Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Alabama: “Would it be sinful to change the time, or even perhaps the day of the week, of the midweek Bible study so as not to conflict with an athletic contest, such as the Orange Bowl?”

REPLY:

This question is from an Alabama brother, and in case you have forgotten the Alabama Crimson Tide played Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl on a Wednesday night, January 1, 1975. I suspect there is more to this query than meets the eye. I have no way of knowing or judging the situation or circumstances of the questioner. Both he and his particular position are unknown to me.

There are indications in the Bible that the first disciples met frequently, but there is no binding precedent for a mid-week service. It is a matter for each local church to decide. Many American churches have mid-week study sessions on Wednesday. Some churches have their “Wednesday evening Bible study” on Thursday night! Scripture does not regulate this matter as to the day or the time of day the saints may meet during the week. There is no contention over what day a church may set aside for mid-week worship. It is left to the discretion of each congregation. Since it is true that the church is not scripturally obligated to meet during the week, as it is on the first day of the week, then each church must determine what day or days will be most suitable. Should the brethren elect to alter their usual practice, if it be done with consideration and without overbearing rule, I see no reason why they may not meet earlier or later than usual as circumstances may make expedient.

Some churches have changed their mid-week services so as not to conflict with graduation exercises. I do not think they did wrong. Their services are conducted a day earlier or later as they choose. It is more convenient for many in the church and others agree to live with the disruption of their normal routine for sake of others.

The Orange Bowl

(Unless you know a rabid Alabama football fan, you do not appreciate the pressure this question creates!) Two churches known to me altered their mid-week services on Christmas Day, 1974, .and New Year’s Day, 1975, because both fell on Wednesday. They did this because of many factors connected with such holidays. It was strictly a matter of judgment, convenience, and expedience on their part. They did not make the decision with regard to an “athletic contest.” But what if they had? Would it be sinful? Technically, it would not be a sin for a church to revise their usual schedule, but doing it on account of an athletic contest goes against my grain.

Once a church begins to change their services for the benefit of football fans, they will have to do so for the convenience of basketball and baseball fans. Where will it end? It does not appear to be wise to initiate such a practice. I recognize that what I have said may appear arbitrary and self-serving. However, we must be careful lest matters of liberty are used as a license to circumvent other principles. In all things the Lord comes first. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God,’ and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). “Set your affection on things above and not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2). God comes before graduation exercises and before football Bowl games. I cannot say it is a sin for a church to schedule its own worship to edify itself, but an attitude that puts carnival festivities before spiritual activities is a step to disorder, confusion, and strife.

Truth Magazine XIX: 56, p. 882
December 11, 1975

By Daniel H. King

I do not think that anybody would hesitate to admit that times have changed greatly since the great meetings held by brethren like J. D. Tant, Hardeman, Harding Nichol, Keeble, Larimore, and others. Huge crowds and many responses seemed always to be characteristic of those efforts. No doubt television and a thousand other preoccupations have begun to take up the time that once was spent listening to gospel preaching and debates. In that by-gone day entertainment was not so easy to come by because there was not as much money around; most of the people were farmers and in the summer when the crops were laid-by, then it was meeting time. Most of the countryside turned out for a meeting because it was far more than just an opportunity to hear the gospel, it was also a time for courting by the young people, for good-natured conversation and exchange of ideas, as well as a time for excitement, controversy and worship. Today crowds are not so easily drawn as they were then. Likewise, responses do not even begin to compare. I am sure that there are a multitude of reasons that this is so. Moreover, we could spend a great deal of time listing the various explanations. But one of our current problems is that we are already spending far too much time looking at the negative aspects of the thing and far too little time preaching the gospel. Many of us are like the one-talent man. We know all of the good reasons why not to do anything. So we spend much of our time talking about the reasons why people do not come to meetings anymore, and why we do not get the kind of results that we once did, and why it is a waste of time to have meetings “these days”-and we end up doing nothing. Our friends, relatives, and neighbors are heading for hell and damnation and we stand around making excuses!

