Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Editor’s Note

I have received several comments regarding Jeff Kingry’s article “The Rich Life Is Not Slender Now” (August 2, 1979). I am publishing some of these comments, along with John McCort’s review of Jeff’s article, to give our readers some idea of what others are saying about the article. From the number of comments and the reputations of those who are objecting to the article, I think that one can see that merely dismissing these criticisms as “the hit dog howled,” “I have been misunderstood,” or some other similar rationalization will not deal with the problem.

Jeff’s article contained some excellent food for thought with reference to every man’s fight against materialism. It also sounded some legitimate dangers faced by any gospel preacher who decides to become involved in selling any product. Too, it frankly condemned some abuses of which some selling brethren have been guilty which many of us have felt for years.

I have received enough complimentary comments orally regarding the article to know that: (1) some preachers are abusing a right to engage in selling either through allowing their local work to suffer because of their involvement or using their relationship as a preacher to make sales contracts; (2) selling brethren have been guilty of using their hospitality as a guise for making a sales pitch on a sufficient number of occasions that a number are complaining about it. Knowing that this was so, I felt that there was enough worthwhile material in Jeff’s initial article to print it. Though I would edit it more carefully had I the opportunity to run the article again, 1 still think that the primary thesis of Jeff’s manuscript is correct. The things complimented in the letters quoted by Jeff are not the matters to which objection is made.

There were some specific objections to the article which I think need to be mentioned in addition to those mentioned by letters printed below and John McCort’s review of the article. I want to mention these as follows:

(l) Unjustified criticism of a legitimate business operation. Jeff described the selling of Amway as on “the seamy side of the ‘get it quick’ way to riches.” Furthermore, he called the profit making system used by them and several other firms “a refined system of parasitism.” Both of these comments leave somewhat to be desired, so far as I am concerned. As an editor, I should not have allowed these statements to be printed. Those agencies of our government which investigate dishonest business practices have found nothing wrong with this method of sales. Frankly, some money-making systems will be attractive to one man and unattractive to another; I would appreciate both sides keeping their comments regarding these matters to themselves. Truth Magazine is not a forum to discuss business enterprises. In my opinion, Jeff made a blanket indictment of every salesman of these products in making these statements.

(2) References to those wearing “Free”pins. Little did I know, that only 3-5 gospel preachers among us wear “Free” pins; otherwise, Jeff’s reference to his conversation with two of them would never have been printed. 1 need to also mention that these two preachers’ remembrance of that conversation is significantly different from that related by Brother Kingry. In Brother Kingry’s first intended response to criticism to his article, he said that what he had written was a caricature (“the deliberately distorted picturing or imitation of a person, literary style, etc. by exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect,” Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary). He should not have written in such a way as to leave the impression that he was reporting facts when he was caricaturing; if he was reporting facts, he would have done better to report only such facts as he could document. Yet, Jeff neither corrected this matter nor proved it.

(3) Motive judging. Jeff frankly engaged in some motive judging in the article as, for example, when he mentioned a particular preacher who moved to a church to work without income but moved to work with that group of people in order to sell his goods. I do not know how Jeff could prove that point. Other statements in this article judge motives in a similar way, as Brother McCort ably demonstrates, and make blanket condemnations of preachers who sell products to supplement their income, in spite of Jeff’s denial of making blanket condemnations. Yet, Jeff did not admit being guilty of anything or make correction of them. Instead, he said, “I do not believe that I have written anything that deserves the response you are reading.” Noticeably none of the letters quoted by Jeff defended these abuses.

A Style Of Writing

All of these comments raise a serious problem with regard to a certain style of writing which has become more acceptable among some brethren in recent years than I care to admit. That style of writing is this: to draw a man’s picture so clearly that anyone vaguely familiar with the circumstances surrounding the incident knows who is being talked about, but, to fail to specify who is intended. This is somewhat like drawing a picture of a cat but not writing c-a-t underneath it. Everyone who knows what a cat is knows what has been drawn. This leaves the injured party little recourse. If he replies to the article, he is told “the hit dog howled” or “I did not necessarily have you in mind but if the shoe fits, wear it.” If he does not respond, those who know the situation think he does not respond because of the weakness of his case. Furthermore, it leaves the editor in somewhat of a predicament for editing these articles. He knows nothing, on some occasions, of the particular incidents referred to and, therefore, cannot tell how accurately the writer has related his information. He has no means of checking it out. Hence, he must decide to publish it or not publish it solely on the writer’s reputation. After several such denials of one’s stories by several different parties, an editor soon becomes suspicious of every story written by the writer. When that happens, his material can have little value to the paper.

