Truth Magazine

By James R. Cope

The difference between policy and principle may properly be considered the basic difference between the “Protestant Reformation” begun in the Sixteenth Century and the “Restoration Movement” of the Nineteenth Century. The word policy often conveys the idea of human wisdom, sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs. Whereas the word principle, derives from the Latin princeps, principis, whence come the English word , , prince,” meaning “first” or “chief”; hence, “a fundamental truth; a primary or basic law, doctrine, or the like.” Policy may change when in fact principle is “a settled rule of action; a governing law of conduct” (Webster). Compromise is a way of life with persons who consider truth and right as policies. With men of principle, truth and right are never negotiable!

Following the ascension of Christ except for the direct impartation of miraculous powers by the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (Acts 2:1-4), the first Gentile converts (Acts 10,11), and the apostle Paul (who claimed that he was “not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles,” 2 Cor. 11: 5), we are unaware of anybody, anywhere, at any time receiving the Holy Spirit miraculously apart from the laying on of an apostle’s hands. This being the case, miracles ceased with the death of the last person endowed miraculously through the medium of an apostle’s hands. This, then, is our reason for appealing to the apostles’ teaching rather than post-apostolic creeds and practices of apostate bodies.

Meaning Of “Restoration”

To restore is to give back or bring back to the first or previous state. Abimelech “restored” to Abraham Sarah, his wife (Gen. 20:14); Nehemiah urged his fellow-Jews to “restore” fields and houses to their deprived brethren (Neh. 5:11).

Illustrative of the “restoration principle” as applied to rule or government was the apostles’ question to Jesus following His resurrection, viz., “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:1-6) Obviously the apostles were thinking about a return of the power and prominence fleshly Israel had exercised over other nations in the glorious days of David and Solomon and also fleshly Israel’s escape from the Roman domination of Israel in their own time. It is in this sense that we use the words “restore” and “restoration” in this treatise regarding the “bringing back” of “spiritual Israel” in its faith, practice, attitude toward and respect for the form of government, revealed in Christ’s apostles and their contemporaries as they were directed by the Holy Spirit in their oral and written communication. They used the words with which the Holy Spirit supplied them to convey whatever idea God wanted taught.

Biblical Basis of Restoration

Apostle Paul makes the foregoing observations unmistakably clear when he says, “We received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:12,13). Since words are vehicles upon which thoughts ride by reading what men inspired by the Holy Spirit in the First Century wrote, we of the Twentieth Century can understand the mind and will of God now. Every written communication argues the factuality of one person’s mental ability to understand the thoughts of another. Unless, therefore, it can be -established that God has changed His will since the completion of the New Testament we necessarily conclude that whatever God willed for man to believe and practice from the apostolic writings then the same God wills nowl If not, why not? Jesus declared, “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my word shall not pass away” (Mk. 13:31).

In the “Parable of the Sower” Jesus said, “Now the seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). It follows, therefore, that there never has been or ever will be any person converted to Christ or developed In the image of Christ apart from the pure word of God, the gospel of Christ, described by the apostle Paul as “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The gospel, preached by the apostles, produced new persons identified as “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). Those converts to Christ were Christians only and only “Christians” with no sectarian or denominational designations characterizing much of the present religious world professing allegiance to the Bible as God’s word. Those non-denominational Christians constituted the only “assemblies” or “churches” ever originating from the apostles’ teaching and were identified by apostles as “the churches of Christ” or “the church of God” (Rom. 16:16), also called “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:29).

Restoration Practices

The collective (congregational) activities of these Christians were exceedingly simple. These “saints” called such by the apostles, and also described as “sanctified” in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:1,2) — as a result of the apostles’ teaching, assembled on the first day of the week to break bread (observe the Lord’s Supper, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20-33), not to “socialize.” In this assembly, each disciple according to his financial ability, contributed cheerfully of this material means toward relief of the poor saints and the support of gospel works (1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8,9; Phil. 1:3-5; 4:14-18). Assemblies also were edified through their mutual study of the Scriptures and by singing and praying and exhorting to love and good works (Acts 2:42; Eph. 5:18,19; Col. 3:16,17; 1 Cor. 14:15; .Heb. 10:21-25).

Each assembly had its own overseers (bishops), also known as pastors (shepherds) and elders and deacons (servants) (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17-35; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:14).

