Truth Magazine

By Bobby Witherington

When I received the request to write an article on “Semonettes,” my first mental response was, “Why me?” I confess to regularly having difficulty completing a sermon within the recommended “time limit” though no one seems to know why the time should be so limited. Then I thought of the saying, “sermonettes are preached by preacherettes and they produce Christianettes.” But lest I become too critical of those “preacherettes” who continually preach “sermonettes,” a friend of mine reminded me that I have preached a lot of “sermonettes!” Mention was then made of our daily three-minute Dial-a-Bible Message program which we began in November 1978. Mention was also made of our daily radio program, which is 15 minutes in length, but which only allows for about 13 minutes of actual preaching. This gives me the dubious honor or being critical of “sermonettes,” even though I preach them on a daily basis! At least, this proves that I can preach a short sermon though honesty compels me to admit that these telephone messages and radio “sermons” are more like pieces of sermons which are usually linked together in serial fashion.

On this subject, it is difficult to be completely objective and totally unbiased. This is a fact, regardless of whether it is being considered by the man standing in the pulpit or the one sitting in the pew. So, to avoid creating prejudice on the part of either, I deem it wise to approach the subject from the standpoint of the sermon itself and that of which the sermon should consist.

The Sermon

Perhaps to the surprise of some, the word “sermon” is found in the dictionary but not in the Bible. The American College Dictionary gives this definition: “a discourse for the purpose of religious instruction or exhortation, esp. one based on a text of Scripture and delivered from a pulpit.” I was a bit amused to observe from the same source a secondary definition for this word: “a long tedious speech.”

Hence, a “sermon” is “a discourse for the purpose of religious instruction or exhortation A “sermon”is what people hear when a man obeys the injunction to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2). A “sermon” is what the Jews on the day of Pentecost heard when the apostles began to carry out the Lord’s command to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark. 16:15; Acts 2:14-40). Properly understood, a sermon consists of at least five important ingredients: explanation, argument, illustration, application, and exhortation.

1. Explanation. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles were miraculously enabled to speak with other tongues (or languages) as “the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-6). This caused the multitude to express amazement, and others to mockingly say, “These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:7-13). It was at this point that Peter addressed the crowd and began explaining the events of that day in the light of Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment (Acts 2:14-21). Perhaps it would not be too far amiss to say that Peter then announced his sermon topic as being “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God . . .” (Acts 2:22). Suffice it to say, Peter, like Paul, preached “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

2. Argument. Peter appealed to the “miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by” Christ in the midst of the people, and of which the people in his audience were fully aware (Acts 2:22; cf. John 3:2; 7:3 1; 9:16). Peter then mentioned the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and appealed to the prophets of old as proof of the facts that the resurrection, ascension, and exaltation of Christ were in fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:23-35; cf. Psa. 16:8-11; 132:11; 2 Sam. 7:12,13).

3. Illustration. One prime purpose in preaching is to make people “see” or understand the truth about Christ and the salvation He offers (Eph. 3:8,9). A good illustration can figuratively “turn the light on” and indelibly impress a previously stated truth upon the mind, causing the eyes of the understanding to be “enlightened” (cf. Eph. 1:18). This was the effect of the numerous parables uttered by our Lord (Matt 13). This was the effect of the allegory of Hagar and Sarah (Gal. 4:21-31). Illustrations are given to create interest, clarify the truths being presented, and cause the audience to remember the truth which the illustrations are designed to illuminate.

4. Application. What is a sermon without application? Usually it is an exercise in futility! Hence, David finally got the point when Nathan said, “Thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7). The Jews on Pentecost got the point when Peter said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Also, through appropriate application specific suggestions are made in which the audience may be shown how to do what truth requires, For example, the Christian is to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). But how does one proceed in such a noble endeavor? By means of application, a number of effective teaching methods could be mentioned.

