Truth Magazine

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

By Harold V. Comer

What is the audience (or the congregation) of the Television Church like?

What motivates Christians to watch TV preachers and give their approval? Will their TV interest effect their local church affiliation and attendance?

If viewers stay home more and attend services less, what benefits will they miss?

What kind of personalities are particularly influenced by the appeals of today’s TV evangelists?

Why do people give money so readily to people and programs of work that they know so little about?

There are a number of questions that I have about the “congregation” of the Television Church that gathers a few feet from the flat glass pulpit and seems to respond so thoroughly to the appeals and messages of the television evangelist. Some of these questions cannot be completely answered but the questions that can be answered will provide us with a greater awareness of our challenges today and also give us an appreciation of the benefits of God’s plan of worship.

Examples And Case Studies

Harry is an untalented salesman who is struggling to be a success. He is addicted to the programs of Robert Schuller and Jim Bakker.

Harry is irregular at the local church where his wife, who is stronger than Harry spiritually, attends faithfully. For her part, she is repulsed by the television preachers he watches and is fearful of the doctrinal efforts they teach. Harry admits that they are wrong some of the time, but thinks that his favorite preachers still say a lot of “good things.”

“Good things” to Harry are the materialistic promises of the “wealth” and “success” theology at the core of the preachers that he listens to. He thinks that he is going to be a better salesman by watching them and that is very important to Harry.

Harry illustrates some of the motivation that traps weaker Christians and draws them into the audience of the Television Church.

A Different Case Study

A second example will illustrate another personality that finds TV preachers appealing. Alice is a Christian who is also a fan of some television ministers. Alice has a great awareness of her aches and pains. She is in relatively good health but has a great fear of illness and poor health.

Like Harry, she is a weaker member also. She likes the assurances of the “healing” ministers who promise her a perfectly healthy body. In contrast, the local preacher has a crippled leg and he recently lost a child. He has preached some on biblical help for your suffering. Alice is always troubled by those lessons and prefers a “positive” approach that assures her that God will never allow her to have to face such difficulties.

Her loyalty has gradually shifted from assembling with the congregation of saints to being in her Lazy Boy pew when the 15 piece band opens the program.

The Problem

We live in a materialistic, body-conscious world and television ministers must touch very deep immediate motivations to open up people’s pocketbooks. Health, wealth, unity, and entertainment to replace reformation of character, are appealing approaches to weak Christians who don’t understand all of the things they are missing as they gravitate to the Television Church.

What You Miss In The Lord’s Supper

The first thing you miss if you stay home more is the loss of the benefits of the Lord’s Supper. You miss the communion with Christ (Matt. 26:29) and with the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). You lose the deep intense motivation that comes from fully visualizing the cross and the body and the blood of the Lord. Without that weekly image, you become weak and sick spiritually (1 Cor. 11:30).

When you say that the Lord’s Supper didn’t do you much good when you went, you simply confess that you did not .observe it reverently and thoughtfully. When the Lord’s Supper is properly visualized and appreciated, it will always be meaningful and effective in moving us to greater spirituality. When you miss service, you miss the Lord’s Supper and the many deep benefits that God incorporated into this act.

What You Miss In The Singing

The second thing you miss when you stay home to be entertained by the well performed “special music” of the expensive television productions is the loss of the subconscious instructions you receive when you sing in worship. Singing is for teaching and admonition to one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), but I teach myself most of all when I sing with awareness and reverence.

When I repeat familiar songs, I deepen the process of “keeping my heart” (Prov. 4:23) through that repetition of valuable messages. There is a significant loss when I don’t sing, don’t sing with alertness, or watch someone else perform.

What You Miss With Your Brethren

The third thing I miss when I withdraw to my television set is the loss of association with God’s people. Urbanized brethren are taught by their daily experiences to withdraw from closer associations. Yet God teaches us to prefer our brethren (Rom. 12:10), and to love them (1 Pet. 1:22).

