Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: When individuals are helping those who do not qualify for help out of the treasury of the local church, is it permissible to pass the collection plate after the regular contribution in order to help such people?

Reply: The New Testament clearly specifies who is to be helped out of the local church treasury. They are needy saints for whom the church is responsible. Each church provided for its own needy in the matter of benevolence (Acts 2:44,45; 6:1-7; Eph. 4:12; 1 Tim. 5:16). When the local church was unable to provide for its own (as in the event of a famine), other churches assisted it in supplying this need (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:14; 9:1). From these Scriptures we learn that the benevolent work of the church was limited to “brethren,” d4saints,” “poor saints” and “widows indeed.” But, as noted in our second sentence in this reply, “needy saints for whom the church is responsible.” This is to say that not all needy saints are to be helped out of the treasury of the local church. Family members who are able to supply their needs are to do so, that the church be not burdened. Widows are a case in point (1 Tim. 5:16). The Bible clearly teaches that children are to help their parents; it is their obligation (see Mk. 7:8-13). The point, then, is clear. The church is authorized by the Scriptures to assist from its treasury only needy saints for whom it is responsible. To go beyond this is to be beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

As to assisting those who do not qualify for aid from the church treasury, individuals are to do it. It is proper that they do it after the service has been dismissed. To pass a collection plate during the service to help non-members, and after the regular contribution, is about the same as “tweedle dee and tweedle dum,” the only difference being the purpose of the two collections. Both collections are made during the assembly. The money in both instances is contributed by the church. It is difficult to see what would make the first a church contribution but not the second.

The church is not authorized by the Scriptures to take up a contribution for any work which it is not authorized to do. This applies to contributions for colleges, benevolent institutions or non-members in need. If persons are in need and worthy of help, individual brethren should make up money among themselves and not involve the church. Just as schools are to be supported by individuals and not the church, so those not qualifying as needy saints are to be supported by individuals and not the church.

The failure by many to make the distinction between what the church is to do and what individuals are to do is responsible for many of our problems in the church today. We must be careful to always stay within the bounds of scriptural limitation.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 197
April 2, 1987

By Johnny Stringer

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presented truths pertaining to the kingdom He was soon to establish (Matt. 4:17,23). In Matthew 5:20 He said that the righteousness required in His kingdom would be greater than the righteousness taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees. He then proceeded to discuss the higher righteousness required in His kingdom.

He began by discussing the superior righteousness which is required regarding our attitudes toward others. The scribes and Pharisees condemned murder (v. 21), but their teaching fell short of what is required in the kingdom of Christ. Demanding a higher righteousness, Jesus condemns all feelings and expressions of contempt and ill-will.

Three Examples of Wrong Attitude

To depict the hateful attitude, Jesus gave three examples of that attitude.

First, He spoke of one being angry with his brother. The term anger is used here in the context of evil attitudes toward a person – contempt, ill-will, the desire to harm. It refers, therefore, to the anger which involves these attitudes, not to the proper anger toward evil which is controlled so that there is no ill-will toward the one whose actions anger us (Mk. 3:5; Eph. 4:6).

The anger which Jesus condemns is all too prevalent, even among brethren in Christ. Sometimes simple disagreements lead to bitter feelings. When one reaches the point that he cannot have kind feelings toward one with whom he disagrees, he has a real problem. Even when spiritual truth is involved and we properly become angry over false doctrine, our anger must not be the evil anger that involves ill feelings toward the individual; rather, we must desire his welfare, praying and hoping that he will come to a knowledge of the truth.

The second example Jesus gave of the wrong attitude was calling a brother “Raca.” Raca was an Aramaic word which meant “empty headed.” It was used to express contempt and scorn.

The third example which He gave was calling one a fool. The reference in this context is to calling one a fool out of contempt, calling him an insulting name simply to express scorn. There is a difference between such name-calling and simply describing a foolish person as what he is, with no bitterness or ill-will involved. Jesus Himself did that (Matt. 23:17, 19; 7:26). Hence, if one says that those who disobey God are foolish, he is simply teaching what Jesus taught; he is not violating the principle under discussion here.

Three Ways Of Expressing Judgment

As Jesus depicted the evil attitude in three ways, He also used three different ways to express the fact that men will be held accountable for this attitude (v. 22). (1) The one is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgment. (2) The one who says “Raca” will be in danger of the council. (3) The one who says “Thou fool” will be in danger of hell fire.

