Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis and Melvin Curry

For several years, planning has been done in order to produce a set of commentaries on the entire New Testament written by those who are Christians. Recognizing that most evangelical commentaries are written by men with a Calvinist point of view, the Board of Directors saw the need for a set of commentaries which avoids the errors of Calvinism, presents a sound exegesis of the biblical text, is devotional in tone, and is written on the level of the common man.

Melvin Curry, head of the Bible Department at Florida College, has agreed to serve as the general editor of this series of commentaries. Brother Curry is eminently qualified for this task, holding a Ph.D. degree from Florida State University. He has been preaching for nearly 35 years and teaching at Florida College in the Bible department for nearly 25 years. His scholarship is widely recognized by those who have been his students and his colleagues. Mike Willis will work with him in producing this series.

A Commentary on Paul’s First

Epistle To The Corinthians by Mike Willis will be made a part of this set of commentaries. A second volume by Mike Willis on Galatians is written and will be published when editorial work can be completed. Brother Curry has accepted the assignment of 2 Corinthians and has committed himself to have a volume ready for publication by 1992. Listed below are other assignments which have been made.

Matthew Maurice Barnett

Mark L.A. Stauffer

John Daniel King

Acts Hoyt H. Houchen

Romans Almon Williams

Ephesians Colly Caldwell

Philippians Sewell Hall

1 & 2 Thessalonians Steve Wolfgang

1 & 2 Timothy Weldon Warnock

Titus Marshall Patton

1, 2, & 3 John Barney Keith

Work is already in progress on several volumes. If the project moves according to schedule, volumes should begin to be released for publication in 1992-3.

The project will consist of 15-20 volumes in its final form. Hence, this is a major publication venture for the Guardian of Truth Foundation, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Financial planning is already being done to pay for the first books of this series.

The Guardian of Truth Foundation is committed to this project to underwrite the publishing costs of this series. Already one man has agreed to donate the cost for publishing the volume on 2 Corinthians and his monthly donations are already coming in. We hope that others will want to join with him in contributing money to publish this series of commentaries at the earliest possible date. Any funds received on this project will be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account to generate additional funds while the books are being written.

Through this series of commentaries, we hope that future generations will be able to study the word of God at the feet of men whose knowledge of the Scriptures and doctrinal soundness are impeccable.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 13, p. 393
July 2, 1987

By Warren E. Berkley

It becomes necessary, sometimes, to speak out against sin by directly exposing the guilty parties.

When John the Baptist called upon Jews to repent, he said the Pharisees and Sadducees were a “generation of vipers” (Matt. 3:210), and he rebuked Herod for adultery (Mark 6:18). Stephen was another who didn’t keep quiet. He stood before the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, telling them they were stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears (Acts 6:9-7:54). Writing to Timothy, Paul said: “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). (See also: Eph. 5:11; Rom. 16:17, 18; Jude 3; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:3.)

As the people of God who are pledged to the service of Christ, we have placed ourselves under obligation to stand up for the great principles of God’s Word. This sometimes requires that we speak out against sin, by directly exposing and identifying the guilty parties.

But sometimes, under the guise of exposing sin and informing people of error or injustice, we expose ourselves as a prejudiced, hypocritical people. We tell ourselves and others – we are simply doing our duty, to expose sin; we are bringing something to light that needs to be known. But really, deep inside, we are just “working somebody over real good” . . . somebody we didn’t like in the first place.

The big give-away is – taking a militant, bold stand against one sinner or false teacher . . . but failing to administer the same treatment to another (whose guilt is identical)! It’s like we use God’s Word to judge folks we don’t like. His Word becomes a weapon we use, to fulfill a carnal purpose (of revenge, spite or hate). As we “discern ‘and “judge” and “contend,” we rr ay be guilty of picking and choosing and singling out certain ones for punishment . . . while others (with identical guilt) get off “scot free.” If you aren’t following my line of thought yet, may I rely on an illustration or two.

In the national press, we have recently been treated to some examples of this. In the political arena, Gary Hart was exposed, crucified and literally driven from the Presidential race, when the press brought to the light of print his week-end “tryst” with a young model. They did that to Gary Hart. But, a few years ago, Ted Kennedy had a week-end with a young lady; yet, he is still “going strong” in national politics. Now the point is certainly not to condone extra-marital romance. And, the point isn’t to suggest that Hart’s conduct should have been covered up. The point is – the press crucifies who the press wants to crucify! They do not apply the same standard to all, across the board. That illustrates the kind of hypocrisy I’m writing against in this article.

