Truth Magazine

By Eugene Crawley

Light and darkness are contrasted a number of times in the word of God, as are those who follow each. It is a contrast rather than a comparison, because there is no likeness of the two. One is opposed to the other, and the one loving one also hates the other. The person who loves truth hates darkness (error). “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:104); and the one who loves darkness hates light, “For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light . . .” (John 3:20).

Jesus had somewhat to say about this throughout His earthly ministry. He made it very plain in regard to those who loved the truth (or light), as well as those who loved error (or darkness) when He said, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:19-21). From this we can plainly see why some love darkness, and refuse to come to the light. Those who do evil, who walk in darkness, and engage in that which is not the truth, love the cover of darkness, and refuse to come to the light.

When one refuses, or even is reluctant to come to the light, to have the light of God’s word turned upon him and his teaching, it is evident that he is afraid of reproof, and fears (or knows) that his teaching will not stand the test. On the other hand, that person who loves the truth above all else, and wants nothing else, cometh to the light, for he has nothing to fear. For even if he is wrong, he needs, and wants, to know it; whereas when he is right everyone needs to know it. Thus, he cometh to the light, and does so continually that he continue to be right.

The conclusion then must be this: Those who refuse to come to the light, are not willing to defend publicly their actions and teaching, well know that they cannot stand the light of God’s word lest they be reproved. This should be cause enough for those who find themselves among such, to come out from among them – to come to the light come to that which does not fear investigation, and stand upon the truth, and stand for it!

Truth prospers when it “cometh to the light”; error does not, and thus must remain in darkness, under cover, and be kept quiet. Which do you love: light or darkness? Will your teaching and practice stand the light of God’s word? Are you willing to come to the light, and allow your works to be made manifest? “But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light” (Eph. 5:13).

Could this be why some brethren attend Bible classes so rarely where the word of God is taught and stressed? Could it be that they do not want to see themselves as they really are, and as they appear in the sight of God? If so, such should remember that sometime it will be too late to come to the light and make amends for that which is lacking in their lives!

“They are of those that rebel against the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof” (Job 24:13).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 35, p. 562
September 4, 1980

By Wallace H. Little

In a 1977 discussion with several Filipino preachers on problems in teaching, I mentioned a series of lessons on “Methods of Teaching.” They thought it would be good for me to return and teach this, providing other preachers agreed. They did. To make the series more suitable, I revised the material, reducing the number of lessons from 13 to 9. Five hundred copies were printed for distribution for attendees. I choose 13 locations where the greatest number of preachers could be reached at minimum expense to them. Other members, including wives, were also welcome to attend. The series required 21 hours of classes over three days in each place. Additionally, I discussed some problems of significance to Filipino brethren. Also, some funds had been sent to me for distribution for specific benevolence cases, although not as massive as in previous years. Another purpose was to lend whatever influence I might have to settle a long-standing dispute among brethren. I planned to preach as I was invited to do so. The trip began on the Lord’s day, 16 March 1980 and ended on Saturday, 21 June 1980. Unlike previous trips, I planned this one with time for me to rest properly.

The results: I was privileged to see 26 baptized into Christ in the various places where I was privileged to preach. This was an unplanned, but certainly joyous additional consequence. 398 preachers, plus a number of others including more than a few preachers’ wives, attended the classes. I had intended sending each of my supporters a copy of the notes I used for the classes, but these are all gone. Toward the end, it was even necessary to ration them so each preacher could have a copy. However, I summarized the notes at the end of the report I sent to my supporters. The classes themselves, plus other teaching and preaching, gave me an average of 30 hours of teaching each week. I missed preaching one Lord’s day when I was ill and was unable to assemble with the saints. Finally, I have written an individual report on each supported man, to be sent to those who are supporting.

Success in helping brethren solve their problems is not yet completely measureable. It will take time to see how much fruit this will bear. I pray this was successful, for the preacher-envy there has been the plague on that work for 15 years. Distribution of benevolence and other financial matters are included in a report to my supporters which contains an audit of these things prepared by a professional in that field, that brethren might be assured proper stewardship has been exercised.

I planned an average expense of $30.00 per day, apart from transportation and miscellaneous costs. It turned out to be closer to $50.00, for several reasons. First, there was an inflation increase of more than 25% from the time I planned the trip until I arrived. Second, one week after I arrived, the government announced a 26% across the board increase on hotel cost and related charges. Third, a similar increase was allowed for restaurants.

