Truth Magazine

By William R. John

Brother Edward Fudge has recently authored a publication entitled, “Answers To Questions” in which he does just what the title suggests regarding the present issue of the “Fellowship Question.” I believe this brochure to be as clear and concise as any writing of Brother Fudge’s which I have read. Even the uneducated mind, such as my own, can grasp the meaning of what he writes in this article.

While I have read the whole pamphlet, I am not going to make comment on each portion of this article. However, I wish to address myself particularly to the very first question of the brochure. This question states, “What do you teach about `fellowship’ especially regarding fellowship with brethren in error?” Brother Fudge answers this question by stating in part that “The New Testament does not equate fellowship (joint participation, sharing) with being ‘one’ in Christ. Oneness in Christ is a state’ of being which exists among all who are ‘in Christ’ and it cannot be separated from that state (Emphasis Mine-W.R.J.).”

It seems that Brother Fudge would have us believe that fellowship does not really have much to do with our being “one” in Christ. If this is so, I believe we can then render much comfort to the inclination to simply “agree to disagree” even though we lack the activity of fellowshipping one with another as children of God. After all, our “having fellowship” or not having it, as Brother Fudge puts it, will not “necessarily affect our essential ‘oneness’ in Christ.” Concerning the first question, this is exactly how he concludes his answer: “On the other hand, the fact that brothers cannot ‘have fellowship’ in one particular act in good conscience does not necessarily prohibit their ‘having fellowship’ in some other activity of which they both approve in the light of the Scriptures. Nor does it necessarily affect their essential ‘oneness’ in Christ, for that never did depend on their daily sharing in every single act and item.”

The basis for our “oneness” in Christ is directly related to John 17;20-22. Christ prays for the apostles and those who would become Christians “that they all may be one” as the Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father and “that they also may be one in us.” He prays further “that they may be one, even as we are one.” The “oneness” that exists between the Father and the Son is made quite evident by these verses, but how is this “oneness” consummated? “Oneness” is’ made complete by fellowship, joint participation, sharing, and agreement. In other words, at what point are the Father and the Son not involved in fellowship, joint participation, sharing; in what point do they disagree? Brother Fudge if you will show me in what way the Father and the Son do not have fellowship, then I will uphold the point you have made that fellowship “does not necessarily affect our essential ‘oneness’ in Christ.”

We surely can see then what God desires for Christians. He desires for us to be just like Himself and Christ. Not that we are to become deity, but that we be one with deity in purpose and will. Men are drawn into that oneness with God, Christ, and with one another and thereby have fellowship together by doing the will of God and by knowing the doctrine of Christ. In John 7:17, it says, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Our will must coincide with the will of God. Then and only then do we have oneness and fellowship.

The principle of Amos 3:3 must hold fast; “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” When two men disagree, this does not only just reflect against their ability to “have fellowship,” but it is also a reflection against the “oneness” of Christ and in Christ which provides men with the resource to be agreed and- united. How many scriptures admonish Christians to have one mind or the same mind? Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. .1:27, 2:2, 4:2; and i Pet. 3:8, 4:1 admonish us to be united by having the same mind. When we are “of the same mind in the Lord” (see Phil. 4:2), we are one together with Christ, we have fellowship (joint participation, sharing), and we are exactly as God desires us to be. You see, Brother Fudge, “oneness in Christ which is a state of being which exists among all who are in Christ” is produced by the fellowship we have together with Him and with one another in all things pertaining to life and godliness (See 2 Peter 1:3).

The problem many have concerning fellowship comes from a failure to really recognize what God desires for man. Let us use the problem of sin as an illustration. God desires that mankind may become guiltless. He gave His Son to accomplish this, but at the same time gave us responsibility toward living above sin. We cannot become guiltless without the grace of Christ, but neither can we live above sin unless we accept our responsibility. Many have never accepted their responsibility, so they are lost. Some have initially accepted their responsibility, but the “going got rough” and so they’ have turned away. Sin is either minimized or justified in the mind of many. Therefore, men are lost.

In like manner, God desires that His children by united. He gave His Son so that this could be accomplished, but at the same time gave us responsibility toward unity. We cannot be united without the grace of Christ, but neither can we be united unless we accept our responsibility. Many have never accepted their responsibility, so they lost. Some have initially accepted their responsibility, but the “going got rough” and so they turned away. Unity is now being minimized and lack of unity is being justified, in the mind of many. Therefore, many of God’s children will be lost. I hope Brother Fudge is not one of these.