For these reasons, I would prefer that our writers refrain from writing innuendos. If you have a charge to make against a brother, name the brother and the incident which you have in mind and document your charges. This specifies who is intended by your article and allows the indicted party an opportunity to respond to your charges. This appears to me to be a more honorable method of handling controversy than writing veiled potshots at one another.

Jeff’s reply to these reviews of his article is entitled “I Don’t Want To Do This.” I am sure that this expresses his motives. I am also aware that the same title could be appended to the review by John McCort and the letter to the editor by Ron Halbrook. (I might also add that the title could appropriately describe the “Editor’s Note.”) Yet, the same kind of conviction which prompted Jeff to write his initial article prompted their replies. When one writes for public consumption, he must be prepared to have his writings reviewed. Hence, in keeping with the open forum style of Truth Magazine, the following reactions to Brother Kingry’s article are published. I hope that having to face these public reactions to this article will help Jeff to be more responsible in his articles which appear in his new paper Horizons.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 43, p. 676
October 25, 1979

By Mike Willis

No person in his right mind will knowingly harm his body. Yet, there comes a time when a person will consent to allowing a physician to amputate certain parts of his body. We each recognize the principle of sacrificing the lesser good for the sake of the larger good. When a person’s diseased members of his body endangers the rest of the body’s life, the individual will consent to having it removed.

Jesus referred to this principle in His instructions in Mark 9:43-48. Here is His statement:

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Here Jesus placed in contrast the higher good, entrance into life, with the lower good, life in this world with both of one’s members. Let us examine this statement rather carefully.

Literal Interpretation Is Nonsensical

Though I have never met anyone who seriously interpreted this passage literally, to do so would be nonsensical. If one physical hand causes a man to sin and is cut off, the other one would be left to ensnare the individual. The same is true with regard to both the eye and the foot. Hence, to interpret this passage literally is to misunderstand it.

This form of overstatement is intended to emphasize the truth that is taught. The point being emphasized is that there is nothing in this life below that is worth separating us from God and the reward of everlasting life. The eternal damnation in hell is the punishment of sin; there is no sin on earth which can give sufficient pleasure to make it worthwhile to live forever in hell in order to enjoy it now.

Lessons To Be Learned From This Passage

1. There is a heaven and a hell. Those who depreciate the Bible, making it the product of mere man rather than a divinely imparted revelation to man, do not believe in a heaven or a hell. Several sects in denominationalism teach that, though there is an everlasting life, there is not a place of everlasting punishment. Contrary to the teaching of both, Jesus revealed that there is both a heaven and a hell.

Paul believed in the resurrection of both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15). He revealed that the “righteous judgment of God . . . will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” (Rom. 2:5-8). This is but the reflection of what Jesus taught in this passage.

There is an eternal life (Mk. 9:43, 45). It is also referred to as the kingdom of God (Mk. 9:47). (This reference to eternal life as the kingdom of God springs from the fact that the kingdom of the Lord is a kingdom which cannot be moved [Heb. 12:28]; it shall ultimately be delivered to God to dwell with Him forever [1 Cor. 15:24].) This life is described as everlasting or eternal (Matt. 25:46). This is the blessed hope of the Christian.

The place of eternal punishment is called hell (gehenna). To show the eternal nature of the punishment, Jesus used two metaphors – where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. The word Gehenna was used to describe the dump outside of Jerusalem. There putrefying bodies of animals were disposed of; the worms could eat the flesh from the bones as it decayed. Too, trash of whatever sort was burned in that valley. The idea of an unquenchable fire and undying worms was a metaphor of eternal punishment. Hence, notice that there is a hell, that it is a place of punishment, and that the punishment is everlasting in duration. Despite the fact that modern theologians have rejected the idea of an eternal punishment and a pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-bye-and-bye,” Jesus still ‘taught that both lie ahead for mankind. You will just have to judge who knows the most about the future, Jesus the Son of God or modern theologians.

