Truth Magazine

By Melvin Curry

The term modernism is misleading. Modernism is as ancient as it is modern; and the first century church had its share of trouble with modernism. Second Peter describes a group of modernists who deny the Lord who bought them, ridicule the promise of the Second Coming, and in defiance of the supernatural affirm the uniformitarian cliche, “All things continue as they were from the beginning” (1:4).

When Paul attacks “the wisdom of the world” in First Corinthians 1:18-25, he speaks to the basic problem of modernism. Modernists are not in fact wiser than other people; they simply rely on human wisdom as opposed to God’s revelation in Scripture. The modernism of the twentieth century is a product of the Age of Reason. It is an attempt to fuse Biblical teaching with modern philosophical and scientific learning.(1) In the process, however, the Bible is made to conform to the new learning.

Wick Broomall observes that “the great divide between historic, conservative Christianity and what is known as Liberalism is found in the concept of Biblical inspiration.”(2) Modernists deny that the Biblical writers produced an inspired book free from error. Human reason and experience become the test of what in the Bible is inspired and what is in error. But modernists, as James D. Bales remarks, “make the attack from within religious bodies instead of flying under their true colors as enemies of the Bible.”(3)

All men, in so far as they act consistent with their basic presuppositions, reason in a circle.(4) Edward J. Young quotes J. R. Rushdoony on this point: “In other words, all reasoning moves in terms of its basic presuppositions, either God or autonomous man, interpreting all reality in terms of the presuppositions.”(5)

This is true both with liberal and conservative approaches to the Scriptures. Liberalism boasts about being free from dogmatic presuppositions-“the documents must be allowed to tell their own story.” Herbert F. Hahn writes:

This is not to say that the work of a liberal critic was no more objective than that of a conservative theologian. There is a great difference between a dogma assumed to be true from the start and a hypothesis to be tested in the light of the facts. The liberal critics would have been the first to agree that the evolutionary view of the Old Testament history could be maintained only as the result, not the presupposition, of a critical examination of the relevant evidence. But the conception of historical development seemed to them as inevitable deduction from the evidence of successive changes in the religious institutions of Israel. The only historical reconstruction possible on the basis of the sources was one which showed an evolutionary growth.(6)

There is a vast difference, however, in postulating naturalistic evolution instead of divine revelation as “an inevitable deduction from the evidence of successive changes in the religious institutions of Israel.” Are these changes attributable to God or to autonomous man? Or, must autonomous man be given the advantage irrespective of the evidence? These questions must be answered honestly by those who seek to know the truth.

When it comes to the matter of revelation and inspiration, these terms are always defined and described on the basis of the individual writer’s presuppositions. For instance, Arthur S. Peake, a typical liberal theologian, gives the following description of inspiration:

If the devout and serious reader finds in Carlyle or Ruskin, in Tennyson or Browning, a richer nourishment than he can gain from many a page of the Old Testament and some pages of the New, why should he not boldly say that the modern writer has experienced a deeper and fuller inspiration?(7)

According to Peake, inspiration is not determined by the supernatural influence exerted on the writers by the Spirit of God, “by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness.”(8) For him, inspiration is determined by the favorable effect the author’s writing has on the reader. Here naturalism stands out in bold relief against supernaturalism. The determining factor is human rather than divine.

The modernistic theology of the nineteenth century was extremely optimistic in its outlook. The ideas of the inherent goodness of man and the inevitability of progress were incorporated into an evolutionary concept of the religion of Israel. The books of the Bible were subjected to a destructive criticism based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. Hahn describes this critical approach as follows:

It required an entirely different approach to the Bible to expound it according to its original intention and meaning-a different conception of the nature of the Bible which would permit more objective principles of exposition. Such a new conception became possible when the tendency generated by humanistic studies to regard all ancient literature as the product of human culture had removed the old distinction between sacred and profane writings.(9)

The results were horrifying to those who believe that the Bible is in truth the very word of God. For instance, a quotation from George Adam Smith will demonstrate the practical effect of this religio-historical criticism:

We who have reached middle life can remember what time and anxiety the pastors of our boyhood used to expend upon the double and sometimes contradictory stories of David’s life; for instance, the two very different accounts of his first introduction to Saul. Their attempts to reconcile these involved-even when one thought that they succeeded-so much intricate explanation as to distract them from the clear presentation of the moral issues, which it was their first duty as preachers to present and enforce to their people. But they did not succeed. The stories are irreconcilable. What an advantage, then, has the preacher of today who can frankly say: “These are two different traditions of the same event,” and confine himself to the rich material of moral issues of the one or the other!(10)

The issue became increasingly clear: if believing the Bible contains historical contradictions has an advantage over believing that the accounts of David’s life do not contradict each other, cannot the same thing be said with reference to the moral framework of the Bible. One is left, therefore, to pick and choose which moral precepts are right and good and which commandments are based on faulty human judgment. No wonder relativism in ethics has become so prevalent today. It is impossible to establish absolute moral standards from a book that is considered to be a collection of “profane writings.”

Modernists rely heavily on three methods of literary criticism in evaluating the authorship and date of the books of the Bible: the documentary hypothesis, form criticism, and redaction criticism. Each of these methods will be discussed briefly.

The documentary hypothesis affirms that Moses did not really write the five books attributed to him, called the Pentateuch. Moses may have been an historical personage, however, and some of his laws are no doubt incorporated into the books that bear his name. The theory holds that there are four main literary sources of the Pentateuch, namely, J, E, D, and P. It is often called the Graf-Wellhausen theory because these scholars arranged the JEDP order of the sources.

As early as the time of Benedict Spinoza certain facts in the Pentateuch raised questions: Why is Moses often spoken of in the third person? and, How does one account for the death of Moses in Deuteronomy, if Moses is the author? Serious problems began to appear to various scholars, such as Jean Astruc, who noted the two different names for God, Elohim and Yahweh, the striking repetitions of the same events, e.g., as detected when one reads the accounts of creation and the flood, and unresolved inconsistencies and anachronisms in the text of the Pentateuch. Thus, on the basis of the two divine names Astruc suggested that Moses had used two older sources, E and J, the latter supplementing the former. Other scholars increased the number of documents to four: P (for the priestly materials found especially in Leviticus), E, J, and D (for the Deuteronomic materials), then Wellhausen reversed the order to JEDP.

According to the documentary hypothesis an unknown writer in Judah around 950 B.C. (dates vary from scholar to scholar) collected isolated myths and stories and presented them chronologically within a religious setting. The J symbol not only stands for the name Jahweh but also for its Judahite source. Sometime before 750 B.C. another writer, independent of J, made a similar collection in Northern Israel, called the E document. The symbol E. also designates it the Ephraimite source. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom, a writer in Judah compiled a harmony of JE around 700 B.C. The D document is associated with the discovery of the Book of the Law in the Temple area during Josiah’s reign (621 B.C.), written to give support to the king’s reforms. An editor working around 550 B.C. combined JE with D, and sometime between 500-400 B.C. a group of priestly scribes wrote the P document. Another editor combined JED with P and re-edited the whole, thus the Pentateuch was completed in its present form by 400 B.C.

Each document, of course, has its own peculiarities, and Wellhausen arranged them to fit the framework of Hegelian philosophy, using the prophetic movement as a central hub. The development was from natural religion (JE) to ethical monotheism and universalism (D) to the counter dialectic of emerging ethical law (P and Ezekiel). Scholars have modified Wellhausen’s approach but basically it still stands accepted among liberal Old Testament scholars. More recently isolated documents have been suggested, such as the Holiness Code (H), the Lay source (L) of Eissfeldt, the Kenite source (K) of Robert H. Pfeiffer.

Form criticism attempts to uncover the units of oral tradition which lie behind the written traditions recorded in Scripture. This oral tradition began as brief hero tales, then developed into extensive legends, and finally into story-cycles. Many centuries later these story-cycles were written down in permanent form. Form criticism is applied to the writings both of the Old Testament and the New. Hahn’s description is as follows:

Accordingly, the prophetic writings were to be regarded as compilations of small units-some stemming from the prophets themselves, ethers contributed by their disciples-rather than as “books” written entirely by the reputed authors.(11)

