Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter (Prov. 11:13).

To “bear” something means to carry it or convey it. The ring bearer carries rings, usually on a small pillow, at a wedding. A standard bearer is one assigned to carry the banner or flag as might be done in a military parade. A pallbearer originally was one who carried the pall (a covering for a coffin) but is now one who helps to carry the coffin. An armorbearer (Judg. 9:54) is one who carries weapons or armor for a warrior.

The Bearer Who Beres All

A talebearer is an informer, a peddler of gossip, a tattler, a revealer of secrets, a newsmonger, one who hunts secrets, whether true or false, to broadcast, a slanderer. He is “the walking busybody, the trader in scandal” (A. Clarke).

“A talebearer revealeth secrets . . .” One who comes with tales about others probably will reveal our secrets and relate tales on us. It is unwise to confide in him. “Such a man is so eager to have something to talk about that he will reveal things that should be kept within his own knowledge” (E. M. Zerr). He may even tell things about himself that ought to be kept secret.

Ways of Talebearing

(1) Careless communication. Sometimes people get carried away in a lively conversation and say things without thinking. Perhaps the tongue is flapping faster than the thought processes are working. Words are allowed to slip which carry rumors and reports that could be damaging to someone’s reputation. The speaker did not enter the conversation to become a talebearer, but through carelessness he does in fact engage in passing along gossip. Reckless words can reveal secrets and do harm just as quickly as words deliberately chosen for that purpose.

(2) Sly insinuation. In a lot of cases, the talebearer drops subtle hints that naturally arouse curiosity. He makes allusions that stimulate questions. He whets the appetite of the hearer. For example, he may say, “It would not be in order for me to tell you all I know, but I can tell you this much.” The tale-bearer begins probing until the whole matter is out in the open.

(3) Confidential communication. The tale maybe carried by one who pleads that what he is about to relate must be kept in confidence. “This is strictly between you and me,” he insists. He breaks another’s confidence while urging someone not to follow his example! He may even punctuate the need for “keeping this under your hat” by speaking in the tone of a whisper. “You must not breathe a word to anyone about this,” he warns as he spills the whole story.

(4) Open blabbing. Then there is the talebearer who loudly announces everything, no matter how personal and confidential it may be. To give him information is like putting it on the six o’clock newscast. He acts as though it is his role to tell all he knows whether it needs to be told or not. He thrills in being the first to inform another of something, even if it is slanderous. He is addicted to telling whatever he has heard. And in many cases, this person pries into matters that are none of his business, spends a lot of time on the telephone (it’s his hotline!), and asks a lot of questions.

Whatever the talebearer’s technique, he is engaged in a rotten practice. The law of Moses said plainly, I ‘Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people. . . ” (Lev. 19:16). The New Testament warns against our being busybodies and whispers and backbiters (2 Cor. 12:20; 2 Thess. 3:11; Rom. 1:29,30).

Keeping Secrets

While the talebearer reveals secrets, “he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.” The individual who is of a “faithful spirit” is trustworthy. He respects the confidence that another has placed in him. He is “one who proves himself faithful and true” (F. Delitzsch). He has the capacity which seems all too rare – the ability to keep a secret!

All should cultivate and maintain a “faithful spirit.” “But a should be cautious,” as Ralph Wardlaw states in his Lectures on the Book ofProverbs. “It is very wrong, generally speaking, to come under an obligation to secrecy, without knowing what it is that is about to be imparted.” Wardlaw adds, “Hence one strong objection on the part of Christians to the system of Free-masonry, which withholds its secrets till those who seek initiation take solemn oath never to reveal them.” He further points out, “We may thus bring ourselves into a snare . . . for the secret may be something which ought not to be concealed. It may involve the interests of others; it may involve the cause of religion and the honour of God. Beware, then, of rashly receiving secrets.” This is good advice. Keeping personal matters secret is one thing; a blind pledge to secrecy is something else.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 331
June 4, 1987

By Harry R. Osborne

The words of Elihu may be well to note at the outset of this article. He started his speech to Job and his friends with the admission of his youth and the general rule that “days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom” (Job 32:7). I do not pretend to be an expert giving advice to preachers and other brethren far older and wiser than myself. At the age of thirty, I would feel far more comfortable just continuing to read this magazine than attempting to write in it. However, I am deeply concerned about the current trend towards non-biblical preaching and its effect on preachers of my generation. I ask, therefore, that those of us who are younger consider the content and direction of our preaching.

