Truth Magazine

By Allen S. Dvorak

I have been receiving issues of the Examiner (edited by Charles Holt) since the beginning of its publication. I have tried to read the articles contained within that periodical with an unprejudiced mind, but I must confess that I have been largely disappointed in what I have read. I have come to accept the fact that I disagree with a great many people on many topics, but an article appeared in the November (1986) issue of the Examiner (Vol. 1, No. 6) with which I must strenuously disagree. It is my intent to review some statements contained in that article.

The article, written by brother Terry Gardner, is entitled “1000 Lawyers or 1000 Bibles?” and deals with the subject of determining religious authority. Before reviewing any specific statements made in the article, perhaps you, the reader, will graciously allow me to make some preliminary observations.

Generalizations

I have learned through experience that it is wise to avoid generalizations, particularly with respect to people. Just as soon as I might make some sweeping statement indicting all the members of a particular class of people of some error, up pops some individual belonging to that people who does not fit the generalization I have made. That’s the problem with generalizations. They rarely fit all the people to whom they are applied.

Brother Gardner introduces his thoughts by referring to the lawyers of Jesus’ day, men who were adept at getting around the purpose of the law and consumed with ritual and detail. Immediately he proclaims, “Our modern lawyers are preachers. They are experts in ‘New Testament law.’ They seek to remove principle from God’s word and replace it with ritual.” I will freely admit that there are probably some preachers who fit brother Gardner’s description, but to lump all preachers together and assign to them the character which brother Gardner does is a little preposterous. I see no statement in his entire article indicating that some preachers may not be “seeking to remove principle from God’s word and replace it with ritual.” Are there no preachers in the world who are interested in simply telling others what “thus saith the Lord”? It has been my experience that when someone starts crying about “everybody is. . .,” he generally has in mind some specific person, but is unwilling to name that particular person and So he swipes at a whole class of individuals. The “shotgun approach” rarely hits only the intended target. Brethren, let us be cautious of the way that we think of one another.

Count Me Out

Brother Gardner repeatedly uses such expressions as “Our modern lawyers,” “Our system,” etc. Who does he mean when he writes “our”? From the content of the article it is clear that he does not approve of the practice of these men he describes as “lawyer-preachers.” I am not sure why he owns this “faulty” system of interpretation that he is criticizing, but if there are men out there who are “seeking to remove principle from God’s word,” I would just as soon not be grouped with them. This seems to be another case of a bad generalization, i.e., members of the church of Christ all use this system devised by these lawyer-preachers and thus it is “our” system. Is this what brother Gardner means to say? What a terrible misrepresentation of countless Christians who seek to study their Bibles apart from any “lawyer-preacher system of interpretation”! I want to go on record as opposing any man-made system of determining authority, “church of Christ” or otherwise! It is my opinion that brother Gardner would concur with that attitude. The question to be answered is, “Does the church of Christ have its own man-made system of determining biblical authority?” (I use the phrase “church of Christ” in an institutional sense which seems to be the way brother Gardner views “us.”)

A Modern System?

The “system” of determining biblical authority which brother Gardner opposes as being of human origin says that we must have a direct command, approved example, or necessary inference to authorize our practices. I confess, and I do so without shame, that I use and teach “that system.” Brother Gardner’s conclusion is that such a system has no biblical support and is the product of the wisdom of “lawyer-preachers.” I am convinced that the “system” is considerably older than brother Gardner realizes. In fact, it is my contention that these three methods do have “God’s stamp of approval”!

In his article, brother Gardner makes the statement “Perhaps there is an approved example where the earl; disciples came to a vexing problem and applied the three ways ‘method’? No.” Contrary to brother Gardner’s assertion, such a thing did happen and an account of the occasion is recorded in Acts 15. The “vexing problem” was the matter of circumcision and this question (15:2) was discussed by the early disciples in Jerusalem. The need for such a discussion arose because some men had come from Jerusalem to Antioch teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised (in essence, observe the whole law of Moses) to be saved.

