Truth Magazine

By Anonymous

“I thought that referred to the Lord’s supper.”

“Well, you just thought wrong!”

That to which reference was being made is John 6:48-56. The brother, who thought those verses referred to the Lord’s supper, and I had discussed the point time and again in private. I also had preached a sermon based upon John 6, showing the significance of the verses in question. At the time the quoted “change took place, I was conducting a Sunday morning Bible class and had just finished making another application of those verses. I did not want the class sidetracked onto a discussion of the Lord’s supper and, therefore, after replying loudly, as quoted above, I continued directing the class in the direction I had been going, before he made his comment.

In a few moments it occurred to me that visitors were present and if an explanation was not given, there was no way they were going to understand why I had spoken so loudly to our elderly brother and had cut him off so shortly. I then stopped the discussion and said, “For the benefit of our visitors I need to explain about the exchange which took place a while ago. My brother and I had discussed that point numerous times in private. We do not agree, but we are not angry with one another. He is very hard of hearing and I am in the habit of raising my voice, when I speak directly to him. I did not say any thing to him this morning that I have not told him plainly in the past. I meant no offense and he did not take offense. ” Of course, I do not know how much of that explanation my brother understood, as he sat there with his hand cupped around one ear listening intently, but when I finished, he was shaking his head in agreement.

One of the most, if not the most, overbearing brethren I have ever known was a member of a church with which I became associated. One Sunday morning he disagreed with a conclusion I was drawing. He spoke up and expressed his view. Such exchanges certainly have their place in a Bible class, but after having expressed his view, the brother proceeded to try to take the class and run with it under his direction. When it became apparent that he intended to take over the class from his seat, I said, “Brother _________, will you please read . . . .”

Upon my naming the passage which I wanted him to read and which I considered a death blow to his contention, he responded, “You have it; you read it.” I did read it and then with the class back under my direction continued the lesson for that day.

In one church where I worked there was a faction. Most of those who formed that faction attended the Sunday morning class which I taught. About 50 percent, if not more, of the class were a part of the faction. Nearly every Sunday morning one of the factious brethren would have a question ready to ask me, before I could get started with the lesson of the day. Invariably I would respond, “Let us look at what the Bible has to say about that.” Then I would read or have read a passage or two which would answer the question. With that ritual out of the way, we could proceed with the lesson of the day, without further distractions.

Some time after I moved from there, I saw one of the sisters who had been in that class. We did some reminiscing and then she said, “You never ceased to amaze me in that class. Those brethren laid a trap for you nearly every Sunday morning and that did not seem to bother you at all. You would just go to the Scriptures and let the Bible answer their questions and then go on with the lesson.”

What could I say? Such praise is pretty heady stuff. She was certainly right about those questions not bothering me. I replied, “They were at a disadvantage; I had the Bible on my side.” Now after having had time to think about that response, I have concluded: “I had the Bible” to back me up, would have been a better choice of words.

It is possible, while considering a particular point, to allow a discussion to turn onto a subject which does not pertain to the point. That is the way a ladies class, I was trying to conduct, led me into talking about the “covering question.”

I suspect that very few brethren, who consider themselves experts on that subject, have ever viewed it from the standpoint from which Paul viewed it. In I Corinthians Paul answered some questions he had received from the church at Corinth. We can know that those questions were asked about a Christian’s freedom in Christ, because much of Paul’s letter deals with that freedom.

The moral climate in Corinth was such that no virtuous maiden or chaste and modest matron appeared in public with her face visible. It appears to me that the question Paul answered must have been worded something like this: “If we are free persons in Christ, governed by God’s moral standard, is it wrong for our women’s faces to be visible in our assemblies?” Probably all of us would agree that to the church at Corinth Paul answered, “Yes! That would be wrong.” However, there is disagreement regarding why Paul gave that answer.

It seems to me that the moral climate in Corinth required Paul’s answer. A Christian’s freedom in Christ does not permit Christians to flaunt their freedom in communities where circumstances have resulted in the people setting a higher standard than one’s freedom in Christ would otherwise allow. Thus when Paul wrote, “. . . if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God,” he would have been saying that neither he nor “churches of God” customarily exercised freedom in Christ, when in a community where indulging in that freedom would be considered disgraceful by the populace. Therefore, their women must not uncover their faces in the assemblies of the church at Corinth.

