Truth Magazine

By Norman E. Fultz

Now whoever thought of stubbornness as a sin? “Preacher, where did you ever come up with that idea?”, you may be asking. Well, basically from one Old Testament passage which we will consider later:

The word “stubborn” takes on a vividness when broken down. The root “stub” can be defined as “the stump of a tree, the short blunt part of anything after the large part has been broken off or used up.” Picture the stiffness, rigidity or hardness of the stub of a weed which the mower has clipped near the ground. Contrast that stiffness with the former flexibility of the weed as it would sway gracefully in the wind. The idea of “stubborn” thus becomes “fixed, resolute, or unyielding; especially, obstinate . . . difficult to handle, manage or treat; refractory” (Webster).

The word “stubborn” appears five times and the word “stubbornness” twice in the King James version of the Bible. A study of the passages can teach us a great deal about the – shall we call it a malady, an attitude?

1 The Bible uses of the term show it identified with an attitude of rebellion. In Deut. 9:27, Moses pled for God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and “look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin.” Read the entire ninth chapter, and note: “ye have been rebellious” (vs. 7, 24) and, “thou are (it is) a stiffnecked people” (vs. 6, 13). The Psalmist (78:8) called Israel “a stubborn and rebellious generation” because their heart was not set on God’s service. That same relation between stubbornness and rebellion is seen in the case of the uncontrollable son (Deut. 21:18-20).

In Judges 2:19, it is connected with self-seeking – “they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” A lack of faithfulness in marriage and playing the part of a harlot led Solomon to call the evil woman of Proverbs (7:6-23) “loud and stubborn.”

But the example of King Saul (1 Sam. 15) is verily a study of stubbornness. Samuel calls Saul’s behavior “rebellion” and shows it to be- the result of “stubbornness.” Read the chapter and let’s consider Saul’s problem.

He had “grown up” in his own estimation – no longer little in his own sight (v. 17). Quite a change had come over him since the time of his anointing (9:21). On another occasion, he had “done foolishly” and “not kept the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 13:8-13). Peace offerings were to be offered at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:1-6). Saul’s power had gone to his head. How often in our day do we see those who cannot become prosperous or powerful without losing their humility and submissiveness?

Saul elevated his-own thoughts over God’s instruction. God said, “utterly destroy.” Saul thought the best of the spoil should be saved (v. 19) and the vile and,- refuse destroyed (v. 9). What he thought to be good was in fact evil; because it was disobedience: He had riot learned that God’s thoughts and man’s thoughts are- often greatly divergent ,Isa. 53:8-9). What of those today who seek to improve upon what God has revealed regarding worship or .the organization and work of the church?

The king sought to justify himself and blame others for his disobedience (v. 20-21). He had understood his mission, for he admitted the spoil “should have been destroyed.”He blamed the people and tried to rationalize their motive -they only did it “to sacrifice to the Lord thy God.” But he learned that partial obedience is disobedience (v. 11, 22) and that he, himself, was guilty.

Samuel’s rebuke of Saul is stern and pointed. “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” God does not require obedience to one commandment to the point of another being violated. God required sacrifices, but not of the Amalekite spoils – it was to be destroyed. God requires Christians to give (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8-9), but not to the point that they engage in dishonest effort in order to give, or to give more. “It is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Cor. 8:12). Basically, what Samuel is saying to Saul is that God grades “A” for obedience – “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (cf. Ex. 19:5; Hos. 6:6). Samuel likens Saul’s rebellion unto witchcraft or divination, a practice definitely prohibited in Israel (Deut. 18:10). His “stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry,” also disdainful to God (Ex. 20:3-5).

The results of Saul’s stubbornness are far-reaching. The kingdom is taken from him; and Samuel, the seer, departs permanently from him (v. 23, 35). The light he refused is darkened, and the voice he rejected is silenced. Even though Saul confessed his sin and worshiped God (v. 24-31), the effects of his sin were permanent – “The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day . . . the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent” (v. 27, 29). Many moderns need also to learn the devastating and far reaching effects of their sin, and that though sin may be repented of, the effects may remain. As an instance, the alcoholic who gets “on the wagon” may have permanently impaired his health and wrecked his family.

Now, if it be argued that stubbornness is itself not a sin, only that attitude which may lead to sin, I answer – “a mere technicality!” Look at its company: rebellion, self exaltation, lack of submissiveness, witchcraft, idolatry and iniquity.

The child of God must guard against stubbornness in his own life in all his relationships, and the Christian parent is challenged to do all within his power to keep his child from developing a stubborn will.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, p. 530
August 23, 1979

By Dan Walters

Acts 8:4 tells us that after the great persecution against the Christians at Jerusalem, “they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.” The New Testament does not make a distinction between “teaching” and “preaching” or between private and public proclamation of the Word. In Acts 8:35, we find that Philip preached unto the eunuch; one man preached to one man. When the word is used in this sense, every Christian must be considered a preacher of the Word. If we allow any of our traditions to detract from the importance of this individual responsibility, we will have “made the commandment of God of none effect” (Matt. 15:6).