Martin Dibelius was a German New Testament scholar who is acclaimed as the originator of the form criticism school in New Testament studies. His form-critical approach aimed at getting behind the literary documents to the independent units of oral tradition, and he conceived the New Testament writers to be compilers instead of authors. Dibelius looked for the historical “situation in life” (Sitz im Leben) of the early church from which traditions about Jesus were embellished with extra materials. These situations in the life of the early church called for authoritative pronouncements to justify such things as the abandonment of the Sabbath, the exclusion of divorced persons from membership, and the acceptance of Gentiles in the church, and grew out of both the Palestinian and the Hellenistic communities. Each unit of tradition was self-contained, brief, sometimes narrative in form, and often centered around sayings of Jesus. He divided the units of oral tradition into (1) paradigms or pronouncement sayings of Jesus, each with its own particular point; (2) narrative tales and miracle stories, such as the feeding of the five thousand or the walking on the sea, after non-Christian models; (3) legends or hero tales about Jesus and those around him, like the story of Jesus in Jerusalem at twelve years of age; and (4) myths (though few in number) wherein the supernatural breaks through the barriers of time and space as it did at the transfiguration of Jesus.

The form-critical approach intensified the problem of the quest for the historical Jesus and pointed ultimately to the need for radaction criticism to explain the theological and confessional interests of the gospel authors, who are supposed to have created the Gospels in their present form. Redaction criticism took up where form criticism left off and in a sense reversed its basic principle, assuming the gospel writers to be creative authors instead of mere compilers of oral tradition. Rather than examine the “situation in life” of oral tradition, it searches for the situation in which the Gospels took their present form. Documentary criticism had viewed Matthew, Mark, and Luke as Synoptic Gospels, dependent on two principle sources (the materials in Mark and the so-called Q document), and considered the first three Gospels to have no literary connection with John’s Gospel. Redaction criticism, however, has less of the Synoptics versus John in its approach. It seeks to answer such questions as, Why the abrupt ending of Mark? Why did Matthew and Luke begin the life of Jesus with different materials in the infancy narratives? or even, Why three Synoptics and John? The method attempts to show that Matthew and Luke purposefully altered the material of Mark and centers on the theology of each Gospel. Redaction criticism is supposed to demonstrate how the literary journey from tradition to Gospel is completed.

Now it is time to draw a conclusion from our survey. When modernists disregard the integrity of the books of the Bible, the historic foundation of Christianity crumbles. Christ’s death was prophesied in the Old Testament and His vicarious sacrifice is portrayed as an historical event in the New Testament. Edward J. Young points out:

As a preparation for this sacrifice God sent His servants the prophets through whom He announced to the sinful world the coming of the Redeemer. The prophets, therefore, are not to be regarded merely as religious geniuses or leaders. To consider them as such and nothing more, is completely to misunderstand them. Nor were their messages of human origination. For prophecy, despite all come by the will of men, but holy men spake as they were borne along by the Holy Ghost.(12)

In the words of Amos, “Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal his secret unto his servants and prophets. The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord Jehovah hath spoken; who can but prophecy?”

Truth Magazine XXII: 40, pp. 646-649
October 12, 1978

1. Bernard Ramm, “Liberalism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 322.

2. Wick Broomall, Biblical Criticism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957), p. 13.

3. James D. Bales, “Modernism,” What is Wrong? Edited by Thomas L. Campbell (Fort Worth: Campbell-Caskey Publishing Co., 1950), p. 21.

4. Edward J. Young, The Study of Old Testament Theology Today (London: James Clarke and Co., 1958), p. 26.

5. Ibid., quoting J.R. Rushdoony.

6. Herbert F. Hahn, Old Testament in Modern Research (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1954), p. 10.

7. Arthur S. Peake, The Bible: Its Origin, Significance, and Abiding Worth( New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1922), p. 402.

8. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samual G. Craig (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948), p. 173.

9.

10. George Adam Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1901), pp. 78, 79.

11. Old Testament in Modern Research, p. 134.

12. Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952), pp. 191, 192.

By Keith Pruitt

From reading the May 25, 1978 edition of Gospel Advocate, it would appear that some brethren (R. Maurice Hood, M.D., was the author of an article entitled “Should We Minister to the Sick?”) are now advocating church supported institutional care in the area of medicine.

