Truth Magazine

By Bill Hall

What kind of people were the Christians of the first century? Were they “super-Christians,” totally dedicated, so devoted to the Lord that they would put twentieth century Christians to shame? We tend to think so. And if we look only at the Christians of Jerusalem before the church was scattered, our conclusions will be well founded. But by the time Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians, the churches of his day were much like those of our day. His description of those with whom he was associated is given in this verse: “For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s” (Phil. 2:21).

There were notable exceptions, however, among Paul’s associates, men and women whose devotion to the Lord and love for their brethren serve as wonderful examples. Paul himself was one: “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all” (Phil. 2:17). Timothy was another: “For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state” (Phil. 2:20). Epaphroditus was yet another: “Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me” (Phil. 2:30). Not regarding his life! There is the real test of brotherly love. This is the love manifested by Paul, Timothy, and Epaphroditus. These did not regard their own lives when their brothers and sisters were in need. The love which they manifested is the love required of all: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:16).

The phrase, “Love . . . seeketh not her own” (1 Cor. 13:4,5), suddenly takes on new meaning. Love does not just send a card to the sick, or prepare a dish for the bereaved. Love does not just do repair work for a widow, or carry a fruit basket to the aged. These are all good works and are manifestations of love. We do not mean to minimize the value of such works. But real love, if the occasion arises, goes beyond such acts of service. Real love does not seek to preserve even her own life. Real love willingly lays down her life for the brethren. Love gives more than material things; love gives herself.

Few Christians of the first century had that kind of love. And when we observe the selfishness, the petty jealousy, the

greed, the desire for pre-eminence, the gossip, the backbiting, feuding, and quarreling that are characteristic of brethren of our day, we are sure that few have that kind of love today. Aquila and Priscilla once “laid down their necks” for Paul (Rom. 16:3,4). Let the reader make a list of the Christians of his acquaintance for whom he would lay down his neck! It is easy to think that we would die for the Lord if our faith were so tested, but “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen” (1 Jn. 4:20)?

Doctrinal error that threatens the salvation of God’s people must be fought. Sin must be corrected. But we have little doubt that many of the problems that trouble the church today result from our being like the “all” who “seek their own” rather than like those who “regard not their lives” for the sake of brethren.

How is this love developed? The same chapter of Philippians provides the answer: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). Here is the great goal of Christians — becoming “conformed to the image of His Son.” When we reach that goal, we will have found maturity in all aspects of Christianity, and we will have learned to love others as God would have us to love, even to willingness to die for them.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 580-581
October 3, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In what way and to what extent does the providence of God operate on behalf of His children today?

Reply: Providence is defined as: “divine guidance or care: God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 948).

We believe the Bible teaches that God rules in the affairs of men. He did so in the Old Testament, as is seen in several examples. One of the outstanding ones is Joseph. In the story of the exemplary young man, we see that Jehovah was with him and prospered him even after his brothers sold him and he was later cast into prison in Egypt. “But Jehovah was with Joseph, and showed kindness unto him, and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison” (Gen. 39:21). Then we read in verse 23, “The keeper of the prison looked not to anything that was under his hand, because Jehovah was with him; and that which he did, Jehovah made it to prosper.” Joseph was mindful that God had a purpose in all that had befallen him because of his brethren. Joseph addressed his brethren years later after the death of their father Jacob, “And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50:20).

The name of God does not appear in the book of Esther; nevertheless, we are made mindful of His activity throughout the book. Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, said to her, “And who knoweth whether thou art not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (4:4) God’s providence ruled in the day of this queen, enabling the Jews to be delivered from the hands of their enemies.

In the Old Testament, God even. used enemy nations of Israel to accomplish His purpose. He sent Assyria to punish Israel (Isa. 10:1-14); Babylon was used to bring about the downfall of Assyria (Jer. 50:17,18), and the Medes and Persians were raised up to take vengeance upon the Babylonians (Jer. 51:11,12). God said of Cyrus, king of Persia, “He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure. . .” (Isa. 44:28). Again, we read in Isaiah 45:1, “Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him. . . . ” Should it be argued that God’s intervention in nations was in the Old Testament and does not take place today, we should consider that it is said of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:5, “who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.”

