Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Several years ago, while producing a church bulletin with a sizeable mailing list, I borrowed an idea from my good friend, Ed Harrell. He had written a series of “Footnotes” for the front page of a church bulletin in Birmingham in the 1970s. These “Footnotes” consisted of short articles quoting various published materials with appropriate comments on each quotation. With Ed’s permission, we are happy to reintroduce this series to our readers.

Although I will occasionally borrow some of brother Harrell’s material from a decade ago (or material from other pertinent sources), most of these “Footnotes” will be my own. Because of my interest in church history, especially the history of the Restoration, many of them will deal with that sort of material. I always appreciated the “history” page of Robert Turner’s Plain Talk, and since Mike Willis has been trying to get me to write on Restoration History for some time, perhaps these short articles will serve as a down payment. However, I have also prepared some dealing with other aspects of our culture, on topics ranging from the creation/evolution controversy to psychology, from biblical issues to denominational doctrines, from hymns to rock music, and assorted other miscellaneous issues.

Sometimes I may feel the need to comment on the quoted “Footnote, ” but frequently I will simply let the quotation stand on its own merits. Often, in reading for the “Book Reviews” column, I come across good material which is too long for inclusion there, but which can be excerpted in “Footnotes. “

I invite interested readers to send me whatever interesting quotations catch their attention. I will try to incorporate them as space will allow. Happy reading!

FOOTNOTE’ Alonzo Willard Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky (Published by the Convention of the Christian Churches in Kentucky, 1932), pp. 350-351.

The first church in Kentucky to take action pledging support to the American Christian Missionary Society was the church at Danville. On March 24, 1850, the church adopted four resolutions [urging] co-operation through an organization that would enable the churches to do the work that should be done in Kentucky. . . [These] resolutions indicate that the church at Danville had a missionary vision . . . and indicate a wonderful attitude toward the missionary task.

Aside from the personal interest this quotation may hold for those of us living in Danville, this statement of historical circumstances raises additional questions which relate to more modern controversies in the church. One sees attitudes, perhaps only implicit in this quotation but quite explicitly stated elsewhere, which have become characteristic of the thinking which has produced missionary societies, other human institutions, and “sponsoring churches.” Presumption on the one hand, complacency with regard to divine authority on the other, and a generous dosage of smug superiority combine to produce just such unscriptural innovations.

First, one detects an attitude which says, in effect, “if it seems good, do it.” This is simply a subtle restatement of a supreme ethical error: that the end justifies the means. The plain truth is that the assertion (or even the fact) that someone has a “wonderful attitude” or good intentions provides no justification for circumventing the Divine order.

Second, there is an implicit rebuke, almost overbearingly self-righteous, against those who decline to subscribe to the current wisdom or the latest “brotherhood” scheme. Those who don’t jump on the bandwagon of somebody’s pet promotion are represented as lacking in “missionary vision” and, by implication, are unconcerned for lost souls.

Third, one almost smiles at the usage of the word “cooperation.” Most of those who prefix that word with the label “anti” insist that “co-operation” must be practiced their way (a joint effort involving pooled resources or some formal organization) and no other.

We hope to discuss just such practices at greater length in the future. For now, it is sufficient to notice that this strained and unduly limited concept of “co-operation,” coupled with an attitude of arrogant intolerance toward any who disagree, have produced major catastrophes in the Lord’s church in at least two different generations. Perhaps a calm study of history and a fervent desire to know and practice God’s will may help to prevent a recurrence. To this end we strive.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, p. 743
December 17, 1987

By Earl Kimbrough

The Philippian Christians aroused such joy in Paul that he continually thanked God for them (Phil. 1:3). They comprised a model church, except for a hint of discord that gave the apostle concern. The trouble was nothing like that at Corinth. But even a healthy church can become unraveled if small snags are unattended. Paul wisely treated the problem as a danger, but not as an emergency. He did not issue rebukes or thunder threats. He gently urged the Philippians to follow principles that promote like-mindedness in a congregation (Phil. 2:14).

