Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The article by Thomas Sowell which follows below is, to use the vernacular of the day, “Right on.” Mr. Sowell “is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace in Stanford, California.”

Personal accountability, hence, personal responsibility, is lacking, but is much needed in the world today as Mr. Sowell clearly affirms. Some Christians, perhaps, would like to be obscured in the church and become blurred in an institution in order to dismiss, or at least diminish, their own individual duty. It cannot be done, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5: 10). Now, Mr. Sowell’s article:

More epidemics are appearing now than in the ages of the great plagues. A recent cover story in Newsweek magazine referred to an “epidemic” of drug use among young people. Before that, the media was sounding the alarm about “epidemics” of teenage pregnancy, of alcoholism, and of suicides, among other things.

When I was growing up, we were taught to stay away from crowded places during an epidemic, because someone might sneeze on you and you would come down with influenza or something. It is hard to see how you are going to come down with drug addiction – much less pregnancy – that way.

Reckless use of the word “epidemic” is more than just media hype debasing the language. Like most clever uses of words, it camouflages a hidden agenda. Personal responsibility is anathema to deep thinkers, for that would undermine their role as rescuers of the “victims” of society.

If everything is an “epidemic, then we have done an end run around personal responsibility and can now break into the clear with more government programs – which means more money, power and visibility for the rescuers. It is an old script, but the anointed keep using it, changing a few words here and there to keep on bamboozling the public.

Personal responsibility can be gotten rid of in many ways. Comedian Flip Wilson says, “The devil made me do it.” Deep thinkers say “society” made people do it. That means the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Flip Wilson is much funnier and not nearly as costly.

There are people with some unusual names. Just among economists, there are Orley Ashenfetter, Axel Leijonhufvud (“pronounced just the way it’s spelled,” he says) and Pedro Schwartz. But I have never met anybody named “society.” Yet, if you believe the deep thinkers, this is who is making everybody do everything.

Everyone is learning how to cop out of personal responsibility by blaming “society.” From teenagers in high school to hardened felons in prison, they can tell you how the “traumas” they were put through by “society” caused everything from failing grades to armed robbery. People who would rather mooch than work used to be called bums, but now they are homeless “victims” of “society.” You are supposed to feel guilty because more money is not being taken out of your paycheck to support them in the manner to which they would like to become accustomed.

The decline of personal responsibility has been accompanied by a rise in social responsibility by people who had nothing to do with the individual decisions that brought on disaster. Along with this has come an increased role for people skilled at creating guilt.

One of the best performances of this nature was a television appearance years ago by author James Baldwin. He glared out from the screen in a coldly bitter stare, saying: ” I’ve just come from seeing a dead boy – and you killed him.”

“Not me, Jim,” I replied to the screen, “I’ve been here in the apartment all day.” It turned out that this “dead boy” was 28 years old and had died from an overdose of drugs. Baldwin never really explained how the television viewers had done him in – nor did he have to. “Society” is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

We laugh at people who believe in the tooth fairy, but we take it seriously when deep thinkers talk about “society”. as having done this or that – or having failed to do this or that. If they mean the government, then they ought to say government. But then we might see through the heightened words to the hidden agenda.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, p. 200
April 7, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

A problem that has a tendency to crop up every once in awhile is the effort to restrict those who are to be allowed to partake of the communion, or Lord’s Supper. Usually this is done with one of two approaches: (1) the concept of “closed communion,” or (2) challenging whether or not one deserves the right to partake (“worthy”).

“Closed communion,” as popularly practiced by denominationalism, carries with it two basic elements: (1) only faithful members in good standing are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and (2) no visitors are to be included in that number (as there is obviously no way to determine if they are “faithful” and/or “in good standing”). One Baptist church manual I have in my library even points out it is the responsibility of the church to examine the individual to see if he is “ignorant and ungodly.”

The fallacy of such reasoning is not hard to point out. For example, when Paul tarried at Troas (Acts 20) to meet with the disciples who gathered together to “break bread,” he would not have been allowed to partake in such a church today, since he was not a member of the church at Troas. And just how “ignorant” can one be and still be allowed to partake? Could he be allowed to partake in a congregation where the average IQ was not as high as it might be in a university town – but then the barred in the university town for being too “ignorant”? Is a new convert “ignorant” compared to a member who has studied for 30-40 years? And just how “ungodly” does one have to be before the church decides that he is no longer “worthy” to partake? Might it not depend on who is doing the judging? What criteria do they use to deem him “ungodly” and unworthy to partake and still excuse themselves (and/or others) also guilty of sins and allow them to partake. Suppose someone is engaged in sins they are ignorant of, do they become guilty of participating in his ungodly activities by accepting him as “worthy” to partake?

