Truth Magazine

By Kenneth Thomas

Several times in the last few years, some brother in Christ has attempted to entice me to overlook some doctrinal problem. existing in a local congregation of the Lord’s people, due to the fact as they have expressed it, “There have always been problems in the churches of Christ, and there always will be. Don’t you know that you will never find a perfect congregation? Why, just look at the church at Corinth, they were addressed as belonging to God and Christ even though so many problems existed there . . . and consider the churches in Asia addressed in the Revelation letter. . .”

Can’t one see what such statements are designed to do? It is an attempt to whitewash, to overlook and not deal with existing problems among Christ’s people today for whatever the reason may be. It could be that the one making a statement like the above is completely sincere (I believe some sincere brethren have so spoken to me) and just haven’t thought out the consequences of such a statement.

When Paul addressed the “church of God” at Corinth, he commended the good that was present among them and proceeded to speak of the problems which were to be addressed and dealt with. He wrote a second epistle and said, “For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things” (2 Cor. 2:9, NKJV). Of course we all know that one can only act on what knowledge one has at any given time. They were instructed as to the nature of the problems and were consequently expected by God to deal with them after a reasonable period of time if they expected to be considered as “obedient in all things,” hence faithful to Christ (Jas. 2:10; 2 Jn. 9-11; Gal. 1:6-9; Tit. 3:10; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1-2).

We can learn the answer more completely by looking at other Bible examples such as the writings of John to the churches of Asia. John said to the church at Ephesus after commending the good that remained there, “Nevertheless I have somewhat (one thing) against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from whence you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your candlestick from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:4-5). Their identity as belonging to Christ was in jeopardy if they did not correct this one thing! See also Revelation 2:21.

I have an idea (and with good reason) that the above heading characterizes some of my brethren who serve as gospel preachers, elders and deacons in some local churches of the Lord. They fear man. They don’t want to lose their income and wish to be well thought of by all. They are men pleasers who do not really have their brethren’s best spiritual interest at heart. The wise man said, “He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward than he who flatters with the tongue” (Prov. 28:23). Jude speaks of people who will “flatter people to gain advantage” (Jude 16). “We have brethren today who do the same. The Hebrew writer wrote, “for whom the Lord loves he chastens, and scourges every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:5-6). The way the Lord chastens and scourges today is through the rebuke and admonition given by brethren who love us enough to attempt to convert us when we stray. As the Hebrew writer also stated, this chastening isn’t joyful when received, but afterwards it “yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Heb. 12:11, NKJV). See also James 5:19-20; Ephesians 6:1-2.

Luther was a great man with much courage and conviction. Sadly he died before he could come to a knowledge of the truth but he led folks a step in the right direction and was willing to lay his own life on the line to defend what he understood to be the truth of Christ. I wish we had more members of the body of Christ today with the same resolve as Luther had, especially among elders and preachers. Luther’s great statement I am about to quote sure sounds differently than some of my brethren. He said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking (emp. mine ket), I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.”

I have been preaching Christ for over 25 years now and in that period of time have observed some things I think should be considered by thinking brethren. First, let me say over that period of time, I have known and still know of many faithful saints as well as elders, deacons and preachers who stand fast for the truth and live for Christ with a dedication which cannot be questioned. What I shall say in the negative therefore is not intended as an indictment of all individuals or congregations who consider themselves conservative.

It seems to me from observation that 0 too many institutionally conservative brethren consider every individual and congregation of brethren who stand opposed to “institutionalism” and the sponsoring eldership and the social gospel, “conservative” regardless of the other problems known to exist with the same lack of scriptural authority. Why? I must admit I really do not know.