Some believe that Jesus meant that each of the evils would result in a different fate. This is not the point. There is no significant difference between saying “Raca” and saying “Thou fool.” If the one who says “Thou fool” will go to hell, so will the one who says “Raca.” Rather than setting forth different fates for the different evils, Jesus is simply using three different ways of expressing the fact of divine judgment.

Some like to point out that the word translated “council” (KJV) is the word which was used to denote the Sanhedrin (the highest court of the Jews). But Jesus clearly was not referring to the literal Sanhedrin. No one was ever brought before the Sanhedrin for saying “Raca.” Jesus was not threatening folks with what the Sanhedrin might do to them. The one who said “Raca” had nothing to fear from the Sanhedrin. The word rendered “council” also had a more general meaning. It did not always refer to the Sanhedrin, but sometimes to other tribunals (Matt. 10:17). Jesus was simply saying that the guilty person would be brought to court – God’s court.

Even if Jesus was using the word to denote the Sanhedrin, He was speaking figuratively, using the earthly tribunal with which they were familiar to stand for the heavenly tribunal – much as one in the United States might figuratively describe God’s judgment seat as the Supreme Court. Jesus’ purpose was simply to convey the concept of judgment; and the tribunal to be feared by the person who said “Raca” was not an earthly one, but the heavenly one.

Jesus said that those who are guilty are in danger of hell fire. The word translated “hell” is gehenna. This was the name of a valley near Jerusalem which had a hideous history, having been the site of the burning of human sacrifices in heathen rituals. In Jesus’ day it was the place where garbage and trash were dumped. The name of this place had come to be used to denote the place of eternal punishment – and appropriately so. No word in the Jewish language was more fitting as a name for the place, of eternal punishment than the name of this loathsome valley.

Christians should contemplate well the fact that bitterness and ill-will toward others will result in eternal punishment. There have been causes in which brethren in Christ have had such animosity toward one another that they would not speak to one another or would not sit on the same side of the meeting house. There have even been cases of physical violence among brethren. Those who harbor such feelings will be held accountable.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 203
April 2, 1987

By Mike Willis

The apostle Paul warned, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). The Christian is constantly in a struggle to keep from being conformed to this world (Rom. 12:1-2), whether it be this world’s morals, dress, speech, or philosophies.

The world is in a state of constant flux. “For the fashion of this world passeth away” (1 Cor. 7:31). What is in vogue today will be old hat tomorrow and another new thing will take its place. The observation that “the world passeth away” (1 Jn. 2:15) is not solely aimed at the passing which will occur when Jesus returns. The world is constantly passing away even now.

This observation is obvious when thinking of women’s fashions. It is not so obvious to some when thinking about the philosophies and doctrines which attract the attention of this world. Yet, those familiar with religious history are aware of many doctrines which came on the scene and have vanished over the course of the centuries, such as Gnosticism, Arianism, Sabellianism, and many others.

The people of God sometimes become enamored with the various philosophies of the world. On many occasions, religious do-gooders have sought to pick out the good things of some heathen philosophy and bring them into Christianity. Rather than Christianizing heathenism, they succeed in heathenizing Christianity. When Norman L. Geisler commented on C.S. Lewis’ “Christian humanism,” he sounded a warning “that the Christian humanist must maintain a constant vigil to make sure he has a Christian view of what is human and not a humanist view of what is Christian” (Is Man The Measure?, p. 107). What Geisler observed about “Christian humanism” is true of every other attempt to pick out the good points of any system of human philosophy.

There have been many different philosophies which have appeared in recent decades. Modernism appeared denying the miracles of the Bible, the Bible’s inspiration, the deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the atonement, and any other thing that was supernatural. As the movement gained control over churches and these churches rejected the hope of eternal life in heaven as man’s goal and spreading the gospel to convert a lost world as the church’s mission, the churches were led into the social gospel, a redirecting of the mission of the church away from the salvation of lost souls to correcting social ills in the world. The further development of this infidelity has led some into secular humanism, a denial of God and everything supernatural. Others reacted by trying to recapture some of the lost beliefs of Christianity in neo-orthodoxy, while still rejecting the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Those familiar with our own history are aware that each of these philosophies eventually affected the Lord’s church. Consequently, each of these philosophies had to be studied, exposed, and repudiated by gospel preachers in previous generations.

