Truth Magazine

By Anthony Wayne Goforth

(Editor’s Note: The following article is written by brother Anthony Wayne Goforth. Brother Goforth has recently made a decision to forsake liberalism and take a stand against church-sponsored recreation, church support of human institutions, and the sponsoring church arrangement. Brother Mike Scott of Middletown, Indiana and brother L.A. Stauffer of Kirkwood, Missouri have studied with brother Goforth. Brother Goforth is aware that the publication of this article will identify him with those of us who are condemned as “anti’s. ” Nevertheless, he wants me to print it. There will be repercussions come to him with the publication of this article. We pray that he will have the courage of his convictions to stand against the wiles of the Devil and against the attacks of liberal brethren. I am sure that you can help by dropping him a card encouraging him to stand.)

I have preached eight years for the mainline churches of Christ. I graduated from the conservatively liberal Memphis School of Preaching and then on to Freed-Hardeman, where I graduated in 1984. 1 classed myself for years with the “conservative” Contending For The Faith crowd, but in 1986 my wife and I realized we had become more conservative than my “conservative” liberal brethren, and sought to be identified with the conservative, noninstitutional brethren.

All of the problems in the mainline church are but symptoms of a much larger problem, that being a lack of respect for the authority of the Scripture, the all sufficiency of the church, and proper understanding of the silence of the Scripture. Brethren, we must have a “Thus saith the Lord” (1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 22:18-19).

Reasons For Leaving

A. Because of the “overseeing” method of mission work.

This is one of the best kept secrets of the institutionals, for most members and even contributing churches do not know what is going on.

My wife and I worked with an “overseeing” church for seven long months. We were going to be sent to a 25 year old, non-self-supporting work in Arizona. The “overseeing” church was only 15 years old, yet the elders would tell us, “When you get there, change this and do that,” without even taking the feelings of the members in Arizona in mind. It was clear that the autonomy, the ability of self-governing, of that congregation was taken away. The conservative institutionals condemn the Boston church for their practice of one eldership over a number of churches, while they condone and practice it in missions.

The institutionals have thus established a hierarchy. The elders would tell us, “Now don’t tell the contributing churches about this and that; that is our business.” Where is the equality of churches spoken of by Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:14? They have developed a ladder with “overseeing church” on the top, “contributing church” second, and poor little ol’ not-able-to-make-their-own-decision “mission church” at the bottom of the list.

We understand from examining Philippians 4:14-18 and 2 Corinthians 11:8-10 that the funds were sent directly to Paul without anything called an “overseeing” church. (See chart.) They will argue, “Yes this is one way in which it was done, but we are not to assume the only way.” Wow! Who says the denominationals cannot teach us anything? This is the same reasoning the Christian Church folk argue in saying, “Yes, Colossians 3:16 does say sing, but we are not to assume that it always was without instruments. ” Now you see it, now you don’t! Remember God’s law of exclusion. When He has specified one way, it excludes all else.

The cry is made, “Don’t you trust elders?” The answer is a resounding “yes.” But it is the elders of each local congregation that must keep the tabs on where their money is going. To illustrate what I am saying, let us create a not so hypothetical, hypothetical situation: From the chart, congregations A, B, and C send money to “overseeing” congregation D, so that they might send it to missionary E. The “overseeing church D” does not like what the supported preacher is doing, so they tell him to come home, they have cut off his support (all of this has happened repeatedly). One stroke of the elder’s pen at D, and the support of four churches is cut off. However, in the direct method used in the New Testament, if D pulled out, it would at least be their own decision, and not one made for them b the “overseeing church.” “But it is just a method” the will say, perhaps, but it is not the one used in the New Testament! Missionary societies are just methods too, was the argument of the digressives at the turn of the century! If God had desired that the money be sent directly to the preacher rather than through an “overseeing” body, what language would God have used than what was used in the Scriptures already mentioned?