Notice the process of determining God’s will on the question. Peter addresses the others present and notes that God chose him to preach to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 10), also pointing out that God removed any I distinction between Jew and Gentile. He contends that God revealed that Jew and Gentile were to be saved in like fashion. May I ask how Peter knew that? Brother Gardner writes, “There is no “example of any man of God (in the Old or New Testament) ever reasoning by ‘necessary inference.’ Can you see God destroying Nadab and Abihu because they were not able by logical deduction to necessarily infer the proper fire to offer Jehovah?” When Peter arrived at the house of Cornelius, he said, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). How did God show Peter that? What Peter actually saw was a vision in which the cleanness of animals was the point of argument. Could it be that Peter inferred from the vision he had seen that he was not to call any man unclean? Although God did not say that the vision of the sheet was meant to teach him about the clean condition of Gentiles, Peter understood that men were the issue and not animals. And furthermore, Peter also inferred that Gentiles, being “clean,” should be taught the gospel. Did Peter correctly understand what God was implying by the vision of the sheet? The falling of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his household clearly indicates God’s approval of the preaching to the Gentiles. It seems that brother Gardner overlooked Peter’s necessary inferences.

Following Peter’s comments as recorded in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas declare how they had worked miracles among the Gentiles. What does that have to do with the question of circumcision? It is recorded by Luke in Acts 13 that Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel to the Gentiles at Antioch of Pisidia. They did not require their Gentile listeners to be circumcised either before or after their conversion and yet, as the two preachers testify in Jerusalem, God demonstrated His approval of their message through the miracles which He enabled them to do among the Gentiles. These two men cite apostolic example which was approved by God through miraculous power as being authoritative in answering this question of circumcision. It appears that the apostle Paul was making use of this “system” which brother Gardner claims is actually the invention of modern lawyer-preachers.

The third party to address the disciples in Jerusalem was James. James cites the words of the prophet Amos as he predicted, through the Spirit, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom (Amos 9:11-12). His appeal is to the direct statement of the Scriptures to authorize preaching to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) as acceptable subjects for salvation.

Brother Gardner asks, “Do you ever see the three ways taught as a system of ‘Biblical Authority’?” Unless I misunderstand the question, I would have to say that Acts 15 answers the question in the affirmative. The “system” used by the disciples upon this occasion consisted of necessary inference (Peter), approved apostolic example (Paul and Barnabas), and direct statement or precept (James). No disciple of Jesus should apologize for suggesting that he/she seeks authorization for his/her practices through the means of these three “methods.” Such a commitment is, in truth, not bowing down to any man’s system of interpretation, but rather following the direction of the Word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, pp. 67-68
February 5, 1987

By Ken Green

The Danger of Self-Love, Paul Brownback, 157 pp. Moody Press, 1982. Price $5.95

“Self-love.” “Self-esteem.” “I’ve got to be me!” “Positive self-image.” “Self-worth.” “Feel good about yourself!” “Look out for number one!”

Many of the modern-day religious publications give much space to this concept of being fond of yourself.

Having been personally influenced by such writings, I approached this volume with reservations. As I studied the material, however, I began to realize that some valid points were being expressed. I do not agree with all of the conclusions that Brownback has reached, but I am convinced that humanistic philosophy has influenced the great emphasis currently being given to the subject of self-esteem.

The primary thesis of this book is that the focus of Scripture is the exaltation of God and not man. He who boasts is admonished to “boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 27:3 1). Brownback says, “What I was hearing from the advocates of self-love seemed to me to be opposed to this flow of Scripture. It appeared that Psalm 139:14 was virtually being rewritten to read ‘Iwill praise me, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”‘

The writer begins with “some initial concerns.” He shows that this teaching is one that was virtually unheard of in the evangelical world until about 1974. It is not quite that new as an idea, however. “It was a prominent theme in secular psychology in the 1940’s coming to full bloom in the 50’s and 60’s.

Brief descriptions are then given of the rise of evolutionary thought, and the shift in modern thought to existentialism. Paul Vitz, in his volume, Psychology as Religion: The Cull of Self- Worship, notes: “The central concept (of existentialism, K.G.) is probably that of ‘being there’ (Dasein), by which is meant the intense fundamental awareness of one’s experience.”

