Correction and Clarification

I will never forget the two salesmen from IBM who came into the church office to try to make a sale. They were dressed in similar fashion. They both had gray pin-stripped suits, black wing-tip shoes, military stripped ties and white shirts. The weather was cool and both were wearing camel hair overcoats. Their suits were not exactly the same, but close enough as were the ties to make a visible impression on me. I don’t remember the outcome of their call, but remember the next week when one of the two returned with another salesman in tow who, surprise surprise, was also wearing the gray pin stripped suit, black wing-tip shoes, military stripped tie and white shirt with a camel hair overcoat. This was more than I could take that three men from the same prominent company all dressed alike so I dared to ask the question: "You all three have dressed in similar fashion when you came here. Does IBM have a dress code?"

"No" came the reply. "We just watch the boss and dress as he does." There is a lot of wisdom there for those who want to get ahead.

I want to use this column to wade into the murky waters of appropriate dress for church. My predecessor wrote a similar column many years ago and showed me some of the correspondence he received. It was not all friendly. Some may even question using this space for such an item, but perhaps there is a grain of truth here that needs to be planted. Let’s begin with a few comments with which most would agree.

1. The Bible does not tell us exactly how to dress when gathering with the assembly, except that we are to clothe ourselves with humility, compassion, kindness, etc. (Col. 3:12 and 1 Peter 5:5) all of the time and women are to always clothe themselves "modestly, with decency and propriety" (1 Tim 2:9).

2. Culture will make a difference here. The native of equatorial Africa and the Eskimo will not dress in similar fashion.

3. Not everyone has the same means with which to buy clothes.

4. We are not to judge those who come into the assembly by what they are wearing and give preferential treatment one way or the other (James 2:2).

With all of that said, I doubt if anyone would argue that there has not been a "dressing down" of late in what is worn to the assembly of the saints. It is not uncommon, in some places, to see torn geans, shorts, message shirts with other than Christian messages, even some things that make one doubt that the wearer has either a mother to tell him it is not appropriate or even a seeing eye dog that would dissuade him from wearing the offending clothes.

There is a verse of scripture that some like to use in speaking of "church dress" that says, "But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’" (1 Sam 16:7).

Whenever this subject comes up, someone is quick to point out the last part of that verse that "the Lord looks at the heart" and conclude that the verse is saying that God doesn’t care what one is wearing so he can wear anything he jolly well wants to wear. Look again. It doesn’t say that. In fact, that verse has nothing to do with the subject matter which we are discussing. It simply is pointing out that man judges by one criteria, but God a deeper criteria.

But since some want to use that verse, then do look carefully at the part of that verse that says that "man looks at the outward appearance." Like it or not, that is a true statement. Ask the men from IBM. Ask the companies that have cancelled "casual Friday" because they have found that employees took the "casual" too far and business suffered.

People do tend to look at the outward appearance. An insurance salesman was told in a sales meeting that he might do better if in his part of the country he did not wear cowboy boots when calling in homes. He tried it and sure enough, much to his surprise, his sales increased.

I have known men who never wear a suit, but when someone close to them died, out of respect they went out and got a suit for the funeral. Why? Because man does look at the outward appearance. Our appearance gives a message of who we are and often what we believe. Dress also shows respect or lack of respect.

Years ago, there was a congregation where the building had fallen into disrepair do to some hard times. Plans were on the drawing board for a major painting and general cleanup. That same year the NACC was going to be in their area and so they picked up on the theme for the year and used it on the bulletin board outside the building. One day the minister got a phone call. The lady on the other end said, "Are you the minister of the church that has the sign that says, ‘God Still Cares?’" When he said "yes," she said, "Well God may still care, but I can tell by the looks of your building that the people of that church don’t care."

Whether we like it or not, whether we think it is fair or not, the first part of that verse is still true, man does look at the outward appearance and because of that we need to take care lest we deliver a message that is not to our liking. We are representing the King and need to think of Him more than ourselves. We dare not let our casual dress become a stumbling block to someone or even to ourselves by taking the selfish attitude "it’s nobody’s business but mine."

I’m not talking about what visitors wear in the assembly. I’m not even talking about what the members wear (the preacher and elders should do that by teaching the glory of God), but I am talking about what those who are in front and serving wear. I’m not talking about expense. I’m talking about respect and how we dress often gives a message that we may not want to give because after all "man looks at the outward appearance." We may not like it or think it fair that "man looks at the outward appearance," but since it is true our dress for the King needs to show proper respect.

