Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten

Recently a hurt and bewildered individual who is a Christian expressed the feeling of being rejected and avoided while attending church. This person had good reason to believe that she was being snubbed. But often when such matters are brought to the attention of fellow-Christians, the immediate response is “ridiculous,” or “she’s just a church baby.” But is “snubbing” really ridiculous? Can a Christian have the spirit of Christ while at the same time possessing neglect for the one who feels snubbed? I know that we are not immune to personality clashes, and some of us have to restrain our friendship under certain conditions. There are times when it might be expedient to withhold some expression of friendship as in the case of one who refuses to “bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:5) or if he “would not work” (2 Thess. 3:7-10). Even in the name of Christ one cannot encourage “church begging” or refusal to accept personal responsibility. But do we have to refuse to give off a lubricating warmth in violation of such commands as “let love be without dissimulation” (Rom. 12:9)? Under no condition is a chilly gaze of hostility justifiable conduct for a person who claims to be guided by the Lord’s golden rule (Matt. 22:39). When one withholds the common courtesy of friendly warmth, the end result is a snub! Check your dictionary, for it defines the word “snub” as to “behave coldly toward; slight or ignore.”

On the other hand, those who hang back and refuse to be part of the inner circle because they fear rejection must shoulder their part of the blame. Many times the very person who speaks of rebuff is the very one who comes into worship just as the services begin and leaves immediately afterward. Fear then becomes the basis of seclusion, not necessarily the lack of friendliness. One cannot be friendly with another when the recognition that friendship is a two-way street does not exist. Where one is not friendly, any indication (intended or otherwise) of coolness will be interpreted as rejection. Such is not necessarily an expression of a deliberate snub.

In this the Bible has a lesson for all of us. The faithful cannot ignore the weak conscience of a fellow-Christian (1 Thess. 5:14). The act of snubbing is a stumbling block (Matt. 18:6). Instead of casting stumbling blocks in the paths of others, we should “support the weak, be patient toward all men” (1 Thess. 5:14). “Let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this matter, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Rom. 14:13). The one who feels snubbed may indeed be in the wrong, but we who profess to be strong should bear them up.

On the other hand, what is the reaction of one who is snubbed? Hurt, anger, or revenge? Do you run off looking for a “friendly church”? No doubt there is often a basis for feeling snubbed. But should one try to get even? The New Testament says: “avenge not ourselves. . . I will repay saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:9). Look at our Lord: He was snubbed by the most influential of His day, and yet He had compassion for them (Matt. 23:37). Let us have this mind in us (Phil. 2). Do not seek revenge, but rather let the Lord deliver you from your enemies (if you have any, Psa. 18:47). To reward “snubbing” with understanding is a practical way to live out New Testament Christianity in the Christian life.

A Hindu woman was once converted to Christianity and suffered a great deal at the hands of her husband who was not a Christian. Someone asked her, “When your husband is angry and persecutes you, what do you do?” She replied, “Well, sir, I just cook his food a little better. When he complains, I sweep the floor cleaner. When he speaks harshly, I answer him mildly. I try to show in every way possible that when I became a Christian, I became a better wife and mother.” Who would deny that this woman’s husband was not touched by her practical teaching?

Let me make a practical suggestion. When someone snubs you next time, ask yourself if you are snubbing that person. Do not wait for people to talk to you. Go talk to them! Most people are responsive and eager to carry on a conversation. They will thus include you in their circle of friendship, Most people would not think of giving you the slightest hint of a snub, for most of the followers of Christ are unexpectedly interested in you. But you will have to be a friend to have friends. This realization should make those who appear cold and indifferent accessible to you. The next time you are snubbed, try loving the one who snubs you a little more and let the Lord avenge the wrong. There is only one reason why your enemy cannot become your friend–you!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 551
September 20, 1984

By Lewis Willis

My, that sounds like it would make a good title for a country music song! Or maybe a Chamber of Commerce tourism promotion. Sorry, neither of the above. It is, instead, the latest Oral Roberts fund raising campaign. This fella has more ideas about how to make money than the U.S. Congress!

