Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

If you have ever tried to talk to someone on the telephone when there was a bad connection, you know the frustration of poor communication. If you have ever felt “left out” due to not knowing something that you were entitled to know but the information was withheld, you can appreciate the need for communication.

It is imperative that the overseers of the local church communicate with the members of the congregation. Serious problems arise when there is a breakdown in communication.

What Elders Need To Communicate

1. God’s word. Qualified elders are teachers. “Apt to teach” is listed along with other qualifications (1 Tim. 3:2). “Apt” means equipped or prepared. A bishop (overseer) is to hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught, “that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:9). One who is apt or able to teach must have ability to communicate. To teach is to impart knowledge. Whether an elder is teaching privately, in a class setting, or publicly, he is in the role of transmitting or conveying divine truth. He must be able to express his thoughts. He must communicate.

2. Love and concern. Elders should be caring men. A shepherd is expected to be attentive to the flock. The prophet Ezekiel rebuked the shepherds of Israel for feeding themselves and neglecting the flock (Ezek. 34:2-6). Both Paul and Peter emphasized that elders are to feed or tend the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Good elders look for ways of expressing to the flock their love, interest, and regard. When members of a congregation get this message they feel disposed to go to the elders with their spiritual problems.

3. Warnings and admonitions. Elders are spiritual watchmen (Acts 20:32; Heb. 13:17). They must warn of dangers. There are occasions when they must rebuke, expose error, and stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers (Tit. 1:10, 11). Churches have drifted into digression because elders sat in silence rather than speak out. A brother or sister who has fallen into sin needs admonition. Elders have a grave responsibility to communicate warnings.

4. Plans, programs, changes. The elders ought to keep the flock informed about such things as gospel meetings, special classes, changes in the teaching program, changes in support of preachers (by dropping some that have been assisted or adding others for partial or full support), providing help for needy saints, the financial contributions and expenditures, and other items of general interest to the members. A steady flow of information will keep down distrust and friction. The local church is like a team. All who are on the team need understanding of objectives, procedures, arrangements, and who is expected to do what. The “oversight” of the flock (1 Pet. 5:2) requires careful and constant communication from the overseers.

Ways In Which Elders May Communicate

1. By personal contact. People can be contacted directly about specific assignments and duties. Much of the teaching and admonishing which is done by the elders may be through their personal associations with members. There are occasions when elders need to go to certain people and talk about their spiritual condition. The closer the relation- ship between the shepherds and the sheep, the easier it is to communicate in person.

2. By public announcements. Matters that pertain to the whole congregation may be communicated by public statements. Announcements that dispatch information from the elders to the church may be made in the bulletin, from the pulpit in the assemblies, by letter, or by means of a bulletin board. Items of grave importance may need to be announced in the assemblies by one of the elders. An announcement may be for the purpose of soliciting input from the congregation. How the matter is publicized depends on a variety of circumstances.

3. By discussion sessions. There are times when a general meeting may be called to present some matter to the brethren for open discussion. Whether this is referred to as a “business meeting” or is otherwise described, it should be orderly and the elders should make sure it does not turn into a wrangle. Sessions for talking about the work or some particular aspect of the work should be not only for information from the elders but for suggestions to the elders. Frequent meetings with the deacons are essential for good communication between the bishops and the deacons. Occasionally, some brother will insist that there be a general meeting of all the men to discuss some matter when such a meeting, in the judgment of the elders, is not the best method of communication relative to the case at hand. Wise elders know how to “head off’ factionalism and efforts to create dissension and strife.

Why There Are Failures In Communication

1. An ego problem. Although it would not be fair to say they want to “lord it over the flock,” some elders come across as having a bit of conceit. They view themselves as a “privileged class.” They do not make the efforts necessary to communicate freely with the church. Their attitude is, “If anyone wants to know more about this matter, he can come to us and ask.” But why should others have to take the initiative in finding out what they are entitled to know? Elders who have an “elitist attitude” are not the kind of men they should be. Elders must be humble. They must not be lifted up with pride or a feeling of self-importance (1 Tim. 3:6). They do indeed have an exalted privilege as overseers of the flock, but they must be “ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3).

2. Private people. Some men who are chosen to be elders are very private people. In their own affairs they keep things to themselves. They never discuss with others their finances, their work, their problems, their health, or their preferences. In the eldership they tend to keep everything to themselves. The result is an isolated or detached eldership. Other men who are chosen to be elders are very open. They talk about their own lives very freely. It is hard for them to keep anything confidential. Obviously, there are some things that elders need to keep to themselves. When they have been working with people on private problems, family situations, or personal matters that bear on their spirituality, such affairs need to be kept confidential. Competent elders know how to hold in confidence things that are in fact private. All of this means that elders need the wisdom to know when to communicate and when to keep quiet.