I heard of one preacher who only wears a suit on Christmas, Easter and when his mother is present. What does that say about his view of God? Does he have more respect for his mother than the heavenly Father? What does that view say about his attitude toward the congregation? If asked to fly to Washington and pray before Congress I have an idea he would wear a suit. Why not when he is serving as an ambassador of the King of kings and Lord of lords and breaking the precious Bread of Life with God’s people? Why treat God casually and treat people formally? Shouldn’t the glory and majesty of God raise our standards instead of lowering them?

Perhaps there are a couple of Old Testament passages from which we can draw some lessons, after all, they were given for our example (1 Cor. 10:11).

1.God did not tell the people how to dress when they went to the tabernacle or temple. This we admit.

2. But, God did tell those who served how they were to dress (Exodus 28:2,40). Does that mean that they have a responsibility to God (show respect) and maybe to man because "man looks at the outward appearance"?

3. God told man that his offering had to be "perfect" i.e. without blemish. When we come with less than our best are we showing proper respect and are we giving God what is due Him?

I doubt if these few lines will change anyone’s opinion. Most like to stay as they are. But perhaps, just perhaps, someone will read this and begin to think that maybe their dress does reflect on their attitude about God, and realize that man does "look at the outward appearance," and think twice about their appearance as they enter the assembly to worship and serve.

Close to 50 years ago, my home congregation sent a survey to all of the missionaries supported by the independent Christian churches/churches of Christ. Two things should be noted: (1.) We didn’t have a whole lot of missionaries in those days and (2.) The home church was one of the top giving churches to missions in the brotherhood.

One well-known missionary took offense at some of the questions ("In whose name is the mission property?" etc.) and wrote a blistering letter that in essence said that it was none of the church’s business. He was answered with a reply that said, "As long as you are asking for support, it is our business."

That answer was more than correct. The giver not only has the right to ask questions, but also the responsibility to ask questions. This is true not just in missions, but in the local church and any charity that seeks your funding.

You have the responsibility to ask questions and you have the right to get correct answers. Those who dance around clear questions trying to rephrase them so they can answer them in their own way should be avoided.

Years ago in one of our Bible colleges the charge had gone out that they were not producing preachers. They hired a new president who was supposed to put things in order. He immediately began approaching the constituency with the story that under his regime the school would produce "ministers." Most people thought he was talking about preachers. The fact was that he knew what he was doing. If they thought "preachers" when he said "ministers" that was o.k. with him as long as the money continued to come in. The last time that figures were available, that college had less that 8% of their graduates entering the preaching ministry.

Recently a publication carried an article in which the academic dean of a college said that the question, "How many preacher did your college graduate last year?" is a question that "sounds reasonable...but it may have more to do with an idealized past than the present reality." He goes on to say that the "question denies a biblical truth that the Restoration Movement has held especially dear." The biblical truth that he refers to is as he says, "Few ideas are more obvious in the New Testament than the call to every one of God’s people to serve in the name of Christ." In other words he is saying that to ask the question about preachers coming from a Bible college is wrong because "the Scriptures repeatedly stress that the work of service– the work of ministry– is every Christian’s work."

Of course we believe in the priesthood of all believers. Ephesians 4:11-12 says, "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,.."

(NKJV).

We also believe that it is the responsibility of the local church, elders and evangelists, to equip the saints. However, it is the job of the Bible college to help produce the preachers (evangelists) that will in turn "equip the saints for the work of the ministry."

Woodrow Kroll, who has served as the president of a denominational Bible college and chairman of the Division of Religion at a denominational university, has written a book entitled, "The Vanishing Ministry in the 21^st Century." In this book (a must read for any concerned with the issue) he has a chapter dealing with ministerial education. He begins by saying, "Because ministry education has slipped seriously from its original prominence...trustees, administrators, and faculty must ask some hard questions."

He then lists seven danger signs that a college must look for if it wants to maintain a "viable pastoral training program."

1. "A danger exists for ministry education when the institutional community at large and the board of control in particular demonstrate little understanding of or commitment to the institution’s historical mission...."

2. "A danger exists for ministry education when diversification in curriculum and programs threatens the institution’s distinctive mission...."

3. "A danger exists for ministry education when the definition of ministry becomes so broad that it includes any vocation pursued by a Christian...."

4. "A danger exists for ministry education when college presidents continually feature pastoral majors in financial appeals to their church constituency but business, education, or other majors have actually supplanted the pastoral major in institutional importance...."

5. "A danger exists for ministry education when the number of required Bible and ministry hours is reduced to accommodate other necessary curricular offerings...."

