What Does the Future Hold?
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword, 2002
David R. Pharr

Our gracious editor has invited us to address the subject from our personal experience and observation, including information about our own life and work. Though we hold that the Scriptures are the only authority, it is certain that how we evaluate things, what are our expectations and concerns, what we feel most needs to be addressed: that all is affected by our own backgrounds and experiences. This is especially the case in considering what we foresee for the future of the church.

Beginnings

In the days of my youth churches of Christ were hardly known in the Carolinas. Our family were Methodists and I was christened into that denomination. Religious participation was not always a priority in the early years, but at about the time I reached adolescence a tragedy in my mother’s family brought us to greater concern for the soul. We continued with a nominal membership at First Methodist, but many Sundays were spent with the Nazarenes, being greatly impressed by the zeal and piety we found among them.

It was during this time that the late V. C. Walter, a dedicated Christian, moved his family to a house only a block from our own. The families soon established a lifelong friendship. There was no church of Christ meeting in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, and brother Walter immediately began working to teach and to establish a congregation. At first his family went to other cities for worship and eventually invited the Pharrs to go with them to Statesville, where a new congregation was meeting in the American Legion building. The first true gospel preacher I ever heard was the late Burrell Prince. I later learned that he was one of three full-time preachers in the entire state at that time. The other two were O. P. Baird and C. W. Bradley.

Soon a small group began meeting in a rented facility in Wilkesboro and my mother’s ongoing search of the Scriptures led her to gospel obedience. In time the rest of the family followed. Memories of early years in the church are good. We met in rented buildings. Much of the established religious community held our faith and practice in contempt. But we had a close fellowship and were confident in the truth.

Special mention is due our mother, who was the spiritual leader of the family. It meant a compete break with her spiritual past, but when she learned the truth she obeyed it, and never faltered from loyalty to it. Mother passed away last July. A happy incident not long before her death demonstrated her zeal for the truth. Among other infirmities, she suffered from poor eyesight in later years and became unable to read. A thoughtful friend in the facility where she lived offered to read the Bible to her each evening. His kindness was consistent with his own dedication as a member of the one of the mainline denominations. As he would come to read, Mother would suggest certain passages and after they were read she would ask questions and suggest conclusions. In due time, only a few weeks before she died, she rejoiced that this friend was himself converted.

I am not sure when I decided to give my life to preaching. My younger brother, Claude and I just assumed this ought to be our work. Religious error was everywhere. We had been given the truth. We loved the church. God’s grace had brought us into it. What else could we do? (Claude is a faithful and effective minister with the South Fork Church of Christ in Winston-Salem. Our mother’s legacy continues with two grandsons who are full-time preachers, another grandson who is an elder, and another who is active in teaching classes.)

Philosophical Background

Preachers who influenced me in my youth were conservative in their emphasis on the biblical pattern. There was no point to the struggles of the scattered small congregations unless it really mattered whether we followed the ancient order. Most of the time there was no full-time preacher. Men of the congregation and helpers from other places provided the weekly instruction. All were not polished and there were occasional misapplications, but there was faithful commitment to the principles of restored New Testament Christianity. This was in the 1950s, in the days of hot controversy over orphan homes and cooperation. Many in our area “leaned” toward the anti positions.

I have often said–I’m biased–that the years I spent at Freed-Hardeman College were the school’s finest years. Another writer will recall some of the teachers of that era, but I cannot overlook the influence they had in shaping my philosophy regarding the Scriptures and the church. G. K. Wallace, for one, was a fearless defender of the truth against every error, but he also emphasized the pitfalls of extremes, the danger of rushing to judgment before all facts are known, the importance of liberty in matters of opinion, and the necessity of revision and change when things are better understood.

Mention also should be made of the beloved Franklin Camp. Few men ever matched his hunger for personal and impartial investigation of God’s word. Much was learned from the way he could analyze subjects and texts, but perhaps of more value was his graciousness in allowing for others to disagree. It was not in him to compromise on divinely established principles, but he recognized that there were areas of difficulty where honest men would have differences.

Every person is to some degree the product of his life experiences. This includes the influence of some remembered and many forgotten. The late Howard Winters used to say, “I have a very high opinion of my opinions! I think I am right on every point.” There is truth in that for all of us. I believe that my views, including my concerns over the future of the church, are in complete harmony with the Bible. It cannot be ignored, however, that our past must affect our outlook for the future. What is my philosophical background? At times I think I have a conservative mind in a liberal heart.

The Future

Paul explained his reason for continuing in Ephesus: “For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries” (I Cor. 16:9). For us the future holds both opportunity and opposition. Centrifugal and centripetal forces are always at work. There are foes both within and without. Yet there are great opportunities and we can be confident that bold and capable men will continue to be “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17).

Liberalism

“Liberalism” means different things in different contexts. Some have seen it in the use of individual communion cups, others in “eating in the church,” and others in the support of orphan homes. In broader theological applications it is the abandonment even of faith in God. As regards obvious current trends among churches of Christ, however, it applies to teaching and practices which are not in harmony with the New Testament pattern for the church. Indeed, some insist that there is no pattern. Whereas at one time our brotherhood seemed unwaveringly committed to book, chapter and verse authority, there is a growing trend to adopt and accept whatever seems good, or seems to be effective, or especially what can be copied from other groups, whether authorized or not.

