Truth Magazine

By J. Wiley Adams

Sometimes small children set some mighty fine examples for the adults in the congregation. Such an example was set recently by a six-year old who did not even realize that he was doing anything out of the ordinary.

We’ll call this young boy, Jacob, since that is really his name. His father was away on a business trip. His mother stays home and tends to her children and the ways of her household. How wonderful to see this happen in this day and time!

It was the time of year for colds, allergies, and sinus problems in Central Georgia. These ailments had run through the whole family as this kind of thing will do. Jacob had been running a fever but it had subsided. Still the little guy felt pretty bad.

But Wednesday night came. Time to go to services. Noting, as an attentive mother would do, that her son felt bad, she asked him if he felt like going. Without hesitation Jacob said, “I think we’d better go.” He knew that if he stayed home that his mother and two sisters would have to stay too to care for him. So the van pulled up to the building with all four of them. You can’t keep a good kid down!

I hope many adults in the church will read this and bow their heads in shame. Surely there are legitimate reasons for not being present but many hide under the ambiguous umbrella of “I feel bad.” My brother’s first gospel meeting in Newport, North Carolina (arranged for him by Harry Pickup, Sr.) would have been a non-meeting because of an awful throat condition that developed almost as soon as he arrived had it not been that the nice couple with whom he stayed “mopped” his throat every night and every morning throughout the meeting. But, preach he did. I mean he did. Sore throat be hanged!

But I cannot let my brother outdo me in this. I have preached a lot of times when I “felt bad.” Once I traveled straight through from middle Georgia leaving on Sun- day after morning services, stopping over for evening services, traveled through Kentucky and West Virginia nonstop, changed clothes at a gas station near Charles- ton, West Virginia, hit the ground a-running at 7 P.M., was greeted by the brethren at the Three-Wells Church of Christ (for further reference on this designation contact Paul Casebolt) and was in my seat ready to start at 7:30

P.M. Drunk as a fish mind you from those crooked West Virginia roads but I propped myself up in the pulpit holding on to the sides of the stand for dear life. Brethren, I mean to tell you I “felt bad.” But, as Weldon Warnock would say, by George I preached and it turned out pretty good the brethren told me.

We teach, and rightly so, that we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together. This is taught in Hebrews 10:23-26. In this passage we not only have the command to assemble but it also states why and what it amounts to if we do not. We are to stir one another up to love and good works so our faith will not waver. We assemble in order to do this and it amounts to wilful sin if we fail to comply.

Yes, brethren, we all “feel bad” a lot of the time but not so bad that we cannot tighten up our belts and go to services in spite of it.

I agree with my little friend, Jacob. I think we’d better go.

You may have been driving down the road and by chance saw a sign on a vehicle which read something like this, “Start the week off right, join the church of your choice.” This saying implies that any church is sufficient, it must only be deemed good by your choice! This saying does not say or give any thought to what God’s choice is. It does not say, “Start the week off right, join the church of God’s choice.”

There is no consideration for what God’s choice is but only that of man. Consequently, those who have this mind set make the choosing of a church equal to the choosing of a flavor of ice-cream. One church is just as satisfactory as another depending on the individual’s choice, like chocolate is just as satisfying as vanilla, depending on choice alone.

If this is true, what difference does it make whether one is a member of the church of Christ or the Baptist Church? And if this is true, what difference does it make whether one is a member of the church of Christ or the church of Satan for members of both have chosen whom they serve. I wonder if those who advocate the standard of “choice” alone will consent to those who follow Satan? I think not! Most will deny that it is acceptable to be a member of the church of Satan, but if they deny it, they have shot down their philosophy of choice. What then makes it right or wrong to be a member of the church of Satan? Is it not the word of God? If it is not the word of God, then what is it? If we agree that the word of God condemns those who are members of Satan’s church, then should we not use the same word to justify our membership? Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

He also asked, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Does the church where you worship do the things Jesus has asked? Do they teach what Jesus taught and do what Jesus commanded? Concerning salvation, do they teach as Jesus did, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16), or do they teach faith only? Does the church of your choice partake of the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), as the first century church did, or does it “choose” to do it once every month, quarter, or year?

Does the church of your choice teach that one must remain faithful to Christ until death in order to inherit life (Rev. 2:10), or does it teach falsely that once someone is saved, he is forever secured for salvation with- out regard to his conduct (1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:12; 2 Pet. 3:11, 14)? Does the church of your choice have Jesus alone as the head (Eph. 5:23), or do they have some man residing in that position?

