Truth Magazine

By Richard Boone

It was a busy afternoon as Becky and I scurried around with last-minute details before “Jr.,” our third child, arrived. We needed a few items at Sam’s, and while we were there, we ate lunch (our girls love their pizza!). A family at a nearby table finished their meal and gathered their belongings to continue shopping. We were caught off-guard by the fact that the mother, who was carrying a three-month old boy, was totally blind. Our hearts broke. It was all we could do to maintain composure.

I thought about what she would never see with her children, especially that baby. She would never see his first smile, nor the gleam in his eye of the first Christmas he realizes something special is happening. She won’t see school pictures, nor his various forms of handiwork. She won’t see the anticipation and enjoyment of a birthday party, or the proud glow of a driver’s license picture. She won’t see commencement exercises (high school/college), weddings, or her grandchildren. She will, indeed, miss a lot that we take for granted.

But then I thought about a greater blindness. What about those who, with physical vision, never really see what life is all about? We know people who are in the darkness of sin, being blinded by the god of this world and ignorance (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:18). Jesus is the great light that shines in the darkness (Matt. 4:15-16), and we can be lamps by our personal godliness (Matt. 5:13-16; Phil. 2:15). In our collective work we can be pillars of truth for our respective communities (1 Tim. 3:15). As much as we strive to do in holding forth the word of truth, the saddest reality is dealing with those who are blind because they refuse to see (Matt. 13:13-17).

Then a thought occurred to me: Am I blind? Am I letting opportunities slip by to be guided by God’s lamp (Ps. 119:105, 130)? Am I blinded by the glitter of this world so that the word is choked from affecting me (Mark 4:18-19)? Does my light shine to lead people to Christ or do I hide it under a bushel? Suddenly, the possibility of that great blindness became personal! God, help me not to be short-sighted, even to blindness, but to grow and live in such a way to make my calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:5-11). Help me to help others do the same.

Yes, I saw a blind lady today, and she helped me to see so many important lessons.

Clinton Speaks to Gay Group, Shies Away from “Ellen” Star “Washington — In a nod to the bud- ding political clout of the gay-rights movement, President Clinton on Saturday addressed a fund-raiser for the nation’s largest gay and lesbian group. ‘We have to broaden the imagination of America,’ he said.

“Clinton’s sold-out dinner speech to the Human Rights Campaign, which was greeted by a sustained standing ovation inside and pickets outside, made him the first sitting president to publicly address a gay and lesbian civil rights organization” (The Indianapolis Star [November 9, 1997], A4).

Benefits of Religious Practice “Andrea Neal — Every Sunday morning, the routine is essentially the same: Wake up, make pancakes and get dressed for church, all the while hearing the kids complain, ‘Don’t we get a day to sleep in?’

“Knowing what Duke University re- searchers have found, I’d be foolish to change our pattern. In the October International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, they report that those who attend weekly religious services have healthier immune systems than those who don’t.

“‘It’s the first study ever published . . . that has found an association be- tween religious activity and immune functioning,’ says Dr. Harold Koenig, director of Duke’s Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health.

“. . . Immune systems aren’t the only things that function better when people regularly practice their faith.

“Last year, in an effort to influence political discussion of the role of religion in public life, the Heritage Foundation compiled all the studies it could find on religion’s link to health and social stability. The amount of research conducted over many years, and the overwhelmingly beneficial impact traced to religion, were amazing. For example:

“Regular church attendance is the most critical factor in marital stability, regardless of denomination or doctrinal teaching on divorce. A 1993 survey of 3,300 men found that those who switch partners most are those with no religious convictions. Similarly, the rate of cohabitation before marriage is seven times higher among people who seldom or never attend religious services, a significant finding since couples who live together before marriage experience higher divorce rates.

“Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have found cardiovascular disease significantly reduced by a lifetime of church attendance. Numerous other studies confirm that churchgoers live longer with lower rates of cirrhosis, emphysema and arteriosclerosis.