Another philosophy which has sprung up and gained in popularity in recent years is the positive thinking philosophy. It too is beginning to have its impact on brethren. Consequently, we need to become aware of its roots in history, its primary doctrines, and wherein it assaults the gospel of Christ. In an effort to make us aware of the danger of the positive thinking philosophy, I present these articles. I trust that brethren will be benefitted by this material and better equipped to recognize the dangers of being carried away by this philosophy.

Historical Development of the Positive Thinking Movement

In detailing the history of the positive thinking movement, one soon discovers that its present thrust is the result of the converging of many different movements. As these diverse movements all move toward one common philosophy, the philosophy’s impact on society is increased. In detailing the history of the positive thinking movement, I will only be able to call attention to some of its more prominent leaders. Those interested in a more detailed study should consult The Positive Thinkers by Donald Meyer.

1. Mary Baker Eddy. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Mrs. Eddy began teaching a philosophy she learned from Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, a practitioner of mental healing. Attention began to focus on the relationship of the mind to healing as the study of psychology as a science began. The work of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who is described as the founder of psychoanalysis, falls into this period. Mrs. Eddy taught that all sickness was a result of wrong thinking. If one could redirect man’s thinking, his illnesses would be cured. She said, “A sick body is evolved from sick thoughts”; “They think sickly thoughts, and so become sick”; “Tell him that he suffers only as the insane suffer, from false beliefs” (Science and Health 260:19, 24-25; 420:33-421:1). As one corrected wrong thinking, he released a power to heal the body of diseases. Positive thinking created a healthy, prosperous life.

2. The Business Community. The next major advance for the positive thinking philosophy came from several very successful business leaders. A new group of business men began to teach that men could be successful if they would learn to think success. Insofar as every man could control his own thoughts, every man could succeed by thinking rightly. Among those business leaders who preached a gospel of success was Napoleon Hill (author of The Law of Success and Think and Grow Rich). He began teaching that in order to control the conscious, one must learn to control his subconscious. By affirmation and visualization, one can input positive thoughts which result in positive thinking – the key to success.

In 1936 Dale Carnegie published his success classic How to Win Friends and Influence People. Carnegie encouraged salesmen to smile, extend lavish praise, offer hearty approbation, talk about what people are interested in, let them think new ideas are their ideas, and be interested in them. When one is genuinely committed to these ideas, good things come back to him – success.

W. Clement Stone circulated the positive thinking philosophy through Success magazine and Success Unlimited, Inc., a company which distributes his tapes – He taught sales people, “What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve.” A very popular speaker at various sales rallies, Stone spread the positive thinking philosophy in the business community.

A number of success motivation seminars have been developed by business which have been used by many businesses. Through selling tapes to direct sales personnel (Amway, Home Interiors, Shaklee vitamins, Mary Kay Cosmetics, and other direct sales companies), the positive thinking philosophy has spread to affect the thinking of many citizens. (These businesses should not be judged wrongly because they used the current, popular business promotions to move their products. These statements should not be understood as a criticism of their products.) Success Motivation Institute, Inc. distributed The Dynamics of Goal Setting by Paul Meyer. The positive thinking philosophy affirms: “Anything you can imagine, visualize, and develop a sincere desire for can be yours if you plan for it and work for it through a program of goal setting” (Lesson 2, p. 1). The power of thinking positively generates ideas, unleases power, which enables you to accomplish the goal which you set, the affirmation which you made and the visualization which you imagined. If you can believe that you can be successful, if you will affirm that you are going to be successful, and if you visualize yourself as being successful, this will unlease a power which enables you to be successful.

3. Norman Vincent Peale. In 1952, Norman Vincent Peale published his book The Power of Positive Thinking. Religion was changing from theology to psychology. More and more books were being published as self-help manuals (how to overcome depression, hate, guilt, bitterness, etc.). Peale applied many of the principles of the positive thinking philosophy to the Bible, teaching that these principles were always in the Bible but only recently discovered. What others attributed to sub-conscious thinking, visualization, and affirmation, Peale called “faith.” This “faith” released an inner power which enabled one to accomplish his goals and be successful. He instructed:

. . . change your mental habits to belief instead of disbelief. Learn to expect, not to doubt. In so doing you bring everything into the realm of possibility. . . . When you expect the best, you release a magnetic force in your mind which by a law of attraction tends to bring the best to you (p. 94).

