Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

Historically, the Datus were the men who were leaders in the communities of the south. In time, these accumulated to themselves power over larger areas than just the barrios where they lived. The development was a natural thing, and evolved over a period of time. Originally, these men were just the unofficial leaders in the sense that others, recognizing their wisdom, would come to them for advice and guidance. In times of disaster or danger, their leadership was sought and accepted. Then in time, their positions gradually changed from an unofficial one to that which was generally accepted as official. They became the law. They maintained their position by virtue of their ability, however, and usually they were not passed from father to son. Thus, the borders of influence of each community with a Datu would expand or shrink depending on the individual ability of the particular Datu governing at the moment. Some were so powerful they were able to stave off the Spanish and all other would-be conquerors. Others compromised with these, and some became satrap rulers under the invaders. But all ruled their own areas, to a greater or lesser extent, and the community was loyal to them.

In matters of family, loyalty is important, and in some cases, critical if we are to understand the situation in the Philippines in spreading the gospel there. We in the U.S., even with the Vietnam-debacle and our subsequent decrying of national patriotism, still sustain and continue to maintain a great degree of affinity with and respect for our nation as a nation. We might expect to find a similar feeling in other nations, including the Philippines. When we do not find it as we know it in the U.S., we are surprised. But that is not the worst effect. The reaction of the Philippine Christian in some situations is largely governed by the matter of family loyalty. It is sort of a chain of power. The closest ties exist between husband and wife. I have known women there to be so loyal to their husbands that even when the husband had been convicted of a crime and sent to jail, they continue to believe he could not possibly be guilty, and that the government, in spite of the evidence, was wrong. I am speaking of Christians. This type of loyalty exists in virtually all cultures there that I am familiar with. It is only slightly diminished toward other members of the family. Hence, when misconduct on the part of a preacher there is discovered, he can often lead off part of or perhaps the entire congregation where he was preaching, convincing them that he is innocent on his word only, and do this in the face of a pile of evidence. If the congregation is partly made up of family and relatives, so much the easier. This loyalty, is centered in the husband and wife relationship, extends only slightly diminished to the immediate family, then to a lesser degree to other relatives, to the tribe, to the barrio or community, to the city, the sub-province, the province and finally, remote now, the nation. At each stage, it weakens and diminishes; by the time it goes beyond the local community, its force is much less. If the transition from the barrio outward also includes a breaking of solidarity of family relationship, its force is weakened even more. The present national leaders are deliberately cultivating a feeling of nationalism, and in time, I believe they will succeed in producing it. But for now, the Filipino sees his loyalty virtually ending when the borders of the barrier or community are crossed.

This feeling of loyalty will cause one to support and urge the recommending of one who shares it, and likewise urge the rejection of one who does not. It will be subtle, but it will be there. The one who enjoys the loyalty will receive a stronger recommendation than the one who does not, regardless of the merits of the two individuals. We might not like this, but we need to face the fact of it, because it is indeed a fact of life there.

The introduction of Tagalog (one of the three major dialects) as the national language, being taught in all schools at all levels is designed, along with other purposes, to produce a national awareness and loyalty. Today, English is the only language common to the entire nation, however well or badly each may handle it. In a generation, the Philippines will be a bi-lingual nation with Tagalog taking its place along side of English as the other major language. But we are dealing with today, and the existing diversity of language, and the need to convert people with what we have available or can get now. While Tagalog will, in time, assist in breakdown of the intense structure of loyalty, today this does create difficulties. It is my conclusion that many if not most of the ever-present preacher-jealousy stems from this family-centered loyalty which excludes those outside its framework. The family-loyalty situation has some interesting and important manifestations. One is the “vendetta.” It is not so prevalent today in its original form (“Death to the one who brought injury to the family!”). While the harshness of its impact may have been reduced, other forms still occur. For example, if a man was preaching the gospel and had obtained support and considered this only a “good job” and if he later loses his support, and he or others in the family suspect this loss happened because another Filipino preacher “blew the whistle on him,” he and his family might go to great lengths to get revenge. These may well include false charges brought against “his enemy,” a whisper campaign to undermine his personal reputation, the writing of letters to his U.S. supporters against him, an attempt to enlist others in both nations against him, plus whatever additional efforts he can think of. By no means all, or even most of the Filipino preachers would do such things; Christianity has taught them their first loyalty is to God. But there have been some who have engaged in these activities, even unto the present time.

The vendetta is not all that far beneath the surface of some there, even in its ultimate form-death. For a man to seduce a woman could very well involve him in the situation where he would become the target of an assassination attempt either personally carried out by another member of the family, or financed by the family. I know of one current situation where a woman’s moral reputation has been openly criticized, where several others in the family had to be persuaded not to go out and themselves kill the man who made the accusations (false ones, incidentally). While it is true, those who wanted to do the killing were not Christians, others in the family were.

Sometimes the vendetta-concept is used when the family believes the wrong done against them or one of its members will not or cannot be righted by the appropriate government. At other times, those within the family feel so strongly, they believe they have a prior right to revenge, and the government ought not to become involved at all.

