Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The original Gospel Guardian was short lived, consisting of only eight issues from October of 1935 through June of 1936, but its call for sound doctrine rang loud and clear, far and wide. The editor was Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (1896-1979), who turned the subscription list over to the Firm Foundation in the summer of 1936. From 1939 through early 1949 Wallace-edited the Bible Banner, with much of the load being carried by Roy E. Cogdill during the last three years. In May of 1949 the new Gospel Guardian commenced through the consultation and cooperation of Wallace, Cogdill, and Yater Tant. Finally, in January of 1981 the journal joined hands with Truth Magazine under the banner Guardian of Truth. The call for sound doctrine, loud and clear, far and wide, still goes out!

Someone has compared the gospel journal to a blackboard – it is a place for the gospel preacher to write. The paper is no better or worse, no more helpful or harmful, than the individual Christians who write in it. Gospel preachers and papers should emphasize the spiritual nature of the gospel (it is a message for saving souls in eternity, not for social and political reform) and the spiritual work of the local church (the work is to establish saints in the gospel and to convert sinners to the gospel). The Gospel Guardian’s power for good can be seen in its emphasis upon purity in faith and practice, the spiritual nature of the gospel, and the spiritual work of the church. Those themes were written large and often on the pages of the Gospel Guardian – and need constant emphasis in the Guardian of Truth.

C.A. Norred sounded the needed theme in an article entitled “A Homily on Benevolences,” which appeared in the Gospel Guardian, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Mar.-Apr. 1936), p. 39. At the article’s head appeared the following words in large print: “The Evils of Begging Created a Multitude of Eleemosynary Institutions Established by the State and Sustained by Revenues Derived from Taxation. The Church Is Not Divinely Pledged to Public Material Benevolence; It Is Not a Glorified Relief Agency; Its Resources Relate to Spiritual Values and Lie in the Realm of True Benevolence.” Norred expressed “The Mission of the Church” beautifully in the excerpt reproduced below:

But what is the church to do in the field of benevolences? When we not only encounter the everpresent call of the needy but fall under the influence of epidemics, and general calamities – what shall we do? Is the church to have no part in general benevolence? We should do well just here to take notice of the truth that the church is not divinely pledged to public material benevolence. To say the very least that could be said, the church of the New Testament period lived in the midst of catastrophes and general calamities as numerous and pressing as we experience today. Yet if the church ever undertook to function in the field of public benevolence the fact is not stated in the inspired record. Also, it must be admitted that we are without the general machinery necessary to such a general function. The individual therefore who would employ the church in the field of public benevolences undertakes a work for which there is no inspired example and for which there exists no divinely approved machinery.

And, secondly, we should bear in mind that we are called to a benevolence supremely above that possible with this poor world. When the world gives its silver and gold it has given all it has to give. It may fill the hungry mouth, it may cover the shivering frame with warming garment, and it may work the hope of a well-fed and comfortable tomorrow – but this, in very large measure, is all it can do. But the church of God can break the bread of life to those who perish spiritually, it can clothe with the garments of a likeness of Christ, and it can fill the heart with the peace that passeth knowledge and a hope of life where life is life indeed. Ours then is the true benevolence, a benevolence in the real values of life.

This field of true benevolence is worthy of our most serious consideration and thoughtful discrimination. In times of distress and major disaster the world is quick to turn to the church for things of material sustenance. And such is easily understood; for the world thinks very largely in terms of food and raiment, even as the multitudes at Capernaum sought Jesus that they might again have bread to eat. And it is disappointing to find even some Christians falling victim to the notion that the church is a glorified relief agency. To be sure, we may share our bread with the hungry and our covering with the needy – but this is regulated by distinct statute; but we have a ministry far beyond this poor field. And it is in this higher field that our real resources should be looso. Silver and gold are not our gifts to bestow but such as we have, and our resources relate to spiritual values, we can give in profusion and unto eternal life.

Ours is the true benevolence!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 632-633
October 20, 1983

By Vernon Love

The apostle John wrote unto Gaius, and condemned Diotrephes for his “love for preeminence.” Then he told Gauis what he would do to him when he arrived. If you have ever met a Diotrephes, you will know why John was condemning him. Let’s look at John’s description of Diotrephes and discuss others we know who are like him.

(1) He Loved To Have Preeminence (3 Jn. 9). He wanted to be first, to be chief of all, or would be nothing at all Christ is the only one who is to have “all the preeminence” (Col. 1: 18). No one should be seeking to obtain preeminence in the local church or in the brotherhood.

