Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

When Jesus and his apostles ate the Passover on the night of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest, the apostles did not know that Jesus would be crucified the next day. They expected that he would soon establish a great earthly kingdom, and they wanted to hold the highest offices in the kingdom. They argued among themselves about which one would be greatest in the kingdom (Lk. 22:24).

Their desire for greatness was misguided. Jesus taught them that greatness in his kingdom would not consist of ruling, but of serving. Men who in their pride are seeking positions of authority are apt to shun menial acts of service. So Jesus impressed his lesson upon them in the most poignant manner possible. He arose, removed his outer garments, tied a towel around his waist, and poured water into a basin. Then he got down and began to wash the apostles’ feet.

What a scene! The almighty Creator, the King of kings and Lord of lords, stooping to perform a task so lowly that most men would consider it beneath their dignity! By this “ample, Jesus demonstrated that we should not consider ourselves too high and mighty to serve others. The apostles, rather than desiring places of authority, should have desired to serve in humility. It is in such service that greatness. is attained.

Foot washing was an act of service. Proper hospitality included making provisions for the washing of the guest’s feet (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 43:24; Judg. 19:21). When one had traveled dusty roads wearing nothing on his feet except sandals, the washing of his feet was a welcome refreshment. It was a service commonly performed by slaves (I Sam. 25:41). The Lord of glory stooped to perform the task of a slave.

Peter did not intend to allow such an indignity. “Thou shalt never wash my feet,” he said.

Jesus would not tolerate such impertinence. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with-me,” he replied. Peter would have to accept Jesus as a humble servant; for soon his service would culminate in his humiliating death on the cross. Peter learned to accept that, but many Jews never did (1 Cor. 1:23).

After Jesus’ reply to Peter, Peter over reacted. He said, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” It was in keeping with Peter’s nature to go overboard.

Jesus responded that they were clean and therefore needed only to have their feet washed. Then he added, however, that one of them was not clean. He was speaking spiritually of Judas.

After Jesus washed their feet, he explained the significance of his actions. The apostles were to do as he had done. If he, their Lord and Master, had washed their feet, they ought not to consider themselves too high and mighty to wash one another’s feet. They should humbly serve one another rather than wanting to rule over one another.

Foot Washing Today

Some have completely destroyed the beauty and meaning of this incident. They have made foot washing a mere ritual to be engaged in during an assembly of the church. Such a thing is not taught in God’s word.

The statement of v. 14, “Ye ought also to wash one another’s feet,” was not addressed to, all Christians. Jesus was talking to the apostles about their attitudes and conduct toward one another. They were to perform this act of service for one another. In the time and place in which they lived, this service was appropriate, and he told them to do it. He never told us to do it.

Surely, however, the principle involved applies to us. We musts have the attitude. Jesus demonstrated, for he is our example. We must humbly serve one another and not think any act of service is beneath our dignity.

Those who make foot washing a ritual are not following the example of Jesus. They are not doing as he did. He performed a real service; they are not serving any need when they wash feet that are already clean. We are following Jesus’ example, not when we go through a ritual that serves no one’s needs, but when we perform acts that really serve the needs of others.

The only other place foot washing is mentioned in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 5:10. It is in the context of good deeds performed to help other people and has no reference to a ritual performed in an assembly of the church.

I am in favor of washing feet in circumstances comparable to those that existed when Jesus washed the apostles’ feet – that is, when it would serve a real need. If someone needs me to wash his feet, I will be happy to serve that need. Some of you may have performed this service at times – for example, when someone was ill and in need of such help.

Remember, greatness is attained through service; and Jesus responded that they were clean and therefore no matter how menial a task is, it is not beneath our dignity.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, p. 682
November 19, 1987

By Jady W. Copeland

For the last three weeks in July and the first week of August, my wife and I were in Alaska, “the last frontier,” preaching in four meetings. Perhaps brethren would like to know more about the churches in that beautiful state. We left Tulsa on July 9, and were made welcome by Dean Crews, who preaches in Anchorage. After a day to look around, we went to Soldotna for the first meeting. There are about twenty Christians there.