The Basis of Like-Mindedness

“Therefore” ties the like-mindedness to the preceding exhortation (Phil. 1:27). Their standing “fast in one spirit, with one mind striving for the faith of the gospel” was what Paul wanted most to hear about them. The motives on which he based his appeal to this end are introduced by four “if’s” (Phil. 2:1). The conjunction here does not express doubt but assured certainty. Anchoring his plea in facts they knew to be true, he poured out his heart in fervent eloquence, urging on them the highest possible duty.

The facts are fundamental. “Consolation in Christ” is the comfort one receives by assurance of union with him. Christians breathe the atmosphere of Christ, and none can do this without genuine affection for the Lord and his people. “Comfort of love” is the encouragement love brings and which we share with all who are in Christ. The “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” is our participation in the Spirit’s influence through his word dwelling in and guiding us to fruitful lives (Gal. 5:22, 23). “Affection and mercy” are also valued blessings the Philippians knew.

The aim of Paul’s exhortation was the completion of his joy (Phil. 2:2). This was not merely for his personal benefit, but his joy was so entwined with the joy of Christ that he knew what made him glad made Christ glad. But as great as Paul’s joy in them was, it would not be full until he knew they were truly “like-minded.” The word means “to think the same thing” and is the general word for harmony. It is followed by two specifics. (1) There is unity of affection: “having the same love.” Love will not survive unless it is mutual. (2) There is unity of sentiment: “being of one accord.” This means to be of “one soul; having your souls joined together . . . (and) acting together as if one soul actuated” the body (Albert Barnes).

“Of one mind” repeats the idea of harmony in stronger form and gives it greater emphasis. The unity enjoined is deeper than common belief, harmonious worship, or mutual work. As important as these are, they must be coupled to a unity of feeling. Ephesus shows that a church may be one in faith and practice but fall short of the inner bond of love that is essential to true oneness in Christ (Rev. 2:2-4). The Lord prayed for unity that is more than form (John 17:20, 21).

The Qualities of Like-Mindedness

“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition” (Phil. 2:3). Christians, as members of Christ’s body, must not act according to faction, or in separate interests. Neither should they act in opposition to or in competition with one another, whether as individuals or a party. Rivalry among Christians has no place in the service of Christ. There are two ways to do a good work: through strife and through love (Phil. 1:15-17). What Paul has in mind is the modesty of self-assessment that is learned at the feet of Jesus.

“Let nothing be done through . . . conceit.” Empty pride or vain glory is meant. Conceit is the spirit that moves one to boost himself and put others down. Vanity and discord are common bedfellows for vanity creates discord. It can ruin a marriage, a family, or a church. “Christ came to humble us, and therefore let there not be among us a spirit of pride” (Matthew Henry).

Each Christian is to be characterized by “lowliness of mind.” This is the opposite of self-seeking and vain glory. The apostle does not recommend that we think any less of ourselves than we should. Everyone needs a sense of worth and accomplishment. How often, even in the church, do we hurt and discourage people by ignoring or making light of what they do because they do not do it as well as others? Some act as if feelings for others were a mark of apostasy. Christianity was not designed to make door mats or neurotics of pe ple. When it does, it has been perverted.

But neither was it designed to encourage us to think of ourselves more highly than we should (Rom. 12:3). What Paul desires is a balance between a healthy selfesteem and a wholesome regard for others, with the preference tipped in their favor. He is discussing moral worth, not knowledge, skill, or ability. His words must be taken in perspective. We see our faults better than anyone else, if we are honest, because we view them from within. But we do not see the faults of others with the same clear vision because we view them only from without, and perhaps with warped lenses. Love’s eye is quick to detect virtues and overlook defects in others. It is in this light that we are to esteem others better than ourselves.

“Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). Each one is to watch for his own interests, of course. This is not wrong; but do not miss the “also.” What is forbidden is fixing the vision on our interests to the point that we fail to see the interests of others. The thief on one hand and the priest and the Levite on the other represent two types of excessive self-interest. The first is aggressively harmful to others, and the second is negligently harmful. There is another kind of excessive self-interest that cuts more deeply. It finds expression in Demas, a supposed friend who deserts one in time of need.