Also, the common liberal practice of a “missions committee” was employed. They were to review our work and make suggestions to pass on to the elders. In Philippians 1:1, we read of saints, elders and deacons but I don’t find any committee on the list. “How readest thou the scriptures?” Elders have the grave responsibility of overseeing their own work, and no one else (1 Tim. 3:5; Acts 20:28). And to think they say we don’t trust elders!

B. Because of the practice of religion by proxy.

The theme of the entire book of James is to show that if one does not show forth his faith by works it is dead faith. James 1:27 shows that one way of showing that faith is by taking care of the needy. Yet liberals think when the elders write a monthly check to an orphan home that it fulfills their duty. They preach, “No one may obey the gospel for you,” yet they let someone do their deeds for them. It is argued, “The money going to the orphan home comes from the collection which has some of my money in it; therefore I take care of orphans.” This makes as much sense as saying we can hire a choir with money from the collection and they have thus sung for me, fulfilling Ephesians 5:19. “Come now, let us reason together. . . ” (Isa. 1:18). We have already noted that this verse is a command to individuals and not the church, so where is the authority for churches establishing and maintaining such like? I am not against orphan homes as such, but it is not the duty of the church any more than it would be the duty of the church to open a clothing outlet since Matthew 25:36 says Christians are to clothe the naked.

In the same way, Christians might go together and establish a business, but this does not give the church a right to do so.

The church has a spiritual purpose, and works such as homes divert the purpose, money and manpower of a church away from its true work (1 Tim. 3:15-16; Col. 1:25-28).

These orphan homes are money-making institutions. I heard of a church operated home in Alabama that had nine children and thirty on staff. Don’t tell me that they could not find homes for nine children, since there are more people looking to adopt than there are children. The fact is, these homes will not allow you to adopt for then they would be out of business. Some liberal brethren have gone as far as to carry this thing to its logical end and have established church run hospitals, soup lines, “medical missions,” ad nauseum. I asked a well-known “medical missionary” where his authority was, and he replied, “Paul healed people on his trips.” These are the things we condemned in the denominations years ago. Now that the denominations have thrown these into the dumpster, we fished it out!

Still, the emotional ploy is made, “You anti’s would let a hungry orphan die on your church steps.” I know of no Christian, nor do you, that would not grab up that child, take it home and feed him, and call the proper authorities. This is the same type of argument made by the Baptists when they say, “What if a man wanted to be a Christian but he was in the desert, how could he be baptized?” That is, they are hypothetical, and neither you nor I have ever heard of such a case.

If you were ever to ask any of the institutional teachers for the authority for such, you will be told, I am sure, “No one ever was against these things until 1955.” Odd since the founder of Abilene Christian stood against them in his lecture to the school in 1930. Guy N. Woods did also in his 1946 Annual Lesson Commentary.

Aside from orphan homes, the Bible gives no authority for homes for the aged, such as the Mid-South Christian Nursing Home. 1 Timothy 5:3-16 tells us that individuals are to take care of the widows, “that the church be not burdened. . . ” (5:16). The Bible does allow for widows to be given church aid providing they meet the list of qualifications of 1 Timothy 5:9-10. Among other things, she must be over sixty years of age, having been married, raised children, and a Christian. She must be a “widow indeed,” having no family left. How many in nursing homes run by the church fit this list? Notice they must be Christians. The government rules have made it so that if there is a member of the church and a nonmember on the list to enter these homes, they must take the non-Christian or else they are showing “religious discrimination. ” Even if the Bible gave the church authority to build homes, which it does not, the government would not let you meet the scriptural qualifications for a widow indeed.

C. Because of the practice of unlimited benevolence.

This is similar to the last point in that Christians are to help everyone as they have the ability and chance to do so (Gal. 6: 10; Jas. 1:27). In fact, Christians were even told to work and save money that they might give it to the needy (Eph. 4:28). Individuals may do this, as well as contribute to worthy causes such as the Jerry Lewis Telethon, but this does not give the church the right to do it, although I once preached for a church that did send money from the church treasury to the said telethon!

