Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 19
June 15, 1967
NUMBER 7, PAGE 12b

The "Anti" In Antioch

Robert F. Turner

The sweet-spirited Gospel Advocate of April 27, '67, carried an article by Basil Overton offering to erect highly prejudicial signs on the property of all who oppose human institutions to do the work of the church. They were of the "Fertilizer Vs. Poor Starving Orphans" variety, and wouldn't cost us a cent. Isn't that nice of them.

I would say it is about normal for the course. Not content with brotherhood (church-hood) evangelistic institutions, personal-work institutions, hospitals, fishing camps, homes for un-wed mothers, advertising, etc., now they want to organize a Churchhood Sign-Painting Institution. Basil says, "One elder has said he will give $500.00 for such a 'sign fund'." —

Experience teaches it is a lot easier to get elders to "donate" to some church-hood institution than it is to get them to do what Paul told them to do if they felt error was present. The very passage with which Basil begins his tirade destroys his article. "The bishop must be — holding to the faithful word which according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict te gainsayer."

If Basil or his contributing elder could give Bible authority for their church-hood adjuncts and institutions they would not have to organize another church-hood project to cover their weakness with prejudicial smoke.

The writer's defense (?) for his social projects is "good works." Yet, he acknowledges that we individually help orphans and needy non-saints. It follows then, that we do "good works" and that the issue IS NOT the "good works" themselves, in their place and properly supported; but our objection is to churches acting collectively, through the media of "sponsoring churches" "Campaigns, Incorporated" or any other human society.

And if "good works" unqualified is authority for church action, Basil may like to tell us how he proposes to keep politics, physical culture, and boll-weevil research out of the church budget. (The front page article of this same G.A. , warns about "the social center view of the church, believing that its primary function is to minister to the social needs of the world.") It is a fact that this "good works" appeal has already smothered many liberal churches in worldliness.

Basil concludes, "As far as the writer has been able to determine, the nearest thing in the Bible to an "anti" church is Antioch!" He must have worked hard to find this, and I take it this is a fair sample of the type of Bible scholarship that produces plans for a Church-hood Sign-Painting Institution.

It is such irresponsible "Bible study" that produces such articles. He assumes, pure and simple, that all who oppose his church-hood schemes fit the Cretan characteristics of Titus 1: while totally ignoring Paul's admonition to prove such by "the faithful word." 1 Pet. 5:1-3; Acts 14:23; etc., prove congregational independence. To what scripture will he go for collective action of churches? How sad that he can not align Antioch or any other N. T. church on his side of the issue.