal weight. Those who believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God endorse only “the faith” (Jude 3) which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). When conflicts arise between so-called “science” and Biblical accuracy, Christians cannot endorse total academic freedom.

Within educational circles, colleges may well examine and postulate different theories on economics, languages, mathematics and the arts. Such disciplines of education are human and not divine in origin and they normally do not involve a dispute with scripture. But when the field of Biblical truth is under consideration, when Divine revelation is discussed, there can only be one position, one truth, one way that is right (John 14:6; 1 Peter 4:11; Jude 3). This is true, even when science and the Bible are compared. While understanding that all positions of error may be studied and compared, the final emphasis of those who are children of God must be that truth is defended without equivocation, compromise or ambiguity. In many colleges, academic freedom has swept away Biblical accuracy. The right to teach denominational error, religious diversity, evolution and humanistic philosophy has long since taken control and one does not attend a state or secular school with the intent of finding defenders of the faith on the faculty. However, many people view Florida College differently. They look at Florida College as an educational institution with a Bible department in which every professor is a Christian and in which the Bible is defended in its inerrancy and accuracy, even when fields of science are considered. In the past, this has been the stated position of the administration. Today, it is different. Statements by the current and recent administrators and faculty indicate a different approach which elevates academic freedom above defense of the faith.  Florida College is at a crossroads. Where will the emphasis be placed in the future? Friends of the college (emphasis on friends) do not want academic freedom to smother Biblical accuracy. There are precious few institutions of higher learning where the Bible is elevated and defended as the word of God. The administration and faculty of Florida College need to make it abundantly clear which road the college will pursue in the future. Will it follow the path of most colleges and slide into liberalism and modernism in biblical studies or will it insist on a clear and unequivocal position? Inquiring minds want (and need) to know.

Florida College in the Past

What caused many brethren to have confidence enough in Florida College to send their children there for education (an extension of the home responsibility), was expressed by James Cope, past president. Notice what he stated very succinctly:

“(5) Point of emphasis. Florida Christian College proposes to not only declare emphasis on the Bible but it intends to make that declaration true. Either the Bible penetrates every fibre of school life or it merely takes its place as just another study in our curriculum. God being our helper, we do not intend the latter to happen now or later. Every student must receive at least one lesson in God’s word every regular school day. Not only so, but we aim to make the Bible the chief consideration in every activity. If we fail in this, we shall fail in the purpose for which the school was founded.”  (Letter to Gospel Guardian, published June, 1949)

Brethren, there has been a change in the last fifty-five years. The administration has changed and the policy has been changed. Brother Cope said that if the college failed to “declare emphasis on the Bible” and to “make that declaration true,” “we fail” (emp. mine, tr).

Florida College Today

Compare the noble sentiment expressed by James Cope with the statements of current and recent administration and faculty and guest speakers.

Shane Scott, while on the faculty of the Bible department expressed his settled belief (which was expressed in debate format) that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 were figurative and not literal. In Sentry magazine (Vol. 21, No. 1), brother Scott said,

“Some Bible believers insist that the world, according to Genesis 1, was created in six twenty-four hour days. I believe, however, that the days of Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally.”

The next section of his article is entitled, “The Days Cannot Be Literal.”

As to his methodology of teaching classes on campus, rather than “make the declaration true” as brother Cope insisted, brother Scott said:

“In my one lecture I present at FC on Genesis 1, I present four basic interpretations and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each. This is exactly how I was taught when I was at FC. I only tell the students which view I prefer if I am directly asked…” (emp. his)

“On the exam in which I test the students over the material in Genesis 1, the questions (sic) I ask is this: ‘Choose one of the four interpretations of Genesis 1 and defend it.’ I do not ask my students what view I take, and I do not test my students over things I don’t present in class. Further, they are not graded on the basis of which view they choose. They are graded on their ability to defend their own view.” (A Response to the Open Letter)

This is a “study in our curriculim” approach and not sound Bible teaching! Would it work on Acts 2:38? Should the teacher only teach four views of Acts 2:38, discussing the strengths and “weaknesses” of that passage, then allow the student to defend one of the four views he chose? Should he only “tell the students which view [he] prefers if [he is] am directly asked…”? Should a student be graded well on his ability to defend an erroneous view? Though Shane Scott is no longer at the school, is this the academic freedom that is promoted in Bible classes?

Brother Caldwell, the present president, commented about brother Scott’s teaching in the following manner:

“This particular discussion is done as a part of only one lecture on one day in one course. …he does not present a conclusion in class and does not discuss it publicly…”

Again, academia rather than sound teaching. A conclusion is not presented in the curriculum on Genesis 1, and this is defended as proper teaching. But Shane did discuss his view publicly in Sentry Magazine, decidedly stating his conclusion. Brother Caldwell further stated:

“While I do not concur with all his reasoning and/or personal conclusions, this teacher has a humble spirit, a tender heart, and a sincere desire to know and teach only the truth of God. Shane has great potential for good in the kingdom of God. He has a commitment to the Word that cherishes both the content and spirit of Truth. He has not, to my knowledge, taught error in the classroom of Florida College.” (“The Days of Creation” – Some Things to Consider)

But the fact of the matter is that brother Scott believed and taught error and his right to teach was defended by the Bible department as his academic freedom.

During the 1999 lectures at Florida College, brother Hill Roberts (who spoke that year) distributed a compact disc which contained his material from the “Lord I Believe” seminars, including articles entitled A Harmonization of God’s Genesis Revelation With His Natural Revelation and Genesis and The Time Thing. These essays deal extensively with brother Roberts’ support for a non-literal view of the creation account as well as his support for an evolutionary explanation for the inanimate world. He advocates the “big bang” theory and “stellar evolution.” in which vast eons (billions and billions of years) were required for the universe to cool enough for human habitation on the earth.

In early June, 2000, an open letter signed by 67 preachers (of which I was one) was sent to brother Caldwell to indicate our concern over these events on the campus. His response concluded:

“I appreciate your concern for Truth and your desire to warn of departure from it when there is a real threat. In this case, there is none” (letter dated June 30, 2000).

Again, brother Ferrell Jenkins, then head of Biblical Studies, defended the right of Hill Roberts to distribute his material on campus, saying:

“That’s what education is about; making people think and allowing us to come to conclusions based on our study of the Word of God.” (The Creation Controversy and Florida College.)

If allowing error to be freely distributed is equated with “education,” then there has really been a shift in Florida College. Some perceive this shift in a complimentary way.  One defender of Shane Scott wrote,

“I support and applaud Florida College for allowing academic and religious freedom in its classes and at the lectureship. You label academic freedom and religious freedom ‘false teaching’ and ‘false views.’ However, I must insist that during Florida College’s ‘golden age’ of intolerance and indoctrination, it taught error and false doctrine. In order to protect the students of the college from the imposition of a religious creed and indoctrination, it is absolutely essential that Florida College allow religious and education (sic) freedom, as well as freedom of speech.” (David Matthews, email correspondence with Stan Cox, editor, Watchman Magazine).

Which shall it be: academic freedom or biblical soundness? While respecting an educational institution’s right to explore, think, challenge and investigate different disciplines, there must never be a compromise of truth. There must never be an “uncertain sound” (1 Corinthians 14:8) in Biblical studies, even by brethren who operate a college. When men who hold false views appear under the auspices of a lectureship in an atmosphere of fellowship and tolerance, there is an inherent danger to young and/or impressionable minds. When sound brethren are criticized for opposing false views that are openly advocated and when reasonable requests for discussion are dismissed and ignored, a signal is being sent that change is in the air. When an administration allows dissemination of error without making provision for presentation of truth to be equally presented, a dangerous precedent is being set.

When all is said and done, the Lord’s church is not dependent on any human institution. Florida College has always correctly stated that its existence is not “church related” but to be seen as an extension of the home and its education of young people. Many colleges operated by brethren have gone the way of digression and have ceased to be effective in their original purpose. Nevertheless, the church continues on in its divine mission as the body of Christ, seeking the lost and edifying the saved. If Florida College insists on academic freedom to the extent that it overshadows biblical soundness, it will be a tragic change. We insist on the right to uphold truth wherever it is found and to confront error to the same degree. We address this danger because many families entrust their children to Florida College for an education. We hope it can achieve a balance between educating our youth even while demanding that the faculty remain true to the word of God. If this cannot be achieved, we will note the change and oppose it with sadness.

With this affirmative, my part of the debate comes to a close and judgment is passed to the readers. Please consider all the material carefully in the light of the scriptures and render a verdict on the evidence. The full debate, without additional material, is to be printed in book form as per our agreement. No new material should be introduced in the final negative.

My Third Affirmative will establish from Generic Authority that the scriptures permit elders to make decisions in the realm of unstated options (judgments), arising from specific commands.

Generic Authority: Non-class brethren confuse generic authority for specific when they demand specific authority for Bible classes, disallowing generic authority. They, like Vance, do not understand authority. It is axiomatic that every specific command of God to do a thing carries with it the generic authority to perform that command by choosing unstated options: when, how, how much, etc. Generic authority is no less authoritative, deriving its force from God’s specifics. Specifics are stated; generics are unstated; both are authorized. Examples abound: 1) Noah used gopher wood (specific) but the tools he used were unstated options (Gen. 4:14-22). Tools, essential to obey the command, were authorized as private judgments. 2) “Sing,” is God’s specific choice; unstated options (private judgments) are song books, etc. A song leader decides privately which songs to sing, how many, etc. by generic authority. 3) Deacons “serve tables” (specific function), but are allowed unstated options concerning the care of tables: how much, how often, etc. 4) Elders are specifically commanded to “feed,” “exercise the oversight,” “superintend,” and “rule,” but generically authorized to make decisions between unstated options: who, how much, how often, etc. Examples: elders have the right to decide when to discipline a member, how much time longsuffering requires, how often gospel meetings should be held, what subjects are needed, how long should the meeting last, etc. Wise elders ask for advice (Prov. 11:14), but they make the final decision. Notice carefully: private decisions by elders in matters of judgment are authorized by both specific, stated authority (affirmatives one and two) and generic, unstated authority. When Vance demands specific authority for each and every unstated option that elders decide (1000′s of details), he demands that which cannot be supplied even for congregational decision-making: specific authority for generic options! Deacons could not decide how many loaves of bread to take to a needy family; song leaders could not choose their songs, parents could not decide how raise their children, and elders could not make any decisions about tending the flock. Generic authority gives elders, deacons, husbands, wives, parents, etc. these options!

Answers to Vance’s 2nd Negative: The Problem Grows: Eldership oversight no more promotes Boston/Crossroads than it does popery, but women’s equal voting (which he has avowed) surely promotes feminism. Vance’s indelicate language re: circumcision (“involuntary genital surgery”) belittles the Law and accuses Paul and the elders of mutilation (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). But note that a private judgment decision was made! The proposition stands.

An Interesting Debate: Vance accuses that I contradict myself or ignore his arguments. He has been answered but it is needless to respond to quibbles. Space prohibits repetition of my arguments. Please refer to previous affirmatives as well as complete citations of scholars (Thayer, etc.) for accuracy.

The Debate is About: I do not use “head” and “overseer” interchanageably, though some reference works do (i.e., Thayer). Smokescreens will not hide efforts to promote democracy and women’s equality instead of eldership oversight.

Authority: Context: Fathers, magistrates and elders have authority in their sphere (Eph. 5:23; Rom. 13:1f; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). Vance allows fathers and magistrates to make decisions but denies it to elders, thus unequal in his application of authority. Scope: Jesus and Authority: Human authority is limited as far, but no farther, than God intended. Wives cannot reject husband’s authority; citizens cannot reject government’s authority; churches cannot reject elders’ authority (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). However tired of it he may be, Vance is branded as denying authority to elders when he gives women equal voting and gives to the congregation the authority that God gives to the elders. It is not congregational oversight (democracy, voting) but eldership oversight! Where is the verse that says to the congregation: “Exercise the oversight?”

Word Study: Presbuteros, Episkopos, Pastor: These words were studied in my first affirmative adequately. Can “overseers” oversee? Evangelists have “authority,” but not eldership authority. Non-elders (even bachelors) can watch on behalf of souls (Heb. 12:14-15), but not with the qualifications and appointment of elders. Feed: Can pastors decide matters about feeding the flock? If not, they are figureheads and not pastors. Appoint: Different people are appointed to different tasks (deacons, for example), but elders are appointed to do the work of overseeing. Rule (proistemi): When people learn to “maintain” good works, can they choose unstated options about which good works they maintain (Tit. 3:14-15)? “Rule” allows choice!

“Silent as the tomb” on 1 Tim. 2:11-12: “General approbation” is not “voting.” Vance has dodged voting and it’s implication to oversight and equality. One person, one vote denies 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and destroys subjection. It proves how far in principle his theory will go.

Hegeomai (leaders, chief men): Heb. 13:7, 17: I responded clearly to his use of “hegeomai” but deny that “men who speak the word” (evangelists) have oversight, as do elders.