Actually, there is nothing at all in the New Testament to support the concept of “closed communion.” Some would seek to justify the idea on the basis of 2 Corinthians 6:15-16, which is not even dealing with the Lord’s Supper. Others would attempt to justify it on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:27 and the idea one must be “worthy” to Dartake. This is also a false concent.

Actually, though, the church is not the one charged to do the examining! Paul says, “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28). Nowhere has Christ turned over to any church, or any other group of men, the right to exclude or dictate who may be allowed (or not allowed) to fulfill the command Jesus left us individually to do when he said, “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). He did not say,.” Let the church examine a man.”‘ Paul said, “Let a man examine himself. ” The concept of “closed communion” is simply not found in the Bible!

Some, while recognizing “closed communion” is not taught in God’s word, attempt to do about the same thing by charging someone is not “worthy” to partake of the Lord’s Supper. So, they look over an individual, conclude he has done things he should not have (or may be even an individual that has been withdrawn from and simply keeps on coming), and conclude it is a mistake to even offer him the communion until he changes his way of living. The idea one must be “worthy” to partake does not die easily. It is a carry-over from Roman Catholicism, and again, it is not taught in the word of God either. Indeed, none of us was worthy of the death of Christ upon the cruel cross of Calvary. None of us is worthy of it today. If we had to be sinlessly perfect and so righteous we were worthy of such, there would have been no need for Christ to have come into this world to save us, or to shed his blood on the cross in our behalf. Our salvation would have been granted as a debt, and not by grace! (Eph. 2:8-9).

But the word in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is not worthy, but rather the word is worthily. The NKJV translates it “in an unworthy manner.” It is an adverb, describing how we are to partake -.not our condition in order to be allowed to partake. This distinction is a very important one to remember.

The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to bring us back to the death and suffering of Christ on the cross. Hence, we proclaim the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26) when we partake of the Lord’s Supper “in memory of me.” Christ died on the cross for our sins, and does not want us to forget that sacrifice! Nor does he want us to forget all the suffering he went through for us in that death. That is why the bread is to remind us of his body, and the fruit of the vine of his blood shed for our sins. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to focus all our attention on his death.

If we are not Christians, obviously the Lord’s Supper is not a “memorial” to us because we have not benefitted in the blessings his death made available for us – the remission of our sins. We are not any better for having partaken. (Does a Frenchman become an American simply because he joined.in shooting off fireworks on the 4th of July?) Nor are we actually any worse off (remember, if one is lost, be is not going to be “more lost?” by partaking of a memorial that does not affect him). True, such a one needs to be taught who the memorial was designed for, but sometimes some become almost paranoid if a non-Christian partakes, as if his participation is going , to cause him to be even more lost than he already is. Just teach him who it was designed for, and the issue will resolve itself.

If we are Christians, as we ponder what he went through to make salvation possible for us, it ought to humble us (“Who am I to deserve such love and suffering?”), and make us even more determined to live for him because of what he did in dying on the cross for us. Failure to meditate on such a purpose (i.e., if we regard it as a mere meal or a hindrance to getting home sooner) makes us as guilty of mocking (“making light of”) the death of Christ as were those who actually mocked him at his crucifixion (see Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29 for the same attitude involved in those who would turn away from the cross and back to the ways of sin).

For th is cause, many among those at Corinth were weak and sick, and some asleep (i.e., dead spiritually). They had perverted the purpose of the Lord’s supper from a memorial of Christ’s death into a common meal, and had completely lost sight of its true purpose. They were not even thinking of what Christ had told them, what he went through for them, nor why this “memorial” had been left. In “making light of” its true purpose, they were not “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – just as if they had joined those who made mockery of him on the cross. In this, they ate and drank “condemnation” upon themselves “not discerning the Lord’s body.” They had instead made it into an occasion of satisfying fleshly desires. Paul says such desires ought to be satisfied “at home,” and that they were not to corrupt the “memorial” of Christ by such! If they had in deed partaken of the Lord’s Supper for the purpose for which it was intended, just the opposite would have occurred. Instead of being weak, sick and some asleep; they would have been drawn closer to the Lord and more desirous of doing his will as a way of showing their appreciation for the wonderful sacrifice he made in their behalf.

