Truth Magazine

By Greg Litmer

One of the doctrines of Catholicism that we must thoroughly investigate is the doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper, or as they term it, the Holy Eucharist. In this lesson, we intend to examine this practice of the Catholics in depth. Allow me to say at this point that these lessons are not being given out of any animosity toward Catholics, because that simply is not the case. The scriptures teach us that we are to “hate every false way” (Psa. 119:104), however, and Catholicism is certainly that.

As a starting point for our lesson, let us determine just exactly what the Holy Eucharist is. According to the Baltimore Catechism (p. 273), “The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words `really, truly and substantially’ to describe Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord’s teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power” Later, on the same page, we are informed that the word “Eucharist” means “Thanksgiving.”

The Catholics teach that the Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist on the night before He died. I agree that on that night Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, but certainly did not institute what has grown in Catholic doctrine into the Holy Eucharist. The Biblical texts that they use to support this are Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Let us look at 1 Cor. 11:23-29. There we read,

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood.- this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Now before we begin to examine their texts and see whether or not they really teach what they say they teach, let us turn once again to the Baltimore Catechism to have their position a little more fully explained. In answer to the question, “How did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?” the Catechism says, “Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist in this way: He took bread, blessed and broke it, and giving it to His apostles, said: `Take and eat; this is My body;’ then He took a cup of wine, blessed it, and giving it to them, said: `All of you drink of this; for this is my blood of the new covenant which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins;’ finally, He gave His apostles the commission: `Do this in remembrance of Me.’

Please pay careful attention to the next quote. In answer to the question, “What happened when our Lord said: `This is My body . . . this is My blood?”‘, the Catechism says, “When Our Lord said, `This is My body,’ the entire substance of the bread changed to His body; and when He said, `This is my blood,’ the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood. (a) Christ could not have used clearer more explicit words than `This is My Body.’ He did not say, `This is a sign of My body,’ or `This represents My body,’ but; “This is My body.’ Catholics take Christ at His word because He is the omnipotent God. On His word, they know that the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.”

We are now going to look at the points that have been made from the Catechism thus far. Before we do, however, allow me to wander off of the subject a little because I cannot allow that last statement to go by unnoticed. In an obvious statement toward those who believe that the Lord’s Supper is a representation of the death of Jesus, they said that they take Christ at His word. Nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics take Christ at His word when His word suits their purposes and that is the only time. The same Jesus said in Matt. 23:8-10, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” Jesus, whom the Catechism claims that Catholics take at His word, declared that we are not to use exalting titles for men, particularly religiously. The next time you run into a priest, see if he does not introduce himself as Father So-And-So, and expect to be called the same. Accepting part of what Jesus says is just like accepting none of it.

Let us look at their points now. It is true that Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” He said this as He was there bodily in the midst of the apostles. It is truly a beautiful example of figurative language, and considering what He was about to undergo, His death and resurrection, it takes on an even greater significance. But the fact remains that it was an example of figurative language. The very fact that He was standing there saying these words to His apostles and handing them the bread and fruit of the vine illustrates this point. Another example of this type of language occurs in John 10. Turn there and read the first ten verses. There the Bible says,

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 1 am the door. by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have, life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

Twice in that passage Jesus said, “1 am the door,” but did He mean a literal door, one that you can open and walk through? Did he mean a door like the ones you have on your house? No, that was figurative language, meant to convey a message. Standing there as He was, it is obvious that He did not mean that He was a literal door, the kind that you can turn the knob and open.

So it was with the words He used when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. Just as Jesus did not become a literal door right before their eyes, neither did the bread and wine become His actual body and blood.

In the Catholic practice of Holy Eucharist, what happens to the bread and wine once this change is supposed to have taken place? Once again we turn to the Baltimore Catechism. In answer to the question. “Did anything of the bread and wine remain after their substance had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood?”, the Catechism says, “After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood, there remained only the appearance of bread and wine. (a) Because the appearance of bread and wine remain in the Holy Eucharist, we cannot see Christ with our bodily eyes in this sacrament. We see Him, however, with the eyes of faith. Our bodily eyes, moreover, do not deceive us when they see the appearances of bread and wine, for these appearances really remain after the Consecration of the Mass.” In other words, no physical change takes place whatsoever. There is proof once again that the language that Jesus used was figurative.

