Truth Magazine

By David Lawrence

It becomes apparent when we discuss religion with one who differs with us that we must have common agreement in one area before proceeding to the next. For instance, it is necessary that we concur on the existence of God before we can discuss the divinity of his Son. We must then agree upon the divinity of Christ before we can discuss the validity of his word, and we must agree upon the validity of the word before we can discuss its teachings. Without common ground it is impossible to have a basis for argumentation.

For instance, I could discuss the Bible with a Roman Catholic more easily than with a Unitarian. The Catholic usually believes that the scriptures are inspired and infallible. The Unitarian usually believes that the Holy Scriptures are of human origin.

The current problems plaguing the Lord’s church in recent years present just such a problem in communication. Brethren advocating church support of human institutions and “brotherhood elderships” are reluctant to discuss the matter from the word of God. The truth of the matter is that they cannot discuss the word of God with us, for they do not think of the scriptures as we do. We have two opposing attitudes toward the Bible.

It is difficult to determine whether the attitude was always present and resulted in the unscriptural practices, or whether the practices came first and brethren changed their attitudes and their preaching to fit the practices, which they refused to abandon when they found them not in harmony with the scriptures. I am of the persuasion that the two attitudes existed simultaneously for many years. One attitude resulted from sincere faith in God’s word as the all-sufficient guide to heaven. Such passages as I Peter 4:11, II Cor. 5:7, Col. 3:17, I Samuel 3:9-10, Acts 10:33 reveal what attitude God intends for us to possess. It is the attitude that seeks divine authorization for all beliefs and practices. It is the attitude that we must have a “thus saith the Lord” for what we do religiously.

The other attitude developed in recent years, even as it did in the nineteenth century, among many converts who were brought into the church and never taught the full truth, and among congregations where preaching was weak and worldliness strong. It is the attitude that “I’ll do what I want, what pleases me, and expect it to please God.” It is an attitude that provides that Bible examples are never binding, and man is free to act in areas where God has not specifically prohibited us. This attitude developed the missionary societies and instrumental music in the last century. It finally resulted in the Christian Church. Today it is developing the benevolent and edification societies, sponsoring churches, and other arrangements. If pursued, it can only lead to the establishment of a denomination. The end result of such an attitude, taken to its logical extremity, involves a complete apostasy from God. Witness the liberal element of the Christian Church. Mark the “progressive” brethren of today who will soon leave the Christian Church far behind.

Thus we have two fundamentally different attitudes. Until we regain common ground, which appears unlikely, there can never again be the old scriptural discussions and debates. We have tried to get them to prove that the building and maintaining of benevolent institutions on the part of churches is in harmony with the scriptures. But how can we discuss such a matter from the scriptural viewpoint with men who do not believe it necessary to have scriptural authority? They cannot see the reason in our arguments; we cannot see the reason in theirs. We operate from two separate premises. So long as we have different attitudes toward God’s word, agreement is impossible. And where there is no agreement, there can be no unity, for Amos truly said, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

As to the solution of the problem, I certainly would not propose to offer one. It will surely be possible to find some of our brethren who basically desire to serve God and who do reverence his word sufficiently, who, when they are shown the error of their way, will abandon it and cleave to the truth. But I fear that in many cases we must admit that “Ephraim is joined to idols.” However, let us be diligent in teaching those who remain to develop the proper attitude toward the Bible, and make application of that attitude in practices. Let us do so now while we have the opportunity. Let us especially teach our young folks and recent converts. If we may all, as Paul commands, “be not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is,” then perhaps we can prevent a repetition of this unnecessary tragedy.

Truth Magazine VI: 12, pp. 10-11
September 1962

By Bill Fling

From Vancover, British Columbia, a church bulletin carried this announcement:

“It is requested that no equipment or furnishings such as typewriter, coffeemaker, etc. be taken from the building without permission from the building committee.”

The Lord’s church in many places is using some strange pieces of equipment. Of course the church has a legitimate need of communion trays, a meetinghouse, a place for teaching Bible classes, a baptistery and other things to carry out the commands of the Head of the church. These have been used for years by faithful churches.

Within the last few decades, however, some unusual pieces of chattel have been acquired by various churches. A church in San Francisco has ping pony tables; one in Long Beach has a gymnasium; and others have baseball bats. Several churches now have recreation rooms (sometimes called “fellowship halls”) with coffeemakers, double-door refrigerators, restaurant-type gas ranges, and drawers of silverware.

My question is, What command of the Lord do these things contribute to? What authority do churches have with these things and the activities they represent7 As an individual Christian, I can serve coffee to friends, play on a ball team, or buy a stove; because they come within the scope of my personal responsibility. But the church has no authority from Christ to do such things. Or is there a Bible command for congregational socials, “entertaining yourselves in pies, punch and playful songs?” Did Paul write, “when ye come together to take tea, tell tales’ and joke jestingly?” Did Jude say to “earnestly root for the church ball team?”