About a year and a half ago (January 1983), I wrote an article about Roberts’ City of Faith Medical Center out in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He has built a 60-story diagnostic clinic, a 30-story hospital, and a 20-story research center–a total of I 10 stories of medical facilities. Some of you will recall that he raised millions for this project by telling the public he had seen a vision of a 900-foot tall Jesus standing over his City of Faith Medical Center. Supposedly, that was in 1981. He started feeling pressed for funds again in 1983, so he told everyone he had a 7-hour talk with Jesus, and the Lord assured Oral he was going to find the cure for cancer, and so the people sent in more millions. Apparently he has raised enough money to complete his hospital. So, we come now to the next phrase in his “Make Oral Rich” campaign. I had suggested in that previous article that he was going to figure some way to use that hospital so that more revenue could come in to him. Little did I know how he was going to approach it!

In a program telecast on May 27, 1984, he flashed on the screen a telephone number–it wasn’t even toll free–and he asked everyone to call that number and make a reservation to come to Tulsa for a check-up! If you build 110 floors of hospital, you need patients more than you need anything else. Now we know how he plans to get them. He plans to get all of his disciples to come out there and pay for a physical examination. I suppose it is to discover medically whether or not Oral actually healed all of his followers as he has claimed through the years. Looks to me like that would be a lack of faith on the part of the whole bunch. He goes out here preaching to people to “claim your miracle,” and then he asks them to come to Tulsa and let him diagnostically confirm that it occurred. What is wrong with the faith of Roberts and his people? They accuse me of blasphemy when I challenge them on these subjects. But if it will make the pocket jingle, they’ll do anything under the sun.

On that same program (as a matter of fact, it was the announcement immediately following the request for people to make reservations for a check-up), Oral announced that he and Richard were going to Baltimore for a healing crusade. He can heal them in Baltimore, but they have to enter the hospital in Tulsa! Anyone who can’t see through that kind of junk has closed his eyes (Matt. 13:15). People who can’t see through this scam shouldn’t be issued a driver’s license. They might end up hurting themselves.

It looks to me like Oral ought to at least be as good to his contributors as Jim Bakker is. Bakker is building a “world-class” hotel on his property down in North Carolina. It is going to be a monstrous thing. He will have 11 acres under roof–a multi-story facility–in his new hotel. For the small contribution of $1,000 you could get a lifetime membership entitling you to 4 days and 3 nights of free lodging per year. It’ll probably be available only in the middle of January! Oral could have at least offered a free yearly check-up at his hospital for a few hundred thousand dollars each. A lot of sick folks would probably have taken him up on that. But these fellas seem to have problems with anything that is said to be “free.”

The concept of such things is, if you need a doctor, why not have a Christian doctor? Why not be taken care of by Christian nurses? I guess that’s a pretty good concept. It you’re going to be in a Christian hospital to be treated by Christian doctors, you need a car that was Christian-built, powered by Christian-made gasoline, and repaired by Christian mechanics. Of course, driving to the Christian hospital, you’re going to have to eat, so you want to go to a Christian grocery store where Christian-grown food is sold. Or you might stop to eat at a Christian-operated restaurant. I hesitate to mention such things for one of these fellows might decide to try building such. If you have to travel a long way, you need, of course, to stay in a Christian motel chain. With this concept, a guy could start his own country! Do you suppose that’s what Oral and Jim have in mind?

After I had completed writing this article, but before I got it into the mail, I read in the Akron Beacon-Journal (6/l/84) why Oral needs all of those people to come to Tulsa for a check-up. Oral is having to cut back on his expenses because they are exceeding his income. It has been necessary for him to lay off 330 workers because he can’t afford to pay them. One fourth of the staff of his City of Faith Hospital has been laid off. He has had to eliminate 90 positions in his Evangelistic Association, and he’s had to cut the work week to 32 hours for employees at his college. Obviously, he’s suffering through some hard times. However, if people will stop thinking and just do whatever he says, he’ll get that problem straightened out. If he can import a few thousand people and have them pay for a medical checkup, Blue Cross and the other carriers will bail him out! These boys don’t miss a trick, do they? He might get a bit of a surprise on this latest fund raiser since insurance companies are trying to cut back on their costs. Most of them do not pay for a check-up just because somebody decides he wants one. I somehow doubt that the fellows operating these insurance companies are as gullible a the people who foot the bill for these spectacular ideas Oral and his buddies come up with. I was just thinkin’, Oral might end up in his own hospital for treatment of a ulcer that develops from this mess he has made out there. But he’ll be in good hands-that’s what he’s telling his followers.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 553, 568
September 20, 1984

By Dennis H. Wilson

The following article was at first a sermon, written as a result of the author’s strong feeling that generally the subject of repentance had been neglected. The author realizes the need for sermons on the nature and necessity of immersion, and faith verses “faith only,” etc. However, at the same time he realizes the need to frequently get back to the real “first principles,” i.e., a need to establish sin and man’s need to turn back to God (repentance).