The Catholics have chosen the pope to be their governing head; the Mormon’s have chosen their so- called “apostles”; the Episcopal and Presbyterians have their councils, but where in the Bible do we see such positions authorized for mere

men to occupy? I ask those who think that we are mean spirited for condemning the Catholic’s pope or the Mormon’s apostles, are you mean spirited when you condemn Satan, the obvious head of the church of Satan? There are some who have openly chosen and confessed Satan as their head! The fact remains; however, that any church which doesn’t submit fully to the authority of the King, Christ Jesus, is headed by Satan (Matt. 12:30; 28:18)! Does the church of your choice hold fast to the written word of God as their standard for authority, or are they governed by some man made written confession or creed? “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Why be governed by creeds of men when the Bible says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? Does this sound like you need anything other than God’s word?

Imagine if Jesus came down to earth and wanted to start a church of man’s choice rather than God’s? Imagine if Jesus wanted a church that is more tolerant on perversions like homosexuality and adultery. Wouldn’t this make the church so much more attractive to the masses? Why not have a church that calls drunkenness a disease rather than sin? Why not have a church that justifies stealing (on the grounds that you really need what you are taking)? Why not build a church that tolerates unrighteousness? Why build a church that teaches “ . . . the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God . . .” (1 Cor. 6:9ff)?

Imagine if Jesus wanted to build a church that would tolerate religious diversity. He could have enjoyed a longer life, perhaps, if he never stirred up and accused those religious teachers around him of being hypocrites, blind guides, fools, whitewashed tombs, murderers, serpents, brood of vipers (Matt. 23:13ff.). Wouldn’t it have been easier for Jesus to remain silent, concerning their “choice,” rather than openly rebuking their sin?

What if Jesus wanted to build a kingdom of people who were allowed to deny him if they ever need to do so as to promote peace in certain environments? If Jesus would have denied himself as the Son of God, he probably could have lived a longer life (i.e., Luke 22:66-71). But Jesus never did deny himself and he expects us not to either. The inspired apostle Paul wrote, “If we endure we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:12-13).

Finally would not Jesus have rather built a church with a lesser amount to purchase? If it was up to him, would he not have rather purchased the church with his words rather than his life? Could he say, “Father, I want to build the church of My choice with the price of my choice and not yours?” Yet many think they can join a church of their choice and not God’s and still be acceptable. Was it a small cost to be taken by lawless hands, beat on, spit on, stripped, ridiculed, literally nailed to some wood in the form of a cross, and publicly erected so that all who had eyes to see with could witness? Was this Jesus’ personal choice? This was God’s choice (2 Tim. 1:8-9)! Was this not rather a big price to pay for the church of God’s choice? How much would you be willing to pay for it? Jesus purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28), yet sadly some will not even sacrifice their own selfish lust for it.

The cross was not fun. In fact the Bible teaches that he despised the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2), but endured it because of the reward. The reward was worth the price. This is why Jesus so often prayed, “Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will” (Mark 14:36). Is the church of your choice the church of God’s will?

Not all churches are genuine because they are built on sand (man-made doctrines, creeds, opinions, etc.) and not on the holy word of God. Jesus never promised to accept any person or church who fails to do the will of God (Matt.

7:21-23). Jesus never died so people (or churches for that matter) can live the way they want, but he demands that we live the way he wants us to (John 15:14; Rom. 12:1-2). The Bible is clear that there is just one body or church (compare Eph. 1:22-23 with Eph. 4:4). The question is, however, is that one church your choice? “. . . The churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16).

By Hal Snyder

Like so many other questions, this one has two answers. The short answer is what Paul observed in 1 Corinthians 5:6: just “a little” bit. The long answer really deals with answering a more complex question: how “much” is “a little”?

The context of Paul’s answer was the sin of fornication (1 Cor. 5:1) that was being sanctioned by the Christians at Corinth — a young man was living as husband-and-wife with his step-mother! That fornication is a sin is obvious from such Scriptures as Romans 1:29, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:3. Under no circumstances can fornication ever merit God’s approval. It is always wrong.