Scriptures: (Please compare my 2nd affirmative.) Acts 4:34-37: Verse 35 states, “and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (NKJV). The apostles (males) made decisions about the distribution. Acts 6:1-6: The judgment decision that it would be seven (not six or eight) was made by the apostles before and without the congregation. Only one example is needed to prove my proposition. Acts 9:26-28: Paul assayed to join himself to the “disciples” in Jerusalem and the apostles decided to receive him (apostolic example of deciding for the church). The apostles (12 men) decided not only for 5000 but for disciples of all ages (Phil. 4:9). Acts 11:27-30: I did not attribute “expediently” or “inexpediently” to Thayer, but to the word “rightly.” Context decides whether things “done rightly” implies judgment or doctrine. I have cited Acts 11:30 three times where the funds went to the elders (not the congregation) for distribution (judgment decisions). Vance implies they sin if they distribute the funds. Acts 13:1-3: A matter of judgment, not doctrine (when Saul and Barnabas would depart); the Holy Spirit himself used the prophets and teachers (males) as agents for the church in sending them out. Vance ignores that the church acts through agency, contending that the whole church must always be involved 100% of the time. Acts 15:6; 16:4; 21:25; Gal. 2:1-10: Vance has trouble with textual exegesis. There were private meetings in which decisions were made about matters of judgment before and without calling the congregation together. Titus’ circumcision was a matter of judgment (1 Cor. 7:19) having the potential of affecting the whole church (Gal. 2:4) in a matter of “liberty.” Acts 21:15-26: The elders met with Paul in a private meeting about an explosive judgmental matter that was about to consume the church and Vance says that it has no bearing on the proposition. This meeting was before the congregation met (v. 20, 22), arriving at a decision of private judgment (re: customs, v. 21) to keep the entire church at peace. It describes my proposition.

“Private (not secret)“: Vance’s use of “secret” regarding elders’ meetings implied something sinister or clandestine (other synonyms for secret). They are private in the sense of agency, the part acting for the whole (Acts 11:30). The Ephesian elders’ meeting with Paul was private but not “clandestine” (Acts 20:17f). “Vance says they sinned.” If sin is not charged, why this debate? His book states my position to be “without divine authority,” in violation of “the pattern,” etc. Are you agitating brethren about a personal opinion (Rom. 14:13, 22)?

Answers to Clarified 1A Questions: This is imporant. Vance admitted that elders have a right to meet privately, hold secret deliberations, and make decisions before and without calling together the whole congregation, including the women, in matters of faith. A deeper study of the passages in Acts and Galatians will convince him that they also made private decisions in matters of judgment. He has yielded most of his objections, with only one left to be resolved: judgment decisions. These affirmatives prove it: NT elders made choice in judgment matters.

Answers to 2A Questions: 1) The apostles chose 7 men “without” and “before” the assembly and informed the assembly after their judgment decision. 2) Fellowship can be limited in the universal church: 2 John 9-11. If elders sin (1 Tim. 5:19-20) when they make private judgment decisions for the local church, charges should be made against them. That certainly creates a test of fellowship. 3) and 4). He refused to answer! These questions were asked to show inconsistency between doctrine and practice. Paul did that (Rom. 2:1f). Vance is feeling the heat or he would have answered. The consequence of his doctrine demands that he charge elders with sin who practice what he condemns; a divisive doctrine. He has taught others not to participate in that which he practices. 5) If elders must have permission from the congregation every time they make a decision, the congregation is the overseer; they don’t need elders. Your threat about emergencies, 100 orphans and the dry church building makes me wonder if you believe the Lord is cruel because he put the care of orphans upon individuals (Ja. 1:27) and not the congregations. The liberals talked about 1 “poor little orphan” on the door step of the building and you talk about 100. Faithful Christians wouldn’t have to practice institutionalism to take care of 1 or 100 orphans. How would you handle them?

Questions: 1) Yes. Yes, but with deference to the mature men. 2) Yes, deacons can decide matters of their province (Acts 6:3). 3) No, the eldership should act as a body. 4) The church in Jerusalem had meetings and made decisions under male leadership without the whole church being together (see scripture study, aff. 2). 5) It is not scriptural to vote in the Lord’s church. A survey is not a vote, else “polls” might elect the next president instead of the ballot box. No, it is not settled by a survey.

Conclusion: I commend Brother Trefethen for his willingness to debate this issue and a conscientious effort has been made to answer every argument. But a divisive and dangerous doctrine is disturbing the peace and harmony of the Lord’s people and should be rejected. Godly women do not seek equality with men. Faithful churches submit to the Lord’s plan for eldership oversight. There is little doubt that Vance, because of training and sentiment, will embrace the extremes to which his principle will ultimately lead, but others will do so. He has opened a gate that cannot be closed. May God help us not to reflect the rebellion of our age.

My first affirmative showed that the definitions of scriptural terms (bishops, elders, etc.) permitted elders to “exercise the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:3), thereby empowering them to make private decisions on behalf of the congregation. Now we will prove in a scripture study that elders actually did make decisions “before and without” calling together the whole congregation.

Arguments: 1) Acts 4:34-37. From the beginning, decisions were made privately (not secretly, as Vance charges): this is not “new” doctrine. Disciples brought gifts to the apostles “and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” This “apostolic example” showed male leadership making private decisions about who the needy were, how much each received and how long they were to receive it, without congregational meetings. Vance says they sinned!

2) Acts 6:1-6. Vance labels all private decisions by males as “lording it over.” (ibid, p. 15-16; Mt. 20:25-27). The disciples had been arguing about who was “greatest” in the kingdom. “Overlording“, not decision-making, was sinful and Jesus rebuked them. The apostles made decisions later and were not guilty of abusing authority (1 Cor. 7:6, 25, 40; 2 Cor. 1:23-2:1) like Diotrephes (3 John 9). In Acts 6, before and without calling the congregation together, the apostles privately (not secretly) decided to stop serving tables, and privately (not secretly) decided on seven men (both judgment matters). This is the “tradition of the apostles” (2 Thes. 2:15) which authorizes private decision-making. Vance says they sinned!

3) Acts 9:26-28. The apostles sat in private judgment on behalf of the church at Jerusalem concerning Paul’s membership, making a private decision to receive a brother without the whole church, including the women, being present. Vance says they sinned!

4) Acts 11:27-30. The elders acted on behalf of the needy churches as they received the benevolent funds to relieve the needy. Inherent in “oversight” is the ability to “see over” a work (Bishop: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly,” Thayer, p. 243). (Note: Judgments may be done “rightly” [expediently] or “wrongly” [inexpediently] without sin being charged.) Oversight is not innately overbearing but can be benevolent. Authorized private meetings are not meetings of individuals when they act as an agency for the local church. Elders acted as authorized agents for the church, being duly appointed by the Holy Spirit and the local church for this very purpose. Vance says they sinned!

5) Acts 13:1-3. Prophets and teachers were “in the church” but were not “the church.” Yet these men privately, before and without calling the entire congregation together, and without the women, fasted, prayed and laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them away. Their private functions as males were directly ordered by the Holy Spirit and clearly shows that males may act on behalf of the congregation, as do elders. Vance says they sinned!

6) Acts 15:1-31; Gal. 2:1-10. Paul, Barnabas, Titus and the apostles and elders at Jerusalem made private (not secret) decisions on behalf of the church concerning the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2; Acts 15:6). Vance admits it to be judgmental since he wants to make it congregational, but prohibits all private meetings where decisions are made. The whole church enjoyed the benefits of the private meetings and were included in sending the letter to Antioch. It is poor exegesis to deny private meetings on behalf of, before and without calling the congregation together. It is specifically stated that, even when the congregation was included (as in ch. 15), the “decrees” (letters) “were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem” (16:4). James also confirmed this (Acts 21:25) by stating “…we have written and decided…” Private (not secret) decision-making by authorized men was a New Testament practice. Vance says they sinned!

7) Acts 21:15-26. Even after Acts 15, concerning Gentiles in the church, Paul’s presence in Jerusalem threatened to disturb the church. He therefore “went in” (v. 18), a private (not secret) meeting with “James and all the elders” to discuss how the church would be affected, for “the assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come” (v. 20, 22). The elders “took heed” and “watched” (Acts 20:28, 31) on behalf of “the assembly,” being concerned for the unity and peace of the church. In this eldership capacity, they “assembled privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation” and advised Paul what to do so that “all may know” (v. 24). This was not “individual action” (ibid, p. 97). The elders’ advice was binding on Paul as a judgment (v. 23) as they represented and shepherded the flock through a perilous time. Vance says they sinned! Remember Miriam who was not afraid to speak against ordained authority (Nu. 12:1-8).

Response to Negative: The Problem: Strong spiritual work by elders does not conflict with judgment decisions by the same men. It is not either or, but both. An abuse (the Boston Movement) does not nullify either the spiritual or judgmental work of elders.

Definitions: Vance challenged my definition of “to assemble” as an eldership. But Acts 15:2; 20:17; and 21:17 show elders meeting as an eldership and not as individuals. Such men represent the church as authorized by appointment and function and this sustains the definition.

Feed: Ezek. 34:2-3 describes a shepherd’s work but even spiritual functions require judgments (who, what, when, where and how). Can elders frame a letter to a weak member, decide the need for discipline or its form, or plan a class without calling a congregational meeting? It is absurd to appoint shepherds and restrict them from shepherding!

What the debate is not about: He needs to learn the difference between the “decision-making process” (receiving input, advice, info) which includes the whole church, and “decision making” which is a part of eldership oversight. Definitions and scripture study confirm it.

What the debate is about: Vance’s book is at the heart of this debate. 1) He affirms a pattern that accuses his brethren of sin, 2) states that he will no longer participate in the practice and, 3) will encourage others to give it up (ibid, p. 109), thus causing discord.

Word Study: Vance accused me of dishonesty by wilfully omitting part of Vine’s definition on “rule.” He knows that complete citations of Vine, Thayer, etc. are impossible. No deliberate omission occurred and he ought to repent of the suggestion. He has not dealt with the citations given, much less with the entire works. Vine, etc. are available for our readers and I rely on them to check our use. Vance confuses etymology with definitions and ignores contextual usage.

His use of word studies is peculiar, making much over “episkopeo” (oversight) but applying it to “hegeomai” (chief men). Influence of “those who speak the word” is considerable, but they are nowhere told to “oversee” as elders do (1 Pet. 5:3). Can we agree that Heb. 13:7, 17 includes elders, to whom we are to “submit” and “obey?” Qualified, appointed men (Tit. 1; 1 Tim. 3; Acts 14:23) are bishops over the church and not (unappointed) “chief men.” “Unappointed men” are often self-appointed men who want to rule. Vance’s use of “chief men” smacks of evangelistic oversight. Whose reasoning is circular?

Fathers/Elders: I did not suggest that elders are heads of the church. But Vance ignored the obvious: fathers/husbands, even as head of a house, are not dictatorial when making decisions (after discussion); God demands it by scriptural definition (Eph. 5:22-23; 6:1). Neither are overseers dictatorial when they make decisions (after discussions); God demands it by scriptural definition (1 Pet. 5:3; et al). Vance “forbids to elders” what God authorizes. If Christians are to “be subject to the higher powers” which are “ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1-2), would this include ordained elders (Acts 14:23) who oversee rightly? Remember Miriam!

Woman’s subjection, 1 Tim. 2:11-12: Participation in classes, etc. is not the same as voting. Vance is silent as the tomb on this issue for it is deadly. Giving women the vote to decide matters of judgment effectively destroys woman’s “subjection.” A vote is total equality and Vance advocates women voting in church assemblies. It is impossible for women to be in subjection while having a vote equal to that of men. Vance demands it; the Bible forbids it.

His Answers: 1) He didn’t answer, so I’ll rephrase. “Do parents, husbands and magistrates have the right to make decisions relating to their province (Eph. 6:4:1-4; 5:22-23; Rom. 13:1-2).” 2) He didn’t answer, again. He has a dislike for people in authority making decisions. Fathers/parents make decisions relating to their headship; civil authorities make decisions relating to their province; bishops make decisions relating to their oversight. Otherwise, words have no meaning. 3) If elders sin in decisions for the church involving judgment, then the Jerusalem elders sinned (Acts 15; Gal. 2; Acts 21, etc.). 4) Yes, the women in Vance’s proposition sin when they vote because they do exercise “authority over a man.” A majority of women overrule minority men in voting and there is no “general approbation” in the ballot box. 5) By your answer, you agree that your elders are wrong and should do differently. But if an eldership refuses to change to your position after studying, can you continue being in subjection to them? Either you must charge them with sin and ask them to step down or be inconsistent and accept their decisions even when you think they sin. My friend, you are on the horns of a dilemma.

Answers to his questions: 1) I have shown that “to oversee” and “rule” allow private decision-making by elders and apostles. 2) No, what you describe is dictatorial. Wise elders ask for advice, etc., so that the final decision, which is the elders’, reflects counsel (Prov. 11:14). 3) I have never taught “hegeomai” to be elders-only. It may include apostles. Can it include elders at all? 4) Obeying the “hegeomai” of Heb. 13 could apply both to individuals and collectives; include matters of faith and judgment. Why is it so intolerable to you to apply it to elders and matters of judgment? 5) The kings of the Gentiles (Mt. 20:25; Lk. 22:26) lorded it over, not because of place (private decisions), but through an abuse of function (legitimate authority, Rom. 13:1f). Jesus condemned overlording, but authorized privacy (Lk. 9:10).