What church in the New Testament had a “chariot racing team” or “playtime schedule for persecuted saints?” Did Jerusalem have a “Fun, Fellowship and Frolic” program? If not, how can a church, which claims to follow their pattern, have coffeemakers, ping pony tables, and such like. IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMMAND TO EXPEDI TE, WE CANNOT ARGUE FOR EXPEDIENTS. They must abandon the pattern if they want things which are not in the pattern.

Many grownups are wanting to play like children and expect the church to subsidize and supervise it. One of the sins of Israel was –“They rose up to play.” (1 Cor. 10:7.) Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 188, says “play” is PAIZO (Gr.) “properly, to play as a child, hence denotes to play as in dancing and making merry.” This was connected with idolatry and methinks fun and pleasure have become idols to some. (II Tim. 3:4.)

During the digression of 100 years ago, a little old lady protested the bringing into the church building of the first piano. They put it in, but she took an axe to it one night and chopped it up. She said it had “no business there.” We need some little old ladies to chop up some other things today “which have no business” in the Lord’s church.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 23-24
August 1962

By O. Fred Liggen, Jr.

How much would you be willing to sacrifice for the Lord and His work? Jesus told us in Luke 14:27; “If a man cometh unto me and hateth not his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yea, and his own life also he cannot be my disciple.” To people who never have to worry about being called upon to give up such things or who are secure in their country free from religious and physical persecution, these words may seem far less important. Yet in a country where you must be careful not to do things that might bring the wrath of the governing party upon you, these words have more meaning. Here in Africa one must be very careful what he does and must do all he can do not to conflict with the thinking of the governing party. Yet when the Bible and such a group contradict, one must stand fast for the Faith. Such was the case here in Nyasaland not too many weeks past.

Upon our return from Tanganyika, we learned some very disturbing news. The churches at SIzokoto, along with many denominations, were scared out of worshiping God on Sunday. A certain Malawi Congress Party man — the local governing party– had been going around the area announcing, “Do not go to church to worship God. All people must worship Dr. Banda (the leader of the party) until we gain our freedom, then we will worship God.” Brother Calvin Nyirenda who preaches at Mzokoto was with us in Tanganyika at the time; therefore nothing could be done about it until he returned. Immediately upon his return and upon learning of this, he did a very brave thing and began to take action. He didn’t run to us to see what we could do about it. Instead, he went straight to the Mzokoto branch head and discussed it with him, demanding to know the reason for it. Then, he went to Rumpi, 17 miles, to the District office to inquire into the matter. He was told that no one had authority to do such speaking and received a letter from the chairman of the party stating this. For this brave action, he is to be commended highly. We know that many Christians would have gone in hiding just as the denominations did. But brother Nyirenda met the problem head on being prepared to lose his house and possessions in order to stand fast in the Faith. Let me add here that not all of the Mzokoto Christians obeyed this announcement. About five of them, including brother Nyirenda’s wife met secretly at 10:00 p. m. on that Sunday to break bread.

We thank the Lord for those faithful Christians and the courage of brother Nyirenda. We are also thankful that the governing body here in Nyasaland has not reached the point where they will forbid the people to meet in peace and worship God.

The Lord has continued to greatly bless our work here in the Northern Province. The work moves forward but leaves much to be done. Since March of this year 74 have been added to the Lord’s Body and 42 restored. Still we need to do more in order to strengthen the churches here. In order to do this more help is desperately needed. The Leon Clymores will be leaving the work in October of this year and no one has yet responded to the call. Who is willing to accept the challenge? The Lord needs workers in the field. Truly, the harvest is ready and the laborers are few. “

We are glad the Doyle Gilliam family reached the Central Province of Nyasaland safely. They are now on their second missionary Journey and are working with the Pressnell Higginbothams.

Brethren, we continue to ask your prayers and financial help. Should you desire to help please send your contribution to me here, P. O. Kumpi, Nyasaland, Africa or to my bank account at the Citizens and Southern Bank of Albany, P. O. Box 140, Albany, Georgia. Your contribution will be gratefully accepted and recorded in our monthly newsletter. Send whatever you can. Remember the poor widow and her two mites. God bless you all and cause His light to shine upon you.

Truth Magazine VI: 12, p.1
September 1962

By P. J. Casebolt

There is such a thing as an unapproved example. Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah “are set forth for an example? Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (v. 7.) The Israelites set s o m e poor examples for anyone to follow. They lusted, committed idolatry and fornication, and tempted God. Paul says that these were punished for doing such things, and that we are not to follow their examples. (I Cor. 10:6-11.) The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were poor examples of righteous living, and Jesus exhorted his disciples: “…but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Mt. 23:3.)

