Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

There is no way to be aware of all the bizarre happenings among Twentieth Century churches of Christ. Though it is doubtful, at this stage of affairs, if any of the churches seek anonymity in their pursuit of manmade schemes and worldly attractions. There was a time when the “name of the Lord” was important to the people of God (Col. 3:17). Paul preached that all action of the Christian had to be circumscribed by the word of the Lord. I’m glad to know that even yet there are some wearing the holy name of our Redeemer who believe what Paul preached.

Honorary Membership in the Baptist Church

While waiting for a plane at the Nashville, Tennessee airport last spring, I read the April 21st issue of the Tennessean, a daily news paper. On page 38 is an article and two pictures covering the dedication of the Two Rivers Baptist Church. Brother J. B. Stacy, a member of the Madison church of Christ, was foreman on the construction of the new building. During the “dedication” of this new building Brother Stacy was “given an honorary membership in the church with ‘special dispensation from Dr. Ira North of the Madison Church of Christ,’ ” Henry, the Baptist preacher, said. I wonder if this “dispensation” was simply a privilege bestowed on the brother by a higher power, or was it an indulgence? Can you imagine this kind of talk by either the apostles of Jesus or any faithful Christian today?

If a sharp, clear line of doctrinal distinction had been preached by Brother North, the Baptist church would never have offered such membership to a Madison member and neither would Brother North have ever entertained such “dispensation!”

We might notice while on this subject that during “the annual Youth Ministers Seminar Banquet” brethren Carl Cope and Mike Myers were chosen and recognized with awards presented as “Youth Ministers of the Year” for 1975. Again, I wonder what Scripture motivates either the desire or the action?

Don’t Bring the Coffee Cups

An important notice recently received from the Bering Drive church in Houston, Texas reads: “The congregation is asked not to bring their coffee cups into the auditorium during the worship services. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated.”

So, apparently, the process is, “From the kitchen or fellowship hall to the auditorium.” This reminds me of efforts to advise brethren about having a piano in the “Fellowship Hall”: “From the `Fellowship Hall’ to the auditorium!” If Paul were the preacher at Bering, I wonder how he would reconcile the above statement with, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?” Turning the spiritual feast into a social feast do complicate things!

Free Transportation

It is hard to believe that anything is free these days, but, sure enough, here it is in black and white. The Mayor of Benton, Kentucky called a meeting to launch a program, humanitarian in nature, to give assistance to “transport elderly who cannot drive themselves to the banks, supermarkets, the post office, doctors’ offices and other places in town.” After this meeting “an advisory council was formed with Mr. Kenneth Hoover, a Church of Christ minister, as chairman.” When this brother got that council functioning, the reports read, the dream of the Mayor became a reality! Just that simple! We are told the program was “inaugurated by the Church of Christ” right there in Benton. Further, it reads, “The church there has started providing free bus service monthly to all elderly people in the community, whether or not they are members of the congregation.” This minister said, “We are moving ahead full speed. When our program is fully operative in the way it is designed, there will not be a single need of the citizens of Marshall County, for which some provision has not been made.”

To the churches seeking riders on their “Joy Buses” giving ice cream, cokes, candy, etc., we ask: “How does the Bus program at Benton `grab you?’ “

Conclusion

What shall the end of these things be? The total failure in an appeal to Scripture for the works of churches of Christ there can only be one end: separation from the Lord. It would be interesting to hear the above mentioned preachers, while justifying the above named actions, tell what is wrong with instrumental music in worship.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 4-5
April 8, 1976

By Cecil Willis

For a good many years there has been conversation, controversy, and even conflict as to which is the better Bible translation. That conflict usually is settled, quite subjectively, by each person deciding that the one he uses is the best one.

As a preacher, I am stuck with the American Standard Version. If I did not think it was an accurate translation, I would switch to a “better” one. One brother recently published a translation and named it “The Better Version.” I guess he leaves little room for controversy, or even doubt, by his choice of a title for his translation. But after studying from, and memorizing from the American Standard Version, I have concluded that if I were to attempt to change to some other translation now, I would never be sure what translation I was quoting from. It probably would have to be called the “Willis Interpolation.” So I have no plans to make a change in my preaching Bible.

For the purpose of study, one might find many translations helpful. A few brethren quite usefully specialize in collecting and comparing translations. Brother Luther Martin is one good example on this point. Many competent literary critics have said that the King James Version is strong in English, but weak in Greek; while the American Standard Version is strong in Greek, but weak in English. In my opinion, this is a fair comment to make while comparing translations.

This morning I was reading an article in Christianity Today on “How To Choose A Bible,” written by Gerald F. Hawthorne, who is Professor of Greek at Wheaton College in Illinois, having earned his M.A. at Wheaton, and his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Those degrees are supposed to squelch all criticism to his judgments. No, they do not do that, but they do indicate that he is speaking on a subject upon which he has made considerable preparation and study. His comment on the King James Version as compared to the American Standard Version is this:

“For careful study I recommend that you use several translations, but that you begin with the American Standard Version (ASV) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB). These Bibles are exceptionally faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts. So if you do not know the original languages but want to know what the original says, use either of these two translations.

Now that wise advice nearly has to be correct, for he and I are in agreement on the subject matter. I guess I can cite him as an authority on that subject, seeing that we already are in agreement.

