Truth Magazine

By George Lemasters

Ever since the church was established, it has had to deal with those who advocated ideas that were contrary to the truth. Jesus warned about false prophets, who, having the character of ravening wolves, would present themselves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15-20). Their absolute identity would be demonstrated by the fruit they bore. In this he was saying that the vigilant disciple could know them for exactly what they were; and, knowing this, act accordingly.

The subject that has been assigned to me, therefore, is not new. It has to do with the role of elders in stopping the mouths of those who would introduce false teaching. It is an essential qualification of the elder that he be “apt to teach” truth and to “exhort in the sound doctrine,” but that he also be able to “convict the gainsayer.” In Titus this is followed by the explanation that “there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers . . . whose mouths must be stopped.” Further, the seriousness of the matter is seen in Paul’s language when he enjoined upon Timothy the constant preaching of the word. He reasoned that “the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside unto fables.” Brethren with this attitude are a fertile soil in which the false teacher can sow the seeds of his error. It is impossible to over estimate the subversive and soul damning effect that he can have, not only on those whose ears itched for something other than truth, but more so on those who would be the innocent and unsuspecting. How sobering, then, is the charge to the elders to shepherd the flock and to keep out such false teaching.

Before coming to deal with how to keep it out, it would seem prudent to learn something about the false teachers and how they and their error can infiltrate churches. Paul warned the Ephesian elders that “after his departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Moreover, Jude’s exhortation for brethren to contend for the faith was prompted by the fact that “certain men crept in privily.” Paul, likewise, speaking of the Judaizers defined them as “false brethren privily, brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have’ in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4).

From this, let elders and others as well learn two things. First, that not all false teaching comes from without. All too frequently it comes from within the church. And, what is even more dangerous, it comes from those whom we would most likely expect to cleave to the truth rather than pervert it. (Learn well that no man is immune to being led astray by the devil.) Second, take note that it comes in privily. The false teacher will never present himself at the door of the church, introduce himself and announce his intention to subvert and divide. Error does not play according to the rules of fairness. Rather, it is insidious, deceitful and treacherous; using whatever subversive and underhanded means that may be at its disposal.

By the time that this is in print I shall have passed my 59th year. Forty of those years I have spent as a disciple of the Lord and a member of his body. In that time I have not met one proponent of error who did not conduct himself to a greater or lesser degree in the fashion just described. Brethren, painful experience has taught me that error must be met in only one way: head on, and giving no quarter.

How To Keep Out False Teaching

We come now to the issues at hand: How do we keep it out. So far as I am personally concerned, the greatest deterrent to false teaching is for both the elders, and the churches under their charge, to be thoroughly saturated with the knowledge of the truth. And, make no mistake about it, we can know the truth. Of late, some among us, young and old alike, have been trying to persuade us that we can not possess all truth. To them, the truth is some hazy, nebulous, unfathomable entity to which we can never attain. They will contend that we can agree on the gospel (the good news about Jesus), baptism and the Lord’s supper. However, all else is so indefinitely spoken, and agreement therein of such little consequence that every man is free to his own interpretation. No line of fellowship can be drawn for the principles of truth on the matter are not clear. I say, not so!

In the first place, Jesus taught that we can know the truth (Jn. 8:32),and that those who were of the truth would hear him (Jn. 19:37). Paul argued conclusively, that through him, revelation w4s made and that when we read we can perceive his understanding in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:1-6). Now maybe.I missed something somewhere, but to me, these passages are arguing that those who are of the disposition of mind to want truth can know it. And, I maintain that a thorough knowledge of the genuine article (truth) is the best way to be able to discern the counterfeit of error and to keep it out.

This means keeping sound men in the pulpits of churches (2 Tim. 2:2), faithful men who will open their Bibles and expose the text of Scripture to their audiences. Like the prophet of old: To the law and to the testimony – Line upon line; percept upon precept. In this way disciples can be grounded to the point that error will have no appeal to them. It also means supervising those who participate in the Bible classes. Elders should be informed at all times of just what is being fed to the students by the various teachers. Furthermore, elders should not have to apologize if, in their considered judgment, the soundness of some preacher is questioned, and he be advised not to come. Nor should they be harassed by members if they find it necessary to remove some teacher for advocating some questionable concept. Brethren under their charge should rejoice in the fact that they are watching in behalf of their souls.