Questions: 1) When the apostles (males, without the entire congregation) chose “seven” (a judgment decision) men to serve tables, did they sin in this private decision? 2) Do elders sin today when they make judgment decisions on behalf of the congregation before and without calling the church together? 3) Do you believe your elders sin when they make judgmental decisions for the congregation where you worship? 4) How do you reconcile your fellowship in a congregation where this is done when you stated you would no longer do so (ibid, p. 109)? 5) In an emergency situation Sunday at midnight, can elders or deacons decide to give financial aid to a needy saint without calling the church together and do they sin when they do so?

Proposition: “Resolved: The scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.”

Definitions: “The scriptures,” the 66 books of the Bible. “Teach,” instruct by commands, approved examples or divine implications. “Elders,” men who are scripturally authorized and appointed (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1) over each local church (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2). “Local church,” the congregation in a given locality in its corporate entity (Phil. 1:1). “Authorized,” empowered, permitted. “To assemble,” meet in their eldership capacity (Acts 20:17). “Privately,” (Gk: idios) “pertaining to one’s own; to do one’s own business (1 Thes. 4:11), apart (Mt. 24:3)” (Thayer, p. 296-7). “To make decisions,” come to a conclusion. “In matters of judgment,” distinct from matters of faith. “For the local church,” represent, act on behalf of, in the interest of the local congregation. “Before,” in advance of. “And without,” lacking, in the absence of. “Calling together,” summoning, requesting. “The whole congregation,” the ekklesia.

This debate is not about: 1) An abuse of that which is scriptural. Abuse of civil government does not mitigate against authorized government (Rom. 13:1-7); abuse by husbands does not mitigate against headship (Eph. 5:23); “lording it over God’s heritage” does not mitigate against oversight (Mt. 20:25-27; 1 Pet. 5:2-3). 2) Excluding the congregation from the decision-making process. While elders make final decisions as overseers, they seek advice and counsel from the congregation. 3) Excluding women since “congregation” includes women. This debate is about: The error propagated by Vance in his book, Confusion or Consensus, which includes: 1) Charging elders with sin when they make a private decision for the church (p. 47, 51), 2) A demand that women be included in congregational decision-making (p. 3), 3) A claim for a pattern that demands congregational decision-making in every instance even when there are elders (p. 44), 4) Substitution of consensus for oversight of elders (p. 24), 5) Voting instead of elder oversight (his aff. #2). These errors violate the clear NT teaching of eldership oversight which permits them to make decisions on behalf of the congregation. The proposition which I affirm will be supported by three major arguments. The first will be a word study of the Biblical language from which we perceive the authority of elders.

Arguments: Words are vehicles of thoughts and inspiration has chosen the exact words to explain the scope of the elders’ authority, the congregation’s relationship to elders, and woman’s subjection. “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13). When one is a “bishop” and exercises “oversight,” he is and does expressly what the Holy Spirit teaches. Divine concepts (“spiritual things”) are expressed through divine precepts (“spiritual words”). Human concepts (congregational decision-making) are expressed through human precepts (consensus, voting) and constitute “human wisdom.”

Word Study: 1) Elder, presbyter (presbuteros), Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5: “(3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches” (Vine, Vol. II, p. 21). 2) Bishop, overseer (episkopos), 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent…spec. the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church” (Thayer, p. 243). “Lit, an overseer…2)…is rendered… ‘office of a bishop,’ lit. ‘overseership,’ there is no word representing office. Note: The corresponding verb is episkopeo, which, in reference to the work of an overseer, is found in I Pet. 5:2..’exercising the oversight..taking the oversight’” Vine’s, p. 129. 3) Pastors, shepherds (poimenas): “a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks (not merely one who feeds them), is used metaphorically of Christian ‘pastors,’ Eph. 4:11. Pastors guide as well as feed the flock; cp. Acts 20:28, which, with v. 17, indicates that this was the service committed to elders (overseers, bishops); so in I Pet. 5:1-2, ‘tend the flock, exercising the oversight;’ this involves tender care and vigilant superintendence” (Vine, p. 167). Also 4) Feed (verb, poimaino), Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2: “to act as a shepherd,” (quoting Trench) “The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals, but they are incidental in comparison with the feeding” (Vine, p. 87, 88). 5) appoint (kathistami): “prop. to set down, put down…(a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it), Acts 6:3…(b) to appoint one to administer an office, Tit. 1:5″ (Thayer, p. 314). Compare its usage: Mt. 24:45, 47; Acts 6:3; Tit. 1:5. 6) Rule (proistemi), 1 Thes. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4; 5:17: “to set or place before; to set over. a. To be over, to superintend, preside over, rule,” (Thayer, p. 539); (hegeomai), Heb. 13:7, 17: “to lead, is translated to rule” (Vine, p.307).

These words clearly define that elders have the authority of God to oversee, exercise the oversight, see that things are done rightly by others, to be set over, to be a leader, to rule. There is no ambiguity here. It is inconceivable that elder oversight excludes the ability to make even one decision, much less that they sin by doing so. The Holy Spirit “makes” bishops (Acts 20:28) by the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and defines their authority by these words that describe them. It is ludicrous to use the terminology without applying the definitions. To admit oversight and superintendency is not to stretch a single word from its meaning or context. This is what elders are and what they do, not in name only. To strip elders of decision-making ability is to deny elders what they do by definition: “exercise the oversight.” It is notable that the same word “appoint” used in Acts 6:3 authorizing “deacons” to decide about tables is also used in Titus 1:5 regarding elders. Are deacons permitted to do that which is forbidden to elders: make decisions about their work? Elders are not to “lord it over the flock,” nor act as Gentile masters, but there is legitimate oversight (else words have no meaning), not to be confused with abuse (1 Pet. 5:3; Lk. 22:25-26). As a father rules his house, so an elder rules the “house of God” (1 Tim. 3:4-5). Must a father rule by consensus or by majority vote without the ability to make a single decision without the whole family, including the children, being in agreement? In any collective (whether a family or a congregation), information may be sought from every member by the overseer, but someone must make a final decision. In the family, this is the father (Eph. 5:23). In the church, these are elders. Vance denies this to elders. Would he also deny it to fathers?

Word Study: Congregation’s role toward elders: Submit (hupeiko): “To resist no longer, to give way, yield, metaph. to yield to authority and admonition, to submit, Heb. 13:17″ (Thayer, p. 638). Obey (peitho): “1. To persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe;…2.a. to be persuaded, to suffer one’s self to be persuaded…b. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with, Acts 5:36-39; Acts 23:21; 27:11; Ro. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 5:1; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 3:3″ (Thayer, p. 497). Study the cited scriptures carefully. Elders cannot be excluded from this work since it applies to those who are to “rule” over the church and elders are specifically charged with this duty. They are the only scripturally qualified men so charged.

Word study: Woman’s subjection (hupotage), 1 Tim. 2:11: “1. the act of subjecting, 2. obedience, subjection, to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection” (Thayer, p. 645). Vance must make up his mind whether women have decision-making authority or not. In those congregations with a majority of women, the men must either submit to the authority of the women or over-ride their decision-making authority. If elders are present, they must defer to the women if the women decide to go against the judgment of the elders. If this is not true, women have no decision-making authority. The Bible requires women to be in subjection; Vance requires them to have decision-making authority. If “being in subjection” allows decision-making authority, why would not “being in subjection” also allow women to serve the Lord’s table, preach, or teach mixed adult classes so long as they did so “under male leadership?”

Summary: The words of the Holy Spirit define an elder and his authority. There is no need to stretch these words beyond their legitimate definitions to determine that elders can make a private decision that is binding on the church. The church is not a democracy that empowers itself to make corporate decisions (consensus) but a theocracy that has a mandate from Christ as head to submit in judgment matters to the qualified elders who are “over” them “in the Lord.”

Questions: 1) Do parents, husbands and magistrates have the right to make decisions relating to the oversight of their province (Eph. 6:4:1-4; 5:22-23; Rom. 13:1-2)? 2) Do bishops have the right to make decisions relating to the oversight of the church (1 Pet. 5:1-3)? 3) Do elders “lord it over God’s heritage” every time they make a decision for the congregation (1 Pet. 5:3; Mt. 20:25)? 4) If so, why is a woman not having “authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12) when she exercises decision-making authority in the church? 5) Do you believe an eldership should be removed from a congregation when it makes private decisions for the church?

The responsibility of the negative in a debate is to follow the affirmative and answer his arguments. I have done this and Vance’s proposition has failed. My three affirmatives will follow in a privately printed book which can be obtained from GOT.

Fellowship: Vance labels as sinful the practice of elders making decisions. Will he fellowship what he considers sinful? His views will divide brethren in local churches.

Leadership & Authority: Collectivities (congregations, families, etc.) require decision-making to reach a common mind, whether by elders or church votes. Leadership and authority are inherent in decisions. Evangelists and Bible class teachers have no authority but elders do (1 Pet. 5:3). This oversight includes private decision-making (Acts 6, 11, 15, etc.). I refuse to debate Luther Blackmon or any other than Vance. But if Christ has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) without delegating any, explain why resisting authorities (magistrates, fathers, husbands, elders) is to resist God (Rom. 13:1-5; Eph. 6:4; 5:22; Acts 14:23).

Oversight: Voting is leadership authority or minorities and women would not insist on their right to vote. Vance avoided the consequences of my questions re: women voting. A vote is an absolute expression of authority that knows no gender and respects no higher authority; there is no “submissive” vote and does not “meekly express an opinion for the group to consider.” Even more than consensus, voting opens the door to female equality in decision-making. A 13-year old Christian girl would have the same power in voting as elders (20:28). The lexical definition he seeks: Bishop, overseer (episkopos), 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7: “An overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, …” (Thayer, p. 243). Jesus is Overseer, elders are overseers and it means the same in both cases (1 Pet 2:25; 5:3). Vance says Jesus as Overseer can make decisions but elders as overseers cannot make decisions. We do not agree on oversight; it clearly permits decision-making.

Vine, Voting and Consensus: Vine on voting (cheirotoneo, p. 69) is not confusing. Noting the primary meaning, he states that it is “not to be taken in its literal sense” (cf: Acts 10:41; 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19). “Dokeo” (Vine, p. 340) does not support voting (Acts 15:22, 28). Vance’s “authority” (The Interpreter’s Bible) is a commentary, not a lexicon, that likewise says Paul is “less than Christian” (Vol. 10, p. 126) in his view on women (1 Cor. 11:2-16)! Is that scholarship? “General agreement in matters of judgment” is not guaranteed by consensus or voting. Either the voting majority decides the issue (51% wins – 49% loses) or chaos results. God’s way is to have qualified elders who conclude the discussion. Congregational meetings (Acts 6, 15, etc.) do not negate private decision-making in those same passages any more than faith in Mk. 16:16 negates baptism. But voting and elder oversight are mutually exclusive.

Heb. 13:7, 17: Are there “chief men” like Judas and Silas today? If so, what are there qualifications? If those of Hebrews 13 were considered “chief” because they “spoke the word of God,” would this not authorize evangelistic oversight? Vance wants us to “obey” and “submit” to “chief men” (with no stated qualifications) but rejects “obeying” and “submitting” to elders who have stated qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). Vance assumed “obey” referred to matters of “the faith” and not “judgment.” If “hegeomai isn’t limited to elders,” could we agree that hegeomai applies to elders at all? Is it scriptural to submit to and obey elders?

Acts 6: Vance knew that I did not believe elders can decide matters of faith and cannot appoint women to be leaders. Radical feminism will never trouble the church which accepts scriptural elders but it will when matters are decided by the vote! Vance has opened the door to female leadership. Decisions were made in Acts 6 before and without calling the congregation together (the apostles selected 7 men, not 6 or 8, surely a matter of judgment). If you want to use this to take the Lord’s supper on Tuesday, it will be your decision, not mine.

Acts 15:22: Galatians 2 with Acts 15 shows that there were private decision meetings with the apostles and elders that did not include the whole church. Acts 16:4 states that the decrees were “determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” These facts destroy Vance’s proposition. Private decisions by elders are authorized by the word of God.

Acts 15:6-7: Not all matters of Acts 15 referred to matters of salvation; some included items of judgment. Refer to my previous negative. We do not agree and our difference is clear.

Gal. 2:2-9: Consideration of my previous negative material will prove that I responded to Vance’s material. Not all decisions of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 were matters of faith. Titus’ circumcision, a religious liberty (Gal. 5:6), affected the whole church and a private decision was made not to circumcise. Private decisions on matters of liberty are authorized.

1 Cor. 5: Vance’s inexperience fails to realize that scandalous matters can destroy the faith of the weak and babes and they should be protected (Rom. 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7, 9-12). While sin must be dealt with in the congregation, the lurid details must be contained by mature brethren. 1 Cor. 6: How can this passage be an individual matter since verse one suggests going to law (court) before “saints” and was addressed to the church? Paul used hyperbole (v. 5) to emphasize “is there not a wise man among you, not even one” (more than one is implied) who could settle the dispute. The decision affected the whole church in that the “wise men” acted on behalf of the church to keep the matter out of Gentile courts. The last step of Matthew 18 could be handled identically to 1 Cor. 6:1 after the first two steps are handled individually. The congregation can be represented by agency (2 Cor. 8:23), either by messengers or by wise men who settle disputes for the church. Authorized agency action is church action.