Dear reader, study for yourself. Is not that commanded in 1 Cor. 1:9 a fulfillment of the desire of Christ as expressed in John 17:20-22? If not, then why not?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 11
September 12, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Where does one draw the line between godly ambition and selfish ambition? Is it possible to tell the difference between a zeal that is sincere and one that is bitter? James seemed to think so. When he wrote concerning the wisdom that should characterize the teacher of truth he said, “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying (pikros zelos) and strife (eritheia) in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth” (Jas. 3:13,14). Paraphrased another way James was saying, “Who seeks to be known as a wise and understanding teacher? The method is to demonstrate that wisdom by the loveliness of one’s character. Let that character demonstrate that all is prompted by a gentle spirit. But, if your wisdom is characterized by a zeal that is bitter (pikros zelos) and by selfish ambition (eritheia), do not be arrogant of your accomplishments, for you are false to what God’s truth demands of a teacher.”

I make no pretenses at being a Greek scholar, but the scholarly books that are available to all agree that there is a fine line of definition in zelos between “to envy, be jealous” and “to imitate emulously, strive after with zeal” (Thayer, p. 271). Zelos is a word that can and is used to describe a sincere zeal to copy and follow that which is good (cf. 2 Cor. 7:7; Rom. 10:2).

The same thing is true of the word eritheia. It originally meant “To spin wool, work in wool” (Thayer. p. 249. The meaning eventually came to be applied to “one electioneering or intriguing for office–a courting distinction; a desire to put oneself forward” (Thayer, ibid). It is a word that means to work for hire, and that eventually came to be used to describe one who used every base method available to gain selfish ends.

The truth does not lie in semantics, though, as much as it does in human nature. James is warning us of that sharp, bright, and extremely quick “wisdom” that works so hard for the wrong ends, and points out to us how susceptible teachers of truth are to such. There is a fine line between a sincere desire to copy the good in other men, and a jealous, envious, copying of the deeds of other men to attain or surpass the status of the one envied. There is a fine line between praise and pay for a work well done, and working for the praise and pay.

James points out for the teacher’s self-examination that the true wisdom, the true zeal, the true ambition is something that is pure from all selfish motive. The divine wisdom brings men together with each other in God. This wisdom is not jealous of its own rights and self-justification, but offers the same reasonableness to its critics as it would like to receive itself. God’s wisdom is easily approached, far from arrogant or self-inflated. The wisdom from above is sensitive to the needs of others and gives of itself without any partiality or falseness (Jas. 3:17).

But that other kind of zeal, ambition, and knowledge which is selfish seeks worldly prestige, power, and return. It is always characterized by disorder. Instead of producing peace among men, it produces hard feelings, isolation, and a divided mind (Jas. 3:15,16). As long as this` `kind of motivation and attitude prevails, good and happy lives founded in right living can never find fruit. It takes a truely wise man sowing the seeds of right-relationships between men and God to harvest the fruit of righteousness. One cannot reap unity in Christ by sowing selfishness (3:18).

In preaching, teaching, writing, and in our relationships with one another, we would do well to remember James’ admonition. We can teach the truth, and lose our reward because of our attitude or method (Phil. 1:15-16). It is possible to “say it the wrong ay.” To be sure, the responsibility to obey truth, no matter how it is taught, is a responsibility of the hearer. But the fact that we teach truth does not absolve us of using all the wisdom, longsuffering, gentleness, and care we are able to muster as teachers. God judges not only the act, but the thought and the intent of the heart as well. The goal in our teaching is to bring men to truth; not to win a cheap personal victory over another (2 Tim. 2:24-26). We teach truth and oppose error because we wish to see those enslaved by error to come out to the light. We are to use the verbal tool that best fits the job – but one tool does not fit every situation (Jude 22,23).