Example: Some supposedly “conservative, sound” congregations have men serving as elders and deacons when many in the congregation and the men themselves know that they aren’t scripturally qualified according to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. I am aware that some things relative to the qualifications call for judgment and must be decided on the congregational level. I am not thinking of such in the above statement. I speak of out and out qualifications not present in the men who are serving and have served. The most blatant example I can think of is an elder, a close personal friend of this writer who served for years knowing that he was unable to convict and convince the gainsayer, to stop the mouths of the subverters and watch out for wolves desirous of scattering the flock (Tit. 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-32). He told me, and these are his own words, “Ken, I knew when I was asked to served that I was not qualified; but the preacher, brother _________ said that if I didn’t agree to serve we would not have an eldership and the ‘liberals’ would end up with the church building. So I decided to serve and I have just done the best that I knew how.” I said, both privately and publicly, that was the poorest reason I had ever heard to ask a brother to jeopardize his soul to serve when he knows he is not qualified and to organize a congregation unscripturally just to save some brick and mortar; souls are such more important. . . . They should have been given the building under those circumstances and the faithful start over. Paul long ago settled the matter of the end justifying the means. He said, “God forbid, or may it never be” (Rom. 3:7-8; Gal. 2:17).

An individual or a congregation does not have to break all of the commandments of the Lord to be law breakers (Jas. 2: 10), and the “law of liberty” is a law and we will be judged by the law of Christ (Jas. 2:9-12; 1:21-25). So “one thing” unrepented of and unforgiven makes one guilty before Christ.

Another Example. What would you think of a preacher and the congregation who would baptize a person knowing that he was a Free Mason of the 32 degree variety and not command repentance from such error? Well, how about if after months he is still actively involved and is still used in the local congregation to lead singing, prayer, serve at the Lord’s table and was appointed to a committee to see into some of the functions of the local congregation on their behalf9 Question: Would you still consider the preacher and the other brethren who know of this as “conservative”?

How many acts of disobedience were the following guilty of before coming under God’s condemnation?

1. Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:1-18).

2. Cain (Gen. 4:1-7a).

3. Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:14).

4. Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:6-8).

5. Moses and Aaron (Num. 20:9-12).

6. King Saul (1 Sam. 15).

7. Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10).

Having said all of the foregoing, no, I do not believe in sinless perfection nor salvation by works of human merit. I’m sure that Christ will make allowances for our inability to have perfect knowledge and make perfect application to our lives of everything we should know and be. I have no idea how much or what it may be, so no list will be forthcoming, but without the grace of God being supplied none of us would be pleasing to Christ. As someone said, “we need mercy not justice.” Justice would condemn us all. It is only by mercy (forgiveness through blood) that any of us stands acceptable before Christ. But brethren, we dare not call congregations “sound” or “conservative” if they persist knowingly in religious error, nor simply because they are institutionally conservative. There are other ways of perverting the organization and work of the churches of our Lord, all of which must be avoided as much as humanly possible.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 304-305
May 15, 1986

By Larry Ray Hafley

The Lord give mercy onto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when be was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well (2 Tim. 1:16-19).

The Bible records the meanness, hypocrisy and iniquity of Hymanaeus, Alexander, Philetus, Demas, Diotrephes and Alexander the coppersmith, but it also reveals the goodness, sincerity and righteousness of men like Onesiphorus. We can be grateful and thankful for him, Phebe, “Apelles approved in Christ. . . (and) the beloved Persis, which labored in the Lord” (Rom. 16).

Every age and generation has its counterparts to the characters above, both good and bad. Often it is necessary to dwell on the negative, but let us not forget the positive. You may know a Demas or a Diotrephes, but you also know a Dorcas and an Onesiphorus. Thank God for them; pray for them; encourage them; support them (Rom. 16:2). Do not allow a depraved Demas to blind you to a dear Dorcas. For every Philetus there are scores of Phebes. Yes, there was an Ahab, but there was also an Elijah. There was a Jezebel, but there was an Esther. There was a Mrs. Job, but there was a Ruth. Rejoice.

Around the great throne of that endless day, I want to meet Paul, Peter and John, but I also want to see Onesiphorus and Epaphroditus. I want to exult with them in the grace and mercy of God and learn the particulars of their humble courage and selfless sacrifice. Truly, “What joy ’twill be.”