The word translated “contribute” comes from the same Greek word as the word “fellowship.” Fellowship is defined as “the special relationship shared with Christians.” Thus, for the church to aid a non-Christian is to fellowship him, which the church is commanded not to do (2 Cor. 6:14ff).

We have seen the argument for years, “Stack up every verse on singing and you will not find one mention of instruments. ” In the same light, stack up every verse on church benevolence, and you will see that it was always to a Christian:

Verse	Saint	Orphan	Alien Sinner
Acts 2:44-46
Acts 4:32-35
Acts 6:1-6
Acts 11:27-30
Rom. 15:25-31
1 Cor. 16:1-3
2 Cor. 8:1-4, 13-14
2 Cor. 9:1, 13-14
1 Tim. 5:16

We must not let the church to be burdened down with our own responsibilities. Let the church be the church and perform her spiritual duty.

Conclusion

Don’t be fooled by liberal preachers who whistle in the dark saying, “All the anti’s have either died out or are withering away.” If dead neither the corpse nor the mourners know it! Even Bill Jackson has warned his liberal brethren, “There is new life among the anti’s.” There are over 100,000 conservative members in the United States. Three out of four churches in the Philippines are conservative. In many cities such as Tampa, Birmingham, and Louisville, the conservative out number the liberals all put together.

Seek out the conservative churches of Christ near you. We are not the one-cuppers, or the no Bible literature groups, even though the liberals rake us together as “anti.” Anti simply means against; are you not against something?

It is said that we “anti’s” are guilty of “binding what God has not bound.” They thus claim that all of these are just methods, yet they will turn around and disfellowship you if you do not agree with what is just a “method.” Will the real “Anti” please stand up!

Brethren, please examine these things, I would not want to be known as something that sounds as bad as “anti” or “orphan hater” if I were not sure.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 296-297, 310-311
May 15, 1986

By Irven Lee

This article is in answer to several letters that came as a reaction to my recent articles on this subject. Those who wrote had a right to write, and I am better for their having written. The number and content of the letters clearly indicate that there are several families that are very much interested in their children’s spiritual welfare. This is as it should be. Parents have a fearful responsibility.

Concern is important, but it takes more than a mental awareness of danger to train children. Skill and effort are also necessary. I admit that I do not know many of those who are training their children at home, but my very limited association in this regard has let me know that some who kept their children out of school seemed to be doing a very poor job of training them. It may be that the vast majority of the home trained children are well trained. Let those who are failing to do the job awaken to their responsibility.

It has been called to my attention that tutors are sometimes used to train children in special fields in which the parents recognize their need for help. This can evidently help in many cases. It was also pointed out to me that training in special fields of endeavor might be done in school on the college and graduate level. A few mentioned that home trained children usually make better on ACT and SAT tests than those from public schools. I congratulate the parents of such children as well as the children who show up well on the tests.

Each of my two children had the first grade at home with their mother as their teacher. The primary reason for this was that they had birthdays in the fall so they would have been approximately a year behind their classmates except for the home training. It is certainly true that they entered second grade ahead of those who had been in school for their first grade. My wife took her work seriously, and she was trained and experienced as a teacher. She and the girls enjoyed their study together. They read more little books than most school children did, and they also went ahead in their number work. The “hen with one chick” can take special interest in her little class. That we admit.

If children are home trained there would apparently be a big advantage in starting at the first. To take a junior high pupil, for example, out of his class and away from his games, might bring on the temptation for rebellion. Even if something better is offered it would still require time for a big adjustment.

The letters sent in response to my articles listed many great Americans who were home trained. One who was mentioned has a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. I do not know how far he went in his home training. Tens of thousands have been home trained. It can be done.

We hear of “self-made” men. I have known a few learned men who went to school none or very little, but they were not home trained. I am thinking of one who obtained the old “blue back speller” and McGuffey readers and learned to read on his own after he had passed the age at which children usually learn to read. He had three months in school in his whole life, I think. We had learned much in the “university of hard knocks,” in the hard work which his generation knew. Only a very small percent of such people had sufficient hunger for knowledge to educate themselves. After learning to read they could by will power train themselves in many fields. Most who were not trained by others remained illiterate until the day of death.

