The Message of 1 Corinthians 11

Ethan R. Longhenry

This week I would like to examine a passage that has caused many divisions and great strife in many churches of Christ. Many have simply disregarded this passage and do not wish to find any way in which to apply it to their own lives because of the controversy that it generates. We must remember, however, that as Christians, we are responsible for the whole message of God, as is explained in Acts 20:27, 2 Timothy 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.


Let us now examine this passage: Paul's discussion of authority in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16:

Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The controversy over the "head covering" has divided many churches over the years, and for this and other reasons many do not wish to even discuss this passage. Even so, let us look at this passage and see what the message is that Paul is attempting to relate to us.

Paul begins in the first two verses by exhorting the Corinthians to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ, which is a commandment given in other places (1 Corinthians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:6), and that the Corinthians ought also to hold fast to those traditions that were given to them, which is a commandment that is also seen in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Therefore, Paul is giving no new commandments here to the Corinthians when he speaks of imitating Christ and holding fast to the traditions given to them by the Apostles.

Paul then begins in verse three with a discussion of authority and the symbols thereof. The line of authority Paul speaks of is very distinct: the head of man is Christ and the head of the wife is her husband and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). He then says the following in verses 4 and 5:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

(It is obvious that what is required of one is NOT required of the other. This is NOT just a command for women. It is a command for men as well. One must cover and one must not! MP)

We see here two statements of fact given by Paul: a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but the woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. There are many here who desire to see the "unveiled" in verse 5 to refer to "having short hair," yet where do we see this in verse 5? Paul says that if her head is "unveiled," it is "as if she were shaven," a statement of equivalence. Why would Paul say that the woman who prays with an uncovered head is "as if shaven" if the covering is hair? This is even clearer in verse 6:

For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
The ESV is even more clear concerning this passage:

For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

The message is difficult to undermine: the "covering" Paul speaks of in verse 5 cannot be "long hair" since the wife ought to have "short hair" if she does not wear the "covering!" Therefore, one can very easily conclude from this passage that a woman should wear a covering if praying or prophesying.

(I am not sure why this version chooses the word "wife" because it is required of all women, not just married women; however, the covering CANNOT be the natural hair because it is ONLY required to be worn TWO times; When praying or when prophesying. How many women take their hair off when they are finished praying? MP)

Paul speaks further in verses 7-12 concerning why this is so:

For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.

Paul speaks plainly: he anticipates the question, "why must a woman wear the covering?," by saying that (1) the glory of man is woman; (2) the woman is of the man, not vice versa; (3) therefore, a woman should have a sign of authority over her head, "because of the angels." He then affirms, however, lest any man become conceited about his role, that man is not independent of woman and neither is the woman independent of man, and his example is that while woman was made from man, man is now born of woman, yet all things come from God.

Paul concludes this discussion in verses 13 through 16:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Many attempt to use this part of the passage to "contradict" the beginning portion, and declare that the chapter states that the "covering" is "long hair" in verse 15. There is no evidence in this text, however, that the "covering" in verse 15 is the same type of covering under discussion in verse 5 except for an inference based loosely on context. Paul begins by appealing to nature, that long hair is a disgrace to a man, reminiscent of the language of verse 4. Yet then Paul says that "long hair" is a "glory" to a woman, and therefore it is her "covering;" yet did we not read in verse 7 that a woman should cover her head because she is the "glory of man?" Is this not the reason that she requires a symbol of authority upon her head? How, then, is the glory itself to be the symbol of authority when it is for the exact reason of the glory that the symbol of authority is necessary? There are many difficulties that arise in this text if we attempt to force verse 15 to be the same as verses 5 and 6.