A second thing to be considered is the fact that whatever justifiable action that elders may take, must be done with firmness and conviction. Note that when Paul spoke of the Judaizers he said, “. – . to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” In consideration of Peter’s error, he “resisted him to the face for he stood condemned.” A look at the second chapter of I John will reveal just how that apostle dealt with the false doctrine of the gnostics. First, he acknowledged that his brethren could and did know the truth (v. 21). He then pointed out that there were some who would lead them astray (v. 26). Then, of those false teachers he said, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us” (v. 19). He then identified them as antichrist and their teaching as a lie. Brethren, when dealing with error, do not be afraid to employ the level gaze and pointing finger as did Nathan (2 Sam. 12). It is better to expose them with a “thou art the man” than to expose the flock to their devilish ideas.

Finally, stay off the Plains of Ono. The enemies of Nehemiah ‘ sought to draw him away from his great work and into a positive dialogue and compromise (Neh. 6). Nehemiah knew that on the plains of Ono they would do him mischief. Let elders and all others learn that when error calls for dialogue: beware! I am aware that there may be times when interested parties may want to meet in an effort to arrive at truth. In my experience, this has been the exception and not the rule. By way of illustratiom. For the past five or six years the conservative Christian Church has been having their so-called Unity Forums. They have appealed to us to meet and see if there is not some means by which fellowship can be had with “their segment of the restoration movement” and “ours.” Please understand that they are not going to give up their innovations but, rather, would have us to extend fellowship and recognize their errors as simply matters of opinion. Their forums, therefore, become the modern plains of Ono. Their call for dialogue is in reality a call for compromise. So, when the call for dialogue comes, let us answer it with a firm and unwavering and uncompromising defense of the truth. We may come out of the skirmish with a few scars and some dents in the armor, but we can have confidence in the fact that God is pleased, and that error has been put in its place. Let us all learn that the man who thinks that error can be met and handled with an irenic spirit has taken the first step toward hisfinal and qomplete surrender to it. “Wherefore, take up the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand in the evil day, and having done all, to siand” (Eph. 6:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 1, pp. 8-9
January 5, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

A radio station in Chicago used to play soft, gentle music. Their motto was the title of this theme. It is good advice. “Gentleness” is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted” (Eph. 4:32). “Comfort the feebleminded (faint), support the weak, be patient toward all men” (1 Thess. 5:14). “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness (gentle tenderness), humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye” (Col. 3:12,13). We are to walk the way of life “with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2,3).

The yoke of Christ is “easy,” or kind (Matt. 11:30). Paul spoke of “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:1), and we are to walk “even as he walked” (1 Jn. 2:6). Hence, let us “try a little tenderness.”

In The Home

Have you listened – really listened – to yourself as you talk to your mate and your children? It is easy to develop a snapping turtle response. Ever been around a frisky, feisty little dog that just wants to bark when you are around? Pressures, problems, “every day stress and strain,” can lead us to sharp, biting replies to our loved ones. It can become a habit. Everywhere, but especially in the home, “try a little tenderness.” If a soft answer turneth away wrath (Prov. 15:1), what does a harsh answer do?

The wonderful woman in Proverbs 31 possesses many valuable virtues, but none is greater than the fact that “in her tongue is the law of kindness” (v. 26). Gentle kindness fills her heart, adorns her countenance and flows from her tongue. It is the material with which man would create an angel if he could.

One’s tongue can become a razor, a sword, a club (Psa. 52:2; 57:4; Prov. 12:19). It can cut and hew and dismember a loved one. Some children and marriage companions have never been physically beaten, but they have suffered daily the harsh brutality of a demeaning, belittling tongue. The victims of a malicious mouth would gladly trade their broken hearts for black eyes and broken bones. At least broken bones will heal.

Family members are bonded in bliss by blessed words of affection, praise and thanks. Husbands and wives should speak works of appreciation and approval to one another.

