Why I Became an “Anti”

(Part One)

By Hubert C. Wilson (Deceased)

I use the term "Anti" because that is what the "Liberal" churches of Christ call us. All of my life, up until a few months ago, I had been so prejudiced against the "Antis" (mostly by what I had always heard) that I had never taken the time or trouble to find out the truth on the issues which cause us to be labeled "Anti."

I have always been "Anti" sin and this has caused me to encounter a lot of problems over the past 30 years. A few examples of these problems are: Putting men in as Eld­ers who do not meet the qualifications; using unfaithful members in any public part of the worship (class teaching, leading sing­ing, leading prayers, waiting on the table etc.); worldliness running rampant in the church: failure to exercise discipline in the church. I have not changed on these things. They are sin and I still oppose sin in every form.

There are some things on which I have changed. Since the term "Anti" simply means against, I am now "Anti" a number of things I once believed and supported. Ex­ample: Church Supported Human Institu­tions; The Sponsoring Church Concept of Co­operation; "Watered down" Preaching which embraces, wholly, the Social Gospel Con­cept; A lack of respect for Complete Bible Authority on Everything. This is all a "package deal" which summarizes liberal­ism. This liberalism is a movement which parallels the movement shortly before the turn of the [20^th] century that produced the Christian Church. There are many symptoms of the one disease which is a lack of re­spect for Bible authority.

It is never easy to change one’s convic­tions, and yet I had no choice (if you have an honest heart) when, after several weeks of concentrated study on these issues, I came to a full knowledge of the truth. I had really never given this mat­ter serious study but had always gone along with these issues because many of the "well known" preach­ers in the church had sup­ported them and said it was right. One of these issues is a very emotional one, "The Children's Homes." I know because I used to be Executive Vice President of one and quit because I could not sanction so many prac­tices of deception on gullible church mem­bers. As I stated ear­lier in this article, I was prejudiced against the "Antis" because of what I had heard, for in almost every case when the "Anti" breth­ren are mentioned, the first thing you hear is "They don't believe in taking care of or­phans." This one statement is so geared to prejudice brethren's minds that an honest hearing will not be given on this or any other issue. This is why "Liberalism" has mushroomed in our day. Many practices of the “Liberal" church have gotten a strong­hold as a result of prejudice against the “Antis" on this one is­sue.

The more I preached and worshipped with "Liberal” churches, the more I realized they would not endure plain preaching or in Bible language, "Sound Doctrine." As a re­sult, I quit preaching 3 times because I could not preach on unqualified Elders, worldliness, dancing, immodest apparel, un­faithful members, forsaking the assembly, social drinking and many other things with­out hurting people’s feelings and being ac­cused of "preaching too hard." I had always gone back to preaching again because I still believed that people needed God's Word re­gardless of the fact that they did not want all of it. (I hope and pray once again to en­ter full-time preaching now that I have left the Liberal Church). It was becoming so in­creasingly limited as to what one could preach (or even teach as a non-preaching member) that I was searching the Word of God to see if maybe I was wrong. This caused me to be in the frame of mind to be receptive to someone else and at least to study with them. I knew that something was wrong but still had not associated the "Liberal" movement with the "softness" I was fighting.

(To be continued next week)

Why "Liberal" and "Conservative" Churches of Christ?

By Robert Harkrider

During the past three decades many have asked this question. Some sin­cere brethren who have been caught up in one stream or another never fully understood; and many who were too young before have now grown to adulthood wondering why. It is therefore a good ques­tion worthy of repeated investi­gation. La­bels of "liberal" and "institutional,^” versus "anti" and "conservative," have been used by some as a prejudicial tool to halt further investigation. Labels used as preju­dicial clubs are to be condemned; yet the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are proper when used as adjectives to describe a dif­ference in attitude toward Bible author­ity, and consequently, a difference in prac­tices. As the years go by, the attitude under­lying the division becomes more apparent. We are not separated because one group be­lieves in benevolence and the other does not, nor because of jealousy and envy. We have divided over a basic attitude toward the Bible. A liberal attitude justifies any ac­tivity that seems to be a “good work" under the concept, "We do a lot of things for which we have no Bible authority." A conservative attitude makes a plea to have Bible author­ity (either generic or specific) for all we do - therefore refraining from involving the church in activities [that are] alien to that of the church in the New Testament.

Briefly, the walls of innovations which have divided us are built in three areas:

WHO? Who is to do the work of the church? The church? Or a human institu­tion? The church has a God-given work to do, and the Lord made the church sufficient to do its own work. Within the framework of elders and deacons, a local church is the only organization necessary to fulfill its mis­sion of evangelism, edification and benevo­lence (Eph. 3:10-11; 4:11-16; I Tim. 3:15). However, a wedge was driven when some began to reason that the church may build and maintain a separate institution - a dif­ferent WHO to do the work of the church. This separate institution is human in origin and control. It is not a church nor governed by the church - yet it receives financial maintenance from the church. Human insti­tutions so arranged (such as benevolent homes, hospitals, colleges or missionary so­cieties) may be doing a "good work." But when they become leeches on the church, they deny its independence and all suffi­ciency and make a "fund-raising house" of God's church.

HOW? How is the work of the church to be overseen? On a local basis with sepa­rate, autonomous congregations? Or may several local churches work as a unit through a sponsoring eldership? The or­ganization of the New Testament church was local in nature, with elders limited to oversight of the work of the flock among them (Acts 14:23; 20:28; I Peter 5:2). We are divided by those who promote "brotherhood works" through a plan of in­tercongregational effort with centralized oversight - an unscriptural HOW.

WHAT? What is the mission of the church? Spiritual, or also social? It is in this area that the loose attitude toward the Scriptures is becoming more apparent. Though whole­some activities are needed for all, the Lord died for a higher and holier mission than food, fun, and frolic. Let the church be free to spend its energy and resources in spiri­tual purposes (I Pet. 2:5; Rom. 14:17) and let the home be busy in providing social needs (1 Cor. 11:22, 34). &