The apostle Paul through inspiration of the Spirit clearly expressed the divine mandate for both the content and direction of gospel preaching. He said, “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). The advice was not to “make people feel good about themselves,” but to preach the Word.. The advice was not to “‘accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative,” but to preach the Word. The advice was not to “turn a catchy phrase” for oratorical appeal, but . to preach the Word. If the Word is preached, people are made to “feel good” not upon an artificial high, but as a result of the privileged place one has as a child of God in serving the Master. Jesus’ handling of the rich, young ruler should show us that one who refuses to serve the Master should not leave our preaching with an artificial high still lost in sin. By simply preaching the Word, the positive will be accentuated in God’s way which does not include the elimination of his negative admonitions. When the Word is preached, the Scriptures are upheld as the product of divine wisdom which cannot be matched by a catchy phrase turned by mortal man. In short, the divine mandate stresses a focus on God and his product rather than man and his techniques as the tools for reaching the world.

Without the benefit of the wisdom of age, I freely admit a difficulty in accurately spotting trends, but one seems to be obvious. Over the past several years, there seems to be on abundance of preaching which has little or no real biblical base. Among my peers, I have noticed a tendency to use very little Scripture and a mass of personal stories and experiences. All of us recognize that an illustration of a biblical point is well in order, but when the illustration is emphasized to the overshadowing of the Scriptures, priorities have been confused. At the close of our preaching, does the audience have ingrained in their mind the Word of God or what happened to us while driving down the freeway? I am riot attempting to set a quota of verses which must be read, but that our preaching have its solid foundation in a “thus saith the Lord” (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11). As younger preachers, we must be careful not to take a shortcut in our work by de-emphasizing biblical exegesis and trying to compensate with oratorical technique. It may be enthusing to the audience, but it is artificial.

A Proper View of Older Preachers

Those of us who are younger preachers need to pay careful attention in our admiration of preachers of experience and wisdom. In our rightful eagerness to learn, we sometimes misinterpret their advice. For instance, when one says there is a need to be “more positive” in preaching, he takes it for granted that we understand his plea is for a balance. Regretfully, many of us have construed that as a plea to eradicate reproof and rebuke, replacing such with preaching which lacks the militance of New Testament preaching. I know of no sound preacher who would for a single moment encourage anyone to forsake a balanced teaching of Bible principles whether positive or negative.

We also tend to look at some more experienced preachers and attribute their success to a distinctive style or type of speaking. We ought to recognize the fact that any lasting success that any preacher has is due to a knowledge and communication of God’s Word. Brother James P. Miller told several of us who were students that imitation of a style was a quick way to attain two things: short lived popularity and long time hypocrisy. Those preachers who are highly esteemed even after their death are esteemed because of long hours of preparation in mining the text and doing their best to impart that text to the people as clearly as possible. More importantly, however, that is the kind of preacher the Lord esteems because that is His charge (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Dangers of Subjectivism

When our focus becomes style or positivism or whatever else, rather than preaching the Word, we are inviting apostasy. From ancient times to the present, when God’s people ceased to concentrate on His message, they began to “do that which was right in their own eyes” and forsook God (cf. Deut. 12:1-8; Judg. 21:25; Phil. 3:17-19). I believe that philosophy of subjectivism is at work in the following statements which I have heard in recent years.

“What we need Is more short sermons and less sermons on shorts.” Let me pause to say that this statement is not suggested for Sunday’s sermon title. Instead, it is imperative that we do all we can to counter such teaching with the truth. It is hard to imagine, but some among my generation have difficulty in saying that a cheerleader in the typical almost non-existent attire is immodest. The same hesitation is seen to condemn social drinking and unclean movies. Are the principles that hard to understand or do we just not want to be negative? Let’s stop compromising with the devil for fear of being “negative” and preach the Word.