6. "A danger exists for ministry education when institutions view themselves simply as preparatory to higher forms of education and reconstitute their curricula accordingly...."

7. "A danger exists for ministry education when administrators are willing to budget high-ticket items to support general education courses but are not willing to budget a proportionately equitable amount to ministry training...."

Again, you have the responsibility to ask questions and you have the right to get correct answers.

A column in another publication recently got plenty of attention in its not so veiled urging for those in the Restoration Movement to join the Evangelicals. The views in the article are taken in part from a paper that the author of the article wrote and presented to the Evangelical Theological Society (Stone-Campbell Study Session) in 1996, presented again to the North American Christian Convention in Denver in 1999, and now is in the book he edited in 2002. At least he is consistent in pushing his views.

First of all let me say that the word "evangelical" is, as George Mark Elliott wrote, "a concertina word." Elliott said that the word "may be greatly expanded or much contracted."

The writer of the article in question expands the concertina to say that "Evangelicalism is the cultural melting pot of Bible-believing American Christianity." He goes on to say that "Many churches, individuals, and parachurch groups, with a wide variety of theologies and practices, identify themselves and are identified as evangelical."

Several observations need to be made about this article.

1. The article says that "Every study of evangelicalism puts the Stone-Campbell Movement in the evangelical group photo." That is not quite correct. In fact, the above quote from Elliott is from a paper that he wrote concerning a book entitled, The Evangelicals (1975). Elliott stated that his "main reason for this writing is to see how the restoration movement is dealt with in The Evangelicals and in the volumes listed in the chapter entitled, ‘A Guide to Further Reading’."

Elliott goes on to say, "Those who authored the chapters in The Evangelicals have either absolutely nothing or very little to say about the restoration movement."

Why? Because we do not fit the mold. The "evangelicals," the author says, is a "unity movement compatible with the unity emphasis of the Restoration Movement." He is partially correct. The evangelicals are a unity movement that is based, according to the Evangelical Theological Society, of those who "subscribe to the Good News of Salvation as a free gift of God through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross." That is a wonderful starting place, but as far as true Christian unity is concerned, it just doesn’t go far enough. True Christian unity is based on not just the facts of the Gospel being true, but also the implementation of those facts as shown by obedience to the commands inherent in the Good News. It was the great evangelist Walter Scott who said that the Gospel contained: "Facts to be believed; Commands to be obeyed; Promises to be enjoyed; and Threatenings to be avoided."

The author says, "Affirming unity over biblical essentials and diversity over other issues is evangelicalism’s strength." Does that mean that areas of salvation are non-essentials? That seems to be what he is saying. Here is the basic question that must be answered by those who seek to unite us with "the evangelicals" or anyone else: How many plans of salvation does God have?

To say, as the author says, "I believe the theological differences we might have with some evangelicals, even in the area of faith and baptism, do not place those of us in the Christian churches and churches of Christ outside evangelicalism, but rather are our distinctive expressions within evangelicalism" is tantamount to saying that we are all Christians no matter what the Bible requirements may be for salvation. In the very next line he says, "Evangelicalism is an aggregate of many unique Christian traditions and expressions, of which we are one." How many ways can there be?

2. If our scholars seek to be members of the Evangelical Theological Society, that is their call. They are free in Christ to associate with whomever they want. They walk in knowing the differences and should be able to contribute to that group in a scholarly way. But there is a difference between an individual belonging to the ETS and saying that the churches of the Restoration Movement belong in the Evangelical camp. The author says that Evangelicalism is not a monolith. Neither are our churches or our movement. How could anyone say that our 5500 churches belong to the evangelicals? The church I attend has given no one, that I know of, the authority to speak for them.

3. The author is correct that Campbell did write about the Evangelical Alliance in the pages of the Millennial Harbinger. He is also correct when he says that Campbell had respect for the people of the alliance. Campbell pretty much had respect for all men and treated them with respect. Remember that he allowed Robert Owen, the noted infidel with whom he had an historic debate in 1829, to be his guest in Bethany and eat at his table. To do otherwise would have been un-Christian. But respect for and agreement with are two different things.

The author says that Campbell "sees no reason not to cooperate with them as Christian brothers as much as possible." That is not exactly what he said. Here is what Campbell really said, "Forty years have greatly developed the minds and views of many of us who have been for that time making our way out of Babylon, and therefore we can very cordially sympathize with the Evangelical Alliance, and anticipate for them a brighter and a better dispensation; and, for my part, I will, to the utmost of my power, co-operate with them just as far and as long as they please to permit me." The context of his cooperation is in helping them to make their way out of Babylon. I do not know of any cooperative way in which Campbell worked with the Evangelical Alliance as some today would want us cooperating with the Evangelicals.