I recently held a meeting with a church that had not had a meeting in ten or fifteen years (no one knew for sure, because it had been so long that nobody could remember exactly when the last one was). I hear of more and more churches that are moving toward this kind of thing. Today there are many, many of us who will hold protracted meetings if given the opportunity-with or without compensation-just for the sheer pleasure and privilege of proclaiming the glorious gospel of the Lamb of God as well as being a part in the saving of the lost and the up building of the kingdom. By and large I do not think that preachers are at fault in this, although we will be at fault if we sit idly by while brethren become more and more listless and insensitive to the cry of a lost and dying world. We need to awaken the brethren to the danger that is looming ever more ominous and foreboding, that is, our own indifference to the need of the damned of this world. Our meetings in many parts are getting ever more poorly attended and are therefore being cut shorter. Meetings fifty years ago sometimes stretched to forty-five and even sixty days, with preaching twice or even three times daily. Now a meeting continuing through two consecutive Sundays is an oddity. The order of the day is the quickie-the week-end meeting. There is nothing wrong with these in some cases because several services are held and several opportunities are thus given to hear the truth. But in others only a couple of services are held and very little preparation is made. When will this shrinking of public exposure to the gospel stop? Most of us are still convinced that the gospel meeting is the best means to give people who are members of the sects and unsound churches a chance to hear the unadulterated truth without missing their own services (which most sincere ones refuse to do). Our trimming-down of our meetings, however, is certain to be limiting our potential.

What we are moving toward appears frightful to me. I think we are going in the wrong direction. And all the while I think that the Devil is sitting back and laughing with many an eldership or entire church in his grip under the guise of “logical surrender to our time and circumstance,” reasoning something like this: “When we hold a meeting we can hardly get anybody out for it,” and “We never see any results from one,” and “People just have too much to do these days.” Instead of making excuses, we need to hold more .meetings and work harder to make the ones we have successful. Sure, there will be times when we are not successful. Even in the old days meetings sometimes flopped. Many a preacher moved his tent after a couple of days of preaching to an empty tent. What we need to remember is this: The Bible tells us, “A sower went forth to sow . . . .” That is our work. It also says, “It is God that giveth the increase.” That is God’s job. If we put out the effort and do our part, we can be assured that God is going to do His. But what if the sower stays home, discouraged by the excuse that there seems to be an overabundance of rocky ground and other obstacles to a healthy crop? When the harvest season comes it will be a sad day for the church of God. The fields will be desolate. The barns will be empty. And the Lord of the harvest will be a disappointed and angry landlord.

We do not need to sell the gospel with gimmicks. We cannot do that and please God anyway. Parties, puppet shows, bus brigades and other social gospel tactics are better left to the denominations (who are devoid of the saving gospel), and some of our digressive brethren who have not the sense to get in out of the rain. What we need is more instead of less of the Old Jerusalem Gospel. Whatever we do, let us not quit or diminish the preaching of the Gospel.

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 876-877
December 4, 1975

By Rod E. Cogdill

The Catholic Church grew out of an organizing. of the churches. In the debate between Harper and Tant in Lufkin, Texas, on the Herald of Truth, J. Early Arceneaux, veteran preacher and Bible scholar, wrote a note to Yater Tant, when Harper contended that the Herald of Truth was not another organization, reminding him that the apostasy that grew into the Roman Catholic Church was brought about not by forming another organization outside of the church, but rather by an organizing of the churches.

The apostasy in the Nineteenth Century that resulted in the development of the Christian Church denomination began with an organizing of the churches but grew into a giant organization outside of the church-The United Christian Missionary Society.

No Bible Authority for Church Supported Human Societies

The same thing is wrong with some benevolent societies today, such as Boles Home, Ontario Children’s Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, etc., that is wrong with the Missionary Society. Many brethren do not know, however, what is wrong with the Missionary Society. Some of them do not know or believe that it is wrong. J. D. Thomas, for example, of Abilene Christian College Bible Department and School of Religion, states in his book, We Be Brethren, that there is nothing wrong with the principle of the Missionary Society, but it is wrong because it usurps authority over the churches that support it. Of course, the Missionary Society president denies that the society controls the churches at all. The orphan homes, the Herald of Truth, and the colleges like Abilene and Pepperdine, deny that they control the churches, but they control all of them that they can, and would destroy the rest if they could. But it is not the control of the churches that makes them wrong as church institutions. They are wrong because there is no Bible authority for their existence as church institutions.