“We try not to cool people off by fanning through the Scriptures.” I suppose that one could mean by this statement that we ought not to use an abundance of Scripture superficially. In that case, I would only question the wisdom of stating such in this way. However, in the times I have heard the phrase used, it appeared the speaker was urging limited usage of Bible and profuse reliance on personal conjecture or subjective thought. The denominations of today got where they are by implementing that advice fifty years ago. The Bible and doctrinal teaching “turned them off,” so they started using psychology and social consciousness to “turn them on.” If we really believe that the Word of God is a living and active sword which is able to touch and discern the heart of man (Heb. 4:12), why would we seek to cut Scripture to a bare minimum? An ill-prepared and shallow lesson from a misused text may be boring, but one which rightly divides the Word, letting that Word speak to men’s hearts, is not going to “cool off” the people who want to listen to God (2 Tim. 2:14-15).

“We need to get out and witness to the world.” In any drift away from biblical emphasis, there is a departure from biblical language. The student of the Bible who reads the Gospels, Acts, I Corinthians 15, or a number of other similar passages quickly understands that Bible witnesses were those who saw firsthand the pertinent evidence. I can and must carry the witness of the New Testament writers to the world, but what Scripture suggests that I inake up my own testimony of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, or teaching? The denorninationalist calls people to faith through his “witness” or “testimony” based on some personal experience or subjective revelation, but the apostle John says the written record is the initiator of faith (John 20:30-31). If our terminology starts echoing the evangelicals, our doctrine ill not be far behind.

“We need to admit that In a sense we are saved by faith only. ” Where is the passage to support such? Faithful gospel preachers have for years pressed Calvinists for the proof text. For years, faithful brethren who held fast to the Word noted the denial of such by Scripture in James 2 and by the very nature of New Testament faith. The Bible clearly teaches that we are saved by faith, but not by faith only. the very use of the term “by faith only” suggests the user is unaware of the fact that biblical faith is an allincompassing trust which dominates thought and action. Peter notes that we are saved by baptism (1 Pet. 3:21). Would anyone dare to say we are saved by baptism only? Why then with faith? The obvious reason is some use this non-biblical terminology is to minimize conflict with denominational thought. Not only does such a phrase fall short of describing man’s responsibility in the conditions of pardon, but it also denies God’s gift. If one says salvation is by “faith only,” he has just disregarded the fact that we are saved by grace. We need to stick with God’s message and that message does not have an “only” behind the “faith.” I know of a case where a member’s Baptist parents are now unreachable because of such being preached by one seeking compromise terminology. Later, the preacher joked about it as his “Calvinism sermon.” May the Lord grant us sobriety when we find humor in giving false teachers the idea that we are with them.

Our preaching needs to be more practical and less doctrinal.” Since when is doctrine not practical? What other basis for our practice is there than the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9)? Paul uses the doctrine taught in Romans 1-11 as the foundation for appealing to them for a transformed life (practice). The more one knows about the doctrine of salvation, the more he ought to be moved by a compassion for the Lord to follow him in practice. As one understands the doctrine of divine inspiration, he ought to have an increased respect for the precepts of conduct found in the message from deity. People will be motivated to act right in the long term, not on the basis of an emotional hype, but as a result of the engrained teaching of the Lord’s doctrine.

A Final Plea

A number of other examples could be given, but the above amply demonstrate non-biblical thought, practice and speech. The time has come when those of us who are younger should cease being enamored with Charles Swindoll, Vance Havner, and Tim LaHaye and get our noses into God’s Word! Enthusiasm need not come from a denominational writer or speaking with a purely subjective basis. It can and must come from the objective message of the Christ which dwells in us richly (Col. 3:16).

I do not intend this to be an indictment of younger preachers in general. From my experience, the majority of my peers are sound in thought and speech (Tit. 2:7-8). Most of them are also concerned about the trends presented. The point must be made, however, that we are the ones who are most easily influenced toward “new images.” We have a choice before us. The easy way is to follow the trends discussed. Very little study, thought, or courage would be required. The difficult way is to fight these trends and declare the truth. A great deal of study, thought, courage, prayer, time, and work will be demanded. The main difference, however, is this: the first way puts our soul and the souls of them that hear us in jeopardy – the other way will help us to both save ourselves and them that hear us (1 Tim. 4:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 336-337
June 4, 1987

By Randy Blackaby

Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

As members of the church it is easy to place the emphasis in this chapter on baptism and miss the very important first command – to repent.