Another example. Did you know, a few years ago the president of the National Council of Churches was involved in an adulterous affair. His wife divorced him, he resigned the NCC presidency, and his ordination papers in the Methodist church were revoked. But, the news media, for the most part, didn’t cover the, story. When Jim Bakker’s “tryst” was confessed, it became the “featured story” for several weeks. In such matters, the national press gives us a good example of the inconsistent application of a standard, it is journalistic bias to literally crucify one man who is guilty of some misdeed, while virtually ignoring a peer who is equally guilty.

Let us consider ourselves! Are we anxious to point out the sins of someone we didn’t like anyway, but silent when a favored friend is guilty of the same sin? Are we willing to uphold the principles of God’s Word, but unwilling when the principles become personal? Do we show favoritism, prejudice and inconsistency in the application of God’s standard? If a favored friend or relative is guilty of some transgression, do we hasten to get the proverbial broom, to quickly get the whole mess under the carpet?

Jesus took the sword of truth and dealt with such hypocrisy in Matthew 23. He called them hypocrites, blind guides, sons of hell and whited sepulchers full of hypocrisy and iniquity who wouldn’t escape the judgment of hell. Are we listening?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 14, pp. 417, 439
July 16, 1987

By Irvin Himmel

He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears (Prov. 26:17).

No lesson could be more obvious than that taught and illustrated in this proverb. However, some people have not learned the lesson.

It seems difficult for certain persons to tend to their own affairs and avoid meddling in things “belonging not” to them.

Why There Is Meddling in Affairs of Others

Before turning attention to the mischief caused by meddling, consider some basic reasons for meddlesomeness.

(1) Not usefully occupied. The fellow who has too much free time on his hands is more likely to pry and intrude into things that are none of his business. One who keeps busy with his own work has not time to delve into another’s business.

Recognizing the mischief to which idleness can lead, Paul issued a warning about young widows who “learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.” He advised therefore “that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house,” in other words, keep fully occupied with useful domestic duties (1 Tim. 5:13, 14).

(2) Nosiness. It appears that some people are obsessed with curiosity, especially about the personal affairs of others. They are preoccupied with the desire to pry, ask questions, inject themselves, pick up tidbits of news and gossip, and intrude into all the concerns of others.

This inquisitive disposition leads to unwelcome and harmful intrusiveness.

(3) Conceit. Many times it is one’s ego that contributes to his being a meddler. He really thinks he can manage the lives of others better than they can manage their own; he believes he can solve their problem better than they can; he is convinced that he has superior knowledge.

I know a preacher who has the reputation of meddling in the problems of young people (especially girls) in their relationship with their parents. I suppose he is egotistical enough (1 Pet. 4:15,16). to think he knows more about how parents ought to be raising their daughters than the parents know. He had made a real nuisance of himself in some cases.

Meddling Invites Trouble

To interfere in disputes which are not our concern is to invite trouble. “We should be sure of our call to act before we meddle in others’ affairs. It is rare that it can be our duty to volunteer the office of judge” (E. Johnson).

One time a certain man said to Jesus, “Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.” Some who claim to follow Jesus would have jumped at the chance to get involved in this domestic problem. Jesus answered, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” (Lk. 12:13,14) Jesus refused to be drawn into this case.

The meddler in strife invites double trouble. Both parties may become enraged. He is indeed as foolish as one who grabs a strange dog by the ears! The old Septuagint translation renders this proverb as follows: “As he that lays hold of a dog’s tail, so is he that makes himself the champion of another’s cause.” Well, whether you take the dog by the ears or by the tail, you invite barking, snapping, biting, and injury to yourself!

The Mischief of Meddling

The meddling spirit leads to misunderstanding and much mischief. People who fancy that everybody they come across is somehow under their jurisdiction cause more problems than they solve.

Both Paul and Peter warned against our becoming busybodies. Adam Clarke describes busybodies as “impertinent meddlers with other people’s circumstances and domestic affairs; magnifying or minifying, mistaking or underrating, every thing; news-mongers and telltales; an abominable race, the curse of every neighborhood where they live, and a pest to religious society.”

