Truth Magazine

By Garreth L. Clair

In Matthew 16:13-19 we may read of the promise of Jesus to his disciples to build his church. There is no question, after reading these passages, that it was the intention of Jesus to build a church. The greatest problem to mankind today is to determine if he really did and, if he did, which one is it? One of the reasons many religious people today do not understand the church or what it is, is actually a failure to rightly divide/apply Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15). There are many people today who sing, talk, pray, and discuss the church, but they do not really understand it. Perhaps one way to determine what the church of Christ really is is to determine what it is not. In order to do that, we will, of necessity, have to compare the teaching of some to what the Bible says about the subject. Notice the following points:

1. The church of Christ is not a material building constructed of perishable materials such as brick, wood, etc. (Acts 7:48; 17:24). Fear may come upon the church (Acts 5:11); from this fact it is clear that the people are under consideration. The church has ears to hear (Acts 11: 22). Again, people are under consideration not a building. From these facts, we are forced to the conclusion that the church of Christ is not a building of anything material but is composed of people.

2. The church revealed in the Bible is not a continuation of the Jewish tabernacle, temple, or synagogue. It is not enough to simply dismiss these institutions with a movement of the hand, we must explain their existence and their purpose as well as their demise. Indeed, the Bible points out that in entering Judaism one simply was born into it, but into the Christian era (i.e, into the church of Christ) one must be born again (John 3:3-5). These facts help us to understand the three terms.

A. The tabernacle was a place of worship first used by the Israelites after they came out of Egyptian bondage. The tabernacle was to fill the needs of the Israelites and their worship until the permanent temple was erected (see a good concordance and search under tabernacle for further information).

B. The temple finally erected in Jerusalem by Solomon, David’s son, was a permanent place of worship for the Israelites who were to worship according to the dictates received from God on Mount Sinai (I Chron. 6: 10; etc.). The temple was, finally destroyed completely by Titus as was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24 (see also Harpers Bible Dictionary, p. 735, seventh edition). As one may observe from the comments in Harpers, the Jewish worship came to an end at its destruction; therefore there was no continuation of the temple and the items in the temple that made the Jewish worship acceptable to God.

C. The Jewish synagogue has existed since the Babylonian exile in the sixth century B.C. (The Dictionary of Religious Terms by Donald Kauffman, pp. 405 column 2, 1967 Fleming H. Revell, Publishers).

All of these institutions were specifically utilized for Jewish worship which came into existence on Mount Sinai according to the book of Exodus. Since the law of Moses has been blotted out and nailed to the cross of Christ (Col. 2:14), it follows that the institutions utilized under that law are no longer useful to the man who would please God.

3. The church is not a purely social organization to be used for the betterment of society, or for social change, not even for social activities among its members. Although many good social actions follow the deeds of dedicated Christians who may make up the local ekkiesia in a given community, their primary function is spiritual. The social benefits are simply by-products of a spirit of Christ possessed by the membership. When the building where the church meets in a given community is misused for social functions, the nature of the church in its function and ownership is misunderstood.

4. The church is not a political organization any more than it is a social organization. Those who make up the local assembly in a given locality are encouraged to be good citizens in their community and in their country, but the purpose for the church’s existence is not to change the political status of a nation or of the world as such, but to change the life of the individuals who inhabit this globe (Matt. 28:18-20). From this, we know that the church is not a political institution at all.

5. The church is not a denomination as may be observed from the following facts:

A. Protestant denominationalism came into existence as a result of dissatisfaction with the existing Roman Catholic Church. Protestant denominationalism had its beginning with the rebellion of Martin Luther in Germany about 1520.

B. All Protestant denominations have come into existence since Martin Luther’s efforts at reformation began. Please notice the following origins and originators of certain denominations;

(1) Of course the Roman Catholic Church is the first false religious organization having come into existence about 606 A.D., Boniface III becoming the first “universal bishop.”

(2) In 1520, Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church.

(3) In about 1534 Henry VIII founded the Church of England which became in America the Episcopalian Church.

(4) In 1536 John Calvin founded the Presbyterian Church.

(5) In 1550 Robert Browne founded the Congregational Church.

(6) In 1607 John Smythe founded the Baptist Church.

(7) In 1739 John Wesley founded the Methodist Church.

(8) About 1830 Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church.

(9) About 1830 William Miller founded the Adventists.

(10) About 1866 Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science.