Do we understand what repentance is? Do we adequately communicate the need for repentance to those we teach the gospel?

Repentance is “to change one’s mind or purpose.” It is “a change of mind which reverses the effects of a previous state of mind.”

Without repentance we simply baptize a dry sinner and raise a wet one, as preachers used to be fond of saying.

The mental decision to turn from sin and toward a pattern of behavior enunciated by our Lord must be accompanied by action which shows that decision to be genuine. Mental assent to the truth of the gospel (an inactive belief) is far different from repentance (active belief), which is typified by changed behavior.

Drastic change is suggested in repentance. “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3). Being born again suggests starting all over, it suggests pain.

The “new birth” is defined as the old man dying, being buried in baptism and raised to a new life. That’s drastic. It’s absolutely necessary to be a Christian – and to remain in hope of eternal life.

It is ironic that so many people find baptism to be the tough action, when actually their hesitancy may be more closely connected with an unwillingness to repent (change) and make a complete break with the old way of living.

Repentance is produced only by a heart-wrenching process. Those on the day of Pentecost were “pricked in the heart” by the God who came to redeem them from sin. We don’t repent until we learn the truth, acknowledge we have been doing wrong, and change our direction. It is never easy to admit that we have been wrong. That is a greater stumbling block to conversion than all the doctrinal disputes combined.

This reticence to admit wrong not only keeps many from obeying the gospel, it keeps many of us who are Christians from making needed changes as we move into the mature years of our service to God.

Sorrow leads to repentance. “Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of, but the sorrow of the world worketh death,” Paul told the Corinthians.

Godly sorrow provokes repentance (change). Worldly sorrow is “I got caught syndrome” which feigns sorrow but really only seeks to escape responsibility.

As the children of God we must look at the ways of children. When they fail because of mistakes, they change and try again. And as long as their father sees a willingness to admit fault and change for the better, he smiles and forgives, lovingly understanding that it is a part of growing up.

It is the same with our heavenly Father and we need to understand repentance and use it to mature as God’s children.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 338
June 4, 1987

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Some fascinating conclusions were reached recently by a team of professors from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communications who used the results of a poll by the Gallup organization to study the effect of television’s religious programming on local church growth. George Gerbner, dean of the Annenberg School, declared first that extended television viewing of secular broadcasts causes people to be less likely to attend worship services, read the Bible, or identify themselves as “evangelicals. ” Viewing religious broadcasting, on the other hand, tends to activate religious behavior generally associated with church-going people.

Individuals who watch religious programming are, for the most part, already identified with a church and believe in the message being presented. The religious audience is predominantly female, older, less educated, and concerned about the moral climate in society as a whole. Each of the principal religious “stars” on the air-waves attracts a somewhat different following depending upon the focus of his message, the nature of his personality, and the particular needs of those who tune in his program. Many affirm that the television contributes more than the congregation to their spiritual life; while others complain that they receive no sense of fellowship with other Christians nor communion in worship and sacred things through the electric church (see Christian Century, November 20, 1985, pp. 1057-58; Christianity Today, January 13, 1984, p. 66).

These observations focus our attention upon the fact that religious Americans have needs which are being unanswered by both the denominational churches and television preachers. Some of these needs some preachers sense and some they do not. Others God has revealed in His wonderful Book of salvation and only New Testament Christians realize because they are seen within the framework of a true understanding of God’s will. Not every cable preacher is guilty on every count, but the following identifies some of the major reasons why true religious needs are being left unanswered:

The need for fully converted Christians who engage in truly spiritual worship. The denominational television preachers talk much about the insincere, half-hearted state of worship in many churches and call for a greater dedication to Christ but they interpret “heart-felt religion” as emotional display and define spiritual worship in terms of the outward, subjective evidence of feeling. Many who claim to be Christians are hypocrites, but the evidence of being fully converted is not to be found in the person’s constantly saying, “Praise the Lord.” Rather it is in consistently doing what Christ taught (Matt. 7:21-23). Many who worship regularly may be dead spiritually, but the test of that is in their hearts, not in the clapping of hands, shouting out in the worship, or otherwise making a display of their emotion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:20-40).