The Example of Christ

Peter said that Christ left us an example, and that we should follow in his steps. (1 Pet. 2:21.) Many of the things which Jesus did are recorded in the first four books of the New Testament. John said that there were many other things which Jesus did which are not recorded, but that a sufficient number had been put on record to establish the identity of Christ as the Son of God. (Jno. 20:30,31.)

The Example of the Christian

Paul told Timothy to be an example of the believers. (1 Tim. 4:12.) When people see us, they should see Christ. (Gal. 2:20.) When people see our good works, they should glorify God. (Mt. 5:16.) Peter said that if wives have husbands who are not Christians, that they should live before them in such a way that the husbands would be won to Christ. (1 Pet. 3:1, 2.) The example of the Christian is so powerful that a person may be won to Christ without the word, i.e., people can see the word as well as hear it.

Apostolic Examples

These, likewise, must be approved. We cannot follow the one set by Peter which is recorded in Gal. 2:11-13. It will not be difficult to determine whether an example is approved or disapproved if we will observe the text and the context.

Jesus sent the apostles forth and charged them to teach the people “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Mt. 28: 19, 20.) We are told that the early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread’ and in prayers.” (Acts 2:42.)

The true followers of Christ have always sought authorization for a practice by (1) direct command, (2) necessary inference, and (3) approved apostolic example. This is not a new procedure introduced by the principals of the Restoration, but a practice which is as old as the church itself. The apostles were commanded to go and to preach the gospel. It was necessarily inferred that they use some means of transportation. The approved examples which they set before the early church were binding then, and are just as binding now.

But, a concentrated effort is being made in our time (even as it has been made in other times) to destroy the power of an approved apostolic example. The proponents of this movement claim that an apostolic example alone is not binding–that it must be accompanied by a direct command. What is the purpose of this effort? There must be a reason. There is.

The only way that we know elders should be ordained in “every church” is by an approved apostolic example. (Acts 14:23.) Paul charged Titus to ordain elders in “every city,” but how would we know that each congregation in “every city” should have elders were it not for the apostolic example of Acts 14:23?

The only way we know that spiritual gifts could only be imparted by the laying on of the apostles’ hands is by the apostolic examples given concerning it. (See Acts 8:14-18; 19:6; 2 Tim. 1:6.) The only exception to this is the receiving of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles. (Acts 10:44-46.) Still, this is an example, not a command.

We would be left in the dark completely as to the time we should observe the Lord’s supper, were it not for the apostolic example of Acts 20:7. We are commanded to observe the supper, but we are not told when to observe it. The lone example of Acts 20:7 tells us when, or how often we are to observe the supper. I have proved for years, and can still prove, by apostolic example alone, that we should break bread “on the first day of the week.” You may find a command telling us to break bread, but you will never find a command telling us when to do it. Thank God for this apostolic example set by Paul in Acts 20:7!

Now, I have a question for those who think that an apostolic example alone is not binding. Since you place more emphasis on a command than you do on an apostolic example, what are you going to do if the apostles command us to observe an example as binding? The apostle Paul commands: “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example.” (Phil. 3:17.) “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you.” (Phil. 4:9.) Yes, we are commanded to do not only the things we have learned, received, and heard, but also to do the things which we have seen.

Now, why would anyone want to minimize the importance of an approved apostolic example? Especially, why would brethren want to do it? Is it because they don’t want to observe the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week? No. Is it because they want to teach that spiritual gifts were imparted by someone other than the apostles? No. Is it because they don’t think we should have elders in every church? No. The answer is found when you begin reading at Phil. 4:9 and read the next seven verses, especially vv. 15, 16. The approved apostolic example of sending support directly to the place where it is needed instead of through some sponsoring church or human organization is what these anti-apostolic-example-advocates are trying to escape.

No, it is not because of disrespect for the Lord’s supper or opposition to elders in every church that causes brethren to reject an approved apostolic example as binding upon the church today, but rather because of their love for some humanly devised arrangement of raising, contributing, and receiving money. But, it is inexcusable for brethren to abandon the only method possible of proving that we should commune on the first day of the week and that we should have elders in every church just because they want to send their contributions through some “sponsoring agency” instead of sending it directly to the preacher, the church, or the individual in need. Yet, Paul commands in Phil 4:9 that we observe his example in Phil. 4:15,16.

May God help us to quit weakening the influence of approved apostolic examples before the sectarians see our weakness and jump on us with both feet. Even if we escape the wrath of sectarianism, such a practice will lead us into it eventually, and ultimately into the wrath of God.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 17-18
August 1962