(11) About 1872 Charles T. Russell founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

(12) About 1907 a merger of several smaller groups formed the Nazarene Church.

We could go on and on with this list until we would have named literally hundreds of different religious bodies, yet not one of them is the church you may read about in the Bible. Why? Because the church of Christ is not a denomination; it was not founded by man and is the only church found in the Bible.

After establishing some facts relative to what the church is not, let us examine the Bible to determine what the Church is.

1. The church is a spiritual institution composed of saved people (Acts 2:37-47; 1 Cor. 10:17; Eph. 1:10; 4:4-5; Col. 3:11).

2. The church of Christ is an assembly (from the Greek words from which our English word church comes). The original word ekklesia (English dress), translated church occurs 23 times in Acts, 62 times in Paul’s letters, 2 times in Hebrews, once in James, 3 times in the third epistle of John, and 20 times in the book of Revelation. Jesus did not invent this word (ekklesia). He found the word in common use, as John the immerser proselyted and employed what was at hand.

Among the Greeks, ekklesia was the assembly of the citizens of a free city-state gathered by a herald blowing a horn through the streets. In this sense, the word is used one time in the New Testament (Acts 19:39). The town clerk advised Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen to submit their case to the Greek ekklesia.

Among the Jews, ekkiesia was the congregation of Israel assembled before the tabernacle in the wilderness by the blowing of a silver trumpet. In this sense the word is used 2 times in the New Testament (Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:12). Stephen, rehearsing the history of Israel, says, Christ was in the ekklesia in the wilderness. The Hebrew scribe quotes a prophetic Psalm of David where the sense is “congregation” (Psa. 22:20). Israel in the land of Canaan is never called an ekklesia, not even in the Septuagint.

Both with the Greeks And the Jews the word ecclesia denoted an assembly of the people, not a committee or a council and it never refers to a structure made with hands.

The word as it refers to Christians means either, a “local assembly” or the “universal church” (i.e. the body of Christ, the catholic church, etc.). As we look to the teaching of the Bible in this regard we may see how the words are used and translated in their contexts. Notice the following:

A. In the following passages the word is used to describe a local assembly (i.e. congregation): Acts 5:11; 8:1,3; 9:31; 15:22; 20:28; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:17, etc.

B. In the following passages reference is generally applied to the universal church: Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; 3:10,21; 5:23,24,25,27,29; Col. 1: 18,24; 1 Tim. 3:15, etc.

Since this is the only way the Greek term ecclesia is used, it behooves us to avoid misusing the term to apply it to buildings, schools, homes, etc. The church of Christ is a building not made with hands, a building composed of saved people. When we fail to appreciate these features of the church we simply are failing to appreciate the relationship which we sustain to Christ who has purchased it with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

3. In the third place the church of Christ is an institution that Christ, its founder, adds the saved to (Acts 2:47). That being true, only the truly saved belong to it. In its local sense anyone may palm themselves off as a member, but in the universal sense only the saved belong to it. This difference is understood when we have properly understood the differences between the church in its local sense and the church in its universal sense.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 1, pp. 10-11
January 7, 1988

By Paul C. Keller

During the early part of 1947 it was my privilege to attend a religious discussion, in Birmingham, Alabama. My good friend and brother, W. Curtis Porter, debated Glen V. Tingley, who represented the Christian-Missionary Alliance. Both were able men, and favorably known among their respective brethren. The first three nights of the debate were conducted in the building of the Central church of Christ and the last three at the “Birmingham Gospel Tabernacle,” which had been started by Mr. Tingley and where he was the very popular preacher. The debate had been well-planned and well-advertised; twelve to fifteen hundred people attended every session at both places, crowding into every available space. The conduct of the audience and speakers was excellent; good order and a fine, congenial attitude prevailed throughout.