To change your circumstances, first start thinking differently. Do not passively accept unsatisfactory circumstances, but form a picture in your mind of circumstances as they should be. Hold that picture, develop it firmly in all details, believe in it, pray about it, work at it, and you can actualize it according to that mental image emphasized in your positive thinking.

This is one of the greatest laws in the universe. Fervently do I wish I had discovered it as a very young man. It dawned upon me much later in life and I have found it to be one of the greatest if not my greatest discovery, outside of my relationship to God. And in a deep sense this law is a factor in one’s relationship with God because it channels God’s power into personality (p. 170).

By eliminating all negative thoughts and thinking positively, faith releases a power which enables one to obtain his successes. If one will expect the best, he will get it. Peale made positive thinking a matter of faith and made the one responsible for success, not some mystical power of the mind, but God. The positive thinking philosophy was now sanctified into religion – Christianity. So long as the positive thinking philosophy was tied to Christian Science, it was viewed as a cult, neither Christian nor science. With Peale, the positive thinking philosophy moved into the mainstream of denominationalism.

4. Television evangelists. A number of very popular television evangelists have preached a health and wealth gospel of success that is conditioned upon faith in God. Men such as Robert Schuller, Pat Robertson, Jim and Tammy Bakker, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, and many others have presented programs which have featured testimonials (similar to those in Peale’s books) of those whose lives have been changed from sickness to health, from poverty to wealth, from sadness to gladness through faith in Jesus Christ.

In Oral Roberts’ book, Miracles of Seed Faith, the influence of the positive thinking movement is obvious. Roberts wrote, “Whatever you can conceive, and believe, you can do!” (p. 7) Roberts counseled his readers to show their faith in God by planting seed-faith. In order for a farmer to harvest a crop, he must first plant the seed; the more he plants, the greater harvest he can expect. In a similar way, one plants seed-faith in God and God blesses the seed faith with an abundant harvest. One first gives to God and then God gives him an abundant harvest. Hence, faith in God releases a po were from God. One should plant his seed faith and expect a miracle from God. His book contains many stories relating people’s success in planting seed-faith and receiving a large harvest.

Similar examination of the writings of Kenneth Copeland and the publications of other television evangelists will also demonstrate the influence of the positive thinking movement which teaches that faith in God releases a power which makes success attainable.

Robert Schuller combines the positive thinking philosophy and piety to assure audiences of their own self-worth and success. His individual-centered “gospel” glosses over sin and preaches a success-oriented message with a shallow, happy optimism.

5. The human potential movement. Another source of positive thinking has arisen from secular humanism’s teaching of human potential. Humanists reject the supernatural and look to no power higher than man. Viewing the process of evolution as continuing, humanists believe there is undeveloped and almost unlimited potential for development in man. The development and achievement of “human potential” is man’s only hope for survival. As humanists develop their concept of man, they look within man for the answer to life’s problems. Developing this human potential releases powers heretofore unused. Some humanists see parapsychology, ESP, and mental telepathy as potential development of the human mind. Though the ties between humanism and the positive thinking movement are not direct, both groups see a release of power from inside of man which enables him to achieve success, One group might attribute it to achieving human potential, another might call it re-programming the sub-conscious, and another group might call it faith, but all see a power released by man which enables him to achieve.

6. Eastern religion. The subjectivism of the Eastern religions with yoga exercises, visualization, and meditation have made perceivable contributions to the positive thinking movement as well. The eastern religions see the answers to life’s problems locked inside of man and claim that these answers can be experienced in meditation, yoga, or other mental and subjective exercises. Eastern religions teach that God is within each of us and, as we get in touch with our inner self, we have contact with God, releasing a power to help us succeed in life.

Conclusion

As we bring this article to a close, we should begin to see the merging of a variety of influences which have created a distinct positive thinking philosophy influencing our society. In our next article, I will try to call attention to some of the distinct doctrines which have been spawned in this movement.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 194, 212-213
April 2, 1987

By Bobby L. Graham

For the past year thousands of Christians have received The Examiner, a paper published by Charles A. Holt and his corporation (Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc.). One avowed purpose of the corporate publication is to prove that when Christians join their efforts to do spiritual work, they ought not to do so as a corporate body. No local church has the right to be such, but his Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. has the right! If it were true, it would be inconsistent.