Acts 11:27-30: I’ll state it again: since the elders received the money, they had to distribute it. Decisions necessarily inferred: who are needy? how much do they need? how long will they need it? The elders had to make these decisions. As messengers, Paul & Barnabas could make no decision but to deliver it to the elders who accepted the responsibility of oversight.

Without elders: Vance may affirm a pattern of a congregational consensus under male leadership all he wants to, but when he advocated the vote he abandoned male leadership for feminine equality. We have congregational meetings every week in which women participate in authorized activities (singing, praying, etc.), none prohibiting them. But it does not follow that women are authorized in business meetings to cast equal votes any more than they are authorized to preach. 1 Peter 5:5 must not be arrayed against 1 Timothy 2:12 nor 1 Pet. 5:2. If “being submissive” (1 Pet. 5:5) means women in business meetings with equal votes, it also means women in the pulpit. Apostasy will not stop with voting and Vance has opened the gate!

With Elders: The KJV & NKJV states: “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men….” (Acts 15:22). It is clear that a congregational meeting took place in Acts 15, but equally clear that private meetings took place in which decisions of judgment were reached. Vance’s error creates an eldership figurehead that makes no decisions while voting (including women) decides everything for the congregation. This is oversight?

Acting by agency: Though it “baffles” Vance, when the 7 men of Acts 6 took care of the widows, the church acted through them. This is corporate action by agency: deacons at work, preachers at work, elders at work. Must every member visit every widow or can the church act through the deacons? Must the whole church be involved in every decision or does the church act through the elders (Acts 11:30)? Elders are authorized to exercise oversight even as Christ and the apostles exercised oversight (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:25; 2 Cor. 5:20). Not all oversight is of the type elders have (Heb. 12:15), but elder oversight includes acting for the church.

Vance’s Questions: 1) Vance did imply that deacons made decisions when he answered my question 1N #5: “the church gathered and chose servants (diakoneo) to do that in Acts 6.” Deacons may decide (without a congregational meeting) how many loaves of bread to buy. If deacons can make judgment decisions without consulting the congregation, so can the elders. 2) A woman voting her conscience is not “meekly expressing her opinion.” A vote is a decision equal to that of a man (a violation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12). A woman is not in subjection while voting; her vote nullifies her husband’s or another male’s vote. 3) Vance doesn’t understand authority if he thinks voting doesn’t give a woman authority. He has opened Pandora’s box for the feminists. 4) Vance’s position on voting gives women leadership authority. It is inconsistent of him to deny them leadership in teaching or public worship.

Dictatorship, Democracy, and the NT: The whole church can come to “one accord” (Acts 15:25; 1 Cor. 1:10) under eldership oversight and godly submission (Heb. 13:7, 17): the expressed will of God (1 Pet. 5:3). Consensus and voting is human wisdom. God’s way works.

Conclusion: Vance’s proposition has not been sustained; we don’t agree. On the other hand, we have proven beyond doubt that private decisions by males (apostles, elders) were reached without the congregation being present. Eldership oversight that permits private decisions in matters of judgment is scriptural. Consensus brings confusion. “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” Rom. 14:19). My affirmative arguments which follow will sustain eldership oversight.

My worst fears are being realized in that, as the debate advances, Vance is progressing deeper into error, affirming a position with dreadful consequences of feminine equality and denial of eldership oversight which some will accept. The negative requires that I answer his material yet not allow him to side-track me into debating other men or affirming a non-existent “GOT” position. I fear he confuses criticism of a public position with persecution (Matt. 5:11).

Observations. Congregational participation under male leadership is our practice in most assemblies and does not contradict elder oversight or allow women equal authority in decision-making. Vance grants women decision-making authority without admitting leadership. Conversely, he speaks of elders having leadership without making decisions. But decision-making is a form of leadership and elders who decide nothing are figureheads and not leaders.

Pattern comments: I do not misrepresent his test of fellowship since he advocates a “pattern” (his book, pp. 24, 26, etc.), and any alternative is “as foreign to the New Testament as is instrumental music” (p. 107, quoting Lynn Trapp). As with music, he has drawn a line. Acts 15 the sole pattern? My affirmative will show passages in addition to Acts 15.

Authority of Elders Comments: If evangelists are to “speak with all authority,” but make no decisions, is this true of elders? No, evangelists and elders occupy separate functions and elders are specifically charged to “exercise the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2). His reference to GT 4/21/94 is a misapplication. The author denied anyone the right to “enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ.” I agree. The church is not a democracy but a spiritual body with Christ as its head and the law of Christ is eldership oversight, not consensus! Though not in his proposition, consensus is taught repeatedly in his book and is the heart of this debate. Now he has gone beyond consensus and specifically endorsed church voting instead of eldership oversight. One person/one vote is a subversion of truth! Every voting person has an absolutely equal voice. Vance denies believing in feminism but a church vote knows no gender, acknowledges no maturity, and respects no submission. Voting changes female participation to female leadership and female majority gives women control of the church. He cannot give women the vote in one breath and deny them leadership with the next. Subjection does not exist in the ballot vox. Consensus might include persuasion but voting is raw majority rule, removes women from their subjection to men (1 Tim. 2:11-15), and the congregation from submission to elders (Heb. 13:7, 17). Once the principle of female leadership is introduced, the door cannot be shut. Others will allow co-teaching in Bible classes, women serving the table or preaching.

What A. Campbell said about voting is as irrevelant as what he said about the missionary society and wrong in both cases. The “casting lots” of Acts 1:6 decided nothing but indicated God’s choice (1:24). Vance’s quote on Acts 15:22 is misleading. Thayer says of “seemed good”: “1. To be of opinion, think, suppose…3.b. it seemed good to, pleased, me; I determined” (p. 154). It is also used in Acts 15:28 and his “interpretation” would reduce the Holy Spirit to a vote no greater than that of the youngest female member! Compare its use in Acts 14:23: did Paul and Barnabas “vote” or “appoint” elders? Vine explains that stretching forth the hand “is not to be taken in its literal sense….since it is said of God, Acts 10:41,” and adds: “It is also said of those who were appointed (not by voting, but with general approbation)…2 Cor. 8:19″ (Vine, p. 69).

Private Decision Comments: Acts 6. He asserted it is “without divine authority” for private decisions to be made without the whole church. But my negative cited seven private decisions of the apostles, and his assertion changes nothing.

Acts 15; Galatians 2. Private meetings with elders and other men took place as specifically stated (Acts 15:2, 6; Gal. 2:2). Decisions were made for the whole church regarding matters of judgment: to accept Paul in fellowship (Gal. 2:9; Acts 9:26-28); spheres of service (Paul to Gentiles; Jerusalem to the Jews); that Titus would not be circumcised (indifferent to God, 1 Cor. 7:19, but with congregational implications, Gal. 2:4-5). So Galatians 2:9 doesn’t backfire on me. Elders cannot alter the plan of salvation (Acts 15:7f), but they can oppose false teachers, support truth and decide in areas of judgment.

1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Congregational action in chapter 5 does not negate the private decisions in chapter 6. There, individual judgmental matters having congregational implications were decided by one or more. Personal disputes should be handled by wise men in the church and not the heathen (6:1). Using hyperbole, Paul asked if there is not even one “among you” (the church, v. 5) who could “judge between his brethren.” The wisest in the church ought to be the elders who “judge” (decide) disputed matters between members so that it does not destroy the whole congregation.

Acts 11:27-30. It is understood that the money that came to the needy churches from the messengers, Paul and Barnabas, was sent and received for benevolence. A decision by a receiving eldership to buy a “new meeting tent” would have been sinful. Vance missed the point. The elders, having received the money for benevolence, yet had to make decisions: who was to receive it; how much was each to receive; how long was it to be given, etc.

Male leadership in absence of elders. His syllogism is faulty since he shifts terms from A to B. “Male leadership” is not the same as “men and women in decision-making.” He assumed what he failed to prove.

Scandalous Matters, Sensitive Matters. The whole church can be involved in discipline without requiring that every member (babes in Christ, weak in faith, young in age) know the sordid details. Consideration by mature elders is not the same as baring it to those whose faith might be destroyed. “Fornication” before the church is one thing; the shocking evidence that proves fornication is another. Benevolence can also be sensitive. The church should be aware of the needs of brethren without financial disclosure that would discourage and embarrass those in need. A wise eldership can avoid congregational problems by privately dealing with scandalous and sensitive information.

Past questions: 1) See material on voting above. 2) Since Vance accepts that an “agency” acting is the same as the church acting, he needs to tell us what is wrong with an eldership acting “for, or on behalf of” the congregation. In Acts 6, the seven men acted “for, or on behalf of” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation caring for the needy saints. In Acts 11:27-30, the eldership received the funds “for, or on behalf of” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation receiving the funds. He accepts agency provided “the congregation has asked an ‘agency’ to act on its behalf.” But God has commanded agency: eldership oversight. Let the reader choose: “Tend to the flock of God which is among you, (arriving at consensus), (counting the ballots), (giving women equal authority) or (exercising the oversight).” 3) Vance said “No,” that a majority of women cannot rule over a minority of men. But he approves of voting and each vote counts. A majority of women who vote outnumber a minority of men who vote. Why is that not overturning the decision of men? Why is that church not controlled by women? 4) Vance accepts that deacons can “decide the multitudes of decisions” about buying supplies for the church. But why are deacons qualified to make decisions “before and without calling together the whole congregation” and elders are not? If deacons are “appointed” (Acts 6:2) and elders are “appointed” (Acts 14:23), why are deacons empowered to make decisions, and elders not empowered? The qualifications relate each to the work to be done. 6) Vance described a stalemate in consensus when “leaders disagree with the multitude.” Exactly! Every collectively must have a mechanism for avoiding stalemates. In a democracy, voting provides it; in the home, it is husbands (Eph. 5:23); in the church, elders are appointed to make decisions for the collectivity.

Vance’s Questions: 1) A “rump meeting” of a few rebels is an unauthorized meeting and violates 1 Pet. 5:5b, among others. Elderships have authorized meetings (1 Pet. 5:2). 2) Jesus has been given “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) and as law-giver has ordained elders be appointed to “oversee” and “shepherd” the collectivity. Vance understands this with deacons but objects to it with elders. 3) Yes. 4) I did not concede that women are authorized to attend business meetings. Acts 6, etc., authorizes congregational meetings in which women are present under male leadership. In these assemblies, women may participate short of assuming decision-making authority. God has placed women in subjection under men (1 Tim. 2:11-15) but Vance’s voting would make them equal. Men do not prohibit women from doing any authorized activity.

Questions for Vance: 1) What passages permit deacons the right to make decisions on behalf of the congregation but prohibit elders from making decisions? 2) How can a woman vote her conscience yet remain in subjection when she disagrees with her husband and the elders? 3) Does voting give women leadership authority? 4) Can a woman co-teach a Bible class in the church so long as she is under subjection to her male co-teacher?

This debate is important because Vance suggests a radical departure from the practice of the NT and makes his unscriptural “pattern” a test of fellowship. As one who serves as an evangelist and an elder in a local church, I deny his affirmative as both unscriptural and impractical. Our difference is not personal nor is his honesty or sincerity impugned.

Definitions: I commend Vance in appealing to the scriptures. However “pattern” should reflect a binding quality beyond that of his dictionary (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 8:5). Since Vance is advocating a pattern that requires “congregational decision-making in matters of judgment” and requires “an increased role for women in the decision-making processes of local churches” (Vance Trefethen, Confusion or Consensus, New Horizon Books, Montgomery, Al, 1993, p. 3), his obligation is to show that pattern. He brands private decision-making by elders as “without authority” (ibid, p. 6), thus sinful. Since a pattern allows no deviations, if it can be shown that a single exception to his pattern exists, he has no pattern. However, Vance is confused about what makes a pattern. He states “Acts 15 is the only Bible pattern there is on the matter” (ibid, p. 32), but attempts to add Acts 6 and 1 Cor. 5, etc., to that pattern. Either Acts 15 is the “sole” (only) pattern or it is not. When defining “decision-making in matters of congregational judgment” Vance emphasized that this addressed matters of judgment and not matters of faith. Agreed, but we differ on “decision-making” itself! His pattern calls for every decision to be made by the whole congregation (including women), under male leadership. This would be required in every congregation, whether or not there were elders. I suggest that this makes elders mere figureheads, with no scriptural authority to decide any matter. Though he affirms that he believes elders have “authoritative work to do in overseeing and leading a local church,” he also requires a “consensus” (ibid, p. 22, 24, 25, et al): a contradiction of terms. Consensus is “a collective opinion, general agreement” (Funk & Wagnalls Std. Dict.) in which women carry the same force as men in “decision-making” or there is no true consensus. “Consensus” is not found in the scriptures! It fits well in a democracy, but the church is a theocracy where elders are specifically mandated (Acts 14:23; 1 Pt. 5:2, etc.). It is exceedingly strange that his entire pattern is built upon a word that is not found in the scriptures (either specifically or in principle).