4. The author may have wrongly concluded that "Evangelical speakers are warmly received by most at the North American Christian Convention." The truth of the matter is that we have no say in who speaks at that convention. What he may think is a warm reception may just be a mannerly reception. But if the NACC keeps on its current track, as it continues to get smaller it probably will get to the place where "most" will welcome evangelical speakers warmly.

5. The author concludes by presupposing that "Were Campbell alive today, I believe he would be a prominent ETS member and a consulting editor for Christianity Today. He would be involved with Promise Keepers, the Billy Graham Association, and the Willow Creek Association. We would be proud to have his scholarly and popular writings published by Inter-Varsity, Eerdmans, Baker, or Zondervan. He would expect Bethany College to be accredited with AABC and in the Christian College Consortium with Wheaton, Trinity, Messiah and a host of others." Perhaps the author of the article is juxta-positioning his views and goals on Campbell. Rather unfair to do to someone who has been dead for about 135 years and is not here to defend himself, wouldn’t you say?

Campbell was not looking for merging all groups. I think it important to note that Campbell only merged or united with one other group and that was with the group headed by Barton W. Stone. That uniting took place in 1831. Campbell lived until 1866. He lived thirty-five years after uniting with the Christians of Kentucky and no more mergers ever took place. Why? Campbell wasn’t interested in merging or uniting groups or just becoming part of a bigger group. He was interested in the "purification and extension of the Christian profession."

Here is a quote from Campbell that appears several times in the Millennial Harbinger that gives Campbell’s view correctly: "I have no idea of seeing, nor wish to see, the sects unite in one grand army. This would be dangerous to our liberties and laws. For this the Saviour did not pray. It is only the disciples dispersed among them that reason and benevolence would call out of them."

Read that again. "It is only the disciples dispersed among them that reason and benevolence would call out of them."

Campbell was never on the verge with an urge to merge.

At this point another article from the same journal needs to be mentioned. A few weeks after the article under discussion appeared, there was an editorial that told that one of the ministers from a large congregation among us was leaving that congregation to be on the staff of Willow Creek. The editorial said that the minister was asked if he was leaving the Restoration Movement. His answer was, "I’m not sure I understand the question." Apparently not!

He goes on to say, " ‘The dream of the Restoration Movement has always been to restore the kind of church we read about in Acts 2–a biblically functioning community without denominational barriers. Members of Christian churches have said for years that they’re not the only Christians,’ he added. ‘We’ve always believed that the church is bigger than ‘us’. If the question means am I abandoning those ideals, then the answer is no. I’ve never been more passionate about giving my life for that dream’."

Two things here: First: Willow Creek would accept the very statement that Campbell objected to of the Evangelical Alliance of "justification by faith alone." Acts 2:38 would probably not be in the plan of salvation they proclaim. Again, the salvation requirements of our Lord are not our Lord’s opinions that can be changed when they come in conflict with our wants and desires. They can never be non-essential.

Secondly: The slogan, "We are not the only Christians, but Christians only" was never meant to speak of groups. It spoke of those who may have been Christians (having accepted Christ in a Biblical way) but were members of denominational congregations. With that in mind, read again the quote from Campbell..."It is only the disciples dispersed among them that reason and benevolence would call out of them."

Why do we even speak of these things? Because in these issues we are talking about the body of Christ, the church of the Living God. We are speaking of the bride for which Christ gave His life. We are speaking of the bride for which He feeds and cares. We are speaking of the body that "He cleansed and washed with water through the word" so that she could be "radiant and without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." We are speaking of the most precious thing on the face of this earth because it was paid for with the greatest price ever paid, the blood of Christ. "And we are members of his body."

We speak of these things because we never want to hear the words of Paul to the Galatians, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ."

We speak of these things because we sing with our hearts as well as our voices the words of the old hymn, "I love Thy kingdom, Lord, The house of Thine abode, The Church our blest Redeemer saved With His own precious blood...For her my tears shall fall, For her my prayers ascend. To her my cares and toils be given, Till toils and cares shall end..."

By the way, the man (Isaac Errett) who started the publication in which the above articles appeared said something in what is now a popular tract entitled, "Our Position," that should be noted. In the first section entitled, "That in which we agree with the parties known as evangelical" he says after pointing out areas of agreement, "We do not say this with any view to crave a place among evangelicals."

Who was right?

