Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Watching athletes compete in a contest of physical strength, endurance, skill or speed should impress the observer with many lessons for life. This was assuredly the case for Paul. When he wrote to the Corinthians, he remembered those races and competitions that he had either seen himself or heard about. It was more than just a memory, though. It was an education, a training ground for spiritual success. He admired some aspects of athletic prowess and ventured even to recommend them to Christians: “Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? Even so run; that ye may attain. And every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected” (1 Cor. 9:24-27).

We are brought to appreciate many facets of the athlete by this text. We are also challenged to apply some of the lessons he may teach us:

1. Dedication. The years of training and practice, the many hours or special preparation, the sacrifices made all these things spell out one essential: dedication. Without it they would not have spent the time or made the preparation or sacrifice as they have. The more dedicated they are, the greater their chances for success – and they know it. Seldom are they just “lucky” or “unlucky.” When they win and the more decidedly they win, it is usually to be explained in terms of their dedication. “I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight 1, as not beating the air,” writes the apostle. He has his goal before him. He has made it his aim and he had dedicated himself to attaining it. Nothing can stand in his way. Nothing else is so important. Can the Christian do less than the athlete? With heaven as our goal and an eternal crown as our prize, can we manifest an attitude that is short on dedication and still hope to reach that goal? “They do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. “

2. Self-control. “Every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things,” he further says. Athletes watch their diet and make sure they have sufficient rest. They try to balance proper nutrition and exercise with the right amount of sleep. Likewise, the child of God will try to spend time with the Scriptures in study, time with people in trying to bring them to Christ, time with their families in carrying out their responsibilities there. In short, the Christian will try to balance his responsibilities and control himself and his time. He will not allow his habits to control him: “I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage.”

3. Training and Practice. Pity the poor contestant who has been injured and cannot practice for a prolonged period of time. He gets “rusty” and does not perform well. He needs practice. The Christian who leaves the race and finds himself “out of duty” will soon awaken to a multitude of evils in his life. One needs the association with other Christians and the constant practice that derives from living the godly life on a day-to-day basis. If one does not watch it, he is soon completely out of the race, for good and forever!

4. Few Actually Win the Prize. Most people these days go about their religion as though everyone was somehow guaranteed a win. That is not what Paul says: “Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize?” He assumes that, for lack of dedication or practice or whatever, there are some who will not complete the race, or will finish it too late to gain the victory.

How much does heaven mean to us? It is certainly worth the effort. But will we be willing to put forth those energies essential to gaining the prize? “Even so run; that ye may attain!”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, p. 147
March 6, 1986

By Fred A. Shewmaker

In 1968 or 1969 my wife and I talked with a lady in her home at Sabina, Ohio. In some way she had connections with the Christian Church. The one at Sabina may have been called: “Church of Christ.” In our discussion mechanical music became a topic that was considered. The lady informed us of the local preacher’s assertion that the Bible does not authorize congregational singing. At the time such an assertion, to my mind, made that preacher a maverick. Now, less than twenty years later, the thing which he asserted appears to be the official doctrine of Independent Christian Churches.

When the lady supplied us with information regarding that assertion, we read Ephesians 5:19: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” To the three of us this verse seemed to authorize each one in an assembly to sing with all others in the same assembly. Now comes Don DeWelt and those associated with him, denying that Ephesians 5:19 authorizes each one in an assembly for worship to sing while all others present are singing.

There is quite an irony in their denial. The irony lies in the fact that they are using the denial in an effort to unite mechanical music and non-mechanical music churches to which they refer as: “heirs of the Restoration Heritage.” This is ironic because as they appeal to a common heritage, they are abandoning the common ground of that heritage. Until recent times both the mechanical music and non-mechanical music peoples have held in common the belief that the word of God in such passages as Ephesians 5:19 authorizes all who come together into an assembly for worship to sing at the same time. Probably only certain preachers, and not the people in mechanical music churches, have abandoned that common ground of the heritage.

Shall we give up group singing in our assemblies, because some are denying that such singing is authorized by the word of God? Matthew 16.19 and 18:18 require having permission from heaven before doing a thing on earth. However, those denying that group singing in worship is authorized are not contending that we should give it up. To the contrary, they are contending unauthorized mechanical music may be used because we all agree that we can engage in group singing, which is according to their contention also is unauthorized.

The real issue is not whether or not mechanical music is authorized by the word of God. This has been made abundantly clear by DeWelt’s argumentation. He agrees that mechanical music is not authorized. That makes the real issue: can we or must we not employ in our worship things that are not authorized by the word of God. Even if DeWelt’s is right about group singing in our worship is authorized by the word of God. Because this is true, there exists a vast difference between those who accept mechanical music and those who reject mechanical music. The difference is in their attitudes regarding the need for biblical authorization for the things which they teach and practice.