Whether right or wrong about that, I told the women of that class, which I was trying to conduct, that if they were in the habit of wearing something they considered a covering, because to not wear such would be a violation of their consciences, they had better continue to wear it until such time their consciences would no longer require them to wear it. Several of them had been wearing such an item of apparel. Others apparently had been trying to persuade them to quit wearing such an item. I had plainly expressed my view and at the same time had come to the aid and defense of those sisters in the class who held the opposite view.

I did not mention that matter again, the rest of the time I preached there. However, when I moved from there not a single sister in that church continued the habit of wearing such an item of apparel.

When Jesus sent His apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He told them, “Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Mt. 10:16). Is there another description which could more vividly portray their vulnerability? Is any thing more vulnerable than a “sheep in the midst of wolves”?

Survival in a hostile world requires the exercise of much wisdom, but to be an effective and faithful gospel preacher, one must realize that human wisdom is not enough. A gospel preacher must depend upon God to give him wisdom (Prov. 2:6; Jas. 1:5).

Being “harmless as doves” a preacher must avoid using deception, regardless of the reasons which might make it seem the thing to use, and always be completely honest. “The wisdom that is from above is first pure . . . ” (Jas. 3:17). One of the best uninspired statements about honesty that I have come across was, I believe, made by the late Sam Rayburn of Texas and speaker of the House of Representatives: “Honesty is not a policy at all. You either is or you ain’t.”

May preachers who work with small churches courageously meet the challenges of their work and faithfully serve our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 523-524
September 6, 1984

By Raymond Harris

In 2 Peter 3:3, the Apostle wrote: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.” The text indicates that self-willed men, determined to do as they please, will mock, scorn and ridicule the idea of temperance in view of judgment to come. They are so bent on doing as they please, they willfully deceive themselves and dismiss all the Bible has to say regarding the wrath and terror that can come from God when His commandments are despised and rejected.

Today we are witnessing this attitude both in and out of religious circles.

I. The World. The last 40 years have seen an unbelievable slide in morals. We as Israel of old (Jer.6:15) have so digressed that there are few who feel shame or who can blush.

1. Men and women have mouths that spew out vulgarity both privately and in public.

2. Immodest dress has evolved to nudity as streakers and sunbathers are arrested regularly for indecent exposure.

3. Pornography dominates the movies, TV, magazines and the written word.

4. Legislators have legalized adultery as state after state has adopted no fault divorce. And so, divorce and remarriage have swept the nation and “marriage vows” are a mockery.

5. The courts have legalized infant murder by making “abortion on demand” the law of the land. In the last 11 years, 15 million babies have been aborted. We are “legally” aborting a whole generation of our own nation.

6. Homosexuality and lesbianism are being flaunted to the point that a great and proud nation has become a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

7. Murderers, rapists, alcoholics, etc., are excused as being “sick” and the poor victims of a blundering society that aggravated them with poverty, social injustice and child abuse.

8. Our public school system is being ravaged with Humanism. Discipline, prayer, good manners, respect for the elderly and “school spirit” have given way to sex education, evolution and situation ethics.

9. We have become a nation nearly void of ethics, honesty, integrity and sympathy.

Hence, it is not surprising that influences such as we have mentioned above have left their mark on those professing religion. Just as the evils of the pagan society of the Roman Empire, influenced and tainted many churches of New Testament times, many who profess to be religious today merely “seem to be religious” (James 1:26).

II. The Church Of Christ. Sadly, a large portion of the church of Christ has been infiltrated and over run by modernism, social activities, recreation, the social gospel, materialism and worldliness. Here we give a partial list of some things that have come to our attention lately.

1. Businesses such as skating rinks and even Opryland U.S.A. in Nashville, TN, have picked up on the fun, fun attitude prevailing among many churches of Christ. They now offer special rates for large church groups. Opryland now for the third year in a row has set aside a special day for “Church of Christ” young people. “Church of Christ youths from across the country” will gather at 9:00 A.M. June 23, 1984 in the Opry house for an hour of fellowship. There will be special entertainment and then the rest of the day will be spent enjoying “America’s only musical show park.” I wonder if Jesus would go if He was on earth that day?