One other comment he makes might be of some interest to you. He says:

“Zondervan also publishes The New Testament From Twenty Six Translations. This volume prints the KJV and, right below each KJV line, only the significant differences from the KJV found in the other twenty-five translations. It is a handy tool, but weakened by the fact that the editor gives no criteria for what he considers a significant difference.”

Professor Hawthorne presents some interesting observations, but for these two quotes the title “A Bouquet and Some Thistles” came to my mind. But for a certainty, one should use every means at his disposal to learn what God said in the original languages. For those of you who are not, or cannot be, careful students of Greek and Hebrew, then the choice of a reliable translation becomes a matter of supreme importance.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 3
April 8, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Ohio: “A person who had never been married, marries, unaware that their mate has been involved in an unscriptural divorce. This relationship is then shattered by divorce. May the person who was deceived ever marry?”

A brief review of some New Testament passages may help to answer this question.

1. Matthew 14:1-4; Mark 6:14-18: Herod had “married” his “brother’s wife.” Though he had “married” Herodias, she was still “Philip’s wife.” God did not recognize the union. It was adultery, therefore, it was “not lawful” for Herod to have her.

2. Romans 7:1-3: A woman who married another man while her husband lives “shall be called an adulteress.” In other words, without benefit of the exception of fornication (Matt. 19:9), the woman “is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.”

The case mentioned by our querist can be answered in the affirmative. The one deceived can marry. The one deceived was involved in a relationship with one who was already joined to a mate. It was not lawful for the married one who was unscripturally divorced to have another. In God’s sight, this one had a marriage partner. God did not accept the union with the one who was deceived.

James P. Needham received an identical question. Though worded a bit differently, it doubtless referred to the same situation. His response was, “On the basis of the information supplied, therefore, I would say that the deceived person would have the right to remarry. Since God does the joining in marriage (Mt. 19:6), and does not join or recognize unions between unscriptural partners, these two persons were never married in the sight of God. That being the case, the deceived partner has never been married in the sight of God. He/she has been guilty of unintentional fornication, of which he/she should repent.

“In reality, the ignorance of the deceived party has no bearing upon whether God recognized the union. He would not have recognized it if the person had walked into it with eyes open. Thus the results and the solution to the problem would remain the same.”

These remarks cannot assist the ones mentioned by our querist, but let problems like this be a lesson to those who are not entangled in marital difficulties. Parents must teach their children the soberness and seriousness of the marriage relationship. Those contemplating marriage must weigh the consequences of a mistake. It is not an idle fling. Beware! Be careful!

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 2
April 8, 1976

By Wallace H. Little

Among God’s people today, one of the many issues needlessly dividing brethren might be identified by what is represented in the title. To some who are pushing their opinions to the level of law, “segmented worship” describes congregations which allow brethren to partake of the Lord’s Supper either during the morning assembly, or the one at evening, depending upon their ability to get to the one or the other. Cecil Willis has written that every error among brethren has started from overemphasizing some point of truth. This situation bears out his statement.

There is little doubt some have abused the fact they had opportunity to take the Lord’s Supper during evening assembly as an excuse for their sin of failing to assemble at all times. My comments here are in no way to serve this group. But the fact something is abused does not make the thing itself sinful; only the abuse is wrong.

I had a tract written by a brother in Christ who went to some length to demonstrate the sinfulness (?) of allowing the Lord’s Supper to be offered during Sunday evening assemblies after it was also offered during morning worship. The main thrust of his argument was that such constituted what he termed “segmented worship” and the New Testament is silent on authority for any such thing. To his credit, he is consistent. He has persuaded the congregation where he worshiped to disband Sunday evening assemblies. But his consistency extracted quite a price from the other brethren there, in loss of edification they could have during evening worship.

His claim of segmented worship demands a little more examination, from a viewpoint he neglected in his tract. I would like to see some evidence from the Bible that having two or more periods during the Lord’s Day when we obey Christ in the things He has commanded for public worship constitutes “segmented worship.” This is not contained within God’s Word; it is not speaking as God’s oracles (1 Pet. 4:11); it is the language of Ashdod (Neh. 13:24).

Historically, God’s people established a pattern quite different from that which we use today. The early church met in extended assemblies (note Acts 20:7, where Paul preached until midnight, then continued on to the break of day – see verse 11). Assemblies then were apt to be lengthy proceedings, rather than the one hour we meet today on the Lord’s Day morning for worship. Likewise, during the restoration period and on down well into the Twentieth Century, assemblies were likely to extend over three and four hour periods, often broken at noon when brethren either ate food they brought with them on the grounds on good days, or in the buildings when the weather was poor.

Our so-called “segmented worship” (referring to the fact we break around noon, then return during the evening) is nothing but a concession to our taste permitted by the better means of transportation we have. It is no real difficulty now for a family to drive ten to fifteen miles to the building, attend Bible class and worship, then drive the same distance back home for dinner; later during the evening, make the return trip for another hour of worship. Such a practice was unheard of however, until the near-universal availability of automobiles among brethren.

I am not trying to prove anything by the practices of brethren. The New Testament is our only standard. But these practices do indicate what brethren for years and centuries understood the Bible to teach; we know their beliefs by their practices.

Now let us go back to the Bible and see if this so called “segmented worship” is all that bad. I will not quote from the entire text, but you read it all: Luke, in Acts 20:7-11, wrote, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight . . . When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” If Biblical authority for “segmented worship” is desired, consider this, and Acts 2:46 where the strong implication is of the same thing.

And let us stop this senseless, destroying argument!

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 13-14
April 1, 1976