That loving family closeness is lost when I don’t make an effort or when I seldom go to service. Note, the Bible doesn’t tell us to “be loved,” it tells us to do the loving. Maslow says that one basic need of human beings is that of “belonging.” I belong more when “I love them” than I do when “they love me.” I only begin to start to develop these deeper relationships by fellowshipping with my brethren in worship together.

The contacts of the television watcher are more distant, less intimate, less personal, and therefore less satisfying and fulfilling. You need more than that.

What You Miss With Soft Preaching

Finally, the man who stays home to watch the television preacher will miss some pointed and important lesson that he needs. Television preaching must be less controversial and less provocative. Hard preaching drives away too many essential contributors.

So the viewer finds the T.V. messages unoffensive. His toes are never stepped on, except about general morality, selfishness, and giving. He loses the stimulation that comes from a minister who cares about him as a person and from elders that back the preacher to fully say what God commanded. I’ve never heard a television preacher deal with the subject of divorce except to be accommodating about it finally. You need someone who cares enough about you to say the painful things. We all need our toes stepped on.

Conclusion

Many of us don’t appreciate the great benefits we have in following the simplicity of God’s plan. When we neglect the assembly for a television performance, we weaken our souls and our spirituality and we sin before God. We all need something far better than the erroneous “health and wealth” promises of today’s television ministries. They offer false assurances and they rob the weak of far more important gifts that God has hidden for us within His commands to assemble reverently and lovingly with His saints.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 12, pp. 353, 391
June 18, 1987

By Randy Reynolds

Throughout biblical and secular history we find that by the sinful, evil ways of man, many times the innocent are victimized. This is clearly the case with over 1,500,000 unborn babies in our country each year. They have become victims due in part to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 which stated that according to the U.S. Constitution unborn humans are not legal “persons.” An unborn baby has become the property of the owner (mother) and she can have the child killed (aborted) at her request, even up to the time of the birth if her doctor agrees. Thus by a 7 to 2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all state laws protecting unborn children from abortion. This decision of course, has opened the door to the right to have an abortion-on-demand. All of this has produced more than 16,000,000 murders since 1973.

As appalling as it is, I guess we really shouldn’t be too surprised since similar events have characterized the sinner and sin all through time, as the following examples will further illustrate.

Example 1: In Exodus 1,2 we read that Moses was born at a time in history when Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, had resolved to have every newborn male child among the Israelites put to death. The death toll would have been one more had not Moses’ mother placed him in a basket in the Nile among the reeds.

Example 2: The following archaeological note concerning Baal worship is taken from Halley’s Bible Handbook.- “The Oriental Institute, excavating at Megiddo which is near Samaria, found, in the stratum of Ahab’s time, the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, goddess wife of Baal. Just a few steps from the temple was a cemetery, where jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in the temple. Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 198).

Example 3: When King Herod found out that he had been deceived by the wise men whom he had sent out to locate baby Jesus, he ordered all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all that region, from two years old and under, to be put to death (cf. Matt. 2:16f).

Example 4: In the late ’30s and early ’40s Adolf Hitler was able to delude Germany with his racial dogmas which eventually led to a policy of genocide, under which deliberate campaigns of extermination were carried out against the Poles, Russians, and most notably against the Jews. Some historical references estimate that as many as 7,000,000 Jews were murdered by the National Socialistic Party which was in power in Germany.

Why has all of this happened throughout the years of man’s existence? Sin!

In Egypt, Pharaoh saw that the children of Israel had multiplied to the point of being mightier than the Egyptians. And in Exodus 1:10 Pharaoh said, “Come, let us deal wisely with them.” So he afflicted them with hard labor, commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill the male children at birth, and when he saw that they continued to multiply and become mighty, he ordered every newborn son cast into the Nile. When Stephen touches on this part of history in Acts 7:19 he says that Pharaoh “dealt treacherously with our people, and oppressed our forefathers. “

The worship of Baal (a generic term for god in many of the Syro-Arabian languages) must have been a rather powerful force during Old Testament days. In numerous references the Bible speaks of temples erected to Baal, many altars on lofty eminences, and literally hundreds of priests. In one reference however to the Northern tribes of Israel we find these words recorded: “they have built the high places of Baal to bum their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of nor did it ever enter My mind” (cf. Jer. 19:5).