2. From another source we learn that religious drama is becoming an important part of their teaching program. No, we are not talking about the “Puppet Ministry.” That’s old hat. Now it’s real stage plays. It seems the high school class dramatized the Bible story of “The Feast.” They acted out the parable before the rest of the Bible classes. After each person in the story gave his reason for not coming; the entire audience was invited to the feast and all the children received popcorn and marshmallows. With such “party time” antics, I wonder if any child there went away understanding that Jesus was in fact teaching, that to come to the feast, is to obey the gospel, be baptized and be a citizen in God’s kingdom?

3. More and more we hear of those who have lost faith in the gospel of Christ to draw people to their services. Hence, their abbreviated 3 or 4 day “Gospel Meetings” are spiced with entertainment by choruses, quartets and “special singers.”

4. And then another church that has gone into the “Social Gospel” clear over its ears has established a “Pregnancy Hotline.” This is another example of churches losing sight of their God-given mission. This church has put “saving souls” on the back burner and has plunged into the misguided theory that the mission of the church is to “serve the community. ” They have organized their women to answer phone calls, show a movie on abortion and arrange for personal counseling with alternatives to abortion. I read of no such thing in the New Testament. However, I do remember Paul dealing with the problem in a very pointed way when he admonished one and all to “flee fornication.”

Despite all the inspired teaching in both the Old and New Testaments stressing the essentiality of obeying God, there will ever be “scoffers, walking after their own lust.”

Our only hope, as a nation, as a church or as an individual, is to repent and turn back to God’s way. Centuries ago God issued an appeal – a warning wherein He said: “Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin . . . turn yourselves and live . . . ” (Ezek. 18:31-32). The way of escape from disaster, here and in eternity, is to turn from sin and turn to God! How sad! The nation, the church or the individual who forgets God – will be turned into hell!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 521
September 6, 1984

When we speak “the truth in love,” the power of God’s love in His Word is exerted upon the sinner’s heart in order to convert him (Eph. 4:15). That power will convert him, if he loves truth (Jn. 7:17; Rom. 1: 16). As the truth of God’s love does its work, it comes into conflict with sin and error. Thriving on confusion, error charges those who speak the truth in love with causing the conflict and with lacking love. Loving “peace” (?), those in error often complain that “progress” could be made if only certain people would not speak the truth so plainly. Such peace-lovers crucified Christ because He would not and could not compromise the truth He came to proclaim (Jn. 11:48).

The Message and Method of Christ

Those “who controvert controversy” need to remember that “the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away” (A. Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, 4 Jan. 1830, pp. 40 44). After rising from the dead, the Prince of Peace commissioned His apostles to convict all the world of sin, to convince men of all nations that there is only one right way in religion, and to convert all mankind to Himself (Matt. 28:18-20). It was not enough for Christ to fight sin and error of every kind while He walked on the earth – He also commissioned men to continue the warfare in His name during His absence and promised to be with them in it! Hearing the message and watching the method of the apostles, unbelievers soon “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” and many complained that Christians were bent on turning “the world upside down” (Acts 4:13; 17:6).

The power of God’s love in His Word is exerted through both new converts and seasoned veterans of the cross who realize that sin and error condemn all the world to eternity in hell. Love for God, for truth, and for the sinner cannot be quiet in the face of sin and error. “Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dealt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ” (Acts 9:22). This new convert was not afraid for his new faith to be investigated nor was he afraid to initiate investigation of false doctrine.

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him (Acts 17:16-17).

Paul’s heart was touched by the plight of the sinner and there was something about error that stiffed the fighting spirit in him. He knew how to contend for truth and against error without being contentious in any ungodly sense.

Such preaching generates opposition and cries of, “Foul play!” but Paul did not know when to quit loving God, truth, and sinners.

And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul was not timid about pressing the demands of truth. He did not know the word quit. Faced with sin and error, he was always the controversialist never the compromiser. The message and method of the apostles was learned at the feet of the Prince of Peace, and by the revelation of the Holy Spirit sent from the Father in heaven. We cannot improve the message. We cannot improve the method.