Both debaters were able men; nevertheless, there were marked contrasts distinguishing the two. Mr. Tingley was an outgoing, articulate man and with an evident ability to communicate ideas and influence people. In a word which has seen considerable use in recent years, he had charisma, a personal magic of leadership that aroused popular loyalty and enthusiasm. He had built a large following for himself in Birmingham; was well-known and influential in that city. He seemed not to lack for self-confidence; in fact, his air of self-assurance was such that there seemed to be more than a trace of conceit, cocksureness. Yet, he was a likeable person. While brother Porter had superior abilities and knowledge of the Scriptures, there was no showiness about him. He was a quiet, God-fearing man who loved the truth; always meek and humble. He “put on no airs.” He did not fluff. He did not bluster. But when a defense of the truth of God was called for, he was ready, willing and able. It was then that his true worth and abilities were made evident. Tingley and Porter met each other for the first time during this debate. It is my personal opinion that the humility of Porter, the complete absence of display on his part, plus the fact that he was known to come from a little country town in Arkansas (Monette), was disarming to a man of Tingley’s disposition, and hence, caused him to under estimate the task before him. If he had deceived himself about this he was soon undeceived. He soon learned that the had met more than his match, as the errors Tingley espoused were exposed and refuted through six sessions of debating.

On the third and fourth nights the subject for discussion was baptism. Porter affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that water baptism to a penitent believer of the gospel is essential to salvation from alien sins.” In his first affirmative speech, his third argument presented was based on the commission given by Jesus, as recorded in Mark 16:15,16: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” After quoting this he then proceeded to make his argument based on the simplicity, the understandableness, of Jesus’ statement, pointing out that it does not say, “He that believeth and is saved can then be baptized if he wants to.” That is not, first believe; second, baptism; and third salvation. Rather, it is first believe; second baptism; and third salvation. He argued that the Lord stated it that way, and that if the passage makes belief necessary to salvation, it also makes baptism necessary to salvation; that, according to Jesus, salvation is dependent upon those conditions.

Continuing this argument, brother Porter, in his characteristic ability to make matters plain, said: “Remember that no amount of reasoning can make that read, ‘He that believeth, and is saved can then be baptized,’ because that is not what the Lord said. People will quibble about it, and will try to reason around it, and get it out of the way; but if the thing were expressed in material value, there would be no quibble about it. Suppose, for example, that when you go home from this discussion you turn on your radio and hear the President of the Ford Motor Company broadcasting this statement: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall receive a new Ford.’ Do you suppose there’d be any quibbling about it? Would people try to reason the thing away and claim that it is not essential – ‘you do not have to do that, just believe in Ford and that is all that’s necessary.’ No, you would not hear any quibbling about it. If you should hear that broadcast tonight from the Ford Motor Company, there’d be the biggest baptizing tonight in Birmingham before daylight you ever heard of. You would not be able to keep people knocked out of the river or the creeks with a club; and among the first to get wet would be my friend, Elder Tingley.”

At this point, there was some laughter from the audience. And, Tingley joined good-naturedly in the laughter – and then he laughingly nodded and said, loudly and clearly, “I expect that’s right.”

Then, when all was quiet, brother Porter continued his speech, very forcefully saying: “He says he expects that’s right! If a Ford were involved, Elder Tingley would not try to reason it away! But if salvation is involved, he tries to get around it. Is salvation worth as much as a new Ford, Tingley? Do you think more of a new Ford than you do salvation? You said you’d do it if it were a Ford involved. You would not try to reason it away; you’d accept it; you’d do it. You’d be one of the first men to get wet; but where the salvation of the soul is involved he tries to reason the thing out and get it entirely out of the way. He knows if, he tried to do that with a new Ford, somebody else would get the new Ford, and he’d be left out, you see. I am saying that if it were expressed in material values, there’d be little quibbling about it. Why quibbling, then, when salvation is the thing involved, and the Lord said, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’?”

Having said this, Porter went on to his fourth argument. He did not need to say more. Tingley saw it. The audience saw it. And, although Tingley tried hard to put on a bold front, he never regained the aplomb he had shown earlier. Throughout the remaining sessions of the debate, Tingley had a difficult time, although he made determined effort. He had shown that although he could understand the teaching of Jesus, he was determined to try to get around it.

More than forty years have come and gone since this occurred. During these years I have thought about it many times – not only about Glen V. Tingley, but about countless other preachers of the various denominations, who can understand what Jesus said, and meant, but who, nevertheless, try to deny, try to get around, this plain teaching of Jesus, and who work so hard at trying to keep other people from believing and obeying what Jesus taught. If the President of the Ford Motor Company were to make the proposition in our day as was suggested by brother Porter in this debate in Birmingham, these preachers could understand it, and they would not quibble about it, nor hesitate to comply with it – they’d head for the water, and soon be seen proudly driving their new Ford cars! But when it comes to the matter of salvation, their denominational dogmas, stubbornness and/or pride causes them to try to get around this teaching of Jesus – and to prevent others from understanding, believing and obeying it. Think about it! In all candor, I say, I would not stand in the shoes of such a preacher for a million worlds like this one.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 1, pp. 12-13
January 7, 1988

