Truth Magazine

By Wayne Greeson

James 1:27 each Christian is instructed “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Unfortunately, some have abused this passage in an attempt to justify the church contributing to human benevolent organizations. An even greater problem is the attitude that has resulted from this practice. How many have dropped a dollar in the collection plate thinking, “I have visited those in need,” when they have failed to fulfill the most basic element of “visiting.”

The translation of James’ instruction from the original Greek to English has lost its full meaning and force. When you say today “I’m going to visit,” you usually mean you are going to see someone and chat awhile. But the Greek word episkeptomai, translated “visit” in English, means much more. In Greek to “visit” is “to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes; . . . in order to see how he is, i.e. to visit, go see one: Acts 7:23; 15:36 (Judg. 15:1); the poor and afflicted, Jas. 1:27; the sick, Mt. 25:36, 43 . . . b. Hebraistically, to look upon in order to help or benefit; e.g. to look after, have a care for, provide for. . .” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Henry Thayer, p. 242). “Visit” in Greek is related to the Greek word “overseer,” so to “visit” includes “to look upon, care for, exercise oversight” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, p. 1213).

There are three elements required by episkeptomai, “to visit”:

1. Personal contact – Going to the needy.

2. Personal examination – Seeing their needs.

3. Personal provision – Providing for their needs.

The word “visit” occurs ten times in the New Testament and every use demands the three elements of personal contact, examination and provision. Christ’s “visit” was not just to chat awhile or the sending of a representative angel. “The Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace. . . . For He has visited and redeemed His people” (Lk. 1:78-79, 68). Christ’s visit to men was God’s personal contact and inspection to oversee our great need for salvation from sin and He personally provided the redemption price to meet that need.

Likewise, Jesus emphasized the individual duty of His followers to personally visit the less fortunate, “For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you visited me” (Mt. 25:35-36).

Thus the command to “visit” the less fortunate is intensely personal and practical for each and every Christian. Greek authority Marvin Vincent writes of “visit” in James 1:27, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 736).

Those churches which unscripturally send money to human benevolent organizations cannot find support for their error in James 1:27, by the very definition of “visit.” The apostle James is clearly instructing individual Christians to assist those in need. James is teaching pure religion is individual and personal, not institutional and impersonal. Those who give money to the church, for the church to give to a human benevolent organization, for the human organization to give to those in need are twice removed from truly “visiting” the fatherless and widows in their affliction! Where is the personal going? Where is the personal oversight? Where is the personal assistance? Compare the biblical concept of “visiting” with the practice of church contributions to human organizations.

“To Visit” – (Episkeptomai)	Church Contributions To Human Organizations
1. Personal contact – You go to the needy.	1. No personal contact – The organization goes to the needy.
2. Personal examination – You oversee their needs.	2. No personal examination – The organization oversees needs.
3. Personal provision – You provide for their needs.	3. No personal provision – The organization provides their needs.

God demands personal religion not proxy religion. You cannot visit the sick and needy by putting money into the collection plate at church. The preacher cannot do the visiting that you are commanded to do, nor the elders, not even the church. Jesus promised, “inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 467
August 6, 1987

By George Harris

(Editor’s Note: a similar statement from Conrad D. Steyn was included. Because of their similarity, I am only publishing one of them.)

At the outset let me say that I recognize that we all make mistakes, none of us is perfect, and that we all have sin in our lives. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Further I acknowledge that many of us find ourselves not practicing what we preach.

I was “born” into the liberal church, and yet have never been a preacher of a social gospel, but have always spoken where the Bible speaks, and been silent where the Bible is silent; I have called Bible things Bible names. I have studied myself out of some error; in the past (particularly whilst working in England), I have had to make decisions on my own and dared to be different against all odds.

Let me share with you some experiences. I “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered me” on 19 April 1974. In 1977 I went to Memphis School of Preaching for training; there was something about the system that perturbed me and I was only there for 5 weeks and left. Albeit institutionalism, per say, was not the word on my lips, not being familiar with the terminology at that time. I subsequently became a product of 2 Timothy 2:2, a faithful evangelist, committed unto me, a faithful man, the things which he had heard and I have taught others also.

I have taught autonomy of the local church and the restrictions of the authority placed upon the eldership of the local church, and yet I have been caught up in the “sponsoring church” concept which I acknowledge violates the New Testament teaching on the local church autonomy. Having said that, it has concerned me for a few years that there must be a better way than the “sponsoring church” system. I found out this year that there is a better way – “God’s Way.” I am so delighted that I have found brethren who want to preach the truth and observe it. God forgive me for my ignorance but I didn’t even know who “anti-brethren” were until a recent incident (I will explain a little later). It has always been my desire to preach and do things God’s way and honor him in submitting to the authority of Christ, which is vested in the written Word, and slowly over the years God has revealed though circumstances, His plan (Rom. 8:28).

