Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Like the brethren at Corinth, we sometimes place too much of the wrong kind of emphasis upon preachers. We also tend to forget what the scriptural work of preachers is. Often enough, preachers remind the church of this. But still another problem that we sometimes have is facing up to the biblical measure of great preaching.

God meant for us to have preachers in the church; they have a valid place and a marvelously important work to do (Eph. 4:11). But one can miss the point of what and who preachers are today just as the Corinthians did in the first century. They had to be reminded with a number of strategically-placed questions that preachers are just people with a tough job to do, not little gods to be placed on a pedestal and idolized: “What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to him. I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. 3:5-7). In the final analysis, preachers have to- “die to self” and so lose themselves in the work that they do, or else they cannot be successful in carrying out their mission. As the apostles put it: “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5).

No text more fully says this than Paul’s own testimonial offered in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. In this tiny piece of his heart he shares with us his own feelings about preaching, and in so doing sets the spiritual agenda for all of us who preach: “And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of bod. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” We would all grant that Paul was a great man and a great preacher. Here the apostle powerfully refutes many assumptions often made about great preaching. He does so in quiet, simple reflections upon his own message and its humble but earnest delivery.

Education

Jesus chose his men from among the common people. They were not particularly impressive to any except those whose souls hungered for eternal life and the truth that led to it. They were fishermen and tax collectors,laboreis and tradesmen. They heralded from tiny towns and villages and would have attracted little attention from those of the large cities of the time. Peter and John were regarded as “uneducated and untrained” (Acts 4:13) by the sophisticated and well-heeled members of the Sanhedrin. And though Paul was himself learned and trained with the elite of his age, yet he would not allow his acquired wisdom to “get in the way” of proclaiming the unsearchable wisdom of Christ. He did not preach “with wisdom of words.”

It is common for us today to ask a man, “Where did you go to school?” That is harmless if it is merely a question asked for sake of one’s own curiosity. But if it implies what it sometimes does, namely that one is unqualified to preach unless he has a degree from some accredited institution, then we may be robbing the church of some of her most zealous and ardent workers. If a man is faithful and able to teach others also, then he is qualified to preach the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). If he is not, then he should not be allowed to enter the pulpit of any meeting-house of the saints. Some of our best men have been extremely capable but have had little formal instruction. Some of those who have caused the church much heartache have been among the best trained of our number. The reverse of both is also true. Educational background is thus no accurate measure of great preaching.

Eloquence

His own, apparent lack of eloquence was one of the things with which Paul had to contend. For some people then it was of supreme importance, given the Greek and Roman concern with rhetoric. He admitted his own lack of skill in this area (2 Cor. 11:6) but did not apologize for if. Paul instead confided to them that he made not the slightest effort at gaining proficiency as a rhetorician in order to proclaim Christ; neither “excellency of speech” nor “persuasive words of wisdom” were the drawing power of the gospel. It was rather “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” That message, contained in simple but dedicated “earthen vessels,” was sufficient to accomplish the task of saving the lost.

Dedicated, truth-loving men make the best preachers. In some cases they may be “rude in speech” but so long as they are not in knowledge they can do the work well. I was surprised on several occasions when I first started preaching and heard for the first time men whose labors had made of them giants in the church. My disappointment ran deep. Few of them were what I expected them to be. I suppose I had presumed them to be great orators. I think I at first would have been disappointed with Paul for the same reason. As the years have passed I have come to see it differently, more in line with the Scriptures I hope. Most of us likely would have been. A part of growing to maturity in Christ is coming to appreciate the priceless gift inside more than the fancy packaging that covers the outside. After all, that part gets thrown away and is forgotten. What abides is love for the truth and dedication to Jesus Christ and his church. What is remembered is faithful service. That is recorded in the Lamb’s book of life and will be preserved in the loving memories of God’s people.

Personal Dynamism

“Is he a good mixer? Does he have a good personality?” These are the measures of great preaching and of great preachers for some of us. One would be glad to grant that the man who preaches the gospel must be able to talk to others and possess the tact and diplomacy necessary to communicate the truth. But where does the Bible make it a qualification of the minister of the Word that he be a star in society, the life of every party? In fact, I have often observed such a man fall by the wayside early in his preaching life while others less flambouyant but deeper spiritually “hoe their row to the end,” right through the heat of the day. A bubbling personality, personal dynamism, and popularity with the young people is no measure of great preaching. Neither are fancy clothes, gold chains and rings and cuff-links. The Bible does not reflect this trend among us toward what a preacher of an earlier era called “cock of the walk preachers.” That is not to say that preachers cannot wear nice “threads” and such, but don’t let us measure the preaching of the gospel by worldly standards of this sort (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10).

