Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

3) Another argument made is that “the early church met in homes, and homes had kitchens in them, therefore it is right for the church to provide a kitchen.”

Answer:

1. It is hard to imagine a stopping place for this “logic.” Churches may meet in school buildings (therefore they may provide school houses), motels (therefore they may provide sleeping quarters; and do not “houses” also have bedrooms?), car garages (therefore churches may provide places to repair cars), etc.

2. The church provides and arranges a place to do its work. The fact that other things may be done in the same building has nothing to do with the work of the church.

The editor of the Enon church of Christ Bulletin published an article (Aug. 5, 1994) that we will now review.

1. He quoted 1 Cor. 11:22: “What? have ye not houses to eat and drink In? or despise ye the church of God, and -shame them that, have not?…” Then he said, “It should be noticed that the verse also says something about drinking. Does it follow that if one wants to ‘drink’ that he Is to do it at ‘home’ and not at the place where Christians meet?” “There seems to be an eating of a common meal and the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11.11 He concluded that “during worship they were not to eat a common meal, but outside worship they could.”

Answer:

a. If taking a drink of water is the “eating and drinking” of 1 Cor. 11, then the preacher who takes a swallow of water during his sermon is eating a common meal “during worship”! I wonder if anyone seriously believes that “water fountain” argument! Have you ever heard anyone announce: “Remain for an hour of fellowship around the water fountain”? No, and you won’t, because that is not what it is for!

b. The fact that a baby nurses or eats a cracker during worship, or a preacher takes a drink of water during worship, has nothing to do with the context of 1 Cor. 11. If it were talking about such things, by their very argument, both the babies and the preachers would have to wait until “after worship” to “eat and drink”!

c. They were coming together for the purpose of eating a common meal and were told to quit it. When the church comes together to do congregational activity, common meals are not to be a part of it. Paul said, “have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” It still means that.

2. The editor said: “Paul even states in verse 33, ‘When ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.’ What Paul is saying is that the rich should not bring their provisions and eat them all before the poor arrived. The Lord’s Supper was not intended to satisfy one’s appetite.”

Answer:

a. The “tarrying” or “waiting” of v. 33 is not waiting for a common meal. He had just forbidden the eating of a common meal in verse 22. Verses 33, 34 make it clear that he is talking about “waiting” to observe the Lord’s Supper together. “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment . . .”

b. The factious spirit was to be corrected by communing together, not by “tarrying” for a common meal.

3. The author then tries to parallel 1 Cor. 11:22 with women keeping silent in 1 Cor. 14:35. To get the whole argument, we quote a lengthy paragraph.

In 1 Corinthians 14:35 Paul wrote, “And If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it Is a shame for women to speak in church.’ Paul uses the Greek word olkeo here. But what is designated by this term? Does Paul here condemn women who ask questions for the purpose of learning at the place where Christians meet for worship? Can a woman ask her husband a question on church property? If 1 Corinthians 11:22 condemns one eating and drinking on church property, why doesn’t 1 Corinthians 14:35 condemn women for asking questions for the purpose of learning on church property? The same term is used. What do the terms oikeo and oiklas designate? In Acts 12:12 (cf. verse 5); Romans 16:5, 19, and Philemon 2, these terms show that the church met in homes or houses for the purpose of worship. Since homes or houses were used for worship, could these two terms designate “a place of worship”? If these two terms can designate a place of worship which we have shown they can do, why can’t they also designate “outside of worship”? Is not this what Paul Is saying In 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 14:35? Since houses were used for the purpose of worship, eating and drinking could still take place at the same place where they met. But during worship, they were not to eat a common meal, but outside of worship they could. The same Is true with a woman. She could not ask questions during worship, but she could outside of worship” (Bobby Gayton, emphasis mine, F.J.).