In answer to the question, “What do we mean by the appearances of bread and wine?”, the Catechism says, “By the appearances of bread and wine we mean their color, taste, weight, shape, and whatever else appears to the senses.” That just about covers it, doesn’t it? What they are saying is that there is no evidence at all that a change has taken place. There is absolutely no evidence of a miracle. Interestingly enough, the .purpose of miracles in the New Testament was to confirm the word, to show that the Lord was working with them (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:4). With no evidence of a miracle having taken place, it could hardly fulfill that purpose, could it?

In all fairness though, let us allow the Catechism to explain how this change, which is called “Transubstantiation” takes place. In answer to the question, “How was Our Lord able to change bread and wine into His body and blood?”, it says, “Our Lord was able to change bread and wine into His body and blood by His almighty power. (a) God, who created all things from nothing, who- fed the five thousand with five loaves, who changed water into wine instantaneously, who raised the dead to life, can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Although the Holy Eucharist is a great mystery; and consequently beyond human understanding, (I think this is the key -gl) the principles of sound reason can show that this great gift is not impossible by the power of God.

I think that the principles of sound reasoning will show us that no change takes place at all. Using the miracles that they used in their defense, when God created the earth and all things in it, there was abundant evidence that He had done it. All we have to do is look around us. When the 5,000 were fed, the evidence was clear. All had eaten and were full, and there were 12 baskets of fragments left. When the water was changed to wine at Cana, it did not retain the physical qualities of water, it became wine physically, “really, truly, and substantially,” if I may borrow a term. Also, when the dead were raised to life, they walked and talked and were seen by the people. Miracles were faith-producing, not faith-dependent. Truly closer examination shows that the Lord’s Supper was meant to be a remembrance of our Lord’s death and the bread and fruit of the vine representatives of Jesus’ body and blood. It was never meant to be this doctrine called “Transubstantion,” and the Bible does not support it in any way.

According to the Baltimore Catechism, “Only ordained priests have the power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. When they consecrate, they act in the person of Christ, through the power received in the sacrament of Holy Orders.” According to the Catechism, the apostles were made priests at the Last Supper with the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” In our next lesson, we will be dealing with the topic of the priesthood and all of the special powers that are supposed to go with it.

We have shown in this discussion that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of Holy Eucharist and Transubstantiation. To the contrary, the words of Our Lord were a beautiful example of figurative language meant to convey the fact that the bread and wine were representatives of His body and blood which were soon to be offered, once and for all, for the salvtion of all who will avail themselves of it.

Friends and brethren, we do not belittle the Lord’s Supper by making these statements. What we are doing is practicing it in the way it was intended to be practiced.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 536-538
August 21, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

All the world is a stage and everybody is in a wild scramble trying to get on it. The controversy over so-called cultism in the church, cultism that is to have been initiated by the Crossroads brethren has seen its share of ingathering, both pro and con. Some on both sides of the issue have rashly entered the fracas. Charges and counter charges, explosive innuendoes and insinuations, libelous and slanderous statements have done nothing but confuse the issue for the average child of God. The only thing that is not hard about this issue is confusion. This is attributed to the fact that a lot of brethren seem to feel that it is more blessed to give criticism than to receive it. I wish brethren would learn that uncovering another congregation’s faults will never cover their own. I do not endorse Crossroads. But I find myself wanting to defend her from the well-meaning, but over-zealous zealots who have not bothered to walk in her shoes. Before condemning Crossroads, one should check reports for accuracy. My goal in this writing is to help our readers understand what the issue is involving Crossroads, why questions are raised about her work. When one compares the real issue with whole spectrum of opposition, one will be able to better discern what it is we are dealing with in this conflict.

Who Is Crossroads?

Crossroads is a collectivity of God’s people who work and worship in facilities near the University of Florida law school in Gainesville, Florida. These brethren, in spite of existence in an age of undramatic gains in membership have accumulated an enviable record. Two years after the present facilities were built in 1975, this church was forced to expand. It had reached its capacity. This capacity was doubled through this expansion and 1978 found her facilities too small again. A search has begun for a new site to accommodate 10 times its 1,000 member congregation. Growing from less than 300 in 1970 to over 1,000 in 1978 is quite a feat! With this growth has come notoriety in Gainesville and in the brotherhood in general. The Crossroads membership has an uncommon religious zeal and an evangelistic fervor that has given her a reputation unlike that known among churches of the Lord today. But all is not well in this beehive of activity: Rumblings first came from the dormitories on the University of Florida, then from the suburban developments around the city, telling of concentration camp tactics which fostered hate and disrespect for other religions. Crossroads was said to be discouraging thought, engaging in excessive pressure strategies, and was maintaining a cult-like control over its membership. Since Guyana, “cultism” hangs over Crossroads like a sinister shroud.