5. Exhortation. When the “pricked in the heart” Jews cried out saying, “What shall we do,” Peter immediately responded with the correct information-“repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38). But his message still continued! Peter mentioned the “promise” unto them, their children, those “afar off,” and then “with many other words,” he testified and exhorted, saying, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:39,40). Who can possibly believe that either Peter or his audience had their eyes glued on the time clock, as if some awful crime would be committed if he went “a few minutes overtime”?

How Long Should A Sermon Be?

It should be long enough to get the job done! And if a sermon does indeed consist of such things as explanation, argument, illustration, application, and exhortation, then the actual “job” can seldom be done in the length of time brethren generally want to devote to the hearing of the gospel of Christ. This is not to say that all sermons should be of the same length, nor that any sermon should be deliberately drawn out in order to consume a certain amount of time. A five minute sermon (?) is too long if the speaker has nothing to say! There is a vast difference between the preacher who has something to say and the preacher (?) who just has to say something. When brethren are expected to listen to a windbag whose message consists of all thunder and no lightning, they have every right to complain when the speaker can not turn off the sounding off.

Of course, it must be admitted that some speakers, for various reasons, are easier to listen to than others. To illustrate, I relate (at my expense) the following incident: A number of years ago, while laboring in another city, one of the young men, a member of the church, was scheduled to be married on a particular Sunday afternoon. On the morning of the wedding, a very dear and very elderly sister in Christ approached me, and she politely said, “Brother Witherington, it is hard for some of us elderly members to get through lunch and rush back in time for the wedding this afternoon, so I wish you would make the sermon a little shorter this morning.” I was not too pleased with that request. It seemed to me that she was putting the emphasis in the wrong place. And I tried to tactfully express my reasoning to this lady. Then I waxed eloquent. Or so I thought. I related the incident in which “Raccoon” John Smith rode a horse to Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, to hear Alexander Campbell preach. At the conclusion of the sermon John Smith was indignant and said, “I have come all this distance to hear this man and he only preached 30 minutes.” Then someone said, Brother Smith, look at your watch; you have been here two hours and a half I” Then I made application, saying, “We ought to be like Raccoon John Smith; he was so wrapped up in hearing the gospel preached that he was oblivious to the time.” At that point this dear sister looked at me, smiled very sweetly, and said, “I’ve heard preachers who could do that to me, tool ” What more could I say? I knew she was telling the truth. Some preachers are easier to listen to than others. And any preacher who expects people to listen to him, however long it takes to get the message across, has an obligation to do all within his power to make the message as profitable as possible.

And those who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness (Matt. 5:6) will not begrudge the time it takes. But this is the problem! Too many brethren are so wrapped up in the things of this world that they have precious little appetite for real “soul food.” Many have never experienced the kind of desire for the “sincere milk” (or the meat) of the word as is commanded in 1 Peter 2:1,2.

Well, do I remember attending a gospel meeting several years ago, in which the preaching was being done by one who is widely recognized as one of the ablest preachers of our time. The meeting had gone beyond the half-way mark, and the crowds were getting smaller. A brother remarked to the visiting preacher that “people are staying away because the sermons are too long.” To that statement the preacher grunted in righteous disgust and said, “Some people don’t have time to go to heaven!” How sad! Yet, how true! But some of the same people find time to sit on hard bleachers in the rain for hours to watch a football game. And when it goes into overtime, they are ecstatic! And they can stay up on Saturday night to watch the late, late show on the idiot box.

Please do not misunderstand! I do not believe a preacher should see how long he can stretch out a sermon. I believe there is merit in these words by Henry Ward Beecher, “A good fireman will send the water through as short and straight a hose as he can.” It is possible for a preacher to make his “hose” too long and too crooked. In short, some sermons are too long.

When Is A Sermon Too Long?

1. A sermon is too long when it contains false doctrine. Elders must learn that the mouths of gainsayers “must be stopped,” and that God put them in the mouth-stopping business (Tit. 1:9-11).

2. A sermon is too long when it is filled with flattery. Of course, there is a difference between “giving honor to whom honor is due” for the sake of encouragement, and the dispensing of flattery for the purpose of using people. Both the flatterer and the false teacher manage to “make merchandise” (2 Pet. 2:3; 1 Thess. 2:5) of the very people who they pretend to help.