How fast are we growing? It has been reported many places, including the New York Times, and we all know how accurate they are, that the Christian churches/churches of Christ, have increased at a rate of 19% in the decade of 1990 to 2000. At first blush this is outstanding and a real reason to pat ourselves on the back and say, "We must be doing it right!" But there are two things wrong with that reasoning: (1) the Mormons are growing at a rate faster than 19%; (2) the figures given for our growth are not accurate.

The original study was done by the Glenmary Research Center. We contacted the Glenmary Research Center and asked where they got their figures. We were directed to a gentleman in Nashville, TN, who then directed us to a gentleman at the Church of the Nazarene headquarters who served as a liaison for Data Collection for the Religious Congregations Membership Survey.

Here is part of his answer when asked about the figures:

"We used the 2000 Directory of the Ministry...Springfield, IL....Membership data printed in the directory was used. For churches where membership was not included, the average median membership was used. ‘Adherents’ are an attempt to include children in Protestant counts to make the figures comparable to what the Catholics, Mormons, and other groups report. The adherents figures published in Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States were estimated from the membership totals. For each county, the estimation procedure computed the percentage that CC/CofC membership represented of the total adult population (age 14 and older). That percentage was then applied to the total population of children (age 13 and under), with the result being added to membership and thereby equaling CC/CofC adherents for that county."

What that means is that they added a group of children to the count who may have already been numbered among the members. Our churches already have many members who are 13 and under. To add an estimated number of children 13 and under to our numbers is not necessary.

But the comparison for growth should not, and does not, need estimated figures added. The people at the Directory of the Ministry do a great job and to try to give us a figure, and they have already added an estimated number for the churches that do not report their membership. Work this out for yourself. Total membership reported in 1990 was 1,068,837 with 5,563 congregations. Total membership reported in 2000 was 1,147,701 with 5,481 congregations. That shows an increase of 78,864 people and a decrease of 82 congregations. That is a growth rate a little over 7%. (For those interested in 2002 figures: 1,189,787 est. membership and 5,559 congregations.)

The figures reported by the Glenmary people are wrong, but some seemed to get very excited with them. They used those figures for validation that current methods are correct. They used those figures to knock on the magical evangelical door with hope of acceptance by a greater religious world. They used those figures to boast. But the figures are bogus!

When will we learn that the figures of man mean nothing with God. Remember when God pared an army down from 32,000 to 300 to defeat an army of 135,000. Remember when He used five loaves and two fish to feed 5,000 men, plus women and children.

When everything is boiled down, salvation is one person coming to one Lord. Our duty is to be one person taking the message of the one Lord to people one at a time. We may preach to multitudes, but salvation is still one-by-one.

The world population clock says that as of the date of this writing the world has 6,340,000,000 people. With only 1,189,787 est. membership in our churches, I think we have a lot of work to do.

Billy Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The rose would still smell as sweet if called by another name, but as we all know, names are still very important. Maybe more important than I originally thought.

Usually the Restoration Herald carries the real name of the author of an article. In the past few years we have allowed pseudonyms only a couple of times. Once we allowed it to protect the identity of a former Muslim who wrote about Islam (April 2002). To convert from Islam and then write about Islam in unfavorable terms can be very dangerous.

Recently (May 2003), we carried an article by "B. Alert and R. Dismayed" who wrote about changes they were witnessing in various areas of church life. We received an e-mail from a good brother who was very upset that this article was printed using pseudonyms since it was obvious that they were attacking his particular ministry. He wanted to know who they were so that he could confront them. His reaction may have said more about the state of things than he wanted when it was pointed out to him that the couple ministered several states away from him and only wanted to be anonymous because they had already confronted those involved and did not want to cause more problems in their area. They were simply sharing their frustration with the growing crowd of the frustrated.

Another author, whose name appeared with his article, quoted a speaker he had heard who made a rather strong and indicting statement. The speaker’s name was not given and now the author of the article has passed from this life so finding out who made the statement will be difficult. A reader questioned both the validity of the statement and the wisdom of even printing it without a name attached to the quote. He is correct.

A good friend of this ministry who is rather new to the Restoration Movement has questioned us several times when we have referred to a person, ministry, or periodical without giving the name. This Doctor of Education taught for 36 years at Michigan State University in the field of natural science and is not used to names being omitted from scholarly works. Usually when we have omitted names it is because we do not wish to embarrass someone or we are trying to "soften" the effects of our comments. But our doctor friend is correct when he asks how he can do follow-up research without the names of those involved.

