Truth Magazine

By Don R. Hastings

In the first part of James 3, God revealed the tremendous power of the tongue. In James 3:7-12, God made known to us some outstanding evil characteristics of the tongue. We need to be aware of these characteristics and diligently guard our tongues to keep them from practicing these things (Prov. 13:3; 21:23). With David, we should pray and ask Jehovah to, “set a watch, O Jehovah, before my mouth; Keep the door of my lips” (Psa. 141:3). God has told us how to possess happiness (1 Pet. 3:10-12). Refraining one’s “tongue from evil” is essential to living a good life!

Studying James 3:7-12, we learn several evil characteristics of the tongue. An outstanding evil characteristic of the tongue is that it:

Cannot Be Tamed

God intended that man should “have dominion” over all animals when He created them (Gen. 1:27, 28; 9:1,2; Psa. 8:4-9). Man has used the animals of this earth for his benefit. He uses them for food, work and enjoyment. It is not wrong to kill and eat animals (Gen. 9:3; Acts 20:13).

Man can subdue and control animals, but he hasn’t learned to subdue and control his tongue. You cannot trust your tongue to always speak words which are good and proper. You cannot trust your tongue to the point that you unloose it and let it speak without first carefully considering what it will say. In an unguarded moment, it will say very cruel and ugly words.

Is A Restless Evil

Like a wild beast moving back and forth in its cage, seeking an opportunity to escape and mange its victim, so is the tongue. The evil that the tongue is capable of doing cannot be quenched and pacified to the extent that it ceases to desire to work its harm. That’s why it can’t be tamed!

Is Full Of Deadly Poison

We fear the rattlesnake, coral snake, etc., because they possess deadly poison. If you live in Florida long, as I have, you probably have many snake stories to share. I am no exception, as I have had many close calls, being the outdoors man that I am.

We fear a bottle with the picture of a skull and crossbones on it, and the word “poison” written on it. If you were to walk into a room and your little child was holding such a bottle with the cap off, a feeling of horror would come over you. I am sure my mother and father had the same feeling the time I was two years old and swallowed roach tablets. I assured my mother, on the way to the hospital, “I not die. I not a roach.” But, my reasoning didn’t calm her at the time.

We should greatly fear the improper use of the tongue for it can kill physically and spiritually (Prov. 18:21). People, who gossip and slander, are like slithering snakes carrying a sac of poison, ready and eager to strike and inject the poison (Psa. 58:4; 140:3; Mt. 3:7). Guy N. Woods put it this way,” Those who would shrink in horror from the thought of plunging a sword into the heart of another will, nevertheless, indulge in malicious gossip that drives a sword through the heart in a manner far more painful than any possible physical injury” (New Testament Commentaries: James, Guy N. Woods, p. 168).

Do your words ever kill good intentions, good will, initiative, hope, good morale, good reputations, or spiritual-mindedness? The person who said, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me” – lied.

Is Often Used Inconsistently

Christians should use their tongues for the most noble use of all and, that is, to praise, glorify and bless the Lord. The Christian’s tongue may also be used for an evil purpose – cursing men.

What a great, inconsistent and unholy use of our tongues. William Barclay writes, “Many a man speaks with perfect courtesy to strangers and even preaches love and gentleness, and yet snaps with ungracious and impatient anger and irritability at his own family at home. It has not been unknown for a man to speak with piety on Sunday and to curse a squad of workmen on Monday. It has not been unknown for a man to utter the most pious sentiments one day, and to repeat the most questionable stories the next. It has not been unknown a woman to speak with sweet graciousness at a religious meeting, and then to go outside to murder someone’s repetition with a malicious and a gossiping tongue” (The Letters of James and Peter, William Barclay, p. 105).

Man is “made after the likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26, 27). The person who despises a human-being despises God (1 Jn. 4:20,21). How we treat our fellow man is how we are treating the Lord (Mt. 25:24-36; Acts 9:5). The person who blesses God but curses man is a hypocrite (Psa. 62:4)!

