Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“In years past when I thought of those departing from the faith I thought in terms of denominations, cults, and various religions. Today as I write my heart becomes almost unbearably heavy to hear of my own preacher brethren who have departed from what I know they have been taught and what they once wholeheartedly accepted as their faith. I am told of some who have begun preaching for the Methodists, others have turned charismatic and are influencing others to doubt their faith, some have fallen by the way-side having renounced their call. They have gone back into the secular world. In some cases these have dropped to low moral standards in their living.

“I am reminded of the scripture 1 Timothy 4. In this chapter Paul, by the Spirit of God, warns, `That in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.’

“Paul also instructed Timothy: `If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou has attained.’

“This teaches us that Satan has always been at the business of disturbing the faith of good men. Timothy had the responsibility of reminding men of the solemn truth of the danger of departing from the faith. Satan is still at work. He attacks men who have great potential in the Lord’s service.

“I therefore beg men who on the verge of changing their faith or have already made some commitments, to reconsider and re-study these matters. Please be warned of Satan’s methods. `For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places Jesus is.'”

Who Said That?

Sounds like a gospel preacher, does it not? Actually, the. above article was taken from the November 25, 1977, issue of the Missionary Baptist Searchlight, which “is owned by the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock, Arkansas.” The article was written by the editor of that paper, L. D. Capell. Why the emphasis on who said it? Well, Mr. Capell is a Landmark Missionary Baptist. As such, he believes that it is impossible for a child of God to so sin as to be eternally lost in hell. With that in mind, consider the import of his words.

Consequences And Conclusions

Mr. Capell paints a realistic picture. He doubtless knows of some who have left their Baptist faith and are now preaching Methodism and Pentecostalism. He knows of those who “have dropped to low moral standards in their living.” He says they “have fallen by the way-side.” A question for Mr. Capell, “Are these brethren of yours who have `departed’ still in a saved condition?” Further, “Should they die in their present conditon, would they be saved in heaven?”

Editor Capell cannot argue that they have never been saved, that they never have been truly “born again.” Why not? Because he stated in the article that he knew some of his preacher brethren who have departed from “what I know they have been taught and what they once whole-heartedly accepted as their faith.” He says they have departed from that which “they once wholeheartedly accepted.” Surely, those who “wholeheartedly accepted” were saved. Baptists have always contended that the Ethiopian eunuch was saved before baptism because he believed with all his heart that Jesus was the Son of God. So, these Baptist preachers were saved according to their view. Now, in their present state, will they be saved? The “once saved, always saved” doctrine of the Baptists says they will be. A man can depart from the faith and live in “low moral standards” -and still be saved, according to Baptist doctrine.

But what of those whom these “departed” Baptist preachers have baptized? According to Missionary Baptists, one’s baptism must be duly approved by a Missionary Baptist Church. If these Baptist preachers were never truly saved, what of the baptism of those whom they baptized? Again, though, these men- were saved as per Baptist doctrine. Else why would Mr. Capell have had an “almost unbearably heavy” heart? If they were not children of God in his view, he would have been glad to have them exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing. However, he was saddened because he knew that these men of whom he wrote had “wholeheartedly accepted” what he believes. Now, will they be saved should they die in their present condition?

These questions require an answer. They are asked so that honest hearts may consider the consequences of their doctrine. Yes, the “danger of departing from the faith” is a “solemn truth.” But where is the danger if a man can do it and still be saved? “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 157
March 2, 1978

By Dick Blackford

It is growing more apparent that women and children outnumber fathers and/or husbands at any given worship service. In many congregations men are a small minority, though there is a sizable number. of “Sunday morning widows” and “Sunday morning orphans” who continue to come-for awhile. Most of the articles we see relating to the home deal with the woman’s role and responsibility. Many congregations have a special class known as “Ladies Bible Class” where the women come together and discuss their roles as wives and mothers. How many congregations have a “Men’s Bible Class” where they can study their responsibilities as husbands and fathers? It just may be that we have been aiming at the wrong target! What is the cause of this situation? There are several possibilities.

The “Male Ego”

Face it men, sometimes our egos are prone to exaggerate. (Surely, by blaming the male ego, we will not have to accept personal responsibility!) But what is egotism? The worst thing that can be said about the “ego” is simply to give Webster’s definition of it. It is “the tendency to be self-centered, or to consider only oneself and one’s own interests; selfishness; conceit” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, p. 463). Couple that with the aspect of being a male, and you really have a combination. Some men are terrified that the slightest admission that “we are not totally self-sufficient for all human needs” may be interpreted as a sign of weakness. These men do not need the church because they have their own religion-they have made “gods” of themselves! Everything centers around them and is done to further their personal satisfaction. To them, church is for sissies and weaklings. They have an aversion to those things in which women often excel. While opposing the women’s lib movement, we must not take a position that is equally repulsive. Probably the worst case of male egotism was that of Abimelech. When a woman hit him on the head with a stone, he ordered his armor bearer to kill him lest it be said to his shame that `a woman slew him” (Judg. 9:50-54).