Shortly after coming to this position I asked the scholarly Dr. Lewis Foster when it is appropriate to name names. His wise counsel was, "When they have put something in print, then you can comment on what they wrote without attacking the person."

We work in the arena of ideas. Our fight is not against "flesh and blood," but I am afraid that it is flesh and blood that writes the articles. Therefore, there are times when we need talk not about the writer, but about the idea that has been written and this means that we should identify the writer of the idea (or speaker of a sermon, etc.). This we will try to do from now on.

This will open a new can of worms because just as sure as we mention something that has been written, taught or done that is not correct and identify the person involved, someone is bound to say that we are "mean-spirited" for daring to mention names. Check out what Paul said about Alexander and Demas (2 Timothy 4) or what John said about Diotrephes (3 John). Were they "mean-spirited" because they said what they said?

With this issue we introduce a new monthly column called, "Christians Say the Strangest Things!" The pseudonym for the writer is Kent B. True. His real name is Harold Orndorf. Harold has been campus minister at Northern Kentucky University for the past 21 years. During that time he has also taught at the Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary, and Roanoke Bible College, in the fields of Apologetics, Ethics, Philosophy, and Logic. He will be taking a rather satirical look at some things that have been written. He will name the author and the publication from which the article comes. We welcome Harold to our monthly writers.

And while we are talking about names, back in November 2000, this column carried an article about the use of the term "Stone-Campbell" to refer to the Restoration Movement. Part of that article was triggered by an article by Douglas A. Foster of Abilene Christian University that appeared in the Christian Standard of May 7, 2000. Foster said in part, "Increasingly, especially in scholarly circles, ‘Stone-Campbell Movement’ has replaced ‘Restoration Movement’ as the most appropriate historical description of us." I have also heard it said by those who favor us using the "Stone-Campbell" appellation that it is needful because there are other groups who also think of themselves as "restoration movements." That part is true. But listen to what church growth guru Peter Wagner, a darling of the church growth movement, has to say about the term "restoration."

"Some new apostolic leaders, who have roots in the Latter Rain Movement, which emerged after World War II, like to refer to their churches as ‘restoration’ churches. The implication is that they are restoring true biblical Christianity for the first time since New Testament days.

"On a broader scale, however, most church leaders today would associate the term ‘Restoration Movement’ with the innovations initiated in frontier Presbyterianism by Barton Stone...and Alexander Campbell....church historians would regard them as the original owners of the brand name, so to speak." (Churchquake published by Regal, p. 41).

I, for one, do not want to see our churches of the Restoration Movement carried away into denominationalism as happened in the last century to those now known as the Disciples of Christ. (The use of the term "Stone-Campbell" is just another attempt by some to move us in that direction). If that means calling a spade a spade, then so be it. Be assured we will not call a spade a rose or a rose a spade!

"...there is an impending crisis in the affairs of the Restoration movement, coincident with the spread of modern rationalism...." (Christian Standard, 1919)

The articles on many pages in this issue are very strong and will be considered mean-spirited and controversial in some circles. They deal forthrightly with some of the problems that we are having in our brotherhood at this time. One takes on our ministerial shortage (see page 1). Another looks at what is a perceived subversion that is taking place in our Movement and what amounts to an attempt to betray our churches (see page 3). A third deals with a watering down (no pun intended) of the view of baptism in many churches (see page 9). These are not the types of articles that we like to print. They are what we have to print.

Our brotherhood is quickly approaching a decision time that will make the choice as to where historians will place us in time, but more importantly, where God will place us in eternity. One hundred years ago our movement began to face some of the same problems. The liberal vultures hovered over our colleges waiting for the right moment when they could sweep down and begin picking at the bones of institutions that had prepared a ministry which had made us one of the fastest growing groups in America. Gone to the garbage heap of history is Bethany (the school started by A. Campbell), Hiram (the alma mater of P.H. Welshimer), College of the Bible (the school of J.W. McGarvey) and a host of others (Eureka, Drake, Phillips, Transylvania, Chapman, Butler).

In 1919 it was announced that plans were underway to merge "brotherhood agencies" into a smooth running machine. Christian Standard led the way, back then, in understanding what the liberals were doing in an attempt to control a brotherhood.

In 1920 Robert Elmore presented letters to the Christian Standard that showed that open-membership (the acceptance of the unimmersed into membership) was being approved by some China missionaries. Christian Century confirmed the practice of open-membership and praised the missionaries "for their bold willingness to adapt to the modern needs of the mission field" (see Union in Truth, Standard Publishing, by James North, page 304).