The Gospel writer Matthew tells us that when Herod the king heard of the King of the Jews being born, he was troubled. Why? Perhaps it was because he was by birth an Edomite, thus a usurper to the throne of David. Or perhaps it was the fact that his rise to power and his holding of the throne had been a bloody ordeal. Or could it have been the knowledge of the promised Messiah of the Jews that was anticipated? Whatever those selfish motives were that Herod had, the result was that hundreds of male children were slaughtered (cf. Matt. 2:1f).

And finally there was Germany, a country torn by economic and social problems, allowing Hitler to manipulate them into such human slaughter of innocent victims.

Conclusion

Sometimes sin masquerades as what seems to be best for a country; as religion; as control of worldly power; and even as an answer to economic woes. Today one disguise sin wears is a title of Planned Parenthood, an organization which promotes abortion on demand, immorality and undermines parental authority. This organization is being partly funded by our government, their sex curriculum is being used in public schools to promote promiscuity (sex education classes) while in their own clinics abortions are being performed.

How sad it is to think that less than 45 years after Hitler’s heartless massacre that shocked the world, we live in a nation that for 14 years now, has legalized the murder of innocent babies.

Regardless of its many names and many disguises, it is still sin (cf. 1 Jn. 3:4). And woe to those who must face the terrible vengeance of our God (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 323-324
June 4, 1987

By Weldon E. Warnock

Our differences, however, in opposition to solos and quartets are the following: Brother Bragewll opposes these practices because he believes they are unlawful, and I oppose them because I believe they are highly inexpedient, leading to praise in public worship becoming theatrical and mere entertainment. The crux of this exchange, by and large, revolves around three passages – 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16. We will analyze these texts in response to brother Bragwell’s interpretation of them.

1 Corinthians 14:26

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:26, “How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” My contention is that this verse plainly teaches that at Corinth (obviously, other congregations, too), a brother would sing a solo before the assembly that he received from the Spirit, or perhaps he composed himself. Paul said in I Corinthians 14:15 that “I will sing with the spirit.” (The context favors Spirit, not spirit. The song was imparted most likely by the Spirit here, as well as v. 26.)

If the man in v. 26 brought the song so that he and all others could sing it together, why would not the man in v. 26 who had a doctrine or a revelation also just bring the instructions/teaching and hand it over to others for them to teach the assembly? Each one (those so gifted) hath a psalm, each one hath a doctrine, each one hath a revelation. One brother had a song to sing, another had a doctrine to teach and another had a revelation to give.

Wonder how a brother in that day would have proceeded in getting all the assembly to sing together a song he had received from the Spirit? He would not have brought copies to pass around. He could not have sung it through once or twice for the others to have learned it because he would have been guilty of singing a solo, which we are told is unlawful. Suppose he read it? Is it permissible to read the song, but not sing it? Then, there is the problem with the tune. How do we learn that without songbooks and shaped notes?

Kittel says, “in 1 Cor. 14:25 psalmon is a Christian song that is sung by an individual at workship” (Theo. Dict. of N.T., One Vol. Ed., p. 1226). Thayer states, “the phrase echein psalmon is used of one who has it in his heart to sing or recite a song of the sort, 1 Cor. 14:26” (p. 65). Findlay comments, “‘Each has a psalm (to sing) – a teaching, a revelation (to impart) – a tongue, as an interpretation (to give)” (The Expositor’s Gr. Testament, Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. 2, p. 912).

Charles Hodge says, “One was impelled by the Spirit to pour forth his heart in a song of praise. Comp. v. 15” (1 Cor., p. 300). H.A. W. Meyw observes, “has a psalm ready, i.e. he feels himself qualified and constrained to sing aloud such a spirit-given song. It is not, however, the glossalalia psallein which is meant” (1 & 2 Cor., p. 329). Conybeare and Howson translate the passage, “If when you meet together, one is prepared to sing a hymn of praise. (Life & Epistles of St. Paul, p. 409).

