Truth Magazine

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

By S. Leonard Tyler

Improper use of drugs whether it be the weed, powder, liquid or pills is bad news. The sad, tragic stories fill-up our news papers, challenge our peace officers and fill our court rooms with victims and broken-hearted mother, father, brother and sister. The judges belabor the tasks placed upon them to find the answer, what is best? The problem grows worse and worse.

The solution can not come from the officers, courts, judges or jails. This is not belittling any of these officials or institutions. We need them. They have a vital place to fill and may they be aware and fill it well. But their efforts can never solve the problem. We need, and must awake to the reality, every avenue of influence to protect, salvage and encourage all boys, girls, men and women to kick the habit and build a new attitude toward life.

The answer must come from the home basically and fundamentally. If the home is corrupted and fails to teach, train and set the right example, the problem becomes intensified and a cure must be sought rather than a prevention. The home must be awakened to the intensiveness of the drugs, alcohol being one of them. These are not pleasurable items but destructive, mind cluttering and destroying.

The Bible teaching should be the very source of right standards, attitudes and directions for a clean, wholesome, pure, active and accomplishing life, even to the spiritual purity and hospitable manner of seeking to lead all men to Jesus the Savior. “The truth shall make you free.”

Every media of communication must be employed to help teach the facts regarding drugs and alcohol. Why do I put alcohol in at every opportunity? Because it is not only neglected but, so many times and by so many, thought of a means of getting off of other drugs. It is not a means of breaking the drug addiction. It is a drug characterized in its addiction – alcoholism. Alcoholism is one of our major drug problems. It is associated with more automobile accidents, more wounded and more deaths, as the news usually reads, “Alcohol-related.” Think on the following.

An editorial appeared recently in the Longview (TX) News-Journal under “Drugs and Len Bias’ Death.” He started with quotes from a friend about Len, “So full of life. Fun to be with. His jokes were the best. Hard to believe they’re carrying him away now.” The editorial added, “Well, the fun is over. The jokes are no more. Life is gone.” The Drug which was supposedly to give a high – gave death!

“They carried 22-year-old Len Bias away because he was dead, the victim of a cocaine-induced heart stoppage. In stead of playing basketball for the world champion Boston Celtics, Bias has been consigned to his grave.”

A news item, the recent cocaine-related death of Len Bias and Don Rogers should make all of us think but may it help our young men to avoid the stuff. It is damning.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 21, p. 655
November 5, 1987

By William C. Sexton

Word has arrived with great sorrow, grief and shame that one of my brothers, a preacher of the gospel, has “committed adultery.” My head hangs low, my heart and mind is filled with heaviness; a group of people are shocked, a family is hurt deeply; a life is drifting on a sea of trouble – unsure at this moment as to whether survival is possible or not.

Adding to the heartache is the fact that this is not the only case of this sort that has come to me this year, or in recent months! A year ago I sat with this brother and others in a gathering of many people singing songs of praise to the Lord, teaching and admonishing one another of spiritual values, etc. This brother was evidently really concerned about saving souls. What happened? Satan, knowing of the strength of the sexual drive went to work, effectively blinding the eyes to the danger and, in time, the drive was activated in sin! Satan had succeeded! The “pleasure of sin” had ruled to ruin; a moment of gratification is followed with a lifetime of regret, shame, heartache, and suspicion!

In my thirty years as an active, concerned observer of Christian behavior I have developed an attitude that makes it exceedingly hard to be sympathetic toward this particular sin among preachers. Yet, I am not so “self-righteous” that I know that such could never happen to me; but, I truly believe that if such should, the same behavior toward me is appropriate and approved by God! Do not misunderstand me: I love this person, as I know God does, and forgiveness is obtained upon repentance and confession, as this person has done – as he states. However, I’m not in agreement with what I have seen happening in the last few years; a preacher is “caught,” he makes confession and continues to preach! Beloved, I challenge you to consider seriously the “fruits” of this behavior.

David – Forgiven But Consequences Follow

David was a man “after God’s own heart,” but he committed this evil, adultery (cf. 2 Sam. 12:1-14). When he owns up to it, he is told, “The Lord hath put away thy sin.” Yet, he is informed that consequences will follow him to his grave.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die (v. 14). Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me (v. 10).

When a preacher commits this sin, he can and will be forgiven when and if he really repents, confessing the same. Yet, consequences will follow him to his grave, and we need to be aware of that. In my judgment, when such is committed, confessed and things continue as “usual,” as nothing had happened, we do a great disservice to ourselves, God’s people, and the preacher involved!

When such is done, I suggest to you that it lends Satan a sword with which he will continue to slay us!

This lends to the idea – one can commit sin with but a “little” hand slap! Beloved, David got more than a little slap on the hand; he suffered the rest of his life, and God left it on record for all to read and fear!

I have said more than once: the best thing that can happen for a child when he gets into trouble, steals, lies, etc., is for him to get caught and disciplined! Otherwise, he’ll be reinforced in his “getting by with” the crime. Many are the passages which point to action being taken before all, “that all may fear” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:20; Tit. 1:13).

A Preacher Who Commits “Adultery” May Preach Again, But. . .

Paul was reluctant to take Mark with him on the second journey, because he had failed on the first – although later, after he had proved himself, evidently Paul could and did recommend him (Acts 15:36-41; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phile. v. 24). 1 feel the same about a preacher, who has thus failed! In time, when he has had time and has actually proven that he will do this sin is no more” (cf. Eph. 4:28), then he should be give a “second chance.” To place him back in the pulpit immediately, however, in my judgment cannot but have a deteriorating effect on all concerned.

To take this attitude and commend this action is not to show a lack of love for the person involved; neither is it to become the punisher. Rather, I believe it is to act responsibly, desiring to recognize the damage that is done by such sinful action and to be governed by God, working to the end that the “occasion” to sin in this fashion will be less than it would be otherwise.

Knowing something of the development of character, I find it hard to see how a man can go out and have sexual intercourse with one other than his wife and then come and stand in the pulpit and proclaim the word without repenting and then go repeat that sin – such a person needs time and to see the need to be rehabilitated! One who can do that is unfit to be in the pulpit for a time – till he is able to prove that he has been reformed! I believe that to take another stand, one allowing more liberty is unwise, and harmful!

A Challenge

Brethren, I by no means want to be setting myself up as a guard, wise and self-righteous, knowing more than others or having more self-control than others. I am deeply concerned that in the past, members of the church – elders, and others concerned for the “love principle” in treatment of such behavior -have in fact encouraged repeated action by, in a sense, over-looking the gravity of the sin. It’s somewhat like ignoring a child’s behavior, and trying to help him without pressing the point, so he will learn not to so act!

Parents who slap the hand and then immediately try to “kiss the hurt away,” do their children a great harm – failing to see the healing and corrective power in the “hurt” process. I ask all to think seriously about this matter. With God’s help, as we seek it in prayer and study of his word, let us stand up for right! Let us extend our hand of forgiveness to all who so desire it, but let us not lend encouragement to such action – we’ll only see more if we do.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 21, pp. 654-655
November 5, 1987