Studies have been made to reveal that very many capable adults in America today cannot read or write. A few of these men and women are learning these skills now and are very happy with the doors they have opened by their efforts. There are adult education classes available over our nation. One can certainly learn to read at home. A great preacher that I have heard many times was taught to read by his wife after he married. She did much for her husband and indirectly for the thousands who heard him preach. Why is there not more done for these good people who cannot read? Some have decided that they are “dumb” when they are obviously capable people showing special skills in their work. Swallowing their pride, calling on their patience’ and leaning on some loved ones to help them could enrich their lives very much.

Skill in reading and the use of this skill in Bible study could do much for the church. Many who could read just watch television to use up their time after work. “Give attendance to reading” is an inspired suggestion (1 Tim. 4:13). In fact, various passages that speak of study and of the need for knowledge point out the need for reading (2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 5:12-14; Rom. 10:1-3; etc.). Some who could be pillars in the church do not read in this day when atheists do so much teaching by television. Shame on these who bury their own talents and open their minds to the atheists.

I taught twenty years in private schools. My daughters had almost all their training in private schools. This grew out of my realization that there were great blessings to be gained in having Christians for teachers and in having well taught children for classmates. I think that my children obtained what some are seeking when they home train theirs. Few have the opportunity that we had because there are not many such schools available. Parents everywhere are to protect, guide, train, and whatever else is included in bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

Every son and daughter needs to obtain faith and knowledge of the word so that he or she can stand against the wiles of the devil. At first parents stand by their side, but gradually they grow up and stand on their own convictions. If there is a lack of conviction, courage, faith, and knowledge their training was not what it should have been. Some who have not been taught reading, writing, and arithmetic at home do have on the Christian armor (Eph.6:10-20).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 300, 311
May 15, 1986

By Allen S. Dvorak

It was early in the morning and the sun was just coming over the horizon; dawn was breaking with all of her quiet grace. The temperature had dropped enough the night before that the grass was covered with tiny beads of moisture. Peering out of the glass patio doors in the dining room, I saw something in my back yard that I would like to share with you.

In the sunlight I could see that the entire yard (I mean all of it!) was covered with spiders’ webs. Their white strands appeared to form a large, complete net over the whole back yard. Evidently the webs had caught some of the moisture in the air and they sparkled, first here and then there, as the sun was reflected in these drops of moisture. It was breathtakingly beautiful.

As I stood at the patio doors, wondering at the simple beauty of the sight, it dawned on me (no pun intended) that, despite the beauty of the whole scene, there was a sinister element to the picture. I had been looking from the viewpoint of a human who could destroy any spider’s web with the most casual movement of my limbs. But those webs had not been spun for me – they were created in anticipation of catching some of the numerous small insects which venture out at night and the early morning hours. From a “bug’s eye view,” these webs, regardless of how beautiful they might be to the human eye, represented a danger which could very easily be a fatal one.

A spider is a predator – a very cleaver one too! He carefully prepares a trap and waits for his prey to become ensnared in the extremely strong, sticky strands of his web. His victims come to him; he does not have to pursue them. When they have fatigued themselves by their struggle to escape the web which holds them, he quietly kills and devours them. As I thought about this web further, it occurred to me that Satan is quite similar to the spider!

(1) Like the spider, Satan is also a predator – he preys on human beings. The apostle Peter indicated that Satan is a predator when he likened him to a roaring lion, one of the most fear-inspiring predators on this earth. The Devil is our adversary and his object is to “devour us,” to destroy us in an eternal hell. It is for that very reason that Peter also counseled his readers to be vigilant – watchful of the danger that Satan presents (1 Pet. 5:8).