Both liberals and conservatives in the church are today concerned about the fact that we are falling behind other religious groups in numbers of conversions. We might have something to learn from two of these groups: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. They both teach false doctrines far removed from the teachings of the Apostles, yet they are experiencing rapid growth. Is false doctrine more attractive than truth? Speaking from a totally detached standpoint, I would rather try to convince someone of the truth of the doctrine that we teach than of the doctrine taught by either of these groups. It should be an easier job. The truth is simpler, more logical, and easier to grasp. It can be established from Bible testimony alone, without the need to acquaint people with other “inspired” literature. Could it be that members of these groups are doing something right, in spite of their overall error? Could their success be due to the fact that they are going everywhere preaching their doctrine, instead of relying on a professional ministry?

Some of these people seem to be practicing what we preach. We have always condemned a separation of clergy and laity, a pastor system, and preacher professionalism. Yet when taking a realistic look at ourselves it must be admitted that we have adopted many elements of the denominational system as it relates to preaching. Young men in the Mormon church are expected to spend two years in evangelistic work, regardless of the career they expect to choose later. I have talked to some of these young men, and it is my opinion that they know just about as much about Mormon doctrine as the average young gospel preacher knows about the New Testament. Yet they are not “preachers” as we think of the term; they will become lawyers, doctors, farmers, carpenters, writers, salesmen, etc. Go into any church of Christ and take a sampling of our young men, aged 18-20, and compare what they know about the truth to what the young Mormon missionaries know about their faith. If you do this in a representative congregation, I have no doubt that you will be severely disappointed. As a rule, the only ones to measure up will be those young men who are planning to preach as an occupation.

Most of those members who spread the doctrine of Russellism and Mormonism are not paid to do so; they support themselves at secular jobs. Most of the time the members contribute their time and effort to build the meeting houses where they worship. They are expected to have a profound knowledge of their respective religions. And they do not quit preaching because of lack of support; they expect no support. Are these people superior in moral fiber to Christians? If not, the answer must be that they really believe that their members have an equal obligation to preach.

When we use the word “preacher” in its modern sense, it is true that not all Christians can or should be preachers. Women are forbidden to be public proclaimers and some men do not possess the ability to speak effectively. But even in this area we may have restricted the “ministry” too much. Consider those occupations in which it is necessary for a man to be able to speak publically. We have in the church lawyers, sales promoters, school teachers, public officials, entertainers, etc. What is the excuse if these men cannot teach a Bible class or deliver a simple lesson from the pulpit? They cannot plead lack of ability. After having been in the church for ten years, they cannot plead ignorance of the Bible without admitting the sin of neglect. Is it possible that they have never developed themselves simply because they have not been expected to do so? Because we do not think of them as “preachers”?

We all ought to be thankful for those faithful men who have devoted their lives to preaching the gospel. But the rest of us cannot afford to allow them to bear the burden alone. We must discard the denominational notion that if a man makes his money by operating computers, that means he is not really a preacher. One proof that there is a problem is a fact brought out recently in Truth Magazine by Brother Wallace Little. He says that many preachers in the Philippines have come to regard preaching as a “job,” and if their support is lessened or cut off, they have lost their “job.” Where did they learn to think of preaching in these terms? Is it possible that they have learned it from us?

What should be done to correct this tendency? Our young people should be taught that they are personally responsible for spreading the gospel and edifying their brothers and sisters in Christ. They must understand that his is not a job that is already filled merely because the church has decided to support a certain man to do evangelistic work. Our young men must be taught that they are already preachers, whatever occupation they may go into, and that the extent of their preaching depends upon their individual ability and opportunity. That means that if a young man has no mental or physical handicaps, he should start preparing himself during his early teens to take a leading part in the work of the church, and to be able to deliver a public lesson from the Bible whenever he is called upon.

We have noticed that a number of liberal congregations have styled themselves as brotherhood “preacher training schools.” Faithful churches should go them one better. Every church of any size should become a preacher training school for all of its male members who can reasonably be expected to profit thereby. That will mean a sacrifice for some “full-time” preachers who might feel that they have a monopoly on the pulpit and for those members who insist on being entertained every service by an eloquent speaker. While the local pulpit is being filled by other members, the supported preacher can be out working in new fields or helping some struggling new church in the area.

If such suggestions were carried out, it just might be that we would see fewer signs in front of churches saying, “So and so, Minister.” It would be understood that we are all ministers and the church with just one minister is in a sad condition.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 32, pp. 524-525
August 16, 1979

By Evan Blackmore

In the first two chapters of Galatians, Paul summarizes the story of his life. And what an amazing story it is. In his early years, Paul had persecuted the church of God, but then Jesus revealed Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus, commissioned him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and appointed him as an apostle.