Most readers can see that Paul is using “leaven” as a metaphor for “sin” and is in essence saying that just a little sin contaminates the local body of Christ and the souls of those who make up the church. Notice that the Greek word for “sin” is hamartano (a verb), and it literally means “to miss the mark” (W.E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1046). When our Marines shoot at targets on the rifle range, the bull’s eye is the ten ring. Everything in the bull’s eye counts ten points towards their marksmanship score. Although the nine ring is right next to the bull’s eye, a bullet through this ring counts only nine points towards their score regardless if the bullet strikes above the bull’s eye or if it falls below (or to either side). Nine is almost ten, but it misses the mark of ten by a single point.

People fail to hit the mark by one of three ways: by failing to do those things which they should do (some folks call this a sin of omission, like not visiting the widows and orphans of James 1:26), by doing those things they shouldn’t do (some folks call this a sin of commission; the New Testament term for this is paraptoma, which is translated “trespass” and means “a deviation from uprightness and truth” (Vine, 1166), or by going “beyond that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), which can also be termed a sin of commission. The New Testament term for this last way is parabaino, which is translated “transgress” and means to go beyond (Vine,   1161). “Lawlessness” (anomia or “disregard for the law” (Vine, 647) is similar to trespass, but both indicate rejection of God’s will and substituting one’s own will for God’s.

Before making the spiritual application, let’s notice briefly what has happened to those who are a part of the Restoration Movement that was stated in the late 1700s and early 1800s in America — a movement that sought to restore the church of Christ to its New Testament purity.

Just prior to the American Civil War, two things happened to influence Christians: the melodeon (or organ) was introduced into the worship service of the church in Midway, Kentucky, and the American Christian Missionary Society was founded (in Cincinnati, Ohio). These two digressions began a division of believers into two groups known as “progressives” and “conservatives.” This division became permanent when the 1906 United States census recognized the former group as the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) and the churches of Christ (which was composed of the “conservative” element of the American Restoration Movement).

While the churches of Christ continued striving to be the church of the New Testament, the Disciples grew into a full-fledged denomination. During the period immediately following World War II through the late 1950s and middle 1960s, faithful “conservatives” resisted the “liberal” digressions of institutionalism and the sponsoring church arrangement.

In a book compiled by Mac Lynn, Churches of Christ in the United States (Brentwood, TN: Morrison and Phillips Associates, 1994), conservative congregations are identified as being “Non-institutional: oppose church support of institutions and the sponsoring church concept of benevolence and missions” (93). Lynn does not identify “liberal” congregations, but he provides several identifying marks of an “anti.”

Liberal brethren saw (and continue to see) nothing wrong with human institutions doing the work that God gave his church (in such areas as caring for widows and orphans).

Most of those who earlier supported institutionalism also embraced the sponsoring church arrangement, which manifests itself in the areas of benevolence and evangelism. As for the “antis,” they see nothing right with having separate Bible classes, using multiple containers for the Lord’s sup- per, or using a located preacher. Both of these digressions have one thing in common — they “go beyond that which is written” (2 Cor. 4:6) and thus “abideth not in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9).

Now for the spiritual application. Just as much as the congregation at Corinth was sanctioning fornication, brethren who today sanction the practices of liberalism or anti-ism endanger their eternal souls, for what they teach and practice is not the “doctrine of Christ” and, thus, they have not God (2 John 9). In addition to jeopardizing their souls, they threaten the collective influence of their congregation (Rev. 2:1-5).

In Paul’s day, it was quite common for the heathen to practice fornication as a form of religious observance. Even though the fornication at Corinth was identified by Paul as being a “little” thing, since its continued practice would potentially destroy the souls of the Corinthian brethren, Paul directed the Corinthians to “purge out therefore the old leaven” (1 Cor. 5:6a) before others became influenced by the behavior of the fornicators.

Today, some brethren sanction a “little” liberalism (in the form of the sponsoring church arrangement, which is often used as a euphemism for a mini-missionary society, or institutionalism of any sort). Worse yet, when brethren sanction error, they become “partakers” in the “evil deeds” (2 John 11) of those practicing error, and, thus, share in the guilt of their sin. Whenever faithful brethren learn of such digression, our duty is two-fold: warn those practicing error (for they “cause divisions . . . contrary to the doctrine ye have learned”) and after identifying them, we are to “avoid them” (Rom. 15:17).

The Holy Spirit, through the inspired apostle Paul, commanded that Christians have Bible authority for the things they do: “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord” (Col. 3:17).

So long as we do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names, we will have God’s approval (2 John 9b).

How “much” is “a little”? The answer remains the same as it was nearly 2,000 years ago: just a “little.”