That kind of teaching that is more concerned with promoting self than truth is damnable-and ought to be. That kind of teacher who puts on a zeal for truth in order to garner prestige as a “killer” in debate is headed straight from hell. That kind of bitter rebuke that is intent on destroying another, rather than restoring, is common with the snarling of beasts of prey. For us to deny that such exists among our brethren is to deny the motivation behind the words of James. The words of the Spirit are not empty admonition, but are directed towards the nature and inclinations of man. We can assure one another by saying that such sins do not affect any of us (1 Jno. 1:8), but we would only be deceiving ourselves. It was not for naught that the Lord warned us, “Be not many of you teachers, knowing we shall receive greater condemnation.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 10
September 12, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Honest and diligent scholarship should be the hallmark of every Christian’s faith. “Giving diligence to present ourselves approved unto God” (2 Tim, 2:15), involves a conscientious study and absorption of God’s word into our hearts, minds and souls. Unfortunately, most of us fall woefully short of the heavenly calling in regard to personal study of and devotion to the Scriptures. Relying for the most part on “in-class” assembly studies, we seldom “crack the book” at home. Most subscribe to a magazine or two and the newspaper, but few too many purchase any religiously oriented publications for family consumption. But just as the carpenter or plumber needs his tools, so does the diligent student of the Bible. A good Bible dictionary, concordance, and word study volume should be in the possession of every brother and sister seeking to “increase in the knowledge of God.”

Bible Study Failures

Ignorance among brethren is as old as Paul’s letters to Corinth, but it seems that such should not be so in our age of mass media communicative techniques and availability of study, material in paperback form. The problem lay in improper attitudes and concepts of Bible study. Many brethren have been accustomed to having the Bible spoon fed to them in neat little portions for so long that they are truly unable to attempt a study of the Scriptures on their own. Independent study is unheard of and Bible “knowledge” consists of little more than finely packaged formulas (“Here are the `five steps of salvation’ for you”) or deceptively simplified refutations (“Now just memorize these three simple facts and you can meet any evolutionist”). As a result, most are conditioned to “proof-text” study; i.e., they “go fishing” as it were, in the Bible to “prove” their favorite doctrines. Characteristically, these “studies” ignore contexts, overlook word usages, and pervert the author’s intent following headlong into a twisted and distorted “interpretation” of a text.

Examples

Amos 6:5 is often used by zealous brethren to help refute instrumental music, but a close consideration of the context will reveal that there is no real connection to be seen. “Liberal” brethren cite James 1:27 or Gal. 6:10 in a feeble attempt to justify their institutionalism. Another manipulates 1 Cor. 11 to “prove” that the covering needs to be worn today, ignoring the context of spiritual gifts and speaking under inspiration. Still another cites the KJV rendition of Acts 19:37 to “prove” that it is alright to call the meeting house a “church.” All of these examples show the folly of “proof-text” scholarship.

Conclusion

There is nothing inherently wrong with “simplification,” “formulas,” or “packaged refutations” as long as they accurately present the full Biblical view of a given topic; but therein lies the rub! Much of the time these “condensations” are “proof-texts” that zealots have grabbed in a desperate attempt to further their positions. May we all refrain from “proof-texting” and rather dig deep into the depth of Scripture to find out what God has said… and not what we would like Him to have said. The Bible was not, as some intimate, written as a casebook for religious debaters. A shaky, hastily contrived “proof-text” will add nothing to a Scriptural defense, as neither will an oversimplified compilation of random, out-of-context Scriptures thrown together. Let us come to the Bible to learn and not to prove.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 9
September 12, 1974

By Dick Blackford

There are other subjects on which I had rather write, but perhaps none more needful than this one. The drug problem which permeates our society knows no boundaries. In the Third Annual Report To The U.S. Congress from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (1973), after giving us some sobering statistics of this widespread problem, the National Institute On Drug Abuse in their book on Marihuana and Health said this: “Rates did not differ significantly among racial groups and ONLY SLIGHTLY BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. There is no new data suggesting that these patterns have changed…” (p. 23). Members of the church of Christ are not exempt. This writer is familiar with three congregations which have been troubled with the problem among their young. No doubt there are others which have not yet discovered an existing problem. There is some new and revealing information in some recent studies that I would like to share with you.