What this debate is not about: 1) “Not about feminism”? Though his disclaimer is appreciated, it is futile. I respect that he rejects feminism as such, but his position opens the door to the very evil he denounces. “Consensus” puts women on a par with men in decision-making. If a consensus of women in the majority disagrees with the consensus of men in the minority (which is true in many churches), he has placed the decision of the women over the men. The women may be humble and discreet, but either they have decision-making authority or they do not! If the minority of the men over-ride the decisions of the majority of the women, consensus would be destroyed. But when he allows the decisions of the women to prevail, he has violated 1 Tim. 2:11-15. His pattern has put him on the horns of a dilemma. 2) “It is not about women serving as preachers and bishops?” Again, I respect his disclaimer and join with him in denouncing such as a violation. But as a practical matter, once he opens the gate to decision-making women, it is foolish to think that all will be content with this “increased role” and nothing more. Already, congregations exist where women are leading in public worship. Some allow women to teach mixed classes of men and women “under male leadership” or as “co-teachers.” His position, however unwitting, advances women in that direction and cannot logically prohibit it. 3). “Not about whether elders have leadership, oversight, or responsibility in the local church?” But of course it is. His definition of “decision-making” and “consensus” eviscerates Biblical elders. Elders have no oversight in a consensus. Responsibility adheres to those making decisions and since the consensus decision is the congregation’s, the responsibility is theirs and not the elders. 4) Addressed in #2 above. 5) No disagreement here.

What this debate is about: The role of elders. Does the scriptural pattern require congregational meetings (including women) every single time there are decisions of judgment to be made? or: Do elders have authority from God to meet privately and make judgment decisions that bind the whole church?

Arguments: 1) Acts 6:1-6. According to Vance it is a sin for private meetings of males to make decisions for the whole church. But look at the text. The apostles 1) privately decided to change previous practices, 2) privately decided to stop serving tables, 3) privately decided to have others serve tables, 4) privately decided that these would be men and not women, 5) privately decided there would be seven of these men, 6) privately decided the qualifications of these seven and 7) privately decided that they would appoint the men and not allow the church to do so. Yes, what the apostles privately decided pleased the whole multitude and they had a role in choosing the men who would serve. The whole church can be, even should be, involved in some congregational actions. Clearly his “pattern” denies the very thing found in Acts 6: private decisions by males that are bound upon the whole congregation. His pattern is not found in Acts 6. It violates the “traditions of the apostles” (2 Thes. 2:15; 3:16).

2) Acts 15:12-27. His “pattern” calls for a congregational decision with no private meetings. Though the action “pleased the whole church” there were private meetings and his pattern fails in the very place he affirms as his “sole pattern.” Relating Gal. 2:1-10 to the meeting in Acts 15 will reveal the flaw in his exegesis. Gal. 2 shows that when Paul went to Jerusalem, he met privately (2:2) with “those of repute.” Acts 15:2 shows this private meeting to be with “the apostles and elders” who made the decision to give the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. After this, they met with the whole church (15:4), then had another private meeting with the apostles and elders (15:6). Again, there is no disagreement with involving the church in the process but his pattern denies the truth of these private meetings where decisions were made. These multiple exceptions to his “sole pattern” show that he has no pattern.

3). 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 11-13. There has never been a problem with involving the whole church in various processes, including discipline, as in this text. The problem is his assertion that no private decisions can be made that bind the whole church to the decision of the few. Read just a few verses beyond ch. 5, into ch. 6:1-5, and we see the very thing he denies. In the matter of brother going to court against brother, Paul admonishes that brethren ought not go to court before the unrighteous, but that there should be a “court of the saints” (vs. 1). He advises that we ought to be able to “judge” by finding at least “one wise man who shall be able to decide between brethren” (vs. 5). Here are “wise men” (would elders qualify?) who make decisions for the whole church in disputes between brethren. Vance’s pattern is in tatters!

4) Matt. 18:15-17. He recognizes that discipline is a congregational matter and that it should be done under “male leadership!” Could these males be elders? If Vance could see the contradiction between “male leadership” and “decision-making women,” this debate would be over. When the church at Antioch sent relief to the needy brethren in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), they sent it to the “elders” (vs. 30). (What decision did the women make?) When the relief went to the elders, did it not go to the churches? In this case, the elders represented the churches which received the benevolence. If discipline began individually and continued until it came before the church, would it not be before the church under the leadership of the elders? Vance will learn that there are scandalous actions of brethren that do not need to be aired before the “whole church” lest they cause weak brethren and babes to stumble. Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matt. 18.

Questions: 1) Yes, Acts 6, Acts 15, etc., but this does not prohibit private decisions by male leaders. 2). Elders are authorized to make decisions for the church as the passages above prove. If elders cannot make such private decisions, no other group could. But if elders are authorized to do so, in the absence of elders, male leadership prevails, as you yourself propose (1 Tim. 2). 3) Yes. 4) Yes, as seen above. Additionally, in Acts 11:27-30 it is inferred that the elders decided who, how long and how much, etc. 5) No, but this does not rule out an “ekklesia” acting through agency. Examples: 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23 (messengers of the churches acted on behalf of the church); Acts 11:27-30 (elders received the funds on behalf of the receiving church). 6). No, an unqualified man cannot act as or substitute for an elder. But in the absence of elders, male leadership is authorized (1 Tim. 2:11-15) as you admit. Congregations existed for a time without elders (Acts 13:1ff-Acts 14:23). Male leadership is necessarily inferred.

Questions for Vance: 1) Do you believe Acts 15:22 authorizes voting? 2) Can an “ekklesia” be represented by agency, and if so, is it the same as the ekklesia acting? 3) If the majority of a congregation is women and the women disagree with the minority men concerning a matter of judgment, can the majority rule? 4) How can women be involved in “decision making,” remain in subjection, yet overturn the decision of men? 5) Must the entire church be gathered to decide the multitudes of decisions about buying supplies, caring for the needy (including sensitive financial information), hearing complaints between members, investigating scandalous moral actions of members and make every decision about every matter? 6) Is an eldership bound by a consensus even though the entire eldership disagrees with it?

I urge brother Trefethen to abandon his faulty pattern which will only generate strife and stumbling among brethren and to turn his considerable talents to edifying (Eph. 4:29).

If you say, “Nothing, it is the Lord’s church, and I am satisfied with what the Bible reveals about it,” you might be in a minority position. Many are ready to change the work, worship and structure of the church of Christ, including its identity as the “church of Christ.” Are you aware of what is happening?

We have been through decades in which many have sought to change the Lord’s church into something more tolerant and imitative of denominational theology. The exclusiveness of truth and those characteristics that identify God’s people from those of the denominational world are being eroded in many places. We see the evidence of it in the Tampa Bay area and around the nation. Consider some of the issues that the Lord’s people are facing:

Delete “Church of Christ” From Signs.  A number of brethren have decided that the phrase “church of Christ” is too denominational and has become so identified with doctrines peculiar to “us” that it is considered prejudicial to wear that designation. Thus, we see brethren putting up signs that say “Christians meet here” instead of “church of Christ.” While we realize that the Bible uses different designations for the Lord’s people, “Christians meet here” does not address the congregational aspect of the church. You could put that sign up at your house when you have family times of prayer! Let us hope that the name “Christian” does not become too denominational! If “church of Christ” has become too identified with “us” so that it is prejudicial and denominational, maybe we should decide to meet on some day other than Sunday (the first day of the week – Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2) because most denominations meet on Sunday too. Maybe we shouldn’t meet at all on “Easter Sunday” lest people suspect that we observe that holiday. Some churches have decided that Bible correspondence courses and other evangelistic methods should not incorporate “church of Christ” in their message. The end result is that some people are entering the church unaware that it is the “church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). One of the largest “non-institutional” churches in Texas has an evangelist who will not tell contacts for conversion that he is with the church of Christ. When they are baptized, they still do not know that they are members of the church of Christ. He states that he wants people to “have a relationship with Jesus.” We are made to wonder how one can just have a “relationship with Jesus” without having a relationship with His body. Are you ashamed of the church of Christ? Many are, and “change agents” are determined to effect such changes that will make the Lord’s church more acceptable to the world. Recently, the Oak Hill church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas where Max Lucado preaches dropped “church of Christ” and incorporated the name “Community Church” at the same time they incorporated instrumental music into their worship. “Other churches known to have added instrumental services — besides 3,800-member Oak Hills — include Northwest, Seattle, the largest in that region; Amarillo South, Texas; Farmer’s Branch, Texas; and Southlake Boulevard, in the Dallas/Forth Worth area.” “Mac Lynn, longtime church statistician, sees a shift in church attitudes of which instrumental music is only one indicator. ‘Many churches are less concerned with historic markers that distinguished Churches of Christ. A half century ago, those indicators of true Christian practice included a cappella music, baptism for remission of sins, weekly communion, church organization and men in leadership. Today, the distinctives are eroding, as the culture impacts the churches. Most of the markers are still in place, but the attitude toward their essentiality has changed.’” (taken from Oct 12, 2003 Reason For Hope bulletin from South Livingston church of Christ, tr) Though not a prophet, I predict that this will happen more and more as people express their disappointment at the “tradition” of the “church of Christ.”

Adopt a More Tolerant View of Doctrinal Error.   The worship of God’s people has always been different from denominational churches that feel free to “go beyond the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9-11). But some seem to be embarrassed by plain preaching that contrasts the Lord’s teaching with such error. “Don’t call names.” “Don’t preach against instrumental music.” “Be more positive in approach.” “What difference does it make if Genesis 1-2 are literal or figurative?” “What difference does it make if the serpent in Genesis 3 is literal or a pagan myth?” Many have accepted that we should “tolerate contradictory teachings on important moral and doctrinal questions”. Some are willing to receive a teacher of error into the congregation in gospel meetings if he will not preach his error in that particular meeting. Even the meaning of “false teacher” is being redefined so as to allow a man to hold and teach error so long as he is “honest.” Thus, preachers who hold to soul-damning error on adulterous marriages are invited to preach in gospel meetings or write for publications, so long as they do it “somewhere else” and not in the local meeting. Fellowship with false teachers is being expanded even while those who oppose the error are ostracized and demonized for speaking out against error. Many preachers have adopted a code of silence toward error. They never preach against anything. A generation of people has been allowed to grow up without error being identified. A sense of false security is fostered by preachers who make members “feel good” without engaging in a fight with Satan and the “doctrines of demons” 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim 2:3-4; Eph. 6:10-20). The “bold speaking” mentioned by Paul in these verses is anathema in such churches. Brethren, it is dangerous when sound teaching on doctrinal issues finds discontent among people in the pew. Anything less that the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) is insufficient to get the job done.

Immorality Has Become Acceptable Among God’s People.  When is the last time you heard condemnation of social drinking, immodest apparel, mixed swimming, dancing, gambling, or such like? There is an identifiable discontent with bold preaching against immorality. If the truth is told, many know of situations in local churches where teenagers go to proms, wear the typical low-cut prom dress, and attend the prom dance. And if the truth is told, many parents and elders turn their heads the other way and ignore it and preachers fail to preach against it. In fact, you can even see preachers who wear short shorts today, so it is not surprising to see members in mini-skirts, bathing suits and short shorts. It is not at all unusual to hear of members who drink at home and who drink socially. It has become common for Christians to attend R-rated movies in which promiscuous sex is the common theme. Is it any wonder why divorce is so rampant among us? I can name some congregations where the preacher and elders know of dancing and drinking among the membership but who turn a blind eye to the practice. We all know of the expression, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Well this has become common among Christians as well. The consequence to an immoral life style is that those who practice it do not want strong preaching against it. Moral cowards who are “hirelings” (Jn 10:12) will not preach against such practices – thus the weak preaching goes hand in hand with increasing immorality.

Among non-institutional churches, there has arisen a certified discontent against sound preaching that identifies the error and those who propagate it. Many preachers have adopted a code of silence about controversy and error that keeps members in the dark and ignorant of issues that are leading us into digression and apostasy. Many have never heard of the push for unity in diversity because their preachers don’t preach about it. They also don’t preach about the controversy about Genesis and the creation or the literal serpent. They don’t talk about Romans 14 and the push to “receive” sinful practices. They don’t talk about the error advocated about the deity/humanity of Jesus. This code of silence displays a discontent with preaching the truth! Decades of such discontent is having its effect. There is weakness in knowledge among God’s people. There is weakness in identifying error. There is weakness in morality. The will to “fight the good fight” (1 Tim. 6:12) has vanished. Members are calling for shorter sermons and sermons with less scripture and more worldly wisdom. “Book, chapter and verse” preaching has given way to discussions on how to manage your money, what every husband needs to know about his wife (pop psychology), how to be happy, how to be fulfilled, etc., etc. Gospel meetings now give way to youth rallies that have “lock-ins” with clowns and bowling and entertainment (such as the events at Coppell, Tx). Singing is divided between “contemporary” and “traditional” songs to accommodate a changing youth culture that is being isolated from their elders. Books from denominational authors such as the “Purpose Driven Church” are recommended to younger preachers to develop “outreach”  programs. Evidently, Paul didn’t know enough about grace and evangelism to keep us informed!