Children need criticism and condemnation at times, but they also need sweet and loving words of commendation and encouraging exhortation. All of you, mother, father, children, listen to yourselves speak to one another. Is your conversation filled with negative, derogatory, cutting, complaining, whining words? Is your voice sharp, caustic, full of sarcasm and irritation? If so, you have our prayers, and your family has our sympathy.

Among Brethren

“Pleasant words,” the Bible says, “are sweet to the soul and healing to the bones” (Prov. 16:24, NASB). “The sweetness of the lips increaseth learning” (Prov. 16:21). In other words, one will listen to you more readily.

Would you gloat at a funeral? Certainly, you would not, but do we gloat and glory over a fallen brother? Do we appear to be glad when one is overtaken in a fault, or do we seek to “restore such an one in the spirit of meekness” (Gal. 6:1)? “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth” (Prov. 24:17). You may feign sorrow over the fall of another, but the Lord God knows your heart (Heb. 4:13).

There is a time and place for sharp rebukes and verbal slaps in the face (Tit. 1:9-13; Gal. 2:11-14; 2 Cor. 13:10). It is not possible to wink at sin, smile at error and grin all the time (Mk. 3:5). Occasionally, whips must be fashioned and used, and seats and moneychanger’s tables must be overturned and their occupants cast out. It is not pleasant. Some object to it, except when they turn their oral guns on those who will do it. Then, they castigate the castigators and verbally thrash those who have the faith to do what must be done; namely, reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. But enough on that.

The other side is that there is a large amount of time and a great deal of space for one to “try a little tenderness.” “And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition” (2 Tim. 2:24,25, NASB). “By long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone” (Prov. 25:15). One’s kindness builds his influence, his ability to reach others (Prov. 19:22). With patient goodness, one can alter the adamant will of a prince. Soft, tender words will break a bone, i.e., the will melt the heart of stone. Sweet, kind words will open an arrogant mind so that it will be amenable to reflection and instruction.

Yes, deal with men and sin firmly, even sharply, when the situation warrants, but let us have grace and use it that our words may be seasoned with salt in order to answer every man properly and appropriately in the fear of God (Jude 22,23).

How many erring, wavering, I wandering, fearful, sinful souls are driven to despair and banished to ruin because no one could find a word of brotherly kindness with which to plead? Truly, “death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Prov. 18:21). Is my tongue an executioner’s sword, poised to behead any who become weary and faint, fail and fall? If so, may God help me to see it and remove my cursing and replace it with blessing. Or is my tongue a salve to wounds, bruises and putrefying sores, an ointment for the broken spirit, a balm for the wounded heart, a cleansing, soothing agent for the dirty hands of the defeated victims of sin?. If so, may God bless me to use wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time, restoring the fallen.

In this critical hour of pain and suffering, in this era of heartache caused by sin, it is time to show a little kindness, to exercise a little patience and to “try a little tenderness.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, pp. 748-749
December 15, 1988

By Aude McKee

Introduction:

I. In the last lesson, we studied the efforts of men to “restore the ancient order.”

A. James O’Kelly in Virginia and North Carolina.

B. Elias Smith and Abner Jones in the Northeast.

C. Barton W. Stone in Kentucky.

D. Thomas and Alexander Campbell in Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.

II. In 1831, the mighty restoration forces of Stone and Campbell were united.

A. Previously, the two groups often met in the same town with little or no communion between them even though no basic differences separated them.

B. When people are sincerely dedicated to the proposition that the Bible alone will be the rule of faith and practice, division cannot long exist.

Discussion:

I. In The Restoration Movement, Two Different Ideas Regarding Cooperation Existed.

A. Stone in 1804, had led in the dissolving of the Springfield Presbytery and had set his course toward a complete return to apostolic Christianity. He believed that churches could not be banded together in associations, etc.

B. Campbell, on the other hand, never lost his ardor for the theory involved in Baptist Associations. When the Mahoning Baptist Association was dissolved in 1830, Campbell thought the action inconsiderate.

1. The Millennial Harbinger was published by Campbell beginning in 1830. Through its pages he had access to the brotherhood, and by this medium he kept laying before brethren his plan for “church cooperation.”