On occasions it has appalled me that the liberal church has been wasting so much money which could be better used in preaching the gospel. I think of such things as family life centers and gimmicks to get people “involved” in church activities. The Southern African Bible School has been a pet bug of mine; apart from the institutional aspect, the graduates with few exceptions remain in the Benoni church instead of being taught to pioneer the gospel in new territory, as did the Apostle Paul (see Rom. 15:14-22, esp. v. 19).

There is no doubt that in spite of the fact that I have not promoted institutionalism, I have been in fellowship with those who are, and stood guilty before God, for which I asked his pardon. Further I was caught up in the “sponsoring church” arrangement which I realize also violates God’s pattern for the church.

An elder from the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, came to Cape Town and presented the men of the River View congregation with a new constitution drawn up by the elders at Memorial. This constitution listed five trustees, three of them resident in America (two being elders of the Memorial church) and the remaining two residents in South Africa. Conrad Steyn was listed as one of the new trustees. The River View church had a constitution of their own. The first I knew about this new constitution was when the elder presented it to the men of the congregation, 11th February 1987. The elder who brought this document to Cape Town, explained that the Memorial church wanted to help us, and protect the congregation and the property against infiltration and possible take over by the Boston Crossroads Church of Christ (even though there was not a Crossroader in the city). The new constitution was so designed that all the assets of the church whether immovable, movable or personal, be vested in the five trustees, and that these trustees were to be self perpetuating, as it was stated in the constitution. “The trustees for the time being, voting at any duly convened meeting of the trustees or until the trustees by majority vote, elect any other or additional trustees, in place of, or in the addition to the above mentioned or trustees for the time being.” Note that our congregation had no say in the above matter, nor were they consulted about all of this. We were also told by the elder, that this is what Memorial elders did in Scotland and the South African Bible School. Someday when we had faithful and strong elders, Memorial may deed the property back to us. We had a lot of money invested in the property and the property belonged to River View. At a meeting with the men the elder was asked how they envisioned the church at River View should take care of their own affairs (building, etc.). We were told that he had brought signed proxies giving the church permission to take care of our affairs. We were also told that a congregation becomes autonomous when elders are appointed and until then, the sponsoring church had oversight over the work.

The men of the church met twice with the elder and to my delight rejected the constitution by 9 to 1, as a violation of our congregational autonomy. It demonstrated to me that they had been taught about the limit of eldership authority, that it was confined to “the flock which is among them.” The one in favor was Philip Liebbrandt, the other preacher working with the River View congregation, supported by Memorial.

After these meetings the elder handed me a letter telling me to take my family and get out of the River View, and told us that the Memorial church was making arrangements for another preacher to work with Liebbrandt at River View. The elder left and what followed the last 3V2 months has been like a horrible nightmare. The faithful men were set at nought, (see Rom. 14:10), all of their decisions and letters to the Memorial elders and Leibbrandt (who had been asked by the men of the church to leave River View) were ignored. Memorial flew a lawyer from Cape Town, South Africa, to Houston and gave him an open mandate to get my father-in-law, Conrad Steyn, and myself out of River View and secure the property. They also flew down to my sponsoring congregation in Selmer, TN and told them that I was causing division in the church and that I was unworthy of support. This was absolute disinformation. Leibbrandt with the blessing of Memorial massed (he claimed) 51 percent of the members to have a general meeting to get rid of us and reversed the decision of the men. Among the ones assembled for the two meetings which were held in a school building, were delinquents he rounded up, some had not been at a worship service in 3 or 4 years. One man whose proxy Leibbrandt presented had never been a member of the River View congregation. I could not believe my eyes. The group met to vote against the decision of the faithful men. Women making up two-thirds of their group totally usurped the authority over these men of God (see 1 Tim. 2:11-15). Memorial was prepared to go to litigation against us (see 1 Cor. 6:1-9).

Finally, about 30 of the faithful brethren not wanting to shame our Lord or destroy the influence of the church, and also caring more for their souls than to be part of this travesty, moved out and relinquished the property and made the break. I am fully aware that what we have done is not the popular thing to do, but there was no room for compromise. I also know that I will be accused of dividing the church but all of the events have been clearly documented, and the decision of the men and group to withdraw and break away was entirely their own.

Brother Ray Votaw flew down from the Traansvaal and met with Conrad Steyn and me and he was such an encouragement to me. I thank God for sending Ray, for in my stand for Christ and the truth against the Memorial Church of Christ, he helped me to see that my allegiance to God lay in preaching the truth and associating with the faithful brethren of the “conservative” church. That following Sunday Ray preached for our group and we were all delighted at the things that he had to share with us.