However, some faithful Christians are taking a stand. It is a stand for “preaching the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) that appeals to the “whole counsel of God” to boldly proclaim the gospel. In some congregations, the principles of truth and righteousness are taught and the identity of error and those who espouse it are exposed. Some are content with the church as God built it through Jesus Christ and want all the lost to be saved. They are content with the doctrines of the New Testament. They are content with the morality revealed in the scriptures. They are content with the worship revealed in God’s word. They have no desire to promote unity in diversity or to dilute sound doctrine in order to be more appealing to the denominational world. They have no intention of abandoning the “church of Christ.” They believe the creation account in Genesis 1-2 is literal, as well as the serpent in chapter 3. They stand opposed to every effort to accommodate “science” by those willing to change literal truth to “figures” or “motifs”. They are calling our brethren back to the “old paths” which many have forsaken for the more popular and “broad way” that only leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13). What about you? Those who will not stand for anything will fall for everything; those who will not stand for the truth will fall for error. Will you take a stand?

An Invitation to Communicate.  Without apology, we speak out against innovations that would change the Lord’s church into another denomination. We speak plainly and boldly because it is past time to do so.

However, we would like to be clear that we are open to Bible study, to brotherly communication about any or all questions that face us today.  Please do not confuse boldness of speech (Eph. 6:19) with arrogance or closed minds. We seek to be as the Bereans of Acts 17:11 and “search the scriptures daily to see if this things are so.” We invite communication from those who might disagree with us. If you find us in error, please don’t let us go politely into torment without seeking to change our direction.

We are facing an increased tolerance for false doctrines and are speaking out against it. Are we wrong?

We are facing the fact that brethren are less informed about the Bible than ever before. Are we wrong?

We are facing the fact that brethren are becoming more worldly today. Are we wrong?

We are facing the fact that many are content to drift with the crowd and are ashamed to stand for truth. Are we wrong?

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore…” (Ephesians 6:10-14).

This admonition from the beloved apostle Paul should not be taken lightly.  He knew, because the Holy Spirit had told him “expressly” (pointedly, specifically) that some would “depart from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1).  He also told the Ephesians that some would be “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (4:14).  This warning by our brother Paul is not for his generation only, but will be as true for us as it was for them.  “Winds of doctrine” will blow across the brotherhood and we must “take a stand” or be swept away with them.  While there are those who are content to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the strange doctrines that are blowing in our day, those who pay attention to the word of God realize that winds are blowing as much today as they were in apostolic times.

As in ancient times, there are those who will scoff at the idea of apostasy, or error, or of blowing winds of doctrines that oppose the truth.  Jeremiah warned of those who cried “Peace, peace; where there is no peace” (6:14).  Such timid souls are either afraid to raise their voices against error or are willing to keep quiet to avoid controversy.  Today, churches are full of people who are unaware of swirling issues of apostasy because their preachers are unwilling to take a stand.  The fad of “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative” has robbed God’s people of the truth when they need to hear it.  Paul warned that some members would want to have their “ears tickled” and would find teachers willing to do it (2 Timothy 4:1-4).  During the 50′s, many churches were led blindly into institutionalism and modernism because preachers would not take a stand.  Members never heard the “issues” because some preachers didn’t want to take the heat that comes with exposing error.  A generation grew up not knowing what was wrong with institutionalism, the missionary society or the social gospel.  The pressure to please the crowds led to gymnasiums, fellowship halls, youth programs, entertainment and recreation instead of solid gospel preaching.  Today, these people have been ripe plucking for Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly and others who have proudly led a host of brethren into denominationalism.  Few preachers would take a stand and the results were quite predictable.

But, brethren, what do you think is happening today?  Again, few preachers are willing to take a stand and those who do are ridiculed and demonized by every kind of sarcasm and slander.  Even while error is being trumpeted from the rooftops, too many elders and preachers sit back in complacency and allow error to encroach into congregations.  Efforts to alert brethren to the dangers of apostasy in our time, such as this magazine, are shunned, avoided, and ignored.  I never cease to be amazed at the venom that is directed toward faithful preachers who try to “teach the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) by calling us back to God’s word.  While false teachers are applauded and encouraged, those who take a stand against error are treated with the utmost contempt.

Winds of Doctrine are Blowing Today

Are you aware that error is being widely taught today and that many are unwilling to acknowledge its existence?  Are you aware that issues of grave concern are facing God’s people and that many preachers are too timid to deal with them?  Are you aware that many preachers in the Tampa Bay area are saying, “What difference does it make?” Error is creeping in, winds of doctrine are blowing, and many are asleep at the helm.  Attacks are being made on the Bible itself and some are so complacent and pliable with it that they are not at all upset until a voice of objection is raised.  Then, their anger is stirred, not against those who teach error, but against those who object to the error!  Brethren, it is time to take a stand.

It is Time to Take a Stand Against Those Who Teach Error About Creation

Are you even aware of what has been taught about Genesis 1 and 2 and the six days of creation?  Has it been kept silent where you worship?  Has your preacher spoken clearly about the six days of creation or does he say, “What difference does it make?”  You see, Shane Scott, Hill Roberts and others have boldly stated that the six days of creation are not literal days, but eons of time and that creation was really started by the Big Bang and that billions of years later, man was created.  (You can read detailed reports of this controversy on Watchman Magazine: [click here] under “Open Letter.”)  No matter that Moses wrote:  “and the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5), “…second day” (vs. 8), etc.  No matter that Moses also wrote in Exodus 20: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, and hallowed it” (vs. 11).  No matter that Jesus said, of the creation of man:  “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning…” (Matthew 19:4).  What difference does it make if Jesus told the truth when he taught that Adam and Eve were created “at the beginning” but Shane Scott and Hill Roberts teach that they were made billions of years after the beginning?  Do you care that many preachers are saying that they cannot be sure whether creation took place in six literal days or eons of time?  In the Tampa Bay area, those who have taken a stand for the truth about creation have been ridiculed and ostracized, slandered and mauled by those who are unwilling to take a stand.  It is time — and past time — that these matters be addressed and that brethren everywhere take a stand for the Bible account of creation.

Dear reader, we encourage you, also, to stand.  Be unyielding to error.  Have conviction about the word of God and what it teaches.  Don’t give in to compromise and weak preaching.  Stand!

“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea…” (Matthew 3:1). John had a message and he proclaimed it widely and publicly — “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (v. 2).  Not everyone liked what John had to say, but he was communicating the will of God. Luke tells us that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (7:30). Experience and history tells us that communication is sometimes a one-way proposition, though it is intended to be an exchange of ideas.

It is said of Jesus: He “went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom…” Matthew 9:35. But He knew that “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priest and scribes” (Luke 9:22). The Master Teacher was unable to reach many of His day and they turned a deaf ear to the proclamation of the Good News. They crucified Him even while He was willing to communicate God’s will.

Jesus warned that many would have closed minds. Referring to Isaiah’s assessment of ancient Israel (and its fulfillment in His day), He said: “Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears…” (Matthew 13:14-15). By failing to listen, they turned away from the truth.

Should We Expect Any Different Treatment?

We should expect no different treatment in our generation when we preach the same message that Jesus and the apostles preached. Jesus warned: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple to be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household?”  (Matthew 10:24-25). But it still comes as a shock that many people have little spiritual interest. In light of the importance of eternity and the sureness of Judgment, each of us should be concerned that we understand what God has communicated. But just as in the parable of the sower, some seed falls by the wayside, some on stony ground, and some among thorns (Luke 8). It is that rare person that is of a “good and honest heart” that listens and meditates on God’s word (Psalms 1).

Controversial Issues

• John dealt with controversy and was unyielding, even with those in high places. He proclaimed to all Judea that Herod was living in adultery and lost his life in the process.
• Jesus was no stranger to controversy and dealt forthrightly with the scribes and Pharisees, using great plainness of speech (Matthew 23). He, of course, was crucified.
• The apostles dealt with issues of their day: Gnosticism, racism, immorality, philosophy and idolatry. They suffered many persecutions and, except for John, were all probably martyred.
• Early disciples were scattered by persecution, but they “went everywhere, preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).

Should we be any different?

Jesus said, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). Also, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you…” (Luke 6:26). If Jesus and the apostles were willing to speak out and be heard as they communicated the saving message in the first century, we dare not fail to do the same thing today. Are we equal to the task? Will we preach plainly, boldly, fearlessly what the world needs to hear? Are we “ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Romans 1:16)?

Sinful Issues of our Day Need Addressing

Our society is becoming more carnal, material and sick. Abortions are a common practice. Divorce and adultery are rampant. Homosexuality is more acceptable. Immodesty is blurring into nudity. Music is nothing if not suggestive (and “country” is no exception). Movies have become gutter filth. TV is still a wasteland. And our streets and homes are filled with violence. Friends, the gospel of Christ addresses these issues and supplies the answers. The “works of the flesh” are contrasted with the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16-24). We must speak to a world that has no direction and help them to  “walk by the Spirit”  and not “fulfill the lust of the flesh.”  These deadly sins must be dealt with forthrightly in order that souls will be set free from sin (John 8:32). Do you hear preachers dealing with these issues today? Are they preaching “smooth things” (Isaiah 30:10) to those who have “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3), promoting a “feel good” philosophy instead of penitence? What do you hear from the pulpit where you worship? Is sin identified and cried out against? Has Hell been air-conditioned out of existence by your preacher? When is the last time you heard a sermon that taught that “sin is black and Hell is hot?”

Are Churches of Christ Immune?

Even among churches of Christ, major changes are taking place. We cannot point the finger at others without being honest enough to realize what is taking place among ourselves. Yes, immodesty is strong among Christians today — even in worship services. Yes, members are known to drink alcohol socially and elders look the other way. Adultery is common place and where is John and his sort today who cry out against it? Many churches are filled with those in unlawful marriages and not a word is said. In fact, error on divorce and remarriage is taught plainly and the only ones criticized are those who expose false teachings on divorce (Matthew 19:1-12). New interpretations on basic Bible themes are publicly taught regarding creation and the “big bang” theory and many say, “What difference does it make?” We are told that we must consider that there was no real serpent in Genesis 3, but that Moses borrowed a pagan motif to explain the origin of sin. Is there an outcry of alarm when such a theory is proposed? No more so than when renowned preachers tell us that eternal judgment does not really mean eternal judgment, but that sinners will be annihilated rather than punished forever in Hell. There seems to be an abundant elasticity in fellowship toward those who teach error, but only acrimony and criticism for those who expose error.

Are We Communicating?

With John, Jesus and the apostles, communication was often a one-way street: they preached, but not everyone listened or agreed with what they had to say. I know this is also true today because we get an occasional message to “remove my name from your mailing list”, as a result of the teaching we do in our mail out bulletin at Forest Hills. Of course, we will do so. But what does it cost to read and study? The truth is needed today as much as it ever was and it is available to all who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (Matthew 5:6).

The Gentile world had previously rejected the knowledge of the true God and had invented idols and philosophy which elevated man against God. When Paul wrote to the Roman church, in the heart of the empire, he reminded them that "although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (1:21). Please note that mankind, without divine revelation, descends into the depths of immorality. Paul said, "Professing to be wise, they became foolish" (v. 22). Their foolishness was most vividly portrayed in a wicked lifestyle that included every vile thing. Paul’s list of their sins begins in verse 29: "…being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them" (vv. 29-32).

It is worth repeating: mankind, without divine revelation, descends into the depths of immorality. It was so in the days of Rome; it is true today. Apart from the wisdom that comes from God, mankind becomes filled with immorality. The Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the wisdom of God that directs our ways and elevates man out of darkness. There can be no more evidence of wisdom than that of depending on divine revelation in our preaching. It is not wise to use human creeds as a basis for doctrine. It is not wise to use philosophy as a basis for human morality. It is not wise to use science as a basis for faith. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).

We Need The Bible For Guidance

Jeremiah, the prophet, said, "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (10:23 ). The Psalmist added: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (119:105). In an age of advanced technology and science, many may find it difficult to admit that man needs guidance in any area of his life. But unless we are careful, the more knowledge we have, the less advanced we really are. It is possible to worship at the altar of technology and become idolatrous in our intelligence. We can make the same mistake as the ancient Gentiles and give up the knowledge of God in exchange for a lie: that man does not need God! For example: man has the medical science at his fingertips to practice abortion right up to, and including, the final trimester of pregnancy. But what does it say about us when over one million abortions take place each year without regard to the moral issue of taking innocent life? How can anyone be so warped in mind and soul that protestations are made against killing dolphins and whales while encouraging abortions of innocent babes? Why is it moral to kill a baby in the womb, but immoral to kill an animal for food? We need divine guidance to see the value of the soul. "For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)? Those who espouse humanism and atheistic evolution have turned away from God and divine revelation and have a strangle hold on education in America. All references to moral values in public schools have been excised to the point that children are without moral direction and guidance. The result is chaos in the class room and the street. Truly, we need the wisdom of God for guidance in these troubled times.

