Truth Magazine

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

By Keith Pruitt

A few years back, a convicted murderer named Gary Gillmore requested to die by firing squad in Utah. One would perhaps think nothing strange of the situation if any but Mormons were involved. I thought little of it until sometime later. I was told that Gillmore, a Mormon, had made the request in order that he might have atonement for sins. Even then the statement did not click.

Recently, research on Mormonism uncovered some interesting discoveries concerning the official belief concerning justification and the efficacy of Christ’s blood. The fact is, Mormons do not believe that Christ’s blood has the power to forgive all sins. Therefore, they teach that one’s own blood must be shed for redemption of certain sins. Note the following quotes:

Once we have been resurrected, it will be our own efforts, and not Christ’s sacrifice, that will be the deciding factor (Wallace Bennett, Why I Am A Mormon, N.Y., 1958, p. 191 as quoted in History and Beliefs of Mormonism by Einar Anderson, p. 19).

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? (Joseph F. Smith quoted, R.C. Evans, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, p. 14).

I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, IV, pp. 53-54).

Thus, there are some sins that cannot be atoned for through the blood of Christ. They can only be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner’s blood. A murderer is one, and an adulterer is another (Charles W. Penrose, Blood Atonement, as Taught by Leading Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1884, p. 29 as quoted in Mormonism and Inspiration, Jack Free, p. 339).

In view of the above quotes from Mormon sources, it is not difficult to understand why Gillmore would ask to die nor is it difficult to see why Utah uses execution via a firing squad. Their efforts are noble, but they fail for lack of biblical sanction.

But directly to the point. Does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin? Let the book speak. Let us demonstrate the universal nature of the sacrifice and its efficacy.

“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1: 15). “. . Who gave himself a ransom for all. . . ” (1 Tim. 2:6). “. . And loosed us from sin by his own blood. . . ” (Rev. 1:5). “. . . For this he did once when he offered up himself. . . ” (Heb. 7:27). “. . . There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. . . ” (Heb. 10:26). “. . But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . – ” (Heb. 9:26). “. . . So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. . . ” (v. 28). “. . He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9).

Now what sin can His blood not remit? What person cannot be saved? Listen to Paul’s address to the Corinthians. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed (see Rev. 1:5, KJV), but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11; see also Eph. 1: 7). Now the blood of Christ was sufficient to cleanse the Corinthians who had been fornicators and adulterers. It will cleanse the obedient alien of all sin and the penitent Christian of all sin. .

The fact is, if the blood of Christ will not cleanse from some sin, it will not cleanse from any sin! Sin is sin in God’s sight. A man stands as condemned for neglecting his family as for murdering his neighbor (1 Tim. 5:8).

If the blood of Christ could pardon Saul of Tarsus of the murder he was guilty of, would it not pardon the apostle Paul of the same offense (had he been guilty of such)? If not, why not? Under what rules would God show more favor toward an alien than the child of the covenant?

It is a shame that ignorant and deceitful men have led so many astray. Countless hundreds become Mormons every year. They are following a system of teaching that cannot save and are teaching that Jesus is even powerless to save some. How ludicrous and devastating.

Gillmore perhaps went to this death thinking that the very act of the civil government would atone for his unrighteousness. But if one ounce of Gillmore’s blood could atone for any sin, there would be no need of Jesus Christ.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 333
June 4, 1987

By Vestal Chaffin

“Why, I never heard of the church withdrawing from anybody,” is a statement recently heard from two members of the church in widely separated areas. Neither of these members are young in years. Both are probably in their late sixties. This points up a fault that has existed among churches of Christ for many years, and still does in many areas today. I speak of disciplinary action toward members of the church who fail to live as God directs Christians, His children. There are many members of the church who have been members for 40, 50, or maybe 60 years, who have never seen the church take disciplinary action against any member. It is not that they have never seen members who “walked disorderly,” or who have flagrantly violated God’s law, but because the church has failed to take the action that it should.

To “withdraw” ourselves from brethren who refuse to live as God commands them, is a command of God just as much as to sing, pray, teach, eat the Lord’s Supper, or any other that he has given to the Christian. Listen: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus …. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:4-5,11). “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Thus it is clearly stated that this action is a command of God.