But the more things go around, the more they come around. Today is not that much different. Some of our colleges are forsaking their reason for coming into existence. The Church Development Fund has merged several other funds around the country under their umbrella, is working to merge all of the church planting organizations under their banner, and has what to some of us believe is an improper relationship with the NACC. Meanwhile Standard Publishing seems to approve of what is going on and promotes a view of what might be called, "baptism lite."

It is time to talk. In fact, it may be past time to talk. In the last few years we have had people talking with the Church of God, talking with our brethren in the non-instrumental churches, talking with the Disciples (for what reason I don’t know) and buddying up to the evangelicals. But all during this time we have not really been talking with each other. An attempt was tried before the NACC in Dallas, but not enough time was given to that meeting and it ended in not the most wholesome of ways.

Some have wanted to have public discussion at the NACC committee meetings, but the meetings are structured so that decisions are made before and after by the few while the many simply receive their instructions.

Some have attempted talking and even traveled many miles to discuss important items. Too often they are politely listened to and then the parties go their separate ways and nothing else ever happens.

Some have attempted to write letters and articles only to have their attempts referred to as "bluster and babble."

Brethren, this ought not to be. We need to talk. We need to sit down for several days with those who are concerned and have a "summit" where differences can freely be discussed. Perhaps, just perhaps, we can learn something from one another. Maybe we will find that we have misunderstood someone. Maybe we will find that we were in error. Maybe we will find that our thinking has not been that clear on a subject. Maybe we will find that some of our brethren are pretty nice guys and could be good friends if we but tried. We need to talk!

Who should put such a meeting together? I don’t think that we can, because some of the brethren will not attend a meeting called by the CRA. I don’t think that the NACC, Church Development Fund, or Standard Publishing Co. can put such a meeting together because some brethren would not attend if the meeting was called by one or all of them.

No, I think that this is the time for some senior statesmen among us to rise to the challenge and put out the call and put the meeting together. Let it be done in the heartland of the U.S. so that as many as possible can attend. Let the topics deal with "those things which are most surely believed among us," and those where we might and do have differences. Let men from opposing sides speak. Let discussions be held. Participants should sit at tables, not with their cronies, but with those with whom honest viewpoints will be shared.

We have inherited one of the finest Movements ever to bless the earth. It is now in our hands and we dare not mess it up. Many are counting on our generation. Can we go forward under the banner of Christ, united, to make the kingdoms of this world the Kingdom of our Christ? That is our commission. That is our challenge. That is our goal.

Brethren, in order to do that, we need to talk! We must talk! When? Sooner rather than later.

Here is a true story. The phone rang. On the other end of the phone was a voice of a man who introduced himself as "Rev. John _________, the new minister of the ______________ Christian Church."

The CRA had made a loan to this congregation several years before this when the congregation was growing. The phone call became very interesting. "Rev. John" knew nothing of the CRA except that his new congregation still owed quite a bit of money to it. He came from a denominational background. A member of the church knew him and had asked him to come and preach at the church while they were without a preacher.

"Rev. John" went on to say that the church had a lot of problems, but he was there now and was going to straighten things up. "Of course," he said, "there are a number of things that need to be changed."

The CRA Director asked him what things he planned on changing.

"Rev. John" said that he was going to change "the name of the church and some of the doctrines."

When asked which doctrines he planned on changing he said, "Well, this thing on baptism is the first thing I’m going to change. They have been teaching that baptism is essential to salvation and I’m going to change that and teach that people are saved by faith only."

The Director asked him to send him a list of the doctrines that he was going to change. "Rev. John" said that he would and the call ended shortly after that.

A week later there was a second phone call. It was "Rev. John" saying that the congregation had a meeting and decided to sell the property, pay off all debts, and take the equity that the congregation had and move to another location and restart the church.

A discussion ensued. "Rev. John" said that they were anxious to get the CRA debt paid and wanted to let us know that it would be paid.

The Director asked him to hold off on their plans until some research could be done.

"Why?" said "Rev. John." "You’re only concerned about the loan being paid, aren’t you?"

"No," said the Director, "there is more involved. There is a principle involved."

"What else could be involved except that you get your money back? What is this principle you have mentioned?"

"The principle is called ‘church stealing.’ You want to take the equity that has been built by a group of people who believed one thing and use it to start a church that will teach something else. That is called ‘church stealing.’ It is unethical and may be illegal."

After quite a discussion, "Rev. John" hung up.

A week later he called back to say that they had another congregational meeting and were abandoning the building and sending the keys to the CRA.

The property was then sold, all debts paid, and what was left over was given to the church planting groups in that area of the country.