The Result of Biblical Wisdom

David acknowledged the source of his wisdom: "I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation" (Psalms 119:99). Thus, those who trust in the Bible have access to wisdom far above that of man. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55:9). If we would be wise, we should seek wisdom from the word of God: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5).

The person who trusts in God’s word is led by a wisdom greater than his own. How foolish for people to trust "Dr. Phil" or "Dr. Ruth," when they spout pop-psychology which is often slanted to enhance television ratings. Is the true standard of morality a TV guru of the moment, or the Bible? Shall we entrust our souls to a television personality or to Jesus Christ? What is the origin of man? What is his destiny? What happens to man when he dies? Is there life beyond the grave? What shall we do about our sins? Can we really have eternal life? How do I find the answers to these awesome questions? How can I be sure to find the right way? The Bible, and the Bible alone, has the answers to these vital questions. You can "know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).

The Bible Answers the Issues of Life

What is the origin of man? Science can only speculate and postulate about theories, but is unable to give us the absolute beginning of man. On the other hand, the Bible reveals by inspiration that "In the beginning, God…" created all things (Genesis 1, 2). In the six days of creation, God exercised power and wisdom in successive creative acts that culminated with the inhabited earth. Man was the highest act of God’s creation, given life instantaneously and miraculously.

What is his destiny? God made man to live in the Garden, to flourish, and to "replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28), but man went astray from God’s purpose by the temptation of Satan (chapter 3). When they ate of the forbidden fruit, our fore-parents died spiritually (separated from God’s fellowship) and began to die physically. The explanation of human suffering is explained by the intrusion of sin into the human race. But death is not our destiny, if we are willing to accept the gracious offer of God as given in the prophecy of the "seed of woman" (3:15), a reference to the coming of Christ. What we have lost in Adam, we regain in Christ, through His sacrificial death on the cross. As Jesus was able to raise Lazarus (John 11), he can raise us at the last day (John 5:28-29) and give us eternal life. The poverty of evolution is seen in its inability to give no promise of everlasting life. Friend, which gives you more hope: evolution which promises only a tombstone over your grave, or Jesus Christ who died that you might live?

What happens when he dies? Is there life beyond the grave? All of us have felt the utter futility and helplessness of witnessing a loved one’s death. But from death’s moment, science is totally ignorant as to the disposition of man. Is death the final end? Does life continue after death? Where does the spirit of man, if one exists, go? Is there life beyond the grave? Human "wisdom" (such as the utter nonsense of those like Shirley McLaine) might postulate recycling of the soul through reincarnation. Or some of the eastern New-Age religions suggest a loss of personality into Nirvana. But they cannot know, for sure. Science, with all its technology, and philosophy, with all its vaunted knowledge, stand mute at death’s bedside and can tell us absolutely nothing beyond the final breath. Only the Bible has the answer! Jesus, who "tasted of death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9), is the only One who has been there and back, and who can tell us what really takes place. We find the curtains drawn back and the mystery revealed in such places as Luke 16:19-31, where the death of Lazarus and his destiny is revealed, along with that of the rich man. Matthew 25:31-46 brings to our view the final judgment when Christ will judge all men, both good and evil. 1 Corinthians 15:12-58 assures us of the resurrection and Revelation 21-22 describe the glories of heaven for the saved of God.

What shall we do about our sins? Can we really have eternal life? Science and philosophy cannot tell you what a "sin" is or what to do about it. Science cannot put "sin" in a test tube and analyze it for weight and molecular structure. Philosophy is helpless in addressing sin because there is no absolute standard for morality. There is no agreement among men as to what constitutes "sin." As one Supreme Court judge said, "I cannot define pornography, but I can recognize it when I see it." Relativism and situation ethics blur the definition of sin and are absolutely helpless in its presence. Only divine revelation describes and defines sin and tells you what its consequences are and how to escape the dreadful punishment that sin merits.

"Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). Thus, the Bible is the revelation of absolute truth and relativism is cast aside. What is right and wrong? God’s word decides that! Galatians 5:17-21 contrasts the "lusts of the flesh" with the "fruit of the Spirit" (vv. 22-23). The Bible reveals how deadly sin is: "The wage of sin is death" and the "soul that sins shall die" (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4, 20). We are likewise informed that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Those who understand the guilt of sin, like Paul, before his conversion, can state: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24). Man’s helplessness in the face of his sins is apparent. We are in bondage in our sins and hopeless without God’s help to escape.

It is at this exact point that the necessity of gospel preaching is clearly seen. "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" The gracious response is found in the next verse: "I thank God – through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (v. 25).

Is it any secret, then, that this message must be preached? "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20). Is it any wonder that this is called the Great Commission?

Can we really have eternal life? Yes! You can be saved from your sins and, "though it is appointed unto man once to die" (Hebrews 9:27), we can have eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Is Anyone Preaching The Great Commission Today?

Faithful churches of Christ are actively preaching the Great Commission and are reaching out to the community around them with its saving message. We are attempting to communicate the "good news" (gospel) of Christ today, just as it was delivered in the first century.

That is why communication is so important.  God wants to communicate to us and does so through the Holy Scriptures.  But if we don’t study, if we don’t read, God is not able to communicate. If God had chosen to do so, He could have written His will across the sky. But He didn’t. He could have spoken to us in some mysterious way that is "better felt than told." But He didn’t. He could have impressed His will into man as He has with animals (instinct). But He didn’t. He has expressed His will to us through the Holy Scriptures. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16). Are you aware that God is communicating with us through the Bible?

The History of Mankind

Have you considered what God is communicating to us?  Genesis 1 and 2 tells us of our origin: we are made in the image of God. But Genesis 3 tells us that man soon went astray after creation and sinned against the Creator. They died spiritually when they sinned, and began to die physically as a direct result of their disobedience (Gen. 2:17), no longer permitted to eat of the tree of life (2:9). Though we do not inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve (Ezekiel 18:4, 20), we suffer the consequences of physical death and, when we sin, we suffer spiritual death also (Romans 3:23; 6:23).  We need salvation because we have sinned.

Soon after Adam and Eve sinned, God promised a Savior (Genesis 3:15).  He was to come as the "seed of woman," and this was realized when Mary, though a virgin, gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 1:18-25). From Genesis 3 onward, through all the Bible, God has communicated how He planned our redemption in Jesus. It is vital that we understand what God has said about being saved from our sins and that we learn of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins. But we only understand as we read – if we do not read the Bible, we will never know of God’s grace.

Old Testament – New Testament
Two Covenants

In the book of Genesis, God related how He chose Abraham because he was a man of faith (15:6) and decided to bring Jesus into the world through Abraham’s genealogy.  God made promises to Abraham and made a covenant with him concerning Jesus (Gen. 17:1-7; 22:18). The descendants of Abraham ultimately became a nation, dwelling in the promised land, being guided by the Law of Moses (Exodus 20, et al). This law, also a covenant, continued in effect with Abraham’s descendants (later known as "Jews") until the death of Christ. After Jesus’ resurrection, He gave another covenant and the old covenant was taken out of the way (2 Corinthians 3:6-13; Colossians 2:13-14; Hebrews 9:11-15; et al). This new covenant was given, not just to Jews, but to all mankind the world over. Hence, the Great Commission states: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16). All mankind, you and I, are included in this new covenant and will be saved from our sins if we accept Jesus. This is why the New Testament message about Jesus is called the "gospel" or "good news." The old covenant was added "because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19); the new covenant was added to bring salvation (Romans 1:16). This is wonderful news and needs to be communicated to the entire world.

"Go Into All The World"

It is God’s will that the story of Jesus be told so that all may be saved. Every person needs to understand what to do to be saved, just as the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30).  But how is the message to be communicated? Friends, the gospel must be preached (1 Corinthians 1:21) so that faith may be generated (Romans 10:17). "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-32). The New Testament is a written record of salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead to prove that He was the Son of God. He died that we might live! Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the gospels), reveal the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The book of Acts reveals how the church was established and that it is composed of those who are saved (Acts 2:47). The other books of the New Testament were letters written by inspired men to tell them of the teachings of Christ (Acts 2:42; 1 Timothy 3:14-15).

This is written to communicate with you concerning the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Have you accepted Jesus by faith (Hebrews 11:6)? Have you repented of your sins (Luke 13:3)? Have you confessed your faith in Jesus (Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:9-10)? Have you been baptized for the remission of your sins (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-7)? Are you following Jesus as a faithful disciple (Revelations 2:10)?

It will be our pleasure to study with you and communicate the gospel message. Do you understand the message? Are you willing to obey the gospel?

When I was a young boy, I remember a man who worshipped with the church at home whose wife was a member of a denomination. Each week the family would leave home in separate cars, the man and wife going to different places of worship. Their daughter was pulled between the two.

My own father was not a Christian and he either remained in bed on Sunday morning while we all went to worship, or, as often was the case, expressed his displeasure at our going. The fact that he was not saved tore at our hearts and kept us from being a close family. There was a barrier there that was never removed and sin finally tore the family asunder.

It takes strength and character to keep a family together in Christ. There are strains and stresses that would pull it apart if possible. A husband has problems that are different from a wife’s and understanding is required. And there must be a common bond that binds stronger than the stresses that would tear apart. A family that has Christ as its center is stronger than a family without Him. I admire Joshua’s attitude when he said, “As for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah” (Joshua 24:15). I admire Cornelius who gathered his household together and said, “We are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord” (Acts 10:33).

Husbands and fathers have a special responsibility before the Lord. They are to be heads of their households and guide the family in the way it should go. When a man abdicates this place and fails to lead his family in God’s way, he will have much to answer for in the Judgment. Men, are you facing up to your place of responsibility?

Women are often the strength in the family. Especially is this so when the men are not Christians. But even where men are Christians, it is often the woman who determines whether or not a family will be faithful. It is often left up to the wife to prepare breakfast, get the children ready, and do the multiple chores that are necessary if a family is to be able to attend. When a wife sleeps late, doesn’t prepare, or doesn’t want to attend, it is extremely difficult for the husband to get everything ready and leave. He can do it, but it is hard. Wives, are you helping or hindering your family in its service to God?

Children can make worship pleasant or a chore. If they are allowed to dominate a family with their whims and dislikes, an hour or two in worship becomes a battle. It is hard to get them ready and then wrestle with them when they had rather stay home and play. As children get older, sullenness can set in and a poor attitude can destroy any worshipful attitude. Young people must come to realize that they are spiritual as well as physical and it is wrong to spend all their time on purely physical pleasures. They must be taught to feed the soul. Young people, do you help matters at home by your attitude or are you part of the problem?

If you haven’t been doing so let me encourage you to worship together as a family this Lord’s Day. Read this article in the presence of the entire family and discuss your hindrances. If each of you will determine to put the Lord first, you can be closer to one another. Don’t let the problems of life short-change your happiness, now or hereafter.

Husbands, wives, children: serve God as a family. Which member(s) of your family are you content to see drift into hell? Do you sit across the breakfast table from a loved one who is lost? Talk humbly and lovingly to him (her) about it. Let them know that your love for them won’t let you sit idly by while they are lost. Do you have young people who are drifting away? Let them read this so they will know you care. Reach out. Fight. Don’t give up. Don’t stop caring. Shed some tears. Pray about it. Determine to remain faithful all alone if you have to, but let them know you don’t want to. You want your family to be in the Lord’s family.

Again, as a young boy, I remember the first Bible class teacher I had, long before I became a Christian. She was faithful but her husband was not a Christian. Year after year, she taught class and lived as she should, teaching her children until they all became Christians. It took over thirty years, but she lived to see the day her husband became a Christian. Thirty years means somewhere in excess of 1,500-1,600 Lord’s Days when she went to worship without her husband. But she lived to see him baptized into Christ. And that is what she wanted all along. Do you want it badly enough to do the same?

Editor’s Note: Brother Roberts is presently preparing for a move to the Tampa, Florida area, to work with the Forest Hills congregation.  As such, I have taken the liberty of reprinting an article Tom wrote for the West Side Weekly, a bulletin published by the West Side church in Fort Worth, TX in the time brother Roberts preached for that congregation.

The date of the article is November 20, 1977.  At that time, brother Roberts was dealing with the error of “Neo-Calvinism” in the Dallas, Fort Worth area.  Among other criticisms he and others received in their defense of truth was the charge that they were “meddling” in the affairs of other congregations.

While the illustration is dated, (typewriters instead of computers and the internet),  the argument used to refute this quibble is the same.  Truth does not violate autonomy! We commend his article to you. (Stan)

One hears a lot of objections these days to the use of bulletins by churches.  They are used, it is said, to meddle in other churches’ affairs and to ruin the reputation of preachers who deviate from orthodox positions.  I believe we need to consider these charges.

A bulletin, properly used, is simply a teaching medium of a congregation.  It is used in much the same way that a radio program is used:  to expand the teaching area that can be reached by the local church.  A bulletin can be as versatile as gospel preaching in that it can be used for local members or for those not Christians or for a combined audience of Christians and non-Christians.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a church using a bulletin, nor a radio program, nor any other means to proclaim the truth.