2. In 1842, he wrote: “Now if Christ’s kingdom consists of ten thousand families, or churches – particular, distinct, and independent communities how are they to act in concert, maintain unity or interests, or cooperate in any system of conservation or enlargement, unless by consultation and systematic cooperation? I affirm it to be, in my humble opinion, and from years of observation and experience impossible.”

3. Earl West, in his Search For The Ancient Order (Vol. 1, p. 159), says: “The church universal, as such, was not left with any specific work to do, but all work to be done was left up to local congregations. Hence, in New Testament times, the only organization of Christians to exist was a local church. . . . Ecclesiasticisms unknown to the church owe their origin directly or indirectly to beginning with the church universal. . . . For the brethren of a century ago to begin at this point and work toward general organizations was likewise to start on a false premise, and in these concepts the differences arose.”

4. In 1843, Campbell presented his views on church organization by presenting a hypothetical case of a group of evangelists who go to an island called Guernsey. In five years they establish congregations A, B, C, D, etc. After a while, Campbell says, these churches discover they cannot work efficiently without pooling their resources. A meeting is called at congregation A, and there the churches decided to band together and act in all matters just as one church.

5 It does not take an intelligent man to see that if the churches of one island could be banded together in order to act as one, then the churches of the world could be so banded together. Campbell, had he had it in his power, would have activated the church universal! There was one thing wrong with Campbell’s plan – he had no Scripture for it!

C. As a result of Campbell’s influence, Cooperation Meetings began to spring up all over the brotherhood. They were miniature missionary societies.

1. There was serious opposition to Campbell’s ideas and to these “Cooperation Meetings.” However, Campbell felt that he had the bulk of the brotherhood behind him, and early in 1849 he felt that the time had come to form a general organization for cooperation. He justified his position by beginning with the universal concept of the church and then saying that Christ gave no plan for the church, in this sense, to function; therefore the church is left free to devise its own plan.

2. In October, 1849, a Convention met in Cincinnati, Ohio, to consider the formation of a missionary society. Of the meeting W.K. Pendleton says: “We met, not for the purpose of enacting ecclesiastic laws, not to interfere with the true and scriptural independence of the churches, but to consult about the best ways for giving efficiency to our power, and to devise such methods of cooperation, in the great work of converting and sanctifying the world, as our combined counsels, under the guidance of Providence, might suggest and approve. There are some duties of the church which a single congregation cannot, by her unaided strength, discharge. . . . A primary object being to devise some scheme for a more effectual proclamation of the gospel in destitute places, both at home and abroad, the Convention took under consideration the organization of a Missionary Society.”

3. A. Campbell was elected the first president of the society.

D. There was opposition from many quarters to this new body, but perhaps the arguments were summed up by Tolbert Fanning, one of the founders of the Gospel Advocate. He said in that journal: “We believe and teach that the church of Christ is fully competent to most profitably employ all of our powers, physical, intellectual, and spiritual; that she is the only divinely authorized Missionary, Bible, Sunday School, Temperance and Cooperation Society on earth. It is, has been, and we suppose always will be our honest convictions, that the true and genuine service of God can be properly performed only in and through the church. Hence, we have questioned the propriety of the brethren’s efforts to work most successfully by means of state, district, and county organizations, ‘Missionary,’ ‘Publication,’ and ‘Bible Societies’ or Bible Unions, ‘Temperance Societies, Free-Mason and Odd-Fellow Societies’ to ‘visit’ the fatherless and widows in their affliction, any other human organization for accomplishing the legitimate labor of the church.”

II. A Second Disturbance Arose Among Brethren Over Instrumental Music In The Worship.

A. Moves toward its use came slowly. In 1851, a who signed his name “W” wrote to J.B. Henshall, associate editor of the Ecclesiastical Reformer.”Bro. Hensell – What say you of instrumental music in our churches?. . . I think it is high time that we awaken to the importance of this subject. We are far in the rear of Protestants on the subject of church music. I hope, therefore, that you will give your views in extenso, on this much neglected subject.”