Answer:

a. This sounds pretty good on first impression, but upon careful study it is neither scriptural nor consistent.

b. Notice the bold, italicized expressions. They are not parallel. If “home” and “house” mean eta place of worship,” then the opposite of that would be “not in the place of worship.” He does not believe that, so he changed from “place of” to “worship” itself.

c. There is no scriptural reason to make “house” stand for “a place of worship” nor for “worship” itself.

d. The author would have a real problem if he tried this argument on brethren who do not believe that a woman can ask a or answer a question in a Bible class. Is the Bible class “worship”? If “house” and “home” mean “outside worship,” then a woman cannot ask a question in a Bible class, is it is “worship”!

e. No one objects to eating and drinking “in the place of worship” as we have already shown. We are opposed to the church providing the place and materials necessary for socials and recreational activities.

f. The “speaking” of 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 is not talking about all talking on church property. Women sang (which was “speaking” Col. 3:16), and may participate in Bible classes, but they were not to address the assembly, nor to interrupt the assembly by asking questions. (See verses 18, 19, 28-30). Those who had husbands were to “ask their own husbands at home.”. (This does not mean that a woman cannot ask anyone except her husband, nor that she cannot ask a question anywhere else. Other passages give more general authority in these areas, but the kind of speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 was to be “at home.” There is no reason to make it anything else.)

g. The fact remains that Paul told the Corinthians to eat their common meals at home. It is not the work of the church to provide social meals. (If it is, it can provide the place, the food and the cooks to accomplish the work!)

This is not a new position. We are quoting some sources from the past to show that brethren have made the same scriptural contention for years. We hope that you will read with profit.

Now, may I ask, what is the purpose of the church of the Lord? . . . I say to you, with caution and thought, that it is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. And yet many churches have drifted into such effort. They enlarge their basements, put in all kinds of gymnastic apparatus, and make every sort- of an appeal to the young people of the congregation. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such is a part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction (N.B. Hardeman, in Tabernacle Sermons, 1942).

In 1944, Floyd A. Decker, who.had left the Christian Church, wrote an article on why he had left. One reason was: “The Christian Church emphasizes society and thephysical man by appealing to the carnal nature, with church carnivals, bands, plays, choruses, dramatics, church kitchens, church camps, and elaborate fellowship hails; the church of Christ does not (1 Cor. 10:7; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:22,34).”

Note: a deacon in a local congregation recently told me that he would not be opposed to setting up “a circus” if it got the crowd therel If you think that is unscriptural, what is the difference between that and a church kitchen, or church ball team? (They stand or fall together.)

“For the churck to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission . . . as the church turns its attention to amusement and recreaton, it will shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut” (B.C. Goodpasture May 20, 1948, Gospel Advocate ; Editorial).

“It is also needful to give some consideration as to the proper use of the church building. Some people say the church building is sacred and that should determine its use. However, I doubt that many people are of that persuasion. We know the use of the building would be determined if the building.were sacreil. However, most people who object to the way many churches use their buildings do not do so on the basis of the church being sacred. The use of tife building must be determined by considering the purpose for which it was, built. It is a misapplication of truth and right to build it for one purpose and justify its existence on that ground and then use it as we please. There is no way to justify the use of a church building for political purposes or for community projects or fortntertainment purposes. When we object to such misuses, let it be understood clearly that we do not object to the ingathering, to the eating, or to the drinking that is incidental to and.necessary for the performance of the required service. But I know we can see a difference between these things and the practices of many who conduct secular education classes, who have non-religious services, and who cat and drink in an assembly for purely social and entertainment purposes. Making fun of a water fountain or a blackboard or a baby’s bottle and comparing such things to many practices of the day may satisfy a number of people, but it will not satisfy people who want to go by the Bible. People can make fun of and ridicule conscientious Christians who object to such abuses all they choose, but such ridicule does not produce the authority for the church to provide a building for these misuses.