I have known men both in and out of the church and I have never had a problem determining which was the weakling. It does not require a genius to observe which one is following the course of least resistance. Having been on “both sides,” I can speak from experience. Our conceit becomes deceit. Our egos play tricks on us. While feigning superiority (“church is for weaklings”), we become quite inferior. “Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him” (Prov. 26:12). Down with male egotism!

Worldly Men

Where have all the husbands gone? Many a husband has gone fishing, hunting, or golfing when he should have been with his family in service unto God. Others have gone to mow the grass or work on the car. Still others have gone back to bed to read the newspaper, watch TV, or sleep. Some husbands are just too “easy going” (lazy?) on Sunday morning. It may be that he stayed out too late on Saturday night because he did not have the guts to refuse the temptations placed before him by his cronies. He could not stand being called “chicken” or “sissy.” It could be that he was deceived by his tough talking buddies, not knowing that it was mostly “talk” to keep up a good front to cover their complex. These things have a strong hold on some men and deceive them into thinking they are masters when they are really slaves (Rom. 6:16; 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:15f). A man cannot long hold the respect of his family when he thinks mostly of himself.

Men as Failures

Some men simply shirk their male responsibilities. They love neither their wives or children enough to be what they ought to be. They fail to see that providing physical necessities does not fulfill their responsibilities (1 Tim. 5:8). Being head of the family means that “he who would control another must first learn to control himself.” He is to be more than a biological father. The responsibilities for moral and spiritual training are placed squarely on his shoulders (Eph. 6:4). And the father who will not measure up is still two-thirds worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8). Consider this brief article titled “Dad Makes The Family Go.”

A study of nearly 1,000 individuals done by two University of Southern California professors has revealed the somewhat startling fact that children’s practice of religion is more shaped by their fathers.

Are you ready for that, Dad? Put down your beer can. Shut off the TV. Try to stay awake next Sunday in church. Watch your language. Quit using God’s name only in vain.

Alan C. Acock and Vern L. Bengston, sociologists, said that one could best predict the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of young people by determining those of the mother, but their actual religious practice was more likely to be a reflection of the father. Statistically speaking, only 4.4 % . of parents who never attend church have children who attend regularly, and of those parents who attend regularly themselves, only 23.8 % have children who attend less often.

No wonder God addresses religious admonitions in His Word to fathers! “And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

HERE’S GOOD NEWS! The Bible Is also full of good instruction on fathering. Most males can father children, but the man who knows God and His Book is a real father. He takes his cues from the Father of us all. Get to know your Father who in heaven-personally (Good News, Vol. 20, No. 3).

What Men Need To Know

About their souls. Males have souls that can be eternally lost. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mt. 16:26). Is it a sign of bravery to have no fear of hell? No, there are other words that would better describe such an attitude. Both fathers and mothers should fear hell (Mt. 10:28).

About the church. The church is the realm to which Jesus adds the saved (Eph. 5:25; 1:22, 23; Acts 2:47). He is the head of the church. If you are not in the church, then Christ is not your head and you have not been saved from your sins (Acts 2:38). Being a faithful member of the body of Christ involves assembling regularly to worship your Creator (Heb. 10:25).

About their responsibilities. Men may have to answer for others besides themselves. If we go to hell, we probably will not go alone. Our loved ones may go with us. Your child will follow your example much better than he will follow your advice. “But whoso shall cause one of these little ones to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling!. . .but woe unto that man through whom the occasion cometh!” (Mt. 18:6, 7). For the corruption, moral and spiritual pollution, and the juvenile delinquency of our day, men must accept most of the blame because they have not had the back bone to stand up in their homes, their communities, and in the church. When men fulfill their responsibilities, things will be peaceful, stable, and orderly.

About what to do. Men who are plagued with the “male ego” problem can change. Men who live worldly lives can change. Men who have been failures can change. The Lord !-is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). We need MEN, not men, in these perilous times. Sadly, many of them will continue on their present course. Woe to the men of this generation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 155-156
March 2, 1978

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Today we are witnessing a revival of sinful “religious” ideals, some of which faced the Church of our Lord at the turn of the century. We will not have to strain our eyes to see that the reaction is about the same, too.