How can we curse mankind: Who are God’s handiwork? Whom God loves (Jn. 3:16)? For whom Christ died (Heb. 2:9)? Whom God desires to save (1 Tim. 2:3,4)?

If we think that God is going to be pleased with the honor we give Him with our lips, while we speak vile, filthy, hateful words about and to others, we are deceived! Christians required by God to bless those who “persecute you” (Rom. 12:14). We are not to return evil for evil (Rom. 12:17, 21). If we curse those who curse us, we have lowered ourselves to their level and encouraged them to continue in their sinful ways. Under the law of Moses, children who cursed their parents were to be put to death (Ex. 21:17). There is no justification for cursing others. Christians are required by God to bless those who “revile you” (1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:8,9). Jesus didn’t curse those who reviled Him (1 Pet. 2:23; Mt. 27:39-44). How can we claim to be disciples of Christ when we curse others?

This inconsistent use of our tongue is contrary to nature for nature is consistent. A spring would not give good water one time and bitter water another time. The fig tree does not produce olives for every seed brings forth “after their kind” (Gen. 1:11).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 109-110
February 21, 1985

By Steve Wolfgang

The title above was the headline for an interesting article which was carried by the New York Times News Service on December 14, 1984. The article reported a University of Chicago survey which found that “Americans are turning away from the dictates of organized religions and drawing upon spiritual feelings of their own to define their faith.” Furthermore, “for growing numbers of people an individual search for meaning has become the central religious experience, replacing unquestioning obedience to religious authority,” according to the results of the opinion poll.

As a result, “60 percent of Americans recently surveyed rejected the concept ‘absolute moral guidelines'” while they “think of their faith in ‘mythic, imaginative, and reflective’ terms rather than as standards fro behavior.” The director of the survey was reported to have observed many indications of “declining influence of religious authorities on behavior” since Americans have “been told to trust their consciences, and that’s what they’re doing.”

There is both good news and bad news in the results of this survey. To the extent that individuals are exerting the right to think and study for themselves without some priest or preacher telling them what they are supposed to believe, this survey is encouraging. As more people do so, pollsters will find increasingly less dependence upon “organized religion.”

However, the survey also seems to indicate that people are rejecting not only human religious “authorities,” but also the authority of God’s word as well. If people are freeing themselves from someone’s human philosophies of religion, that is good; but if they are replacing what someone else thinks and “feels” with their own “feelings” and surmisings, what is the difference? What makes their feelings and ideas better than someone else’s? What gives your religious ideas more validity than mine? And why should you think the way I do if all I can offer you is just “my opinion”?

Isn’t that the way all these “institutional churches” got started in the first place? How can such inclinations do anything more than create yet another hundred or so religious bodies and create even more confusion? The only answer is to study the Bible – for yourself, rejecting human creeds and opinions – and let it, not some vague feeling called “conscience,” be your guide.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, p. 107
February 21, 1985

By James Hahn

The title of this article may seem foolish at first, but as I observe the actions of many, I am convinced that this is a question that needs to be asked and answered. There are some who do not seem to understand what sin really is and therefore do not understand when a thing should really be considered as sin.

Some seem to think that an act is not sinful as long as it is unknown to others. A man may drink, lie, steal, or any other act and have no sense of guilt or shame. He seems to think that his actions are acceptable because he is able to keep them hid from others. When his actions are exposed, the only thing he seems sorry of is that he “got caught.” This same attitude is often demonstrated on the part of some members of the church when it comes to dealing with sin in the lives of some members. If you dare expose the sins of some, you may be accused of “causing trouble” or dealing unfairly with someone. The attitude seems to be that, so long as nothing is said about the sins, everything will be fine. It only becomes a problem when something is said about it. How foolish can we be? We need to learn that the teaching of truth or the exposing of error does not cause the wrong; it just brings to light wrongs that were already present.