Promotional Ability

Many churches today want a promoter. It is usually a dead church that needs such a man, being that God set men in the church as bishops and overseers to plan and supervise the worship and work of his people. If the church is not dead then it is off on some tangent, having left the way of truth. That is why it needs a promoter. Promoters don’t have to be good Bible scholars or sacrificial men of faith. They just have to be good at getting numbers on the board. The man who teaches God’s will in truth must “provoke unto love and good works” (Heb. 10:24), “reprove, rebuke and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:2), and generally encourage the church in word and deed (Rom. 12:8). But where brethren are faithful and sound there is no need for a promoter.

A Family

“Is he married? Does he have a family?” We often hear this issue brought up in regard to hiring a preacher. Most men among us are family men, and have the right to “lead about a wife … as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5). We would all defend that right. But there is another right that I would like to bring up here. This is the right to be single. Did you know that many of us would not hire Jesus as our local preacher? Many of us would not hire the apostle Paul either. Why? Because they were not married. They didn’t have a family.

The truth is that in some ways a man may conceivably do a better job in the gospel by being single. “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided” (I Cor. 7:32-34). Paul said of the unmarried state, “I would that all men were even as I myself” (1 Cor. 7:7). Unmarried men are therefore no less qualified to preach the gospel than are family men.

Conclusion

These are a few of the false measures of great preaching often heard among us. We need to be extremely careful that we do not set up qualifications for preachers other than those outlined in the Word. For preaching to be right, the right men are needed and the wrong men need to be weeded out. Bible qualifications are what we require, not ones that we have invented and imposed upon others (Matt. 15:9).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, pp. 500-502
August 18, 1983

By Jady W. Copeland

I write on the subject with “fear and trembling” as I know it is very controversial. Yet it is a needed subject. I am afraid harm has been done to the work of the Lord by elders resigning for no good or scriptural reason. Likewise much harm comes when elders refuse to resign when”they should. It seems paradoxical that the men who should be the -wisest men among us sometimes cause trouble in the church they oversee.

I believe that elders should neither be “appointed for life” nor temporary duty. Neither do I believe that just because one is “older” that he is an elder in the scriptural sense. True, elders are older men but they must be appointed (Acts 14:23). If not, the word appoint is meaningless. If they are to be “appointed” to what are they to be appointed? To being older? They are already that. They are appointed to do a work – to do a service for God.

Why Did God Want Elders In Every Church?

Let us lay a foundation before answering the question above. While not writing on qualifications and work of elders, we need to say that God wanted them to do a work and carry out certain duties that every member of the body is not capable of doing. These duties may be summarized in a word: oversight. In Acts 20:17-28 we note four terms applied to these men. In verse 17 they are called elders, (American Standard Version) but the footnote renders it presbyters. Verse 28 calls them bishops while the footnote indicates overseers. From these we learn that older men must oversee. Hebrews 13:17 tells us to obey them for they have the rule. They are spiritual guides. They watch for souls – a work to be done, and one that requires wisdom and knowledge. This is a work not an “office” in the commonly-accepted definition of that word. They are not figureheads or potentates. They are workers and have the job of oversight, looking out for souls, holding fast the faithful word, etc. Any worker with so important a job must be qualified to do the work and God laid down qualifications because He knew it would be only certain men who could do this work.

If a company needed an engineer they would advertise for a men or woman with so much experience and so much education. Why? Because, in their judgment, the job they wanted done must have a person who had qualified himself, and they believed that the education and experience would prove to them that the person could do the work. God knew what work needed to be done by elders, and he knew what would qualify them. He knew what kind of men were needed to be leaders, overseers, shepherds or bishops. In order for the church to know who could fill the bill, he laid down certain qualifications for us to follow.

Now, by inspired writings, we can know what type of man is needed to do the work which is assigned them. Even though God could (if he chose) look down and know who could do the work, he laid down qualifications so that the flock could know what type men were needed. Of course, there may be error in human judgment, and often men are picked because they are “good business men” or even they may be picked out of prejudice. That is the reason extreme care should be used in selecting men for the eldership. Pick qualified men – not those who are popular with men. God wants godly, capable men to work – to oversee the flock. So He laid down qualifications so that men could know who had qualified themselves. Their influence must be without reproach – from within and without. Their capability must be recognized. They must be men that the congregation is willing to follow (because they are good men) and they must be men capable of convicting the gainsayer. There are some good men who may not be able to do the work needed (1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:9).