1. Henshall replied: “In proportion as men become worldly minded, provided they have not entirely lost the fear of God, do they begin to require helps to their devotion. That they would require such helps under a dark dispensation where they were rather lead into the use of symbolic rites, than inwardly illuminated by God’s word and spirit, is not all astonishing; but to say that we need them who live in the full light of the gospel privileges, and enjoy God’s mercies and providence over us, is to say that we have no gratitude in our hearts and that we are every way unworthy of these benefits.”

2. A. Campbell wrote in opposition to the instrument. In one essay he said: “I presume, to all spiritually-minded Christians such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.”

B. To the church in Midway, KY, goes the “distinction” of being the first church to introduce it. L.L. Pinkerton, the Midway preacher, said: “So far as is known to me. . . . I am the only preacher in Kentucky of our brotherhood who has publicly advocated the propriety of employing instrumental music in some churches, and that the church of God in Midway is the only church that has yet made a decided effort to introduce it.”

1. The singing was so bad at Midway that it would “scare even the rats from worship,” Pinkerton said.

2. The congregation then began meeting on Saturday night to improve their singing and shortly afterwards someone brought in a melodeon to be used in getting the right pitch. Before long one of the sisters accompanied the singing with her playing on the melodeon.

3. Then the group observed that the melodeon was good for the singing and so it was decided to use it on the Lord’s Day.

C. The advocates of instrumental music used two main arguments.

1. The Old Testament authorized it. (The old law was nailed to the cross [Col. 2:14) and could no more be used to justify instrumental music than dancing, keeping the sabbath, animal sacrifices, temple worship, etc.)

2. It is expedient such as meeting houses and song books. (the error here lies in the fact that for a thing to be expedient, it must first be lawful! Song books are an expedient because an assembly is commanded. There is no command, approved apostolic example or necessary inference for instrumental music; therefore the piano, melodeon, or organ cannot be an expedient. If there was authority to play in the New Testament, then the instrument would be an expedient!)

D. As time went on, the opposition deepened.

1. Moses E. Lard wrote in 1864: “What defense can be urged for the introduction into some of our congregations of instrumental music? The answer which thunders into my ear from every page of the New Testament is none. Did Christ ever appoint it? Did the apostles ever sanction it, or did any of the primitive churches ever use it? Never. In what light then must we view him who attempts to introduce it into the churches of Christ of the present day? I answer, as an insulter of the authority of Christ and as a defiant and impious innovator in the simplicity and purity of the ancient worship.”

2. Lard also wrote: “But what shall be done with such churches? Of course, nothing. If they see fit to mortify the feelings of their brethren, to forsake the example of the primitive churches, to condemn the authority of Christ by resorting to will worship, to excite dissension, and give rise to general scandal, they must do it. As a body we can do nothing. Still we have three partial remedies left us to which we should at once resort: (1) Let every preacher in our ranks resolve at once that he will never, under any circumstances or on any account, enter a meeting house belonging to our brethren in which an organ stands. We beg and entreat our preaching brethren to adopt this as an unalterable rule of conduct. This and like evils must be checked, and the very speediest way to effect it is the one here suggested. (2) Let no brother who takes a letter from one church ever unite with another using an organ. Rather let him live out of a church than go into such a den. (3) Let those brethren who oppose the introduction of an organ first remonstrate in gentle, kind and decided terms. If their remonstrance is unheeded, and the organ is brought in, then let them at once, and without even the formality of asking for a letter, abandon the church so acting; and let all such members unite elsewhere. Thus these organ-grinding churches will in the lapse of time be broken down, or wholly apostatize, and the sooner they are in fragments, the better for the cause of Christ.”

III. The Continued Progress of Liberalism and Complete Division.

A. Any time brethren depart from divine authority in order to introduce one unauthorized practice, the door is left open for the introduction of others.

1. Earl West, in Search For The Ancient Order (Vol. 2), devotes 46 pages to the increase of liberalism.

2. These things are mentioned:

a. Fraternization with denominations.

b. Denial of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

c. Teaching that the pious unbaptized would be saved.

d. Sermons that did not sound a clear note. Sermons that took months of explaining as to what they meant and what they did not mean.

e. The teaching that we are guided by the spirit of the New Testament – not by the letter. If you are sincere that is all that matters.

f. Misconception of the nature of the church. The church, many came to believe, is just another sect and denominational as the rest.

g. A drift toward a centralized ecclesiasticism that would serve as the “voice of the brotherhood.”