I am convinced that this command has not been carried out in many instances, because of the unpleasantness connected with it. In many cases the offender has been associated with the brethren in the congregation where he is a member, friendships and ties have been formed that are of long standing; and, in some cases, the erring brother has relatives whom the brethren think might be offended if disciplinary action is taken. But this is no excuse for failing to carry out God’s command. They regard and esteem fleshly ties greater than that of spiritual. Consequently, the ultimate disciplinary action is never taken.

Withdrawing fellowship from a member of the church is to be used as a last resort, when all other efforts to restore them have failed. We should do all we can to convert him “from the error of his way” (James 5:19-20). We should “warn them that are unruly” (1 Thess. 5:14). We should do all we can to “restore such an one” (Gal. 6:1). If these efforts fail, then we must “withdraw” ourselves from him.

Sometimes, when this final step is taken by the church, those members who are close friends, or relatives of the one withdrawn from, become offended and will stop attending the services of the church or go elsewhere to services. Such action on their part shows that they do not know the purpose of discipline, or they are esteeming the fleshly ties greater than the spiritual salvation of a soul.

What then, is the purpose of church discipline? It is not taken to get at someone. It is not taken for revenge on the offender. But the God-given purpose of withdrawing from a brother is two fold: (1) To save the guilty party from eternal destruction, “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). (2) To save the church from pollution, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6) The Lord wants the church to be pure (Eph. 5:25-27; 2 Cor. 11:1-2; Col. 1:22), but if we harbor sin and rebellion in the church, even in one member, others will be inclined to follow the example of the sinful one. If we fail to carry out disciplinary measures against the unruly member and permit sin to be engaged in by the members, then the church will have lost it distinctiveness and its influence for good; and it will become a hiss and a byword in the world.

After we have withdrawn from a member, we must not completely stop all efforts to save him. We are to “count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). May the Lord ever give us the faith, the courage, and the wisdom to carry out His divine will in all things.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 339
June 4, 1987

By Paul K. Williams

In response to my article in Guardian of Truth in which I lamented the fact that in most churches evangelism in other places has a low priority, brother Leslie Diestelkamp wrote me an admonishing letter. He was concerned that my tone was too sharp.

And the elders of a church which is helping brother David Hurst in his plans to come to South Africa (I have heard that he is still hoping to come. Write him at Rt. 4, Olney, IL 62450) wrote to show that they are concerned about preaching the gospel in other places.

Therefore I want to give grateful thanks to all those faithful brethren who truly love the Lord and the work of preaching the gospel. Brother Diestelkamp put it rightly: “Under proper circumstances there are still many brethren who would at least figuratively give you their right arm and who would literally dig deeper to find ways to help worthy appeals.” I believe that and am very grateful for it. It is brethren like that who make it possible for me to remain in South Africa preaching the gospel.

These are usually the ones who take to heart such appeals as I made. It is a sad fact that when a preacher preaches on giving, the ones who listen with open hearts and search to find ways to please God more in that area are the ones who already are generous givers. The stingy ones appear not to hear a word of the sermon.

So I suppose that my article will be felt the most by those who already have tender hearts. The great numbers who have long justified themselves for their selfish attention to their own comfort before thinking about the lost souls of the world will pass such an article by with some excuse which will be enough for their consciences. Pity, but that is the way people are.

I am thankful, though, that attitudes can change for the better. A church with which I was closely connected in my early years had the attitude “We will only support preachers in places close enough for us to see the work.” For many years now they have been generous in their support to preachers in foreign fields. Perhaps articles such as I wrote and continual preaching on the subject by local preachers will help many to look at their attitudes and change for the better.

Because another thing which brother Diestelkamp wrote is true. In giving advice on how to raise support for preaching abroad he wrote: “Send, principally, to churches already involved in such work.” In other words, the churches which are not supporting preachers in other places are hard to interest in such work. The evangelist will waste his efforts in presenting his appeal to those churches.

How sad. These are the brethren who need to be awakened, but how hard to do it. And they are so many that the evangelists had better get a list of the churches already interested in foreign evangelism, or his efforts could result in failure to get enough support to go!

These are the brethren I was writing for, and I am afraid that they make up a large portion of churches in America – perhaps a majority. Keeping house for the Lord in comfort is not going to please God, my beloved. Jesus gave himself to save souls, and that is what we must be busy doing.

I sincerely believe that we who preach need to be earnestly searching for ways to reach the hearts of our brethren with the message that the whole world needs the gospel, and that God is depending upon us to preach it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 340
June 4, 1987