The effects of this approach to life are briefly traced as to the individual and society. Particular notice is given to its effects on the different aspects of psychology, i.e., behaviorism, Freudian psychology, neo-Freudian psychology (inspired by men such as Abraham Moslow, Carl Rogers, and Erich Fromm).

Brownback believes that the writings of William James have served as an impetus for much of what is being said about “self” today. Some quite interesting quotations are given from James’ works on psychology.

A chapter is devoted to “The Self’-Theory of Erich Fromm. ” Fromm was one who pioneered the concept of “unconditional love.” Acceptance is not to be based in any way on performance. This finds application in self-love, as well as love of others.

Another chapter is given to “The Self-Theory of Carl Rogers” who was deeply influenced by Fromm, and who took the ball and ran with it. Some of the recent writings in Evangelical publications are then quoted and discussed. Bruce Narramore’s books (You’re Someone Special: Freedom from Guilt) are given more review than any others, but writings by James Dobson (Hide or Seek); Anthony A. Hoekema (The Sensation of Being Somebody) are also criticized.

I am not convinced that a fair evaluation has been given to all these writers. I have not read all the books cited, but I have read the writings of Dobson and feel that the self-worth and self-love he advocates is biblically based.

Some quotations are given from Narramore that I certainly find objectionable. But these appear to be based on unscriptural doctrines that are common to the evangelical world, rather than humanistic psychology. For example the quote: “When God looks on us, Ile sees us ‘in Christ.’ He doesn’t see our dirt. He sees us just as clean and pure as Jesus Christ Himself.”

The author of this book considers current teaching on self-love as a substitute, having “taking the place previously occupied by teaching on the victorious Christian life or sanctification. Ten years ago when a person came to his pastor with a sin problem, the pastor probably would ha ve opened the Word of God and shared the liberating truth of the power available to the believer through the Holy Spirit to live in victory.

“Today there is a good possibility that the pastor would remind him of his need to accept himself. . .”

I don’t know Brownback’s doctrinal presuppositions on sanctification, but I have a notion that I would not agree with them. And I’m sure there are “pastors” who would not encourage one with “a sin problem” (Don’t we all have that?) to repent and renounce the sin; but the writers critically reviewed in this book would certainly not be among them.

It is observed that in 2 Timothy 3:1-5, “lovers of self” is given as one of the characteristics of the perilous times. The Greek word is a compound made up of the word “self” plus philia, “the type of love described by contemporary self-theory, a feeling type of love.”

A biblical alternative to self-awareness and self-love is suggested by Brownback: “We believe the biblical alternative to the wave of concern over self-image is to have no self-image at all. ” He lays stress on the fact that we will be best adjusted when we forget self, or die to self, and live for God and others. The yoke of the ego is exceedingly heavy. The yoke of Christ is one of humility, selflessness, and service.

Discussion is given in this book to the Greek words agape and philia and the different concepts they denote. But I don’t believe enough attention is given to this in application. The idea of Matthew 22:36-40 implying self-love is discredited by Brownback. I believe, however the passage does necessitate agape love for self. This love is not the “fondness for self” that is the main focus of the book, but a true and healthy concern for self inseparably linked to one’s concern for others.

The author overstates his case at times, in my opinion. But for the most part, I feel that he has made an important contribution with this work. He has helped me see this matter from a different perspective. After all, the Lord did say,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 54-55
January 15, 1987

By Irven Lee

“He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and lie shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left” (Matt. 25:31-33). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5: 10).

These verses on the judgment are familiar to Bible students. We need to know that we do not make the final decisions (see 1 Cor. 4:3-5). We are to be doers of the law and not set ourselves up as if we were infallible judges, “Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God.” “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (read Rom. 14:1-13). Are some too willing to announce before the time what the destiny of those who may not follow some scruple will be? The dogmatic announcer may have something in his eye. He may be able to see the other man’s eye better than he can see his own.