B. The body of Christ was torn asunder.

1. The prayer of Christ (John 17:20-21) was scorned.

2. The entreaty of the Holy Spirit for unity was ignored (1 Cor. 1:10).

3. The plea of the divinely inspired apostle was trampled under foot (Eph. 4:1-6).

4. The United States government, in its census of Religious Bodies in America in 1906, recognized two separate bodies – the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) and the church of Christ. Division was complete.

a. The Christian Churches took their instruments and their missionary societies and walked a new course.

b. As they did they took the bulk of the brotherhood with them.

c. Brethren who contended for Bible authority in all matters were in the minority and most of the buildings were lost.

d. The relatively few who still stood in the “old paths,” “licked their wounds and looked to the future to start all over again.”

Conclusion:

1. May there always be men on this earth who, in kindness and with love in their hearts for the truth and the souls of men, will stand for the truth without fear.

2. May God help us to never digress from the path of truth and righteousness.

3. We urge those of you who have never come to Christ in obedience to his Word, to make this “the day of salvation.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, pp. 742-744
December 15, 1988

By F. David Moyer

There’s no place like home. ” This is most certainly true, and it becomes more meaningful when we look at the importance God has placed upon the function of the home.

The home is the place where the first and most lasting impressions are made. Those who are tasked by God to operate the home – that’s you parents – need to feel most deeply the tremendous responsibility and privilege of the influence found there. The earthly direction and eternal destiny of those who dwell there is largely shaped by the home’s atmosphere. The home is where the where the spiritual impressions are most profound, and it is impossible to calculate just how deeply those impressions will effect the lives of the children.

In a recent poll published in The Broadcaster, the determining factor of the child’s growth to maturity and remaining faithful to the Lord was not due to the size of the congregation; was not due to the number of classes or programs provided by the church; and was not due to the efficiency of the “Youth Minister.”

The research showed that where both parents were faithful and active in the congregation, 93 percent of the children remained faithful into their adult years. If only one parent was faithful, the rate dropped to 73 percent. Where parents who were “reasonably active” (attended services but little involvement otherwise), the rate dropped again to 53 percent.

Now, here’s the shocker. In cases where both parents attended only infrequently, the rate of faithfulness in children nose-dived to a mere 6 percent (stats published in Pulpit Helps, Jan. 88, p. 18). Just how important is the influence of the home?

The words of Solomon ring loudly and clearly, and need to be practiced, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). What are you, as parents, doing to train up your children?

The Bible teaches that the children are to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1-2). Sadly, however, some parents have the mistaken notion that children are the slaves and the parents are the masters. You may get compulsory obedience by beating a slave, but you will never get their honor and respect. Provoking a child to anger creates only rebellion, and that enforced obedience will last only as long as the child is within grasp of the parent. When he leaves the home, he will go a different way.

The key is, “Provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Solomon says to “train,” and Paul says to “bring” them up. That is your responsibility. Is there a correlation between “training” and “bringing” a child to the Lord? It has to do with your nurturing love, demonstrated in your devotion to the Lord. When your children see your values, they will follow you, that’s the way they know how to go . . . and when they are old, they will demonstrate the values you have modeled for them when they were little children in your home.

When is the last time you sat down with your children and read a Bible story to them? When is the last time You Prayed together? When is the last time you discussed the sermon with them, and inquired about what they learned in class? How often do you sing spiritual songs while driving in the car? How often do you use the opportunities to talk about God and his word when seeing flowers, clouds, and grasshoppers? There are so many ways you can nurture and train your child in God’s way.

Moses spoke these important words to parents, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door-frames of your houses and on your gates” (Deut. 6:6-9). It sounds like God is wanting parents to take the lion’s share of responsibility in training up the children!

No place like home? Yes, nothing else like it – the most important teaching place in the world.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 24, p. 740
December 15, 1988