There are others who seem to think that a thing is not sinful if everyone else is doing it. The common practice of a thing tends to make it acceptable in the eyes of the majority. Sometimes even members of the church tend to become tolerant of things that should be considered sinful simply because the majority of the people have accepted them. Some who are guilty of sinful acts may be led to think that their actions are not wrong because they are accepted by members of the church without question or rebuke. Paul rebuked the church at Corinth for not putting away one from among them who was guilty of immorality (1 Cor. 5). This man was not made to feel ashamed or guilty at all because the church was not questioning his action but was actually glorying in such (1 Cor. 5:6). Again, we need to learn that acceptance of a thing is not what makes that thing right in the sight of God.

Another problem that exists along this line is the attitude of some who have determined that the only things to be considered sinful are th tings they don’t like. If they like it then it is not sin; if they do not like it, then it is sin. This is the reason for many becoming angry and upset when you speak out on various sins. If you condemn something they like, you are wrong since their likes cannot be sinful. When a person thinks in this manner, he is in reality setting himself up as the standard for determining right and wrong. His likes are right; his dislikes are wrong. He, in effect, becomes his own “god.”

The Bible teaches that sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). If a thing is contrary to the teaching of God’s word, it is sin. It may be hid from men, it may be accepted by the majority, you may not be questioned by anyone, but it is still sin! Sin is against God. When we learn this very important lesson, then we will be ready to examine our lives in the light of God’s word and will allow it to guide us in whatever we may do. iF a thing is right, then we will do that which is right even in the majority does not do so or ever opposes us in the doing of that which is right. If a thing is contrary to the word of God (sinful), we will refrain from such. Yes, sin is always sin.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, p. 110
February 21, 1985

By Mike Willis

The church which Jesus built was unique in the first century; it was different from the various Jewish seas and pagan religions. The things which made it unique in the first century also make it unique today. The church of the New Testament is different from the sectarian denominations, the cults, and the pagan religions. Let us consider some of its identifying marks.

The Early Church Followed Apostolic Doctrine

When the early church began, Luke recorded that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). The early church recognized that Jesus had selected the apostles to be special men through whom He revealed His will to mankind (Mt. 16:18; 18:18). He gave to them the Holy Spirit who, He said, “will guide you into a truth” (Jn. 16:8). The Holy Spirit brought to the apostles’ remembrance what Jesus did (Jn. 14:26). Hence, the early church recognized this special role of the apostles as the agents through whom Jesus revealed His will and abided in apostolic doctrine.

This made them unique in the first century. The various Jewish sects confined themselves to the study of the Old Testament; they rejected the revelation which was given to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. The various heathen religions also rejected apostolic doctrine, claiming to have received revelations of their own.

Today the Lord’s church is unique in that it abides in apostolic doctrine. The Catholic Church recognizes the authority of the ex cathedra statements of the pope, the decisions of the various Catholic councils, and the apocrypha (additional books of the Old Testament). Most Protestant churches appoint synods and councils which have legislative authority over their various groups. Hence, they meet to determine whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to serve as ministers, as if the word of God had not already determined the issue. Even among those religious groups which have no synod or council, many churches feel at liberty to do anything which the Bible does not condemn. Hence, they have introduced choirs and mechanical instruments of music into the worship of the church, church supported institutions (hospitals, orphan homes, old folks homes, colleges, etc.) into the work of the church, and perverted the mission of the church from the divinely-revealed mission of saving souls to recreational activities.

Hence, one of the identifying characteristics of the church of the New Testament is that it abides in apostolic doctrine. It does not go beyond the word of God (2 Jn. 9:11) or recognize any other authority than the revealed word of God.

The Day Of Worship Was Unique To The Early Church

The early church assembled on the first day of every week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). This day of worship became known as the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1: 10). Several important events pertaining to the Lord and His church occurred on this day, including the following: (a) the Lord was raised from the dead on this day (Matt. 28:1); (b) He appeared to the disciples in His resurrected body on this day (Jn. 20:19,26); (c) the church was established on this day (Acts 2:1,47); (d) the first gospel sermon was preached on this day (Acts 2: 1). Hence, the first day of the week was the authorized day of worship for the New Testament church.