Since then the church at Bellville, where Ray’s son-in-law, Eric Reed, preaches, has worshiped with us. Ray is coming down next week again, and we will have another combined worship, Ray will preach for us and Eric will teach our Bible class. We are looking forward to this event with great enthusiasm.

I am so excited about the way things are developing. Please pray for us in our stand for Christ and the truth, and that our God will provide for me and my family in His service, that I might use the remainder of my life on this earth in proclaiming the simple gospel of Jesus Christ to the saving of souls and bringing glory to God.

Your loving brother in Christ,

George Harris

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, pp. 465-466
August 6, 1987

By Donald Willis

Paul commanded that we should all speak the same thing, and that no divisions should exist among us (1 Cor. 1:10f). Jesus had said that we should all be one that the world might believe (Jn. 17:20-21). Division exists in the religious world but not by the authority of God!

Salvation is in the name of Jesus Christ, and none other (Acts 4:12). The wearing of human names elevates one to the honor belonging to Christ. Human names can be destructive and divisive. Note the following news article taken from The Houston Post (June 27, 1987, p. 7-13):

SAN FRANCISCO – The president of Golden Gate Southern Baptist Seminary said many new churches in the western United States are not using Southern Baptist as part of their names. “These churches don’t want their witness hindered by any title,” said the Rev. William O. Crews. “Most dropped ‘Southern’ from their names years ago and some have deleted ‘Baptist’ from their signs.

It would appear that these folk see the divisiveness of human names, and are willing to drop the appellative for economic reasons.

The plea of Bible preachers has been to “speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent. To call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways.” This will establish and support a unity that cannot be wrong. Peter said, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. . . ” (1 Pet. 4:11). One is condemned when he transgresses by going beyond divine revelation (Gal. 1:6-10). Besides that, changing the divine word of God, and inserting the laws of man will cost one his eternal home (Rev. 22:18-19).

What should the church be called? Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18). Question, who’s church? Christ said the church was his; by what name should his people be called? Paul referred to the “. . . church of the Lord, which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Later, Paul referred thusly, “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16). Be content to speak as the word of God speaks.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 461
August 6, 1987

By Denver Niemeier

The events that touch our lives and the lives of others can be a source of knowledge to us if we profit from them by using them to make the future better for us.

It is to this end that I call attention to the following. A father was telling his son of some of the lessons that he had learned from his life in an effort to make the son’s life easier and better than the father’s had been. The son then told his dad, “Why don’t you just let me find out for myself?” At times there are those who do not or will not benefit from what others have learned. I trust that you will at least consider these things I write.

I have learned that preaching the gospel of Christ can be a heart-rending, difficult task. I have learned that serving as an elder is even as difficult, if not more so. In an ever increasing way I appreciate what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:28 “about the care of the churches.” An elder has to be among other things a practical steward of God’s money. He has to continue to be a careful student of God’s word, not only for his own soul’s sake but also for the benefit of every member. His own spiritual growth must continue, and he has the responsibility for helping others to do so also. He has to be a mediator, diplomat, counselor, advisor, planner, arranger, and example. He must have a level head and broad shoulders.

I have learned that children of members of the church are not always encouraged to prepare themselves to be preachers or preachers’ wives, elders or their wives, deacons or their wives, Bible class teachers or even good faithful Christians. I can remember when I obeyed the gospel I set two goals that I wanted to reach in this life, one to preach and the other to develop spiritually to be the kind of man who had those qualifications of an elder. I have learned that far too many have no goals such as these.

A couple, both members of the church, were having problems with their marriage. They met several times with the elders as efforts were made to keep them together. The man had fallen short in many ways of being the husband and father he should have been. The woman was “fed up” with this and was thinking she could do a better job as a mother without him. The man remarked several times to the elders that they would make her stay with him if they were the elders they should be. I have learned that elders cannot force people to do what the elders would have them do. If that were true there would be a lot fewer problems and every member would be faithful.

I have learned that some members are not going to work for the good of the church. They expect everything to be taken care of, but they will not get involved. They come to services expecting the building to be comfortable, either warm or cool depending on the weather, the lights to be on, the Lord’s table prepared, etc., then get up after services with no thought that someone has to close up the building and that someone is going to have to clean the building before next week. They never visit the sick, never speak to the visitors, never seek out those to study with, invite to services and many times do not even prepare themselves for the classes. This type attitude reminds me of one I once knew. I was working with a church which wanted to build a building on top of the basement they had been meeting in. They realized that to do so was going to require the members to make a commitment over and above what they had been giving. All agreed to this except this one person. However after the building was up and they were meeting in it, he was pleased with what we had done. Many will not help with the efforts but are happy with the results.