(If you didn't follow that explanation, let me try: The hair is a NATURAL covering that God gave ALL women. Long hair distinguishes the difference between a man and a woman. Long hair on a woman is her glory. Again, it is a natural covering. The head covering is a SPIRITUAL covering. Just like baptism is a spiritual event if done for the purpose of entering Christ and having past sins washed away. During the summer, many people are baptized in the swimming pool. But that is not for a SPIRITUAL purpose. The head covering is a spiritual covering that is worn as a sign of submission to authority. Not ALL WOMEN wear a spiritual covering like they do a natural covering...only one's who are in submission to God. MP)

Paul then speaks that if there is one who inclines to be "contentious," the "churches of God" have "no such practice." Many here assert that if there is contention about the covering, Paul asserts that the church "has no such practice." Are we to believe that Paul will exhort the Corinthians to recognize the value of authority and the symbols thereof and then in the last verse deny everything stated because of one who is contentious? Who is Paul speaking of when he speaks of one who is contentious, one who wants to use the covering or one who wishes to violate the system of authority Paul has spoken of in this chapter? Obviously the latter-- it is not contentious to pursue the truth, is it not? Paul is confirming here in the last verse what he said before: the churches of God do not practice men having long hair nor having women with heads uncovered. Any other form of interpretation of this verse causes the text to contradict itself and makes Paul out to be unsettled in this doctrine.

(Let's not be contentious: Modern day language: Don't argue about it. Men, uncover your head when you pray (take your hats off) Women cover your head when you pray. (put a hat on, a scarf, a veil, something to cover your head) How many men continue to allow women to NOT submit to Scripture because they don't care about the covering instructions. How many men remove their hats at a spiritual or worldly function because a prayer is being offered? How many men require their son's to remove their hats when the little league baseball team is having a prayer? How many men require their son's to remove their hats when the little league team goes out for pizza after a game and a prayer is offered? Whatever the men take off to pray, the women are to put on. MP)

This is my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 based on the text itself. I am sure that there are many who disagree with me on this interpretation, and I do not want any to believe me to be overly contentious or argumentative. These are my conclusions based on the reading of the text; I do not "bind" this interpretation upon everyone I come in contact with, and I believe that all need to study this passage and come to their own conclusions and live with their consciences clean in the sight of God.

(Paul took 16 verses to explain the head covering, it's purpose, and that it is to be worn by women and not by men, during prayer. He goes so far as to ask a rhetorical question..."Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" What is the obvious answer? NO! That sounds like Paul is binding the head covering to me. Wearing it is obedience. Not wearing it is a disgrace. We bind baptism why not the head covering? Those who refute baptism are contentious. Therefore, those who refute the head covering are contentious. If we bind baptism we are not being contentious but rather obedient. Same goes for the head covering...binding it is obedience. MP)

(There is a right and a wrong answer to this passage. Either the woman should wear a covering or she should not. The passage states that a woman who does not wear a covering is a disgrace. If it is a disgrace for a woman to NOT wear a covering, then it should definitely be something that our brethren should want to discuss openly and encourage all women to submit to. Think about this: For those who contend for the "hair" being the covering, are you teaching the women who have "short hair" to grow their hair long? It could be a difficult task to identify whose hair is short since there is no guideline to go by to know what EXACTLY IS SHORT, but you know of women whose hair is too short. If you are an advocate for the "hair" being the covering and you are encouraging women to grow their hair long in order to submit to this passage, what length qualifies??? MP)

It does distress me, however, how brethren have "agreed to disagree" so significantly about this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that we fail to recognize the truths that cannot be disputed in this passage. One could leave this passage with the understanding that a woman should wear a covering and/or have long hair: where in this passage do we see that a woman should have short hair? Paul gives no room for compromise in verse 4:

But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

Too often I have seen many God-fearing women who have decided to follow the latest trends of hairstyle and neglect all patterns of this passage: they worship at church and pray with short hair and heads uncovered! One may wrangle with the definition of "short hair" versus "long hair," but all too often many women will be seen with hair styles that make it difficult to distinguish them from men!