When the “Society controversy” began to reach its peak, the question among some brethren of “drawing lines” became acute. Some reacted hastily, and promiscuously withdrew fellowship from brethren who did not agree with them. Since those who disagreed with them refused to back down from the belief in the all sufficiency of the Church to carry out God’s purpose in evangelism, they were branded with the tag of “antiism.” “Anti’s” were looked upon with disfavor, as having warped minds, as individuals to be avoided. Such action was revolting to God-fearing brethren who rejected the Missionary Society in favor of God’s word.

I am sure we all recognize that the Church has gone through serious, crucial periods in the past and continues to do so. Digression seems to be running wild in the field of benevolence as well as in evangelism. If the sinful principles of the “society” question dies out, then they are being revived. This revival of fashionable (?) society principles bring with it, a revival of reactionary principles also. Today, among those who are seeking to force their “pet projects” and innovations upon the brotherhood, there is the formation of a “clique” attitude. This clique seems to feel duty bound to draw lines. Their actions indicate that they feel that they must do something with those who refuse to accept their unauthorized projects. Can they consistently and conscientiously withdraw fellowship from those who disagree with them after having told the brotherhood that their institutions are just matters of opinion? “After all,” they say, “God did not tell the Church how to do its benevolent work.” Surely brethren know better than to make an opinion a test of fellowship (1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:23-33). Whoever heard (except in a few rash cases) of withdrawing over “expediencies”? Eureka! They found the answer. Instead of opening themselves to censor by withdrawing, they just simply “marked” them! “It’s right there in Romans 16:17,” they say. Brethren have just missed the point all these years. The truth is, these institutional brethren care little about the fact that those who are “marked” are also to be “avoided.” What if the passage does teach and demand withdrawal? If they can misapply James 1:27 and salve the conscience, they can certainly do the same for this passage. So if goes!

From the Restoration Movement came the plea, “In matters of faith, unity! In matters of opinions, liberty! In all things, love!” Brethren need to give serious thought to the principle involved in this statement. If God did not tell the Church “how” to do its benevolent work, then the institutional programs propagated by these brethren fall into the realm of opinions. Instead of withdrawing from those who will not accept these opinions (call it “marking” if you want to), would it not be better to seek to instruct with patience and forbearance? Stigmatizing a person is the wrong way to deal with what is said to be an “expediency.” Maybe I am overlooking something. But one thing is certain, the institutional brethren, in reviving the principles of the society movement cannot avoid the reactionary principles. To “mark,” that is still the question.

New times, new climes;

New lands, new men, but still

The same old tears, old crimes,

And oldest ill.

(Farrar)

Why can’t brethren today work out their difference prayerfully in the light of God’s word? Was not the Church commanded to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21)? If you consider the so-called “anti’s” at fault, and thyself “spiritual,” then restore them “in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself” (Gal. 6:1). It is never fashionable nor right to stigmatize, brand, and misrepresent our brethren. God forbid that he should glory, save in the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14).

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 155
March 2, 1978

By Dan Walters

Brother Kingry’s article, “The Christian and Poverty” (Truth Magazine, Sept. 15, 1977) seems to rely more on modern liberal sociology than on scripture. Let no one misunderstand: Brother Kingry is a faithful gospel preacher and a skillful writer. I bear him no ill will. But he makes a number of statements that should be examined more closely. He makes use of phrases such as “wealth distribution,” “cultural effects of poverty,” and “eliminating the causes of poverty,” which have become cliches in the vocabulary of the modern neomarxist economists and social reformers. This is merely an indication of where he may have derived some of his information. He thinks those of us who speak of “Welfare Cadillacs,” the misuse of food stamps, and fighting poverty by working have the wrong attitude toward the poor. I believe it is Brother Kingry who does not understand poverty.

To establish the fact that I do not speak from an ivory tower, let me first point out that I have had the personal experience of (1) living on $20.00 per week, (2) using a path instead of a bath, (3) drawing water from a well with a rope, and (4) cooking and heating with a wood stove. Lest anyone think I am like the lady in the $60,000 house that Brother Kingry mentions, let it be known that I at this time rent a house for $100 per month, heat it with wood, and drive nails to make my living. This is not bragging, it is simply establishing my credentials.

The “Welfare Cadillac” is a symbol of undeserved and misused charity. Working Americans rightly resent welfare chiseling which may involve as high as 50 % of those who receive government aid. The misuse of food stamps is the most notorious example of misdirected benevolence. Those who can afford to buy luxury items simply do not need charity. The only right and scriptural way to fight poverty is to work. Paul said, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). The great majority of Americans agree that the aged and the infirm, who cannot work and who have no other means of support, should be helped by some branch of government. Even the libertarian purists who disagree say that they should be helped voluntarily by churches, private organizations, and individuals. So no one is against helping this class of persons, and I know of no one who ridicules them. The slogans Brother Kingry refers to are intended to ridicule the irresponsible welfare system, not the poor. Those who are able to work and will not do so deserve condemnation. Of course, we should try to save them. But they must repent in order to be saved.