When Should An Elder Resign?

I believe that when men are qualified they should be appointed as elders. Does it not follow that when they become disqualified they should resign? If their influence is of such nature the congregation cannot follow their example should they not resign? If for some reason (health or otherwise) they are no longer capable of overseeing should they not step down? The same is true of preachers. All who can preach should preach. Whether or not they want to be “full-time” preachers supported by brethren is their choice, but if they can help people know the Bible, they must preach. But suppose they are no longer capable — should they continue to present themselves as preachers? If they become physically or mentally sick, should not they quit? The shame of this is (either of elders or preachers) that some don’t know when they are not qualified. If elders are for some reason not able any longer to meet the qualification should not they step down? I know sickness is a relative thing, and often a man is not completely disabled so he can still render a valuable service in the eldership even though he cannot do as much physically as before. But there may come a point when he is so sick that he cannot serve. When this happens, he can no longer oversee, and, therefore, should resign.

I knew of a deacon who resigned after the police had caught him stealing money from the bank where he worked. Suppose the elders had found out before the police did that he was a sinner. Should he have been asked to quit? Elders can also sin, and when they are thus disqualified, of course they should no longer serve.

When Should An Elder Not Resign?

Should an elder resign when his wife dies? While I do not try to press my belief on other, I personally do not believe he must resign. Of course if he believes he should, then I would not try to get him to offend his conscience. But is he less capable of doing the service? He has proven over the years that he has ability to rule the flock. Is this diminished when she died? I do not believe so. In earlier years he has proven in rearing the family that he has the ability to rule the flock, and once his wife dies this does not take away his ability to guide the flock. But does not the Bible say he must be the “husband of one wife”? Yes, but as we have shown, the family qualifications were in the context of showing by these that he had the ability to oversee. It seems from 1 Timothy 3:5 that ruling the family qualifies him to do the work God knew needed doing. Paul said, “. . . but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” His ability to take care of his family has shown that he can rule the house of God. This is not taken away when his wife dies. Each one must make up his own mind in this area.

Should elders resign if all of their children are not Christians? Again, I do not believe so in every case. Each case, of course, must be judged on its own merits. And whether we admit it or not, there is a judgment call here. I knew of a man who had about ten children, all of which were faithful Christians except one, and he was early born in life. Must he resign when (in adulthood) one of the ten fell away? I do not think so, because he had proven his influence over his children in life, and while an outside influence had caused one to fall later, this was no reflection on the elder’s life or ability to rule. Again, we must be careful here, for it is impossible to draw an exact line. If a man had five children and only one was ever a Christian, then I would certainly question his qualifications. But just because one of several never obeyed the gospel would not prove he was disqualified. Common sense and reason must be exercised here, and if the congregation did not want such a man, perhaps it would be unwise to appoint him.

There is another instance when elders must not resign. Sometimes troublemakers decide they want their way, and ‘ therefore, ask for an elders resignation. Often it is an ulterior motive that prompts such actions. In this event ‘ the elder must make sure he is still qualified and that he is standing on truth. During the controversy on institutionalism this happened. If one or more elders did not want to support the human institutions and some in the church did, often petitions were gathered asking for his resignation. But an elder need not resign if he is sure he is on scriptural grounds just to appease such men.

I illustrate the above with four cases I have known. When a young preacher, I had a man come to me thinking of resigning. I discouraged it because, even though he had no children of his own, I believed he had qualified himself by helping to rear his nieces and nephews. The congregation wanted him to stay. I called in an experienced preacher to talk with him. It turned out the older man discouraged him from resigning. In all cases where a man had no children, I would not do as I did, but under the circumstances I believed it was the scriptural position.

In the second case I probably made a mistake. After a short stay in an East Texas town an elder mentioned he probably should resign. I discouraged it, only to learn late he was in the middle (if not a major cause) of problems in the church. (I learned there that sometimes it pays to keep your mouth shut.) In the third instance a man mentioned resigning in the middle of problems on the institutional issues. I discouraged him from doing so, because I believed he was upholding the truth and trying to do what was right. While many asked for his resignation, Uthought he was still qualified and trying to lead the congregation in truth and not error. In the fourth case a man who had four children wanted to resign because one in his teens had not obeyed the gospel. But as explained earlier, I understood that in that particular case, since the other three were faithful, the man was qualified because he had guided them all in the right direction, and through no fault of his (so far as I knew) the child had never obeyed the gospel. I did not then, nor do I now believe he should have resigned.