DeWelt’s contention regarding the reciprocal nature of Ephesians 5:19 seems to me more an argument of necessity to his position than a requirement of the facts. However, rather than delving into that, there is another train of thought which I wish to pursue.

In 1 Corinthians 11:1 Paul wrote, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” In 1 Corinthians 14:15, when dealing with orderliness in an assembly of the church, he also wrote, “I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” Is he not here requiring the Corinthians to follow him as he would follow Christ? If not, what is his point? No doubt every one will admit that in singing any example Jesus set, which Paul could have followed, had to set before the Church was established. Did Jesus set such an example? If He did, what is that example?

Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 follow the institution of the Lord’s supper by Jesus. He was with His apostles. “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” The example Jesus left is an example of group singing in an assembly. By command Paul required following him as he followed Christ. We have full authorization to engage in group singing when we assemble to worship.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, p. 165
March 20, 1986

By Mike Willis

Ezekiel 34 denounces the “shepherds of Israel” because of their failures in leading God’s people. The shepherds were the tyrannical civil rulers over the nation of Judah who were more interested in “feathering their own nest” than in caring for God’s people. The shepherds of Israel failed to do what God commanded shepherds to do and then compounded their sin by using their position over the nation to their own financial advantage.

This passage is instructive to us for many reasons, not the least of which is understanding the proper work of a shepherd. Inasmuch as the elders in the New Testament are compared to shepherds (1 Pet. 5:1-3), we can learn from this passage the primary thrust of an elder’s work. Using Ezekiel 34 as our guide, let us consider the work of godly elders.

1. Feed the flock. Ezekiel said, “Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the Rocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock” (Ezek. 34:2-3). Peter charged elders over the church to do this work saying, “Feed the flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:2).

As one reads Ezekiel’s description of the tyrannical rulers over Judah who used the flock for their own financial benefit, he cannot resist comparing them to modern denominational “pastors” who are continually begging for money. Television evangelists are perpetual beggars who persuade those who can little afford to be separated from their money to send them a donation. Meanwhile the “pastors” own luxurious condominiums in resort areas of the country, drive luxury cars, and display their expensive jewelry. “Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.”

One of the qualifications of an elder is that he be “apt to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2); he should be qualified “both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:10). This qualification of an elder places on him a burden to learn the word of God and how best to teach it.

In some congregations, the elders seldom participate in the teaching program. Some do not teach because they cannot teach and others do not teach because they do not want to teach. Although part of the work of an elder is to oversee the teaching program to be sure that qualified teachers are faithfully teaching God’s word, the elder who never participates in teaching the flock will soon lose the respect of the flock.

2. Strengthen the diseased, heal the sick, and bind up that which is broken. Ezekiel continued his rebuke of the elders of Israel saying, “The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken. . . ” (Ezek. 34:4). The work of a literal shepherd would involve carefully nurturing those sheep which were diseased, sick, or with broken bones.

The shepherd of the church is to watch for the souls of men (Heb. 13:17). He should notice when someone in the congregation becomes sick or broken. His responsibility as a shepherd is to work with the sin-sick soul to bring him back to health. When a member of the congregation begins to miss worship services, the elders should be among the first to call and/or visit the Christian to see what spiritual problem is endangering his soul. An elder who never checks on those who are becoming weak and are about to die will not be able to lead the congregation.

3. Retrieve those who are driven away or lost. Ezekiel added: “. . neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost” (Ezek. 34:4). The work of an elder was demonstrated in the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:3-7.

And he spake the parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

The good shepherd of this parable went out looking for the lost sheep. Should this describe the work of godly shepherds today?

When a member of the church wanders into sin, the elders should go after him. There should not be an attitude of indifference, self-righteousness, or condescension displayed toward a sheep which has wandered away and become lost. Rather, there should be a concern for the lost soul of man, a desire to see that person saved in the day of judgment, which motivates the shepherd to go after him.

Neglected Work

Some among us see shepherds who are neglecting this portion of their work. They are writing that elders have no authority over the flock of God. God has given elders “rule” (“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves” – Heb. 13:17); they are “over us” in the Lord (“And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord. . . ” 1 Thess. 5:12). They have the responsibility to lead the congregation in the realm of decisions of a judgmental nature. They have no legislative or executive authority. God has granted to them the work of leading the congregation in obeying the commands revealed from heaven.

Apparently, some men view the work of elders much like a business. They make decisions regarding the spending of money; they make decisions regarding which subjects will be studied in which classes and who will serve as the teacher; they lead the congregation in securing a preacher (and dismissing him). All of these works are within the legitimate sphere of labor given to an elder. They oversee the treasury (a legitimate part of their work), but neglect the sheep.