Men like Gayle Oler have tried every device they could manufacture to satisfy the minds of the brethren and keep them supporting the benevolent society of which he is the head. He used to argue that such institutions are “Kingdom business,” the work of the church, and should be supported by the church. Guy N. Woods has affirmed six or seven times “The scriptures authorize the churches of Christ to build and maintain such benevolent organizations as Boles Home.” He has had the support of Gayle Oler and others in such work. But, out of the other side of their mouths, these same men contend that such institutions as Boles Homes are not church institutions, but “Homes” and are not part of the church. They are insincere one time or the other, and deceitful in their contentions, for both could not be true. The fact is, as we have pointed out in previous articles, they are not “homes” in any sense of the word, so far as the organization itself is concerned, but benevolent societies maintaining asylums or institutions to care for children and they are supported and function as church institutions. They have no scriptural right to exist in such status. There is no scriptural authority for the church to build, maintain, or do its work, through human societies.

It is immaterial whether such institutions are under a board of directors or under a brotherhood eldership. They are unscriptural either way and cannot be justified. The church has an obligation in the field of benevolence, but whatever that obligation is, it cannot be fulfilled through human societies. God specified an organization through which the church is to accomplish its mission and that organization is the local church with its elders. The local churches did their own benevolence without any human organization outside of the church organization within the churches. Each church took care of its own destitute, out of its own resources, and under the supervision of its own elders (Acts 2; 4; 6). When there were more destitute in its membership than the local church could care for, other churches contributed to them to enable them to care for their own. These contributing churches made up their own contribution from their own members, they selected their own messengers-individuals-and sent their contribution by these messengers to the elders of the churches where the need existed (Acts 11:27-30; 2 Cor. 8; 9. 1 Cor. 16:1-4). There were no outside organizations involved in this work in any instance and there was no federation of churches, pooling of resources, or centralizing of authority in any way. What the churches today are doing cannot be defended by the Word of God. These liberal brethren have been challenged to show Bible authority for their Human Institutions. They have not done so, they cannot do so, and they have even quit trying. They have divided the churches of Christ over their unscriptural promotions and now choose no longer to try to defend them by the Word of God and think it more profitable to ignore all opposition. This is the course of sectarianism. They are becoming another distinct denominational movement in the world and will take their place among those who no longer profess to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 875-876
December 4, 1975

By Jeffery Kingry

The responsibility of the teacher of truth is a grave one: James wrote, “My brethren, be not many of you teachers, knowing that we shall be judged by a more strict standard” (Jas. 3:1). When men were chosen for public service in the church, Paul reminded them, “It is required in stewards that they first be found faithful. . .” (1 Cor. 4:2ff). A teacher takes the very souls of those he teaches into his hands. If he “handles the word of God aright” then he molds them into righteousness. If he, through ignorance or perverseness, teaches them anything but the truth “then both shall fall into the ditch.” In the work of the church it is imperative that only qualified teachers be allowed to teach our children, the new converts and babes in Christ, and to address the church in a teaching role.

In the Holy Spirit’s instruction as to the organization and function of the church, He gave us “evangelists, pastors, and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). The work of these elect men was “for the perfection of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the ultimate building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12).

As there are qualifications for elders-pastors-overseers-(1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1:5ff; 1 Pet. 5:lff), and for evangelists-preachers or ministers-of the Gospel (2 Tim. 2; 4:5; 1 Tim. 1:18; 5:21; 6:13), so are there qualifications for teachers.