Brethren, make sure men are qualified before appointment and these problems may never come. There is one thing worse than not having elders and that is having unqualified and self-willed elders. Let us give some prayerful thought to these matters and do all we can to cause men to want to qualify themselves for the eldership.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, pp. 499-500
August 18, 1983

By Ron Daly

Friends, please read Ezekiel 3:16-27 and Acts 20:26-27 because the texts prove that God Almighty has always demanded that His servants be faithful (trustworthy, reliable) in the proclamation of His (I Thess. 2:13) inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative word! The responsibility of declaring the message of truth is exceedingly grave! The truth must always be preached in a spirit of meekness, love, and consideration, without fear, favor, or compromise. The salvation of a soul is too blessed and the damnation of a soul is too terrifying for the professed soldiers of Christ to encourage contests of ” Religious Russian Roulette” with the minds of honest, truth-seeking folks. We must ever be ready to “preach the word! Be ready in season, out of season 9′ (2 Tim. 4:2; NKJV).

Accepted sins are wicked, iniquitous, and ungodly deeds which are received favorably by many. Sin ought not to be accepted by anyone, at anytime, or on any occasion! Sin separates us from our God (Isa. 59:1-2). Sin is lawlessness (1 Jn. 3:4). And sin has wages, which is death (Rom. 6:23; Jas. 1: 14, 15). All sin is detestable before God, for sin is unrighteousness (1 Jn. 5:17).

Many pulpits do not send forth a resounding denunciation of all sin in clear, forthright terms, but are becoming hotbeds of error, tolerance, and are giving false comfort to sinners! For fear of hurting some weak members’ feelings, becoming unpopular, being fired, losing support, being expelled from the local Ministerial Alliance or Civitan club, some evangelists are not preaching God’s truth in the way that God’s word demands! Too many churches are being fed a diet of fifteen minute sermonettes, shallow philosophical nonsense, “they-say, I-say, We-say,” and unfounded opinion instead of a simple “thus saith the Lord.” We are commanded in Scripture to “speak as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11) and “not to go beyond the things which are written” (I Cor. 4:6). But, as the Lord’s apostle, Paul predicted, “the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables, But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). The word must be preached. We must not favorably receive any sin! Sin must not be fellowshipped, but reproved (Eph. 5:11)!

There are churches which will not allow sin – all sin to be denounced in explicit language and with equal force. There is a dead cat on the line somewhere! God through the prophet Ezekiel says, “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair!. . . Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge everyone of you according to his own ways” (Ezek. 33:17-20). From this text it is apparent that God wants justice, dealing equally with all!

Now, let us carefully contemplate some of the “accepted sins” which I shall enumerate for our consideration.

Denominationalism

For some strange, inexcusable reason, members of the Lord’s church have in many instances convinced themselves that denominationalism is not sinful! If denominationalism, is not sinful, nothing is! Some preachers act as if they believe that it is beneath the dignity of a preacher of the gospel to take his Bible and indict human creeds, names, worship, organizations, and churches. Denominationalism is a system of division, and the Bible condemns unauthorized division (Tit. 3:9-10; Rom. 16:17). When we receive denominationalism instead of preaching against it, we are preparing the way for a generation of young people in the church who will not have a proper scriptural view of the undenominational nature of the church in the New Testament. They will speak the language of Ashdod; examples of which are calling the preacher the “pastor,” denying the essentiality of baptism in order to salvation, believing that instrumental music in worship is acceptable, referring to Sunday (the first day of the week) as the “Christian Sabbath,” speaking of one “joining” the church instead of being added to it by the Lord (Acts 2:47).

Brethren, it is the responsibility of the present generation to commit the truth “to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Let us get about the task of warning God’s people against all forms of sectarianism, both in and out of the church! Denominationalism is damnable. There is nothing good about it! The members thereof, according to the teaching of the Bible, will lose their souls if they fail to repent, leave it, and obey the gospel of the Christ (2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rom. 1:16)! Another “accepted” sin in some churches is:

Social Drinking

Most individuals agree that drunkenness is sinful, thus condemned by the Bible, and should not be engaged in (cf. 1 Cor. 6: 10; Gal. 5:2 1). But, some insist on arguing, “The Bible does not say that I sin just by taking one drink of liquor for social purposes, or by drinking one beer. The sin is in getting drunk, not in the limited consumption of alcohol.”