It is well-known that the church has been fighting the worldly influences of feminism, especially in the arena of the responsibilities of men and women in the home and in the church. Are we fighting so strongly in these arenas that we have neglected the message of 1 Corinthians 11? The message of 1 Corinthians 11 is difficult to bear in these times: it is yet another passage that demonstrates that there is a hierarchy of authority and that the husband is above the wife in this hierarchy. This message is not popular, but it must be heard. AMEN! MP We may consider the length of hair to be a mere trifle, but God must have some opinion about it in order to dedicate half of a chapter in the book of 1 Corinthians to the topic. Brethren, regardless of our stands on the nature of the covering itself, I must urge us to reconsider our neglection of 1 Corinthians 11 and that we ought to study and apply the truths that Paul has laid out for us to our lives and to continue to fight the good fight! AMEN and AMEN! Thank you brother Longhenry! MP

Ethan R. Longhenry
ethan@thechristianexaminer.com
www.deusvitae.com

We cannot just teach the love of Jesus and expect to produce disciples. We must teach the cost; the transformation that is required; the continual process of taking up our cross, denying ourselves. Otherwise, we are just a social club using the Lord's name in vain. (MP)


"...And this same message was not just directed to sinners, or to those who were not His people—it was also directed to saints (Revelation 2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19). Sorry, but the “once saved, always saved” doctrine just doesn’t square with Scripture. A Christian who sins needs to repent, or he’s going to be in a lot of trouble (notice the “repent...or else” warnings in the passages listed above (and consider the next point).

Jesus made it clear what would happen to people if they didn’t repent—“unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). To those cities who did not repent at His preaching, Jesus warned of condemnation. For example, here’s what He said to Capernaum: “And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matthew 11:23-24)...." (Bryan Gibson, Prattmont Church of Christ)

"The plain and simple reading of the Scriptures lead me to believe that the Spirit’s indwelling is literal and personal" Mark A. Copeland (study on the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit supported by and presented at The church In Chillicothe and viewable on their website)

The Holy Spirit (1)
Another Controversial Issue

Dudley R. Spears
Oklahoma' City, Oklahoma

How true are the words of Paul, "there must also be heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest" (I Cor. 11:19). The battle within the church that has raged for the past two decades over institutionalism has, with a few exceptions, become a stabilized fight with the lines drawn and held. Now, within the ranks of those who have swallowed the institutional package and concept, there has arisen another issue that threatens to divide that segment of the brotherhood. The liberal group is presently plagued with trouble over the Holy Spirit and His work among Christians today.

The seriousness of the controversy may be judged by the evaluations made by those directly involved. Those who seem the most concerned over the serious consequences of this issue are the older preachers and writers among brethren. A. G. Hobbs is reported to have said of the issue that it will make the one through which we have just passed (institutional) look like a "splinter." Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, evaluates the problem in the following words: "The weird views among some brethren regarding supernatural guidance and manifestations are all based upon this erroneous concept of the Spirit's indwelling" (F. F. Vol. 83, No. 46). Foy E. Wallace, Jr., who now expresses himself through the Firm Foundation, has written a series of long articles on the question and his evaluation of the serious implications of the problem are expressed like this, by him: "It appears that a combination of professors and young evangelists, with the aid of numerous printed mediums, have formed a confederation to stampede the brotherhood and take over the church for a Holy Spirit Movement, similar to and equal to the millennial movement, and as theoretically wrong. It is in fact a doctrinal defection." (Ibid Vol. 84. No. 9)

Others, from different quarters, have taken it upon themselves to put brakes on this "new Holy Spirit Movement," and so the Editor of the Gospel Advocate has assigned the task to Guy N. Woods (arch-institutionalist and staff-writer) and a series of articles appeared in the G. A. The editor, B.C. Goodpasture, says of the issue and its import, "There has been, and is, a great deal of misunderstanding concerning the Spirit and his work. Some erroneous ideas concerning the Spirit have been accepted by some of our brethren in different parts of the country. Some have been drinking at the fountains of denominational error" (G. A., Vol. 108, No. 19). In a "Review" of an article written apparently by Professor J. W. Roberts, of Abilene Christian College, Guy Woods says of the import of his teaching, "Hence our brother believes that the Holy Spirit dwells in us apart from, or independent of the word! So do all denominational preachers throughout the land. The only essential difference between them is that our brother herein quoted contends for a direct operation of the Spirit immediately following conversion; whereas denominational theologians contend for it immediately preceding! We believe that the view we are refuting is a dangerous one; and, that it is an easy step from the concept of a personal, literal, indwelling of the Spirit in the heart independent of and apart from the word of truth - to fanciful leadings, alleged divine impulses and intimations now believed by some among us to proceed from the Spirit which is by them believed to dwell in the heart actually, literally, personally - apart from the word" (Ibid, Vol. 108, No. 25).