Denials And Affirmations

Evidence will bear out the fact that Crossroads brethren have denied in the past that such problems existed. Though this denial no longer exists, they are still saying that where problems do exist, others are at fault. Certainly she is not responsible for what is said and done by the fatigued-with-the-system individuals who have left Crossroads and she cannot control the excessiveness of those who go out propagating her principles. Remember too, that a number of people have picked up on her “philosophy” who have never attended Crossroads. I know of one such individual who causes serious problems in a southern city and, naturally, Crossroads was accused of infiltration and insurrection within the troubled congregation of that city. Check Lucas, the preacher for Crossroads, and her elders have made positive affirmations regarding her work. Those who are interested in pursuing this matter should write Crossroads for material explaining her program. Be sure to. get a copy of brother Lucas’ brief, seven point discussion of “The `Crossroads Philosophy.”‘

While he did cover in a general way the valid objections lodged against them, many side issues go unanswered. In all fairness to Crossroads, this writer does not see enough evidence to support the allegation that she is a cult. Given the general mood of the public after Jim Jones with a little yellow journalism, interpretations of a number of actions are bound to have cultic-like aspects. Above the general concept of liberal views of a church at work, I do not see proof that Crossroads is the center of a national movement (Times-Courier, Charleston, Illinois, April 7, 1979). It is reports like those that have appeared in public journals that have produced a general consensus that there is some sort of cultic conspiracy among churches of Christ. It simply is not true and it is time that we stopped increasing public suspicions with our talk of “cultism” at Crossroads. This is a serious charge and we had better have facts to back it up.

A Survey Of Criticisms

Brethren who have investigated the matter for themselves understand that Crossroads does indeed have a program of work “that is praiseworthy” (Baxter Tape). It is succeeding in fulfilling a deep concern for university students. The key to the “Crossroads Philosophy” is total commitment. This is something all gospel preachers know is Biblical and they have preached it as a personal responsibility of the Christian. The second aspect of the program is concern for the lost, something no child of God can eliminate from his life. Crossroads has established a procedure that is appealing in many respects. This method begins with soul talks, a term not found in our vocabulary until Crossroads. The term is not appealing in itself, but since the discussions taking place in “soul talks” deal with the soul of man, the term is as Scriptural as others we use. Bruce Williams (Campus Minister of Florida State in Tallahassee, sponsored by the Call Street Church of Christ) defines “soul talk” as “a small discussion group conducted in various dormitory rooms and apartments, hosted by committed Christians living in those areas.” Brother Lucas, in the October 14, 1979 issue of “At The Crossroads,” says “soul talks are not: `encounter groups,’ `sensitivity sessions,’ `group confession sessions,’ unstructured, interdenominational religious `rap sessions,’ a meeting of `prayer partners’ (discussed later, jt). To the contrary, Soul Talks are: `small group evangelistic Bible studies (some call them `life talks,’ `Bible talks,’ etc), discussions about the soul, Bible study groups hosted by committed Christians” and “Bible studies led and directed by competent Christian teachers approved by the elders of the church.” “Soul talks” are where about a dozen Christians meet once a week at a regular time and place. While the leader of each “soul talk” selects the appropriate topic to be discussed, members help and invite visitors. They are designed for various age groups, men, women, high school, college, etc. The average member attends one soul talk per week. What right thinking Christian would criticize this?

After a person is converted he is yoked to a prayer partner. Believing that Christianity is a “one another religion” (Rom. 12:5), where members are to “edify one another” (Rom. 14:19), a “prayer partner” arrangement implements the “one another” commands of the Bible (At The Crossroads, October 21, 1979). We are told that the “prayer partner” arrangement “has no connotations of `superiority,’ but the emphasis is on mutual ministery,” often described as a “spiritual buddy system.” Crossroads denies that they assign members, or require a pairing off. They merely encourage. In this arrangement, the partners confess to each other, pray for each other, with the older disciplining the younger. Certainly this is feasible, but whether or not this sytem is best, questioned.

Then What Is The Problem?