There is no reason to think that there was any earthly super-structure of government, or even association restricting any two or all of these congregations under one human head or group to be or do anything collectively! Some 153 years ago, well did Alexander Campbell, a preacher of great influence in the religious world, observe,

The societies called churches, constituted and set in order by those ministers of the New Testament, were of such as received and acknowledged Jesus as Lord Messiah, the Savior of the World, and had put themselves under his guidance. The ONLY BOND OF UNION among them was faith in him and submission to his will. No subscription to abstract propositions framed by synods; no decrees of councils sanctioned by kings; no rules of practice commanded by ecclesiastical courts were imposed on them as terms of admission into, or of continuance in this holy brotherhood. In the “apostles doctrine” and in the “apostles’ commandments” they steadfastly continued. Their fraternity was a fraternity of love, peace, gratitude, cheerfulness, joy, charity, and universal benevolence. Their religion did not manifest itself in public fasts nor carnivals. They had no festivals – no great and solemn meetings. Their meeting on the first day of the week was at all times alike solemn, joyful and interesting. Their religion was not of that elastic and porous kind, which at one time is compressed into some cold formalities, and at another expanded into prodigious zeal and warmth.

The order of their assemblies was uniformly the same. It did not vary with moons and seasons. It did not change as dress nor fluctuate as the manners of the times. Their devotion did not diversify itself into the endless forms of modern times. They had no monthly concerts for prayer; no solemn convocations, no great fasts, nor preparations, nor thanksgiving days. Their churches were not fractured into missionary societies, bible societies, education societies; nor did they dream of organizing such in the world. They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved. They neither transformed themselves into any other kind of association, nor did they fracture and sever themselves into divers societies. They viewed the church of Jesus Christ as the scheme of Heaven to ameliorate the world,- as members of it, they considered themselves bound to do all they could for the glory of God and the good of men. They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in so doing they should rob the church of its glory, and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God. In their church capacity alone they moved (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7).

The foregoing represents “The Restoration Principle.” “The seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). The pattern for the formation of New Testament churches and the power to restore them to the same order of government, work, and worship that existed in the First Century is found in the New Testament. The only obstacle presently preventing such d6restoration” is the application of the apostolic principle of “seed sowing” “in good and honest hearts!” Such a procedure in reality is more than restoration. It is a reproduction of the New Testament order! If not, why not?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 321, 358
June 5, 1986

By Randy Harshbarger

As our Savior came to the end of His ministry on earth, He gathered with His disciples in the city of Jerusalem to observe the Passover Feast. This feast was a reminder to the Jews of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, under the mighty arm of God. Moses instructed the people to kill a lamb and apply the blood to the doorposts of their houses, thus averting the death of the first-born as the Lord passed through the land of Egypt. Jesus chose bread and fruit of the vine as memorials of His body and blood. Matthew’s account says: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28). The bread Jesus used was unleavened. For seven days leaven was removed from the house, with strong warning to the Jew who contaminated himself or his house with it (Ex. 12:15, 19,20). Jesus, of course, did not break the Law (Heb. 4:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:21). The fruit of the vine was simply the product of the grape.(1) The slain lamb of the Passover Feast was typical of the salvation made possible by Jesus’ death or as He said, “. . . this is my blood. . . which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Paul later told the Corinthians: “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).

New Testament Christians partook of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2). The day for eating the Supper was bound, but the time of day was not. The eating of the Lord’s Supper was one reason for their coming together. In the midst of Paul’s warnings regarding abuses of the Supper he said: “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). They were supposed to be partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but were doing something else.

Paul gives strong admonitions relating to the manner in which Christians should eat the Lord’s Supper. A great danger is in partaking but missing the true significance of the Supper. Paul said: “For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body” (1 Cor. 11:29). Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is more than just eating and drinking, which was something the Corinthians evidently did not properly understand; they did not receive Paul’s praise or approval (1 Cor. 11:17).