3. A sermon is too long when precious time is spent bragging on self. To the saints at Corinth Paul said of him and Apollos that they were simply “ministers by whom ye believed” (1 Cor. 3:5). When a preacher gets himself between Christ and the audience, he is in the wrong place. Proud, puffed-up, arrogant, egotistical preachers who act and talk as if they are the “saviors” of the church have too much in common with first century Pharisees-the very ones whom Jesus most severely denounced!

4. A sermon is too long when it is used to build up some human organization, regardless of how worthy it may be. The church is the only institution Jesus purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28), and the church is the only institution in which, to enter, one must be washed from his sins in the blood of Jesus.

5. A sermon is too long when time is used for asking questions which engender doubt. When a preacher goes around sounding an “uncertain sound” (1 Cor. 14:8), he should be marked as “unsound”! There is too much doubt already in the world. Why should a preacher mimic the ways of the devil by increasing that doubt?

6. A sermon is too long when the time is spent grinding axes instead of preaching the gospel. Yes, we have all been mistreated by some. But the pulpit is no place to give vent to every personal grievance and every injustice, whether real or imagined. Some people still assemble with the hope that they might “see Jesus” (John 12:21). And if all they are made to “see” is how the preacher has been mistreated, they might go away feeling sympathy for the preacher. But they will not go away converted!

Conclusion

This is a “touchy subject.” So I have tried to touch it. I hope something has been said to provoke thought. Surely a gospel preacher is one who has been “allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel” (1 Thess. 2:4), and he ought to do all within his power to prove himself worthy of that trust. Proper use of the pulpit demands that the preacher take enough time to say what ought to be said-and to do so whether people like it or not. However, “a sermon does not have to be eternal in order to be immortal.” Perhaps the best way for a preacher to both please God and benefit the audience is for him to “Stand up, speak up, and then shut up!”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 9, pp. 269-271
May 2, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

The church was rent by problems, and feelings ran high. This preacher had strong convictions of his own as to the right and wrong involved, and entered the auditorium poised for the battle likely to ensue. But as he walked down the aisle he remembered advice received from an older Christian in a like situation years before. The wise brother had said, “Give ‘ern Heaven, preacher!” And that was the proper spirit, regardless of fleshly inclinations to give something else. Call it a “cute” remark; say it does not remove the need for reproof or error, or of dealing specifically with the problem and needed Bible solutions; and you will be right on all counts. But the advice is scriptural. God requires an attitude and motivation on our part which must accompany the teaching of God’s plan of salvation, fighting denominational error, or correcting false doctrine among brethren. The proper use of the pulpit is to “give ’em heaven!”

Paul’s inspired instructions to evangelists Timothy and Titus call for proper content in our teaching, to be sure; but they also tell us the purpose and deportment of the teacher which must prevail. These letters have both positive and negative precepts, often labeled as “charges.” Three times “charge” is from diamarturomai, meaning “solemn and emphatic utterance.” Best known of these is found in 2 Timothy 4:1-2, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” The same “solemn utterance” accompanies instructions regarding treatment of elders, “doing nothing by partiality” and “lay hands suddenly on no man” (1 Tim. 5:19ff). The word is again used with “study to show thyself approved unto God;” and this is surrounded by “strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers” and “shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:14ff).

Okher “charges” (parangello) from Paul are: “teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith” (1 Tim. 1:3-4). Positive aspects of this charge are in 1 Timothy 2 and 3 – prayer for kings, women’s adornment, their learning in quietness, the qualifications of elders, deacons, etc. See also 1 Timothy 4:11; 5:7; 6:13; and 6:17. Paul sanctions identification of false doctrine, and false teachers – what many call “strong preaching”; but always in a sincere effort to give them heaven. The total message must be practiced if we are to claim to preach as Paul instructed.