We are to pray for our civil rulers. “I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity” (1 Tim. 2:1,2). If God does not rule or guide in the affairs of men, then why are we to pray for our rulers? We do not know how God intervenes, but our inability to understand it does not nullify the fact that He does. We cannot accept the position of the Deist who believes that God set the universe in order and then stepped aside for it to run by itself as a wound clock. God continues to operate, thus caring for mankind. Some cannot accept this because they equate providence with miracles. In contrast to providence, however, miracles are supernatural; they are signs and wonders (Acts 2:22) which supercede natural law. Providence works within God’s laws of nature. Notwithstanding the fact that God could perform miracles as He did in the past if- He chooses to do so., He works within His own laws. It is reasonable that God, who created the world, continues to direct it.

That God does have a hand in civil government is evident, in that He has ordained civil government (Rom. 13:1) and it is “a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” (v.4).

God provides for His children which is providence (see definition above). Jesus said, “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). “These things” include food, shelter and clothing (v.25). Such provisions are not obtained without effort upon our part; for Paul wrote, “If any will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). But we can be assured that God will provide for our needs if we faithfully serve Him and do our part.

We cannot always determine the method and the extent of God’s providence, but we can be assured that His hand is actively engaged in the affairs of men. He works in our behalf, and we have the assurance that “if God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom. 8:31)

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 581
October 3, 1985

By Raymond Harris

In Luke 17:32, Jesus said, “Remember Lot’s wife.” This is an interesting admonition in view of how little we know of Lot’s wife. However, the little that is known of this woman is sufficient to teach some very sobering lessons. Let’s consider some enlightening facts and some interesting deductions.

The Unknown

1. We do not know Lot’s wife’s name.

2. We do not know her nationality.

3. We do not know how many children she had.

4. We do not know how religious she was.

The Known

1. She was married to a well-to-do man with flocks, herds, tents, and herdsmen.

2. After they became prosperous, she moved with her family into town (Gen. 13:10-12).

3. The town (Sodom) was filled with people who were exceedingly sinful and wicked before the Lord (Gen. 13:13).

4. She had the difficult task of raising her family in this very wicked city.

5. She had daughters that were either married or engaged to men of Sodom. (Scholars are divided in their understanding, of Genesis 19:14. The Hebrew terms used can be translated to mean that the “sons in law” were already married or just engaged. If they were married, it would mean that Lot left his married daughters behind, and they died in the destruction. If they were just engaged to Lot’s two virgin daughters [Gen. 19:8], it would mean that Lot left Sodom with all his family.)

6. Lot’s wife fled Sodom with her husband and their two daughters.

7. She and all the family were instructed by God’s angels to flee and not “look back.”

8. In disobedience to God’s commandments, Lot’s wife “looked back” (Gen. 19:26).

9. She was punished for her disobedience-“She became a pillar of salt” (Gen. 19:26).

And so, Jesus warned, “Remember Lot’s wife.” He was in fact reminding one and all again that disobedience will always be rewarded with the wrath of God. We all need to understand that “God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Truly, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). Remember Lot’s wife!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 566
September 19, 1985

Compiled by Mike Willis

The administration of the Gospel Advocate recently announced that they were making a change of editors. Brother Guy N. Woods is being replaced by Furman Kearley. Some of our liberal brethren have not received this announcement very well. Their assessment of what changes are occurring is interesting reading. Although I would not share their assessment of brother Woods, I find their reactions to his replacement newsworthy enough for inclusion here:

BEN VICK: The Informer, Indianapolis

After quoting Acts 20:28-31, brother Vick wrote:

. . . The words came to mind as I read of the changing of the guard at the Gospel Advocate (Gospel Advocate, June 6,1985). According to the report, Brother Guy N. Woods is being replaced as the editor of the Gospel Advocate. Though I did not concur with all that brother Woods has done since he has been the Associate Editor and Editor of the Gospel Advocate, he did staunchly and boldly oppose the Joplin Summit, Shelly’s false doctrine and took a firm stand on many other issues. Brother Woods truthfully stated, “In keeping with the purpose and origin of the Gospel Advocate, I have dealt firmly, yet kindly, with every major problem facing the Lord’s people today; yet, I have never lost sight of the fact that the paper is a family journal and must address itself to the spiritual needs of people.” This, I suspect, is the reason for his being ousted from the editor’s desk at the Gospel Advocate. . . .

My suspicion for the reason of the change In editors is based on whom the Advocate has announced to replace Woods . . .