The purpose of this paper shall be to answer the following questions: (1) Where did sin come from and what does man need to do? (2) What does repentance involve, and when did it become a part of God’s plan? (3) Where does it come in God’s plan?

Before we address the above questions, a couple of definitions are in order:

1. Sin: “To miss the mark, to transgress God’s will.”

2. Repent: “To turn from sin and dedicate oneself to correcting one’s life” (Webster).

From the information the author found on the original language, repentance involves a change of mind (primarily intellectual or academic), and a change of soul or heart (attitude). (See Acts 2:38; Rom. 2:4; Matt. 27:3; 2 Cor. 7: 9,10.)

Where did sin come from and what does man need to do? When we examine the Scriptures on the matter, we can see that the first sin was committed by individual choice. In Genesis 3 we find that Eve chose to transgress God’s law. Then Adam likewise chose to sin and the result was separation from God. Ezekiel 20:15,16 shows us that Israel as a nation chose to turn away from God, and again the result was separation from God. We can also learn from Ezekiel (20:27) when man chooses to sin, he has committed blasphemy against God. We commit sin today by not following God’s “new law.” James shows us that, contrary to the popular belief “the devil made me do it,” we today choose to sin by giving in to our own evil desires (James 1:13). The consequence again is separation from God; therefore, we need to repent or turn back (Lk. 15:7; 2 Pet. 3:4-9).

What does repentance involve? We might think of a man walking through life toward self-centered goals or walking through life in Satan’s service. (After all, if we are not serving God, we are serving Satan.) In order to serve God, he must turn around and start walking in the direction of God and serve Him. We must crucify the “old man” (Rom. 6:614). We must strive to walk in the light. This is at least in intent and purpose (Rom. 7:18-25).

When did repentance become a part of God’s plan? God has required repentance from the time sin first entered the world and still requires it. There are at least one-hundred eight references to repentance in the Bible which are fairly evenly distributed between the testaments. A few of which are Joel 2:12-14; Jonah 3:8; 1 King 8:46-50; Ezekiel 14:6, 18:13; Matt. 3:2, 11:20; Mk. 1:15, 6:12; Acts 2:38, 17:30. This makes it clear that it was a requisite under the Old Covenant and still is under the law.

Where does repentance come in God’s plan? It must, by its nature, necessarily come after faith, and we will show, by Scripture, that it must come before baptism. To do this let us examine Romans 6:1-7. After having opened your Bible and read the passage, it should be clear that Christ is the example we must follow. Let us look at the following chart:

Christ died . . . . was buried . . . . then arose

We are to “die” and be buried then to be resurrected

We must be raised to walk as a new creature, born again, walk in newness of life, etc. If one does not die before his burial, he is buried alive. Therefore, he cannot be raised as a new creature! If one dies but is never buried, how can he be resurrected as was Christ? It seems self-evident that neither repentance without baptism nor baptism without true repentance is acceptable to God, and is not He the one we should strive to please?

There are three essential elements involved in repentance. The first is a genuine sorrow toward God on account of sin (2 Cor. 7:9, 10). The second, an inward repugnance to sin followed by the action of forsaking it (Matt. 3:8; Acts 26:20). Third, humble self-surrender to the will and service of God, as in the conversion of Saul (Acts 9). It clearly involves more than just thinking or saying, “I need to get my act together! “

In Romans 3:9,23, we find “all are under sin,” and “all have sinned.” There is not a single person reading this article that is without sin and has no need for God. The result of sin is separation from God (Rom. 6:23). Have you ever “died”? Were you “buried”? Now that you know where repentance and baptism fall in God’s plan, we ask, “Where are you in God’s plan?”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 552
September 20, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Barry Cunningham wrote an article entitled, “Church Cooperation,” which appeared in Sound Words, Volume 2, Number 4, April, 1984, p. 3. The article states:

There are those who affirm the following proposition to be true:

“The scriptures teach that it is sinful for one church to send money to another church for evangelistic purposes.”

The idea of the above proposition is this: Churches of Christ are not authorized to cooperate in the area of evangelism; one church may not send money to another church for use in evangelistic purposes.

This proposition may be proved only when its advocates submit evidence from the scriptures that cooperation in evangelism is sinful. It is one thing to assert a thing to be true; it is something else all together different to prove a thing to be true.

To prove any statement as Biblically true, its proponents must show that it is taught in the Bible.