There are repeated warnings to “refuse profane and old wives fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness”; or, avoid prideful “doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, etc.” Preachers! writers! are you paying attention to Paul? We are told, “foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do generate strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves Titus was told to “speak the things which become sound doctrine,” yet, “to speak evil of no man, to be no brawler, but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men” (Tit. 2:3). The Timothy’s and Titus’s of today must not cast Paul’s charges aside.

The pulpit should be instructive, and that means the speaker should know and be able to present the great themes of the Bible. He must do more than rehash “first principles,” differently disguised. One day it takes faith, repentance, confession and baptism to fly a kite; the next day it takes faith, repentance, confession and baptism to win a ball game, or have Eternal Life Insurance, or whatever an inventive mind may devise. Fixed “rag” sermons or transparencies are effective as visual aids and useful as initial lessons for aliens, but they can hinder further study on the preacher’s part, and discourage digging into the meat of the gospel. A steady diet of this produces spiritual malnutrition (Heb. 5:12f).

We must impart information, and should know that we have not taught, until someone has learned. You may say, “I have told them, and I have told them . . .” but have they heard? True, we can not force people to heed, but unless we have communicated God’s message to them, we have not done our job. There is a vast difference in teaching and just verbalizing information. We should reexamine our attitudes, methods, and anything else that affects the teaching process, striving always for greater effectiveness in teaching.

Imparting information is, however, but a means to an end. We reach for their hearts (2 Cor. 10: 5; Heb. 8: 10-11), and to do that we must touch emotions and will, as well as thoughts. We must cause people to believe, to desire to serve God, and be moved to obey. The question one must ask is not “what percentage negative, what percentage positive?” but rather, “does this accomplish the God-assigned purpose of teaching?” If our negativism causes hearers to renounce error, turn to Christ, and fly right, it is wisely chosen. If it makes matters worse, or is used as an ego booster for the preacher, it is not so wise, and may be sinful. If “emphasizing what we are for” causes hearers to ignore error and continue in sin, it fails the divine purpose. If it instructs in godliness and builds a proper basis for righteous judgment, it is a blessing. The obvious truth is, it takes both kinds, wisely chosen; and wise choosing can only be done on the basis of what wins hearts to Christ.

Reproving and rebuking error is not synonymous with uncouth treatment or abusive language. I am reminded of the new convert who said one preacher told him he was going to Hell, and seemed glad of it; but another told him he was going to Hell, and “it seemed to break his heart to have to say it.” Must you be told which preacher brought him to Christ? Differing personalities affect the way we say things, but preachers should learn to control their tongues and pens just as they teach others to quit “cussing.” An erring woman can be rebuked without calling her “that old heifer”; and childish, almost gutter remarks, about how ugly a person is, have no place in Bible teaching. There may be items when to “answer a fool according to his folly” calls for strong language, but this can be factual and direct without resorting to “fleshly weapons.” Being discourteous does not show strength; it is often the sign of weakness.

The general theme of this special issue is “Preaching that will save those who hear,” and that is exactly what we are striving to emphasize. We believe that was Paul’s goal when he wrote “Oh foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” For he also Wrote, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you…” (4: 16-20). The tenderness and concern of Paul, even in upbraiding, is so apparent (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14). Note also the Hebrew writer’s practice of adding encouragement to his strong warnings. “Impossible . . . to renew again to repentance” followed by “but beloved, we are persuaded better things of you . . . though we thus speak” (6:4-12); and, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” followed by “but call to remembrance the former days . . . cast not away therefore your confidence” (10:26-39). The Lord Himself said, “Ye serpents, generation of vipers,” then, seemed to weep for the people: “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children . . .” (Matt. 23:33-39). There is nothing “soft” in tender concern for sinners.

The “Proper Use of the Pulpit” must begin with “Preaching for the Right Purpose.” I can not judge your motives, but challenge you to do some serious introspection. Is it an “ego” trip? Easy money? Would you preach without support, in an out-of-the-way place? Do you plan your lessons to save souls and strengthen people spiritually, or to entertain with humor and oratorical ability? Are you more concerned with what the hearers think of you than of what they are led to do for Christ? What determines how and what you preach: God’s word and the needs of your hearers, or pressure from your peers?