I wrote on June 11, 1985, to Nell W. Anderson, President and Publisher of the Gospel Advocate, of my dissatisfaction. In part, I wrote:

“The appointment of Furman Kearley to the editorship of the Gospel Advocate is an indication of the future direction of the paper – a downward trend. His participation in the Joplin Summit in ’84 shows his spirit of compromise. This action is a slop in the face to all the faithful defenders of the faith who at one time held the editor’s pen for the Advocate but have gone on to their reward, What a sad day in Israel, the Philistine camp rejoices.

“This change in editorship has brought dark and ominous clouds upon the horizon. I, being neither prophet nor the son of a prophet, predict, due to this decision, that the Advocate’s influence and circulation will decrease and may even cause its demise” (the Informer [23 June 19851, published by the Shelbyville Road church in Indianapolis, IN).

We doubt the publisher of the Advocate will ever reveal the reason for removing brother Woods from the editor’s desk, but we are still of the opinion it was due to his opposition to the unity efforts being presently made with the Christian Church (Ibid. [4 August 19851, p. 3).

Response from DUB McCLISH:

quoted from The Edifier, Denton, Texas

Many of our families read The Gospel Advocate because our elders and I recommended it to you. A major reason we recommended it was because of our confidence in its editor, brother Guy N. Woods. Those who have read the June 6 issue realize that he has been replaced as editor, effective July 18. This startling move was made without consultation with or knowledge of brother Woods. No reason was given him for his demotion. It is obvious that an able-bodied and able-minded editor is not replaced unless a change in the direction of the paper is desired. I and many others (including our elders) have written a letter of concern to brother Neil Anderson, President of The Advocate, with a copy also sent to brother David McQuiddy, owner of The Advocate Company. I have encouraged dozens of others to do likewise. My letter, dated June 7, appears below:

Dear brother Anderson: I am writing to express my dismay, indeed, almost, my disbelief, in the news of brother Woods’ demotion, removal, firing, or whatever term best describes what took place to unseat him. In particular, I am concerned about the following factors:

1. This is a most crucial time relating to issues of far reaching consequences in the Lord’s church, particularly those of fellowship, unity, Biblical authority, etc. No one is better qualified to teach the truth on these matters than

brother Woods. Yet, at a time when his voice is sorely needed, you have silenced it, for all practical purposes.

2 Whether those brethren in the renewed “unity” efforts hod anything to do with the decision or not, it is most certain how they will interpret it and that they will use it in every possible way to their advantage. This will be interpreted by them and by others as complete disapproval of brother Woods’ altogether justifiable criticisms of the “Summit” meeting and its many evil fruits. I wonder, in fact, if this move was Intended to send such a message. I am not accusing, I am merely asking.

3. Brother Woods’ successor (brother Furman Keorley) has placed a cloud over his own judgment and stability in recent months by his statements at the Joplin “Summit” meeting. Also, he has lent his name, generally linked with doctrinal soundness through the years, to the many unsound and weak voices on the campus of Abilene Christian University (one of my alma mters). He has no real “track record” of much writing. . . . I cannot understand why a man of such proved scholarship, soundness and stability (as brother Woods) would be unceremoniously replaced with one who has much to prove to many of the Advocate’s readers.

I fear that you have made a crucial blunder that may prove to be fraught with the most far-reaching sad consequences to the cause that many of us would give our lives for. I shall be fervently praying that brother Kearley is equal to the task (The Edifier [27 June 1985], published by the church meeting at 312 Pearl St., in Denton, TX).

IRA Y. RICE: reprinted from Contending For the Faith

Many strange and not-so-wonderful things are transpiring behind the scenes among “us” these days — not the least of which comes the sudden announcement that Guy N. Woods is being replaced as editor of the Gospel Advocate by one Furman Kearley . . . .

And just who is Furman Kearley? Few of the brotherhood indeed ever heard of him until it was announced that he would be one of the featured speakers at the ill-famed, so-called “Restoration Summit” almost a year ago at Joplin, Missouri.

How Reliable Will “Old Reliable” Be Now?

For a great many years it has pleased the GospelAdvocate to refer to itself (and to be referred to) as the “Old Reliable.” If this still is their wish and intention, then why should Neil Anderson choose to replace one of brother Woods’ reliability with one whose chief claim to fame is that compromising dialogue between himself and Wayne Kilpatrick that was video-taped by Joe McDonald at Joplin.

That there can be no mistaking the compromising situation that now is being forced upon the Gospel Advocate, let us read the dialogue how Kearley and Kilpatrick would advocate fellowship with the Christian Church one more time. . . .

Was Woods Undermined By Alan Cloyd?