Others of the "older set" of preachers who know the truth and who in years gone by had to oppose the Calvinistic error now being advanced among liberal brethren have put their hand up to try and stop the onrushing tide of error manifesting itself in the personal indwelling of the Spirit in Christians apart from the word of truth. One such is Perry B. Cotham who wrote: "Some Preachers are saying that the church 'may still have' the miraculous gifts of the Spirit as possessed by the apostles and some of the early Christians. One preacher 'of thirty-eight years of preaching,' who has accepted the personal indwelling and guidance of the Spirit, is more bold in his affirmation. In writing to the members he said: 'There is no scripture which says that manifestations of the Spirit will cease when the New Testament was written or when the last apostle died. All such doctrines are a perversion of the Scripture or an invention of men.' There is no room to misunderstand what the author meant by that statement. It causes one to wonder how long it will be until some preachers begin claiming a 'special revelation' from the Holy Spirit" (Firm Foundation, Vol. 83, No. 25). ("While Hatfield found himself in central Ohio, DeGarmo was in Canada preaching. At the time, Hatfield said he didn't think they'd come back together to follow that voice.) (Chillicothe Gazette-added by MP)


One of the younger liberals who is concerned about the implications of these "weird views" is Alan Highers of Memphis, Tenn. In his church bulletin of December 8, 1966 he compared statements of William S. Banowsky, preacher for the Broadway congregation in Lubbock, Texas, with statements made by Ben M. Bogard. He also wrote in the Gospel Advocate last July that we are drifting and said, "If we had been told a few years ago that there would be preachers within the church who would . . . weave nebulous and far-fetched theories on the work of the Holy Spirit we would not have believed it!"

Another liberal preacher from Tulsa, Oklahoma is exercised over the matter. He is Brother Delmar Owens. In the Firm Foundation, Vol. 83, No. 26 he writes: "I have heard some statements concerning the present work of the Holy Spirit which have alarmed me, and while I do not question the sincerity of those making the statements, I must question the conclusions they have reached. I am wondering how long it will be before some will be speaking in tongues, and practicing miraculous divine healing." Brother Owens' fears have since become a reality for on the West Coast some of the preachers are accepting the "glossolalia" or "tong4 speaking." In Stillwater, Oklahoma, some connected with the "church Bible Chair" reported the following. During a four day seminar that dealt with the 'fine art of conducting a successful Bible Chair evangelistic effort there 'were certain portions of the gatherings set side as "testimonial sessions." One young boy "testified" that he was critically ill and prayed all night to live. Three days later he was released, according to his "testimonial," and since has converted several people to Christ.

As one views the controversy among the liberals it seems very clear that the older preachers who have faced the battle with Calvinists and have tested their teaching in the crucible of controversy are the ones who stand opposed (dare we call it "anti"?) to the younger set of preachers. Brother Jimmy Allen is a very outspoken advocate of the "separate from the word indwelling of the Holy Spirit." Brother William S. Banowsky is another such preacher today. Allen is on record with the following statement, made at a "Herald of Truth Workshop" some time ago: "And Paul said, 'By one spirit are we all baptized into one body.' Now that may mean the spirit operating through the scriptures leads people to be baptized. But it may mean the spirit operating in God's people leads others to be baptized. And the latter interpretation certainly is scriptural. It is not a violation of the teachings of the Bible. I am saying that God has chosen us through whom to reveal Himself to others; and if we want other people to know God they are going to have to know something about us."

It is not the purpose of this article to go into the implications of such unscriptural statements, but I must digress from my purpose momentarily to inject just here the thought that Allen evidences his lack of knowledge of Biblical teaching and respect for what he must know is truth. There is but one way to know God - through the revealed word. I speak of the knowledge of God's mind and will. If the Spirit "through us," or "operating in God's people leads" today, and if knowledge of God may come as God "reveals himself to others through us," then we equate ourselves with the Apostles and arrogate to ourselves apostolic authority. In the New Testament times such were called "liars" (Rev. 2:2).