But, as Albert Barnes aptly notes, “there is no class of persons who will so little heed good counsel as those who have a propensity to intermeddle with the affairs of others.”

The meddler in strife belonging not to him often brings suffering to himself. He needs to learn the difference between suffering as a busybody and suffering as a Christian

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 13, p. 405
July 2, 1987

By Paul K. Williams

Solomon Mzolo

In September 1986 brother Solomon Mzolo phoned me. He is 53 years old, was converted about 1959 by the preaching of brother John Hardin, and has been preaching most of the time since. When the split came in South Africa (1963), he aligned himself with the institutional brethren.

However, some things happened in the Edendale, Pietermaritzburg church which disturbed brother Mzolo. This is the church which runs the preacher training school for blacks and is, therefore, the most influential of the black churches in the province of Natal. They had a youth camp, and brother Mzolo did not agree with what they were doing.

I began making trips to Greytown to teach him and the small church which meets in his house. He drove (2 hours) to Eshowe on two occasions to worship with the church here.

Then he arranged a meeting for Saturday night, March 7, at a school in Greytown. He invited his liberal brethren from all over Natal to attend and I spoke concerning institutionalism. Present were more than 40 men from various churches in Natal, plus brother Paddy Kendall-Ball from Pietermaritzburg, and brother Aaron Mthembu and Freddie Mmbengwa who came from Soweto at my invitation. Brother Aaron interpreted for me.

I distributed charts concerning the two main divisions which have occurred in the church in the middle 1800s and the middle 1900s. I tried to show why they occurred, what errors were taught, and what the Bible teaches concerning these things.

When the question period came I faced quite an hostile audience. One black preacher took up most of the time with irrelevant attacks on my supposed actions in America in the 1950s. Then one of the American preachers from Empangeni (near Eshowe) asked, “Paul, do you teach these things to new converts?” I replied with a decided affirmative and he said, “Then you make them two-fold more sons of perdition than they were before they were converted! ” I thought that was a very loving comment coming from one who is always talking about love. The other white preacher, a South African who has a brand-new M.Th. degree from ACU, said that his education was equal to mine and he was sure that the liberal practices were right. I said, “Brian, I am only asking for the Scripture which authorizes youth camps and church entertainment.” He said, “I will give you the Scripture. The Bible says to preach the gospel, and that is what I do when I go to the youth camp.” So now we know what Scripture authorizes church entertainment.

After that meeting brother Mzolo was completely cut off by his former brethren. According to their interpretation of 2 John 9-11 they are not even allowed to say hello to him. When he drove to a nearby congregation he was told to take his car out of the yard. A new congregation was formed in Greytown and for a while brother Mzolo and his family worshiped absolutely alone. Then one by one a few returned to worship with them. One family is also worshiping alone in Kranskop, 50 km. away, rather than worship with the liberal church there.

The Mzolos are standing firm. Brother Mzolo knows that many of his former brethren will start talking to him about these things. He has been one of the best known preachers among them, having established many churches in Natal. We thank God for his steadfastness and are grateful that God has granted him repentance after all these years. We also believe that his example and teaching will help others see the truth.

Brother Mzolo is not in need of financial support. He owns a small grocery shop which is now being leased by another person, and he owns some small houses which he rents out. He is therefore able to go to teach those who make inquiries, and he is eager to do so. He has five children, from 9 to 18 years old, and a wife who is giving him moral support.

Conrad Steyn and George Harris

Brother Ray Votaw will soon be writing an article concerning brother Conrad Steyn, a white liberal preacher who was converted in the early 50s, and his son-in-law George Harris, who have been sponsored by the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston. Rather than agree to letting the Memorial church take the oversight of the congregation where they were preaching in Capetown, they left with about 6 other Christians to take their stand with the Lord. Conrad and George immediately lost their support and are suffering. Brother Steyn is one of the best-known preachers among the liberals in South Africa. He turned to brother Votaw when this problem came up, and brother Votaw gave him much help in his decision.

These developments give us hope that others will also begin questioning the greater and greater departures of the liberals, will study the Scriptures and come to the practice of the New Testament in the work and organization of the church. Pray that this will be so.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 13, p. 396
July 2, 1987