That story is told to introduce a problem that is happening around the country where ministers are beginning ministries, either with established congregations or new works, and then hijacking the congregation and taking them from a New Testament position on salvation and polity to the "faith-only" and pastor-rule position. This is not ethical and may be illegal.

"Rev. John" came from outside, but there are also those who come from the inside. My home church once had a preacher whose doctrine changed., but rather than try to change the entire congregation and risk a split in doing so, he resigned and joined another group in another state and continued his ministry with them. He may have been wrong in his doctrinal position, but he was enough of a man of integrity to do the right thing and not try to "steal" a church.

Certainly the ministers who do this think that their theological position is sound. The question is not their sincerity. But is it ethically right to take a congregation and move it to a different theological position, often running off those who disagree, in order to have one’s way? Is it ethically correct to take money from people who believe one thing and start a church that is going to teach something different without telling the donors?

Many people give in order to start new churches. They believe in starting new churches and want their funds to start New Testament churches. Is it ethically correct to represent one’s self or one’s organization as holding to a New Testament position and then start congregations that do not?

Is it ethically correct for missionaries to tell the supporting churches one thing and then teach something else on the field?

Paul warned of those who would "come in and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." Jude warned of those who have "secretly slipped in among you."

There is more to the "Rev. John" story, but suffice it to say that he got the message and for whatever reason he decided not to "steal" that church. Would that others would also get the message.... "Please don’t steal that church!"

"If people don’t know about power and let their attention wander completely, then those in power will take liberties." – Andrew Marr

James Mills (1773-1836) was the modern-day originator of the concept that the press has a "watchdog" function in society. "He advocated press freedom because it ‘made known the conduct of the individuals who have chosen to wield the powers of government’." (Quote from MediaLens written by Mia Jarlov)

The concept goes back much farther. Our Lord Jesus said it this way, "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32-33 NASU).

The writers of the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thought of truth as not just important, but very important. On God’s top 10 is the command that we "not bear false witness." Jesus was killed because He told the truth (John 8:4); in fact, He was truth (John 14:6). The apostle John said, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth" (3 John 4 NIV). Notice that the "Apostle of Love" does not say "love" but "truth." That is how important truth is.

Here at the Restoration Herald we are always striving for truth. We are not afraid of the truth, but we try at all times to promote the truth. If something appears in print, we want it to be the truth. Because we are human we sometimes make mistakes (I really wanted to spell that "misteaks" but was afraid that some might not know that was done in jest).

Our July issue carried a front page article by a dear brother who has since gone to be with the Lord. In that article, he commented on something he thought he had heard that was not quite correct. After getting a letter from a preacher in Illinois who did not think the comment was correct and had reflected poorly on the preachers of Illinois, we decided to try to find the source of the quote. Part of our research led us to ask Phil Young. If anyone knew where the quote came from it would be Phil. Phil surprised us by not knowing. He did not surprise us by joining in the hunt to track down the wayward comment. You can see the results of his research on page 19.

We apologize to the preachers and churches of Illinois for the mix-up. We thank Phil Young for helping us get it straight. Truth is of utmost importance.

Just because something is in print does not make it true. All of us have seen the papers in the check-out lanes at the grocery that tell of some famous celebrity who is supposedly from some alien planet. But those of us responsible for putting things in print have an obligation to God and to our readers to make sure that what we print is true. A stewardship has been given to us.

At the same time it is important for all of us to see and know that without a free press, evil often has a free hand.

It was a free press that helped the Restoration Movement flourish in those early days, as we had many editors writing often about what other editors had written. It was this "iron sharpening iron" that helped us define where we stood on important issues.

It was also a free press that helped our people come to know what the issues were when the Disciples of Christ sought restructure for the purpose of establishing what is today one of the most liberal of denominations.

It was a free press that informed the brethren of the open-membership problem that began and spread on the mission field.

Mini-Messages....As we come to the end of another calendar year we would like to thank our monthly columnists for their dedicated work. Each works and writes in a field in which they have some expertise to share. We thank them for their consistent quality and thought provoking articles. If there are one or two columnists whom you especially appreciate, why not write them directly and let them know....Information comes from a preacher in a church that is seeking a staff member that denominationalists are watching the posted lists of needed staff for our churches and applying to those churches for positions. In one interview the interviewee said that he heard about the position from the list posted by the local Bible college. The committee assumed that meant that he was a student of that college. Such was not the case. He was a charismatic who was looking for a job. Even at that, churches need to be careful because there are charismatics and denominationalists who are taking classes in our colleges.

Bible things by Bible names and words