(1) Apparent, overt demand of one’s time. It is a stressing of the fact that nothing is to take precedence over “soul talks” to the point of abuse. This is demonstrated by the fact that some were indeed so pressured to attend soul talk studies that the fulfillment left little, or no time for family relationship, for holding down a job that might conflict, or other responsibilities. Many churches have complained that those involved in soul talk programs have no time to devote to “activities of the local church where they attend” and almost constitute a “church within a church” (T. Pierce Brown in a telephone conversation with this writer). Generally speaking, could not this charge be hurled at us, not just Crossroads, at most any time by anyone not particularly “sold” on a program of personal work that we espouse? What about those who feel that “attending every night of a meeting is too much?” What brethren must learn is that it is not necessarily “the program” that is time demanding as much as it is a personal failure to distinguish a division of responsibilities. We must learn to proportion church activities and individual obligations. Have we forgotten our formula for work: A + O + C = R (Ability plus Opportunity plus Common Sense equals Responsibility)? Why not teach young people this principle rather than denouncing them or labeling them a cult simply because they naturally have little obligation to people and things not considered an obligation?

(2) Confessing intimate sins of thought and action to more mature prayer partner. The fact that two people work closely together in such an arrangement naturally leads to abuses. How easy it is to need someone to talk to, to confide in and to find that person in a “prayer partner.” This is a risk that we all face in our inter-relationship in the church. But to look upon someone in whom we have confidence as a “spiritual mother” or “father” who controls our thoughts does indeed “ape the Roman confessional box” (Gospel Advocate, February 22, 1979, p. 120). What about persuasion? I know a couple of co-laborers who in times past would have convinced me that their proscriptions and anathemas were as binding as those of a parish priest, if I had let them! Who among us have never experienced attempts at “thought control” over our thoughts at one time or another? Thought and mind control is wrong no matter when it happens and where it occurs. James 5:16 is pertinent, but it is not limited to a certain group or particular individual in the sense of a “spiritual father.” As to this matter of “raping the mind,” I ask, “is this not a nebulous charge?” If after “public confession” at our assembly a brother or a sister is reminded of sins they continue to commit, is this “thought control,” or a rape of the mind?

(3) Crossroads Philosophy constitutes true religion. The brethren at Crossroads have been charged with advocating strongly that salvation is through the Crossroads church only and consequently attempt to lead people out of other churches (even churches of Christ) into Crossroads. The University Avenue elders, Gainesville, Florida, in a letter dated January 21, 1979 expressed it like this: “The idea is that believers who have activities and philosophies nearly identical to those of the Crossroads leadership are true Christians. This idea is divisive and is particularly devastating . . . . It has conflict between those who espouse the Crossroads philosophy and those who do not support the type of changes they advocate.” While in the next installment this factor will be covered under “Exclusiveness,” I want to say here that I never thought I would hear a congregation of God’s people saying to another such collectivity, “You think you are the only ones going to heaven!” I do not find any grounds for this charge as far as brethren are concerned. May I suggest that things are so dead in the so-called “mainline” churches, that a congregation displaying the kind of zeal Crossroads gives out is bound to do two things: (1) Cause alarm. After all, does it not point out even clearer the fossilness of the status quo? (2) It is just natural that the untaught youth of these churches would flock to Crossroads. After all, they want to be “where the action is!” I think our liberal brethrens’ true colors are showing in this matter, and there is a tinge of enviousness.

(4) Delaying and withholding baptism: Crossroads is criticized for withholding baptism from candidates “normally considered acceptable by New Testament standards” and rebaptism of baptized believers after they have submitted to Crossroads philosophy. Too, talk about “man-made judgments” in this respect is absurd. In Acts 8, Philip made a “man-made judgment” when he acted on the response to his question. We all have to exercise such in baptizing people. Have you ever refused to baptize a “child” who responded to the invitation and who could not give sufficient evidence that he believes? Have you ever refused to baptize someone who.failed and/or refused to repent of some sin? Would you baptize a person whom you knew was living in adultery? Is this not “withholding baptism?” Is this not the exercise of human judgment? As for rebaptism, I will baptize anyone who doubts the sincerity of a former baptism. This is involved in “make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). Not all “baptized believers” are Christians. This is the fallacy of brother Ketcherside’s “I fellowship all baptized believers” position.

There are other matters that need to be dealt with, such as so-called harassment, “religious zombies,” preying on emotionally weak, vulnerable people, etc. Space will not allow it.

Next Installment: “Crossroads: What It All Boils Down To.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 533-535
August 21, 1980

By Mike Willis

When God chose Israel to be a holy nation unto Him, they became His peculiar people. Notice the statements by Moses to this effect:

Ye are the children of the Lord your God . . . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord bath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth (Deut. 14:1-2).