(2) He Would Not Receive The Apostles. John said, “he receiveth us not.” Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Lk. 10:16). So when Diotrephes would not receive the apostles, he was rejecting Christ and God.

(3) He Spoke Against John With Malicious Words. John said, “Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words; and not content therewith.” Diotrephes could not prove the apostles were wrong so he had to use “malicious words” against them.

(4) He Would Not Receive The Brethren. Diotrephes would not receive the brethren and would put out any one who would. Now he was some Christian! It had to be his show or nothing. No one else had better dare get in his way.

(5) Some 20th Century Examples of Diotrephes. You can spot a “Diotrephes” by his wanting his way all the time and will not yield to others. They will insist their ways are right, everyone else is wrong, and they will use ridicule to prove their point instead of the truth. They usually are the ones who either talk the loudest or the ones who talk the most.

They are also very subtle and they can manipulate brethren in many ways. Some will always have a “partner” who will chime in every time so they have more prestige f6r their view. When I was a boy in Indiana, our nii6bors had two large dogs who would -chase me when I would go by on the bicycle. However, if one would come out and bark and the other dog was not around, then he would not chase me by himself. A lot of Diotrephes are like that; if they can have a partner then they will stand for their view. If they have none who will come to their defense then they will back off.

Another way they try to get their way is to say “any way you all want to do it is all right with me.” However, they will be quick to tell you how they think it should be and if you don’t go along with their way, you will be in big trouble.

There is the “pious” Diotrephes who is the one who comes to you with honey dripping out of his mouth, trying to get you on his side so you will agree with him. If you do not go his way, look out, that honey turns to poison real quick.

The “arm waving” Diotrephes will come to you and with great gestures will try to make you think he is your friend, and wave his arms like he is on your side. What he is really doing is setting you up. He is the one who is trying to pressure you to go his way and will wave his hands to make more emphasis on his position. If he cannot get his way, then he will even try to go behind the brethren and undo what they have decided.

Another one is the fellow who comes with the statement, “They all think so and so, so what do you think?” This usually over the telephone and you need to be aware that this fellow has not talked to all the brethren but only a few. Then he will call the next one and make the same statement until he gets enough to think as he does. Often times this “Diotrephes” will have a private meeting in the church yard or vestibule and have it all set up with few of his cronies. They even have the nerve to get up and make their decision known to the church and the church has to like it or lump it. You can usually know if a Diotrephes is in the church by the way the men attend the business meeting. If some will not attend, it is usually because of the way the meeting is conducted and because some in the meeting are going to have their way or else.

Then there is the “seniority” Diotrephes who uses the argument that they have been in the church longer than anyone else, they are older than those in the church, so that means all should bow to their will.

The “politician” is the one who will try to get you to go along if the others will go along. Often times they have not gotten others to agree, they only imply they have. Usually they will be like Diotrephes in that they are not concerned too much about what the apostles have taught us to do. If they cannot get their way, they will turn upon the opposition and say many unkind things until they give in and go along with Diotrephes.

May we all examine ourselves, and strive to conduct ourselves – at all times so that’ we are “receiving the apostles,” that we are working with those we are worshipping with and never let it be said we have become imitators of Diotrephes.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 630-631
October 20, 1983

By Arthur M. Ogden

Little study of the New Testament is necessary to learn that God expects His people to work. The saved are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained” (Eph. 2: 10), and Jesus went to the cross to “purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). It is plain then, God’s people have been spiritually created in Christ to be zealous of the good works God ordained.

Early Christians were made aware constantly that good works were to be performed. Titus was instructed to show himself “a pattern of good works” (Tit. 2:7). He was also to teach the brethren “to be ready to every good work” (3:1) and to “be careful to maintain good works” (3:10,14). Paul often reminded those addressed in his epistles to be ‘:fruitful in every good work” (Col. 1: 10; 2 Thess. 2:17; Heb. 13:21), and brethren were challenged to “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works” (Heb. 10:24). The works God ordained serve to draw praise and glory to Him from those who observe His people at work (Matt. 5:16; 1 Pet. 2:12). These texts and many more demonstrate that God’s people are to work.

I find that most Christians understand they are to work for the Lord but somehow fail to comprehend what to do or how to perform it. God has ordained what His people are to do (Eph. 2: 10) and has revealed it for our learning in the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Failure to know what is required can be solved by a knowledge of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15) and failure to know how to do the work can be resolved by determination. We learn to do what we understand we must do. The wise hear and do (Matt. 7:24-25). The foolish only hear (7:26-27) and then do as they please (Matt. 7:22-23).

