Truth Magazine

By Randy Medlin

I won’t name the congregation lest we embarrass someone unduly. But it finally happened. The Gospel meeting was going on throughout the week. The preacher also happened to be the coach for the Pee Wee Football league. Friday night was the Gospel meeting night. But Friday night was also tournament night for the preacher’s football team. Guess where he was? That’s right. Guess what the congregation immediately did? That’s right too. Fired on the spot. We won’t have a preacher whose spiritual priorities are so misarranged as to attend a football game over a gospel meeting.

I can understand their displeasure. What I can’t understand is why those same brethren can’t apply the same spiritual standard to themselves. A Gospel meeting is going on at the local congregation. Brother A misses on Monday because it’s bowling night. Brother and sister B on Tuesday night because there is a movie on the television they have really been wanting to see. Sister C can’t make it on Wednesday night because she worked hard all day and was just too tired. The D family was working in the yard, taking advantage of Daylight Saving Time, and when they looked down at their watch, what do you know – it was 7: 15. No way they could get ready and go. Brother E considers it his Christian “duty” to go at least one night, and so Thursday’s the night. Oh, and don’t forget brother and sister F – they had company come in Thursday afternoon. “We haven’t seen them in four months, so we just can’t go.”

But come Friday night and the preacher’s not there! What in the world could that man be thinking! We’ve got to get a man who “seeks first the kingdom.” Rightly so. The man was in error. But most of the preachers I know are looking for members who also “seek first the kingdom.” Are you one?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 111
February 20, 1986

By Tommy L. McClure

Introduction

Please note that the word “wrong” is in quotation marks in the title, indicating an accommodative or adaptive use of the word.

Many sermons have been preached and scores of articles have been written on the subject of attitudes. Yet, I make no apology for adding another article to the list; the matters herein set forth need to be stressed repeatedly.

When faithful gospel preachers openly and vigorously oppose denominationalism, sins of immorality, sins of the tongue, digression, compromise, etc., they are often accused of having “the wrong attitude.” That the accusation may be, and probably is, just in some cases, will be readily granted by all fair-minded persons. On the other hand, all must admit that in many cases the accusation is untrue and unjust, and made by those who have the wrong attitude themselves for the purpose of lessening the influence of the person who has opposed their sinful practice or that of some of their close friends. In view of this all too prevalent condition among members of the Lord’s church, we need to go back to the divine blueprint and consider some statements that were made by servants of God, men guided by the Holy Spirit, in Bible times.

Stephen Before The Council

The account of Stephen before the Jewish council is available to all who will read (Acts 6,7). The kind of man Stephen was is made clear. The apostles said, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost. . . ” (Acts 6:3-5). Thus, the saints in Jerusalem regarded Stephen as a man “of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom; ” and Luke, the inspired historian, spoke of him as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost. ” Surely, the attitudes and manners of such a man are worth considering.

Stephen was not adverse to religious discussions as are some preacher-attitude criticizers of today. ” . . there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (6:9,10).

Unable to make any progress for their cause by debating with Stephen, his enemies suborned (“secretly persuaded” – NIV) false witnesses who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God” (6:11). They further said, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law” (6:13). This was done in a determined and desperate attempt to obstruct the onward march of truth! Needless to say, this was not the first or last time such has been done.

In chapter 7 Stephen gave a rather detailed resume of God’s dealings with the Israelites in which he emphasized God’s goodness toward them and their unfaithfulness toward Him. He concluded by saying, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so did ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it” (7:51-53).

My, my! What a “bad” and “repulsive” attitude Stephen must have had! The very idea of telling people to their face that they are stiff-necked! The very thought of a preacher being so “unwise” and “harsh” as to call people betrayers and murderers and accuse them of being so depraved as to resist the Holy Spirit! “Had the charge been so,” Stephen should have known he “wouldn’t get anywhere” by making it, and would “only make bad matters worse.” Evidently, Stephen had not learned the “first lesson of tact.” And, as though all that weren’t enough, Stephen had such a “cruel” attitude that he tried his best to “embarrass” those 66patient listeners” by bringing up things their fathers had done before them, things over which they had no control whatsoever! What a “pity” that Stephen acted so “unwisely” and “drove so many precious souls away from the church! ” If he had just used a little “wisdom” and “spoken in a kinder tone of voice” many of these “poor lost souls” would be “saved” today! It is no wonder these people stoned Stephen; he “asked for it” and “had it coming to him.”

Who believes it? Not I, for one! Yet, this is the way some people talk about the attitude of preachers who vigorously condemn sins of which they (or some of their friends or relatives) are guilty. If Stephen were living today, I seriously doubt that he would last as long as a snow ball on the Fourth of July in some churches “of Christ” (?).

John The Baptist

John The Baptist stands near the top of the list of Bible characters who had the “wrong” attitude. He was so “harsh” and “bitter” that “. . when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, 0 generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also is the axe laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” (Matt. 3:7-10).

Why the very idea of a preacher telling people to their face that they were a “generation of vipers!” How “unfortunate” it was that this “rash, name calling” preacher took such an “unfair advantage” of these “prominent people of the community.” Had John’s statements been directed by “prudence” and “love,” he could have influenced these “respectable citizens” to “accept him.” He should have known that their hearers are in danger of being cast into the fire!

Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Yet like statements are being made by the soft set in many congregations today when faithful preachers stand foursquare against error and sin.

The Apostle Paul

The apostle Paul is another Bible character who had the “wrong” attitude. In spite of his statement, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9), his attitude was very “unbecoming and repulsive.”

Luke reveals the fact that when Sergius Paulus, a prudent man called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God, Elymas, the sorcerer, withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith (Acts 13:6-11). Just look at what Paul told him: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (v. 10) He could have said, “Sir, it appears to me that you might be in error on this matter and that the course you have taken might be ill-advised. However, I don’t want to appear to be offensive to anybody, so if you think best I’ll say nothing more to your friend. After all, I certainly don’t want to break up such a nice friendship as you men have established.” But no, not Paul! He was so “ill-tempered” that he turned on this “poor sorcerer” like a lion; he told him he was full, not just tainted with, but full of all subtlety and mischief; called him a child of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness; and, as if that were not enough to “hurt his feelings,” he accused him of perverting the right ways of the Lord! Paul was a “good one” to be talking about the Spirit of Christ!

Silly, isn’t it? As Paul said, “I speak after the manner of men” (Gal. 3:15). You know as well as do I that if a preacher were “guilty” of saying that (or something akin to it) today to the most ungodly rascal on earth, many churches “of Christ” (?) wouldn’t have him! Because of his “bad attitude,” it is very doubtful that the apostle Paul would be “owed to preach in any of the “marching” and “morally liberated” churches of the present time.

Jesus Christ

Among Bible characters who had the “wrong” attitude, the Lord Jesus Christ stands at the very top of the list. Note one example: “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Matt. 21:12,13).

Isn’t that something? How “rash” and “unwise” and “discourteous” can a person be? And, what makes it “look so bad” is that Jesus seemingly did that without any warning whatsoever. The very idea of taking such an “unfair advantage”! The very idea of “running people off” that way! Didn’t the Lord know He would never be able to have any “influence” over them in the future? Didn’t He know that He would never be able to teach them the truth if He “ran them off”? If the tables of the money changers and the seats of the dove sellers were offensive to the Lord, He could have kindly asked the men who operated them to set them aside and thus displayed a “Christian-like attitude.” If He had gone about it “in the right spirit” they might have taken them out without a murmur. But the Lord was one of those fellows who “didn’t know how to win friends and influence people” nor “how to get things done.” He was so “uncouth” that He literally turned the tables and seats over and accused the men who operated them of being a bunch of thieves! It’s a wonder He wasn’t crucified before He was!

Again, I have spoken “after the manner of men ” – men who have a distorted and unscriptural concept of love and the Spirit of Christ and who put a higher estimate on the friendship of worldings than on the truth of God’ Jesus Christ did not have the wrong attitude! Yet, if the Lord were on the earth and did such as that described in Matthew 21:12,13 – it matters not where He might do it – some professed Christians would cry: “Wrong attitude! Harsh! Unkind! Unchristian! No trace of the Spirit of Christ!”

Conclusion

This article has not been written for the purpose of defending any attitude that is really wrong or any action that is truly unchristian on the part of this preacher nor any other. It is written for the purpose of causing people to think; for the purpose of causing people to see both sides of the attitude question. Let’s all strive at all times to manifest the right attitude. That is surely important! But when our wrong doings are condemned, let’s make the necessary corrections, instead of trying to pass the matter off by saying, “That preacher just has the wrong attitude.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 112-113
February 20, 1986

By David McClister

The apostle Peter tells us that Jesus left us an example which we are to follow (1 Pet. 2:21). It is the job of every follower of Christ – anyone who takes it upon himself to be called by Christ’s name “Christian” – to copy that example as best he can, regardless of whatever else he may do. It is really senseless to call oneself a Christian if he is not going to follow the example and teachings of Christ. “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 12:46) Thus as we live from day to day we must constantly keep the example of Christ before us. We must discipline ourselves to think of Him and His example all the time.