2. There is nothing in this life worth the loss of salvation. When Jesus speaks of one’s body (whether his hand, foot, or eye) causing one to offend, he was speaking of one’s body involving him in a sin. Sin, by its nature, separates a person from God (Isa. 59:1-2); it brings, as its punishment, eternal damnation (Rom. 6:23). Hence, Jesus’ point is that anything which will separate us from God and our hope of eternal life is not worth what it costs us.

This lesson is a hard lesson for Christians to learn. We seem to think too much of this world; we forget that everything in it and all of the pleasures which it can offer us are temporal. The pleasures of sin are passing away (Heb. 11:24-25; 1 Jn. 2:15-17). Whatever enjoyment sin can give me, at the best will last only a short time. This fact should never be forgotten.

Christian friend, are you willing to spend an eternity in undescribable pain for the small amount of pleasure which sin can give you? Are a few moments of temporal pleasure which you might enjoy while engaged in an act of immorality with some ungodly man or women worth an eternity in hell? Are the things which you buy for yourself with the money which you should be giving to God giving you a sufficient among of pleasure to be worth spending an eternity in hell in order to obtain them? Is the television show or other recreational activity which you participate in rather than attending worship services giving you so much pleasure that it will be worth the eternity in hell which it is going to cost you?

We both know the answer to these questions. There is nothing in this life able to give us enough satisfaction to make it worthwhile to spend an eternity in hell and to miss heaven in order to enjoy it. Hence, the price of sin is exceedingly high! Satan can give the Christian no bargain when he offers him some temporal pleasure in exchange for his soul.

3. Sin is horrible and has eternal damnation as its punishment. This text surely shows us how horrible sin really is. Jesus proposed that it would be better to lose part of one’s own body rather than to be guilty of sin which would lead to eternal damnation. I can hardly picture such a statement having been said if what some of my brethren are writing is true.

My brethren are telling me that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is transferred to the believer so that God sees the perfect obedience of Christ rather than the individual’s sins. If that is so, why is sin so bad? These petty offenses do not separate the man from God; they do not lead to everlasting fire. Rather, God just closes His eyes to these sins. If one accepts this point of view, he will have trouble explaining why Jesus would suggest such radical treatment to prevent being guilty of sin!

The truth of the matter is that every sin which a man commits separates him from God and endangers his soul. Sin, by its very nature, is such that it always separates a man from God (Isa. 59:1-2); the penalty for sin is always death (Rom. 6:23). Hence, man must do everything which he can to avoid being guilty of sin. That is why Jesus used this statement to emphasize our need to avoid being guilty of sin!

Conclusion

Realizing that these things are true – that there is a heaven and a hell, that there is nothing in this life worth the loss of one’s personal salvation, and that sin is horrible and has eternal damnation as its punishment – how then should we live? Obviously, we should consider the higher good as more important than the lower good. Our eternal salvation must take precedence over everything else in life. Anything which gets in the way of our obtaining eternal life must be put out of our way regardless of how much it pains us in this life.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 42, pp. 675-676
October 25, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Ohio: “What are some passages provided by God to strengthen the inner man so that the reckless, offensive conduct of someone else will not embitter and destroy my own soul?”

Reply: Numerous passages can be cited. My favorite one in this connection is 1 Peter 2:20-24:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: By whose stripes ye were healed.

Paul faced anguish of spirit because of “reckless, offensive conduct,” but he did not permit it to embitter him. “When we are slandered, we try to conciliate” (1 Cor. 4:13-NASB). “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world . . . . Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil . . . . At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me . . . . And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:10, 14, 16-18). “If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities” (2 Cor. 11:30). “Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:10).

Kindred Scriptures offer solace and strength. “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience” (Jas. 1:2, 3). “And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope” (Rom. 5:3-5). “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41).

Three Things To Do

When one is mistreated, there are three things that will help to dispel malice. Also, these three items have no defense; there is no way for your enemies to forbid them.