Paul is not encouraging us to be busy bodies, or to intrude into things that are not our business. Where looking into the personal affairs of others is needed (as in helping one in distress), the utmost delicacy should be used. Some enter such situations with a bulldozer, and shout the ill fortune from the housetops, leaving injured souls along their path. Perhaps the main thought in the verse is care for the spiritual welfare of others. We are not lords of others’ faith, but we are helpers in their service. We need the wisdom to know the difference.

“Probably there is no single thing so insisted on in the New Testament as the importance of harmony among Christians” (Barnes). What Paul describes is ideal. It is not always possible to attain this degree of oneness (see Rom. 12:18). But we must constantly strive to reach it. And remembering this will also help promoting disunity.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, pp. 746, 752
December 17, 1987

By Larry Ray Hafley

One of the major differences between the church described in the pages of the New Testament and modern denominational churches is that of organization or church government. Since a number of our regular readers are members of various denominations, it may be profitable to emphasize this point. Catholic and Protestant churches have various and sundry types and kinds of organizational structure and ecclesiastical hierarchy. They differ greatly from the church discussed in the Bible with respect to polity, government and organization.

“Elders In Every Church”

The New Testament pattern is simply this: “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23).

(1) Elders in each church in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Acts 14:21-23).

(2) Elders in Jerusalem church (Acts 15:4).

(3) Elders in Ephesian church (Acts 20:17,28).

(4) “Elders in every city” in Crete (Tit. 1:5).

(5) Elders in churches of Judea (Acts 11:29,30; 1 Thess. 2:14).

(6) “Elders of the church” (Jas. 5:14).

(7) (Elders), Bishops at Philippi (Phil. 1:1).

(8) Elders to feed and lead “the flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28).

(9) Note: Elders, bishops, pastors (plural) in every church.

“Just Your Opinion”

Someone may object, “That is just your opinion; that is the way you see it.” That implies that what we have outlined above is not the teaching or the pattern of the Bible. If the verses above do not set forth the conclusion we have advanced, what do they advocate? If our conclusions are not true, then what do the passages teach with respect to the organization of the church?

It further implies that the objector is a member of a church that is not organized according to the passages of Scripture cited above. If so, where is your church’s organization in the Bible? Is it there? Can you find it? We know that the church in the New Testament had an arrangement of government; it had organization of some sort. Was it like what your church has?

Is it, though, “just (my) opinion”? No, it is not. Listed below are just a few quotes which show that several denominational scholars recognize the difference between the organization of the New Testament church and that of denominational bodies.

Lofton, in the English Baptist Reformation (p. 25), said, “Someone must yet restore a plurality of elders to Baptist Churches.” Lofton was right, but no one has done it yet.

Referring to Philippians 1:1, Augustus H. Strong, a prominent denominational theologian said, “In the very first verse you have recognized an organization of the Christian church that is noteworthy. He writes to those who recognize Christ, to the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; i.e., with the overseers and deacons. Only two orders are recognized, only two sorts of officers in the Christian church. First the pastors, or overseers, of the flock, and then the deacons of the church; and I suppose we have here the outline of church organization in the apostolic time. We do not anywhere find that there are more than these two ranks, or officers, in the Christian church” (Popular Lectures on the Books of the New Testament, pp. 242, 243)

Walter L. Lingle, former President of Davidson College wrote, “In Acts 14:23 we are told that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church which they organized. In Acts 20:17 we learn that Paul sent for the elders of th church at Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. In Titus 1:5 Pau commands Titus to ordain elders in every city. These passages are sufficient to show that the New Testament church was governed by elders. . .

“Elders Sometimes Called Bishops. The Presbyterian is sometimes a bit perplexed by finding the word bishop in the New Testament. It occurs in five different places and leaves the impression that perhaps after all the New Testament church was governed by bishops. A little closer study of the passages will reveal the fact that these bishops were simply elders.

“In Acts 20:17 Paul sends for the elders of the at Ephesus. In Acts 20:28 he calls these same men bishop according to the correct translation given by the American Revised Version. In Titus 1:5 Paul directs that elders should be ordained in every city. In Titus 1:7 he refers to these same men as bishops. It is perfectly clear that elders and bishop are identical in the New Testament. They are only different names for the same office” (Presbyterians: Their History And Beliefs, pp. 11-13).