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God bath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth (Deut. 7:6).

Israel was a peculiar nation unto the Lord, i.e., they were God’s own property. He had called Abraham and brought the nation into existence; He had established a particular covenant with them (Ex. 19:5, 6). Hence, they stood in a unique relationship to the Lord.

As God’s own people, Israel was expected to be separate from the nations around her. The intermingling of the culture of Israel with pagan nations would only lead to moral and spiritual deterioration of God’s people. Hence, the word of the Lord commanded them not to intermingle. Hence, in the conquest, Israel was forbidden to make alliances with the Canaanite people.

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou guest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: but ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: for thou shall worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods (Ex. 34:12-16).

Israel had to maintain her separate identity as a people belonging peculiarly unto the Lord. She was a separate nation.

The Church: The Israel of God

Today the Lord’s church is His Israel (Gal. 6:17). She is His “chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, and peculiar people” (1 Pet. 2:9). The principle of separateness applies with reference to the church just as it did with reference to Israel of God. The church is made up of people who are not conformed to this world (Rum. 12:1-2). The difference in the Christian and the world around him is so great that the world thinks “it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:1-3).

The Lord has commanded the Christian not to intermingle with the wicked religions of the world. Paul wrote,

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship bath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion bath light with darkness? And what concord bath Christ with 13e1ia1? or what part bath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement bath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God bath said, I will dwell in than, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, with the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, with the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

The Lord’s people of this day and age are to be separate from the world in which they live. As a matter of fact, when the world feels that there is no difference in the people of God and them, the people of God have compromised the Word of God (Lk. 6:26).

The Distinctiveness of God’s People

Let us, therefore, consider some of the areas in which the people of God are clearly distinguishable from the world around them.

Distinct In Speech. The speech of God’s people will be distinctive in reference to the religious jargon used. The world around us, because of its distinction between its clergy and laity, has a distinctive religious vocabulary which is different from that of New Testament Christians. The religious world around us speaks of its preachers as “Reverend,” “Pastor ” “Father ” “Rabbi,” and a number of other special titles. Matthew 23:1-12 forbids the usage of special religious titles because there is no special “clergy” among the people of God.

Christians need to be careful in their usage of the word “brother” not to allow it to become a substitute for a special word to differentiate a clergy from a laity. When I am in a group of Christians who are being introduced to someone and the rest are introduced as “Mr.” but I am introduced as “Brother,” I am afraid that someone has a mistaken concept of what the proper usage of that word is. We are all brethren, not just the preachers.

Similarly, the Lord’s people use distinctive terminology when referring to the church. The names by which the church is called include such things as “church of Christ” (Rum. 16:16), “church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2), and several other terms. However, there is no usage of such names as Baptist Church, Episcopalian Church, Methodist Church, and Catholic Church in the Bible. Consequently, God’s people will only refer to the church by names which are found in the Scriptures.

The usage of a distinctive speech sets God’s people apart in a world which refers to its clergy by titles absolutely condemned in God’s word and to their churches by names not found on the pages of God’s book anywhere! When we ask our religious neighbors for authority for their unscriptural names and unscriptural titles, we will not have to worry about becoming a distinctive, separate people; we will be excluded by them as a bunch of religious legalists with whom they want nothing to do.

Even as we will be clearly distinguishable by the usage of our speech to refer to the people of God, we shall also be a distinctive people by the purity of speech which we manifest. There are several aspects of the purity of one’s speech which separate us from the world around us, such as the following:

a. Our speech is truthful. Jesus said, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt. 5:33). Paul wrote, “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). Christians are characterized by purity of speech in that their word can be trusted. When a Christian gives you his word, he will keep it; his word. is his bond.

A Christian who promises to be at a certain place at a certain time will be there. A Christian who promises to pay his bill will pay his bill. A Christian who relates the circumstances of a conversation will be careful to accurately represent what happened. His word can be trusted because he speaks the truth.

b. Our speech does not abuse the Lord’s name. Again, Paul wrote, “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). The Christian is one who does not take the Lord’s holy name in vain. He is different from the world around him in this regard. In an age when pre-teenage children are generally characterized by vulgar profanity, the Christian is separate from the world in that he does not take the name of the Lord in vain.

c. Our speech is not filled with filthy jesting. Paul told Christians that neither “filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting” (Eph. 5:4) ought to characterize the saints of God. Our ungodly age tells filthy jokes as a form of entertainment. A Christian will not tell filthy jokes or listen to others tell them. The man who refuses to laugh at these kinds of filthy stories and who refuses to tell them to others will not have to worry about blending in with the crowd. The ungodly world will see to it that he remains separate from them.