We hear a lot about “Pioneer preachers” and how many people they converted. At the risk of being deemed a “restoration heretic,” I doubt this was done through their superior knowledge of the Bible. Nor do I believe their crudeness saved souls. It seems that the best explanation for their success is their dedication to the right purpose. They were soul-hungry, and stepped into the speaker’s stand deeply aware that they must bring their listeners to Christ “give ’em heaven,” or see them lost in hell.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 9, pp. 273, 275
May 2, 1985

By Tom Roberts

Why not? Reason with me a moment.

My name is Tom Roberts and I don’t mind people calling me by my name. I belong to the church of Christ. I don’t mind people referring to me as a member of the church, publicly or otherwise. If a person is a member of the Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or some other denomination and they are identified as such, why should such a person take offense?

Of course, there is more to it than name-calling. My name is Tom Roberts and I am a husband, father, citizen, neighbor, etc. So long as one describes me as what I am, I take no offense. However, if I should be called a fornicator, an abuser, child beater, etc., I would highly resent being so misrepresented. As a member of the church of Christ, I take no offense if anyone accurately represents what I believe and practice. If someone says of me that I belong to a church that teaches baptism in water for remission of sins, uses no instrumental music in worship and partakes of the Lord’s supper each first day of the week, they have not misrepresented me, and I am glad that people know these things. They can tell these things from the rooftops and not offend me in the least. However, if that same person said that I belong to a church that believes in water salvation, does not believe in music and accepts transubstantiation, I would quickly raise an objection.

In the same fashion, when I refer to a Baptist by those distinctive doctrines and practices that make one particularly a Baptist (as distinct from, let’s say, a Methodist), why should a Baptist be offended? A Baptist believes in salvation by faith alone, instrumental music in worship, and the preacher/pastor system. If a Baptist is accurately represented in these matters, he should be as proud of these things as I am of the items of my faith. It is only when misrepresentations occur that a possible basis for irritation exists with reference to name-calling. True identification of a person can never be an insult unless that person is ashamed of who and what he is.

Scriptural Precedent

As reasonable as all this is, a basis other than human reasoning exists for calling names and identifying people and their beliefs. Nothing can be more public than the Bible and, moved by the Holy Spirit, writers of the Scriptures identified people and their beliefs and/or errors. Some examples are:

Speaker/Writer	Person Identified	Scripture	Charge
Samuel	David	2 Sam. 12:7	Murder, adultery
John	Diotrephes	3 John 9	Opposer of truth
Paul	Chloe	1 Cor. 1:11	Informer
Jesus	Jews	Gospels	Hypocrisy, lying
Paul	Brother	1 Cor. 5:1	Fornication
Apostles	Jews	Acts 2:36	Murderers of Jesus
Paul	Peter	Gal. 2:11	Hypocrisy
Paul	Phygellus/Hermogenes	2 Tim. 1:15	Turn-coats
John the Baptist	Herod	Matt. 14:4	Adultery
Paul	Corinthians	Epistle	Many sins
Peter	Simon	Acts 8:20	Buying gift of HS
Jesus	Samaritan	John 4:18	Adultery
John the Baptist	Pharisees	Mt. 3:7ff	Vipers, sons of vipers
Stephen	Jews	Acts 7:51	Murderers
Paul	Philosophers	Acts 17:23	Ignorant idolatry
Jesus	Samaritans	John 4:22	Vain worship

Brethren, let us not be more “polite” than the inspired Scriptures! Regardless of the etiquette involved (certain segments both in and out of the church consider it uncouth), New Testament writers and evangelists called names, sometimes under extremely adverse circumstances. They suffered for it and, in some cases, died because of it. John the Baptist lost his head, but he did what God wanted him to do. There is an inherent boldness in gospel preaching that says to the lost, the sectarian, the sinner, the wayward man what he needs to hear, even when he does not want to hear it. Paul told Timothy to “preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). When the Jews “beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). May we not infer from this that such sermons as recorded in Acts 2 are the type of sermons we need to preach today? Yet, Peter and the apostles in Acts 2 branded their listeners as crucifiers of the Son of God. Yes, bold preaching is confrontational. But the confrontation between truth and error is the only way for sinners to become penitent as they learn of their sins. What might have been the outcome if Peter had preached some of Norman Vincent Peale’s “Positive Thinking” concepts on Pentecost? The Jews would have gone home feeling good about themselves, but lost!