Misconceptions

The knowledge that God’s people are to work coupled with the desire to be acceptable to Him with the least amount of effort has led to many errors and misconceptions concerning the performance of the work. Some evidently think their responsibility to work is discharged simply by attending one hour’s service a week, but a careful examination of Luke 9:23 and other related texts quickly dispels this notion. Following the Lord is a daily task that cannot be completed in one hour. Even faithful attendance of all local church services does not fulfill the requirements of Luke 9:23 for constant service. Something more is demanded and expected.

Others think passive obedience, i.e., not doing anything wrong, is all that ii needed, but James writes, “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your ownselves” (Jas. 1:22). Action is required. The house swept and garnished (Lk. 11:24-26) must be filled with deeds demonstrating positive action (1 Jn. 3:17-18; 1 Tim. 6:17-19).

Still others think the work done by the local church of which one becomes a part by local identity, viz., attendance, giving and encouraging those who actually do the works, is all that is required. Paul’s statement in I Timothy S:16 shows the fallacy of this reasoning. He said, “If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged, that it may relieve them that are widows indeed. ” It is evident that believers are burdened with responsibilities which are not to become the burden of the local church. One cannot, therefore, fulfill all God expects of him as a Christian by faithfully discharging his duty as a member of the local church. Additional work is required.

Some even have the far fetched notion that the only way God’s people work is for the local congregation to make donations from its treasury to various organizations involved in what is termed “good works.” If this philosophy were true, one could as reasonably raise his children by the local church making a donation to “Save The Children.” Such reasoning is without logic. In the first place, there is no scriptural authority for the local church to be involved in such activities but, even if there were, it would not relieve the Christian of his responsibility to do the works God specifically requires of him. The Bible teaches, “let every man prove his own work, . . . . For every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:4-5).

Teaching Neglected

Over the past third century, discussion of issues relating to institutionalism and the work of the local church have somewhat eclipsed our teaching concerning the Christian’s personal work. One could readily get the impression that God’s people only work through the local congregation, or that at least most of the work is to be done by the organized efforts of the local body. The institutionalist position in essence destroyed the need for the Christian to work. They argued that whatever the individual can do the local church can do. Naturally, if the local church does the work, the individual has nothing more to do. Some even went so far as to contend that if the Christian worked apart from the church he robbed God of the glory He expected to receive through the church (Eph. 3:21). The work God’s people are to do as individuals has in many cases been obscured.

The war against institutionalism had to be fought but the fight demanded more and more attention be given to the work of the local church and less to the individual. Hours otherwise spent teaching upon personal work were necessarily directed toward stemming the tide of digression. The result was, in many cases, brethren did not learn what God expected of them except as it pertained to their association as members of the local church. Satan could not be more pleased.

Two Ways To Work

All agree that God expects the local congregation to work. Numerous passages can be cited, and will be in future studies, authorizing the local church to function as a unit to do the limited work scripturally permitted. This is one way God’s people work, but it is not the only way. A study of the Scriptures reveal that the greater portion of work God anticipates from His people is to come from individual Christians doing their personal work. A percentage ratio might show 90% expected from individuals and 10% from the local unit. No one can do this work for us. The local church at work cannot substitute for it nor relieve us of the personal responsibility. The local church can only do what it is authorized by the Scriptures to do and, when it has done this, it still has not touched a single work assigned the Christian.

“Every tree is known by his own fruit” (Lk. 6:44), and “every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away” (Jn. 15:2). “Let every man prove his own work, . . for every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal.4:5).The burden of doing the works of God is upon every Christian. Paul “exhorted and comforted and charged every one” of the Thessalonians how to ” walk worthy of God” (1 Thess. 2:11). To the Colossians he was “warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom,, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Why? Because every man must appear before the judgment seat of Christ (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10) to give account of himself to God (Rom. 14:12) who shall judge “according to every man’s work” (1 Pet. 1: 17; Rev. 20:12-13), rewarding them accordingly (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6).