“Religious involvement greatly decreases  drug use, delinquency, premarital sex and increases self-control for all age groups. In a 1985 study of girls, 9 to 17, less than 10 percent of those who attended religious services weekly reported drug or alcohol use, compared to 38 percent of the overall group” (The Indianapolis Star [November 6, 1997], A22).

U.S. Abortion Rate Drops; Experts Credit Prevention Programs

“Barbara Vobejda, The Washington Post — The rate at which American women received abortions dropped significantly in 1995, continuing a steady decline during the 1990s and putting the figure at its lowest level in two decades.

“The figures, released Thursday by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show that the proportion of women of child-bearing age who obtained abortions dropped 5 percent over the previous year and 20 percent since 1980. “But the study, and other research, suggests that the decline is not primarily driven by women choosing to proceed with unintended pregnancies.

“Instead, Americans — particularly teen-agers — are using contraceptives more effectively and avoiding pregnancy in the first place, experts said” (The Indianapolis Star [De- cember 5, 1997], A1).

Emory Oks Gay Marriage Vows With Strict Campus Limitations

“Associated Press, Atlanta — Methodist-affiliated Emory University will allow gay couples to say marriage or commitment vows in its chapels.

“But the new policy sidesteps a conflict with the United Methodist church by effectively excluding most of the school’s homosexual community.

“As approved by the board of trustees, it requires that all such vows be taken before a religious leader from one of the 24 groups on campus, according to Emory chaplain Susan Henry-Crowe. Of those groups, she said, only the Reform-Jewish synagogue and the United Church of Christ perform such ceremonies” (The Indianapolis Star [November 29, 1997], B5).

The Two Covenants

This is the name of a new thirteen lesson workbook written and published by Johnie Edwards, his two sons (C. Titus and Johnie Paul) and his grandson (John Isaac). In light of the recent teaching about “one covenant” that is used to justify unscriptural marriages, this workbook is very timely. The workbook can be ordered from Truth Bookstore (1-800-428-0121). The lessons include questions for students.

Pottery Shard Points to Temple

“A potshard with an inscription of a receipt may contain the earliest extra biblical reference to Solomon’s Temple in ancient Jerusalem.

“Top biblical scholars seem convinced of its authenticity, despite its unknown source. After surfacing on the antiquities market, the shard became part of the collection of London businessman Shlomo Moussaieff. The inscription is translated: ‘Pursuant to the order to you of Ashyahu the king to give by the hand of Zecharyahu silver of Tarshish to the House (or Temple) of Yahweh. Three shekels.’ “Scholars date the inscription from the ninth century to the seventh century B.C., based on the early-Hebrew script that was common before the Babylonian exile.

Ashyahu is not known as one of the kings of Judah. Univer- sity of Chicago scholar Dennis Pardee suggests the name could be Josiah, who ruled Judah from 640 to 609 B.C.

“Frank Moore Cross of Harvard and P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins believe the inscription is older, dating per- haps to the reign of King Joash, 835 to 796 B.C.” (Gordon Govier, Christianity Today [January 12, 1998], 60).

Poll Reports More People Believe in God’s Existence

“Washington — This Christmas season, the largest percentage of Americans in a decade profess a belief in God and the existence of miracles.

“A poll commissioned by the Pew Research Center, released Sunday, reported 71 percent of respondents say that they never doubt the existence of God. In 1987, the figure was 60 percent.

“The poll also found that 61 percent of Americans believe miracles come from the power of God — an increase of

14 percentage points from a decade ago.

“And 53 percent said prayer is important to daily life. In 1987, it was 41 percent” (The Indianapolis Star [December

22, 1997), A3).