This distinguished the first century church from Judaism which “remembered the Sabbath” (Ex. 20:8). The pagans had no distinctive day of worship. As Christianity spread, the influence of the church caused Sunday to become known as the Lord’s day, the day of worship for Christians. The congregational assembly upon the first day of the week is still one of the distinctive marks of the New Testament church.

The Worship Of The Early Church Was Unique

The worship of the early church also set it apart as unique. The early church’s worship consisted of the following items:

1. Apostolic preaching. The early church worship assembly featured someone addressing the assembly from the revelation of God’s word (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 14).

2. The Lord’s supper. The early church assembled upon the first day of every week (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20; 16:12) to remember the death of Jesus. They partook of unleavened bread in remembrance of Jesus’ body and fruit of the vine in remembrance of His blood.

3. Prayer. Prayer was a part of the worship of the church (1 Cor. 14:15). Their prayers were unique in that mankind approached God through the mediatorship of Jesus Christ (Jn. 16:23-24).

4. Congregational Singing. The early church sang psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in their worship (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). They sang to one another; hence, they did not have specially trained choirs to do their singing for them. Although mechanical instruments of music were available for use (they were used in the Old Testament worship), there is no evidence that they were used in New Testament worship.

5. Contribution. When the early church came together, the Lord commanded that a collection be taken (1 Cor. 16:1-3). This contribution was used for benevolent purposes (1 Cor. 16:1-3) and evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8).

This worship was distinctive. The Jewish people assembled in their worship around an altar where animal sacrifices were offered to God. They studied the law of Moses. They had a separate priesthood. Sometimes their devotional meals became drunken orgies in which every kind of immorality was commonplace. Their worship differed from that of the New Testament church.

The worship of the New Testament church still differs from that of denominationalism and makes the New Testament church unique’. Most denominations have forsaken apostolic doctrine to hear a preacher tell some heartwarming stories; they have rejected the weekly observance of the Lord’s supper for a yearly, quarterly, or monthly observance (some have even changed the items to be used). They have rejected prayer through Jesus’ name for prayer though the name of “the holy blessed virgin Mary” or without recognition of any need for mediatorship. They have rejected congregational singing for singing by choirs or other special singing groups; they have supplemented singing with mechanical instruments of music. They have replaced freewill offerings with tithes.

Indeed, the church which worships in keeping with the divine pattern revealed in God’s word is still distinctive and unique. Such worship does not attract the worldly who expect to be entertained by the worship assembly; only the spiritually minded are attracted to services which are confined to the five acts of worship listed above. This should not be understood to imply that worship services should be gloomy and sad. Rather, they should be spiritual and biblical.

Conclusion

As men have departed from apostolic doctrine in various areas, those who confine themselves to the Bible become distinctive in those areas. Areas in which God’s people are distinctive include such things as the names by which they are known (both in their congregational and individual relationships), the organization of the local church and its autonomy, terms of membership, etc. The church which abides by the doctrine of Christ will always be distinctive.

Unfortunately, preaching sermons on the identifying marks of the New Testament church is going out of style. Some preachers no longer want to call names from the pulpit to contrast the departures from the word by modem denominations with the word of God and practice of His church. They are afraid that this will offend people. Rather, they want to emphasize the positive without mentioning such negative things which might turn people away. While none of us will accept abusive speech and conduct, we should know that every generation must learn what makes the Lord’s church unique. This must be so clearly learned and understood that men can distinguish it from the denominations around them. Unless our preaching accomplishes this, it is worthless and contributes to the denominationalizing of the church.

Elders, deacons, and members need to insist that the pulpit be used for this kind of preaching. Those men who do not preach distinctive sermons will produce a membership which views the Lord’s church as just another denomination. Where such views become predominant, the Lord’s church loses its identity and quickly moves into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. Our existence as the Lord’s church depends upon distinctive preaching which emphasizes the distinctive identifying marks of the New Testament church.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 130, 152
March 7, 1985