Soldotna is located in the heart of the fishing country of the Kenai Peninsula in southern Alaska. The brethren there have just completed their building, lacking only some trim work having it completely finished, and it will seat about 100 people in its present form. Through the years they have been somewhat hindered by not having their own facilities in which to meet. Sam Binkley, not to be confused with his father, the co-author of the book on teaching, was preaching there, but since we were there he no longer preaches there due to some problems in the congregation. Brother and sister Fred Howes and their son, Monte and his family, have been greatly responsible for the work in Soldotna.

We next went to Fairbanks, where the congregation is much smaller than formerly due to several families having moved within the past year. Alaska’s economy is bad at present, having been hurt by the oil crunch. It is estimated that thousands of people leave Alaska monthly due to lack of work. Thus the number of saints in Fairbanks is down to about 10 at present. However, as noted in the Guardian of Truth recently, Cecil Willis is now working with them, and doing a good work there. There are several young men with whom he is working who have good potential. Joe and Sylvia King have been faithful workers in Fairbanks a number of years, and they continue to be a source of strength to the work there. They have a nice building, and are meeting in the basement at present, and will finish the upper floor (partially completed) when needed. The brethren appreciate Cecil’s work, and he will do them a great deal of good.

Don Spicer moved to Barrow a year ago from Anchorage, and his family along with one other family meet in his home. The other family is from a liberal background, and Don is now laying some groundwork in his preaching in hopes of being able to teach this other good family the truth on the institutional question. Both families are rather large, so the membership there is about 10. A third family recently moved out of state. Barrow is largely natives, and they are so traditional it will be difficult for them to “break through” to reach many. They hope the younger generation will not be so wed to their religious traditions so that good can be done.

As noted, Dean Crews works with the Anchorage group, having been there five years. He is doing a good work and the church is doing well. As with the other congregations, they have lost some families but they have about 100 now meeting there. The congregation there is blessed with good elders, and there is no reason to doubt that they will continue to do a good work.

Prices are high in Alaska, and therefore wages for preachers (as well as others) must be higher. But Alaska is not as undesirable a place to live as I had thought. True, it gets cold, especially in the inner regions of the state, but Anchorage is little different, we are told, than coastal cities in the lower 48 states. The constant daylight during August was a bit difficult to become accustomed to, but people there think nothing of it. We were fortunate to see the “mid-night sun” on the last night in Barrow, but it was cloudy most of our stay, and could not appreciate that as much as we would liked to have done. When making plans for vacations, consider Alaska, and visit brethren there. They are among the most hospitable people I have met in many years. So far as we were able to learn, there are only four noninstitutional groups in Alaska, and we were fortunate enough to hold meetings in each place. It is good to know that brethren are being true to his word in all parts of the world.

Guardian of Truth XXXI:21, p. 653
November 5, 1987

By Ronnie Westmoreland

This question is asked quite often now days, but I wonder, is it a question or a statement about the state of confusion that exists in today’s society concerning a loss of guidance. According to a report In the Christian Science Monitor, a poll conducted by the Starch Advertising Readership Service in 1983, was done to learn what the basic interests of most and yet he lives in a house that cost hundreds of Americans are today.

The results show quite a change in the attitudes of Americans in just the last two decades. In 1953, the top ten basic interests of men were: sports, automobiles, entertainment, home building, religion, gardening, travel, science, politics, health, cultural activities, entertainment and education. Religion, books, gardening, and home building and disappeared from the list.

In 1953 U.S. women were most interested in: religion, food, homemaking, child care, home furnishings, fashions, entertainment, gardening, books and education. However, in 1983: fashions, food, health, home, furnishings, cultural activities, child care, travel, homemaking, education and entertainment/books were listed as the interest of today women. Religion and gardening had disappeared from the list, even though religion had been No. 1 in 1953.