The issue is a clear-cut issue. The Holy Spirit dwells in Christians, to this both sides agree. The liberal group feels that in ways beyond explanation, but from and apart from the revealed word of God, the Spirit dwells in Christians in order to assist them in living the Christian life. The older preachers deny it. In later articles, such will be documented from the leading writers of this new "weird view" that is affirmed to be a "doctrinal defection." Also, a later article will endeavor to delve into the reasons for such views being advocated within our own era of time. But for this part of the series, I have tried to simply show from the writings of the principals involved in this controversy, how important they deem the issue to be and just what the issue is.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XI: 8, pp. 15-17
May 1967

The Lord's Chruch and Denominationalism



We often hear the term "denominationalism" as it relates to various religions in today’s world. Every city has differing churches, with differing names. Denominational churches wear the name, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. Some worthy questions to consider are:

Did God authorize denominationalism?
Did God found any of these religions?
Did God found them all, or did He build only His church?

In this article, we will discuss the concept of denominationalism, then look at some distinguishing characteristics of the Lord's Church. In next month's issue, we will look at several characteristics of denominations and arrive at a conclusion.

The Concept
To help us understand the concept of denominationalism, we consider a one-dollar bill and the different denominations--penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and half-dollar--of coins that make up the dollar. In the right combinations, these coins result in a complete dollar, which is the total, or whole. In the denominational world, many people view the different "faiths" as fractions of the whole, with the whole being what they often call the "Christian religion," or "Christendom."

The Lord's Church
The Lord's church is very different from any denominational church. As each denominational church is distinct, so is the Lord's church. Hence, if any church’s founder and name, beginning time and place, doctrine and practice, and organizational structure differs from the church described in the New Testament, it follows that that church can NOT be the Lord's church. Please consider the following:

The Lord's church has the right builder and head, and wears His name. Christ, and NOT man, built the Lord’s church. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "...upon this rock (that rock being Peter’s confession that Christ is God’s son; the rock was not Peter himself) I will build My church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Notice that Christ did not promise to build His CHURCHES or DENOMINATIONS.

The Lord's church (in the universal sense) was purchased with the Lord’s blood (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25). Hence, the Lord’s church belongs to Him, and it is HE Who adds to it (Acts 2:47).

In Romans 16:16, when Paul used the term "churches of Christ," he referred to congregations of the Lord's church (NOT to denominations). He denoted a plurality of local congregations of believers who belong to the Lord. Christ is the head of the church, which is His body (Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18). Therefore, to be part of the Lord's church or body, we must submit to Christ’s authority and wear Christ’s name. (See Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16; 2 Timothy 2:19.) Christ received "...all power (authority-ASV) ...in heaven and in earth..." (Matthew 28:18) That leaves none for any man.

The Lord's Church began at the right time and place. In Mark 9:1, Jesus promised that the Kingdom would come "with power" during the lifetime of the apostles. In Luke 24:47, He said that "repentance and remission of sins" would be preached in His name, beginning at Jerusalem.

In Acts 2, we read that the Apostles, being filled with the Holy Ghost (the promised power), preached "repentance and remission of sins" to the Jews assembled in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection and accession. In Acts 2:41 we read: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day were added unto them about three thousand souls." But, to what were they added? Verse 47 tells us the Lord added the saved (the baptized believers, Cf. vs. 38) to the church. We have no record of anyone being added to the Lord's church prior to this day--the FIRST Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection. Therefore, we can know that the Lord's church had its beginning, at Jerusalem, on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection.