The person who defends social drinking on the basis that the Bible condemns drunkenness fails to recognize the fact that there are degrees of drunkenness. A person does not have to be “stone drunk” or “dog drunk” in order to violate biblical teaching! In the New Testament several Greek words are translated drunk, drunken, drunkenness. W.E. Vine observes regarding methusko, “signifies to make drunk, or to grow drunk (an inceptive verb), marking the process or state expressed in no. 1, to become intoxicated, Lk. 12:45; Eph. 5:18; 1 Thess. 5:7a.” E.W. Bullinger says methusko means, “to grow drunk (marking the beginning of methuo). “These definitions prove that there are degrees of drunkenness. One is as drunk as the amount he drinks!

Consider with me the following scriptural principles which are violated by social drinkers: (1) One who consumes alcoholic beverages is not wise (Prov. 20:1). (2) One who is a social drinker cannot be an influence for good among believers or sinners (1 Thess. 5:21; Matt. 5:13-16). (3) The social drinker, being consistent cannot scripturally convince the “outright” drunkard that he must cease his drunkenness while he (the social drinker) holds on to his dtsipping’4″ (4) The social drinker is intentionally., and knowingly destroying his mind and body which is to be preserved, not destroyed (1 Cor. 6:19-20; Rom. 12:1-2). (5) One who drinks socially cannot abstain from fleshly lusts which which against the soul (1 Pet. 2:11). Another very prevalent sin which is “accepted” by a multitude of brethren is:

Racial Prejudice

Racial prejudice is a world-wide sin, universal in scope! It is sinful because: (1) It excites favoritism and partiality. Such is expressly condemned by the Bible (Jas. 2:14, 9). James states, “If ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The text simply states, to have respect of persons is sin! Racial prejudice is very definitely conducive to respect of persons (lit. “faces”). Often times, a racial bigot will refuse to extend a handshake, a smile, and word, hospitality, or even a gospel sermon to one of a race other than his own! James says those who act in such a way are transgressors! (2) Racial prejudice fails to observe the divine injunction to love one’s neighbor unselfishly. This is the meaning of the Greek word agape in Rom. 13:9-10; 1 Jn. 4:20-21. In these texts John asks a most important question: “For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” The fact is, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1 Jn. 3:15). One who truly loves his neighbor in the scriptural sense seeks his well-being, good, and spiritual benefit. This, the bigot does not do, for he considers whites to be oppressors who deserve to be hung by the neck, blacks to be dogs without souls, Jews to be filth who need killing, and Orientals to be nonhuman creatures who deserve ridicule!

The racial bigot fails to realize that all of us “are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:25-29). The bigot implies that some of us are the offspring of monkeys and other brute beasts! But, the Bible says, “God hath made of one blood all nations of men. . .”

There cannot scripturally be segregation among Christians solely on the basis of race! The Lord built one church for all (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4:4). Christ did not die for two churches, but for one (Acts 20:28)! The Bible plainly says that God “reconciles both (Jew and Gentile) in one body” (Eph. 2:16). Any man who loves the truth has the prerogative of worshiping with God’s people, Christians, regardless of racial heritage!

The apostle Paul did not tolerate racial prejudice in the life of the apostle Peter. Paul knew that bigotry is sin, and he informed Peter of the same. The record says in Galatians 2:11-14, “When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he stood condemned, For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, if thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Why is it that some preachers, writers, and editors are bold proclaimers against such. sins as homosexuality, drunkenness, gambling, and immorality in the form of adultery, etc., but neglect strong, deliberate preaching, teaching, and writing on racial prejudice? It is as rare as a “pink bow-legged” jack rabbit to hear our prestigious, well-thought of men speak against the actions of publicly known, impenitent, hell-bound bigots! Now many churches have you known to withdraw from bigots who failed to repent? -Do you know of churches who use such men around the “Lord’s Table,” in the pulpit, and as song leaders? Does it not seem that some among us are careful, yea very selective in choosing what they will oppose, where they will speak, and whom they will condemn with the book of God? I wonder why? Elders and preachers ought to address themselves to this issue. We need to repent and ask God’s forgiveness or else we will lose our souls! Another accepted sin in many places is:

Absenteeism

The Bible admonishes and exhorts us, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” In view of this text we learn that the various assemblies (i.e. our assembling) are important and are not to be taken for granted! The assembling together for purposes of worship and exhortation are for the benefit and growth of each saint, and this must not be forgotten! Many churches have severe problems with members wilfully, deliberately, and consistently absenting themselves from Sunday night and Wednesday night sessions of study, but the churches do not seem to be alarmed; in other words they have accepted this sin without rebuke! They are doing what no respectful housewife would do, viz. allow a husband to loaf six nights a week and come home only once without apology. Someone would be required to give account! But, we will tolerate those who wilfully absent themselves from our assembling, and allow them to return as if nothing ever happened and participate in the public performances of the local church.

One of the areas in which a local church may engage is edification (Eph. 4:12, 15; Acts 20:32). This is the act of building up the body by educating members in the word of truth. One of the arrangements in which this is done is the class situation. An arrangement which elders, who are the overseers, pastors, presbyters, or bishops, may select as one expedient method to perfect the saints. We are, in such a circumstance to respect the wisdom, judgment, and leadership of the elders because they watch in behalf of our souls (Heb. 13:17). To rebel against their authority in matters involving the growth, well-being, and unity of the local church is sin! Classes are not begun without purpose, they are a means of accomplishing an end, i.e. the perfection of the local congregation! You and I are obligated to be present!

Other sins could be enumerated which are “accepted” among brethren, but the ones specified are sufficient to prove that we yet have a lot of work to do. Let us preach against all sin with equal force!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, pp. 496-498
August 18, 1983

By Randy Harshbarger

Most people are interested in making life a rewarding experience. Too, most people want to enjoy good health, have nice possessions, good jobs, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of these things per se. However, the television media presents a different slant on what constitutes a rewarding life in the popular (?) slogan: “You only go around once in life, so grab for all the gusto you can.” To some, this type of thinking means that a person is free to live unrestrained, with no regard for the rights and feelings of others. Too, this philosophy is manifested when people show an utter disregard for the Lord and His will. Of course, it is not unnatural for Christians to want to enjoy life and enjoy a certain amount of what this world has to offer. There is however, a difference between a Christian and the person who grabs for all the gusto he can. The Christian recognizes that God is the giver of all things both good and perfect, and the Christian is thankful to the Lord for all He has given. The Christian lives his life with purpose and meaning. The child of God is able to enjoy this life with all the blessings God has bestowed, but also recognizes that this life will soon be over. In view of death and eternity, the Christian seeks a philosophy of life that will enable him to live with God forever. Those who try to live apart from God need to consider the words of Paul in Philippians 3:13, 14. In these verses the Apostle sets forth the Philosophy Of Life that will bring true and lasting happiness to all men.

First of all, Paul tells us to “forget the things which are behind.” In one sense, a person can never forget some things that have happened in the past. But Paul’s advice suggests that we forget things to the extent that we don’t allow them to hinder the present. Paul had to forget his former manner of life as a prominent Jew and persecutor of the Lord’s church. To dwell on these things would have hindered Paul as a gospel preacher. Christians today need to forget past sins that have been forgiven lest we become discouraged by them. We need to forget past defeats lest we become despondent. We must forget past accomplishments for the Lord lest we neglect the challenges of the present and future. Now is the time for study, teaching and faithfulness in our Christian service to the Lord.

Second, Paul tells us to “stretch forward to the things which are before.” The word stretch is a word that conveys the idea of stretching or reaching for the ribbon in a race. This suggests that Christians must always be trying to reach for “perfection” (Phil. 3:12). The Christian strives to reach full-grown maturity in Jesus Christ. The Christian craves a knowledge of Christ and then studies to learn more about the Son of God. We will never be perfect, but the Christian recognizes his imperfections and sees the need for continual growth. By doing this we have “the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Phil. 3:9).

Thirdly, Paul tells us to “press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” The word press means to actively pursue. The prize is something that compels us to put forth much effort in order to gain it. What is that prize? The crown of life! We now live in hope of eternal life. One day that hope will become a reality as we hear the Lord say, “Well done!” God calls us through the gospel. It remains for us to answer that call, “making our calling and election sure.” Then and only then will we have “an abundant entrance” into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.

Seek the philosophy of life that pleases the Lord. Then and only then can you know true and lasting happiness, not only in this world but in the world to come.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, p. 495
August 18, 1983