The Bible teaches in three ways:

(1) By direct command or prohibition.

(2) By approved example. In this case the example must be exclusive.

(3) By necessary inference, i.e., logical conclusions reached from the text.

First, there is no command: “Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism.” True, the Bible does not have to specifically forbid an act before it is wrong. Burning down your neighbor’s house is wrong even though it is not specifically forbidden.

A proper application of the “Golden Rule” enables us to know that burning down your neighbor’s house is wrong, i.e., we necessarily infer such to be the case.

Yet, the lack of such a specific command or prohibition must be admitted in regard to church cooperation in evangelism. The absence of such a command proves at least that church cooperation in evangelism is not forbidden in this way.

Second, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible. The following may be properly considered examples of New Testament cooperation:

(1) Cooperation between individuals (2 Timothy 4:9).

(2) One individual and several other individuals (Romans 16:1-2).

(3) A Christian family cooperating with individuals (1 Corinthians 16:15),

(4) “Disciples” cooperating with “elders” (Acts 11:27-30).

(5) Several churches cooperating with “saints” (2 Corinthians 8:14).

(6) A church cooperating with several other churches (Acts 15:4-23; 16:4-5).

(7) Individual churches supporting a preacher in the field while he labors with other brethren (2 Corinthians 11:8).

(8) A preacher receiving support from an individual (Galatians 6:6).

Which of the above is the exclusive pattern? Since there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible, church cooperation in evangelism may not be forbidden on the grounds of an exclusive, approved example.

Third, all churches are under the great commission of Christ (Mark 16:15). This commission specifically authorizes us to “go” and “preach.” We are not told however, to “go” in any particular fashion or to “preach” in any specific way. We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity.

Hence, church cooperation in evangelism may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism; cooperation is practical, expedient and scriptural!

Since church cooperation in evangelism is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism when it is considered expedient to the advancement of the gospel.

(Acknowledgment is given to Guy N. Woods and Thomas Warren for thoughts expressed in this article.)

Review And Response

Observe that the proposition says one thing while brother Cunningham’s informal definition says another. The proposition does not state that “churches of Christ may not cooperate in the area of evangelism.” However, it is easier for brother Cunningham to add to and alter the proposition than it is to deal with the proposition itself. Churches of Christ do cooperate in evangelism, and no one known to me denies it.

Read the two paragraphs beneath the proposition. Suppose brother Cunningham were to affirm that it is sinful for churches to use mechanical instruments of music in worship, and suppose a Christian Church preacher said:

“The idea of the above proposition is this: Churches of Christ are not authorized to have music in worship; a church may not use mechanical instruments in worship.

“This proposition may be proved only when its advocates submit evidence from the scriptures that music in worship is sinful. It is one thing to assert a thing to be true; it is something else all together different to prove a thing to be true.”

Brother Cunningham might well respond, “I am not affirming that music in worship is sinful. I believe churches may have music in worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). 1 do not have to prove that music, in general, is sinful, for I do not believe it is. I simply believe that there is no authority for churches to use mechanical instruments of music. My opponent may assert that such instruments of music are true and scriptural. We are not debating whether music in worship is scriptural. It is. We are discussing mechanical instruments of music in worship, and they are not authorized by the scriptures.”

Likewise, we are not discussing whether or not church cooperation is scriptural. It is. We are debating whether or not one church may send money to another church for use in evangelistic purposes.

Brother Cunningham implies that he would affirm that the Scriptures teach that one church may send money to another church for evangelistic purposes. Then, he states the rules whereby one proves “any statement as Biblically true.” These rules are:

(1) By direct command or statement.

(2) By approved example.

(3) By necessary implication, or inference.

Let us apply these rules to brother Cunningham’s position. Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? Perhaps brethren Woods and Warren will assist brother Cunningham in answering these questions with Scripture. The fact is that no such passages exist; yet, “To prove any statement as Biblically true, its proponents must show it is taught in the Bible” by one or more of the three ways cited above.

Brother Cunningham’s Objections

“First, there is no command: “Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism.”‘ We have previously considered the switching of the issue at hand, so, here we shall use a Christian Church response. Allow that brother Cunningham were to affirm that churches of Christ cannot send money to a Missionary Society for evangelistic purposes. How would he reply to the objection, “First, there is no command: “Thou shalt not cooperate in evangelism The absence of such a command proves at least that church cooperation is not forbidden in this way?”