3. Neglect. It is this writer’s judgment that in most cases poor communication by the elders results from neglect. Elders may be good men who make some very good decisions then fail to realize the importance of informing the congregation. If the church knows why the elders have reached a certain conclusion, they may be in full agreement. But if the facts are not laid out, it may be assumed by some that the elders have gone off the deep end. After the elders have freely discussed a matter among themselves and have made a determination, it is easy to forget that others are in the dark about this matter until informed. Before closing an elders’ meeting, the overseers need to address this question: What have we discussed that needs to be communicated to the congregation or to some particular individual, and how and when will the information be made known? Do not adjourn without thought and attention to communication.

Good communication between the shepherds and the flock contributes to unity, peace, love, understanding, and effectiveness in work. Poor communication keeps the church from reaching its full potential. The failure to communicate produces mixed signals, loss of interest, suspicions, rumors, unrest, and the circulation of misinformation. Elders must learn to communicate.

By Mike Willis

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living (Mark 12:41-44).

I suppose that the story of the widow’s mite is one of almost every person’s favorite lessons in the gospel narrative. It is recorded in both Mark and Luke’s record (21:1-4). Think of these important lessons from this text:

1. Jesus is Omniscient. Jesus knew the circumstances of those who were giving. He was aware that some gave from their abundance, which was observable from their outward appearance. He was also aware of the circumstances of this unnamed woman who gave. How did Jesus know that (a) she was widow, (b) how much she gave, (c) how much she had? Jesus knew these things because he was the incarnate God in full possession and use of his divine attributes, including his omniscience.

“And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury.” Jesus still watches to see how we give. He is aware of the sacrificial gifts that some among us make. There is a widow with whom I used to worship whose sacrificial giving impresses me. Every Sunday she places her check in the collection plate just as do the others. I know her circumstances are those of one who is barely surviving. She does not have many dresses to wear to church; her car is far from the latest model. She reminds me of this widow in Mark in her sacrificial giving. I give of my abundance, but she gives in spite of barely being able to provide her necessities. I am privileged to witness and learn from her good example. Although her contribution amounts to a very small amount of the local church’s budget and, consequently, some brethren may not think what she thinks about anything is very important, God knows her sacrificial giving and esteems it.

God sees my giving as well. Every one of God’s children needs to think about the omniscience of God with reference to his giving, just as he thinks of God’s knowledge of every other aspect of his existence.

2. Jesus did not condemn those wealthy men who gave of their abundance. Neither do we. We are thankful that there are prosperous brethren who give sacrificially. They pay for church buildings, support gospel preachers, and send benevolence to our brethren in other parts of the world. We praise God that these brethren recognize God as the giver of their blessings and express their homage to him through their sacrificial giving.

3. Giving is measured according to what one has. Paul wrote, “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Cor. 8:12). The fact that the widow could not give as much as others did not minimize her gift in the eyes of God. He measured her giving according to what she had. He saw in her a heart that trusted in God’s providence for her needs and a heart that expressed its worship and appreciation to God in her giving. Our brethren in undeveloped countries need to remember the story of the widow’s mite to consider that the Lord treasured the gifts of the poor, rather than allowing one’s poverty to excuse him from giving. We who live in the prosperous United States must be sobered by the responsibility we have for the riches we have received so abundantly.

Sometimes women have a greater ability to express their love for the Lord than most of us men. Mary, the woman who anointed Jesus with precious ointment, is another ex- ample of a godly woman sacrificially giving to the Lord, although that woman was on a different economic station than the poor widow. The story of her gift to the Lord is given below:

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her (Mark 14:3-9).

We learn from these two godly women whose examples in giving are worthy of imitation.

4. The shame of abusing the widow’s mite. The use some stingy men make of the text of the widow’s mite is shameful. Prosperous men sometimes excuse their stinginess by saying, “The Lord doesn’t care how much we give. Just look at the widow’s mite!” In this manner, stingy men have turned the Lord’s teaching upside down.

The widow’s mite is an example of sacrificial giving, not stinginess. Stingy brethren who use this passage to justify themselves abuse the text of Scripture. Stingy men are not even like those givers who give from their abundance. Some men give generously of their abundance and others give a pittance of what they should from their abundance. Which am I?