The family-loyalty-concept has another consequence which bears directly on the support being provided various men there by different U.S. churches of Christ and individual Christians, too. A man might obtain a good (by their standards) job, with an income from it higher than some other members of the family who are living and working elsewhere. One evening, he returns from his job and finds some of these relatives there at the house. They are not there for a visit, but to move in and stay with him Understanding the family-loyalty situation, he often feels he has little choice but to do so. Among the non-Christians, this is of course a problem we are not personally concerned with. But among Christians, and especially where a man is supported in his preaching from the U.S., we are very definitely concerned. I know of more than one instance where a preacher, faced with this situation, has sent a panicked letter to his supporters, and to me and other Americans who have been there, seeking a large increase in support immediately. It took some time to understand what was behind his appeal, and then to understand his reluctance to “throw the bums out.” Fortunately, the more mature and experienced saints there realize they must not permit themselves to be so imposed on. But unfortunately, some other do not. This has resulted in them seeking a level of support far beyond their valid needs. I do not recommend such. 2 Thess. 3:10 applies to their lazy relatives as well as ours.

Another result of the family-loyalty concept is to “rally around” when this seems appropriate. For example, a man may be preaching for a small congregation, and be doing a good job, yet feel dissatisfied with the numerical results. So he tries even harder to convert his relatives, but is unsuccessful. But if an American preacher comes to that congregation on a preaching visit, many of the non-Christian members of the family will attend every service as long as the American is there, to give the impression that the church is numerically larger than is actually the case.

Probably no other area in our relationship with the Filipino brethren has as much confusion and misunderstanding developed as in this one which centers in family loyalty. Consequently, as Americans we need to understand it, to know why certain things happen there, so we be not discouraged and wearied in well-doing (Gal. 6:9). The American tendency to impetuousness and hasty action is often rubbed the wrong way by the consequences of the Filipino family-loyalty. Not understanding it, we fail to understand its effects, and cut off support from a man when we ought not to do so. And at times U.S. churches thus become discouraged about all Filipino preachers, and all work overseas. This ought not to be.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, pp. 184-185
March 15, 1979

By Earl E. Robertson

Of Christ, Paul says, “Who have himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14).

A tremendously expensive price has been paid by our Lord that we might become His very own; He gave Himself for us, the verse says! This He did freely. .His death on Calvary’s cross was like that of a criminal. Yet, He did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). No man could ever convince Him of sin (John 8:46). Yet, one of His own disciples placed a filthy kiss from his putrescent lips upon Him for those who waited to take Him like a hunted desperado. He was removed from the garden that night and shuffled back and forth before different men for trial-all of them illegal trials (Isa. 53:8). It was here that He experienced loneliness and untold agonies of inhuman brutalities, and was heard in that He feared (Heb. 5:7). With great drops of sweat falling freely from His torture-racked body, He cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

His Purpose in such a gift was “that he might redeem us.” All have sinned and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). It is from this death that He redeems. His people are a redeemed people) redeemed from all iniquity-lawlessness.

This possession of His is a purified people. He gave Himself that He might purify-free from the guilt of sin. Every Christian should know his obligation to live a clean, Christ-honoring life (2 Cor. 7:1). “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

His own possession is a peculiar people. They are not peculiar because of their dress, but because they are zealous of good works. His possession is created in Christ for good works, and must work out his salvation (Eph. 2:10; Phil, 2:12). Inasmuch as we are not our own, because we have been bought with blood, we must live so as to glorify Him (1Cor. 6:20).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 183
March 15, 1979

By Bruce James

In Heb. 7:22, Jesus is said to be a surety of a better covenant. This is the only place in the New Testament that the word is used referring to Jesus. The meaning of this word and the Greek words related to it is the idea of surety, guarantee, security, pledge. And the idea here is that of someone who will never break his word and of a pledge which is certain to be fulfilled.

It must be recognized that the word surety has a number of encircling meanings. The surety must be honored even at the cost of a man’s life savings or of his life itself. The more legal meaning of the term although being used as a noun, is really an adjective meaning reliable or under good security. The subjective form of the word means a sponsor, a surety, a guarantor. This word is used of the trustees of a bank, who guarantee its solvency and who are sureties that money deposited will be honored and repaid. The last thought regarding the meaning of the word “surety” has to do with pledging oneself, as in going bail for a man. It is like our saying: “I guarantee that . . . .”

It is into these encircling ideas that the Hebrew writer brings Jesus when he says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant. But what does this mean?

It simply means that Jesus is the guarantor that there is possible a new relationship between God and man. After all, that is really what a covenant is, a relationship between two parties. The old covenant’s basis was the law (Ex. 24:1-6) of Moses. But this left man in default for no man could keep it perfectly, except Jesus. And, He has shown us a new way, yes, a new relationship, a new covenant.