Paul “did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). All the same, he “did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me” (Gal. 1:16-1?). On the contrary, he traveled around from place to place, preaching the gospel; and for many years, he did not even set eyes on most of the other apostles. “I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, `He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.’ And they were glorifying God because of me” (Gal. 1:22-24).

“Then,” says Paul, “after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem” (Gal. 2:1); and in Jerusalem he went privately to “those who were of reputation” within the church, and “submitted to them the gospel which I preach” (Gal. 2:2). I doubt whether we can fully appreciate how thrilling that moment must have been. Here were two groups of people who both claimed to have received, independently, a message which came directly from God. They had been hearing about each other for many years; but there had been virtually no direct contact between them. Now for the first time they were able to sit down and compare these two independent “messages from God.” Would there be any similarity between the two messages? And if so, how much similarity would there be? Even Paul says that he was afraid that, when he compared his gospel with the gospel preached by the Jerusalem apostles, he would discover “that I might be running, or had run, in vain” (Gal. 2:2). But, of course, his fears were groundless. The gospel which the Jerusalem apostles were preaching to the Jews, and the gospel which Paul was independently preaching to the Gentiles, were one and the same.

No doubt, whatever their fears, Peter and John and James and Paul had expected and hoped to find that they were preaching the same gospel. But can you imagine how they felt, whey. they finally found it out for certain? Can you imagine how much they must have been strengthened and encouraged in their faith, by knowing that other people had been, quite independently, preaching the same thing?

Well, if they felt that way, what did they do while they were together? i)id they spend their time comparing notes on the “things hard to understand” within the gospel? Or speculating about the things which God had not revealed to them at all? Did they talk about the precise way in which God and man were interrelated in Jesus, or the details of the mechanism by which the death of Jesus saved people from their sins, or the exact span of time left before the return of Christ?

We do not have a full record of the apostles’ conversation on that occasion. But we can be sure that subjects like the ones which I have listed were not uppermost in their minds as they talked together. “Those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me,” says Paul. “They only asked us to remember the poor – the very thing I also was eager to do” (Gal. 2:6,10).

That seems, perhaps, a very mundane and unglamourous topic for all these exalted apostles to be discussing. After all, their principal function as servants of Christ was the proclamation of the gospel, not the relief of the poor. The Jerusalem apostles could have brushed aside the subject by saying, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to worry about the poor” – but no, that was exactly what they were concerned about. And Paul could have brushed aside the subject by saying, “Christ did not send me to worry about the poor, but to preach the gospel” -but no, that was “the very thing I also was eager to do.”

The apostles could have constructed far more plausible excuses for neglecting the poor, than most of us can. Yet they did not construct those excuses. And neither should we. If it was important for the apostles, of all people, to “remember the poor,” then surely it is important for us to do so too.

Yet too often we find ourselves making excuses – much flimsier excuses than the apostles could have made. Too often we find ourselves wanting to do other things, and trying to justify doing what we really want to do, rather than inconveniencing ourselves by assisting the poor.

Let us look at four of those excuses.

(1) “There are no poor people nowadays.” Brethren, I do not know what the situation in America is like. But in Australia, even in very modern, affluent, highly-civilized, technologically-sophisticated large cities, there are still many people living in conditions of dire poverty and physical discomfort. And perhaps that is particularly so at the present time, with the current worldwide economic difficulties. Within the past year, I have seen men aged thirty-five or forty, employed in the same jobs for twenty years, who have lost their jobs when the business collapsed financially and who have then failed to find other jobs, because they have been competing against unemployed people half their age. I have seen women with small children, living in dingy unfurnished flats, who have been able to scrape together just enough money each week to afford either (a) the bare minimum of household furnishings necessary for hygienic living; or (b) transport to the nearest cheap shops; but not both. In many of these flats, the dishes must be washed before a meal as well as afterwards, because rats have crawled all over them between meals. I have seen a woman with five children (trying to escape and hide from a drunken and violent husband who injured the children regularly), forced to live in a single room with fourteen other people.

“The poor,” Jesus said, “you have with you always” (Matt. 26:11); and many centuries earlier, God had said the same thing to the children of Israel: “The poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, `You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land”‘ (Deut. 15:11).

Brethren, the sad truth is this. If we do not meet with poor people in our home towns, too often that is not because there are no poor people there, but rather because we ourselves are too well-to-do and too materially comfortable to come in contact with the poor people who are living within a mile of us.