An esteemed older preacher, who is also a well-known educator, confided that from what he was seeing over the brotherhood, a great many congregations and most of the schools are going to abandon the principles upon which we have stood. A hundred years ago the same kind of liberalism resulted in the apostasy of many and the formation of the Disciples denomination. It seems more than likely that many others will follow a like course. The result will be a separate “brotherhood.” There will be churches of Christ after the ancient order and “Churches of Christ” after the modern order.  In some cases our evangelistic approach to people affiliated with the liberal brotherhood will have to be the same as our responsibility to the other sects. They will need to be converted to biblical Christianity.

Radicalism

Radical positions such as held by the anti-orphan home and anti-cooperation group have generally nullified their influence because of their extremes. People who reverence the Scriptures want to avoid error of any kind, but most soon discover that some things are being opposed for reasons other than what the Bible really teaches.  We mean no offense to sincere people in the anti movement, but the reality is that their fellowship is “dying on the vine,” and many of their people may be wishing they had not been so hasty to draw lines.

Some years ago the late Bobby Duncan wrote of his concern over the rise of a “new anti-ism.” It does seem at times that there is a mind set that is against almost anything that seems different or almost anybody that is not in the right clique. All change is not bad. Love for the progress of the kingdom should be open to any scriptural innovation, even if it is different from “the way we have always done it.” Caution is good, but an inordinate spirit of suspicion draws unnecessary lines and hurts good causes.

Franklin Camp often warned of the dangers of what he called “liberalism, radicalism and uglism.” We fear an ugly spirit that is too quick to draw lines of fellowship and to attack reputations. This was the temper of Diotrephes (III Jn. 9-10). If we may describe him with modern references, he wanted to be a “big preacher” in the brotherhood. He boasted a reputation as one who stood his ground. His method was to circulate hard words against those who were unwelcome in his circle. He kept a list of brethren he considered unacceptable and spread abroad his charges against them. Any who dared associate with the ones he opposed were assumed guilty by association and added to his index of forbidden fellowship.  If confronted over this ugly spirit, he might exploit Romans 16:17 and II John 9-11 to justify his actions and then explain in hateful tones that he was only acting out of love for souls!

Radicalism is wrong both because it is in itself wrong and because of the harm it engenders. Sensitive persons who suffer from over exposure to extremes and harshness among conservatives may turn to liberalism as a lesser evil. Little can be accomplished for the cause of Christ when brethren spend so much of their time investigating one another, informing on one another, and generally “straining at gnats.” As brother Camp also warned, “We can get so involved in defending the faith that we have no time left for preaching the gospel.”

Paul warned of the consequences of biting and devouring one another (Gal. 5:15). The fruits of suspicion, wrangling, personality attacks and intimidation will mean further splintering of the brotherhood. I do not want to be extreme in my own assessment, but I fear that there can be cliques which develop around particular schools, or certain journals, or leading preachers, or specific doctrinal issues.

Secularism

Whether we call it worldliness, immorality, unbelief or secularism, it is certain that powerful societal forces are at war against the church. There is growing consensus that accepts such premises as the following: the only allowable religious beliefs are those which are broad enough to accept all other religions; there is no absolute standard of right; the worst sin is the sin of condemning sin; the Bible has been proven antiquated and unreliable; life’s greatest good is to be found in the gadgets and pleasures of this world; science, not religion, is humanity’s only hope; and “fundamentalists” are ignorant, extreme and dangerous. People in churches of Christ read the papers, watch television and are exposed to the world’s philosophy at work and in their communities. Pressures are everywhere to soften our stand for truth and to compromise even on moral principles.  We can anticipate that many will “depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1).

Optimism and Prayer

Not long before his death I talked with Guy N. Woods about our concerns over directions some were taking. His advice was assuring, “Brother Pharr, don’t forget that there are still ‘seven thousand . . . that have not bowed unto Baal.’” There is yet a remnant in spiritual Israel and I am optimistic that there many churches and members will continue in the “old paths.” These are not the noise makers of the extreme left or right, but balanced and steadfast men and women of faith. As in Sardis, even where there is digression, there will be some who will hold to biblical convictions and will overcome (Rev. 3:4f).  We can give thanks that in spite of the departures of some academicians, there are still faithful teachers who are training faithful men (II Tim. 2:2). We know many younger men who are “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17). There are good reports of progress in foreign missions. The Lord’s name is being praised where caring brethren are involved in charitable works. The point is that our problems should not make us “weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:10).

My prayer is first of all that I personally will be true to the principles of apostolic faith, that my work will be effective in the spread and faithfulness of the kingdom, and that whether contending or converting I will have always the heart and demeanor of Christ. So also is my prayer for all of our people. And I am persuaded that countless brothers and sisters will allow God to so answer such a prayer in their own hearts and lives.

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword