Truth Magazine

By Bill Cavender

Dear brethren ___________ and ____________,

Your letters to me, printed in the July 4, 1985, issue of Guardian of Truth, mention a number of matters regarding relationships between congregations and preachers. In discussing difficulties and problems which are encountered from time to time, we must ever be mindful of all the good blessings and spiritually edifying associations, works and fellowship that we do have with brethren. We should try, earnestly so, to always have an optimistic and constructive attitude toward our brethren, a spirit of kindness and goodwill and patience, and to really want to be helpful and improve any situation which may not be right. I do not want these letters to you to be construed as being one-sided or biased in favor of preachers. I am trying to be as objective as possible in what I am thinking and writing to you, that both preachers and brethren may be instructed, and be more considerate in our relationships with one another. God knows, and I know, and most brethren know, that we could all learn and practice the gospel a great deal better in our associations and working relationships with one another. There is far too much friction between preachers and congregations. Far too many preachers leave congregations in hurtful, sad, divisive conditions. Far too many brethren, in their unfair treatment of preachers, do not care what effect their ill-treatment of preachers and their families will have on the congregation(s) or upon ‘their communities. The gospel is hindered, churches are divided or weakened, preachers and their families are hurt for years and years due to a lack of brotherly kindness, patience, love and understanding between those very brethren who should be spiritually mature enough to know better and to avoid conflicts, fights, and alienations which are unnecessary. Comparatively few “conservative” churches are really at peace, working and growing spiritually and numerically, with true brotherly love existing among the brethren. Most congregation are plagued by nagging problems and opinions, under-the-rug differences, which might erupt at any time given the right set of circumstances. And almost all of these divisive principles and practices are caused by and instigated by the “pillars” or “leading brethren” in the churches, including preachers.

You speak of “big churches” with “big name preachers,” and their attitudes toward young men who want to preach. You mention how these young men “go out into the boondocks” as inexperienced preachers, to wrestle with “small country churches that have been sitting there for years doing nothing.” You mention how discouraging this is, with the problems young preachers have to cope with in such churches where they are “hounded and run off,”. and how it ought to be that older preachers would be sent “out to the boondocks” to “take on the brethren who just sit back and wait for fresh meat of the young preacher.” You mention that there are not enough bigger churches which will use young preachers as “a second preacher,” to teach and train them, to let them gain experience, and you say that young preachers need to stay in churches with elders to gain experience.

These thoughts of yours, which I have summarized above, have much merit. I agree with much of what you say. In some matters mentioned, I do not. Your characterization of preachers as “big name preachers,” I do not approve of. There may be preachers who hope to be and want to be and try to be “big name preachers.” But my experience of thirty-nine years of preaching is that very, very few men feel this way or have the inordinate desire to be “a big name preacher.” In fact, I don’t know of any preacher whom I have met or been acquainted with, who has ever said or indicated that this was his desire or aim. And anytime that might appear to be the case with a preacher, I could not judge his heart and motives to attribute to him an attitude or desire which he might not have at all. If any man who calls himself a gospel preacher should have that (being a “big name preacher”) as his goal and objective in life, then he certainly ought not to be preaching.

On the other hand it is normal and scripturally right that if a man has preached the gospel faithfully, lived righteously and uprightly before God and men, and worked hard to save souls of the lost and build the kingdom of God in this world, that such a one should be loved, respected, honored, appreciated and listened to, for his work’s sake. Giving “honor to whom honor” is due certainly would include godly and good brethren, as much or more than the rulers of nations, who often are such ungodly men (Rom. 13:7-8). As years go by in the life of any faithful, diligent preacher, he will become known among his brethren and his influence will increase. This is right and good for all of us. We need older, wiser, experienced men of knowledge, ability, integrity, and maturity as preachers, elders, deacons, teachers, and leaders among God’s own people. It is then, in their mature years, that men generally do their best work in God’s kingdom. Older preachers who have loved the Lord through the years, fought battles of truth against error, and weathered storms of opposition and persecution, are to be and ought to be highly respected by younger men and brethren. Older, true, tried and tested men ought to be the “role models” for younger men and preachers (Tit. 2:1-8; Heb. 13:7,17). It ill-becomes young men, just beginning to preach, to engage in epitaph-formulation, disparagement, and casting aspersions at older brethren and preachers. God told Moses to teach the people saying, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:32). Solomon said that “the hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness” (Prov. 16:31). Children and young people are to honor and obey their parents, and younger brethren are to entreat and deal with older brethren as fathers and mothers (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Any society — nation, family, church — which does not give proper respect and honor to its aged-its grandparents, fathers and mothers — is destined for destruction. The strength of nations and churches revolve around the proper honor and respect being given to the older and wiser and experienced.

As a young preacher I was privileged to hear and know and be with some of the great preachers and elders of a generation or two ago, well-known brethren. I rather stood in awe and respect of them for their knowledge and ability and influence. I lived to learn that they had their weaknesses, made their mistakes, erred from truth at times, and had feet of clay like we all do and have. I appreciated what they did for the church and the world, and what they meant in the cause of truth and righteousness. They influenced me greatly. I never at any time referred to older, well-known brethren as “big name preachers” or “big name elders.” I never called them by their first names, as trying to be too familiar. I felt that was out of place and unbecoming to me as a younger man and brother. I never called Foy E. Wallace by “Foy,” although I was with him and heard him preach numbers of times. I never called W. Curtis Porter by “Curtis,” nor G.C. Brewer by “Grover,” nor N.B. Hardeman as “Brodie,” nor C.R. Nichol as “Charley,” nor C.D. Plum as “Dewey.” Yet I knew and respected all these men. One of the greatest men I have ever known, and possibly one of the two best elders I have ever known or worked with, was brother J.A. Bruton in Port Arthur, Texas. He was a father to me, yet I never addressed him as “Alex.” A spirit of decorum, and a respect for age, experience, knowledge and the hoary head, dictates among Christians that the younger people be taught and that they develop an attitude of “esteeming them highly” for their work’s sake, toward the older and wiser among us (1 Thess. 5:11-13). Some day, down the stream of time, if the young man and preacher lives long enough and works for the Lord hard enough, he will possibly be a “big name preacher,” although that was not his personal desire, ambition and goal.

“Big churches” cannot send preachers, younger or older, to “small country churches,” unless those “small country churches” request and desire preachers to be sent to help them. The concept of “big churches” and “small country churches” always leads to much error and digression. The missionary society of 1849-1910, and the “sponsoring church, Herald of Truth, overseeing eldership” type of centralized cooperation and control of churches and funds would never have been except for this “big church,” “little church,” thinking. Congregational autonomy, equality and independence forever forbids this concept of God’s churches. A church of twenty members is just as big in God’s sight as a church of two hundred members, just as important, and just as responsible to Him. In the New Testament no numbers are given after the “about three thousand souls” of Acts 2:41, and the “five thousand” men of Acts 4:4. We have no idea or indication of the numbers in any congregation of the first century. How large was the church at Ephesus? How small was the church at Corinth? Were the churches of Galatia in the cities or in the countryside? We do not know. All of that is really not important or God would have told us more. Big problems in churches of Christ now and in the past find their roots in big city churches planning and promoting programs, and exerting undue influence upon brethren and other congregations, in the cities and in the country. Churches, city or county, large or small in numbers, have problems from time to time which linger, fester, erupt occasionally, and ruin and devour those involved and those who would try to correct them.

Preachers, older or younger, cannot solve some problems among brethren. Only God can do that through His word to us, and the faith of men and women in what God says. But we will not believe and practice what our Father says, so our problems persist and we ruin the cause of Christ in our obstinacy. Often brethren do not want to solve problems by repentance, and by doing God’s will. True, sincere repentance and change toward God and man is pretty much a lost doctrine and practice among the brethren. Rarely ever are there tears of penitence and anguish of spirit due to sin anymore. Sin has blinded and hardened us against God and against each other. Rarely ever are differences really settled and forgiven and forgotten by true confession, repentance and prayer. Therefore, it remains for time, death, and the judgment of Christ to take care of these unresolved sins, problems and alienations. Young preachers, and older ones also, are often scarred for life by being unfortunate enough to get involved with problem brethren and brethren with problems. We preachers hardly learn that if God’s will does not settle problems among brethren, then we will not be able to do so. And sometimes preachers themselves, young or old, can be a problem!

I think our brethren generally are making serious mistakes in not using young preachers along with older preachers. Many congregations are financially able to support two men in a local work. Many churches could become financially able if you could get the brethren to really give as they are truly prospered, and to give as much as they spend on tobacco, hunting, fishing, camping, sports, etc. A church with a good, qualified, strong eldership could easily carry on such a well-organized program of teaching and work so as to involve to the fullest a young man desiring to preach, and at the same time use fully all the local talent of the men in the congregation. Most elders will not do this because it takes planning, purposing, work, time, encouragement, oversight, etc., and most elders and elderships do not operate that way’ and do not want to be bothered that much in developing the souls intrusted to their care by the Lord (Heb. 13:17). if more elders and churches would develop their talents and give young men opportunities to preach and teach, the churches would be spiritually stronger and better developed within. More men would be coming along all the time, qualified to preach, teach, serve as elders and deacons, and be better husbands and fathers. Older preachers would be free to go about helping others, preaching in many places, encouraging the weaker churches and planting new congregations. To me the ideal work of a preacher would be to study, write, teach classes, visit people, and preach all the time, every night, if possible, especially in the barren areas of the world. I get greatly discouraged when I see elderships, brethren and churches which are so dependent upon a preacher, as if they couldn’t do without him. They want him there, at home, with them! It makes no difference that the brethren can run around on the weekends, going to the lake or camping out or visiting uncle John and aunt Suzy, or miss and skip half the services, miss the Bible classes due to sleeping late, miss the lessons and sermons for any silly excuse, and then sleep while the preacher preaches. The preacher just must stay at home if the “work is to prosper.” “We need him at home,” is the cry of the brethren, in case somebody dies or someone wants to get married or someone gets sick. These lazy, uncaring brethren, who should be preaching and teaching the word of God themselves, will

not be moved and they want the preacher to be at home, and the shorter his lessons (and shallower), the more they will praise him and pay him. I know of many churches where men of much ability sit on the pews, never feeling really necessary nor developing their talents, while the preacher goes about “his regular work” and “his regular preaching” to them, and the world goes to hell about us.

Many churches, otherwise known as “faithful churches,” have a “pastor system,” whether we want to admit it or not, where the preacher is burdened down with office work, problem-solving, visiting, socializing, etc., along with his studying, reading, writing and preaching. The brethren make a one-man pastor out of a preacher and then complain that that is what he is when, if anything gets done, he has to do it. Some brethren have an ungodly attitude toward young preachers, in not being willing to use them, hear them, support them, and encourage them. We are losing many young men who otherwise would preach, because of the ways brethren deal so unthoughtfully and unkindly with them. Many churches have the idea and concept that if “our preacher” is not preaching for us and to us, then he is not doing any good. “We pay him to preach to us and for us” is the thinking. Such brethren have no concept of the Lord’s statement that “the field is the world” (Matt. 13:38), and that wherever we can go to preach the gospel we are doing good. Much better use of preachers and their talents and knowledge could be made if brethren would have the attitude of sending preachers to preach, and if “big churches” would free preachers to “go to preach the gospel” everywhere. (To be continued.)

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 652-654
November 7, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

Rubel Shelly reopened the debate about whether there are good Christians in all the sects with his 1983 tract Christians Only, which is reprinted in his more recent book I Just Want to be a Christian, both published by 20th Century Christian in Nashville, TN. Says Shelly, “There are sincere, knowledgeable, and devout Christians scattered among the different denominations. ” Their “creedal formulations, human names, and cumbersome organizational structures” unknown to the Bible do not separate these good Christians from God’s grace unless embraced “in conscious and deliberate error” (pp. 18, 11). They became Christians when they were immersed in spite of certain “imperfections” in understanding about the purpose of baptism and they continue to serve God in spite of “imperfections” in regard to the work, worship and organization of the church.

How long will it take Shelly to decide that some more people became good Christians when they were “baptized” in spite of their “imperfections” in understanding the action of baptism-those who had water sprinkled or poured on them-the pious unimmersed? And what about good Christians among the Quakers in spite of their “imperfections” in understanding the need for any kind of baptism at any time for any purpose (they don’t bother with it at all)?

Shelly says we should go back and read what some of the old time preachers taught, but he is rather selective in what he reprints in his book. We suggest the article “Talking Back at God” by Cled E. Wallace (1892-1962) be included in the second edition. It appeared in the Bible Banner 11, 3 (Oct. 1939):3.

Talking Back at God

Cled E. Wallace

In his brilliant speech that rushed him to his death, Stephen charged that the Jews had “received the law as it was ordained by angels and kept it not.” Paul charged that although they had “a zeal for God” it was “not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God,” They formulated a theory speculative and complicated. They judged and changed the law by the demands of this theory. Jesus charged that they made the law of God void by their tradition. It caused them to reject Christ because his measurements were wrong, by their theory, and later when the gospel was preached to them their objections to it grew out of idolatrous homage to a theory. Paul rebuked them with this question: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” All objections to the gospel and its righteous demands grow out of an egotistic veneration for human theories. All such idle chatters is silly blather because it is a presumptuous talking back at God.

Nebuchadnezzar felt mighty and important when he walked upon the broad walls of Babylon and swelled with pride as he surveyed the works of his hands. God pulled him from his throne, gave him the heart of a beast and after the haughty king walked on all-fours awhile, ate grass as an ox, bathed in dew, with hair grown like eagles’ feathers and nails as birds’ claws, he accumulated a vast respect for God. “And at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth forever; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his own will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? “

Men who chide God today with theories subversive of his truth, should learn a lesson from this humbled monarch of the East. “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven; for all his works are truth, and his ways justice; and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.” There is no more debasing pride today than the pride of party and no tenacity more stubborn than that which clings to unscriptural notions in religion. False doctrine is sugar-coated with pious phrases, pays lip service to God, while “in fact and in act” it dethrones him and sets up human, traditional authority. The rank and file following blind guides stumble along traditional paths ready to mouth cut and dried objections to the gospel when it is preached to them. A case in point is a question handed me by a college graduate which reveals an amazing lack of Bible information and a state of mind requiring a thorough overhauling that it may be subject to Christ.

Do you think that members of other churches are going to hell? (No matter if these people are good Christians.) Do you think a God with good common sense will condemn a good Christian just because he doesn’t belong to the Church of Christ?

This querist, whom I know to be a fine and talented character in many respects, is more interested in what “you think” than in what the Bible teaches. It is a common ailment and a very disquieting symptom. It indicates a deep seated trouble. It sets up a theory based on what somebody thinks and if it is found that God does not endorse it, then the victim of human thought is ready to suggest that God does not have “good common sense.” It is a refined form of blasphemy. In the light of the Scriptures, which right do men have to judge God by a standard of “good common sense”? Such judgment would have kept Abel from offering his sacrifice, would have kept Noah from building the ark, would have kept Abraham from offering up Isaac, would have kept Naaman from dipping in the Jordan, and would have kept the Israelites from marching around Jericho.

An appeal to common sense today is a pretext that keeps many from obeying the command of God to be baptized and keeps them out of the church. This same “common sense” rule keeps in operation churches and systems in religion the New Testament knows nothing about at all. A rule that operates that way is wrong. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” Faith must be capable of obeying God, even if it apparently outrages all common sense. “O, Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” “Let no man deceive himself. If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.” When a man becomes this kind of “a fool” for Christ’s sake, he will not be found cancelling out the commands of God on the ground of “good common sense.”

My information about the church and who will be saved comes mainly from the New Testament. It says nothing at all about “members of other churches” who are “good Christians.” All I ‘good Christians” in New Testament times were “members” of the body of Christ, the only church we read about in the New Testament. There were no Christians outside of it. In the light of the sacred volume it is absurd to talk about God condemning good Christians just because they do not belong to the church of Christ. It is tantamount to saying that God can condemn a good member of the church because he is not a member of the church. The church is the family of God and includes all the people of God. The sectarian idea of this “other churches” business made up of only a part of the people of God is all wrong or else even the apostles as well as God were lacking in this highly valued commodity “of good common sense.”

So-called fundamentalists first began to rule out part of the divine scheme on the ground of “good common sense” and the modernists are finishing the job for them. Between these schools of common sense doctors, faith and Scripture do not stand much show. The commands of God have been so much doctored by common sense that multitudes worship mon sense I and pay very little attention to anything the Bible says.

It is a terrible thing to think of anybody “going to hell.” A theory of common sense says that nobody will. How do we know that anybody will? The Bible says so. What does it say about it? Those who obey the gospel will be saved, those who reject it are in the way of “going to hell.” Man’s thinking cannot change what God says and talking about what “good Christians” people are who refuse to obey the gospel is plainly dodging the issue. God does not consider anybody a good Christian who prefers a sectarian setup to the church that Christ built.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 646-647
November 7, 1985

By David McClister

Every one who has ever lived, or who ever will live, must deal with the problem of suffering some time in his life. It is the universal experience of the human race. Either directly or indirectly, we all come into contact with suffering or pain many times during the course of our brief lives. Suffering can be very difficult to handle at times. It leaves us perplexed and confused, often wondering why it had to be or even why God could allow such misery to touch us or anyone else. The question of why man suffers in life is certainly not a new one. People have been asking that question from the beginning of human record. Furthermore, the answer to that question can be so difficult that it has led more than one person to abandon belief in a loving God.

In this article, I shall propose no absolute answer. But I do believe that we can understand a little concerning the nature of human suffering, and if we can understand it better, we can handle it better. I offer these thoughts in the attempt to provide some hope, based upon the Scriptures.

The first thing to consider is not the nature of suffering, but he nature of human existence itself. Fact number one is that life does not come with a guarantee of constant happiness. Nowhere do the Scriptures tell us that God, even though He loves us greatly, has promised to anyone a life free from pain. As a matter of fact, we may confidently say that the Bible assumes that suffering is a part of living, and we must simply resign ourselves to accept this fact. 1 Timothy 6:7 further confirms that we are not born with any innate hope or guarantee in life. We are simply brought into the world the way it is.

The realization of this fact is not, however, a very satisfying answer to the problem of pain. Saying that pain is part of life really offers no comfort. On the other hand, no one said that the answer we seek would necessarily be wonderful and pleasant. The truth is that any discussion of pain and suffering must necessarily involve itself with life’s unpleasant side. Both the problem and its answer are unpleasant. Yet I believe that there is more of an answer than this.

The second fact we must learn to accept is that much of our suffering is caused by ourselves, not God. The Bible affirms that God made a good world in the beginning. The phrase “. . . it was good” is repeated seven times in the first chapter of Genesis in connection with the creation. Verse 31 emphatically states: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Man, however, became the inventor of evil things. “Behold, this only have I found: that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). In other words, much of our suffering is accounted for by our sin. It is part of God’s law that sin results in suffering and death (cf. Rom. 5:12; 6:23). We cannot expect to violate God’s will and be treated as innocent. Sin brings suffering with it! There is a plethora of examples in the Bible to this effect-the flood, the tower of Babel, the plight of Lot’s family, and so on.

Before we blame or accuse God of being cruel in allowing suffering, we should understand that much of our misery is our own doing, and we should not expect God to save us from ourselves in spite of ourselves. God has given man the responsibility to obey Him. If any man rebels against God, by an act of his own free will, then he has chosen the path of conduct that leads to suffering. This is not God’s fault. God is not to blame for the choices we make which lead us to suffering the penalty of sin.

Now there are two ways in which we suffer as the result of sin: directly and indirectly. When we suffer directly from sin, it is because of our own sins. Take, for illustration, the prodigal son (Lk. 15). He was hungry and in misery as a result of his own decision to leave his father’s home. The fault was his own. As the parable applies to us, we learn that even though we may be forgiven of the guilt of sin, this does not remove the consequence(s) of that sin, and that consequence often involves suffering.

When we suffer indirectly from sin, it is either because some one sins against us, or simply because we live in a sinful world. For example, the sin of the murderer almost always brings suffering to others who were quite uninvolved in his evil. In this case, one man’s sin causes suffering for several others. Another case in point is the persecutions directed against the early Christians. The Christians suffered not as evil-doers, but because of the plans of ungodly men who rejected God and Christ (cf. 1 Pet. 4:15f; 2 Tim. 3:12). Here again another’s evil caused suffering for many. The point is that suffering comes with living in a sinful world.

Suffering also comes with living in a temporary world. The Bible teaches that this world and all it holds is not meant to be a permanent residence for man (2 Pet. 3:10). It is our experience that a temporary world “falls apart” from time to time, thus causing a certain amount of suffering. Whether it be by natural disaster or the death of the human body, the things of a temporary existence must necessarily be connected with suffering. It is for this reason that the Bible exhorts us to set our affections on the permanent things of heaven (Col. 3:2).

But is this fair? Why is it that seemingly innocent people must suffer because of the sins of others? A third fact we must learn to accept is that we are really not innocent. Romans 3:23 painfully reveals to us that “all have sinned.” I have sinned, and so have you. Thus we cannot say to God that we do not deserve any suffering at all. After all, we all have sinned at some time, and remember that sin brings suffering with it. To sin is to share in the ways of the world, and we cannot sin — not even once — and avoid the pain which sin brings and which is found in the world.

Yet we are compelled to ask why God had to make His law so that sin had to result in suffering. Could not God, being all-powerful, have designed things so that sin could be dealt with in a way that does not involve pain?

I believe that God designed His law on sin the way He did because that law is simply the reflection and statement of God’s attitude towards sin. God hates sin, and He wants everyone to know that. Now in order to be fair, God must punish sin. It is completely just that God deals with sin the way He does: in terms of suffering. In fact, it would be very unjust and very unfair if God did not punish sin, because that would take the virtue out of obedience. Furthermore, what use would God’s law have if God was not strict in His enforcement of it? There is no value in law unless there is a strong deterrent to violations of it, and God has decreed that His method of enforcing His law is to provide the deterrent of suffering. This is why, then, God’s law says that sin must result in suffering.

As we speak about God’s law, it is important that we correctly understand what sin is. 1 John 3:4 plainly tells us that sin is the transgression of God’s law. Any violation of any of God’s laws is a sin. Consider the following facts. Law is necessary to order in life. Without laws there would be no continuity, and we simply could not live in a world where nothing was constant. We depend upon God’s natural and moral laws to provide continuity in life. Now if one of God’s laws is broken, then the continuity that law provides is lost, and disorder, and the suffering disorder brings, results. For example, when man breaks the natural laws that hold the atom together, the destructive force of the atomic bomb results. A law is broken, and the resulting disorder brings suffering. So it is also with God’s moral laws. If we break one of God’s commandments, then we introduce moral disorder, and thus bring suffering upon ourselves or others.

If, therefore, we were to live without any pain of any kind, it would require either a world in which there was no law at all, or a world in which the breaking of established laws was miraculously prevented from resulting in any kind of painful consequences.(1)

Either situation would be quite impossible in terms of human survival. We could not live in a world without law; we depend upon laws for day-to-day existence. Nor could we live in a world of constant miracles, for we depend upon law to consistently produce its designed effects, even when we break that law. Furthermore, a world of constant miracles would only be a world with a different kind of law, and so the problem of suffering would still exist, although in different forms.

Thus we are left to return to our starting point. If we could not live without pain in a different kind of environment, this still does not answer the question of why those who are truly innocent must be subject to the suffering others have caused. Why is it, for example, that little children, who have done no wrong, must often suffer? Why is it that even a righteous man, whose sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ, must continue to suffer in life?

Much of our suffering is for our benefit, and that suffering is a problem only when we fail to recognize or understand this important fact. For example, Paul was given a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7-9) not because he had sinned greatly against God, but simply in order to keep him humble. In this case, God used suffering to spare Paul from further, more severe suffering that would have resulted if he had become proud and boastful of God’s working in him. Furthermore, God told Paul that it was in Paul’s own human weakness, seen in his physical suffering, that the power of God was most easily seen by others (v. 9). Another example of beneficial suffering is seen in Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Gen. 22). Surely it must have filled Abraham with great sorrow to think that he had to offer his only son in sacrifice in order to please God. Could God be pleased with something that brought pain to his beloved Abraham? But that is the wrong approach to the situation. Abraham dealt with it not by looking at the suffering itself, but by looking to God in faith. Faith took Abraham through that trial, and faith will do the same for us. See James 1:2-4. A proper attitude keeps suffering from seeming like suffering. By looking at the problem correctly, it is possible to take the pain out of suffering.

Now if there is any answer at all to the ultimate question of “why?” we may expect to find it in the book of Job. Job was a righteous man, yet he suffered greatly. Why? We may say that it was partially due to the fact that Job himself had violated God’s law, but Job knew better (Job 6:10). His suffering seemed to be completely out of line with his character and conduct. Unable to find the answer from his friends, Job finds the ultimate answer from God. In chapters 38-41 God shows Job, through a series of very difficult questions, that he is really not in a position to press God for the answer. Man is not God, and thus man should not suppose that he is in the position to demand of God the answer’ as to why He allows unexplained suffering. God alone is omniscient, and in His omniscience He knows what is best for man. What man, who is far from omniscient, must do is simply accept in faith the way God works things. Job finally confesses that even if God told him the ultimate answer, he would not understand it anyway (Job. 42:1-6). What we must do is let God make His decisions and not question or accuse God. Man cannot make God give account.

This, then is what we must do with the problem in its furthest reaches. We must put our faith in Him, and live as He directs; do what He says and not challenge His wisdom in giving the orders. After all, “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts,” says God (Isa. 55:9). God loves us, and we should believe it. Any suffering that we endure must be perceived as being only in our best interests from the hand of a loving and just God.

Endnote

1. See C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1962), pp. 26-36.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 649-650
November 7, 1985

By Raymond E. Harris

A few years ago, I heard a man who had considerable knowledge of sheep reflect on the similarities between mankind and sheep.

He noted that in John 10, Jesus likened Himself to “the good shepherd” and to mankind as sheep who might or might not become the Lord’s sheep.

His description of sheep was not very complimentary.

First he pointed out that when compared to other animals, sheep were rather stupid. He noted that sheep can scarcely be trained at all. They cannot be driven, but have to be lead. And he further suggested that a sheep has no sense of direction. If a sheep becomes lost, he cannot find his way back, like most other animals, but rather has to be sought out and rescued by its keepers.

We can at once see the parallel. When it comes to sin, mankind has never seemed too bright. Through the years God has tried to teach man, with precious little success, that obedience leads to blessings and disobedience leads to heartbreak and damnation. Likewise, man is so self-willed he is hard to drive or lead. And, man seems to have little sense of direction and is always straying away from God.

The ex-shepherd further explained that sheep are, by comparison, “tender skinned” animals which are easily devoured by their enemies. Again, we see the comparison. Mankind strays away from God and falls prey to the wolves of this world.

The wolves of greed and lust make short work of the majority who put up little or no defense. Hence, we find ourselves in

a world overcome and devoured by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life (1 Jn. 2:15-17; Jas. 1:14-15).

Man’s only hope (spiritually) is to turn to Jesus, the “Good Shepherd.” If we will come unto Jesus through obedience of His gospel, God has promised to forgive our sins and Jesus will lead us to green pastures and still waters.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, p. 658
November 7, 1985