Christians must partake of the Lord’s Supper, remembering Christ (1 Cor. 11:24,25). We remember when Christ instituted the Supper. We remember His great sacrifice on the cross. We discern or make a distinction between the Supper and a common meal. A “communion” (1 Cor. 10: 16), involves motive, intent, mind, will, heart, and intellect. Our minds must go back to the time Jesus instituted the Supper, with its intended purpose and great significance for us as Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 11:28 Paul said: “But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” The Christian must examine himself before and while he partakes. We must not treat the Supper in a light hearted or trivial manner. We must look within and approach the Lord’s Supper with the proper mind with regard to the Lord, His death, and the accruing benefits that belong to Christians. The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Lord’s death; it is a reminder that the Lord died, but is coming back some day (1 Cor. 11:26; Acts 1:11; 2 Pet. 3:12). In loving memory of our Savior, with great hope and fervency of heart, we focus on the One who died for all!

False Views Regarding The Lord’s Supper

Luke 22:19 says: “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” Matthew 26:28 says: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” Roman Catholicism abuses what is obviously figurative language on Christ’s part, and suggests that the bread and fruit of the vine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Jesus employed the figure of speech known as a metaphor. A metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.”(2) For example, in Matthew 16:6, Jesus said, “. . . beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples, after Jesus’ explanation, understood that they should beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, with its leavening effect. Just so, when Jesus took the bread and the fruit of the vine, and said “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” He said these are representative of my body and blood. Roman Catholicism asserts that when the priest says the mass over the bread and wine, they literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. It is important to understand what Jesus said and meant, but we must be careful not to find more than was intended.

Consubstantiation, while closely akin to transubstantiation, argues that there is a real physical presence of Christ in the bread and wine.(3) “The idea is that Christ’s body and blood flow or mingle together with the bread and fruit of the vine. This is a slight difference from transubstantiation, but for all practical purposes is essentially the same and is met with the same arguments.”(4) The doctrine of consubstantiation is often traced to Luther, and while it was a major emphasis in his “reformation,” both consubstantiation and transubstantiation can be traced beyond Luther to Cyprian.(5)

Catholicism also says that when one partakes of the “eucharist” (their term for the Lord’s Supper), if he has a penitent attitude, his venial sins can be remitted.(6) But, Jesus said that His blood was shed “unto remission of sins.” We are redeemed by His blood, and we partake of the Lord’s supper remembering that great sacrifice on the cross. We are saved by His blood, not by His Supper.

Edward T. Hiscox, in his manual for Baptist churches said: “As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no Scriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the churches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As to the Supper, our churches have very generally come to observe it on the first Sunday of each month.”(7) New Testament Christians came together every first day of the week to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Their purpose for coming together was to break bread! Baptists use 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to justify taking a collection every week but will not follow Acts 20:7 in regard to the Supper. In recent years, discussion as to the binding authority of New Testament examples has lead some to the conclusion that the Lord’s Supper may be eaten on the Lord’s Day, but Acts 20:7 does not require Christians to do so, nor does it limit the day Christians may eat to the first day of the week.(8) It is easy to see that the controversies surrounding the Lord’s Supper are many. It is also sad that so much trouble and heartache has occurred among God’s people over this great memorial.

Conclusion

Let us as God’s people, appreciate the importance and privilege of observing the Lord’s Supper. On the first day of the week, let us be thankful, as we remember the Lord’s death, proclaiming the Lord’s great sacrifice on the cross. With great anticipation let us look to that future reward of heaven. Let us remember the seriousness of the Supper as we keep alive the great, precious memory of our Savior. Let us worship God “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24).

Oft we come together, Oft we sing and pray

Here we bring our off’ring On his holy day.

May we keep in mem’ry, All that Thou hast said,

May we truly worship As we eat the bread,

May we all in spirit All with one accord,

Take this cup of blessing, Given by the Lord.

Help us Lord, Thy love to see, May we all in truth and spirit worship Thee.

Endnotes

1. Dick Blackford, The Lord’s Supper: A Study Guide for all Christians (Owensboro, KY: Life Line Lessons, 1979), p. 10.

2. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 722.

3. (NOTE: No corresponding reference documentation included in original document.)

4. Blackford, op cit., pp. 33-34.

5. Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 75-76; Hubert Cunliffe-Jones, A History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 176-178.

6. Blackford, op cit., p. 45.

7. Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1903) p. 20.