(1) Love: God loved us when we were without hope and undeserving. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” So, too, we must love those who abuse us. “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” (Matt. 5:44). “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:20, 21). An opponent cannot keep you from loving him.

(2) Prayer: Pray for those who snidely or maliciously malign you – “Pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). An enemy might not let you feed him, but he cannot prevent you from praying for him.

(3) Silence: An abusive heart desires a response. Any kind will do. He is ready to pounce on it and use it against you. Often, therefore, it is best to be like the Lord and say nothing (Matt. 27:12-14). “I will keep my mouth with a bridle while the wicked is before me” (Psa. 39:1). Those who are dedicated to degradation and deprecation can “answer” any reply, but they are frustrated by silence. A wicked man will wrest your best words in the worst way, but he cannot grapple with silence.

Psalm 64

Hear my voice, O God, in my prayer: preserve my life from fear of the enemy. Hide me from the secret counsel of the wicked; from the insurrection of the workers of iniquity: Who whet their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words: That they may shoot in secret at the perfect: suddenly do they shoot at him, and fear not. They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? They search out iniquities; they accomplish a diligent search: Both the inward thought of every one of them, and the heart, is deep. But God shall shoot at them with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded. So they shall make their own tongue to fall upon themselves: All that see them shall flee away. And all men shall fear, and shall declare the work of God; for they shall wisely consider of his doing. The righteous shall be glad in the Lord, and shall trust in him; and all the upright in heart shall glory.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 42, p. 674
October 25, 1979

By Carol R. Lumpkin

This article is written while knowing that about every local church is troubled with some who do not attend all the services of the church that they should. I sense the attitude of such to be that, you cannot prove it to be binding; therefore, it is not essential to assemble. This attitude retards the growth of the church, relates an unholy disposition, services as a bad influence upon others.

Jesus said, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24). When the devil tempted Jesus to worship him, Jesus replied, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). The church is instructed to assemble to worship God in: song ( Eph. 5:19), prayer (Acts 2:42), preaching or teaching (Acts 20:7), giving as prospered (1 Cor. 16:2), and the observance of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:25-26).

The first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7), the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10), has been commanded of God as a day of worship; therefore it is binding upon all Christians to observe each week. Those who are not sick, or otherwise hindered beyond their ability to assemble will assemble with the saints for worship. This would mean that social events, fishing, hunting, visiting, vocation, vacation, etc., should not prevent first day of the week worship.

God has ordained that elders rule over His church (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 3:1-3). Men who desire the office of an elder and meet the qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9), have the charge to, oversee, superintend, feed, the flock over which they are appointed. To feed the flock may well require additional assemblies that the church might receive sufficient spiritual food. The edification, up building, of each member is essential for the growth and well being of the Lord’s church (Eph. 4:11-16).

God has authorized elders over each church (Ac. 14:23), who watch for the souls of the members (Acts 20:28). Members are subject to the elders who rule according to God’s word. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17).

Elders are to see that church members grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:18). Elders may plan extra studies for such edification of the church. This may include, gospel meetings, singings, lectureships, Bible studies, and prayer meetings. When such services are planned for the growth and development of the membership, all should do their best to be present. Those who willfully fail to obey the elders are in disobedience to God and, thus, sin.

Whether or not the members do or do not attend such services reflects their attitude toward God, the elders, and the church. It is not a matter of, do I have to attend, or whether or not it is binding. The attitude of converted people is that I will do all in my power to be present to study, learn, and to join to the fellowship with God, Christ and fellow saints.

When this life has drawn to a close and when each of us stand before the judgment seat of Jesus, don’t you really believe it will be a plus for a man that he attended the church services while on earth? Think of what it means to please the Lord.

God does not require the impossible from anyone, but he does demand first place in our life (Matt. 6:33; 16:26). I do not believe God has first place in my life when I put myself, other people, or other things, before my service to Him, do you?

Brethren, let us love God and keep His commandments (Jn. 14:15). This will save our souls, bind us together in that one mind and judgment, and make the church strong and united. Will you do your part to make this possible?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 668
October 18, 1979