The Lord's church has the right doctrine and practice. The first-century church was instructed to abide in the doctrine revealed by the apostles. John, in 1 John 1, spoke of the things they (the apostles) declared. In order to have fellowship with the apostles, the Father, and His son Jesus Christ, we must obey and abide in God’s revealed (declared) will. When we do this, we "walk in the light." (1 John 1:7)

In 2 John 9-11, John wrote of the importance of abiding (staying) in the "doctrine of Christ." Contrary to what many in the religious world believe, abiding in His doctrine means living according to His commandments (1 John 2:3), not simply accepting the fact that Jesus came in the flesh. Walking in the light necessitates believing the divinely revealed and recorded facts and obeying God’s commands. Therefore, the Lord's church teaches, and abides in, the divine facts and commands, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (Matthew 28:20)

The Lord's church of the first century engaged in evangelism--sounding out the word by sending and supporting preachers who taught the gospel to the lost. They proclaimed the proper admission terms and practices, resulting in believers being added to His church. When we carefully study the conversions in Acts, it becomes evident that during the first century, the gospel had to be preached so sinners could be brought to Godly sorrow (Acts 2:1-37; Romans 10:17). How many sermons do you hear that make you feel sorrow for causing Jesus' brutal death????? (MP)

Penitent sinners heard and gladly received, or believed, the gospel message and placed their faith in Christ (Acts 2:47; Romans 10:17);
Sinners were told to repent of their sins (Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Colossians 3:1-7);
Sinners were told to confess their faith in Christ before men (Acts 8:37; Romans 10:10); and
Sinners were told to be baptized in the name (by the authority) of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16) "for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38; 22:16. See also Acts 8:26-39; 10:48; 16:14, 15; 16:30-33; 19:1-5)
The Lord's church of the first century engaged in worship to God that was "in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24) They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." (Acts 2:42) Briefly, this involved:

Commemorating the Lord's death on the first day of the (every) week (Acts 2:24; 20:7);
Singing praises to God (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16);
Giving, according to individual prosperity, of their means--laying by in store--on the first day of the (every) week (1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 8:6,7);
Praying (Acts 2:42);
Preaching, teaching, and abiding in the doctrine of Christ and His apostles (Act 2:42; 20:7; 2 John 9-11).
The first-century church was involved in edification:

Building up the membership’s knowledge level of "the faith which was once delivered." (Jude 3)
Warning the saints to "abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul." (Ephesians 4:11-13; Acts 20:32; 1 Corinthians 6-10; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Peter 2:11)
In the first-century, the Lord’s church did the work of benevolence--helping needy saints, and only needy saints (Acts 2:44,45; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1,2; 1 Timothy 5:16).

In the first century, the Lord's church was commanded to discipline disorderly members.

In Paul's letter to the saints in Thessalonica, he wrote, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." (2 Thessalonians 6,7,11)
Further, Paul commanded the Corinthian brethren "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" to “put away” the brother involved in an incestuous relationship (1 Corinthians 5). Paul used the concept of "leaven" to illustrate that ignoring sinful conduct of this type would result in the pollution of the other members, and the local church as a whole.Hence, to avoid having their candlesticks removed (Revelation 2:5), congregations that claim to be part of the Lord's church must discipline wayward members as directed by the Lord.

The Lord's church has the right organizational structure. In the universal sense, the Lord's church is not organized. The universal church is the body of all the saved or "called out." Christ built, loved, purchased, and sanctified it. We are baptized into the universal church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27).

Local churches, or congregations, are composed of brethren, or saints (believers). The local church at Philippi was Scripturally organized. It was composed of:

Bishops (a plurality of elders who meet the divine qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7),
Deacons (servants who meet the divine qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:7-13), and
Saints. (Philippians 1:1)
Each local congregation was autonomous (self-governing in congregational affairs, but governed by the Lord in doctrine and practice) and overseen by the elders that were among them (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). First-century congregations did not report to, nor were they governed by, any one man or governing board of men. Each congregation was overseen by its own elders.

Brother McClure has shown us the plain pattern for the New Testament church. Any one who has an honest heart can, by searching the Scriptures, locate and understand this pattern. Next month, we will conclude this first-principles article concerning the identity of the Lord’s church and how it differs from denominationalism. (KMG)

By Glendol McClure
http://www.knollwoodchurch.org/yr2006/d04_church1.html

Some 45 years ago, our brethren became embroiled in the greatest battle of the 20th century—the battle over institutionalism and centralized control of churches. The same basic arguments used to justify the establishment of the Christian Missionary Society, which began in 1849, came back into use to defend unscriptural cooperation, among local churches, to support human institutions, such as the Herald of Truth Radio and Television program and various benevolent organizations. Such institutions had become “sacred cows” to many brethren, and they were willing to go so far as to divide the body of Christ in order to have them. And they did!