The chief victims of the modern welfare system are not the taxpayers, but the welfare recipients who are robbed of their dignity and whose children are conditioned to think that the world owes them a living. It is absolutely immoral for the government, the church, or the individual to support an able-bodied person in idleness.

When I needed help in my carpenter business, I used to go to the unemployment office where dozens of people sat around waiting for checks. I go there no longer. None of them would accept real work, even at pay far above the minimum wage. Every day I see jobs that go undone merely because people no longer need the work. They suppose, if they are inclined to work at all, that some factory or store must hire them or else they cannot work. Meanwhile the basements go uncleaned, the weeds uncut, the leaves unraked, the barns unpainted, the windows unwashed because no one is interested in providing a job for himself. There is no motivation because there is so little real poverty in America!

Who are the poor? The widow in the Old Testament who was preparing to bake one last corn pone for herself and her son and then to die was poor! Those who were in Judea during the great famine and did not have enough to eat were poor. One who is “naked and destitute of food” (Jas. 2:15) is poor. One who does not have sufficient food to keep himself alive and in reasonable health, who does not have enough clothes to keep warm, or who does not have access to shelter from the elements is poor.

Those who have televisions, good automobiles, stereos, automatic washers and dryers, and unnecessary items of furniture are not poor. They will be poor when they have sold all these things, converted them into necessities, and still are unable to provide food, shelter, and clothing. How many poor persons does that leave us in America?

There are poor people in the world. Most of them live in countries such as Mexico and the Phillipines. Some of them are our brethren and we should be concerned about them. Why waste tears on Americans who refuse to take advantage of what this country offers? I have read sociology books, too. I have seen the pictures of “poverty” and read the descriptions of “poverty.” Nine times out of ten when you remove the garbage and the filth, give the people a bath and comb their hair, you will have a normal lower middle class family. My point is that much so-called poverty in America is selfinduced. There are people who are slothful and who have no ambition to be otherwise. Who knows whether it is genetic or acquired? It makes no difference. The last thing in the world that will help these people is to give them money. The threat of starvation used to be sufficient motivation to make them go to work. Now that has been removed. Only the little children, who are not responsible for the sins of the fathers, are worth helping.

In oruer to eliminate the causes of poverty one would have to be able to change human nature. The gospel can do this. But those who reject the teachings of Christ will not be helped by our preaching or our benevolence. What about the poor in the church?

Certainly we should help them if they really need it. But if Brother Kingry had his way, the church would be unnecessarily drained of funds. He says, “There should be no brother who is on welfare. The church cares for its own.” All of us who pay taxes know that part of this money goes for welfare; we do not begrudge that portion that goes to the aged and infirm. If one is qualified under the law ro receive welfare, and he really needs it, then he is certainly entitled to it. Since the money has been provided for his use, he is no longer in need. Why should the church help someone who is not in need? Brother Kingry would have the needy refuse the welfare that we have already paid for, and then make us pay for it again through the church.

I deny that the primary use of the weekly collection is to help the poor. That was the primary use of a special collection taken up under the direction of Paul to alleviate an emergency situation in Judea. If the famine had not occured, the indication is that no collection would have been taken for the saints in Judea. We read of churches supporting Paul and other preachers with their’ money. The primary work of the church is spiritual-to save souls. I heartily agree with Brother Blackmon who said that benevolence is no more the purpose of the church than having a doctor with a sick baby is the purpose of marriage. The situation in the church at Jerusalem was entirely unique, as Brother Kingry knows. Otherwise it would be authority for religious communism.

I must strongly protest the assertion that several brethren chipping in to meet a need on a one time basis is unscriptural. This is an individual action. Individuals acting alone or in concert have the right to help anyone who is in need at any time. The “gatherings” that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 16:1-3 referred to the , special collections for the saints in Judea. Paul was coming by to get the money. He did not have time to go around to every house and collect the money from each individual. So it was to be ready for him in one lump sum when he arrived.

Finally, it is ironic that Brother Kingry worries about racial discrimination causing non-whites to work at lower paying jobs at the very time that the Bakke case is before the Supreme Court. Reverse discrimination is the order of the day. Being white may be an advantage at times. But do not mention it to Allan Bakke.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 153-154
March 2, 1978