8. M.R. Hadwin, The Role of New Testament Examples as related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974), pp. 46-53.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 341-342
June 5, 1986

By Jimmy Tuten

Introduction:

A. The “way of salvation” is a two-part series showing what one must do to be saved.

B. The Bible teaches that there is one way of salvation and that one way is Christ, the church (Jn. 14:1-6; Col. 1:18,24). It is called:

1. The “way of holiness” (Isa. 35:8).

2. The straight gate, narrow way (Matt. 7:13-14).

3. A race (Heb. 12:1).

4. A walk (Eph. 4:1, in love; 5:2, in light; 8, 16, circumspectly).

C. In the last lesson we learned the how of getting into the “way of holiness,” and found that certain things are necessary to lead us unto Christ, but only one act can put into Christ (Baptism).

1. To become a Christian one must believe, repent of his sins, confess his faith in Christ and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37).

2. In this lesson we learn what happens when one is baptized.

Body:

I. One is baptized into Christ, the way, the Church (see chart below).

A. Baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6:3), and into the Body, the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18,24). Therefore one is added to the Church when he is baptized (Acts 2:38,47; 1 Cor. 12:18).

B. The Church is a company of baptized believers. (There is no such thing as getting into a so-called “visible” church one way and then into an “invisible” church another way. The only thing invisible about the church is its head [Christ], and that because He is in heaven sitting at the right hand of God [Acts 2:30-33]. The concept held by many is that by “faith only” one gets into an invisible Church, but must comply with terms not found in the Bible in order to “join” a church of your choice. But whatever Christ is the head of that is what you are baptized into [Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:18, 13].)

C. One publication of “Articles of Faith” (Baptist publication) says: “It is most likely that in the apostolic age when there was but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and no differing denominations existed (italics mine, jt), the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the Church, and at once endowed him with all rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, baptism was the door into the Church. Now it is different; while the churches are desirous of receiving members, they are cautious that they do not receive unworthy persons. The churches therefore, have the candidates come before them, give their experiences, and then their reception is decided by a vote of the members” (Hiscox’s Manual, p. 22).

D. Look at the things that are admitted.

1 . That what made one a member of the Lord’s Church in New Testament times, will not make one now.

2. What the Baptist Church does in receiving membership is different from that of the New Testament Church.

3. Membership is decided by a vote of the members rather than the Bible way of obedience to the gospel adding one to the church.

4. The truth is that since the Baptist Church teaches salvation by “faith only” and membership into the Baptist Church by a vote of its people, they take a person who is already a member of the Lord’s church (i.e., if “faith only” saves, for the saved are added to the Church, Acts 2:47) and place him in a denominational church. They take him from the Lord’s Church and put him in the Baptist Church! One is saved by faith and baptism (Mk. 16:16), and as such is placed in the body by the Lord (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13,18).

E. Being a member of the Lord’s Church means that one is in the way that leads to life eternal:

1. The Church is the body and all Christians are members of that body (1 Cor. 12:20,27).

2. The Church is the household of God and Christians are children in that family (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:19).

3. The Church is the Kingdom of God and Christians are citizens in it (Jn. 3:5; Eph. 2:19).

4. The Church is the Temple of God and Christians are living stones therein (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:5).

II. Reaching our destination as strangers and pilgrims is conditional (Heb. 11:13; 1 Pet. 2:11).

A. Read and study carefully Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Pet. 2:2; Heb. 6: 1; 12:1-3. Observe that having come into the Way of Salvation one must continue therein faithful even unto death (Rev. 2:10). We have the power of God to help (Phil. 1:6).

1. We hope for eternal life (Rom. 8:23-25). This is the receiving of the “end of your faith” (1 Pet. 1:9).

2. The doctrine of “one cannot fall after becoming a Christian” is the doctrine of eternal security of the believer. The Bible does not teach this (1 Cor. 9:27; Gal. 5:14; Heb. 4:1).

B. Look at what can happen as you travel the spiritual highway that leads to heaven:

1. You can neglect the great salvation and be lost eternally (Heb. 2:1-2).

2. You can become unfaithful and go to hell (Rev. 2: 10).

3. Worldliness can overtake you and cause you to go back into the world (1 Jn. 2:15-17; 2 Tim. 4:10).

4. You can backslide (2 Pet. 2:20-22).

5. You can become fruitless (Jn. 15:1-8).

C. Should you fallfrom the Way you cannot be saved in that condition and must repent and confess your sins in order that the blood of Christ would remove your sin (1 Jn. 1:7-9; Acts 8:20-24). There is no forgiveness “even as you sin.” You must cease sin and repent of it (Rev. 2:5,16,25, etc.). Salvation is conditional!