One of the frontal attacks made in The Examiner has been directed against elders. The gospel according to Holt says that elders are no more nor less than the older, more spiritually mature brethren (and sisters?), who should be respected and followed by other Christians as they contact them and influence them in daily life. Only as they “rub shoulders” do they have any influence over other Christians; otherwise (if they happen to gather to study the Bible or to worship God), the elders have no more right to lead than do the younger Christians. If it were true, it would result in a tragic waste of the accumulated wisdom and experience for them to be unable to lead the younger Christians.

Our brother tells us further that all passages of the New Testament dealing with elders view them as older, more mature Christians and refer not to any official standing they might have with any local church. This view will not stand up under the scrutiny of a close examination of the Scriptures. Notice the following passages:

(1) Acts 11.30. This verse indicates that the funds collected from the Antioch brethren were sent to the elders in Judea. The notion being examined requires the conclusion that all Christians in Judea except the youngest one would qualify as elders, for all were relatively more experienced and mature than someone else, with this one exception. He would have been the only one not more mature or experienced than someone else, for he was the last one who became a Christian. This must have been Paul and Barnabas’ method of determining who the elders were: just locate the most recent convert, eliminate him, and distribute the money to all others. Of course, they had to make sure that these men (and women?) did not meet as a group, for such a meeting would be the early stage of a process by which a corporate body forms. That just wouldn’t do! If it were true, it would be ludicrous. You see, this view of elders allows all saints in an area, whose square mileage has yet to be determined, to be described as elders except the one lowest on the totem pole. The brother did write about the church in Jerusalem being in Jerusalem and its environs, but he did not give us the benefit of his seniority and tell us how far its environs would extend. Possibly the explanation for this gap in his theory is his recent expose on logic (The Examiner, Jan. 1987), but I find it difficult determining the part played by logic in this system of theology. The editor will probably favor the poor people in the pew with this missing information as he receives additional enlightenment.

(2) In Acts 14.23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for the brethren in different churches. That fact strikes me as different from what our brother teaches. The conclusion from his writing is that all Christians in these churches that could be described as more mature than anyone else were the ones appointed. He really doesn’t believe that these people were appointed elders, but that elders were appointed to be bishops (overseers), if his comments on this point apply to this verse at all. If it were true, it would be false because it conflicts with what the passage says.

(3) When Paul sent for the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.17, he meant for all disciples from Ephesus and its environs to come to Miletus, with one exception – the last one baptized into Christ. To this group he spoke when he said the Holy Spirit had made them bishops (overseers) in verse 28. But mind you: their oversight extended only to their dealings with each other in daily life. If they happened to gather to study the Bible or to worship God, that youngest one among them could have his “day in the sun. ” Then his inexperience counted just as much as their experience, and his lack of knowledge meant as much as their knowledge. A view similar to Holt’s must have prevailed at Ephesus; otherwise, how would the brethren in the environs know whom to send to Paul when he sent for the elders? If it were true, it would be unreasonable.

(4) This view distinguishes between elders (older, more mature) and bishops/shepherds/ pastors. According to our brother, appointment is necessary for the latter but not the former. Observe, however, that the elders, the shepherds, and the bishops were the same ones in Acts 20:17, 28. Men called elders in v. 17 were recognized as bishops (overseers) and shepherds (pastors) in v. 28. They are seen to be shepherds as Paul instructed them to pastor, tend, feed, or shepherd. The same point is applicable to 1 Peter 5:14. Such a distinction between the elders and the shepherds is artificial. If it were true, it would be incompatible with the New Testament use of these words.

The inconsistent, wasteful, ludicrous, false, unreasonable, and incompatible character of this view is dealt with to help the reader understand the teaching and its irreconcilable position with the New Testament. No reference is made to its proponent’s motive, character, or method. Were his motive proved to be mercenary, his character Satanic, or his method unethical, nothing would have been demonstrated concerning either the truth or falsity of the position espoused. Even if these were proved true, the position could still be true. Let us then confine our motives, methods, and character to that which is acceptable to God. Before Him each shall stand at last.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 204
April 2, 1987