First, let it be clearly stated that I am not opposed to hospitals functioning to help the sick. Nor am I opposed to individual Christians operating hospitals, clinics, etc., or being doctors or nurses. I am, however, opposed to any move to get the church into the hospital business. The battle of institutionalism has been fought so many times in the past. During these sometimes bitter debates, the statement has been made that the gate is open; expect the flood. Institutionalism has gone from orphan’s homes to wilder areas of liberalism. We know of “brethren” that accept the instrument, and of others that use bribes to entice children to come to services. The Bible has not only been kicked out of the schools and society in general, but it has also been discarded among some “churches of Christ.”

Just a few short weeks ago, Vultee Church of Christ in Nashville announced plans to build an old-age apartment building. What right does the church have to go into the apartment business, Now Brother Hood suggests indirectly that we get into hospital care if we wish to be “followers of Jesus.”

In the next few pages, I wish to review several statements made by Hood and see if they stack up well beside the Bible. There are no hard feelings between Brother Hood and myself, nor is any attempt in these articles being made to discredit the medical profession nor members of the church that have the ability to help medically with the sick.

Through the years, brethren have emphasized the importance of a “thus saith the Lord” for everything done religiously. The thought of divine approval is found in Paul’s statement, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus . . .” (Col. 3:17). Authority for religious practice is found in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22-23). The attitude of Christians will be the attitude Mary expressed in John 2:5 whets she said, “And whatsoever he saith unto thee, do it.”

Have we in the Lord’s body become of such an age that we, as rebellious children, no longer seek the approval of those in the position of authority? Very pointedly friends, the truth is simple! For one to do something without divine approval is to forfeit eternal life! Too many times in the old and new covenants, God made it plain that His people must act within the limits He established. John writes along this thought in 2 John 9. There John writes, “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” It is a terrible thing to be without God.

These articles then shall be based upon divine revelation, not the opinions of men. Paul told Timothy that the scriptures furnish a man “unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In society, we have standards by which we make judgments, viz. yard sticks, liquid measurements, laws. Since God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isa. 55:8-9), and since we are trying to serve the Creator (Acts 5:29), shall we not search His divine ways and do that which He has commanded?

In American society, the acceptance of a national welfare system has for several years been a way of life. I stand firmly opposed to many of these systems for but one reason. Social welfare tends to shift the responsibility of caring for the needy from the God-given role of husbands and children to society. It is my opinion that such a shifting of responsibility has been one factor in the growth of the social gospel among “churches of Christ.” I wish to look at the realm of authority and responsibility in the care of the needy.

Christ told the disciples that all authority was in His control (Matt. 28:18). Paul tells us, “And hath put all things under his feet, and given him to be head over all things to the church . . .” (Eph. 1:22). If we do anything, we must do as His will directs (Col. 3:17). To do otherwise is to disobey the Father (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9).

Therefore, in the matter before us, we should ask, “Where is the scriptural authority for the church supported hospitals?” If institutional care incorporated into the church treasury is a “good work,” then it is a work for which scriptural authority must be found (2 Tim. 3:16-17, verse seventeen says “every good work”).

Dr. Hood suggests that since Christ healed the sick, we should then build hospitals for them. He realizes that has not been the case in the past because he opens the article by saying, “The church of Christ has yet to accept the medical missionary.” Let us again point out that we are not discussing the right of an individual. In fact, in a moment we shall show that the care of some needy is the individual’s responsibility. But Dr. Hood is talking about church action.

Let us respond by asking, “Why hasn’t the church of Christ accepted the medical missionary?” If we have been all of these years without accepting something that is a part of the Bible (and if a part of the Bible, then a command of God), then woe be to the children of Israel. But I just have a feeling that the reason Dr. Hood’s hospitals are not towering the skyline of our cities is two-fold. One, the churches plainly cannot afford to build and maintain them, and secondly, to do so would be to violate the Holy word of God! As many brethren have pleaded throughout the last century, so plead I again, where is the scripture? Please, I beg you for just one!

Dr. Hood says the authority is found in the example of Christ. But I remind one that such rationalization can only prove folly. Christ fed the five thousand (Matt. 14). Shall we then build “church of Christ” hamburger joints? Christ raised the dead. Well, then let us build a mortuary and grave year! We want to be Christ-like, don’t we?