Conclusion:

1. Thus the way of Salvation is demonstrated. We are drifting to eternity’s shore on the sea of time. Our hearts “like muffled drums are beating funeral marches to the grave.” There is no more solemn truth than “no sooner does man begin to live that he does not begin to die.”

2. The body decays day by day, but the Lord stands ready to prepare the soul. By grace are we saved by faith (Eph. 2:8).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 298-299
May 15, 1986

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it Is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” Therefore, to you who believe, He Is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed (1 Pet. 2:5-9 [NKJVI).

A paper mill came to Counts, Tennessee. After going by it for the first time, I remarked to my brother-in-law about the awful smell. “Doesn’t smell bad to me,” he replied, “Smells like money.” You see, he had a good job with the paper company. That made a difference hard to argue with. We looked at the thing from two different perspectives.

God’s precious, chosen, living stone, Jesus Christ, has never been precious to everyone. To the disobedient, He has always been a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.(1) Why should the church (“also . . . living stones”) think that it should be any different with it?(2) Yet, some brethren almost go into shock at the least rejection by society at large. They look for ways to change the church to make it more acceptable to their neighbors. They will do nearly anything to make the gospel more palatable to those whom they want to reach. They cannot accept that the gospel, just as it is, does not appeal to everyone. They automatically assume that if it is not producing converts, then it is the fault of the sower rather than the soil. Not necessarily, brother.

We must reconcile ourselves to a basic Bible truth. The gospel teaches that it will offend many people regardless of who preaches it or how it is preached! Surely, Jesus and His chosen apostles knew what to preach and how to preach it. Yet, people rejected their message in mass. What makes us think that we can improve upon their message, manner, or results?

God has deliberately chosen the foolish and weak things of this world to further His good purpose. Because of this “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.”(3) In fact, God’s chosen things — His Son, His word, His church — are just down right offensive to society at large in many ways.

Foolishness

There is ample documentary evidence in the gospel records to support the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. If one has a philosophy that denies the possibility of a resurrection, he is not likely to objectively consider the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus.

Those of us who believe the gospel evidence must preach it and practice its demands regardless of how others look at it. We must keep our faith in the gospel, teach its plan-of salvation, serve the Lord according to its teaching and live the life-style it demands — even if the world at large does think it all a bunch of foolishness. If we are perverting the gospel, in word or deed, then changes are in order. Such changes must be to conform to Divine wisdom rather than the human wisdom of those who may think the things of the gospel foolish.

Weak

The Lord’s church always looks weak to those who measure by carnal standards. To a world that measures kingdoms’ strength by political influence and military might, the kingdom of God looks awfully weak.(4) Its spiritual and non-political nature does not make it attractive to the carnal mind. If one thinks that financial and social influences are strength, he will think of the church as a weakling. By any carnal standard one measures the membership — whether numerical size, personal charisma (whatever that is), or social standing — the church is going to look weak. Carnally-minded brethren in their efforts to make the church strong really weaken it. What they think to be the church’s weakness is really its strength. In trying to remove the offense from the church, they really are making it offensive to God and Christians who have grown beyond the carnal frame of mind.(5)

I once worked with a church whose leadership measured strength by carnal standards. At the time, thee e were no clues in their practice as to where they would eventually go. The worship, work, and organization were according to the New Testament pattern. Today their practice clearly reflects their ultra-liberalism. Yet, thirty years ago the seed was there in their view of strength and weakness. They felt that, if they could afford as good a building as the “other churches” in town, the community would accept them more — they got the building. If they could just have a preacher that was as well-educated and as good a mixer as the “other preachers” in town then more would accept “the gospel” – eventually they got their preacher. If they could make “our teaching methods” less negative (“different persuasions”) that would gain more members – they reached that goal. If the pulpit and bulletin would just be more positive then we would not turn so many people off, we heard.

Do you know what scares me about remembering all of that? I will just tell you. I am hearing said, almost word for word, some of the things that I heard from those brethren from a few brethren now who think of themselves as conservative.

(I am always positive in my preaching and writing. It is just that sometimes I am positive that some things are wrong and need to be dealt with.)