(2) Satan lays his snares in much the same fashion as the spider. When the spider spins his web, he frequently places it in such a way as to intercept the natural path of his prey. Of course, his presence is a warning, so he hides himself or lurks near the edge of the web where he is less evident. Satan has studied his prey and knows the weaknesses common to men. He knows how to lay his snares so that they will be encountered by men. And, like the spider, he doesn’t advertise his presence so that his victims often do not suspect his work in their demise. Only after they have been enslaved by the sin which was so tempting do they come to realize whose purpose the trap serves. Edward M. Bounds wrote, “The devil’s great device, his masterpiece of temptation is to destroy faith in his own existence.”(1)

Paul described covetousness (greed) as a snare, indicating that it led to destruction (1 Tim. 6:9- 10). Satan is a schemer -the traps he uses look so innocent and inviting that he fools many men into thinking that they are harmless. The anticipation of pleasure has invited men to drink alcohol, take drugs, steal, commit fornication, etc. — all snares used by Satan. Just like the spider, Satan cannot force his prey into the web of sin, but his victims commit themselves to the traps of sin (James 1:13-15).

(3) Neither Satan nor the spider are benefitted by light. It was the rising sun which revealed the webs of the spiders to me. The spider thrives on anonymity. He wishes his web to be invisible to his prey and so darkness is his ultimate friend. Satan also loves darkness. He wishes for men to be ignorant of his machinations so that he may take them captive at his will. If he appears as wholesome, it is a disguise (2 Cor. 11: 14-15). Fortunately, the light of God’s word exposes the wiles of Satan for what they are and the careful student of the Bible may discern and avoid the snares of Satan.

One significant difference between these two predators is that when a fly gets entangled in the web of the spider, he usually does not escape. For the man who has been entangled in Satan’s web of sin, God offers a way of escape. It is frequently difficult once the strands of worldliness have tightened around a man, but in Christ there is freedom! Beware of our spiritual predator!

Endnotes

1. Edward M. Bounds, Satan, His Personality, Power and Overthrow (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 112. Quoted by Lynn Walker, Supernatural Power and the Occult (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, n.d.), p. 17.

Guardian of Truth XXX; 10, p. 308
May 15, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In Judges 11:29-40, did Jephthah offer his daughter as a burnt offering? Or, was she devoted to God in some other way?

Reply: The setting for Jephthah’s vow was during the period of the judges. The Ammonites made war against Israel and the elders of Gilead came to Jephthah, asking him to be their leader in this struggle (Judg. 11:6). He became not only a military leader but also a judge (Judg. 12:7), this dual role having also been true of Deborah and Gideon. Before fighting the Ammonites, Jephthah made a vow to Jehovah. Our attention is given to this vow, found in Judges 11:30,31: “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatsoever (or whosoever, footnote in ASV) cometh forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return to peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. “

This passage is very controversial. Bible expositors widely disagree as to how Jephthah fulfilled his vow. There are two general positions taken. Some believe that Jephthah actually killed his daughter and offered her up as a burnt offering, while others believe that she was devoted to perpetual virginity and service to God. A good case can be made for either position, but it seems to this writer that the evidence is weightier for the latter view. A few considerations are hereby presented, which to this scribe, support the idea that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to the service of God.

Some assert that Jephthah made a rash vow, even though he was knowledgeable of God’s law which prohibited human sacrifice. But it can hardly be said that Jephthah was a rash and thoughtless leader. Earlier he had tried to reason with the Ammonites, rather than going to war with them. From this, it was more in the character and disposition of Jephthah to reflect carefully. Considering that there was even a strong possibility that his own daughter (his only child, v. 34) would be the one to meet him when he returned from battle, would not be compatible with a rash vow.

Others contend that Jephthah lived in a heathen land where human sacrifices existed, and being ignorant of God’s law, was influenced by this wicked environment to offer up his daughter as a burnt offering. To the contrary, there is no evidence that Jephthah was destitute of God’s law. On the other hand, he looked to Jehovah to deliver the Ammonites into his hand (v. 9), making a treaty with the elders of Gilead “before Jehovah” (vv. 9,10). Does it seem reasonable that a man so dedicated and dependent upon God would offer up his daughter as a bloody human sacrifice? And, are we to suppose that Jehovah would select a man to the responsible position of a great leader who would engage in the worship of Moloch, in which the people offered their children as human sacrifices? Even before he made his vow, it was said of him, “Then the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Jephthah. . .” (v. 29). This would hardly be said of one who would offer up his child as a human sacrifice. The evidence points to Jephthah as a Godfearing man.

