Truth Magazine

By Bill Robinson, Jr.

One does not tote a “party line” simply because his thinking conforms to long standing practice. One can read the Bible and study for himself what the Bible teaches on any given subject without regard to the “status quo” among brethren, and should so study. If that individual’s conclusion happens to be “what we have always done,” that does not make him a “Party man.” Perhaps those inclined to think so have never stopped to consider that “what we have always done” may be right in the matter. It is never right because “we have always done it.” However, if the Bible teaches something and that is why “we have always done it,” then it is always right!

It is unfortunate when the work of elders, for whatever reason, falls into disrepute. Abuses by the eldership are just as wrong as congregational abuse of the elders! Extremism is not the answer in combating either abuse. Patient study and a willingness to understand the Scriptures will provide the solution. Contending for either position because of “long standing practice” or personal disbelief of Scriptures because it does not “mesh with my think so’s” only serve to aggravate the problem.

The work of the elders seems to run afoul most often when the elders do not measure up to our own personal standard! The terms “shepherd” and “bishop” which are used to describe men working as elders (Acts 20:12-28) provide within themselves, a fair estimate of the general nature of such work. Both terms carry with them the idea of superintending, supervision, and guardianship. A shepherd supervises the feeding of the flock over which he has been given charge. A bishop oversees (superintends) the affairs and/or work of another. Inherent in both terms are provision, protection and guardianship (consult Vine, Thayer, etc.).

The act of supervising, superintending, and overseeing, which is to be done by elders, is limited to the flock which is among them (1 Pet. 5:1-3). It is further limited to the souls of the flock (Heb. 13:17). It is a spiritual provision and protection that encompasses their work. However, that does not preclude their use of judgment or physical means and resources to determine and ensure that protection and provision of the flock of which they have church. They could, in and of themselves, determine that a brother or sister was in need and thus use the resources of their oversight to relieve such a need. The brethren in Antioch “determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders . . .” (Acts 11:29-30). Why did they send it to the elders? We answer that question by asking another: who had the “oversight” of the brethren in Judea? The elders among them. What were the elders to do with it? They were to “exercise the oversight” of it and make provision for the needy “among them.” Did they have to ask the congregation how to use the relief they had received? If so, where is their oversight? The fact is, in and of themselves, the elders could determine that a brother or sister was in need and thus use the relief to provide and protect such an one. That is “exercising the oversight.”

I am opposed to abuses of divine revelation wherever they may be found and without regard for whoever may be guilty! As to specific instructions and/or examples regarding the methodology employed by First Century elderships to arrive at various decisions confronting them, we are limited. What examples (i.e., Acts 11:29-30) and subsequent general information we do have regarding such matters are necessarily implied by the specific instructions laid down by the Holy Spirit pertaining to the work of elders (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:1ff; Tit. 1:5ff, etc.). We cannot ignore plain Bible passages to deny the oversight encompassed in the work of elders.

The oversight of elders is to be exercised with due consideration of the congregation’s right and need to be provided for. It is difficult at best to see how this can be achieved by elders who neither discuss nor are open to the suggestions of the flock. By the same token, I have little sympathy for the malcontent who engages in constant murmurings and criticisms of the elders and their seeming failures bu will not face the elders privately to discuss his complaints with them (1 Tim. 5:19-20).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, p. 137
March 6, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

You became a member of the church that belongs to Christ when you were baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). The Lord added you to the number of His followers, metaphorically assembled, when you became obedient to the faith (Acts 2:36-41,47). As a member of the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) you accepted certain obligations: to submit to His leadership revealed in His word; and to give yourself freely to the service of your Lord (Rom. 6:17-18; 1 Pet. 3:15). This is your status whether you become a member of a local church or not. But the Scriptures clearly teach you to work and worship with other brethren (Heb. 10:25). Their presence and accessibility, present both privilege and obligation to all who would be faithful to Christ.

Saints who have agreed to function as a team, under overseers and through servants, become a “church” in the local organized sense (Phil. 1:1; 4:15). This “church” is made up of members of the universal body of Christ, yet has some distinctive roles – is not to be confused with the whole body of Christ, nor with individual members thereof. Believers are to care for their widows, “and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed” (1 Tim. 5:16). A distinction is made between a plurality of saints engaged in a spiritual work, and “the church” (Matt. 18:17). Elders are to shepherd the flock “which is among you” – they have local church obligations (1 Pet. 5:1-3; Tit. 1:5; Acts 14:23). Letters to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 2:3) show clearly the distinctive nature of local churches. In becoming a member of a local church you accept obligations there also. You should not enter into local church membership without understanding the obligations and responsibilities that go with that relationship.