Let us not forget that the purpose of gospel preaching is that of saving souls (Rom. 1:16). Since only truth will save, the truth must be preached to people who need it. To be sure, some will not accept truth and will howl when exposed to it, but those of a “good and honest heart” (Luke 8) will respond in penitence and be saved. Motivational lessons, in and of themselves, will not do this. The sinner must be identified; sin must be rooted out; error must be confronted. Brother, if you don’t have a heart for that, you have no business preaching the gospel! Don’t apologize for preaching what is scripturally sound and biblically correct.

Of course, let us not confuse “boldness” with “skinning the brethren and the sectarians.” Some preachers seem to have a bitter spirit and use the pulpit as a means of taking advantage of a captive audience. Week after week, they seem to make a career out of attacking, skinning, berating and castigating. I fear that many hungry souls have been driven away from the truth by the type of preaching that fails to consider the full range of truth. We need to understand that parts of the truth are, indeed, confrontation, but other parts are intended to edify. We haven’t preached the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20) if we neglect “building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) while we oppose error.

Many have laughed about an incident that occurred during a “gospel” meeting in south Texas many years ago. The guest preacher noted many visiting preachers were in the audience that evening. He, therefore, chose as his subject, “The Valley of Nuts.” Each “nut” in the lesson was identified as one of the visiting preachers in the audience and his “nutty” ideas were exposed in the sermon. Naturally, one of the preachers in the audience that was identified took exception to being called a “nut,” so he rose to his feet and challenged the speaker as being of the same species. A lot of brethren got skinned that night, but I wonder how many were edified? If non-Christians were present, did they hear what they needed to hear about the plan of salvation? Was this boldness of speech (in the biblical sense) or malice aforethought? Name-calling? Yes. From the pulpit? Yes. But compare it to Acts 2 or other examples and one might be hard-pressed to find even remote similarities.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we could remember that we are not inspired today and should use some restraint when judging motives such as hypocrisy, lying, etc. Jesus could read hearts and we cannot. The pulpit should never become a sanctuary where an embittered spirit hides behind a facade of religious zeal and spiteful anger and ascribes impure motives to all who disagree.

A Case In Point

Does name-calling from the pulpit do any good? Mighten we drive away those so identified? Won’t we do more harm than good? Won’t we insult our friends? I am sure that specific cases can be recalled where a preacher insulted “Aunt Susie” by referring to the Baptists when she visited the worship services. However, for the sake of comparison, let us recall the life and work of J.D. Tant, the pioneer preacher. How many did he convert? How many were taught under his preaching? I dare say that few, if any, preachers living today can match his record. I never met brother Tant, but I understand from those who knew him well that his preaching was of the name-calling variety. Some might say it even bordered on the caustic. But he baptized people! He started churches in places where no church of the Lord had existed before. He debated with teachers of error and led many out of sectarianism. Are we, in civilized times under more genteel circumstances, doing a better job? When J.D. Tant left town, people knew they had heard the gospel and there was usually a band of disciples left behind whom he had converted. Who is more like the apostle Paul: J.D. Tant or the preacher who won’t call names? It has been said of Paul that he either started a riot or a church when he came to town, and often both. Have we found a better way than Paul knew? Are we baptizing more than J.D. Tant?