Paul F. Barackman, a Presbyterian Professor, commented, “Episkopos means ‘overseer,’ and was at first a general term. In Paul’s time the ‘bishop’s’ jurisdiction was the local church. . . .

“It is now rather generally agreed that ‘elder’ and ‘bishop’ are two words for the same office in the early church. The term ‘elder’ was basically Jewish, and had reference to the man himself. The term ‘bishop’ was basically Greek, and had reference to the function of the office. As to what is said here and elsewhere in the New Testament regarding the qualifications for these officers, it might be a good thing if we were to review our church government from time to time in the light of what Paul and others had to say.

“‘Elders’ (presbuteroi) are not to be distinguished from bishops at this point” (The Epistles of Timothy and Titus, pp. 39,40,63).

The men and books noted and quoted above are not the standard of authority. The word of God is our pattern. The word of Christ will judge us in the last day (Jn. 12:48). New Testament churches did not have Archbishops, District Overseers, or a single Pastor serving under a board of deacons, but such structures are found in denominational churches. Is the church of which you are a member organized like that of the Bible? If its pattern of organization and government is not in the word of God, what about its worship and terms of admission, its plan of salvation? Are they like the Bible? If not, you need to be concerned. Ask questions. Seek scriptural answers; study your Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, pp. 744-745
December 17, 1987

By H.E. Phillips

Reasons For Attending All Services And My Obligations To God

Not only are there reasons relating to ourselves and our fellow man for attending every service of the church, but we have certain obligations to God that demand our faithful attendance to every service.

1. Every child of God must present his body a living sacrifice unto God (Rom. 12:1). This does not mean in contrast with the dead sacrifice of the Jews, for the Jews did not offer a dead sacrifice. They killed a living sacrifice in their offering. There are two things involved in this plea of Paul to the Romans.

(1) They must present their bodies to the Lord as a resurrected body from the grave of sin. One who has been made dead to sin by repentance, and who has been buried with the Lord in baptism, arises as a new creature, a living creature in Christ, to present himself as a sacrifice to the God of heaven. “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:13). But more:

(2) As a resurrected creature from the watery grave, he must present himself a perpetual sacrifice, a living sacrifice, unto God. A living or continuing sacrifice unto God every day and every hour. Now how can one present himself a perpetual or living sacrifice when he fails to attend the place of worship at the appointed time? If I present my body a living and perpetual sacrifice unto the Lord, I am obligated to attend any and every service that will glorify Him.

2. The last statement leads us to the next reason. I must glorify God in the church. “Unto him (God) be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Eph. 3:21). Now, we either glorify God or we do not. If we glorify Him it will be as a member of the church of the Lord.

The word “church” is from a Greek word meaning “a called out” people, or an assembly. The word is one sense means all the Christian men and women in all ages who have been redeemed by Christ. This is the meaning of the word when Paul said Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28). But there is another sense in which the word is used. Several letters were written to churches. These were local churches or congregations, composed of members living in the same locality. Inasmuch as it is impossible for all the redeemed to meet at one place, it follows that we can give glory to God in the congregational sense only. Of course, we, as members of the church, give glory to God in the general sense, but we can not express public worship to God except in the local sense. Without the local church we can not glorify God in the worship, for this worship requires an assembly of two or more together in the name of Christ.

From the foregoing we see that if we glorify God at all we must be a member of the church. As a member of the church of the Lord we must glorify God in the congregation where we live. Now what sort of glory does God get when I fail to attend a service of the local church where I belong? The only answer is: absolutely none. How can one imagine he is glorifying God when he doesn’t think enough of the blood bought church of Christ to attend the services? I know not how. Then we must attend all services to glorify God as we should.

3. We are taught by Christ to “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). That the church and the kingdom are the same is plainly shown by the statement of Christ to Peter in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi. He said, “I will build my church.” Then to Peter he said: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:13-19). He had in mind the same institution – the church.

Can I be seeking first the kingdom or church when I allow other things to come between me and my attendance to the services of the church? Again we must answer no. The failure to attend services, when physically able to do so, is a direct, wilful disobedience of this command of Christ. No one can be saved when he lives in disobedience to the Lord.