Yes friend, it is but folly to follow into this entanglement of ignorance. There is a clear distinction between an individual action and a church (group) action. It is high time that the liberals awaken to the reality that I am not the. church! Christ was not / is not the church, and I am not Christ! I cannot perform his miracles, and He was not acting as example to the church (group action) but to principles of Christian living.

But Who Shall Do The Work?

As has already been stated, the “welfare organization” centered society in which we live has caused many to neglect their duties. Husbands (the head of the home) have the responsibility to take care of their households. Paul told Timothy, “But if any provide not for his own and specially for those of his own house (kindred-those under one’s roof) he has denied the faith, and is worse than an. infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). Now, I tell you friends, I do not want to be, I have absolutely no desire to be, do not even offer me, to be an infidel! But to be worse than an infidel is to be pretty bad off. If husbands took care of the families (when physically possible), a large amount of welfare (in government and in congregations) would be cut down. Mismanagement and the assigning of roles to the wrong people have contributed greatly to the fall of the home. In some areas of society and in some congregations, it has now become popular to pay women benefits and provide homes for women that become pregnant out of wedlock. Is there any such thing as sin and shame anymore?

In 1 Timothy 5:3-4, Paul told Timothy, “Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.” Continuing in verse 16, Paul says, “If any man or women that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed. ” Here Paul deals with widows (those that have lost the provider of the home) that have children, and he says the church is not to care for these! But brethren today say not so. If not, when did the change come? Can we now take care of those that Paul said we could not care for then?

“But James said . . . .” Over and over brethren show their ignorance of the scriptures by using such verses as James 1:27; Galatians 6:10 and others to try to show a responsibility of the church that Paul gave to the individual. Brethren, I am tired of such deception and downright ignorance. The only way we can “speak where the Bible speaks” is to study its content and then rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Let brethren study up or shut up! Hosea said it right when he said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Dr. Hood continues in his article with this statement on page 327, “This study of the miracles of Christ should establish two principles: (1) that Christ had compassion for the poor, the sick, the maimed and the spiritually sick,” this being something all of us as individuals can likewise do in following Christ, “(2) that the love He had caused Him to minister to them by miracles, by forgiveness of sins and by teaching the eternal truths which would save their souls.” The last statement (2) is suppose to be proof positive that the churches of Christ must recognize the medical ministry. But the only thing it does is tell us of the reaction Christ had to these people. But notice, however, that when Christ gave the “great commission” (which is the spiritual aspect of the commission originally given, and this being the only part that applies to the church today . . . . 1 Cor. 13) that He told them to go and preach the gospel (Matt. 28:18; Mk. 16:16; Lk. 24:47). The apostles said in their actions and writings that the only matter the church had benevolent duty was in saints of their number and in help to the saints in desperate situations elsewhere. (I ask you to read the book of Acts and First Corinthians and find even one exception.)

Dear friend, when the church operates in the manner described in this article, and when the individual realizes his duty and does it, a change will sweep over the church and the nation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 39, pp. 629-631
October 5, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

Some religious people think that sinners are saved by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. According to their theory God saves whom He will, the actions and attitudes of men having no bearing on God’s acts of grace, and the gospel is to be preached only to the saved to explain what God has already done for them. This theory makes the gospel food for the saved but not the means of imparting life. The theory denies all human agency in saving sinners.

Primitive Baptists cherish this view as one of the cardinal principles of their faith. In the Christian Baptist, January, 1978, Elder S.T. Tolley, Editor, states, “Primitive Baptists have always believed that it was unnecessary for the gospel of Christ to be preached in order that sinners be saved from hell.”

It is perfectly obvious that Jesus Christ did not start the Primitive Baptist Church, for Jesus taught that the gospel is to be preached to the end that the lost might be saved. The Lord said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15,16).

Paul was not of the Primitive Baptist persuasion, for he taught that belief is essential to salvation and one cannot believe except he hear the word. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:13-17).

Elder J.D. Holder, a Primitive Baptist, writing in his book Principles and Practices of the Church, says the gospel “must be that which nourishes or sustains life and not a means to give life” (p. 99). In that statement he flatly contradicts Paul who wrote that Christ hath abolished death “and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10).