Marijuana Is Harmful

There is no dispute that other drugs are harmful (amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, Heroin, etc.). Our remarks will be confined (for the most part) to marijuana, as it is the point of controversy. There is a movement underway to legalize it. “When smoked, marihuana quickly enters the bloodstream and acts on the brain and nervous system. It affects the user’s mood and thinking. Some scientists report that the drug accumulates in the liver. … The more obvious physical reactions include rapid heart beat, lowering of body temperature, and sometimes reddening of the eyes. The drug also changes blood sugar levels, stimulates the appetite, and dehydrates the body. . . . “1 The sense of time and distance of many users frequently becomes distorted. A MINUTE MAY SEEM LIKE AN HOUR. SOMETHING NEAR MAY SEEM FAR AWAY.”2 “In a set of experiments designed to study the effects of alcohol and marihuana on driving-related visual functions, it was found that ‘marihuana interfered with PERIPHERAL VISION as well as CENTRAL VISION to a greater extent than alcohol under a wider variety of task demands… there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the warning that even social doses of marihuana may impair performance sufficiently to lead to motor vehicle accidents. . . 3

A study has been made in “personality predictors” to see what kinds of people are most apt to take drugs. This was made on junior and senior high students and their characteristics before they experimented with drugs. According to the study of students in six selected school systems near Boston,. . a small number of characteristics were quite in evidence among students who later, in 1972, would use marihuana… Among these characteristics were: rebelliousness, low grade point average, cigarette smoking, and favorable attitude toward cigarette smoking. Among these, rebelliousness toward authorities and rules was the strongest predictor. All of these characteristics were more true’ of marijuana users than nonusers, and more true of heavier users than of light users. . . “4 Evidence is overwhelming that drugs (marijuana included) can harm the body and mind. Many young people have been brainwashed into thinking that “marijuana is harmless.” That statement is false to the core. Some have been too prejudiced to accept the facts. Youth is not exempt from prejudice and can be just as stubborn and hypocritical as they sometimes accuse the older generation of being.

Another statement is that “Marijuana does not mean automatic graduation to hard narcotics and is not addicting.” There is just enough truth in that statement to lead to real tragedy for anyone who believes it is complete truth. Scientists have stressed that while marijuana is not addicting, it can produce a drug dependency. `A study of 970 white, male drug addicts admitted to the Addiction Research Center at Lexington, Kentucky from 16 states . . .disclosed that 764 of them, or nearly 80%, had prior histories of marijuana use. On the average, they were two years younger than other addicts at the time of their first arrest and were determined to be TWICE AS LIKELY to become heroin addicts as were nonusers of marijuana.”5

Another defence is “It’s my body and my mind and it’s nobody’s business what I use.” This statement too, is false to the core. Dallas County (Texas) District Attorney Henry Wade has pointed out that “smoking marijuana while driving an automobile, baby-sitting, fighting in battles, flying an airplane, or performing any ONE OF THOUSANDS OF ACTS can, and does, endanger the lives of people other than the user. “6 Thus it becomes everybody’s business.

Bad Company: A Basic Factor in Drug Abuse

“The teenagers’ use is CLOSELY CORRELATED WITH USE BY HIS FRIENDS. When none of a teenager’s friends reported use of drugs, ONLY ONE OUT OF FIFTEEN youngsters themselves reported use. When all of their friends reported use, NINE OUT OF TEN had also used the drug…. THE MORE PEER-ORIENTED AS OPPOSED TO PARENT-ORIENTED THE YOUNGSTER IS, THE MORE LIKELY HE IS TO BE A USER (by peer-oriented is meant the amount of time spent with friends, greater reliance on advice of friends than on that of parents, etc.).”7

“One study has focused on the sources of information used by elementary and secondary students in various states of acquaintance with marihuana. The sources of information about marihuana mentioned most frequently by all students… were parents, television, and friends. BUT THERE WERE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES IN THE TYPES OF SOURCES ACCEPTED BY STUDENTS AT VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS. For 5th graders, television and – parents were most significant: for 7th graders, FRIENDS and television: and for 11th graders, FRIENDS AND OTHER STUDENTS played the largest role. In general. younger children use more socially approved sources compared with older students (who tend to rely on ‘non-authority sources). The authors commented that many students appear unaware of the influence process surrounding their decisions about marihuana use.”8

Somewhere between the fifth and seventh grades parents are losing their young people to their companions. Our youth must remember that the poorest excuse for doing anything is “everybody else is doing it.” Evil companionships still corrupt good morals (1 Cor. 15:33; Prov. 1:10-19).