Now, having said all that, let us reconsider the person who knows his life is not what it should be (or ought to know), and yet plans to go ahead and partake of the Lord’s Supper anyway. Should we rebuke him? Should we refuse to serve it to him? Or, should we encourage him to partake? I believe one who is openly being rebellious ought to be rebuked as any other sinner would be. Some, however, may be “pondering” the question; and others may just be waking up to the fact something is amiss (some sins are usually more “obvious” to everyone else than they are to the one engaged in them). Should we allow them to partake? Yes, they ought to be allowed, yea encouraged, to partake. As he thinks about the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, he ought to be indeed ashamed of what his life is, and how he has shown appreciation to Christ for the salvation and remission of sins be suffered and died to make available.

Failure to partake not, only pushes the purpose of the memorial even further from our minds (hence, we become “weak and sick and many asleep”), but it also gives the erring Christian a resigned sense of “being lost.” He is now tempted to “accept it” in that he has taken another step away from Christ and his love by turning his back on the very reminder Christ set up to focus his attention on that sacrifice. It now becomes a resigned sense of being lost, and he continues on his way with even less pangs of conscience to remind him, “it ought not to be this way.” In this sense, he now justifies himself even in not partaking, and continues to drift even further away with nothing to turn him back (if we fail also to do our part).

A Christian can not ponder the death and suffering Christ went through for us, and then feel comfortable in doing what is wrong daily in his life! Christ did not intend for us to feel such “comfort.” He did not want us to forget what he went through, what he suffered. In doing so, he knew it would also serve to deter us from the paths of sin. An erring Christian who partakes of the Lord’s Supper should indeed feel the “coals of fire” upon his head (Rom. 12:20), as he pauses to think what that memorial actually means. If we partake “in a worthy manner,” it will humble and rededicate us to the purposes of the Lord.

Let us always remember what Paul said, “Let a man examine himself.” He will have to answer to the Lord if he partakes, “making light of” that awful sacrifice Christ made in his behalf. On the other hand, by allowing him that right, maybe he will be brought to repentance and shame by pausing to ponder what that sacrifice really means. And isn’t that why Christ so designed it?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 206
April 7, 1988

By Dennis C. Abernathy

Should men be used to direct or lead the worship services when they are not faithful to attend the services of the local church (coming only on Sunday mornings)? Should these men be used in leading the local church in worship as a means to encourage them (the men) to greater faithfulness?

These questions point to a problem found in many local churches around the country. Personally speaking, I do not believe men should be used to lead the congregation in worship whose interest in, and support of, the Lord’s church is clearly lacking! This practice of using men to lead in worship who come only occasionally does not encourage them to be more faithful, but rather it encourages the opposite. It does encourage one to attend the one service in which they have an assignment, with the understanding that they can remain in their regular pattern of mediocrity and indifference.

The Bible does not teach that men are to lead in worship in order to encourage them to greater faithfulness, but rather it does teach that men are to lead because they are faithful and concerned about the work of the Lord and his church!

I recognize there is no detailed passage in the Bible giving instructions as to the service arrangements and assignments. There are, however, some scriptural reasonings upon Bible principles that need to be considered carefully.

1. Men who lead singing, wait on the Lord’s table, teach, preach, lead in prayer, etc., are leading the congregation. The kingdom of the Lord places great emphasis on righteousness. “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). Those who are leading in the worship should be men whose lives radiate that righteousness. “My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. . . In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1 Jn. 3:7,10).

2. Another very important consideration is one’s influence. It should be understood of those who lead the congregation in worship, that they should have a good influence on their fellow man and on their brethren (Col. 4:5). Christians are to be “salt of the earth” and “light of the world” that others may “see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:13-16). What kind of influence will a brother have if he seldom comes to the services, and when he does come it is but for one hour on Sunday morning? Is it good for a chronic absentee to teach in the local church? Should one who is spasmodic in his attendance lead the singing? It is a harmful influence when one leads the church in worship and it is common knowledge that he is indifferent in attendance and attitude toward the local church.

3. Worship is to be “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24). What a pitiful mockery it makes of worship, for one who is indifferent, to thank the Lord for worship, for the Bible, for the church and for the privilege of being a member of that glorious body, and then by his life show that these things mean little to him! What is one to make of the brother who leads the congregation in prayer, thanking God for the privilege of worship and praying that all be back at the next service, and then through observation learning that it is not counted as much of a privilege, because he will not be back until next Sunday morning maybe!