Hard

People with little or no faith think of the Lord with His teaching and ways as being too hard. His sayings are hard.(6) His requirements are hard. His restrictions are hard. These find little, if anything easy about being a Christian. Consequently many do not attempt being Christians, because they think it is just more than one should be asked to do. It is just too hard. Others, not wanting to go to hell, attempt the task. They have just enough religion to be miserable. They go ahead and “perform their duty” as the Bible teaches but constantly complain about what a hard life Christians like them must live. To such brethren, it will always be a hard way to go.

Yet, there are others who because of their love and devotion for Christ, coupled with a healthy fear of God’s wrath, willingly take up the yoke and follow Christ. They do all the same things that the first group find to be so hard – but to them the yoke is easy and the burden light. To them no command is burdensome.(7)

Dull

If one measures the Lord’s people by the standards of religious activity and fervor spread out before the world today, they come out looking like a pitiful, lifeless, dull bunch. The general public gets its concepts of religion from TV, radio, papers and the sensational churches of today. Brethren see all of this then look at us and decide that we need some kind of life-reviving shot in the arm. They begin to measure our worship by its entertainment, emotional and/or artistic value. They begin to measure our zeal and enthusiasm by the emotionalism and promotionalism. of the professional TV evangelists(?) and/or some fanatical cult. They begin to look for ways to get brethren out of their rut and jumping around with more “signs of life.” We can get into a rut. We can become unenthusiastic. We need our zeal stirred at times. However, I suspect a lot of the calls for more liveliness in our religious activities today to be coming from those influenced more by the carnal standard of sensationalism than by a careful evaluation of our behavior in the light of the Bible.

In reading the New Testament, I don’t get the idea that periods of worship were periods of hand-clapping, footstomping, hip, hip, hooray sessions befitting a school pep rally. Yet, I have been in religious gatherings and have heard some preaching that came mighty close to that pattern.

I get the idea from the New Testament that worship periods were orderly, sober periods of reflection, praise and renewing of the mind.(8) The enthusiasm and zeal being more quietly expressed than I am hearing urged and seeing in some quarters today. If one has studied enough to understand the significance of eating the Lord’s Supper, singing, praying, teaching and giving, it will not become dull. This will not be dull even when not performed to high artistic standards led by a bubbling personality. It will not be dull even if the same people do it the same way, at the same time, week in and week out.

Inadequate

To one who expects the church to “minister to the whole man,” the New Testament church is inadequate. He expects the church to help the community with its social, economic and civil needs. He will think that the church is falling down on the job, if it does not. Any church that fails in this area, to him is inadequate.

To one who understands the New Testament teaching on the spiritual nature of the church and whose chief aim is to prepare for the world to come,(9) the church and its “program” is perfectly adequate.(10)

As God’s chosen people, we do not try to be offensive nor are we afraid to be. We understand that we and the world look at the same things from different perspectives. We need not panic every time someone criticizes our way of doing things or turns and walks with us no more. We must not rework God’s plan to make the church less offensive to those around us.

Even God’s chosen people sometimes become discouraged (Elijah did). Let us understand that while offensive to many, what we do and what we are is precious to God and good brethren. Let us understand that God’s way will be glorified in the end.(11) Let us look honestly at any unhappiness we might have with the church. It may be because we need to change our standard of measurement. We may be measuring its performance by carnal standards.

Yes, in most congregations, there is room for improvement. Things need changing. They need to be changed to make them less offensive to Christ and not to make them any less offensive to the community around them.

The same Stone that is so precious to “you who believe” is to “those who are disobedient” a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Shall we try to reshape the Stone to remove the offense? Or shall we let the world know that it needs to shape up to the image of the Stone?

Endnotes

1. Matt. 15:13,14; John 6:26,60-66.

2. Eph. 1:23 (Church is the fulness of Christ); John 15:18-25.

3. 1 Cor. 1:18-31; 3:1-16.

4. John 18:36; 2 Cor. 10:4-6.

5. 1 Cor. 3:1-3.

6. John 6:60-66.

7. Matt. 11:28-30; 1 John 5:3-5.

8. Rom. 12:1,2; 1 Cor. 14.

9. 2 Cor. 4:17-5:12.

10. Eph. 4:11-16.

11. 1 Pet. 2:12.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 306-307
May 15, 1986