By Mike Willis

2 Samuel 6 records the occasion when David moved the ark of the covenant from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem, after having conquered the city and making it his capital. The worship of God in Israel was in shambles. The ark of the covenant had been captured by the Philistines in a battle while Eli was judge in Israel. The Philistines placed the ark of the covenant in Dagon’s temple in Ashdod but removed it from there when the Lord destroyed the idol of Dagon (1 Sam. 5). The people of the city were smitten with a disease, so the Philistine removed the ark from Ashdod to several other cities. When the people of each city became ill with the same disease, the leaders concluded that the disease was related to their having the ark. Consequently, they returned the ark of the covenant to Israel. The ark was eventually placed in Kiriath-jearim, in the home of Eleazar.

The ark of the covenant remained in Kiriath-jearim throughout the judgeship of Samuel and the forty years that Saul reigned as king in Israel. In the meantime, worship continued to be offered in the tabernacle which was situated in Nob and later at Gibeon. When David became king, he resolved to bring the ark of the covenant to Jersualern and to re-unite the divided worship.

Consequently, David gathered 30,000 chosen men of Israel and proceeded to bring the ark of the covenant from the house of Abinadab in Gibeah to Jerusalem.

And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark. And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God (2 Sam. 6:3-7).

There are a number of lessons from this record which we can learn. Here are some of them:

1. When God gives man a pattern, he expects men to follow that pattern. God had given Israel a pattern for transporting the ark of the covenant. The sons of Kohath, the son of Aaron, were given the responsibility of transporting the ark of the covenant. The high priest was to cover the ark of the covenant with a veil and the sons of Kohath were to carry the ark on their shoulders (Num. 4:1-15). For whatever reasons, the ark was not transported according to the Bible pattern. Perhaps, because the ark had been away from the Tabernacle for so long, people were ignorant of the law. Perhaps the degree of reverence which God required of the people was missing. For whatever reason, they did not obey the Lord’s law and the Lord punished them, impressing David with the message that God expects his pattern to be obeyed. When the people placed the ark of God on their new cart they committed a serious trespass: they ignored the divinely appointed order and substituted their own arrangements. David acted without divine orders and substituted something in the worship and service of God for which he had no “thus saith the Lord.”

Three months later, when David brought the ark from the house of Obed-edom, he had learned the lesson of following the Lord’s pattern. As he planned the moving of the ark, he said, “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever” (1 Chron. 15:2). When instructing the Levites in bringing the ark to Jerusalem, he reflected on the sin committed by Uzzah saying, “Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites; sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order” (1 Chron. 15:12-13).

The denominational pastor and author Arthur W. Pink commented on David’s sin in these words:

There are many who are anxious to see the pews occupied and their treasury well filled, and so “socials,” “ice-cream suppers,” and other worldly attractions are employed to draw the crowd. There are many preachers who are anxious to hold the young people, and so “athletic clubs,” social entertainments, are introduced to secure that end. There are many evangelists who are anxious to “make a good show,” secure “results,” and be able to herald so many hundreds of “converts” at the close of their “campaigns,” and so fleshly means are used, high pressure methods are employed to bring this about: “decision cards,” the “sawdust trail,” the “penitent form” are called in to their aid. There are many Sunday school teachers who are anxious to hold the interest of their class, and so “prizes” are given, “picnics” are arranged, and other devices are resorted to.

Apparently it does not occur to these “leaders” to challenge their own actions, to weigh them in “the balances of the sanctuary, ” to inquire how near or how far they measure up to the divine standard: so long as such means and methods seem right to them, or are in general vogue in other “churches,” and so long as they appear to “succeed,” nothing else matters. But in a coming day, God is going to ask of them “who hath required this at your hand?” (Isa. 1:12)! None of the devices mentioned above have one particle of scriptural authority to warrant their use-, and it is by the Scriptures that each of us will yet be judged! All things must be done “according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5; Ex. 25:40) which God has furnished us; and woe will it yet be unto us if we have disregarded His “pattern” and substituted another of our own (The Life of David, pp. 295-296).