Team Responsibilities

This means you give up some independence to function collectively. There could be no effective team work if each member operated with his own judgment, with no regard for the team effort. A local church must operate with a common mind, i.e., agreement in judgment. The elders lead in forming this judgment, and as a sheep you are to follow your shepherds (1 Thess. 5:12f). For a more current illustration: to play football as a team, each player must act in keeping with the play called by the quarterback or coach.

As much of the work done will be via some medium of exchange (money), you are obligated to bear your share of this load. The collection on the First Day of the week is a means of pooling resources so that team work can be done. When a planned program is announced, and you help finance that program, you are doing some share of that work – pulling with the team. But your participation also means you share in the responsibility for what is done. If you cannot conscientiously support your local church program you had better change it, or join a team you believe is serving the Lord faithfully (Rom. 14:22-23).

Mutual Assistance

Church members sometimes seem to think their presence at service and their contribution to the treasury is the whole of their relationship to the local church. This ignores a most vital reason for collective work. Hebrews 10:25 gives “exhorting one another” (encouraging) as the basic purpose for assembling. We must learn to think of the local church as a mutual encouragement society: brethren banded together to help one another go to heaven. In public worship we “teach and admonish” by our singing (Col. 3:16). We edify one another even as we pray (1 Cor. 14:14-17). The Lord’s Supper recalls Christ’s sacrifice in our behalf and we “show the Lord’s death till he come” (11:23-26). Every member is told: “comfort yourselves together, and edify one another. . . ” (1 Thess. 5:11).

And mutual assistance goes far beyond public worship. Fellow Christians enter into a pact to “bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). This involves seeking to correct the errors of one another (v. 1). When you enter into covenant relationship with other brethren, you accept the obligation to correct and encourage others; and agree that they should correct and encourage you. You are to love your brethren, not in word only, but in deed and truth (1 Jn. 3:16-19). True love removes the chips from our shoulders. It suffers long and is kind, envies not, does not parade itself, is not puffed up, does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not easily provoked, etc. (see 1 Cor. 13). These things need to be remembered when correcting, and when being corrected. If you have missed this aspect of fellowship in a local church, you are depriving others, and yourself, of help every saint needs and has a right to expect.

People Are Different

Yes they are, and joining hands in the Lord’s service does not remove all differences. Occupations, hobbies, financial status, regional customs, age, and many other personal differences will dictate friendships and associations. There is no reason to expect these differences to vanish when we become members of the same local church. But if we will concentrate on what we have in common: on our love for the Lord, and desire to do His will; we will not allow personal differences to destroy our more noble purpose. We may, in fact, learn to share with one another to such an extent that our differences only expand the field of our church work. We can help one another “fill out” what is lacking in each of us, so that our differences become our balance and our strength.

A very few, who “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27), will be a mighty force for good. Remember the church at Smyrna, rich in God’s sight (Rev. 2:8-11); and determine to do all possible to make the church where you are a member, a Christ-approved church.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, pp. 135, 149
March 6, 1986

By Donald P. Ames

The Roman Catholic Church has long been famous (or should we say infamous) for the hoaxes which they have come up with. The interesting thing is that there are always so many people ready to believe them, and usually somewhere down the line, it adds to the treasury of local Catholic Churches. Consequently, when claims are made relative to “saint-hood” and “miracles,” most of us familiar with such a history have learned to take them with a grain of salt.

Teary, Bloody Statue

The latest hoax comes from Ste.- Marthe-aur-le-lac, Quebec. Here it seems a statue of the “Virgin Mary” was in the possession of one Jean-Guy Beauregard, a railroad worker in Montreal. On December 8, the statue was said to begin weeping (memories of similar events in Chicago and other cities in the U.S.). Word began to spread quickly, and soon crowds began to gather. Due to objections from the landlord, the statue was then moved to the home of Maurice and Claudette Girouard in Ste.-Marthe. In January, tears were not enough. The Girouards then reported to reporters that the tears on the statue began to mix with blood. Crowds continued to come. In less than a week over 12,000 people came to see the “miracle.” Newspapers and TV were brought in to spread the phenomenon.