What was the attitude of the inspired apostles in the presence of sin and error among brethren? Instead of ignoring the advance of false teaching in the hope that it would 44go, away,” they engaged in “much disputing” (KJV), “much questioning” (Marshall’s Interlinear), or “much debate” (NAS) in order to stop error’s advance (Acts 15:7). By the authority of “our Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul pled for the Corinthians to “all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you” (1 Cor. 1:10). He gave them the inspired Word of God to explain the limits of liberty, and to warn against the dangers of tolerating sin and of compromising with false teachers (2:13; chapts. 8-10; 5:6; 15:33-34). “The churches of Galatia” were warned against “some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7-9). Error rather than truth is the real cause of “trouble.” The Galatians were reminded that even Peter was rebuked publicly when he “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” (2:14).

Those who spoke up for the truth were the ones who knew the true meaning of love. John, the apostle of love, wrote by the inspiration of God:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 Jn. 5:2-3).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Genuine love for God, for truth, for brethren, and for the lost demands that we not only practice the truth but also draw the line against error so plainly that no one will mistake where we stand. To leave the false teacher with the impression that he is somehow safe in the hands of God is to deceive him. To defend leaving such an impression in the names of “peace,” “love,” and “unity” is to fly under false colors. It means we do not know the true meaning of such terms.

A Better Message or Method?

In 1930 Roy Cogdill was twenty-three years old, living in Greenville, Texas, and conducting gospel meetings full time when he wrote the article “Much Ado About Nothing” (Gospel Advocate, 20 Feb. 1930, p. 171). The digressive Christian Church people proposed to celebrate Pentecost on 8 June 1930 and some of the brethren who opposed digression thought they saw in the proposal an opportunity to open lines of communication. The method of dialogue was for preachers on both sides to exchange pleasantries about our common ground – to emphasize what we agree on, rather than what we disagree on. Brother Cogdill regarded both the celebration and the dialogue as “much ado about nothing.” “Instead of patting them on the back for what little truth they do preach, I believe they should have their hearts pricked about much truth that they are willing to either compromise or will not preach at all.”

Talk with digressives of our so-called common ground on “peace,” “love,” and “unity” in the absence of clear condemnation of their sin and error leaves the impression of approval. It is compromise. It confirms the sinner in his error rather than convicting and converting him. When young preachers learn that principle, they can speak without leaving an uncertain sound and can follow a steady course in the truth – as brother Cogdill’s life illustrates.

“Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). But the fad brother Cogdill noticed in 1930 has been in vogue again for the last decade. Some brethren who profess to oppose digression are “opening lines of communication” by exchanging pleasantries about “our common ground” with digressives. When questioned, some of our brethren claim that they are using a new “method” of converting digressives – but after a decade of such work, who has been converted? Several who once opposed digression have now gone into it while supposedly working to get somebody out! Those who have warned of that very danger have been told to keep quiet lest their warnings drive compromisers into the arms of the digressives – warning of the dangers of sin just drives

people into sin. Well, then, what would keep them out? Brethren, we have no better message or method than Jesus and His apostles had.

Those who have questioned the new dialogue and the new drift toward digression have been lectured repeatedly on peace, love, unity, unholy ambition, yellow journalism, preacher fights, paper drives, editorial pronouncements, brotherhood politics, and the like. Error thrives on confusion by charging those who speak the truth in love with causing the conflict and with lacking love. Some who have given lectures on “love” to men who believe that love of truth means conflict with error have become gradually embittered toward their brethren, toward the work of gospel preaching, and even toward life. Several things contribute to this bitterness. They apparently thought they could conduct these dialogues without review and protest, but found they could not. They thought their lectures on “love” and the like would stop the review and protest, but found they would not. Because of the cloud of confusion these brethren threw up, sympathizers made them believe ever more intensely that they were martyrs and victims rather than compromisers.