“He Oft Refreshed Me”

Paul had a hard and difficult life. Occasionally, he “despaired even of life” (2 Cor. 1:8). But, then, there was Onesiphorus. “He oft refreshed me.” Like a servant who might wash and gently massage the feet of a weary traveler, Onesiphorus “oft refreshed me.” Note, he often did so. What a blessing are those who can soothe and ease the burdens of trouble and travail. Like a cool breeze at the close of a hot and hard day, Onesiphorus “refreshed” Paul.

Could it be that without the refreshing comfort of men like Onesiphorus that we would not have had men like Paul who finished their course? The following verses may lend Support to that conjecture. ,”Therefore we were comforted in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all” (2 Cor. 7:13). “I am glad for the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge them that are such” (1 Cor. 16:17,18). “Strive together with me in your prayers to God for me. . . That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed” (Rom. 15:30-32).

“He . . . Was Not Ashamed”

Paul was an outcast. He was “reviled,” “defamed,” “persecuted,” and “made as the filth of the world” (1 Cor. 4:9-13). He was viewed as a weak, despised fool, even “a pestilent fellow” (Acts 24:5). it would be degrading to one’s standing in the community to be allied and identified with such a man, but Onesiphorus “was not ashamed of my chain.” It took great courage to stand with Paul who was “despised.” Onesiphorus had a family, a “household” (2 Tim. 4:19). What of them? If he had children in school, might they. not be ridiculed because their father assisted and associated with a “jail bird,” a prisoner? Might not his business suffer, or might he not lose his job? These are all real possibilities, but “he. . . was not ashamed of my chain.” Surely, it was such people that the Lord had in mind, when in describing the awesome scenes of Judgment, He said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40).

“Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8). “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16). The ignominious death of Christ was a source of shame. Imagine one who would claim that his spiritual Savior redeemed him by being executed by the state. What power is there in that? What wisdom is there in being put to death by civil authority? See 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. Paul’s chains were for that cause, but Onesiphorus “was not ashamed.”

“He Sought Me Out”

Onesiphorus’ efforts to find Paul were done “very diligently.” It was not an easy task to cut through all the “red tape” in order to visit Paul. It took persistence, but, at last, he found him. Good works and deeds of kindness often require tenacity and boldness. Onesiphorus could have made a lame attempt to see Paul, and at his first rebuff he could have said, “Oh, well, at least I tried.” But he did not; instead, “he sought me out very diligently and found me.”

Our minds drift to the lost sheep, alone in the wilderness. The shepherd will not be thwarted by thorns and thistles. Onward he lunges and plunges until he hears feint and weak bleats and pleas of fear. With renewed spirit, he forges on, issuing words of reassurance with every step. Finally, he rescues his wandering one and embraces its shivering, quivering frame against his comforting breast. Can we not see Paul, stranded and abandoned, as he first views the brave Onesiphorus? With chains and shackles he rises to greet his beloved benefactor. His body is bound but his spirit is now free and unfettered by the blessed appearance of Onesiphorus. For, a moment, the painful memories of Phygellus and Hermogenes who forsook him are forgotten. Oh, blissful moment! Oh, glad reunion!

“How Many Things He Ministered”

We can only surmise the “many things,” the many ways, that Onesiphorus ministered unto Paul. Perhaps, again around the throne of heaven, we can ask Timothy, for he knew these things “very well.” Onesiphorus probably would not tell us.

There is a message in this for all of us. Such service will not go unnoticed by Him who sees the sparrow fall. “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints and do minister” (Heb. 6:10). “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26-28). If the Lord of us all ministered unto all, what should we, who are Lord of no one, do?

“The Lord Give Mercy”

Assuredly, Paul’s prayer that, “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day,” will be granted. We speak confidently in this regard, for our Lord Himself hath promised, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7).