However, like most hoaxes, sooner or later someone is going to catch on – and usually the “miracle” is moved elsewhere and passed off on another group of gullible people who want to believe such wild claims. Well, in this case, it seems the bubble burst early. The owner, when confronted with some scientific work done by the Canadian Broadcast Corp. on another tear-stained icon, broke down and admitted that the bloody tears were actually drops of oil that he had mixed with his own blood to produce the effect! Of course, the confession will likely be hidden from most Catholics, as the “miracle” is then moved to another city (or someone else tries to duplicate the act).

Those Tears

There was some other rather interesting work also discovered relative to the “tears” that had appeared as well. Since this has occurred in cities in the U.S., I thought some of our readers might like a little inside information on the probable source here as well. It seems, upon close examination, that the tears were not actual at all. In fact, what was found was that the face had been coated with pork and beef fat that would naturally liquefy in droplets and run like tears once the room was slightly warmed.

Such being the case, one is made to wonder if that is not what happened to the statues here in the U.S. that suddenly began “crying” in the past year. And also, one wonders why such an examination was not performed here to refute such a hoax?

Source

According to the article, which appeared in the Indianapolis Star (January 18, 1986), there was another interesting little side-light to this whole episode. It turned out the Maurice Girouard, who had spokesman for the “miracle,” had also been previously convicted twice of practicing medicine illegally. That ought to cast a real cloud of credibility over any further such claims.

My point is simply that most such “miracles,” as some may wish to call’ them, have an explanation if one really wants to took for it. But us the Catholic Church is too busy enjoying the publicity to try to truthfully find a solution. Oh yes, they will keep their distance (“We do not take a stand on it, do not know all the details, it may be an exaggeration of the marvelous,” etc.) but rarely will they deny it, decline the publicity, or pursue the practice and publicly expose the fraud. This way they get the glory – and if the fraud is discovered, they have covered their tracks. If not, they can move to another town and produce another “miracle.” And the public flock to the event for all the publicity they get out of it.

Well, let’s expose this thing as widely as we can, and maybe people will pause and ask a few questions first the next time. In the words of the apostle Paul, “Be not deceived.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, p. 138
March 6, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: God did not allow the Israelites to eat blood. Is it scriptural for us to eat blood today? Please explain Acts 5:20, 29.

Reply: The question about circumcision had been raised at Antioch in Syria. Concerning this controversy, Luke wrote: “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:1,2). It was the decision of the brethren at Jerusalem, confirming what the Holy Spirit had already revealed, that the Gentiles abstain from four things: things sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication (v. 251).

There has been some discussion as to what is meant by abstaining from blood. Some think that it means to abstain from murder. Others believe that it means to abstain from eating of blood as forbidden by the law of Moses. “The blood” here seems clearly to be the blood of animals which should not be eaten (Lev. 17:10-15). It was a heathen practice to catch the blood from an animal in a container and drink it. The Israelites were not allowed to do this, because God plainly said that “the life of all flesh is the blood” (see Lev. 17:13, 14; Deut. 12:23). God’s people were instructed to pour out the blood of the animal that had been killed (Lev. 17:13). God had already forbidden Noah and his descendants to eat blood (Gen. 9:4), so the prohibition was not confined to the law of Moses.

We must not presuppose that eating blood is permitted today. Some have thought that the decision at the Jerusalem conference was made as an expediency – that it was applied to the Gentiles, because if they failed to observe it, the Jews who had always refrained from the practice, would be offended. This, however, is an assumption without proof. Already we have shown that God had prohibited the act of eating blood even in the time of Noah, long before the law of Moses was given. The eating of blood is forbidden throughout the Scriptures. The same reason for not eating blood before and during the law of Moses prevails today. We cannot assume that the same reason that existed then does not exist today. In fact, there is no evidence that it ever was revoked. “The life of the flesh is in the blood.” This is the reason that God gives for not eating it, thus it remains true.

The blood of Christ atones for the sins of the world (Rom. 5:8-11). The death penalty was ordained by God and was imposed upon anyone who “sheddeth man’s blood” (Gen. 9:6). This should be reason enough that God has always forbidden the eating of blood.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, p. 133
March 6, 1986