Charles J. Ellicott says, “The psalmos here mentioned was probably a hymn of praise, under the influence of the Spirit, and so extemporaneous in its nature” (1 Cor., p. 277). Henry Alford stated, “Whenever you happen to be assembling together the present vividly describes each coming with his gift, eager to exercise it” (The Greek Testament, p. 598). We also read, “Each one.’not that everyone present would of necessity take part; rather it indicates the general distribution of gifts throughout the local church. Has a hymn, a lesson ” (T he New Layman’s Bible Commentary, Editors: G.C.D. Howley, F.F. Bruce & H.L. Ellison, p. 1452).

More sources could be quoted, but these excerpts will suffice to show that the weight of the scholarship favors my contention that 1 Corinthians 14:26 teaches solo singing was practiced in the early church. The aim was for edification, not exhibition of talent or entertainment. Wonder if some of us had been preaching at Corinth if we would have allowed a brother to sing before the assembly as taught in 1 Corinthians 14:26? It seems to me that brother Bragwell is the one who has the problem of harmonizing 1 Corinthians 14:26 with Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, rather than I. There is nothing said, nor implied in 1 Corinthians 14:26, about a brother bringing a song for all the others to sing. He sang the song himself.

Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16

We are told that 1 Corinthians 14:26 does not permit a solo in the assembly of the church because it would violate Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Would it? These two passages say nothing about singing in unison. They simply state that we are to teach one another through singing. This is done by congregational singing, whether in unison or antiphonally. We can also teach one another through solos. At Corinth one brother would sing a song, perhaps followed by another, and then another. They were speaking to one another. The two passages say, “speaking one to another in psalms and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19, ASV), and “. . . teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16).

It is interesting how Conybeare & Howson translate these two passages. “Let your singing be of psalms an hymns and spiritual songs, and make melody with the music of your hearts, to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly. Teach and admonish one another in all wisdom. Let your singing be of psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, sung in thanksgiving, with your heart, unto God” (Col. 3:16). But this translation seems to be strained and unnatural. The weight of scholarship is according to the rendition of the verses in the preceding paragraph.

Brother M.C. Kurfees wrote,

There are some things, such as prophesying or public speaking, to which these statements do not apply, for God has legislated here, and he limits public speaking to one person at a time for the clearly expressed purpose of avoiding confusion. Singing, which may be done in concert without confusion, is not thus restricted by legislation. To the Corinthians, Paul said: “When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” (1 Cor. 14:26). He here distinctly says that each one hath a psalm, and it will be observed that he does not condemn them for this, but only condemns their doing things without proper order, and urges that all be done to edifying. His admonition for Christians to sing is in the following words: “Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” (Eph. 5:19). He uses the reflexive pronoun, “speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” It is a service rendered by “one to another” or by “one another.” He does not say whether this speaking in psalms and other kinds of musical compositions shall be done by all in concert or by one at a time: hence, either is correct (Gospel Advocate, May 15, 1913, p. 464).

I agree with brother Bragwell that there should be reciprocity in singing, but just how this would be exercised is not stated in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. In fact, these two Scriptures do not apply exclusively to the worship assembly of the church. They are just as applicable out of the church-assembly as in it. Oh, they include the worship assembly, by all means, but not just the public assembly of the church. I have studied the context, the phrases and the words of these texts, and I do not see the compelling evidence that makes them apply to a church-assembly, only. They would be applicable to any period or place of worship in song.

We sometimes meet in our homes for social activities. Frequently, during these times, we sing hymns. Are not Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 being practiced? Occasionally, three or four of us will continue to sing after the others have quit. Are we sinning? Must all sing or none sing in all situations?