(2) ” I cannot spare the money. ” This may sometimes be true. The widow who put all she owned into the treasury (Mark 12:41-44) would not have had much money to give to other people as poor as herself. But more often, we feel that we cannot spare the money because we are too attached to it, and to the comforts which it can buy. That was never Paul’s attitude. “If we have food and covering,” he said, “with these we shall be content” (1 Tim. 6:8).

“Whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 Jn. 3:17-18).

(3) “Most poor people do not deserve to be helped” This, again, may sometimes be true. But what if it is? Did any of us deserve to be helped by God, when we were spiritually poor?

Moses repeatedly exhorted the Israelites to look after the underprivileged people. And the same reason for doing so occurs again and again. “You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing” (Deut. 24:18; 10:17-19; Lev. 19:34).

God gives His sunshine and rain to righteous and unrighteous people alike, “expecting nothing in return” (Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35). He even gave His Son to die for the sins of “the whole world,” including many people who would never accept Him (1 Jn. 2:2).

I do not mean that we should supply people with materials to continue sinning. If people are poor because they are spending their money on alcohol or gambling, I do not mean that we should give them more money to be spent in the same way. But we can still give them our time, our encouragement and our love, our help to stop drinking or gambling, our assistance with practical problems.

There is an old Marx Brothers movie which shows Harpo Marx strolling casually along a street. Suddenly an unkept, grubby-looking, obviously alcoholic beggar approaches him and says in a slurred, gravely voice: “Say, buddy, could you help me out? I’d like to get a cup of coffee.” Harpo looks at him, reaches down into his pocket, and produces a steaming hot, brimful cup of coffee (complete with saucer), which he gives to the beggar.

That is what our giving should be like. We may not always be able to give people what they want, but we can always gives them what they need.

(4) “The church is doing things to help poor Christians, ” Maybe so. But where does that leave the poor nonChristians? Each one of us, individually, has a responsibility in that area which no church can ever have.

Let me take an example. The church has a responsibility to care for “widows indeed” – widows who are faithful Christians, who are in need of (say) food or clothing or shelter, and who have no other means of support (1 Tim. 5:3-16). But what about all the widows who do not meet these criteria? What about widows who have not fixed their hope on God, widows who do not have a reputation for good works, widows who are gossips or busybodies? The teaching of the Bible is plain: such widows are not to be assisted by the church. But should we let them starve to death, simply because the church must not assist them?

I cannot expect the church to take over tasks which God has allocated to me as an individual Christian. The church must provide material help for saints in need, in order that all the members may function together within the body in the way that God planned (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4). But my individual responsibility as a Christian is far more extensive than that. “While we have opportunity,” every Christian is supposed to “do good to all men,” and not only “to those who are of the household of the faith,” although obviously he will be “especially” concerned about needy Christians (Gal. 6:10). As we have already seen, every Christian is supposed to do good to people who do not deserve his assistance (Luke 6:33).

If the only needy people being helped in my area are those Christians who receive assistance from the local congregation, I am failing in my individual responsibilities.

The apostle Paul – “often without food, in cold and exposure” though he was, laboring continually at his special task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles – was nevertheless “eager” to “remember the poor.” What excuse can we offer, when he offered none?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 32, pp. 522-523
August 16, 1979

By Earl Robertson

For Israel the alarm of war had sounded and shortly Assyria would swoop down “as an eagle against the house of the Lord.” God had raised up Josea to thunder the sure judgment of God against Israel “because they have transgressed and made princes with which God had nothing to do; they made idols with their silver and gold, but God would destroy them. The prophet said, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it had no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up” (Hos. 8:7). Yes, Israel had sown the wind and God would see to it that she reaped the whirlwind! Paul says one reaps what one sows (Gal. 6:7).

Churches of Christ today can “sow the wind” just as ancient Israel did. They not only can, many of them are up to their necks doing it now. Announcing a bag of wind recently, a church of Christ in N.C. stated that church “has something good going on with Junior Worship. But now we have something happening on Feb. 4th that will turn good into great! Two, (2), Yes two junior worships!

In order to meet the needs of the age group 8-10, a second junior worship will be offered.” This reminds one of the early beginnings of the Christian Church and its “Junior Church and worship.” These brethren assume they know what the needs are of these 8-10 year old children and have set their sails on a course which will inevitably cause them to reap the whirlwind. They have no Bible authority for this action; but when churches leave God this much in conviction, what do they care whether the Bible teaches the practice or not. The wheels of divine judgment may grind slowly, but brethren, they do grind!

The Joy Bus Ministry, the Puppet Programs, and all the other gimmicks employed by liberal churches lead to Junior churches and Junior worship. There is no way to impede liberalisms progress by shouting from the housetops for Bible authorizing their new actions much less stop it. Why cannot the church today be just like the church of Christ was in the first century? If that early church knew the need to continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine (Acts 2:42), why can’t the church today know the same need? Let it be as God made it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 32, p. 521
August 16, 1979