While I understand that this report was compiled by humans, and that it is possible that this report contains some errors, it still portrays the point that more and more people are turning their interest away from religion, away from God. There are many excuses offered as to why people have lost interest: they are too many busy, it doesn’t concern me, there are too many hypocrites in the church for me to want to be a part of it, and the list goes on, and on, and on. However, all of these are simply excuses in that people try to justify what they are doing. One of the reasons for all of this confusion of interest can be laid at the feet of the “so-called” T.V. evangelists. They have left the impression upon the world that all one has to do is send in their money and they (the evangelist) will settle-up (as it were) the people’s account with God. This leaves the world with the impression everything has been taken care of, and I can do as I please. They tell the public to send in your money to God, but isn’t it strange that they always give their own addresses? Jimmy Swaggart during his television interview on the Nightline news program stated that there is no profit in T.V. evangelism, and yet he lives in a house that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and then, of all things, he says if Oral Roberts would lie about one thing, it’s possible he would lie about another. Talk about the “pot calling the kettle black.” Maybe the one good thing that will come out of all this is that people will realize that men will lie for money.

The reason there is so much confusion in the world and that people have lost interest is that they have not sought after the truth. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). The question then is, what is truth? Jesus said in John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Truth then is the word of God, it is the standard by which we should compare what man says to see if he is telling the truth. John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

Another reason for the lack of interest is simply that people have not sought after the kingdom of God. Jesus said in Matthew 6:33, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” People have to be seeking before they can find it. Paul said of the Bereans, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

If people are going to learn the truth, it must be where the truth is and where it is taught. You cannot learn of God and his word, at baseball games, in the movies, etc. Yet people are more interested in these and taking their children to them, than they are in carrying them to church, and attending gospel meetings. Is it any wonder why there is so much wrong with people today? They have all but forgotten God and his word.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 21, p. 656
November 5, 1987

By Leon Mauldin

In his book, The Stone-Campbell Movement, Leroy Garrett sets forth in the first chapter the thesis of which he reminds his readers throughout the book, that the I ‘pioneer preachers” were reformers, not restorationists. “It should be noticed that these pioneers referred to their efforts as reformation, not restoration” (p. 6). Mr. Garrett defines the problem of restorationism in this way: “A restorationist rejects existing denominations as in any sense the church, ignores whatever has happened in intervening centuries, and insists upon restoring the primitive church. He assumes that the New Testament provides a fixed pattern for that church, and so there have been literally hundreds of sects, each claiming to be the true church” (p. 7).

According to Mr. Garrett, Campbell did not look to the New Testament as “providing an exact blueprint or pattern for the church, which he sought to ‘restore’ in an age when the church no longer existed” (p. 9). Mr. Garrett’s interpretation of history is that the work of Stone, Campbell, and others was basically that of a continuation of the reforms of such men as Martin Luther, and other reformers of the sixteenth century.

Actually, the beliefs and actions of the pioneer preachers does not establish what is right or wrong. That can only be established by the Word of God. Further, it is not our purpose to “restore” the “Restoration Movement. ” But it does seem that in his effort to prove his theology that Mr. Garrett overstates his case. He says that the concept, “We are out to restore the church, not to reform it” was ” not the view of the pioneers of the Stone-Campbell Movement” (p. 9).

While some of our readers perhaps have access to Lard’s Quarterly, no doubt many do not. Moses E. Lard was well acquainted with Alexander Campbell. His biographer, Van Deusen, said that while a student at Bethany College, Moses Lard and his wife were given the building that housed the printing office of the Millennial Harbinger. It was only about 200 feet from the Campbell home. “Lard was able to have a relationship with Campbell that no other student at Bethany ever enjoyed. After four years of this intimate association, it could be said that nobody understood the mind of Campbell as well as Moses E. Lard” (Moses Lard, That Prince of Preachers, p. 58). Campbell’s own estimation of Lard may be seen in that when the Baptist Jeremiah B. Jeter penned Campbellism Examined, a vicious attack on Campbell and his beliefs, Campbell selected Lard to write the refutation, Review of Campbellism Examined (297 pages).