I have learned that some members are “floaters,” that is they float here and there, never getting involved any where. For some years we have had a couple coming to the morning worship services about once a month. They informed us they attended services here and there, going to one church (they claim to be members of the Lord’s church) one Sunday and a different one the next, etc. They never come to Bible class, do not attend any time except on Sunday morning, but would have you think they really love God and want to go to heaven, but they don’t get involved with his work. People who will not commit themselves to God as they should, will do so to other things. The one I have just spoken of is very much committed to another organization. I have learned that some “talk a good religion.”

I have learned that elders who keep the church well informed of the plans, problems and affairs will have better cooperation from the members. I know of elders who, at frequent intervals, will visit with the members in their homes seeking comments, criticisms, questions and suggestions concerning the work. One question they always ask is concerning the preacher and his work. They also provided an opportunity for the men to meet with them an hour before the evening service on the first Sunday of the month. During this meeting the men are made aware of the current events and future plans. The men are asked for their comments and these are taken into consideration when the elders make their decisions. After the service that same evening one of the elders gives a brief summary of the things talked about in the meeting with the men. This keeps all informed of the affairs of the church. Of course the members are encouraged to feel free to meet with the elders at any other time that they have need. Elders need to keep things on an open communication basis.

I have learned that preachers sometimes become so popular with the members that the preacher can do no wrong in their sight. A preacher moves to work with a church, down the road something happens that causes the preacher to be dissatisfied with the elders, he gathers his forces around him and sets out to get rid of those unqualified men. It is amazing how fast, at least in the eyes of some, qualified men can become so unqualified. This kind of a situation came about in the church where I was a member not long after I obeyed the gospel. At the suggestion of one of the elders, I had a conversation with Roy Cogdill who was in a meeting a short distance away. After talking with him concerning this matter he told me, “It is possible for one man in an eldership who was qualified to become unqualified, but for all of them to do so at the same time was very unlikely.” With some who preach the attitude is “my way or else,” even if it means tearing up the church, and so here comes trouble.

I remember a preacher who closed his lessons with words to this effect, “If you disagree with what I have said, don’t come talk with me about what I have taught until you have spent as much time as I have in studying this subject.” I have learned some will expect others to listen to what they say, but will not give others the opportunity to say what they want to. Some have open mouths and closed minds.

There are those who have a history of having trouble wherever they go. The church is usually left in a mess as they move on. Again I refer to something brother Cogdill said, “A preacher can be in trouble once in a while and be right, but he cannot be in trouble all of the time and always be right.” I have learned that as the result of this a lot of moves take place. Moves cost money, so a lot of the Lord’s money is used to move preachers that could be used otherwise. Because of the attitude and disposition shown by some who preach some of the Lord’s money is wasted.

I remember a preacher who carried a brief case containing letters from people at places where he used to preach, praising him as a man and preacher. A preacher who used to preach where I serve as an elder, once asked me if he could use me as a reference. I told him he could, but then ma& this suggestion to him. Take a copy of the directory of this church and give to the brethren where you are interested in going and tell him to get in touch with anyone listed therein to find out about you. If one has conducted himself in the way a child of God should, he will not be afraid of what anyone would say about him. Isn’t that a better way than just picking out a few?

I heard a remark made at a debate a few years ago that went something like this. “Be careful of what you say around here because you might get written up in a paper, especially if you are in the first hundred preachers.” First of all I am uncertain who decides who are the first hundred preachers or who is the last hundred for that matter. Be that as it may, the statement says something. There are those who are just waiting to get an opportunity to pounce on someone who writes or says something that they don’t like. I have learned that some are “brotherhood keepers,” who seem to be more interested in keeping up with the brotherhood and give more interest to that than they do the local work where they are. If you want to know what is going on where and when just get in touch with them. I heard recently of a preacher who did not want to do any writing because he did not want to put anything in print that he might change his mind on later, and that some one might dig up what he had written before and raise a fuss about it. I don’t know about you, but I do not know everything in the Bible, I am still learning after all these years, and hope to continue to do so. Why is it some give the impression that they have always known everything?

Several years ago I was talking with the elders of a church that was looking for a preacher. They told me that in times past they had asked the preacher working with them not to preach on certain issues because the church there was not bothered with them. They went ahead to say that all of a sudden they were bothered with them and they were not ready to meet them and that, as the result, they almost lost the church to these issues, because they had not been taught the truth on those things. They said they had changed their mind and now wanted the preacher to teach on things that could come before that church. I have learned that preventative teaching is a must. The man who knows the truth is less likely to be turn aside than one who does not know the truth.

It has been my purpose to be helpful. If we can learn from the experiences of the past, then the future will be better.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 458-459
August 6, 1987