We are to contend for the faith and warn against soul destroying sins (read 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5,6). The Judge has spoken on these matters, and we are free to quote Him. We may also quote what He has said about preaching some other gospel (Gal. 1:6-10). It is not a sin to use great plainness of speech as we reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:1-5; Tit. 1:13; 2:15). Man is to use righteous judgment in discerning the difference in good and evil (Jn. 7:24; Heb. 5:12-14). Man is going too far when he becomes too reckless in announcing the eternal destiny of each individual that passes by. There may be too frequent use of the expression: “You are going to hell, ” or ” I f you do not, you are going to hell.” Are we sure in each case? Do others not know that we do not sit on the throne? We might warn more effectively if we would stick more closely to our teaching job and leave the decision making to the Master.

On the other hand, some seem only to know the first two words in Matthew 7:1 – judge not. These people overlook the context and the teaching of the Lord. We should all desire to be so well taught and of such disposition that we may be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We are expected to have skill in the proper type of judging (1 Cor. 6:2-5). Righteous men have ability to evaluate the evidence in many matters and make wise decisions.

We do not know the secrets of all hearts, and we do not have a full comprehension of the mind of God, so we need to restrain ourselves in separating the flock into two groups and preparing a list for the Lord. He may not accept all our decisions. The church is in much distress now over many questions that are being discussed with more heat than light. Knowledge that “puffeth up” may be more common than love that edifies or is upbuilding. It may be hard to distinguish between the judging that is very necessary and that which is forbidden. There is a big difference in the two types of judging, and we need to learn what is proper.

One is not necessarily in grievous error if he does not agree with me in some matter of expediency. We need to be aware of the consolation, comfort, fellowship and mercy to be found in the hearts of Christians. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:3-5). This is not the mind of bitter men who so often shout at their brethren: “You are going to hell.” Let us have more love in our hearts for our brethren and let us not judge them too harshly.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, p. 46
January 15, 1987

By Johnie Edwards

A lot of preachers that I know have left full-time preaching to do other things! There are some factors that brethren need to know that contribute to a good number gospel preachers leaving full-time work.

Poor Attitude Toward The Work of A Preacher

Some churches look upon the preacher as but a hired hand. In fact, while teaching a Bible class during a gospel meeting, a member referred to preachers as hired hands. This disturbs me, for the Bible never refers to a gospel preacher as a hired hand. He is called an evangelist (Acts 21:8); a minister (1 Tim. 4:6), a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7), but never a hired hand! Too many, I am afraid, think only of the work of a gospel preacher as one being hired to do much of the work that they need to be doing.

Lack Of Personal Concern

Many times a preacher moves his family to a new area where he knows no one. He is in a strange place, away from his own family and he gets lonesome. You see, the members know each other, many are near their own families and they just forget about the preacher. The members get together for family gatherings and the preacher is not usually included. One preacher told me that he and his family were out sick for a couple of weeks and not one person called to check on them. This seldom happens to most families. Young preachers especially need to be shown more personal care than most church are willing to show. When Paul said, “but that the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25), this includes the preacher and his family!

Taking The Preacher For Granted

There are some churches without preachers because they took their preacher for granted. They knew he was always there and always did his work, so they just sort of forgot about him. The members never invite him to their homes for a meal or other gatherings they might have, so the preacher gets to thinking that nobody cares. A preacher might put out a bulletin for a number of years, study hard, preach good sermons, write newspaper articles, do a radio broadcast, teach classes, make Bible class material, do the work of an evangelist and go for weeks, months or even years without one single person saying, “I like the bulletin,” or “I think you are doing a good job,” or “If I can be of any help, be sure to let me know” or some gesture that lets the preacher know that you are really behind and are supportive of the work he is doing. Preachers are very human and need encouragement as does everyone else. What about taking the time to show some appreciation of yours?

The Lack of Financial Security

A lot of good preachers have been forced out of full-time preaching due to the lack of financial support for their needs and security for their later years. A lot of preachers don’t mention this because brethren are sometimes quick to judge the motives of the preacher as “just preaching for money.” A man can work in a factory for 35 years and end up with $75,000.000 to $100,000.00 or more in retirement benefits while a preacher may preach that long and not even have a rent receipt. Most preachers are not paid enough to allow them to save for retirement. We must remember that “the laborer is worthy of his hire” (Lk. 10:7). We would do well to think on these things and make whatever amends we need to.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, p. 51
January 15, 1987