Brethren, as long as men are called upon to lead the congregation in worship, while at the same time they themselves are indifferent toward attending the services of the church, it is just that long that the church will be stymied as far as influence is concerned. The young people will continue to grow up thinking that it is all right to come to church occasionally. They will learn to ignore and become calloused to Bible preaching. When the preacher preaches faithfulness in attendance, and the church continues to use men to lead who are not faithful in attendance, the sword of the Spirit is dulled quite quickly!

In conclusion, men who are not faithful in their attendance do not need to be leading the church, but, they need to be led and taught and to be faithful to the Lord. They need to be taught to “seek the kingdom first” (Matt. 6:33), and to “set their affections on things above” (Col. 3:2). Brethren, let us all be faithful in our church attendance (Heb. 10:25; Jas. 4:17; Acts 2:42,46).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, p. 179
March 17, 1988

By Lewis Willis

In 1 Corinthians 15:58, the apostle Paul wrote: “Therefore my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”Besides being a well-known passage of Scripture, it expresses some essential ingredients in the attitude of the Christian and his approach to the consecrated life which God wants him to live. Inasmuch as you and I are seeking to grow in those attributes which God desires in us, I thought it might be worthwhile to examine this passage. I particularly want to get before us the meanings of some key words in this Scripture. Those words are emphasized in this paragraph.

The word translated “steadfast” is the Greek word hedraios. The word is defined in this way: “primarily denotes seated; hence, steadfast, metaphorical of moral fixity” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 73). Thayer adds, “metaph., of those who are fixed in purpose” (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 168). What does the Christian learn from the meaning of the word “steadfast”? How will that understanding affect his approach to life? The answer is simple. The Christian who applies this message to himself will establish or “fix” in his mind a singular purpose. He will know how he is living and why. “Moral fixity” signifies settled values and actions. The Christian seeks to learn proper morals and he then commits himself to their practice. There is a great need for a moral awakening in our land and God’s people should be the ones who are pacesetters in a return to morality. This is what Paul means in telling us to be “steadfast.” There is purpose in our lives to serve God and that purpose manifests itself in moral goodness.

In reference to that purpose, the apostle says we must be ‘unmoveable. ” The Greek word here is ametakinetos which means “firm” (Vine, p. 90). Thayer adds: “not to be moved from its place, metaph. firmly persistent” (Thayer, p. 32). Thus, one who is “unmoveable” is one who is “firm” or “firmly persistent.” Webster says the word signifies that which is not capable of being moved; fixed; stationary; not changing from time to time; not varying (p. 552). Hence, the Christian has a lifestyle that is fixed and firmly established and it does not vary from time to time; from place to place; from person to person. He is persistent in standing for and defending his convictions. Therefore, these two words tell us to purpose moral goodness in our lives and not change from that goodness. This means that we are not only good people during the hours of worship or assembly but that we are good people all of the time. “Sunday only Christians” have always been the kind of people who discredit the religion of Christ the rest of the week. God does not want us to be that kind of people. He wants us to know what is right, and he wants us to do right without variation or, he wants us to do right all the time, every time.

The last word I wish to note is the word “abound.” The original Greek word is perisseuo. It means: “to be abundantly furnished, to abound in a thing,. . . to be preeminent, to excel, to be morally better off, as regards. . . the work of the Lord; exceed” (Vine, p. 18). Thayer adds: “to abound, overflow, to excel” (Thayer, p. 505). He says that the word is followed by virtues or actions in which one excels. The objective of the Christian should be to grow so that he is “abundantly furnished” in a knowledge of the word of the Lord, which enables him to excel, exceed or overflow in doing the Lord’s work. There seems to be a correlation between these three words which we are examining. (1) We are to be steadfast, or morally fixed or set in our purpose about the Christian life. (2) We are to be firm and persistent in the pursuit of that purpose. (3) Our efforts are not minimal; we are trying to exceed or excel our former efforts as we grow and do the work of the Lord. If we know where we stand, and if we are firm and persistent in that stand, and if we are always trying to exceed what we have done in the past which is good, there is no way that we will not be doing the work of the Lord.

Finally, Paul says, “ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” Our efforts in doing the work that God wants us to do are not empty, void of results or useless. When we live as God wants us to live, and when we are always trying to do better or more as God’s people, our efforts will not be empty or without results. More and more people will be saved. Certainly such an attitude and approach to life will result in the salvation of our souls. The Christian’s attitude is predominantly to save himself and others. Therefore, the question is: “Do we possess the Christian’s attitude?”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, p. 175
March 17, 1988