The question then of whether the Christian must be involved personally in God’s work is answered. He must! Failure to do the work required on a personal basis would be disastrous (Matt. 25:4, 18, 45-46), and ignorance of the work to be done is inexcusable. God has ordained the works and made them known to us (Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Conclusion

Since God requires His children to work and since we shall be called to account for our actions, it behooves us to learn what we are to do as service to God. As pointed out previously, this involves learning what constitutes the Christian’s personal work as well as the work of the local congregation. In articles to come we shall give attention to God’s people at work from both vantage points.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 629-630
October 20, 1983

By Wayne S. Walker

Nearly all the denominations, especially the Baptists and the Pentecostals, have what are called “Christian colleges, ” as do also the Christian Churches and even some “churches of Christ.” Practically every faithful congregation of God’s people have received numerous requests from colleges run by members of the church and often identified as “Christian colleges” soliciting support in some form or another. In fact, every now and then someone will ask me whether certain schools operated by brethren are really “Christian colleges” or not.

The basic idea behind the “Christian college” concept is a school where “Christian young people” can be educated in both academic and religious subjects while associated with other “Christian young people” in a moral, or “Christian,” environment, as it is sometimes stated. Many of the denominational schools require a “profession of faith” before a student can be enrolled, and they usually receive support from a certain denomination or a group of churches, being considered the educational centers for the supporting churches and the place where their preachers may go to train. The situation with many colleges among us is not that much different as sectarian ideas have a tendency to rub off on unwary saints. However, nowhere does the scripture speak of a “Christian college,” either in fact or in principle. Any college that does exist has no scriptural right whatsoever to do certain things which many so-called “Christian colleges” do.

No college has the right to call itself or be called “Christian” to begin with. This word is found just three times in the Bible (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Pet. 1: 16) and is used only of people, never things – including colleges. The only entity that may properly be referred to as “Christian” is a believing, penitent, confessing, baptized follower of Christ. Also, the word is found only as a noun, not an adjective. Some people talk about a “Christian man” or a “Christian woman.” While this may not be necessarily wrong, why not just speak of men and women who are Christians and say, “He (or she) is a Christian,” thus speaking as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4: 11) and avoiding any occasion for misunderstanding. But even allowing for that, it is absurd, not to mention unscriptural, to refer to “Christian” printing presses, literature, bookstores, markets, nations, and especially colleges. Christ did not die for them and they have no business wearing His name. There is no way a college can be thought of as being “Christian” in a true Biblical sense.

Nor does any college have the authority to receive funds from any church, at least according to the word of God, especially from a church that claims to be “of Christ.”

The use of the Lord’s money in the church treasury is clearly outlined in the Scriptures – saving the lost through preaching the gospel (Rom. 1:15-16; Phil. 4:15-17), edifying the saints by teaching and worship (1 Cor. 14:26), and relieving the needs of indigent Christians in certain situations (Acts 4:34-37; 11:27-30). The mission of the church is spiritual, not physical or temporal (Lk. 19:10, Rom. 14:17). The purpose of a college, on the other hand, is to provide a general education in such disciplines as mathematics, language, science, psychology, etc., and to make available the proper social, recreational, and entertainment facilities as are needed, regardless of how much “Bible” may be included or how “Christian” the atmosphere may be. Churches have no business underwriting such secular education. In addition, churches of Christ simply have no Bible authority to supply financial aid to any human-founded institution in the first place. And although they denied it for years, it is now known that some churches have been secretly supporting many of the “brotherhood colleges” all the while.

Neither should the colleges try to usurp the work God has given the church nor exercise any influence upon it. Paul wrote that “the church of the living God (is) the pillar and the ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), not some manmade institution. When a college acts in such a way as to replace or supplant the work of the local congregation, it has overstepped its bounds whether it receives church money or not. It should then cease to exist lest it pervert God’s plan further and corrupt the Lord’s church more than it already has. Colleges have a way of becoming rallying points around which brethren will draw lines and form parties. They can exert an influence and wield power, in contradiction to the spirit of Matthew 20:25-28, of which we must be careful. And history reveals that most departures from the faith have begun in connection with church related schools.

There is nothing wrong with a group of brethren owning and operating an institution of higher learning to provide a general education for all interested young people in a moral environment, so long as that college refuses to accept church support and to usurp the work of the blood bought body of Christ. This writer has benefitted greatly from such a situation. However, let the local church, designed by God to be the support of the truth, and individual Christians also fulfil this obligation to ground young people in the Scriptures and train men to preach the word. Neither is there anything wrong with the college providing periods of instruction in the Bible and related topics as part of an eclectic ..curriculum; and even preachers may wish to obtain their schooling there. But this does not make the school a “Christian college,” for in reality, there can be no such thing.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, p. 625
October 20, 1983