Many of our brethren need to learn the lesson which Pink has so well expressed. In recent years, some of our brethren have been trying to persuade us that those who have changed the worship of the church by adding instruments of music have not committed so serious an offense as to justify the division which exists between us. We are reminded that these brethren have a good, honest and sincere heart. If we can stand justified before God in spite of our sins, so also can they. I am willing to grant that these brethren have a good, honest and sincere heart – a heart just like Uzzah and David! Nevertheless, they are no more obedient to the divine pattern of worship than was Uzzah. My love for and concern for their soul insists that I call for them to repent of their sin, just as I should have been calling for Uzzah not to touch the ark of the covenant had I been present when they. moved the ark.

2. Sins committed with good intentions are still punishable by God. We have been fed a steady diet of the doctrine that sins committed from a good, honest heart do not jeopardize a man’s soul. One could not persuade Uzzah that this is so – Uzzah’s intentions were good. He was concerned that the ark of the covenant might fall off the new cart when the oxen stumbled. With the intention of steadying the tottering ark of the covenant, Uzzah reached back and touched the ark. Immediately, God struck Uzzah dead in exact compliance with Numbers 4:15. Good intentions do not sanctify wrong actions.

In writing to the Romans, Paul commended their zeal for God but condemned them for not practicing the righteousness of God. “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10: 1-3).

“The special moral of this warning is that no one, on the plea of zeal for the ark of God’s church, should resort to doubtful expedients and unlawful means for the attainment of his end” (Wordsworth, Pulpit Commentary on 2 Samuel 6, p. 164).

3. Failure to follow God’s divine pattern is a sign of irreverence. The man who does not show enough regard for the Lord to inquire from his word to see what he has said about the matter does not show reverence for the will of God. Before speaking on the subject of homosexuality, a man should see what God has said about the matter. Before deciding how often the Lord’s supper should be served, a man should see what God has had to say about the matter. He who rushes to speak or act without consulting the will of God shows disrespect for God’s work in revelation.

4. The counsel of great men does not constitute authority from God. When David prepared to bring the ark of the covenant from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem, he conferred with the prominent men. “And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the Lord our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: and let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul. And all the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people” (1 Chron. 13:1-4). However, because it was right in the eyes of the people did not make it right in the eyes of God.

Conclusion

Brethren, let us never forget the fundamental lessons which we have learned from the study of such basic stories as the death of Uzzah.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 1, pp. 2, 19
January 7, 1988

By Dick Blackford

(The following letter was written in September, 1981. Names and places have been changed to protect the family. This is the first in a series of three.)

Dear Joe,

This is a difficult letter to write. I have spent much time wondering what I could say to help. I want to assure you of my personal care. I regard you as a friend and I want to be the same to you. Jeanette did not ask me to write. It was my idea and I am doing it on my own. I have always thought a lot of both of you and you have been a source of encouragement to me. Several times when we were living in Dyersburg I remarked to Kathy about what a good family you had, how you had done so well raising your children and how I wished you lived there with us.

I can understand how such a situation arose. You are an understanding, compassionate person. Your neighbor was unhappy with family problems and needed someone to help shoulder her burdens. She was younger and you were mature. One thing led to another. With the boys away at school, you felt the need for a friend. A feeling was ignited that you felt when you were younger in your courting days. It was a good feeling that made you feel young again. She gave you compliments that would inflate the ego of any man (we all have egos and they can be difficult things to live with).

Sometimes it is hard to face the reality that we are growing older and to see the deceitful means through which Satan works. He tries to convince us that we can recapture our youth. But Satan is a liar (Jn. 8:44) and he often uses us for target practice by using others to capture us. We are both well over half way to the “threescore years and ten” that is generally allotted to man (Psa. 90:10). We cannot regain our youth, but those feelings that you are having can be recaptured again with the girl that you loved enough to snatch from the clutches of the Roman Catholic Church and make her your wife and the mother of your children.

I want to remind you that a knock down is not a knock out. You can still pick up the pieces and get it together again. Joe, God has wonderfully blessed you. He gave you a loving mother and father who have always had your best interest at heart and gave you a happy home life. He has given you a wife who cares for you, is a good homemaker, and who can be trusted. You were given four healthy children who are obedient and respectful and who love you. They didn’t go off the deep end of rebellion as many teenagers have done. You have been successful in business and financial matters and have enjoyed many of the pleasures of this life which some never have the opportunity to experience. You have enjoyed the respect of people throughout your community. But especially, you were fortunate enough to come in contact with the Christ, the Son of the living God, who loved you and went to the cross so you could have the greatest experience yet of spending eternity in heaven. How then can you turn your back on everything that has ever mattered and sin against the God who made it all possible without which you would be nothing?