We mention these matters to show that Moses E. Lard was in a position to speak with some knowledge and authority concerning what he, Campbell, and other such preachers were trying to accomplish. In an article entitled, “Have We Not Become A Sect?”, Lard addresses himself to some of the same issues as does Garrett regarding the goals they were trying to accomplish. Interestingly, Mr. Lard’s perspective is not the same as that which Mr. Garrett attributes to the pioneer preachers.

Lard wrote, “We are sometimes termed Reformers, and the work in which we are engaged the Reformation, and sometimes in an accommodated sense we thus term ourselves and our work. What does the language mean? I have long been convinced that it carries a false import. The word Reformers, as applied to us, means simply a new kind of sectarians, and the word Reformation the work and principles of a new sect. But this is far from the sense in which we use them. In what sense, then, if at all, are we reformers? Certainly not in this, that we propose merely to reform existing so called sects and parties (emphasis mine, LM). When reformed, they would still fall immeasurably below the work we wish to see effected. This work done, and we should have neither sects nor sectarians, but only the church of Christ and Christians. . .”

“I doubt not the word Reformers was first applied to us because it was supposed that we intended merely to reform the Baptist denomination, with which many of our brethren originally stood connected; but we never proposed to reform that denomination. The reformation we proposed looked solely to individual Christians and not to denominations. Many Baptists we then regarded, and still regard as sincere Christians (i.e. Lard did not think they needed to be re-baptized, a view with which I would disagree, LM), but as in error in several things. In these things we proposed a reformation; but at the same time we required an abandonment of all party connections, names, and peculiarities. We proposed that the Baptists should be Christians simply, and should cease to be Baptists; and that they should belong to the church of Christ only, and not to the Baptist denomination. In only a very restricted sense, therefore, can we be termed reformers; and that a sense which in no respect distinguishes us from the simplest and purest type of Christians.”

Lard continued, “But in this sense we are not Reformers, neither is the work in which we are engaged a Reformation. Indeed, our work is strictly a Formation and not a Reformation. We are laboring solely to build up the church of Christ, and neither to build nor, rebuild, form nor reform, any thing different from it” (Lard’s Quarterly; March 1864, pp. 257, 258).

Furthermore, regarding Mr. Garrett’s assertion that Campbell did not view the New Testament “as providing an exact blueprint or pattern for the church” consider Lard’s closing remarks in the same preceding article: “Finally, we accept as the matter of our faith precisely and only what the Bible teaches, rejecting everything else; and in our practice endeavor to conform strictly to what it, and it alone, enjoins either in precept or in precedent. In life and heart we aim to be all and purely what it requires. We wear no name which it does not sanction; and repudiate all sects, parties, and apostasies, as well as any and every conceivable form of connection with them. If, then, we are still a sect, I submit it to the candid reader, whether, upon any ground known to him, he can acquit the apostles and primitive Christians of that offensive charge?” (p. 259) Clearly, Moses Lard would not agree with Mr. Garrett’s assessment of the motives and work of the pioneer preachers.

Another related recurring concept Mr. Garrett proposes is, “History clearly demonstrates that restorationism by its very nature is divisive” (p. 10). Therefore, he views those who regard the New Testament as a pattern for churches today to be responsible for religious division. He especially charges the churches of Christ as being found guilty. He refers to churches of Christ as exclusivists. In pages 601-610, the words “exclusivist” or “exclusivism” are found no less than ten times! While reading the annoying repetitions the question occurred to me as to whether Mr. Garrett either owned or had access to a Thesaurus.

Careful readers can see that words such as “exclusivism” and “legalism” (the use of which also frequently occurs) are used to put in a bad light those who believe in strict adherence to the Word of God. Such language depreciates obedience to Christ. Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). Any problems with “exclusivism” is a problem with Jesus, not with pioneer preachers.

In the New Testament, those, and only those, who obeyed Jesus’ conditions of salvation were regarded as Christians. They were not over wrought because they were “exclusively” Christians. We have not the power to tamper with the gate that leads to life, to adjust it any wider or narrower than Jesus designed it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, pp. 674, 695
November 19, 1987