As near as we can judge, this replacement of brother I Woods as editor of the Advocate goes back to a conversation that Alan Cloyd, chief instigator of the Joplin Compromise, alleges he had with Anderson after Woods’ marvelous editorial “The Joplin Unity Meeting” appeared in the Advocate under the date of October 4, 1984.

To hear Cloyd tell it, he thinks that he did quite a number on Woods with Anderson. If so, would this explain Woods being replaced with one favorable to fellowshipping the Christian Church? (Contending For The Faith July 1985], p. 2).

Response from TOMMY J. HICKS: printed in The Handley Herald, Ft. Worth, TX

WHY? That question has been an ever present vexation to me since reading the statements published, by you and brother Woods, in the June 6 issue of the Gospel Advocate. Neither you nor brother Woods provided our readers with an explanation as to why a change in editors was being made. As President/Publisher of the Gospel Advocate and as a brother in Christ, you owe your readers that courtesy.

There were numerous implications in the two statements. None of those implications is calming. The most glaring and unsettling implication, one contained in both statements, was that the decision to change editors was made by someone other than brother Woods. Brethren closely associated with the Gospel Advocate have since confirmed this. Again, why was brother Woods removed from his position?

I can think of only three reasons why such a drastic action was taken. One reason could be that he was not capable of handling the job (because of old age, lack of literary talents, poor health, etc.). Everyone, who knows brother Woods (sound in mind and body) and the success of the Gospel Advocate with him at her helm, knows he is not only capable, but that he is beyond all doubt one of the most able editors in Christian journalism. A second reason might be that brother Woods has committed some grave offense. If so, without necessarily specifying the offense, your readers need to know if this was the case. However, unless brother Woods has done something seriously wrong, it would seem that a miscreant act has been perpetuated against him. A third possible reason for removing brother Woods from the editor’s chair is that you did not want to follow the course he was steering. I would remind you that brother Woods has only, but expertly, followed the some course as his noble predecessors.

It is because of editors such as brother Woods that the Gospel Advocate has become affectionately known as the “Old Reliable.” If the Gospel Advocate begins “advocating” both sides of every issue (viz. Firm Foundation under Reuel Lemmons), if the “Joplin Summit” philosophy, the Crossroads philosophy, or any other erroneous views find in the Gospel Advocate a platform from which to spread their heresy-then “Gospel” should be removed from her name. Furthermore, she will not be “Reliable” anymore.

Brother Anderson, I pray that you have not made a colossal mistake. Please limit the Advocate to the Gospel and its defense. Keep the “Old Reliable” reliable. If you do not, you will have given the cause of Christ the greatest blow of the century (The Handley Herald [3 July 1985], published by the church which meets at 3029 Handley Dr. in Ft. Worth, TX).

GARLAND ELKINS: The Getwell Reminder

It is a sad day in Zion that brother Woods is no longer editor of the Gospel Advocate (The Getwell Reminder (13 June 1985], p.2).

Rubel Shelley: The Ashwood Leaves

Rubel Shelly’s remarks indicate his feelings about the changes occurring among our liberal brethren.

There are some important and promising things happening in the journalistic field within our brotherhood. Image has begun under the editorship of Reuel Lemmons and is receiving rove reviews. It is a quality publication with the positive perspective on the future we all need to share.

Among older publications among us, there have been facelifts and staff changes . . . . The Gospel Advocate has just announced a change in editors, with Furman Kearley assuming this important post…. (The Ashwood Leaves [14 July 1985], published by the Ashwood church in Nashville, TN).

Our liberal brethren are moving further and further into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. Men like the late W.L. Totty and Guy N. Woods who once stood on the vanguard of liberalism and defended their liberal brethren in debate, find themselves in their later years working to slow down the liberalism which they help to create. Brother Woods and many other “conservative” liberals are writing like “anti’s” trying to close the flood gates which they helped to open. They are protesting congregations’ recreational involvement, the liberalism in their colleges, the Crossroads movement, fellowshipping the Christian Church, and other liberal movements. They can only succeed in one of two ways: (1) dividing the liberals into two camps; (2) slowing down the inevitable move further into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. Their future, as brother Vick put it, is “dark and ominous.”

We find no occasion to rejoice in these events. We use this occasion to remind each of us of the dangers of apostasy. There is no such thing as a “little liberalism.” It grows into a monster which destroys the New Testament church. Let the wise be warned.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 560-562
September 19, 1985