Institutionalism is a concept of denominationalism. Let us consider a case in point. Back in the mid 1970s, brother Bob Vizenat and I teamed up to take a ten-day trip to Haiti, not knowing whether or not a “church of Christ” even existed in that land. One day, during a conversation with some of the people in the hotel where we were staying, they asked what our business was in Haiti. We simply replied that we were preachers of the gospel of Christ and had come to Haiti prepared to preach whenever and wherever opportunity presented itself. Then, with confused expressions on their faces they asked: “where is your mission.” We responded that we had no “mission” in the sense to which they referred, but that we were simply preachers of the gospel and that when we preached, if some obeyed, the result could be the establishment of a church of our Lord. But we could tell this did not satisfy their curiosity. To them, this was a very odd situation. Here were people, most of whom were from the U.S., who were perplexed because we had come all this way from the U.S. into a foreign country as preachers and were not working toward the establishment of a school, orphanage, hospital, etc. You see, a number of denominational preachers had entered Haiti as “missionaries” and had begun immediately to build some kind of human institution that became their “mission.” And, by the way, this is how the term “missionary” came into use. Now, many of our own brethren have begun using the term to refer to a preacher who is preaching in a distant land. It is my candid view that we need to give the term back to the denominations from whence it came. It certainly did not come from the Bible, and neither did its concept. Brethren, this is just one of the unpaid bills we owe to denominationalism. If not, why not?

When any denomination establishes a hospital, school, etc., that human institution becomes the denomination’s “sacred cow.” Then, they set out, with all the resources at their disposal, to defend and protect their “sacred cow.” Thus, a human institution becomes an idol. Especially, is this true if the institution is a school. And, the one who enrolls in such a school soon begins to feel a sense of loyalty to that school, even to the point of being defensive about it, particularly if he thinks having attended such a school might enhance his vocation.

Today, our battle is over what we choose to call “Neo-institutionalism.” Think about it. Some brethren are pushing for many unscriptural practices—unscriptural divorces and remarriages, homosexuality, gambling, social drinking, abortions, etc.—for which they seek justification in Romans 14. Why? Take a good look at the religious world at large—they have been debating and discussing these subjects for decades. Some, in an effort to be more “mainstream” in their thinking, have even softened their stands against some of these things. Are we so blind as to think that such thinking does not spill over into the minds of many brethren?

Many of our brethren who have jumped on the bandwagon for such an erroneous use of Romans 14 are, in some way, associated with Florida College in Tampa, Florida. Yes, I am well aware that it is a “cardinal sin” to say anything negative about Florida College! Sadly, to many, this school has become a “sacred cow.” Brethren, such as Bob Owens, Harry Pickup Jr., and Ed Harrell, have, over the past decade, been rather vocal in their defense of the late brother Homer Hailey. Brother Harrell, whose series of articles is well known, contended that we should accept brother Hailey into our fellowship, despite his erroneous teaching on the marriage-and-divorce question.

Let me say that I loved and respected brother Hailey for his great knowledge of the Old Testament prophets and the good work he did during his lifetime. Yet, in his later years He wrote a book promoting the position that the alien, before he becomes a child of God, is not subject to the law of Christ as it pertains to divorce and remarriage. The danger in such thinking is that no matter how many times a person has been divorced and remarried, his baptism washes away all those previous marriages, along with the adulterous one in which he may now be involved! Should such teaching go unchallenged? Even those who defended brother Hailey, did not agree with his position. But you see, brother Hailey taught at Abilene Christian College (now ACU) for twelve years. Then for over two decades, he headed the Bible department at Florida College. Sadly, many of those associated with the college felt the need to defend this giant of the past. Brother Bob Owens was president of the college for many years. Brother Ed Harrell was a very good friend. Can you see how the “neo-institutionalism” is involved here? Consider just how many churches of Christ “our schools” have influenced through the years.