Conclusion

Calling names will never be popular. This fact alone should neither encourage or discourage us. Nor should the reaction of the public be the total criterion. While some human judgment must determine our practice, the most important factor must be that of a boldness in declaring Jesus that reflects a New Testament spirit. Such preaching will arouse and convict; it will irritate and confound; it win cause extreme reactions and deepest opposition . . . among those in sin. But of those in sin will be some who can be led into paths of righteousness and salvation by this same bold preaching. It must have been this type of preaching that Jesus had in mind when he told Paul: “Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm thee: for I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:9,10). How were the people of God identified in the first century? By fearless preaching. How will the people of God be identified today? By this same fearless preaching. Let us be about our Father’s business.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 9, pp. 272, 274
May 2, 1985

By Lewis Willis

Meanwhile, In Catholic Country. . .

Some interesting things are happening, A campaign has been started for the canonization to sainthood of New York’s Cardinal Terence Cooke who died of leukemia on October 6, 1983. The campaign is said to be “a spirited public relations campaign.” The Akron Beacon Journal (12/25/84) quoted David O’Brien, a church historian, as saying, “Most people . . . think (saint-hood) just emerges, . . . but it has a lot to do with politics and who has the energy and staff to keep things moving along.” Realizing this, the Cardinal Cooke Guild, under the direction of his successor, Archbishop John J. O’Connor, was formed to promote his sainthood.

In Catholic terminology, a “saint” is one who was “a living example of outstanding holiness and heroic Christian virtue. The key word is heroic, because the world is full of “good people.” Cardinal Cooke’s heroism was manifested, according to his supporters, in the last painful days before his death. To qualify, a candidate for sainthood must have been credited with at least three miracles. A medical miracle “must be a spontaneous, unexplainable, complete, instant recovery from a severe physical pathology. ” The Guild reports, “we have a couple, of cases we’re keeping our eye on, one involving the remission of cancer in a very well-known woman in the Catholic community.” Each day the Guild receives letters from people who have prayed to Cooke. These letters report favors such as recovery from illness or that he has helped them find a new job.

It usually takes fifty years after the death of a person for sainthood to be bestowed. However, in this case, the Guild hopes for a papal exemption. To accomplish this, the Guild is raising funds and will wage an effort which “in some ways resembles the campaigns carried out by college sports departments or film studios.” I rather suspect that Cardinal Cooke will become the Heisman Trophy winner of Catholic sainthood! He will join the ranks of their other dead saints.

A saint, by New Testament definition, was a person who was very much alive (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1: 1). These were people who had been sanctified or set apart as children of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). This blessing was realized as these people lived, and not fifty years after their death. They made up the church in the city of Corinth so, there is a remarkable difference between New Testament sainthood and that of the Roman Catholic variety. I was just thinkin’, that Cardinal Cooke was -not a-New Testament-type saint while he was living and this campaign will not make him a New Testament-type saint now that he is dead. I will, however, encourage all who read this to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ and become one of those Gospel-made saints that you read about in the New Testament.

Catholics Want To Re-Write The Bible

The Akron Beacon Journal (11/14/84), reported the action of American Catholic bishops regarding a new translation by The Graff publishing house of London. The company has recently translated the Psalms. The translators had hoped their efforts “would send a positive message to women who complain the church is too male-oriented. ” Its design was to settle the ruffled feathers of Catholic women who are frustrated by the church’s refusal to grant them greater roles such as the right to become priests.

The newspaper said, “In typical changes designed to show inclusion of both sexes, where various psalms referred to ‘him’ or to ‘brothers,’ the new version might have said ‘them’ or ‘brothers and sisters’ or ‘family.’ Where the original asked, ‘What is man?’ the new asked, ‘What are we?'”

When the vote was taken, the adoption of the new translation failed by a count of 154 to 117. The debate on the translation was lengthy, but the arguments of several bishops were summed up in a few words: “The goal was great but the translation wasn’t.” Several of those bishops who voted against the translation recommended “detailed study” of it “by Scriptural scholars.” What a truly outstanding idea! Let the Scriptural scholars in Catholicism study the efforts of this feminist translation and its harm to the original text. And, I was just thinkin’, while those Scriptural scholars are assembled, why not have them study the Scriptures to determine if the Catholic church even has a right to exist, or if the New Testament makes any provision for a Pope? This could keep those “fellas” busy for years.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 8, pp. 245-247
April 18, 1985