Faithful

“The teaching which you have received of me in the presence of many witnesses, the same you must hand on to trustworthy men who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1,2). A man’s first qualification as a teacher is that he be faithful: faithful in the discharge of his responsibility, faithful in his relationship to God in practicing the truth that he teaches, and faithful to the truth in the Word that he handles. Our word “faithful” is a translation of the Greek word pintos: “faithful, steady, dependable, sure, true.” The faithful steward was one who was consistent and constant in the service of his master. He was contrasted with the servant who neglected his duty and procrastinated while wasting his time in selfish pursuits (Matt. 24:35-51). The “on again-off again” Christian is not qualified to be a teacher of truth. The “Sunday morning attender” is not qualified to be a teacher of God’s word. The false teacher, the worldly, the one who lives to the flesh is not qualified to be a teacher. Faithfulness in living as a Christian is also a requirement. One cannot teach and not live the message he teaches from the word of God.

An Example

“In all things showing yourself a pattern of good works” (Tit. 2:7). “Have you persuaded yourself that thou art a guide to the blind, an instructor of the simple, and a teacher of children . . . why then, you teacher of others, do you not teach yourself” (Rom. 2:17-21)?

Example is the greatest teacher of all. A brother or sister who is knowledgeable and “apt” to teach is still not qualified to teach if he or she cannot control a lying, gossiping, or divisive tongue (Jas. 3:13ff). Even if one has an excellent intellect and the “gift of gab,” he may speak a good fight, but his fruit in temperance (Phil. 4:5; 1 Cor. 9: 25-27), sacrifice (Jas. 5:10,11), or spirituality (Rom. 12:2; Phil. 3:18, 19; Col. 3:2,5) will determine his qualification as a teacher.

Mature

“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God. . . For everyone that uses milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).

One can know “first principles,” i.e. baptism, faith and works, the resurrection, judgment, etc. (Heb. 6:1,2), and still be a babe. Babes in the use of the word of God are not qualified as teachers. The mature teacher is able to “speak as the oracles of God,” “giving an answer of the hope that is within him,” “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince . . .” Inability to answer basic questions from the Bible or to direct people to the truth in any question of life is an indication of immaturity in the use of the word. “All scripture is inspired of God . . . that the man of God may be well-prepared at every point” (2 Tim. 3:16,17; Wms. Trans.).

Able To Teach

“The servant of the Lord must . . . be apt to teach” (2 Tim. 2:24). The requirement of practicality of all teachers is that they have the skill, or ability to teach. The word of God makes “manifest” or clear, open, and visible. Truth is light; it reveals. It provides answers to problems, gives direction and purpose. The teacher, however well-meaning, who is a confusing teacher, who obscures, who often is misunderstood, who makes questions instead of providing answers, who leaves people wondering what is right, and questioning what the teacher teaches, is not the kind of man the church needs to lead in a study of the Bible. “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).

Do our teachers meet any qualifications? Do we require anything from a teacher other than that he be an adult and willing? Have we made any effort to qualify teachers for God-given responsibilities? We would not think of appointing unqualified elders, or supporting a preacher who did not meet God’s requirements. But, often we will push any body that is warm into a classroom.

Brethren, the church of the future depends on what is taught now. The concepts new converts will shape their lives by are being formed today. The children in each home are building a foundation for the life they will live as adults in the future. We need to be assured by the life and fruits of those who have responsibility for teaching that they can produce mature saints from responsible handling of the word.

Some Practical Advice

In a practical way these goals can be achieved by respecting God’s word and demanding that all teachers be qualified. It is not enough to wish the problem away. We can take those who are marginally qualified and train them. We can require a change in life-style or living from those whose example is slack. Do not look the other way when a teacher stands before your teen-agers talking about temperance, self-control, and godly living with a package of cigarettes in his shirt pocket. Do something about it! Demand that the church have some form of goals in its teaching, some form of qualification for its teachers. It is not a wise precedent to permit every teacher to choose their own material, substitute, and to permit teachers to teach for years with no form of observation or counsel.

Every child of God can be a teacher if he is willing to qualify himself for teaching others. It will require study and putting into practice what you learn. “By reason of use” men became proficient in handling God’s word-and ceased to be spiritual babes (grown by reason of time, but with the spiritual development of an infant).

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 874-875
December 4, 1975