Truth Magazine

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

By Earl Robertson

Church government known in the New Testament is purely local. The Scriptures say nothing about universal government of churches of Christ. Each local church is independent of all other congregations. They all work independently of each other and yet they all do the same work; they work concurrently accomplishing the will of Christ. The Lord authorized elders in each church (Acts 14:23). Inasmuch as this is the rule for each congregation it manifests the fact that each church has the same need for the same government.

It was not long, however, until this scriptural independency was ignored and destroyed in unscriptural actions of men. Paul wrote “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thess. 2:7). Apostasy in organization was the first major departure from the apostolic pattern in churches of Christ. The “falling away” would come (2 Thess. 2:3). Perilous times would characterize the age (2 Tim. 3:1f). History tells us from Ignatius of Antioch (early in the 2nd century) onward the terms “bishops” and “presbyters” used to designate two different offices. Yet, the New Testament uses these two terms with reference to the same office (Acts 20:17, 28). Lightfoot says, “The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order by localization, but out of the presbyteral by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them.”

This departure from apostolic doctrine – bishops overseeing one local church – brought experiences through elevation that they would have never known on a local basis! This reminds me of a letter received the other day from a liberal in North Carolina. He wrote of the church in Cherokee, saying: “The elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, TN, have the oversight of this mission congregation, and they have requested that I look after the work since I am located only 13 miles from the Reservation.” Shades of Romanism! Why do people, claiming to speak as the Bible speaks and act as it directs, do like this? They cannot take the word of God to guide them in this action because it teaches the oversight of bishops is limited to the church “among” them (1 Pet. 5:1, 2). The liberals should cease being identified as churches of Christ, being unwilling to act within New Testament authority. Let us practice congregationalism!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 667
October 18, 1979

By William C. Sexton

Nehemiah, one of the men who made a great effort to restore true worship and service to the God of heaven in Judah after the captivity, revealed the true motivating force in producing acceptable and beneficial behavior: “the fear of God” (Neh. 5:15). We believe that such is the correct mental state to have as we perform religiously, and we would like to see evidence of such in more people today.

“Fear of God,” however, is often thought of as being a negative quality and consequently bringing harmful results. We would not deny that there is a sense in which this could be true; an examination of this is in order and understanding in this area is needed. Truly, there are harmful effects produced by “fear.” Many “fear” in a way that keeps them from living a full life, fruitful and enjoyable. Yet, we are convinced that proper respect for God is basic to a full life (Psa. 111:10; Job. 28:28). “He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever; holy and revered is his name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.” They who do not have a “fear of God,” which is gained by reading His word and understanding His greatness and goodness, are not equipped to act and serve correctly in many important phases of life. Let us consider and re-evaluate the nature and fruits of different types of fear:

1. Realistic Fear. If one understands God’s word and sees the consequences of disobeying certain restrictions or of failing to live up to certain demands, if he obeys from fear, such is realistic fear. The fear encompasses admiration for the wisdom, mercy, and longsuffering of God (2 Pet. 3:15; Rom. 11:33-36; Tit. 3:5). Just as one who observes an approaching lion should be fearful, so he who contemplates standing before the God of heaven in disobedience has a realistic basis for his fear, (Heb. 10:31; 12:29). Only one without the ability to reason and calculate the conclusion would be unfearful.

2. Anxiety. For one to have a sense of inadequacy and such low esteem of himself or herself that they allow such to immobilize them – keep from doing the job that needs to be done – such is classified by Social Psychologist as “anxiety” and such is indeed harmful to each person who is so captured. However, such is condemned by the revelation of God, and should be so recognized by His children (Matt. 25:24-30). As spiritually minded and mature members of the Lord’s body we need to point to the detrimental effect of such and also point to the unscripturalness of such an attitude and mental state (Matt. 6:33-34).

3. Lack of fear, foolishly proud. If one sees no danger and acts freely as though there is nothing threatening his eternal safety and well-being, then he is foolishly proud being on the edge of destruction and not knowing it. Eternal destruction will be his destiny, although from all appearances he may be “having a ball,” he is insane, spiritually speaking. “Tribulation and anguish” awaits him just outside the prison gate, behind which he is held in captivity, to which he shall be transferred shortly, (Rom. 2:5-9).

4. Creative and dynamic fear. As Peter said long ago (Acts 10:34-35), the person who acts from the “fear of God,” doing what the Lord has said do, regardless of the nation, social standing, cultural background from which he has come, is accepted by God and will find “glory, honor, and peace” (Rom. 2:10) because God is no respecter of persons.

5. Fear directing – to be selective and active. Yes, we hope that the “fear of God” is moving us in two directions: (1) moving us to be selective in our behavior and activity – to please God; (2) moving us to be actively involved in the greatest work ever designed, that outlined in the New Testament: doing good unto all men and presenting the soul-saving-message in word and demonstration (Col. 3:16-17).