But, brethren, there is another cause for this bitterness and disillusionment. It is the gradual erosion of faith in the gospel, which is the true heart of the whole controversy. There is gradual erosion of faith in the authority of the Bible -the restoration principle that we can and must give Book, chapter and verse for what we preach and practice. Erosion of faith in the sufficiency of the Bible as the basis of unity. Erosion of understanding the Bible concepts of love, grace, gospel, peace, faith, unity, and fellowship denominational concepts are substituted. Erosion of faith in the Bible terms of pardon – toying with the idea that erring brethren and denominationalists may be saved whether they meet the conditions of pardon or not. Erosion of faith that people using instrumental music in worship, institutionalism in the work of the church, and other innovations are lost and in need of salvation. Erosion of faith in what the Bible says on morality – marriage, divorce, and remarriage; dancing, immodesty; social drinking; gambling, etc. Compromising the method of Christ in our fight against sin and error can lead us to compromise His message as well.

Let all of us renew our faith in both the message and the method of Christ. Let us preach the truth in love and condemn error with clarity. Renewed emphasis on fundamental truths is the answer. Jack L. Holt (P.O. Box 715, Sinton, TX 78387), a seasoned veteran, recently observed in a letter,

It seems to me there is a spirit of compromise spreading over the conservatives. Preachers are speaking the “smooth things” that people want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. There is a tendency to quit fighting the errors in denominationalism and just preach a positive gospel. Am I far out in this observation?

It is time to “preach the word,” to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine,” and to “fight the good fight of faith” (2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Tim. 13; 6:12). Each of us must answer the question, “What attitude shall we take toward error?”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 516, 535
September 6, 1984

By Jerry Fite

Do you want to be liked by the majority? Do you desire to be known by others as sophisticated and broad-minding? Is “doing your own thing” without condemnation from others your utopia? If so, you probably have already seen the assets of the “I’m OK – you’re OK” philosophy. Experience teaches us early that the less severe we are in judging others, the more we are liked. The critical, fault-finding grouch heads few lists of ideal companions. Expediency seems to dictate that we never condemn the actions of others. Is not such silence the best way to insure the acceptance of our own ways? “Live and let live,” or “I’m OK – you’re OK” is the modern “golden rule.”

The problem is that such philosophy will not hold up in all situations. Our sense of right and wrong cannot tolerate those who beat up their spouse and abuse their children, regardless of the personal pressures provoking such harm. A stealing employee is condemned first by the employer’s conscience before civil law is appealed to in order to fire him. Hitler murdering innocent Jews incenses us. In such cases, where is the “you’ve OK” spirit?

Many like the “I’m OK – you’re OK” approach because it allows man to be his own standard. His subjective feelings determine truth. If man is his own standard, how can one condemn the feelings of Hitler’s subordinates who felt it was right to eliminate an entire race. Who is so bold to enter the unseen recesses of the conscience, and call these men liars? In condemning conscientious actions, one becomes inconsistent with his philosophy. Because the freedom from hiving to submit to a divine standard is so attractive, many tolerate the inconsistency.

Many who acknowledge God also advocate the “I’m OK – you’re OK” lifestyle. Did not Jesus say, “Judge not that ye be not Judged” (Matt. 7:1)? Jesus rebuked the practice of condemning others by one’s own arbitrary opinion and judging others while living hypocritical lives. The Lord condemned supplanting God’s law (therefore speaking evil of the law) with one’s own by which he condemns his brother (Jas. 4:11). Jesus taught that in correcting others, one would first apply the divine standard to himself. “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:5).

Living according to the gospel will demand that we make moral judgments. Appealing to the New Testament standard, we must “Prove all thing; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). We cannot fellowship darkness, but most reprove darkness (Eph. 5:1). We do this by living according to the inspired Scriptures which provide the standard of righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 1:16-17). Sometimes reproving darkness will demand that we withdraw our social contact from a member of the church who persists in living sin. We are to “judge them that are within” (1 Cor. 5:11-12). Living according to the teachings of Christ, we must not eliminate judging, but make sure we are judging righteously (John 7:24).

Living lives which encourage peaceful relationships is commanded by our God (Heb. 12:14). Making peace is imitating our Father (Matt. 5:9). But we cannot have pace if the truth of the gospel is to be forfeited. This is why Paul said, “If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men” (Rom. 12:18).

I believe that we both can be “OK”. But we must first submit to a third party – God. Let us not be upset when error is exposed to His Truth. Determining to submit to God in all things, we can initiate true progress. By proceeding with the uncomfortable and demanding process of self-examination and correction, we can know for sure if we are “OK.” “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth” (2 Cor. 10:18).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 524
September 6, 1984