The need for strong preaching against immorality. The television preachers are appalled by flagrant abuse in our society of accepted standards of right and wrong. Abortion, drunkenness, drug abuse, fornication, etc., are the subjects of many of their lessons. Some of these are presented, however, from the positive perspective of. . ., “Tell them what good living is and they will see what is bad.” That kind of soft preaching is often not applied because it puts no bedrock foundation under the thinking of the listener. It is too easy to consider oneself the exception if it seems “good” to do otherwise. By others, the lessons are presented from the standpoint of socially accepted standards rather than by the unpopular application of biblical principles and passages which convict even the religious. Still others by inconsistency in their own lives and softness on some subjects destroy the effectiveness of otherwise good preaching on moral issues. The need is to preach morality on the basis of God’s right to rule our fives (1 Cor. 6:12-20). To do otherwise only fosters secularization. “Secularization” is religious decline resulting from long-time changes in religious expression to accommodate social changes. Television preachers use that word with disdain, but the desire to have large audiences and appeal to the masses compromises their effort.

The need to develop proper attitudes about God, others, and oneself Too often even these messages are misguided:

Attitudes toward God: God is frequently pictured as soft, sentimentally loving, limited in judgment, and forgiving when true repentance is not present. Such is obviously untrue. It is a “fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:27-31). Men must appreciate God’s mercy, grace, and love, but not fail to appreciate also His discipline, chastisement, and judgment in the face of unrepented sins.

Attitudes toward others: Much modern preaching appeals to present psychological theory and philosophy, but is not Bible based. Much of it calls for good toward the appeasement of others without the true love which warns of the dangers of sinful activity. Too often the appeal is motivated by a social gospel approach calling for the betterment of secular relationships rather than correcting ungodly attitudes for spiritual purposes with heaven as the reward.

Attitudes toward oneself: The dangerous aspects of the “positive mental attitude” philosophy promoting self-love, selfesteem, no guilt, etc., are strong here where the emphasis is upon one’s feeling good about himself without changing to conform to the true gospel. Such does not correct God’s view of him, only his own.

The need for hope. So often in the television preaching, the hope addressed is the earthly hope for wealth, health, and enjoyment of the good things of life. Even when future things are discussed it is primarily in the context of a premillennial rapture and revelation of Christ. The Bible teaches a spiritual hope of spiritual life in the spiritual realm with God. While I believe that one’s inward life is better as a Christian, the promises of miraculous welfare and the “seed-faith” concept are empty and if one is anticipating feeling better, having more money, and Christ’s returning to the earth to rule in a physical kingdom, his religion is superficial and worldly!

The need for doctrinal understanding. The messages of most television religionists stress social, political, and moral issues which affect the here-and-now lives of the listeners. Most steer clear of the doctrinal teachings of the Bible because those teachings cross denominational boundaries. Most television preachers do not preach doctrine because they do not really feel that doctrinal issues are significant if persons are “committed to the person of Christ.” The truth is that one’s commitment to Christ involves his acceptance of Christ’s teaching . . . what He says is as important as who He is (see John 12:48)!

The need for true evangelism, preaching the true gospel plan of salvation. One major complaint through the decades with Billy Graham has been that when it comes down to the issue of what one must do to be saved, he hedges and stops with the generalization that one must believe. Billy Graham is not alone! You will notice that I have not used the word “evangelists” to describe these teachers. That is not an oversight. While they may present a part of the good news about Jesus’ person, they do not present the “good news” which reveals the will of God concerning what brings one into fellowship with Christ. What does believing in Christ involve? What action on the part of the believer brings him into covenant relationship with God? The Bible teaches that one must “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38; cf. Mark 16:15-16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12; Acts 8:36-40; et. al.). A true “evangelist” (gospelizer, bringer of good news) tells all the good news!

I fear that too many of our own brethren are watching these programs and being influenced by their superficial appeals to the human needs of men which often overshadow the spiritual needs. I fear, too, that some of our preaching brethren are watching to observe the techniques and tactics used by these false teachers so that we can implement “successful methods” into our efforts and so that the “look” of churches of Christ will be appealing and up-to-date. When we are naive, it is easy to be influenced by what appears to be adaptable. Do not be fooled. The denominations and cults are no more answering the real needs of men for salvation in Christ from the tube than they are in their pulpits.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 12, pp. 354, 390
June 18, 1987