Beloved, have you committed your life to Christ, the Son of God? Have you gained a fear of God in the sense of awe and admiration, witnessing His power and goodness as He has dealt with mankind, as you read and meditate on His recorded dealings with us? Faith and fear of that sort will move you to repent, (Acts 17:30-31). Is there evidence of that fear creatively functioning in your life and destiny? That dynamically functioning fear produces confession in the Lordship and Sonship of Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10). Have such fruits been brought forth in your life? Having experienced the death to sin by repentance, one is buried with the Lord and raised to walk with Him (Rom. 6:1-6). Have you been raised through the operative power of God, from this watery grave (Col. 2:11-12)? Is that fearful force moving you to be selective in what you do and being consistent and determined in faithful services all day every day even if our life is threatened in efforts to stop us (Rev. 2:10)?

Yes, in short, beloved, are we motivated by the fear of God to do His will in being prepared to face the reality of eternity? If not, then we had better become motivated, before the time arrives that the opportunity is withdrawn. If there is no fear of God in our heart, manifest in our lives, then we have not reached the beginning of knowledge!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, pp. 666-667
October 18, 1979

By Wayne T. Galloway

There is a plague that sometimes goes undetected in Christianity although we look at it, examine it, preach against it and understand that it will destroy. It not only destroys all Christianity, but is like a cancer constantly eating away at our morals. What is this plague? It is diagnosed by several names: situationism, the new morality, contextualism, occasionalism, circumstantialism and principled relativism to name a few.

Perhaps the most well known advocator of situation ethics is Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher has written two publications relating to the subject of situationism, Situation Ethics – The New Morality and Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work. In the first of these he points out three approaches to decision making. Let us examine these approaches noticing Fletcher’s definition for each. The first is “legalism”.

“With this approach one enters into every decision-making situation encumbered with a whole apparatus of prefabricated rules and regulations. Not just the spirit but the letter of the law reigns. Its principles, codified in rules, are not merely guidelines or maxims to illuminate the situation; they are directives to be followed. Solutions are preset, and you can “look them up” in a book – a Bible or a confessor’s manual.”(1)

The second approach is “antinomianism.” In defining antinomianism Fletcher says,

“Over against legalism, as a sort of polar opposite, we can put antinominianism. This is the approach with which one enters into the decision-making situation armed with no principles or maxims whatsoever, to say nothing of rules. In every “existential moment” or “unique” situation, it declares one must rely upon the situation of itself, there and then, to provide its ethical solution.”(2)

The last approach, the one Fletcher advocates is “situationism.”

“. . . in between legalism and antinomian unprincipledness is situation ethics. The situationist enters into every decision making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so.”(3)

The Christian is indeed faced with three approaches to decision making, but which does the Bible teach, which does the immoralist teach and which does Joseph Fletcher teach? It is easy for any follower of Christ to understand that he must enter his decision making with the Bible (the law of God) in mind, so that eliminates “antinomianism” (literally -against law). According to Fletcher we should approach a situation with the Bible in mind but be able to disregard or compromise it if we find the Biblical way in contradiction to the most loving thing to do. In other words we can disregard the laws of God if we think it wiser or more loving to do something else. Joseph Fletcher and anyone who believes in situation ethics, please consider what the writer of Proverbs said in 16:25, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” The God of the Bible is all knowing; can we question His wisdom as He lays down laws for us to obey and at the same time realize our own ignorance? 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (emphasis mine, wtg).”

The approach to decision making that the Christian must use is the legalist approach. God has all knowledge and says that every scripture inspired by Him is able to make the man of God complete, furnished completely unto every good work. Any decisions made contradicting the commands of scripture are not good works.

To bring situation ethics a little closer home to those of us who already understand that we must follow the Bible and not our own wisdom, let us consider some ways in which we practice situationism without realizing it. How often have you found yourself late to an appointment (perhaps even the worship of the church) and therefore justify breaking certain traffic laws to gain time? Do you ever justify lying so that you can protect someone from some kind of information you feel may hurt them? Do you ever forsake the assemblies of the church and stay home with your mate so you do not discourage him or her from becoming a Christian? Of course these are only a few ways that we allow this plague to afflict us. The terrible thing is that we feel justified in our disobedience. In a short time we may even digress to the point of ignoring God’s laws altogether. We must be careful that we are not lead astray by something that looks good. The fish is lead astray and then caught by good looking bait. We must remember to use the Bible as God’s “hook detector.”

Endnotes:

1. Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics – The New Morality (The Westminister Press, 1974), p. 18.

2.

3. Fletcher, p. 26.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, pp. 665-666
October 18, 1979