“Let us build good buildings in keeping with our needs. Let us equip them with the things which are incidental to and necessary for the performance of the required service. Then let us use them for the purposes by which we justify is buried.

their existence” (Curtis E. Flatt, Searching the Scriptures, March, 1962).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 24, pp. 752-753, continued on page 751
December 20, 1984

By Tom Roberts

Among scuba divers and those who swim in the ocean, there has developed a program for safety known as the “buddy system.” When a person decides to go scuba diving, the “buddy system” demands that one always has a friend to go with him. This friend knows the equipment, stays close at hand, watches out for danger and is ready in times of trouble to lend a helping hand. In this fashion, a diver is never alone in case help is needed quickly. It is a terrifying thought to be alone in strange waters, threatened, with no one to assist. Both divers are protected by the presence of the other and, born from necessity, the “buddy system” is a good idea.

Preachers often have buddies (friends). Surely there is nothing wrong with this practice. Even Jesus loved John in a special way. Whether a preacher’s buddy is another preacher or a member of the congregation is of little importance. We all need to be around others: to talk freely of problems, to study together, to relax together, to watch out for one another. Every Christian should have a buddy who will truly watch out for the other’s welfare.

But among preachers, the buddy system can be abused (as, I suppose, it could be with other relationships). But I speak specifically about preachers, since I can be classed among this species. No one enjoys being a friend to others or having friends more than I. It is wholesome and one of life’s truly great blessings. When preachers get together, they often study, discuss their problems, encourage one another, give constructive criticism, talk about sermons, and yes, watch out for one another. I have been in studies with a number of preachers where a note of warning has been sounded toward another preacher, face to face, about an idea that does not seem to fit the “pattern of sound words.” Some of these gatherings have been rather heated. But most of the time preachers appreciate such warnings when they are given, realizing that the “wounds of a friend” are better than the praise of an enemy.

How then could this “buddy system” be abused? What is the danger that it presents?

Friends, it becomes a danger when someone “uses” the system to hide behind friendship or when friendship will be so little understood that a “buddy” will be in danger and the friend will fail to warn of it. Also it can be dangerous when a person will surround himself with “friends” who will protect him while he continues to promote dangerous doctrines while camouflaging himself by the faithfulness of the very friends who protect him. This is an abuse of the buddy system.

Back during the rise of liberalism, there were many preachers who were closest of friends. When liberal doctrines and practices began to abound, many friends who were preachers studied and discussed these issues over many hours. Admonitions against error were given to those who needed them and, when all else failed, even though friendship continued, separations had to come because different doctrines led in different directions. Eventually those who went into liberalism found new friends who would not “wound” them with the truth. A few camouflaged themselves with faithful friends while in reality changing positions. It took a long time for them to present their true colors because they claimed to be faithful, had faithful friends, but were actually heading into liberalism. And, of course, there were a few preachers who stuck their heads in the sand and would not stand for the truth because they were afraid of hurting their friends. Time solved the problem and as liberalism became more intense, it was revealed where everyone stood in spite of the abuse of the buddy system.

Today we are seeing the introduction of a “new unity movement” based on the principles of neo-Calvinism. And we are seeing an abuse of the buddy system again. Some preachers are crying that they are misunderstood and misrepresented even while they actively propagate the doctrines of Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick and others. They seek to surround themselves with faithful preachers even while teaching unsound doctrines. Eventually time will tell the tale and true colors will show. Those who are changing will enter into a new “buddy system.” In fact, Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, etc., are already giving the pat of approval upon a number of preachers who used to be sound in the faith but who are now actively promoting neo-Calvinism. along the lines of Ensign, Mission Messenger, and Restoration Review, journals which have led the way into neo-Calvinism. But these preachers who are “buddies” with Ketcherside, et A are still trying to maintain a “buddy system” with faithful preachers. They give the appearance of soundness by the friends they keep. Personally I find few things more reprehensible than that of a person playing both sides of the field. The New Unity Movement is an insidious threat whose full danger can be seen by the Central church in Irving joining the Dallas ministerial alliance and giving full fellowship to denominations. This is the goal of the movement. When preachers teach the same principles, doctrines and errors, using the same terminology as the digressives, yet hide behind their friends who either cannot see their digression yet or are still trying to save them from error, they abuse the buddy system.