Human sacrifice was sternly and repeatedly condemned by the law of God (see Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31; 18: 10). In the history of Israel, before the wicked reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kgs. 16:3; 21:6), there is no record of human sacrifices – not even by those who committed the sin of worshiping Baal.

Jephthah is listed with the heroes of faith (Heb. 11:32). Had he slaughtered his own child, a detestable act in the eyes of God, can we conceive of him being approved in Hebrews 11 as one of the great heroes of faith?

The Hebrew text itself does not necessitate a literal human sacrifice. Several scholars say that the correct translation of our text is: “It shall surely be the Lord’s or I will offer it up to him as a burnt offering.” The Hebrew term used to express Jephthah’s vow is nedir, which means “a consecration” and not cherem which means “destruction.” Adam Clarke states that the translation of the most accurate Hebrew scholars is: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt offering; that is, “If it be a thing fit for a burnt offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him” (Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2, p. 151).

Those who believe that Jephthah had a human sacrifice in mind when he uttered his vow, observe that one of the household would be expected to come forth, not an animal (see Albert Barnes and others). However, Keil and Delitzsch make this significant comment: “The father fulfilled his vow upon her, and she knew no man; i.e., he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord, as a spiritual burnt offering, in a lifelong chastity” (Biblical Commentary on The Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, p. 393).

Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew not man” (v. 39). These words presuppose that Jephthah offered his daughter to Jehovah. That he actually slew her and offered her up as a burnt offering is incompatible with his character, and would be diametrically opposed to the law of God; such an act would have been subject to God’s punishment.

Before performing his vow, Jephthah sent his daughter away for two months: “and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains” (v. 38). As Keil and Delitzsch put it: “To mourn one’s virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die as a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin” (Ibid., p. 392). She could never be a mother. The expression, “she knew no man” (v. 39) would have been a pointless remark had she been put to death.

Leviticus 27 is devoted to vows. Verses 1-8 concerns persons, verses 9-13 animals, verses 14,15 houses, and verses 16-25 land. Leon Wood, in his excellent book Distressing Days of the Judges, makes it clear what was to be done by a person or thing set apart for God by a vow. Concerning persons (vv. 1-8) he comments: “When a person vowed himself, or someone else, to God, that person came to be ‘for the Lord’ in the sense that an ‘estimation’ or evaluation was placed upon him by the priest. ” He further remarks: “A man so devoting himself, could not become a sacrifice like an animal, because human sacrifices would not be permitted, nor could he be normally used in service because the priests and Levites were assigned to do this; nor could he be sold like a house or animal. The alternative was that he be valued in terms of money and then pay that amount to help in the Tabernacle service. One exception to this existed regarding a woman, in the light of Exodus 38:8 and I Samuel 2:20, as noted; namely that she could be devoted for Tabernacle service since she was a woman and could do things there which only a woman could do better than men” (p. 293). Women “assembled” at the tabernacle (Ex. 38:8), and the Hebrew word translated “assembled” actually means “served” (root, Isabal. Should it be questioned that the women who served in this capacity were virgins, though it is not directly stated in the law, there is a point for consideration. The “daughters of Shiloh,” who were captured as wives for the Benjamites (Judg. 21:19-23), were at Shiloh where the tabernacle was located. They may have been servants at the tabernacle. If they were, this is evidence that they were virgins because they were taken as wives for the Benjamites.

Keil and Delitzsch propose that “if Jephthah, therefore vowed that he would offer a human sacrifice to Jehovah, he must have either have uttered his vow without any reflection, or else have been thoroughly depraved in a moral and religious sense. But what we know of this brave hero by no means warrants any such assumptions” (Ibid., p. 389).

If any contribution has been made to the study of this very controversial subject, our time taken for this research has been rewarded.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 293-294
May 15, 1986