Wherein, then, lies the objection to church bulletins?  Must it not be an abuse of their use (real or imaginary)?  If church bulletins are scriptural as a method of teaching (and I believe them to be so), we should not object to them but to their abuse.  In this, I see a parallel to debating.  Many object to debates themselves, while debates are eminently scriptural.  But what many object to, with foundation, is the abuse of debates where such become an harangue and occasion of egotistical strife.  We might as well object to gospel preaching itself simply because there are preachers who have abused their place and brought dishonor to their work.  Let us learn to distinguish between that which is right and proper in itself and an abuse of that same thing.  One is right and the other is wrong.

But there is another thing to consider.  Some might object to bulletins simply because they are doing a good job of teaching the truth.  I have seen people in the denominational world object to bulletins (and tracts and radio programs and debates, etc.) simply because their error has been exposed.  They cry long and loud about “hard preaching,” “evils of debating,” “hate sheets,” when their position is examined and exposed.  Liberal churches frown on debates now that they occupy an indefensible position.  They refuse to debate institutionalism but will still debate denominationalism.  In other words, some people object to criticism only when their cause is weak.

Down through the years debates, radio programs, and yes, bulletins, have done an immeasurable amount of good.  Each of these methods of proclamation of truth has been, and can continue to be, used to good advantage.  A church would be foolish indeed not to be able to distinguish between a good method and an abuse of the method.

Is exposing error an abuse?  One preacher recently ridiculed a preacher who “runs to the church typewriter” as soon as he can to “destroy” those who disagree with him.  But he said little about other preachers who use bulletins as a constant medium of teaching and springboard for error.  In other words, let a false teacher have his typewriter. …let him write at will. …let him spread any teaching he chooses, but those who disagree occupy the safe course only by ignoring him.

I want the scripture where this is approved as a safe course of action.  Do you see Paul ignoring those who taught error?  Do you see Peter standing meekly back while teachers of error stood unopposed?  Does the New Testament really teach that we are to keep quiet in the face of false teachers?

Local Autonomy

I recognize the problem of local autonomy being respected while writing for a bulletin.  But so also can the same problem exist where a radio program is used or where personal work is active.  A bulletin, a radio program, personal work or any other medium of teaching should not be construed as a “brotherhood” work.  This bulletin does not speak for area churches nor for brotherhood churches.  But neither does a church stand as an island in the world.  It must influence, even as it is influenced by others.  Local members who receive bulletins from other churches will be influenced.  Local members who visit gospel meetings in other churches will be influenced.  Who can say this always bad or even wrong?  Teaching cannot be limited to a geographical area but such does not negate local autonomy automatically.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that a church may use a bulletin and its influence may be widely felt without invading another church’s independence.  Let us not be critical of any method or medium which a church uses so long as care is used to respect local autonomy.  And finally, let us extend the same courtesy to those who stand for the truth as for those who constantly agitate.  Don’t call for one to cease while allowing the other to continue.  Common fairness and decency demands this much.

Children are often too impatient to attempt to see the wisdom behind rules. They are not looking at events from the mature standpoint that only years of experience can bring; they are viewing events through the impatience and immaturity of youth. Such immaturity seldom seeks to find the wisdom behind a rule, particularly if it interferes with the immediate gratification of a desire. The guiding light of youth is expressed in the sentiment, "I want…" and "I want it now…" Consequently, when any restricting rule is enforced which inhibits or restricts, a young person who has no respect for experience or for the Biblical injunction of obedience will rebel. Whether the rule is a curfew on dating nights, attendance at worship services, homework, housework or personal grooming guidelines, compliance is grudging, if at all.

Adding to this problem is the fact that young people are encouraged in rebellion by their peers at school, by a lawless generation and by lyrics of music which teach and propagate a rebellious spirit. Parents are portrayed as old-fashioned, over-the-hill, "out of it" and unfair. With a wave of the hand, all experience of a preceding generation of parents is dismissed if it interferes with "doing your own thing." And not too subtly, the mistakes of the older generation are used to show the irony of anyone "telling me what to do." However, if, with all our experience and regulations we have made such a botch of things, what will a generation do that refuses to respect experience or be restricted? Already we are reaping the terrible results of this philosophy in broken homes, abortion, drug addiction, increased crime rates and a multitude of problems. Unlicensed restraint surely is not the answer!

Understand the Consquences

But if our young people get their way, if they overthrow all restrictions, and if they get out on their own, they need to realize something. They really are on their own!

If I know the intentions of most parents, it has been their purpose to provide a kind of life that will prepare their children to be on their own and to prosper. Parents lay down rules and regulations so that when their children leave home, they will be prepared morally, spiritually and educationally to meet the challenges of life and be productive. These are the basic reasons for rules in the home. It is inevitable, given the normal course of events, that children leave home. The question is, "Will they be prepared when they leave home?" As parents, we fully agree with our children that, when they leave home, "you are on your own." In fact, we realize it more fully than our children!

• You are on your own spiritually. No longer will the parents be held accountable for the actions of the children. For a time when children are young, the Lord holds parents responsible for the teaching and training of their offspring. But a time comes when a child ceases to be the ward of another and becomes an adult in his own right. At that time responsibility for actions ceases to be that of the parent and passes, irrevocably, to the child. Beyond this point you answer to God at the judgment for what you do. Truly you are on your own.
• You are on your own morally. While you were at home, there were restraining teachings about fornication, drinking, companions, movies, books, magazines, etc. Now that you are "on your own," there are no restraints. You will be able to do as you please, when you please and where you please. But you will also be accountable for these actions. As Solomon said, "But know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment" (Ecclesiastes 11:10).

Yes, my friend, you will be on your own, to stand or fall, for good or bad. There will be no one to blame but yourself. Your mistakes will be yours and no guilt can be handed back to your parents any longer. And there is an additional thought worthy of consideration: when you have children, you will be faced with the same responsibilities your parents had. If you love your children, if you want their life to prosper, if you want them to grow up respecting others and being prepared to face life, you will have to set some rules. And the cycle will have come full circle! You will be the parent and your children will be saying, "Boy, when I leave home and get on my own, I’ll do what I want to do." And when you hear these words (probably not before then), you will appreciate what your parents went through to raise you. The next time you want "out on your own," think about it.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

With the current condition of the world (a reflection of what has always been so from the sin of Adam), it is amazing that God continues to allow this old world to stand. When we think about all that goes on around us (and we see but a fraction of the world’s evil), we are led to marvel that God does not say, "Enough! I will tolerate no more."

For a few thousand years now the history of man has been a history rejecting God. Beginning with Adam and continuing through every age of our history, each period of time is a story of dismal failure. True, there have been a few Abrahams and Noahs along the way, but the vast majority of mankind has "refused to have God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28). As Paul looked at this same thought, he concluded (with the prophet) in Romans 3:10ff: "There is none righteous, no not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable." If this be so (and it is), why does God allow the world to continue? This is a question worth our consideration. And yet the very condition of wickedness that abounds on every hand but magnifies and declares the answer: it is the longsuffering and mercy of God that continues to grant lost men and women time to repent and turn to Him before Judgment.

In Noah’s day this tenderness of God toward the lost was declared in that He permitted Noah so many years of preaching to the lost while the ark was being built. Genesis 6:3 declares, "My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years." With all the wickedness abroad in the land in Noah’s day, God yet granted men 120 years with Noah’s preaching to remind them that they should turn to God. You know the sad conclusion: man did not repent and God destroyed that ancient world.

By the mercy of God, Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary that men might be freed from the guilt and burden of sin. The church was established so that we might live in a saved relationship with God and serve Him. Yet men continue to spurn the truth and corrupt pure worship to this day. All the while, God’s mercy continues. We are told that God "hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained: whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). Friends, we are moving inexorably toward that Day of Judgment. It is fixed and sure. The intervening days, wherein the gospel is preached around the world and the church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) declares God’s longsuffering and mercy. Right now, today, you have time and opportunity to repent and turn to God. With the condition that the world is in, God could righteously condemn it today, this moment. But because He loves and wants to see none lost (our text, 2 Peter 3:9), God spares the world, entreating man to turn to Him.

Friend, God is surely longsuffering and full of mercy. But remember that God’s spirit "will not always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3). The Day of Reckoning will surely come, just as the rains descended in Noah’s day. Will you ignore God’s mercy? Will you outlast His patience? Will you refuse to obey the gospel?

(Editor’s Note: Brother Roberts wrote this article in November of 1979. So, 23 years have passed. The article is still timely. It is interesting that some of the same arguments made by those who were advocating "Neo-Calvinism" in the late 1970′s are being used today by some brethren. As the actual individuals he addresses are not germaine to our present study, their names have been ommitted).

Some strange teaching is making the rounds these days about "false teachers." This teaching is based upon an incomplete and limited definition of "false" as it applies to those who teach error. Supposedly, one cannot label a teacher "false" unless the teacher "wilfully, knowingly, consciously and intentionally" teaches error. With this limited definition, a teacher that taught error without knowing it to be error could not be so labeled. This is not an accurate use of the term as we shall show. However, it is not strange nor unexpected to find some who are entering the "New Unity Movement" to be using this definition, particularly since they are eager to broaden the ties of fellowship with many who are embracing liberalism, institutionalism, denominationalism and other "ism’s."

In various issues of (a local bulletin, at that time), edited by (editor’s name withheld), attention has been turned to the matter of labeling someone a false teacher. In a curious exchange between brother (the editor) and (another brother), (the other brother) apologized to (the editor) for calling him a false teacher, after (the brother) and (the editor) did a word study on the subject. I suggest the apology by (the brother) was somewhat premature in the light that all the definition of "false" was not considered in the study. Let’s do a little more study on these words.

It is true that the term "false teacher" comes from the original word "pseudodidaskalos." This is a compound word coming from the two words "pseudes" (false) and "didaskalos" (teacher). Thayer, the Greek lexicographer, gives both a specific and a general definition for the term "false." In the studies under question, only one of these definitions is considered, the specific, leading to wrong conclusions. To understand the full use of the term, nowever, both uses of the term should be understood.

Specifically, "pseudos" (false) is defined as "a lie; conscious and intentional falsehood" (Thayer, page 676). Thus, something can be said to be false under these specific conditions. However, it is in error to limit the use of "false" only to this specific use.

Further down in this same word study, still on page 676 under "pseudo," Thayer says that "false" also means, "In a broad sense, whatever is not what it professes to be: so of perverse, impious, deceitful precepts." This part of the definition is ignored by (the editor and the other brother). Consequently, they draw an unwarranted conclusion that one must "wilfully, knowingly, consciously and intentionally" teach error before it is error. Thayer says that error, generally, is simply something that "is not what it professes to be," i.e., truth. There is nothing inherent in this word that forces one to know the condition of heart of the teacher (wilful, intentional, etc.) before he can be said to be a "false teacher." Error is error and one who teaches it is wrong, whether he is honest or a liar.

If we use the limited definition of "false teacher" as defined by (the editor), we are forced into an impossible position of having to be "heart judgers." If error is being taught, according to him we cannot call that teacher a "false teacher" unless he "wilfully, knowingly, consciously and intentionally" does so. Now let’s apply that. Can you know that Billy Graham "wilfully, knowingly, consciously and intentionally" teaches error? How about Oral Roberts? Pope John Paul II? Herbert Armstrong? Etc., etc., including every denominational preacher. There is not a man on earth today who can prove that any teacher of error does so "wilfully, knowingly, consciously an intentionally"! To do so, one would indeed have to read hearts. Yet Jesus said, "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1). He could judge hearts; the apostles could judge hearts; but you and I cannot. Consequently, if we cannot call a man a false teacher by what he teaches, there is no way we can call him false at all for none can read his heart. The evil effect of this teaching is to remove any criteria by which a false teacher can be exposed.

And now we get down to the root of the matter! The New Unity Movement is intent on knocking down any barrier to broadened fellowship with those in error. Whether it be liberalism, institutionalism, premillennialism or any other error, we dare not oppose it, in their view, lest we limit fellowship with "all God’s children." But who are God’s children? According to the New Unity Movement, any and all who are "pious unimmersed" (thus, baptism is removed as essential to being God’s child), as well as any whose heart is sincere, whether he be in denominationalism, institutionalism, premillennialism, etc., (thus, believing and practicing error is removed from being a deterrent to being God’s child) is a Christian. Remove the smoke screen and they are saying that if your heart is right, whether you are baptized or not, and if you believe and practice error but your heart is right, you are right with God anyway! I have heard Baptist preachers preach this all my life but only recently have I heard it from those who profess to be gospel preachers! But of course the New Unity Movement has a peculiar slant on the use of "gospel" too, so we can’t limit fellowship there either.

Brethren and friends, there is such a thing as "sound" and "unsound" doctrine. We are to support the truth and oppose error. Such has been the case since Satan led Adam and Eve astray in the garden. Not all the rhetoric and faulty definitions in the world can change the nature of truth and error. Nor can all the soft and compromising attitudes among brethren conceal false teaching or false teachers. The Bible says much more about error, false doctrine, etc., than space here permits in our study. But let’s not be moved off the sure foundation of God’s word as a reference for fellowship to the quicksands of emotional compromise. "Contend for the faith…" (Jude 3).