All of us need prayers for mercy. Is there not someone you have neglected to pray for? Good and godly souls are frequently neglected in our prayers. We assume that their grace and piety need nothing from us. But if a man of Onesiphorus’ stature was the object and subject of the great apostle’s prayers, should we not also pray for those whom we esteem and admire in the work of the Lord? Yes, but why should we? “For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge them that are such” (1 Cor. 16:18). Begin now.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 302-303
May 15, 1986

By Luther Bolenbarker

Call it a craving for independence or whatever you want – but there is something within each of us that dislikes authority: children resist the authority of parents, pupils the authority of teachers, employees the authority of management, citizens the authority of government, etc. It’s an inherent human tendency (which is changed by our learning the meaning and purpose of authority): we don’t like being told what to do.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the importance of authority. Therefore, let’s take a careful look at what God says about it and what He says our response to it should be.

God authorizes civil authority because He knows it’s absolutely essential for society’s survival. A chaotic world indeed would exist if everyone could do as he pleased in his own eyes. Suppose for instance, every child did as he pleased (some do), every employee, driver, policeman, thief, rapist, all did as they pleased. Sometimes when we are rushing to an appointment we may wish there were no speed limits, but we know very well that the laws which govern traffic are essential to our safety. Total freedom which would allow each one to drive as he pleased would be a disaster for all. Laws, government, and authority are essential to our well-being.

That’s why in Romans 13:1ff God tells us to be subject to the higher powers. He has ordained them for our good. For us to resist these powers is to resist the ordinances of God.

Children are to obey their parents, parents their rulers, employees their employers, teachers their principals, citizens their government, etc. It’s true, sometimes people in authority aren’t worthy of our obedience or of the position they hold. If so, we should replace these as quickly as possible with others who are, but we must never dispense with authority. The only other alternative is anarchy – the law of the jungle survival of the fittest – dog eat dog, etc.

There are certain limits, of course, to which we are responsible to civil authority. When rulers order us to do what God forbids, our allegiance to God must be supreme. Peter and John faced this problem. Before His ascension into heaven, Jesus commanded the disciples to preach the gospel to all men. The rulers didn’t like it that the disciples were teaching the people that Jesus was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, so they ordered them to quit. At this point God’s authority and man’s came into conflict. Peter’s reply was, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In this case it was right to defy civil authority because its command was in direct conflict with the commandments of God. And God’s authority supercedes man’s. This does not excuse lawlessness when the authority of man is not in conflict with God’s. Indeed, we are responsible to obey man’s authority when no conflict exists.

This whole business of authority and our responsibility toward it begins in the home. Children who aren’t taught obedience in the home usually have a hard time submitting to authority of any kind – that of teacher, boss, policeman, or even God. Submission to authority is learned more easily while young than at any other time. (Someone has rightly said, “The high-chair is the place to learn authority and not the electric-chair! “) Parents who don’t insist on it aren’t doing their children any favors, nor are they preparing them well for what they are sure to face in later years.

Learning obedience isn’t easy, but it is absolutely necessary for the welfare of our homes, schools and nation. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, with each one doing as he pleases period, with no strings attached! We’d have to live on a remote, isolated island to do this, completely cut off from all others because all we do affects someone else either directly or indirectly.

The key to our acceptance of authority is our attitude. If our attitude is right toward authority, we will realize that authority is approved of God and, as His children, we are to respect it. A bad attitude, toward authority will sabotage one’s whole future and opportunity to please God and our fellow man. A bad attitude if not changed, will no doubt cause one to be miserable in this life and lost in the next one.

It’s high time we Americans, parents, Christians and children take a hard look at this whole business of authority and how it affects the welfare of our homes, schools, churches, the nation and our individual lives as well.

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, “All authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth.” Herein ties the secret to authority: if we will all submit ourselves first to the authority of Jesus then the matter of our submitting to the authority of others will be taken care of because we will want to please Jesus. In Luke 6:46, Jesus says, “Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I command you?” Romans 13; Ephesians 6:1; 1 Peter 3, 5 also apply and need to be considered.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, p. 295
May 15, 1986

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