If we are to do this successfully, it will require that we turn the example of Christ into the habit of our lives. We must form the habit of asking, in every situation, “Would Jesus do this if He were in my place now?” Others have said that this is the “acid test” of what it means on the practical level to follow Christ’s example, and they are correct. It is a matter of living as He lived.

Please consider three kinds of forms of behavior which are popular among some, and let us ask “Would Jesus do this?”

Would Jesus Do Anything, The Morality of Which Was Questionable?

In God’s law there are some things which are always right and some things which are always wrong. For example, it is always wrong to steal, and it is always right to pray. But there are some things which are neither right nor wrong in themselves; they are morally neutral or indifferent. Eating meats is an example of this kind of activity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12-13). However, just because an activity is itself morally neutral, does not at all mean that it may never have a moral effect upon the one who practices it. A thing may be lawful but not always profitable (expedient) for the one who does it (1 Cor.6:12a). If doing it will be unprofitable or harmful spiritually, then the Christian ought not to engage himself in it (even though the act itself is morally neutral). Furthermore, a thing may be lawful but addictive in some way, leading to a measure of control over the Christian’s life. If this happens, then that morally neutral activity should be abandoned (1 Cor. 6:12b).

We all know that Jesus never sinned, but it is just as true that He never engaged Himself in any morally neutral activity which, even though not sinful in itself gave a doubtful impression. In every situation we find Jesus doing that which was above question. This is remarkable in light of the fact that we are specifically told by the gospel writers that Jesus’ enemies watched Him carefully, hoping to find something in which to accuse Him (see Mk. 3:2; Jn. 8:4-6; Lk. 11:53f). They looked for anything and found nothing. Throughout His life He remained sinless and above question.

But did not the Pharisees question Jesus’ eating with the sinners and publicans? Did not that activity give a questionable impression to others? The truth of the matter is that it was questionable only to those who thought that they were perfect or that they were better than others. The scribes and Pharisees were generally arrogant, conceited hypocrites. Only this kind of person saw Jesus’ activities in a questionable light, not the common man. Furthermore, Jesus never once worried about how He appeared to the self-righteous. Thus the charges of the Pharisees were not valid.

Now as we attempt to imitate Christ, we must never engage ourselves in anything that may be deemed questionable behavior. Sure, the arrogant and the self-righteous of the world will question nearly everything we do, but their opinions are not the ones we should value. We should try our best to make sure that, in the eyes of those who think rationally, we are not doing things which, even though not wrong in themselves, may leave a questionable impression because of the circumstances or nature of the activity itself.

For example, playing golf is a morally neutral activity. God neither condones nor condemns it (actually He permits it, but does not bind it). But playing golf may leave a questionable impression to the world if it means that one must necessarily engage with drunkards or liars in order to do it. In that case, the activity itself is not wrong, but the circumstances in which it is practiced leave a morally questionable impression. If playing golf means that you must be identified with liars, drunkards, etc., then you should not play. Nor should you play if golf becomes an obsession with you, one that controls you (instead of you controlling it).

Playing golf is a fairly innocent example to use. But let us consider some popular practices which are not so innocent.

Smoking: Would Jesus Do That?

Assuming that smoking is a nonmoral practice (which assumption is very questionable), sit down with your Bible, read the life of Christ and then see if you could honestly ever picture Jesus with a cigarette. Can you see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, saying “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” with a cigarette hanging from His lips? I cannot. Can you imagine our Lord talking with the Samaritan woman at the well about living water, and pausing ever so often in the conversation to “take a drag”? Is our picture of Him delivering the Sermon on the Mount one which includes flicking the ashes off of a burning cigarette stuck between two fingers? I think not. Such a portrait of Jesus is completely contradictory to everything we see of Him in the Bible. Furthermore, smoking is addictive (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12).

Dancing: Would Jesus Do That?