Conclusion

May God help us to learn these lessons from the ex- ample of the giving by this poor widow. She was a worthy example for imitation.

I was in New Madrid, Missouri in a gospel meeting one spring. While taking an early morning walk, I passed a small cemetery and stopped to read epitaphs on some of the old tombstones. One spoke of hard times for a couple who lost four daughters within six years. The first died in 1845 at three years, four months. The second died in 1848 at two years, eight months. The last was in 1851 at the age of three months. It would be difficult to imagine the degree of grief the parents must have experienced. Their epitaph, which we will notice in a moment, demonstrated the faith of the parents as to where their children would spend eternity.

Their grief would surely have been multiplied if some preacher had told them their children died in sin. As a quick look at most major creed books, disciplines, and manuals will attest, the majority of “Christendom” holds to the view that babies are born in sin. Check the Catholic Catechism, Methodist Discipline, Baptist Manual, Presbyterian Confession, etc.

Concerning the conception of Jacob and Esau, Paul said, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil . . .” (Rom. 9:11). Children are innocent and are in a safe condition until they grow to a point of maturity and become accountable. If one is too young to fully understand about good and evil, he is not yet responsible.

Some say all are guilty of Adam’s sin. If one inherits the sin of Adam it must come through his or her parents. Perhaps foreseeing that some would teach this false doctrine, Ezekiel said “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (18:20). In 2 Corinthians 5:10, Paul said “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body . . .” not Adam’s!

Since sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), how can a transgression  be transmitted? Either one sinned, or he did not. God is a God of fairness and justice. He does not attribute sin to one person that was committed by someone else. What transgression has a baby committed?

We have a choice whom we will serve (Josh. 24:15). Sin involves intent. If babies are born in sin then they had no choice or control in the matter. Then who does that make responsible? God! This doctrine teaches that God caused a corrupted, sinful nature to pass on to innocent babies. Surely this doctrine of “hereditary total depravity” bears much closer examination.

Jesus taught that little children are innocent (Matt.18:1- 3; 19:13-15). He said unless I become like a little child, I can’t go to heaven. How can that be if children are born sinful and corrupt? It can only mean they are not born that way!

I doubt that this couple who lived before the Civil War believed in total depravity, nor that they would provide an occasion near 150 years later to teach the truth on this subject. The epitaph on the tomb of their daughters read,

Sweet were the flowers
But short their bloom.
They blossomed for an early tomb. But faith forbids a rising sigh,
They withered here to bloom on high.

That is exactly what the Bible teaches. Such parents have hope.

Memory, precious memories, are one of mankind’s greatest treasures. We love the hymn, “Precious Memories.” It is a meaningful song. Please allow me to share a few memories with you.

Speaking at my sister’s memorial service, I recalled that as children, growing up in our parents’ home, our father formed a singing quartet with the four older children, two boys and two girls. Juanita sang soprano, Virginia the alto, Harold sang bass, and I, the tenor. Our Daddy was the long-time song leader for the church in Little Rock. He led at the original meeting house at 10th and Valmar; then at 12th and Thayer, when the congregation met there. As we moved to 4th and State Street, Daddy was still leading singing. This was the location of the well known Hardeman-Bogard Debate in 1938. Daddy was still song leader when the new building was erected at 6th and Izard streets in the early fifties.

We grew up in a singing family. Daddy taught us a great deal about singing. He had been a musician in his younger years, played cornet and french horn in a school band, and was an excellent singer. He had a natural pitch and frowned on the use of a pitch pipe or tuning fork. Although he didn’t make an issue of it, he simply did not like them himself.

He had us singing at different programs at the old Missouri-Pacific Depot. He worked for the American Railway Express Agency, having started his work with Wells-Fargo. We also sang just for entertainment. Being without radio or TV (still undeveloped), we sang for our own pleasure. We grew up singing. The first of our quartet to leave us was Juanita (1986). Our lead singer departed. The next was Harold, our bass (1987). Every quartet needs a good bass! The most recent to depart is Virginia, a strong alto. And how she could sing her part. As I stated to the audience, only the tenor remains. We know not when our quartet will be reunited, but we believe that day will surely come. My mother and daddy departed many years ago. Now, three of our quartet also have answered death’s call. By reason of time, we too must leave this old world.

Heaven is made more precious, our desire and longing for it greater. One day, with the ransomed of all ages, we’ll meet around the throne of God, singing his praises with the redeemed of all ages! Won’t It Be Wonderful There?