A New Standard Of Faithfulness
The word "faithfulness" is defined as being "firm in adherence to promises, oaths, contracts, treaties, etc."; or being "true and constant in affection or allegiance to a person or thing." It is in the later sense that the term is most commonly used in the New Testament. Paul addressed the "faithful brethren in Christ" (Col. 1:2) and he spake of "faithful men." (II Tim. 2:2.) John was caused to write "be thou faithful unto death." (Rev. 2:10.) In these references and many others the term "faithful" has reference to our being "true and constant in affection or allegiance to Christ." To be faithful to Christ requires that one live in obedience to his every command. For a congregation to be a "faithful congregation" requires that she carry on her work and worship in accordance with the Lord's will.
The New Testament is the standard by which faithfulness is to be determined. However, from some of the things I am reading and hearing, I cannot help but recognize that a standard other than the New Testament is being used among brethren of today. It is our purpose to cite a few examples of the same.
In the special issue of The Firm Foundation (?), concerning the churches of Christ in Lubbock, April 24, 1956; page 262, Brother H. E. Showalter states, "There are 13 faithful congregations which are served by 17 full time preachers." Yet, to my knowledge there was another congregation in Lubbock that was several months old. She believes in preaching and practicing pure religion and giving a "thus saith the Lord" for all that she does. Brother Seidmeyer and others of the institutional crowd in Lubbock charge that the new congregation is a "faction" and accuse them of being in rebellion to the elders of another congregation in the city of Lubbock. According to the evidence they have thus far produced it is quite evident that the charge is unfounded, and that the real reason for the charge is that the brethren who formed the congregation believe in the "all-sufficiency" of the scriptures and the "all-sufficiency" of the church to carry on her God ordained work.
That the above is true can be seen from the following example. A group of the brethren at the Vandelia Village congregation in Lubbock, spearheaded by their preacher, actually rebelled and forced a group of godly elders to resign. The entire affair was one of the most shameful, ungodly affairs that this writer has had occasion to know about or listen to. They now have a board of deacons managing the affairs of the congregation. Brother Bob Hoover, who preaches for the congregation, is on tape recording advocating majority rule in the church of the Lord. He declared that elders have "no right to exercise discipline without the majority of the congregation gives its consent." They charged the elders with "Lording it over the congregation" and gave as proof the fact that the elders did not see fit to contribute to the "Lubbock Bible Forum" which was sponsored by the Pioneer Park congregation. Brother Seidmeyer and the other "institutional" brethren in Lubbock are standing four-square behind the Vandelia Village congregation and list her as one of the faithful thirteen. The Vandelia Village congregation and her preacher are "institutional" and "sponsoring church" minded. Could that be what determines her faithfulness in the eyes of Brother Seidmeyer and others in Lubbock ?
A few weeks ago, a brother in the congregation in Morton stood before the men of the congregation and said: "This has always been a faithful congregation." He then gave proof that "we have always supported the orphan homes and cooperated with sister congregations." Does the supporting of "orphan homes" and contributing to a "sponsoring" church determine the faithfulness of a congregation? If a congregation believes in and practices; (1) The care of its indigent; (2) Preaching the gospel to the lost; (3) And in edifying its members, is it not a faithful congregation? Must a congregation be a donor to some "institutional home" or "brotherhood project" to be a faithful congregation? Or does faithfulness depend on who keeps the building when trouble arises in a congregation?
The following item sets forth in clear fashion how faithfulness is determined in the Lubbock area. A clipping from the local paper tells of the selection of a Morton man as a member of the "Advisory Board" of the New Lubbock Christian College. The announcement was released by O. T. Shipp, Jr., and quoted him as saying that all the members of the board had "been carefully screened prior to appointment . . . . a primary requirement being that each man must be a faithful member of the Church of Christ." (end of quote.) The man referred to in the article has been withdrawn from by the congregation in Morton because of a long, proven record of trouble-making in the congregation in Morton. A copy of the withdrawal statement had been sent to the elders of the surrounding congregations and had also appeared in the Gospel Guardian. (I suppose the infallible editors of the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation forgot to publish it in their papers. I know that the elders sent them a copy of the same and requested publication.)
Such an action on the part of the institutional minded brethren is but to say that the elders of the congregation here are not faithful stewards. I ask again, "Could the difference be in the fact that the elders here are not "institutionally" minded and refuse to contribute to a "sponsoring" church? Surely these brethren will not claim that they are superior to the brethren here, and that they know more about the situation than a group of God fearing men who live here and serve the congregation.
Just what kind of "screen" is being used to determine the "faithfulness" of a congregation or an individual? It is quite evident that the "mesh" is not that of the Word of God. It is quite evident to many that "faithfulness" in this area is determined by "true and constant affection or allegiance" to the "institutional" and "sponsoring" church brethren in Lubbock.