It is sometimes heard that there is really nothing wrong with dancing. It is, according to the thinking of some, simply a harmless social activity, good exercise, etc. In other words, the attempt is made to identify dancing as a morally neutral activity. I do not believe that dancing is morally neutral, but let us just grant that much for the sake of argument and ask, “Would Jesus do it?” Dancing is ordinarily synonymous with lust and indecent actions. That is exactly why it is so popular (and it is naive to think otherwise). Jesus never engaged Himself in such an activity so as to let others think that He condoned the lust that goes along with it. And if Jesus did not, neither should His followers.

Wearing Immodest Clothing: Would Jesus Do That?

“But! say unto you, that everyone that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Would Jesus have uttered these words if He Himself wore immodest and revealing clothes? Is the picture we have of Jesus one of wearing short shorts, no shirt, and sandals simply because the weather was hot? The fact is that Jesus’ influence was always pure, and nothing less than pure. He never did anything that was even questionable morally. Clearly, Jesus did not regard the matter of clothing simply as something which was only a concern to society. That is, it was not a morally neutral matter in His eyes. Even if it were, the New Testament cannot allow us to hold to a view of Jesus which would allow His clothing to cast suspicion upon His moral stance or character. Even if it were not wrong, Jesus would not have done it.

There are many things which some claim are morally neutral but in fact are not. Even if we could grant those assertions, we still could not picture Jesus engaging Himself in them. We must examine everything we do in the light of the example of Jesus. We must prove our own selves, whether we be in faith (2 Cor. 13:5).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 108-109
February 20, 1986

By Keith Pruitt

In the book, Set Forth Your Case, Clark H. Pinnock states, “Man is in the process of self destruction in the twentieth century” (1967, Craig Press, p. 48). Clark’s assessment is based upon the rapid move of man from romanticism to nihilism. Several examples are given including the works of Nietzsche and the various artistic endeavors of the absurd. The rise of suicide is merely an indication, he explains, of man’s frustration. As people continue to refuse God a place in their lives, they are faced with the bitter reality of their unrealistic dreams. Try as hard as he will, man is a creature who needs God.

Every facet of one’s life is touched by God and His revelation to man. Without God, life is as absurd as leaves upon an October ground with no trees to explain their existence. Indeed, life without God has no purpose, stability or order. Human life and the rights of freedom fade into meaningless jargon without the solid foundation of biblical morality.

Humanism seeks to fulfill the desires of the beast while causing standards, especially of morality, to become non-functional. Rationalism, the propagating of intellectual reasoning as the basis of any belief, has garnered little hope as man seeks to explain, or explain away, past beliefs or experiences in the light of better “knowledge.” Evolution has done little but add to the misery of human indignities as men and nations struggle for survival in a world seeking to find who is the fittest. So one is given a mixture of all of the above as he is educated in secular schools and is bombarded with these philosophies in music, art, television, magazines, etc. The result can be but absurdism. Truly Solomon has said, “All is vanity and a striving after the wind.”

But our concern just here is different from an examination of how secular society has been influenced by the tenets of humanistic philosophies. The influence of secular humanism can readily be seen in the religious fields as well. Theologians of the sixties declared God to be dead. Many leading teachers in denominational circles followed swiftly to discard the Bible declaring it as mere literature to be placed on the shelf beside Plato. They suggested that the Bible failed to address modern needs or that its teachings were old fashioned.

Belief in the miracles of the Bible was ridiculed as superstition. Evolution rapidly became championed by religious leaders as they endeavored to step into the mainstream of philosophical thought. Religious institutions became little more than social clubs even being fully equipped with the latest recreational equipment. Doctrines that were traditional 1 with denominations such as total depravity and the punishment of the wicked in hell were de-emphasized. Man became exalted even in the strictest Calvinistic groups. Campaigns against hunger, poverty, mental anguish and other social ills became the emphasis of the religious community. Debates on doctrinal issues, which had occurred frequently in the 1800s, became rare as few thought these issues to be of any significance.

Movements toward unity within denominationalism were frequent. The United Church of Christ and United Methodist Churches were products of such movements. Doctrinal issues were easily overcome (or avoided) in order to bring about these mergers. The goal of these groups was to be found in the secularization of religious thought. The social gospel (nothing more than humanism in religion) had gone to seed. The plants were springing up everywhere. God had not died, but theology had.

This has described the plight of mainstream denominationalism. One might wonder why such would be of any importance. But I now invite the reader to go back and retrace there thoughts taking denominationalism out of the pictures and replacing it with our own brethren. Brethren, the drift has ended; the separation is sure!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 116
February 20, 1986