d. Our speech avoids gossip, backbiting, and railing. A Christian is a man who avoids gossiping about his brothers and sisters in Christ and his neighbors. He does not try to destroy another’s reputation; he does not try to exalt himself by abasing someone else. I have been among congregations where large portions of time was spent in running down rumors and getting them stopped. Christians are not to be characterized by this kind of conduct. Instead, Paul wrote, “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:31-32). A person who has these traits to characterize his speech will be like an oasis in a desert of sin.

e. Our speech is characterized by spreading the gospel and edifying one another. The Christian is to be busy fulfilling the Great Commission; hence, the Christian will be actively talking to his friends and neighbors about Jesus Christ (Mk. 16:15-16). When he sees a brother or sister overtaken in sin, he will go to that person and talk to him about his soul (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20).

Brethren, when these kinds of characteristics become a part of our speech, we will be a separate people unto God. The world will not want to have anything to do with a people who live a pure life, rebuke sin, and appeal for others to be obedient to the word of God. These people will become isolated on the job; their comrades will have little desire to be with them.

Though no one desires isolation, each of us should desire to be different from the world in which we live. Our speech is one of several things which distinguishes us from the world around us. (Continued next week)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 531-533
August 21, 1980

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: “Is it scriptural for a woman to write an article for Truth Magazine? What is the difference in preaching publicly in the pulpit and writing a public article?”

Reply: There is a difference in a woman writing an article for a journal that will be read by men and a woman and publicly preaching and teaching when men are present. This difference may not be noticeable on the surface but I believe if those who are perplexed about the matter or who object to public articles written by women will carefully consider some points, they too will see the difference.

Women write most of the pre-school and elementary level Bible class material which is purchased and used by congregations throughout the world. Men read this material. Elders in the churches where it is considered for use read it over and evaluate it. We do not consider the woman in this case as usurping authority over the man (1 Tim. 2:12).

A man who is teaching a Bible class may assign an article to a-woman on some Bible subject. The man (the teacher) or some other man may read publicly what the woman has written. She refrains from pulpit preaching, or public teaching in an assembly where men are present; therefore, she is simply teaching in modesty and is not having dominion over a man.

Many of the songs which we sing in our worship, praise and edification are written by women. Several were written by Fanny J. Crosby, a blind woman. If articles which appear by a woman in a magazine are on par with pulpit preaching then consistency would demand of us that we cease singing all songs in our worship, praise, and devotion that are written by women. We would have to check every song to see if it were written by a woman and if so then we could not sing it. Is a woman to be prohibited from writing an article but allowed to write songs of praise and edification? Is she permitted to write in a song book but not in a magazine published by brethren?

There is another point for consideration. The magnificat of Mary (Lk. 1:46-55) is recorded for all to read (men, women, and children); it is recorded in the same book which forbids a woman to “usurp authority over the man” (1 Tim. 2:12). But if the record of the magnificat is accepted upon the basis that Mary was “inspired,” as. some would contend, then it must be remembered that certain women in the New Testament also possessed the miraculous gift of teaching, Philip’s four virgin daughters for example (Acts 21:9). Yet, although these women were inspired, the prohibition of women having dominion over the man, or usurping authority over the man, was in effect. So, whether a woman was inspired or not, she still was not allowed to place herself in such a position that would violate that prohibition. We must conclude, then, that whether a woman is inspired- or uninspired is not the issue: The contention that’ Mary’s song of praise is acceptable because she was “inspired” is not a valid argument.

All of us should desire and strive to do the will of the Lord in all matters. This kind of attitude is appreciated. The question is simply whether a woman’s article or articles which ,appear in a religious. paper is a parallel to pulpit preaching. It is my conviction that it is not for the considerations presented. A woman who writes an article that is published simply makes a contribution to study and edification in her own modest sphere. In the New Testament there were certain woman who helped in the preaching of the gospel without preaching publicly and having dominion over the man which we all agree is prohibited in the scriptures (see Rom. 16:1-3; Phil. 4:2, 3).

I am sure that some readers do not agree with what is set forth in this reply, but I have offered these thoughts and considerations as my own convictions. We should all attempt to regulate our beliefs and actions according to the word of God, endeavoring to be as consistent in our practice as possible but not legislating where the Bible does not.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, p. 530
August 21, 1980