If brother Cunningham affirmed that mechanical instruments of music in worship are sinful, how would he answer the following objection? “First, there is no command: ‘Thou shalt not have music in worship The absence of such a command proves at least that church music is not forbidden in this way.”

“Second, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible.” If that be true, then brother Cunningham needs to consider this: In church cooperation in the area of benevolence, he believes churches may build and maintain benevolent organizations or societies which in turn employ methods of care and provide the means and facilities to do the work of benevolence. Now, since there is, according to him, “no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible,” may churches build and maintain missionary organizations or societies which in turn use methods of preaching and provide the means and facilities to do the work of preaching?

Perhaps brethren Woods and Warren will assist brother Cunningham in denying the parallel, keeping in mind, of course, that “there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible.” Furthermore, there is no “direct prohibition,” either.

“Third, all churches are under the great commission of Christ (Mark 16:15). This commission specifically authorizes us to ‘go’ and ‘preach.’ We are not told to ‘go’ in any particular fashion or ‘preach’ in any specific way.” Grant, for argument’s sake, that “all churches are under the great commission.” Indeed, this would authorize churches to “go” and “preach.” If it authorizes each church to go and preach, then each church must do so, but brother Cunningham’s scheme has some churches funding the work and others overseeing and doing it. The great commission does not authorize an inter-church organization. It would simply authorize each church to “go” and “preach.”

Consider the Herald of Truth arrangement. Thousands of churches contribute millions of dollars under the direction and oversight of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. Herald of Truth does the “going” and “preaching” while the contributing churches do the funding. Where does the great commission provide for that? In the New Testament, each church, under the oversight of its own elders, went and preached (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 11:22-24; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Do not forget missionary societies. If a church can “go” and “preach” by sending money to a sponsoring church and allowing it to employ the means and methods of preaching, why can it not send money to a missionary organization and thereby “go” and “preach”? True enough, “We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity,” but centralized control, the modern sponsoring church arrangement, as typified by Herald of Truth, is an organization, a conglomeration of churches that must use means and methods. There is no denial of the tenet that churches may employ expedient ways to go and preach. The sponsoring church plan is an organization, however, that must itself select the manner of its operation.

Brother Cunningham’s Last Two Paragraphs

At the risk of being redundant, notice that brother Cunningham has again shifted gears. He closes with a swipe at church cooperation in evangelism, as though someone denies it. However, the proposition he is reviewing does not deny “church cooperation” in general. It denies one church the authority to send money to another church for evangelism. That is what he should have been discussing and negating. In view of his change of subject, let us set forth comparable topics for his consideration.

Parallel Number One: Brother Cunningham affirms that it is sinful for churches to send money to a Missionary Society for evangelistic purposes. A Christian Church preacher concludes:

“Hence, church cooperation in evangelism may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism; cooperation is practical, expedient and scriptural!

“Since church cooperation in evangelism is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may cooperate in evangelism when it is considered expedient to the advancement of the gospel.”

Would brother Cunningham say that the respondent has addressed the issue? No, brother Cunningham believes churches may cooperate. He objects to the Missionary Society as an unscriptural scheme. What the Christian Church preacher must do is find his arrangement in the Bible.

Parallel Number Two: Brother Cunningham affirms that it is sinful for churches of Christ to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. A Christian Church preacher concludes:

“Hence, music in worship may not be prohibited on the grounds of necessary inference. In fact, we may necessarily infer that churches of Christ may have music in worship; music is practical, expedient and scriptural!

“Since music in worship is not specifically forbidden in the Bible; since it is not excluded by means of an approved example; and since we cannot necessarily infer from scripture that it is wrong, we conclude, therefore, that churches of Christ may have music in worship when it is considered expedient to the worship of the gospel.”

Would brother Cunningham say that the preacher has met the issue? No, brother Cunningham believes churches may have music (singing) in worship. He does not deny that; he denies that mechanical instrumental music may be used. His opponent has not touched the proposition. What the Christian Church preacher must do is find his kind of music in the New Testament.

Proposal and Conclusion

Brethren Woods and Warren assisted brother Cunningham with his material. Both men are editors of religious magazines, Gospel Advocate and The Spiritual Sword respectively. Perhaps, they will allow brother Cunningham and me to conduct a written discussion of these and related matters in their papers. Guardian of Truth will carry it if they will. I am willing; surely, brother Cunningham is; now, all he has to do is convince brethren Woods and Warren. If you hear nothing further, it means they refused.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 547-548, 568
September 20, 1984