Scuba divers learn pretty quickly who they can trust in the “buddy system.” An untrustworthy “buddy” can get you killed. Preachers (and all Christians) ought to learn a lesson from this. If your “buddy” is not trustworthy, you will lend your reputation to error, be used for evil purposes and provide sanctuary for a false teacher. Jesus taught us to “go the extra mile” but He didn’t teach us to sanction error. Maybe it’s time for us to take another look at our “buddies”.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 23, pp. 724-725
December 6, 1984

By Hazel Fern

“The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delighteth in His way” (Psa. 37:23). This was the answer I received when I asked a faithful minister of the gospel if he had a favorite verse of Scripture that had served as a motto for life.

From his youth, he has studied the Bible and knows it as few do. His love for Christ is unquestionable, his faith in God’s word unmoveable, and his loyalty to the church unfaltering.

He possesses that which must be the foundation for any successful minister: a life consecrated to Christ, a thorough knowledge of the Bible, and the ability to make an acceptable presentation of its message.

He is not a great orator, neither an entertainer, but the better you know him, the more you will be moved by his messages. He is a humble, sincere, prayerful ambassador for the King, whose steps he is endeavoring to follow.

It can be said of him, as Hawthorne speaks of Ernest, in “The Great Stone Face”_”His words have power, because they accord with his thoughts, and his thoughts have reality and depth, because they harmonize with the life that he has always lived. It is not mere breath that this preacher utters. They are the words of life, because a life of good deeds and holy love is melted into them.”

We, who have had the opportunity to listen to his sermons and study with him the words of life, are thankful for this wonderful privilege. You too can share some of his knowledge in What Doth The Lord Require of Thee? and Partakers of the Benefit by Loren N. Raines. Brother Raines has and is helping many to follow in the steps of the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 23, p. 723
December 6, 1984

By Ron Daly

It is a well-known fact that the first years of the church’s existence was a time of phenomenal growth (Acts 6:1,7; 16:5). Many congregations are falling far short of what was accomplished by brethren in the first century. We simply are not growing in number, faith, love, and strength as we should. Actually, some churches are decreasing in size! What is the difficulty? My aim in this article is to enumerate what I believe to be the reasons for the decline in the number and in the faithfulness of many local congregations. Please meditate seriously on the reasons cited.

A misguided appeal to the physical qualities of the lost instead of the clear declarations of holy writ. I personally know of churches which are trying to “bait” people (young and old) to the assemblies of worship and exhortation! This is the crux of the social gospel-an appeal to the carnal, fleshly appetite. It is simply impossible to “draw” folks by means of secular gimmickry, convert them to Christ and keep them strong. When people do come to an acknowledgment of what is right, they usually feel very cheap to discover that they “have been had.” Many times they become disgusted and abandon all religious beliefs and piety. Brethren, it is time that we get back to preaching the gospel which is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

Apathy and indifference among the brethren. Some seemingly do not realize that God has called us into the greatest work on earth! We must take God’s work seriously. The parables of Christ illustrate that the Lord demands that we be concerned and active in His cause (Mt. 20:1-16). The fact that we will be judged by or according to what we have done in the body proves that we must be about our Savior’s work (2 Cor. 5: 10). The fact that some will be lost because they did not seize upon the many opportunities afforded them while they walked in the flesh proves that apathy is sinful (Mt. 25:41-46; Jas. 4:17)1 Finally, the fact that Paul, the Lord’s apostle, praised the brethren at Thessalonica for “sounding forth the word of life in almost every place” proves that we must be workers (1 Thess. 1:6-9). In most congregations, only about 40% are doing the overall work (i.e., encouraging the weak without force, visiting the sick, organizing home Bible studies with unbelievers, giving as they have truly been prospered, praying consistently, assembling regularly, etc.). Yet, everybody wants to share in the glory of the good accomplished! Some of the most detestable enemies of the local church are the indolent bums within who are like parasites, tagging along for the ride with no effort of their own to share in the work of God!