Please remember that it is a matter of recorded history that the schools operated by our brethren all through this time have, for the most part, begun as what faithful brethren believed to be beneficial organizations, that are right and scriptural, for educating our youth. And, we applaud whatever honesty, conviction, and interest in the education of young men and women they may have had. But, friends, can we not see that even though such colleges began separate from the church, in almost every case, presumably without fail, they have ultimately come to infringe on the work of local churches, or otherwise influenced the thinking and direction that such churches take on vital issues? Here, one might be ready to exclaim: “Perhaps so, but just look at the influence the papers have had on the churches through the years!” I would be the first to agree. If any of the papers are guilty of this, I would have the same concerns about them! But this consideration does not justify either the papers or the schools; nor do I believe that papers can be placed on a level with the schools.

Mark it down, brethren, in many places, as the schools go, so goes the church. How many times do the Lord’s people have to go down this road before we learn our lesson? We should learn from past history. Think of the apostasies of the past. Our brethren 150 years ago suffered a major apostasy involving the Missionary Society—Institutionalism. Fifty years ago, another apostasy occurred over the Herald of Truth and benevolent organizations—institutionalism. Now, the matter with which we are concerned at this time—neo-institutionalism—rears its ugly head as a threat. Must we learn another lesson the hard way, instead of examining the mistakes of the past?

The same attitude the denominational churches held toward Bible authority for “their“ institutions was observed among those who pushed for “our” human institutions. They were like Israel of old who desired to have a king so they could be like the other nations. “And said to him, Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations…Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” {1 Samuel 8:5,19,20} The difference. Our brethren wanted these human institutions so they could be like the denominations about us.

Now, a vast number of “churches of Christ” have become just like the denominational churches. One such church is the Fifth & Highland Church in Abilene, TX, which, back in the 1950s, became home to the Herald of Truth. Recently, via e-mail, I learned that the religious section of the October 2, 1999 issue of the Abilene Reporter News contained an announcement that on Tuesday night (10-05-99), the Fifth & Highland church would show the video “Walk to Emmaus,” and that “the remainder of the meeting would include singing, preaching, and communion.” You read it right, communion on Tuesday evening! Brother Michael Light, the preacher for the Bangs Church of Christ, attended the service and obtained a video copy. The service also included a full-blown band on stage, an all-woman quartet, hand clapping, and hands raised in the air, with arms and bodies swaying back and forth. Brother Light said that Eddie Sharp, preacher for the University Church, read from a book supplied with the video, and then the audience responded from the book—just like many denominations. He said the gist of the remainder of Eddie Sharp’s speech to these “Emmaus walkers” was that church, religious heritage, and tradition do not matter. In essence, you can be a member of a denomination, and that is acceptable in God’s eyes. “Just allow Jesus to lead you to a church that is right for you.”

Sadly, in the recent past, many of the Lord’s people have followed similar courses. Let me remind you that human institutions are responsible for much of this. When will our brethren learn better? It is time for us to realize that there in no orphanage, school, hospital, or any other human institution that is more important than the one for which the Lord died. (Acts 20:28)

Brother Robert F. Turner wrote a series of articles in the Preceptor Magazine, Vol.11, April, May, June, July, September, and October, 1962, in which he gave a history of educational institutions among our own brethren. I would urge those who read this article to go back and examine that series. It is later than we think! Furthermore, it has gotten to where a young man today who aspires to preach the gospel of Christ is expected to enroll in Florida College; else, he will be made to feel that he is an outsider looking in. Remember, it is the local church’s business to make preachers—not some human institution, such as Florida College. The college must never supersede the church. Brother Turner concluded that series of articles with these words: “And finally, we must love the Lord and His church enough that when we see the school encroach upon and overshadow the Lord’s own institution, we will renounce the school rather than seek to change the church so that the contradiction can be removed. If loving the Lord and His church more than I love the school is a crime, then I must plead guilty.” {Preceptor, Volume 11, October 1962}

by Truman Smith
http://www.knollwoodchurch.org/yr2001/l06_neo_inst.html

It serves no purpose for anyone to cry “sour grapes.” But we believe we can now see what brother Daniel Sommer objected to way back in the late 1800 and 1900s. It’s time for us to learn from past history! (Edited—KMG)