Pentecostals often tell people to “silence your intellect and let your emotions take over.” It is easy to let one’s emotions rule rather than his knowledge of what is right. Don’t silence your intellect and allow your emotions to rule, God promises a way of escape in time of temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). He doesn’t promise that it will always be the easiest course to follow, but it is always there. It wasn’t easy for Joseph to leave his coat and flee from Potiphar’s wife, but he ran (Gen. 39:8,9)! Joe, I urge you to break off this situation and move completely away from it (1 Cor. 9:27). You are a man of like passions that must be controlled the same as Joseph was, and you can! “Can a man take fire in his bos9m, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbor’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent” (Prov. 6:27-29).

There are some other questions you need to ask yourself. Would you recommend this behavior to your children – Lee, Jimmy, Michael, and Linda? By your example, what are you recommending? Actions speak louder than words. Children will follow our example much easier than they will our advice. Statistics show that broken homes breed broken homes. I personally know a family that has three generations of divorce. It is very likely that you would become an occasion of stumbling to those who love you. “. . . But woe unto that man through whom the occasion cometh” (Mt. 18:7). Don’t squander the family fortune on someone who has done nothing to help you be the success you have been.

I can guarantee that should you marry your neighbor’s wife that those feelings that have been sparked and the novelty of it will be gone in a matter of months, if not sooner. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence because you don’t have to mow it. Both of you have been careful to put forth your best image to each other, but things will change as soon as you learn each other’s faults. Joe, have you considered the kind of woman you will be getting? You will be getting a woman who steps out on her husband when something more inviting comes along. In a short time you will be in your fifties and she will still be in her thirties. Neither her age nor your jogging will keep you from getting older. And, what kind of man will she be getting? A man who steps out on his wife when the situation is more inviting.

Have you considered the number of people you will hurt by your actions? Is your need for a friend at this point in your life worth the loss of her soul throughout eternity? What kind of comparison is that? Will your selfishness lead you to that extent? Can you really call that love? True love is when you seek only the best for another, including that person’s eternal welfare. If your love for her is any less than that, then it is only for what you can get out of it and you are deceiving yourself and her too – just for a few years of personal pleasure and enjoyment, if that long.

I won’t make a list of everyone you will be hurting. There are plenty, both in your family and hers, aside from your brothers and sisters in Christ and others who respect you. But above all, there is the loss of your soul! You have come too far to give up heaven now. I am reminded of a sermon I heard titled “Halfway to Heaven.” It was about people who devote most of their lives to the Lord but then blow the whole thing as they come into the home stretch.

I highly recommend that you and Jeanette take some time off – just the two of you – and make a trip and talk this thing out. Cumberland Lake is a nice place. Or you could come here. We will treat you so many ways you will surely like some of them. You and Jeanette are quality people and have a lot of talent. It would be good if you could be in a congregation where there are other couples your age. I know you have been an asset to the church there but I also know that it is easy to become discouraged in a small congregation in a small community, especially when there is hardly anyone your age and with your interests (we have been in those situations before). You are in the prime of your lives and need to get more involved in the Lord’s work. You have lived your lives for the children, now do something for yourselves. You owe it to each other and no one should fault you for it. Recapture those feelings with the one who bore your children and who knows you better than anyone ever could; who loves you in spite of your shortcomings and has stood by you and will stand by you and is willing to forgive. As I say this, I know you are saying Jeanette has her faults too. Well, we all do and so do our children because we are human. But we can love in spite of faults (1 Cor. 13). I promise you that a second marriage will have as many or more faults and problems in it. It will just take time for them to come to the surface, but they will.

Joe, I hope your conscience has not become seared to where it no longer feels the pangs of guilt or hears the cries of danger or the pleas of your loved ones to do what is right. You can be forgiven and I urge you to repent. Quit leading a double life. Remember, there are no loopholes in God’s law. Sin, like quicksand, always drags the sinner deeper. One cannot remain at a standstill once begun. He will go one way or the other. I am making a plea for your soul. Get hold of yourself and don’t let it happen! “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world – and lose his own soul. . . ?”

Feel free to call on me if there is anything I can do.

Your friend and brother,

Dick

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 2, p. 7-8
January 7, 1988