Materialism-the desire and earnest working for earthly riches, hence a losing sight of things eternal! The world we live in is so fast. The average member of the church is entangled in the mesh of slave labor. That’s right. Slave labor! We, generally speaking, are so enthralled with making “ends meet” that we give little time to spirituality until Sunday morning or Wednesday night! What a religion!

There is another sort of materialism which affects brethren that is not usually called materialism, and it is the constructing of new meeting houses and replacing old worn out roofs, paving parking lots, to the neglect of worthy men who labor in the preaching of the gospel in hard places. A fabulous, comfortable, extravagant building in which to assemble is not necessary to the worship of God Almighty! Building funds with thousands of dollars are lying dormant in many church treasuries when these funds could be used to support men who “bask” as it were on the doorsteps of brethren seeking financial help so they can work more effectively on a “full-time” basis. Our treasures are in heaven, not upon the earth (Mt. 6:19-21, 24-33). We must be content with godliness, for therein is great gain (1 Tim. 6:6-10). Striving for the basics of life is not to become our chief priority and take precedence over Christ (Mt. 6:~3; Lk. 9:57-62).

The absence of strong preaching against all forms of sin-I mean preaching which convicts and converts without compromise I Read Paul’s final charge to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:1-5). He was told to be “instant,” which means “opportunely, seasonably, when the opportunity occurs,” and “out of season,” whether or not the preaching comes at a convenient time for the hearers. Discharge your duty whether it is welcomed or not! In being “instant in season, out of season” the young preacher was instructed to “reprove” (reprehend severely, convict of error), “rebuke” (a sharp rebuke, to cite a penalty for disobedience, in this case of future judgment), “exhort” (exhort to forsake error, to urge fering and doctrine” (with unwearied, inexhaustible patience and teaching. People must be instructed soundly and reasonably in the truth!). The kind of preaching which Paul commanded of Timothy in 64 A.D. is not welcomed in many pulpits in 1984 A.D., and some churches which welcome it do not get it! There are some sins that some churches request the preacher to be silent about, and there are some preachers who request that the churches allow them to ignore certain specific sins! To such men and churches, spirituality is a game of politics. “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. ” There are many examples of strong preaching in the Bible. John the Baptizer told Herod, who was then involved in an unscriptural marriage, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Mt. 14). This was rebuke, not compromise! In Matthew 23, Jesus told the Pharisees that their converts are “twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.” Christ rebuked, not compromised! To Simon, a recent convert to Christianity, Peter said because of Simon’s sin, “Thy heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:19-22). Rebuke, not compromise. Paul said that Bar Jesus (Acts 13:6-12) was “full of guile, villainy, thou son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness Paul rebuked, no compromise! All they did was motivated by love (Eph. 4:15). Their preaching was balanced (Acts 20:17-20, 26-27). Wherever strong preaching is heard and adhered to, growth will result (Isa. 55:8-11).

A general tolerance of error and wickedness among members-there is the ever present problem of worldliness. Many local churches contain members who dress like the world (wearing tight pants, shorts, swim suits, low cut blouses, see-through dresses, short “manish” hair on women and long “girlish” hair on men) (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10). Members who talk like the world (indulging in the telling of vulgar or questionable jokes, profane language, boasting, lying, blasphemy, gossip, and slander [cf. Col. 3:5; Eph 4:25,29]) and members who finally come to love the world (cf. 1 Jn. 2:15-17), prevent church growth.

We can and will grow if we set our hearts to the task realizing that we are servants of the King, children of God, and laborers in the vineyard of the Lord!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 23, pp. 722-723
December 6, 1984