Far too many elders are leaving any work which demands personal involvement with the sheep for others to do. Some elders rarely, if ever, practice hospitality, although this is a specific qualification given to elders (1 Tim. 3:2) and required of Christians generally (Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9). They very seldom visit the members who are beginning to miss services, who have a spiritual problem, or otherwise need spiritual help. They act like the responsibility lies solely on the member who is going astray to contact them if they have a spiritual need. Inasmuch as they are not actively involved in working among the flock, they make very poor leaders of any program aimed at restoring the erring and seeking the lost. Some elders never meet with the congregation to inform the congregation of work which is planned and to receive input from the congregation about perceived needs. Soon they lose contact with the flock altogether. When they make a decision on some matter of judgment which does not reflect the desires of the flock, they wonder why the members of the church are upset and do not trust their leadership abilities!

Someone has said, “The preacher does the work of the elders; the elders do the work of the deacons; and the deacons do nothing.” I suppose that is an exaggeration. However, sometimes there is not a little truth in the observation. The preacher generally is actively working to save the lost, to restore the erring, and the keep others faithful. Some who are elders are busy at work mowing yards, painting classrooms, cleaning the baptistry, and other works which need to be done around the building. These jobs could be given to deacons or other members who lack the spiritual qualifications to do the work which elders should be doing. The result is that some elders, even many conscientious ones, are not doing the work which God assigned for them to do.

Some elderships seem more concerned about the upkeep of the physical facilities than they do in the saving of the lost souls. They are constantly looking for things which need to be done to the building but generally are negligent of the needs of the sheep and the expanding of the borders of the kingdom of God. More time is spent in the business meetings discussing the maintenance of the church building than in how to reach the lost.

Conclusion

God has placed a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of elders. Those with whom I have been associated have been honorable men whose faith I have sought to emulate. I do not write as one who has been disgruntled working with elders whom I could not respect. Rather, I write to call the attention of all God-fearing elders to the great work to take up the task before us with zeal, working among the flock of God to meet the spiritual needs of God’s people.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, pp. 162, 184
March 20, 1986

By Wayne Greeson

In the July 9, 1985 issue of Firm Foundation, under the paper’s question column, Roy C. Deaver responded to the following request submitted by a reader, “Would you please discuss Galatians 6:10 and 2 Corinthians 9:13 in relation to the ‘Saints Only’ doctrine? I am enclosing some material for you.” Deaver’s response involved a lengthy review of the material sent to him, although the author of the material was never named. Throughout his article, Deaver jousts with this unknown author in an attempt to prove that Galatians 6:10 and 2 Corinthians 9:13 support the proposition that the church may provide benevolence to those who are not saints. This article endeavors to expose the false reasoning and unsupported arguments used by Deaver in his attempt to support his doctrine.

Setting Up A Strawman

Deaver begins his review by charging his anonymous opponent with failing to either set up an “argument” or proving his case that “Galatians 6:10 is addressed to the individual saints and not to the church.” However, it appears from those portions that Deaver quoted and by his lengthy refutation that both an argument and proof were offered. The reason Deaver makes such a charge is apparently due to his fascination with “formal arguments” in syllogistic form. In his writings and in his debate with brother J.T. Smith, Deaver persistently presents his arguments in syllogisms. Apparently, Deaver concludes that any argument that is not set forth in a syllogism is not an “argument,” and neither true nor “proved.”

Deaver exalts form over substance. An argument does not have to be in the form of a syllogism to be a valid argument and its conclusion true. Likewise, simply putting an argument into a syllogism does not make its conclusion true. Jesus did not have to argue in syllogisms to make a valid argument of truth (see, Mt. 22:15-46). What must be examined to determine whether or not an argument is true is its substance, not its form. And God’s Word is the final court of appeal for truth in matters of religion. This was always Christ’s criteria in examining arguments. Christ’s response to a lawyer trying to test Him was “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” (Lk. 10:26)

Once Deaver denies the writer he is reviewing had “set up an argument,” he proceeds to set up the following syllogism for the writer and then he reviews the syllogism he creates!

Major Premise: All passages which authorize the performance of acts, and which passages make specific reference to individual acts to be performed exclusively to individual Christians, are passages which authorize the indicated acts to be performed exclusively by the individual Christian – not by a church.

Minor Premise: Galatians 6:10 is a passage with authorizes the performance of acts and which passage makes specific reference to individual Christians.

Conclusion: Galatians 6:10 is a passage which authorizes the indicated acts to be performed exclusively by individual Christians – not by a church.