I contracted pneumonia, and added to the other expenses, was a stay in the hospital, plus the medicine and doctor bills for it. More importantly, I lost four days of work, and that hurt badly.

Brethren supporting me over-subscribed, which turned out to be fortunate because of the increased costs. Even so, for the last month prior to my departure, I turned back a number of offers of additional financial help. Those funds remaining will be returned to my supporters on a basis proportionate to their financial assistance.

One congregation offered $1500.00 for trip expenses. When I informed these good brethren I already had sufficient, they asked me to use the funds to purchase and distribute Bibles there. This was done so each preacher received at least one Bible in his native dialect. There are 116 major and minor recorded dialects, greatly complicating the teaching problem. The need for dialect Bibles is to permit preachers to teach those whose English is inadequate to this. In this future, I hope more dialect Bibles can be purchased and distributed. The ultimate solution to the language problem is the government’s plan to make the Philippines a bi-lingual nation within a generaion. Tagalong and English will be the two languages. The short term solution is a 3-language interlinear translation based on the 1901. Competent men are presently at work on this. Before the end of 1980, 1 hope to have enough of a sample completed (perhaps the entire book of Matthew) to enable me to make an effective presentation to raise the funds to complete this work and get it into the hands of preachers there.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 555
August 28, 1980

By Earl Robertson 

Jude tearfully warns the children of God concerning the character of false teachers who stealthily creep in among them. He informs them that they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, and will even deny the Father and the Son. Men of this stripe have no intention of doing God’s will, are far removed in identifying with the character of holiness and are sunken to the bottom of slime that they have no compunction of conscience. As Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to fornication and strange flesh, these false teachers are also moral reprobates. Jude says, “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8). In spite of the examples of the cities of the Plain, these dreamers dream on!

Moses said the Lord was grieved in his heart at the wickedness and evil imaginations of men (Gen. 6:5, 6). These evil imaginations and thoughts were in the hearts of men! One of the seven things the Lord is said to hate is “an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” (Prov. 6:18). Peter speaks of “cunningly devised fables” (2 Pet. 1:16) which, being of the wicked one, destroys all that is right. Over against such wickedness, Paul writes, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think of these things” (Phil. 4:8). What a contrast in God’s thoughts and man’s thoughts!

But Jude affirms these “filthy dreamers” dream on! Peter writes of the same, saying, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children” (2 Pet. 2:14). This vivid expression is descriptive of a man unable to look at a woman without lasciviousness in his heart, a clear violation of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:28! Such motivation prevented a cessation from sin. As in the gymnasium, they “exercised” or trained their hearts to practice sin! Yes, they dreamed of filth! This is exactly what continues to plague individuals and churches today. Think on the pure, the true and the right.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 554
August 28, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

The so-called “Crossroads philosophy” is indeed an ignominious display of the result of liberalism. It is the apex of all “no patternism,” “we do many things for which we have no authority” postulations. This appears contradictory perhaps to what has been said in previous installments on Crossroads. What we are faced with is an enigma that defies common sense in religion. It is the display of what the departure from objective truth (Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17) into subjective reasoning (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12; Matt. 7:21-23; 2 Cor. 10:12) will do. The result is confusion and division (1 Tim. 6:3-5). You have the “mainline” or “old-guard” brethren who have split churches and alienated brethren with a display of lack of respect for authority, now criticizing and condemning the birth of something coming from the very seed they planted in days long gone. Much of their condemnation is couched in the very words of ultra-liberalism (the latter is but a step away from the institutional camp), i.e., the charge of “exclusiveness, over-aggressiveness, conformity,” etc. The ultras, on the other hand will not acknowledge their “mother,” for she (at the moment, but be patient, it is coming) is too exclusive for those of broader persuasion. The institutional group is indeed acting like a little boy running around the barn trying to close the door after the horse got out. “They are worse than that. They are trying to close one door, but leaving three others wide open” (John Welch). They are not happy at all over the fact that others have taken their arguments and gone too far, further than expected and desired. Brethren Harvey Floyd and T. Pierce Brown, armor-bearers against “cultism” in the church, had better clean around their door and close it! Their own definitions of “liberalism” turn on them, i.e., “that attitude which challenges and denies the absolute authority of the Word of God and causes men to set aside God’s will in favor of their own subjective speculations and desires in religion” (Rubel Shelly, Liberals Threat To The Faith, p. 4). After all of the trite cliches and explosive, prejudicial terminology have been removed from the scene, here is what we are faced with:

(1) Crossroads has a basic conviction or exclusiveness. The only difference between the exclusiveness of mainline churches of Christ and Crossroads is that Crossroads will tell you to your face that you will go to hell if you do not belong to the church. Brethren Floyd, Woods, etc. would draw a circle around the exclusiveness of Crossroads while at the same time enlarging it enough to encompass institutional brethren to the exclusion of all others. “You make a law where God has made no law,” or “you bind where God has not bound,” are charges hurled at us. They demonstrate the exclusiveness of liberals who charge us with exclusiveness. It is a two-edged sword. Those who cry for tolerance, broad-mindedness, amalgamation with sincere believers of all religious groups cannot see, nor accept the exclusiveness of the unique church of the New Testament. Jesus established only one church (Matt. 16:18). He revealed only one faith (Eph. 4:5). The church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). Christ is its Savior (Eph. 5:35). Only the saved are in the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:18). This exclusiveness is not some “arrogant notion.” Nor am I saying that one has to be 100% correct, theologically speaking, in order to be saved. I am saying that we have to be right about something and we cannot be wrong about everything, and expect to go to heaven.

(2) Crossroads does not allow freedom. This is sometimes referred to as “conformity.” When people talk about Crossroads’ infringement upon one’s freedom, they are talking about the same thing we are often charged with, i.e., demanding subjection to the law of Christ. By “freedom” people mean “not under law” and “freedom from restraint.” We are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). That law requires obedience (Acts 3:22-23; Heb. 5:9). I am not aware of any differences of understanding between Crossroads and myself regarding subjection to Jesus Christ. Emphasis on this factor differs, but neither of us believes that in “religion” one “can do his own thing” and please God (Matt. 7:13-23). Given the current thought in denominational circles (everyone is going to heaven regardless of what we believe and do), if you publish the fact that freedom is the freedom to choose, that God holds us responsible for our decisions, you will be charged with “mind-control,” “legalism,” and now, cultism! Mix in a little yellow journalism with the Biblical thought of “one way to heaven” and you have a distorted picture of bigots and psychologically warped misfits. Freedom is not license!

(3) Crossroads is over-aggressive. Brethren ought to be ashamed of themselves for repeating unconfirmed stories of Crossroads chasing adulterous young ladies down the streets of Gainesville, waving Bibles and crying “repent, repent!” Can anyone define “undue evangelistic pressure”? Can we agree on what it is? When you repeat stories like the one above you present a picture of religious zombies with funnels crammed into the tops of peoples’ heads and Bible verses being poured in amid cries of protest! Several times I have been accused of being too hard and zealous. Epaphras, look out (Col. 4:13)! Jesus, you should not have allowed your zeal to eat you up (Jno. 2:17). The very idea of brethren pulling Eutychus away from a night’s rest (Acts 20:9). We all know that zeal without tolerance is fanaticism, but is it not also true that if people were more zealous and less jealous, this matter of evangelism would not be something we just talk about? A wise man truly said, “there is no zeal so intemperate and cruel as that which is backed by ignorance.”

Conclusion

Ever since the church came into being, people have charged us with denial of tolerance to any other group of religious people. Acts 28:22 speaks of a “sect everywhere against.” The fact that we would be falsely accused is one form of persecution the Lord told us of (Matt. 13:20-21). These charges against us make it difficult to talk to people. It discourages us. Instead of allowing excitement to dominate us with meaningless denials, let us cry out like Paul, “Sirs, why do ye these things?” (Acts 14:15). Then affirm exactly what we believe. Let us not be so prejudiced as to think for a moment that the press is not persecuting Crossroads for doing things that we would like to do. Guilty or not guilty, right or wrong, the fact that charges against us are made in public medias have devastating effect. I certainly concur with Faith and Facts, that the reason we are not being persecuted as Crossroads is being persecuted is “because we are not having as big an effect upon as many people” (October 1979, p. 278). It is possible for us to be treated just like Crossroads. I have tried to show this in dealing with the “Crossroads philosophy.” I do not condemn Crossroads with a blanket condemnation, nor have I tried to defend her. It is with love for all the brethren that I have written these things. If I have failed, God is my judge. “Make sure what would have the Lord’s approval” (Eph. 5:10, N.E.B.).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, pp. 553-554
August 28, 1980