4. I must be faithful unto death to receive the crown of glory. “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). Is it possible to be faithful unto death, and at the same time fail to assemble with the saints to worship God at the appointed time? I do not believe any would so contend.

To be faithful is to be steadfast in the doctrine of Christ. The early church continued steadfastly in the worship as they had been taught by the apostles. All who do not continue faithful in worship and service have not God as their Father. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). This includes faithfulness in church attendance as well as all other things we are required to do. When before the Great Judge we stand someday, will we be cast out because we were unfaithful in our service to Him? Every man is unfaithful to the Lord who wilfully stays away from public worship. Let us think seriously on this matter.

5. As a member of the Lord’s church I must follow the divine example of Christ and his apostles. Paul said: “Brethren, be followers together of me” (Phil. 3:17). Paul, of course, was following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He then said in the last part of this verse: “And mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.” If we find examples of the church meeting for worship and study other than Sunday morning, we must follow their example.

(1) Sunday night example. “And upon the first day of the week (Sunday), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow (Monday); and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). It is strange indeed that some will forever complain about the length of the service of the church, crying for 15 or 20 minute sermonettes, when they are willing to set for hours to see a movie or ball game. We have an example here of an all-night service. Or, at least, until midnight. Verse 8 says “there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” There is no doubt but that on Sunday night Paul was assembled together with the church, and this by divine approval.

(2) Example of week day services. “And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12:12). This was a prayer meeting of the church. Peter had been put in prison awaiting the wicked Herod to kill him as he had James. Peter was in prison until after the Passover, which was on Saturday. The night before the Passover Peter was freed by an angel of the Lord and led out of prison. When he came to the house of Mary, a young maiden by the name of Rhoda came to the door and found Peter. The church was inside engaged in a week-night prayer meeting. By these examples we see that it is right to meet and engage in prayer and worship during the week as well as on Sunday night.

6. As a Christian must grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). 1 need spiritual food – the word of God – and exercise in order to properly grow in spirit. If I wilfully neglect to assemble with the saints at the appointed time, I am depriving myself of that food and exercise that I must have to grow. How can one develop his spiritual being and not exercise it in public worship? To answer these questions is to show the folly in claiming to grow while neglecting the public worship. The more one worships God, the more he grows in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

7. When I attend every service of the church I use my talents to glorify God. There is a story by which Jesus taught this lesson, recorded in Matthew 25:14-30. One of the servants was condemned because he buried his talent in the earth and did not show increase when his master came and required of his work. Am I using my talents to the full advantage when I stay away from Sunday evening service, or Wednesday evening service? What talents may be mine to use to the glory of God can not be increased as long as I do not exercise them in worship to God. Just what do you think your Master would say to you if he should come and find you away from any service of the church, when you could have been there? It is certain that he would say the same thing that his master said to this wicked servant. It would certainly not be these words: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Matt. 25:21). It would be these words: “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 30). God gave you a talent (or talents) and he will require of you some day what you did with it (them). By attending every service, I can develop my talents to an increase, to be returned to my Lord when he calls.

8. This is the last reason I shall mention in this article. It has to do with common logic. From all we have read in. the Bible about the nature of Christ and the apostles, I propound this question: What would Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John or any of the other apostles do if it were possible for them to visit you in the flesh for about a month? When time came for the Sunday morning Bible study, do you suppose they would go, or would they just wait and sleep a little longer and go to the 11:00 worship? Then when the time came for the evening service would they attend, or just stay at home and “rest”? And then when the time came for the mid-week service would they be “too tired” to attend, or would they suggest that “we all” go to a “movie” instead? Would they say, “There are too many services of the church for me to attend all of them”? Can you imagine Paul saying, “Sunday evening service and the Wednesday evening service are not essential to our salvation, and there is no real need to go”? Just what do you think Christ and his apostles would do if they were here today?

On the other hand, what would you do if they were visiting you in the body? I’ll tell you. You wouldn’t miss a single service of the church. You know you would not! Just because Christ is not here in the body don’t think he isn’t present every time the saints gather in his name. He said: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Attend every service possible. Jesus will be there. Your salvation depends upon it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 24, pp. 741-742
December 17, 1987