Marijuana also silences the conscience. `A person using marihuana finds it harder to make decisions that require clear thinking. And he finds himself MORE EASILY OPEN TO OTHER PEOPLES SUGGESTIONS… 9 This is why drugs and sex go together. A boy not on drugs is less likely to make sexual advances toward a girl. A girl who uses drugs is more easily influenced to have sex. Many boys who use drugs know this too. That is why they influence their girlfriends to try drugs. About as many females now use marijuana as do males.

When a person=s conscience is dulled or silenced, he is more likely to commit a crime. Intoxication (whether alcohol or other drugs) creates a false courage-usually more courage than sense. A high percentage of crimes are committed by people under the influence of liquor or other drugs. They can get “courage” in bottle, a pill, or a marijuana cigarette.

Why?

The major reason for our drug problem, as given by the National District Attorney’s Association, is the belief that medicine can solve every problem. Parents program their children to believe that there is a pill for every problem. One of the greatest forms of drug abuse is the misuse of tranquilizers and pep pills by well-meaning parents. There are pills to make you sleep, wake you up, keep you alert, help you make it through the day (plus cigarettes and coffee between pills) etc. Pills are “problem solvers.” Alcohol and drug abuse are substitutes for suicide and are chosen for the same reason-a desire for easy solutions and escape from reality. We live in a drug-oriented society. The Christian should beware! Not too surprisingly, drug use by children is related to drug use by parents. When both parents use drugs such as alcohol, TOBACCO (pay attention brethren) and other psychoactive drugs, there is a greater likelihood that their children will use marihuana… The probability of drug use is also associated with such factors as LACK OF FAMILY COHESIVENESS, use of other medications and LESS PARENTAL EMPHASIS ON SELF-CONTROL.”10

Not many doctors will tell their patients to use self control. It is easier to prescribe pills. If you go wanting pills, they will nearly always give them to you. After all, pills are “miracle workers.” I have nothing against the medical profession. I think it is great. But they are not infallible. No one is. Self-control could solve most of the problems that people (even Christians) are depending on drugs to solve (tobacco is a drug and the difference between it and other drugs is one of degree). Christians are to exercise self-control (I Cor. 9:27; 2 Pet. 1:6).

Notice also in the preceding quote that a “lack of family cohesiveness” is a part of the drug problem. Two young girls in the school system here who had been using drugs said they felt like they “had been rejected by their fathers.” Too many fathers think they have “more important things to do” than rear children (Eph. 6:4). Such “fathers” are worse than infidels (I Tim. 5:8). They should teach their children to honor good men and women, not Timothy Learys, Janis Joplins, and weirdos who eat live chickens, feathers and all (Alice Coopers).

So you want to expand your mind? You can stretch it all out of shape and warp it with drugs, if you want to call that “mind expansion.” However, the real secret to mind expansion is found in Proverbs 1:7. And if you really want fo get “stoned,” try drinking wet cement. It’s guaranteed to work. In the meantime, do not be afraid of reality. Forget your nickel bags, dime bags, tripweed, etc.-roaches too (drug terms). “Blowing your mind” is nothing to brag about. There’s nothing new about it. You could stay that way, you know. Many have.

Footnotes

The information contained in this article about marijuana is only what has been discovered up to the present. Authorities are not through studying it yet; which is all the more reason to avoid experimenting with it.

It should be remembered that with the exception of Lifeline, the other sources quoted herein are not concerned with this subject from a moral standpoint, all of which should convince young people that they were not just trying to put somebody down. (All caps in the quotations were by me).

1. Marihuana. Some Questions And Answers, Tract by Public Information Branch National Institute of Mental Health, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969.

2. Life Line Freedom Talk, No. 62, Dallas, Texas 75206, December 28, 1970.

3. Marihuana and Health; Third Annual.Report to the U.S. Congress From The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. National Institute On Drug Abuse, 1973, p.14,15

4. Ibid., p.37.

5. American Criminal Law Quarterly 7:174, “Marijuana And Relevant: Problems,” G. Joseph Tauro, Spring 1969.

6. Life Line.

7. Marihuana and Health. p.7.

8. Ibid., p.34.

9. Marihuana, Some Questions and Answers.

10. Marihuana and Health, p.7.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 6-8
September 12, 1974