With a strawman argument of his own making set up, Deaver concludes summarily that “The major premise is false! Therefore, the conclusion is not demanded by the premises.” Deaver is right. His syllogism is wordy, cumbersome, ambiguous and a mere strawman, a false argument which misrepresents the position he proposes to review.

Deaver’s major premise is false! Because a New Testament passage of Scripture authorize individual Christians to perform certain acts, the same passage does not necessarily preclude the church from performing the same acts. Other New Testament passages may provide authority for the church to perform the acts. If the remainder of the New Testament is silent concerning the church performing these acts, then the church is not authorized to perform these acts. The New Testament passages which authorizes individual Christians to perform certain acts do not preclude the church from performing those same acts; the silence of God precludes the church from acting!

For example, while 1 John 3:16-17 authorizes individual Christians to provide for other Christians in need, it does not preclude the church as a collective to provide for Christians in need. There are several other New Testament passages which authorize the church to perform this action (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-39; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9; 1 Tim. 5:16). If the New Testament did not contain these passages then the silence of God would preclude the church as a collective providing for Christians in need.

Deaver devotes one of his two arguments beating the straw out of this strawman. Deaver quotes the writer he is reviewing as supporting the view that Galatian 6:6, “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches,” instructs individual Christians to support preachers. Deaver goes on and argues, “Then, amazingly enough, the writer says: ‘Other scriptures teach the collective (emph. mine, RD) may do so.’ Note again: ‘Individual support of preachers. Other scriptures teach the collective may do so.’ Then, it is clear that authorization of individual action does not exclude or preclude authorization of congregational action! And, this gets to the very heart of ‘antiism.'”

In actuality, Deaver’s argument gets to the very best of his false major premise and reveals the argument he sets up as a strawman. If Galatians 6:6 authorizes individual support of preachers (this writer does not believe that is the subject of consideration), then it does not preclude the authorization of church support of a preacher, since such authority is clearly found in several other passages such as 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 and Philippians 4:10-18.

Because Deaver’s statement of the “anti” argument is a strawman of his own making with a false major premise, I propose a valid and true statement of the argument:

Major Premise: A New Testament passage which authorizes individual Christians to act does not authorize the church as a collective body to act.

Minor Premise: Galatians 6:10 is a New Testament passage which authorizes individual Christians to act.

Conclusion: Galatians 6:10 is a New Testament passage which does not authorize the church as a collective body to act.

The True Heart Of The Issue

Deaver’s arguments do not deny that the minor premise above is true, that Galatians 6:10 authorizes individual Christians to act nor does he deny that Galatians 6:10 is an instruction on individual responsibilites. Deaver writes, “The Book of Galatians is addressed to ‘the churches of Galatia’ (Gal. 1:2). Certainly, it is the case that congregational responsibilities will include individual responsibilities. I, therefore, will expect to find in the book certain reference to individual responsibilities. However, such references do not mean that these references have no application to congregational responsibilities.”

Deaver admits that although Galatians is addressed to “the churches of Galatia” that certain passages in the letter instruct on individual responsibilities and by inference he indicates that Galatians 6:10 is one such passage.

While Deaver agrees that Galatians 6: 10 is an instruction to individual Christians, he asserts that Galatians 6:10 also provides authority for the church as a collective body to act. The major premise above sets forth the very heart of the argument and Deaver’s article. Deaver argues for the exact opposite of the major premise and pronounces the following “rule”: “All passages which authorize the performance of an act – based upon the peculiar grounds of one’s being a Christian – are passages which apply with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian. . . . If Galatians 6:10 authorizes individual Christians to render physical assistance (benevolence) to a deserving, needy, non-Christian, then Galatians 6:10 authorizes the church to render physical assistance (benevolence) to a deserving, needy, non-Christian.”

Deaver appears to reason that since passages which authorize certain kinds of individual action do not preclude authorization of congregational action, then those passages do provide authority for congregational action. Deaver’s conclusion does not follow from his premises. Because a pasasage does not preclude congregational action, it does not follow that the same passage authorizes congregational action.

Deaver’s argument is the equivalent of those who seek to use instruments of music in worship of God. The Christian Church preacher can truthfully argue that Ephesians 5:19 authorizes singing and does not preclude instrumental music. But it does not follow that Ephesians 5:19 provides authority for instruments. While Ephesians 5:19 does not preclude the use of instruments in worship, the silence of God in the New Testament concerning instruments in worship does preclude them.

Likewise, while Galatians 6:10 authorizes individual Christians to act, Galatians 6:10 standing alone does not preclude the church as a collective body from acting. But neither does Galatians 6:10, a plain instruction to individuals, provide any authority for the church to act. God is silent in the New Testament regarding the church providing beinevolence to non-Christians and this silence is authoritative in precluding the church from taking such action.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, pp. 144-145
March 6, 1986