Charles J. Ellicott said on Ephesians 5:19, “Whether the reference is here to social meetings . . . or expressly to religious services … or, more probably, to both, can hardly be determined from the context” (Epist. of St. Paul, Gal. – 2 Thess., p. 128). T.K. Abbott stated, “But the reference (Eph. 5:19) cannot be specially to religious services, as the context shows.” Commenting on Colossians 3:16, Abbott wrote, “Here as there the reference does not appear to be exclusively or chiefly to public worship, for mutual instruction is what is prescribed” (International Critical Commentary, Eph. & Col., pp. 162, 291).

MacKnight stated, “. . . the Ephesians were directed to sing alternately, a custom which was early practiced in the church; and that the apostle recommended it to them to sing psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, not only in their assemblies for worship, but in their houses, mentioning, as an example, Paul and Silas singing the praises of God in the prison of Philippi, so as to be heard by their fellow prisoners” (Apostolical Epistles, p. 340).

J.B. Lightfoot wrote, “The reference (psalms, hymns, wew) in the text is not solely or chiefly to public worship as such. . . ” (Epistles of St. Paul, Col. & Philemon, p. 223). William Hendriksen, commenting on Colossians 3:16, said, “His (Paul) admonition, therefore, can be applied to every type of Christian gathering … whether in the church or at home or anywhere else” (Colossians & Philemon, p. 163).

Worshiping God in song is not confined to the church building. We worship Him in praise in various and sundry circumstances. We worship God when we sing at home in our devotions and in our home gatherings of brethren wherein we sing. We worship God when a small group of us sing on a radio or TV program, when one, two or more of us sing at a funeral. It seems to me that we are too restrictive on this matter, and if we follow our reasoning to its ultimate consequence, we would have to have everybody sing in every circumstance in which we sing. The Bible does not teach this.

Brother Bragwell introduced some passages that showed reciprocal action, such as Mt. 16:8; 21:38; Mk. 163; Lk. 20:5; Eph. 4:32; etc. When the disciples reasoned among themselves in Mt. 16:8, did they all speak at once? How many minutes might have elapsed between the speech of the first one and the speech of the last one? Would brother Bragwell permit brethren to sing one at a time? If we sang the way they reasoned in Mt. 16:8 and spoke in Mt. 21:38, we would solo, one at a time. Would we allow brethren to sing in the order that these disciples reasoned among themselves?

In the last paragraph of brother Bragwell’s article, he stated a fear that the seeds of justification for solos and quartets sown today may influence the future generation to incorporate them into their worship. I can appreciate brother Bragwell’s concern, but I have heard the same anxiety about other matters from brethren concerning expedients. One brother I debated on “women teachers” said our practice of putting women in the classroom to teach children would lead to their being put into the pulpit to preach. Should we stop having women teachers because of a potential danger? Should we declare women teachers unlawful in order to head off the possibility of women evangelists?

A brother asked brother E.G. Sewell if singing different parts of music would lead some to the opinion that instruments are admissible. Sewell replied, “No, it is not the singing of the different parts of the tunes that cultivates the desire for the organ, but a worldly freshly mind and a mere desire for the fine music and have something to attract and entertain. . . ” (Queries Answered, p. 609). Methinks this is also true with solos and quartets.

Brother Kurfees wrote in the Gospel Advocate that solo singing is lawful, but inexpedient, and nobody was influenced to adopt solos from his article. Brother R.L. Whiteside, author of an excellent commentary on Romans, and Query Editory for the Gospel Advocate for several years, wrote, “To the Corinthians, Paul said, ‘when ye come together each one hath a psalm’ (1 Cor. 14:26). A solo is sometimes very effective; so also is a quartet. But no one wants either as a regular diet. In solos there is a temptation to sing for show, and a poor solo or a poor quartet is a mess” (Reflections, p. 372). Who has started practicing solos as a result of brother Whiteside’s observations?

Again, may I say that brother Bragwell and I stand side by side in our fight toward all unauthorized innovations into the church. I appreciate him as a man, as a Christian and as a preacher of the gospel. I trust this exchange will be profitable for all that read it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 327-329
June 4, 1987