Elder Holder says Paul “was saved before he heard the gospel preached by Ananias” (p. 101). If that were the case, Paul’s sins were washed away before Ananias was sent to him, yet the Bible informs us that Ananias told him to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Paul understood that sinners are made free from sin when they obey from the heart the form of doctrine delivered (Rom. 6:17,18). The role of Ananias was to deliver that form of doctrine to Paul by commanding him to be baptized.

Elder Holder argues that “Cornelius was saved before he heard the gospel by Peter at the house of Cornelius” (p. 101). This is absolutely untrue. In Acts 11:14 it is stated that Cornelius was told to send for Peter, “Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Peter said later, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7). The hearing of the gospel was the means of producing belief. Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48).

In every case of conversion in the book of Acts the gospel was preached for the purpose of turning the lost from sin to salvation. Take, for example, the people on Pentecost. The gospel was preached to the multitudes `to make believers out of them. They did not believe that Jesus is Lord and Christ until the gospel was preached. Then, being cut to their heart, they said to Peter and the other apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37,38).

God designed the gospel to be the power unto salvation. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). It is by the gospel that people are begotten (1 Cor. 4:15). God will take vengeance on all who know Him not and obey not the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8).

God wants us to employ the gospel to reach the lost. It is through the gospel that the Holy Spirit operates to save sinners. Christ did not equip the apostles with an unnecessary message of glad tidings. Primitive Baptists misunderstand the gospel, therefore they misapply passages which discuss the purpose of the gospel. Primitive Christians (the ones who lived in the apostolic age) were eager to preach the gospel to the lost so they could be saved, but Primitive Baptists are not that primitive!

Truth Magazine XXII: 39, p. 626
October 5, 1978

By Pat Higgins

Do you know haw to be angry? Most folks do not, you know. Or, more specifically, we do not know how to be angry and “sin not.” Anger, as an emotion, is as much a part of man as is love and fear. It is unrestrained, uncontrolled anger that becomes sinful. Too often we allow anger to control our minds and tongues, and we wind up doing and saying things that are hurtful and unkind.

Sometimes the occasion of the anger and the victim of the vituperative tongue are far removed. For example, Jane has been wrestling with the children all day, the washing machine overflowed, the dog dug holes in the front yard, and she is angry with the world. Enter the unsuspecting husband at 5:30 p.m. Before he can get the door closed, she hits him with every exaggerated “you always” and “you never” that could possibly be exhumed and brought to mind, with a few “don’t you ever’s” thrown in for good measure. He just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time.

Unfortunately, it is those we love the most upon whom we feel free to vent our anger by an out-of-control barrage of lethal verbiage. We do maintain enough clarity to know we could not as easily get by with it elsewhere; e.g., would you as readily tell your boss off as you would your wife? Probably not. Which seems to indicate the possibility of control or restraint when there is reasonable cause.

Words picked at random and hurled with anger are usually unreasonable and unfair. They are indicative of an emotion that is overflowing from an individual who maintains no rule over his own spirit (Prov. 27:4; 25:28).

As mentioned, we more often take advantage of loved ones, but occasionally this anger is exposed to brethren, and worse yet, to unbelievers. Such is damaging to a Christian’s influence; he who cannot control his anger and his tongue cannot present a picture of temperance and godly living to the world.

The Apostle Paul wrote that anger is a work of the flesh and should be laid aside, cast off, as you would remove and throw away an old filthy garment (Gal. 5:20; Col. 3:8). Anger is classed along with doubting as that which will interfere with a man’s prayers (Jas. 1:6) 1 Tim. 2:8).

Uncontrolled anger always has a negative effect on people, even when the angry one is correct in his position. Solomon knew this and said, “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Prov. 15:1). What is he saying? The import is this: To a great extent we can manipulate (I use this word in the sense of “managing or utilizing skillfully”-Webster) or influence the response of a person in a given situation. Is this not a great power within our hands? Is this not a great responsibility? Think about it. . . the manner in which I address a man can help determine his response to the truth. It is a sobering thought.

Shall I lose my inheritance in the kingdom of God because of my anger? Shall I contribute to the loss of someone else’s soul because of my angry words? God forbid.

Truth Magazine XXII: 37, p. 603
September 21, 1978