How can I be sure? How can I believe that it is true? Because Jesus is the guarantor of the new relationship. He did not come with words only but even in his own person it was demonstrated. Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). “The word became flesh . . .” (Jn. 1:14). Jesus has shown what God is like; He has demonstrated the mind of God; he has demonstrated God’s attitude toward man. Jesus fed the hungry, healed the sick, comforted the sorrowing and was a friend to sinners and outcasts. Jesus is the guarantor of the love of God. He lived and died to show us the heart of God. He is the surety of the possibility of the new relationship with God. What a means of encouragement and consolation that God has given to His children and to whosoever will obey the Prince of life!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 183
March 15, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

When brethren leave the Bible as the absolute standard of truth and the platform of unity, there is no telling where they will end up. Many have journeyed into the wastelands of liberalism during the last thirty years, and the trek continues. Those who have wandered away from the New Testament pattern of teaching do not today stand together as a great army; rather, they are scattered hither, thither, and yon. The only thing that gives them a semblance of unity is their complaint against a common enemy: the insistence that strict obedience to the New Testament is essential to true love of the Lord Jesus Christ and to faith in Him (Jn. 14:15; 15:14; Jas. 2:14-24; 1 Jn. 5:1-3).

The history of some of these journeys is preserved in such documents as James A. Warren’s The History of Legalism (1952), which for instance asserts, “Jesus justified the man with a God-like spirit; the Pharisees justified the man who appeared legally correct” (p. 7); M.F. Cottrell’s Refocusing God, the Bible and the Church (1962), which complains, “Because of our looking too persistently for `patterns’ we have definitely discouraged Christian spontaneity . . . . many of our so-called approved patterns are nothing short of our own approved customs and traditions” (p. 123); Robert Meyers’ (ed.) Voices of Concern: Critical Studies in Church of Christism, which summarizes seventeen contributions, “A great stirring in the Church of Christ betokens the possibility of a more charitable tomorrow. Thousands are restless and dissatisfied with the aridity of exclusivism and authoritarianism” (p. 3); and, most recently, Bruce Edwards’ and Edward Fudge’s Journey Toward Jesus (1977), which asks whether the “man of faith” could use instrumental music in worship “through a lifetime” – in spite of our “forever studying with him” – and which answers, “As to whether the man of faith who uses the instrument will someday relinquish it, d cannot say that he certainly will” (pp. 25, 35). Such travelers invariably commence their journey by declaring that their convictions on a variety of subjects are unchanged, but that they have discovered broader realms of grace and unity. Sooner or later they severely flagellate themselves for their past pride in the law and self-righteousness, alternately exulting in their newfound freedom. To read the diary of one of these marvelous journeys is to read them all. Three months in succession, leading liberal journals took favorable notice of Edwards’ and Fudge’s Journey Toward Jesus: Integrity in September of 1978, Leroy Garrett’s Restoration Review in October, and R.L. Kilpatrick’s Ensign Fair in November (also previously in January and July). A mature gospel preacher who has tried time and again through the years to bring back brethren who were wandering into the wastelands of liberalism read Journey and briefly evaluated it. The insights of brother Leslie Diestelkamp are most valuable because of his past experience in this matter. Said he,

I have read A Journey Toward Jesus carefully. Changes for Bruce Edwards as portrayed in the book obviously came by the step-by-step method, validating fears for his course in the next few years. Obviously he will not stop now. Bruce told me personally that he could not now recommend the Bruce Edwards of 3 or 4 years ago as a sound preacher, and I believe that in 3 or 4 more years he won’t be able to recommend the Bruce Edwards of today.

Bruce asked Edward Fudge some very good questions, probing the charge that he is trying to find a way to have fellowship with institutional brethren. Bruce appears to be satisfied with Edward’s answers. The result is that the same questions which Bruce asked Ed need to be asked of Bruce now.

Many things are said which in another context could be appreciated very much. Yet some very frail positions are espoused also, but mostly my criticism of the book is in regard to what it does not say. Ed had every opportunity to spell out his views that have been criticized so much but he failed to do it, and covers almost everything under the umbrella of his “man of faith,” his “doing and dying of Jesus,” and what seems to be an underlying criticism of those who insist that we should strictly follow the New Testament and recognize that only in that way can we honor and follow the Christ whom Ed mentions so much.

The attitude manifested by the authors seems to be the very same basic one that vexes America today – rebellion against “the establishment.” This is evident from the following: (1) The authors want to make Christ the means of unity among children of God without recognizing that Christ can only be that means through the instrumentality of the Written Word. (2) I believe the authors really reject the New Testament as the absolute and infallible law of Christ for us today and rely upon some mystical faith in Christ to be the criteria of fidelity and faithfulness. (3) Though not expressly stated, and though this is obscured by some very obvious expressions of humility, there seems to be an underlying attitude of intelligentsia in the book – by both writers. An effort seems to be made to be different almost for the sake of being different – anything to be unorthodox!

Finally, Bruce and Edward so strongly declare their love for Christ, but seem to me to minimize any great need for love for the church for which the Lord died because he loved it so much (Eph. 5:25). I still hope and pray for the return of these men to a fidelity from which they have already departed considerably, and from which I believe they will completely depart if they do not make an about-face.

The journey into the wastelands of liberalism, where stand Ephraim’s idols, is a tragedy often repeated. Let us join in prayer for the return of the travelers. The Bible teaches that Ephraim can become so joined to his idols as to become beyond hope.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 182
March 15, 1979