Teen Drug Use Down Slightly

“Teen drug use dropped slightly last year, the first de- crease since 1992, according to a government  report to be released Wednesday. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse says nine percent of American teens used drugs in 1996, down from 10.9 percent in 1995, accord- ing to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Last year’s survey showed that drug used among 12-to-17 years-olds had more than doubled since 1992. That included sharp increases in teen use of LSD, cocaine and marijuana, with usage about the same across ethnic and economic groups. The new report indicates that marijuana use, which accounts for three-fourths of teen drug use, remains statistically unchanged after doubling between 1992 and 1995. Alcohol use among teens dropped from 21.1 percent in 1995 to 18.8 percent last year. Tobacco use remained flat at 18 percent, although use of smokeless tobacco dipped from 1.8 percent to 1.9 percent.

“There was some bad news as well. More teens tried heroin for the first time last year and the number of teens who viewed cocaine as risky dropped. Also, use of hallucinogens edged up. The official speculated that the drop in overall teen drug use might just be cyclical, given how high the rates had reached. The official generally credits private and public sector efforts as contributing to the decline, including the intense focus on hazards of marijuana use. (submitted by Art Adams, IARCCA report of 8/17/97).

By Mike Willis

By Dale Smelser

I appreciate Mike’s offer to reply to his response. We have been working at this for over a year. Charges of in- consistency, which may be only in the mind of one who misconstrues what is being discussed, and the iterance of things that seem problems, do not mitigate scriptural prescriptions. Apart from a few observations I am happy to leave it to the reader to judge the applicability of Mike’s objections.

His first statement shows what colored his response. He thought my article was about how decisions are to be made in the local church and that it advocated egalitarianism, which I explicitly rejected. My article is about congregations being involved in things beyond just liturgical worship. It was critical of a view that decrees that all decisions be made by elders or men’s business meetings. That is lordly, and destroys community (sharing). On that limited theme, his third paragraph is a better description of what I believe, if elders’ decisions being “binding on the church” means such as, “We need some servants to take over a certain work and we need seven of them. Choose.” He would have done well to answer what he there said I believed, and which is a pretty good summary of what happened in the New Testament.

That congregations in Scripture made some decisions has long been recognized among brethren. There was a recent article here by Weldon Warnock which said: “Each congregation has the right to choose its own officers. Acts 6:1-7 shows this . . . The church did the selecting and the apostles appointed.” He quoted McGarvey: “We conclude that all church officers were selected by the congregation at large.” He quoted DeHoff: “The New Testament teaches that the power to select officers is in the church itself . . . The church selects its own functionaries for any purpose what- soever (emph. DS) . . . It is not right for a handful of chosen members to get off in a corner and say, ‘We’ll pick out so and so and tell the church.’” If all this is accurate, neither men’s business meetings nor elders’ meetings are the forum of all decisions. What I am saying is not “different.” Noting my article, which Mike had before he had Weldon’s, it is especially in the area of functionaries, representatives, and messengers that I gave scriptural examples.

Mike’s objections to my use of a church appointing its messenger (2 Cor. 8:19) is defused by the quotations from Warnock’s article. If those quotations state truth, some decisions were made by the congregation. Choosing is a decision. The whole multitude chose in Acts 6. Therefore the whole multitude made a decision. The congregation made a decision about “business” (Acts 6:3). He opines that “whole multitude choice” must somehow inappropriately involve women and baptized young people, then concludes that such consequence must nullify the possibility of “whole multitude choice.” Well try this: “The saying pleased the whole multitude . . . and they chose” (Acts 6:4).

Mike graciously notes that I do not insist on all decisions of every nature being made by the congregation, but then argues as if I did. This is why he sees “false dichotomy.” Without some congregational sharing in responsibility, I say, “The alternative is lordly hierarchy and dominated at- tenders.” Yes, elders or business meetings that so operate are guilty. Mike says elders “can oversee a congregation without relegating decision making.” Well, yes. But Scripturally?   In fact, they cannot be leaders and shepherds and abdicate all decision making. But if they oversee as elders in the New Testament, there are decisions they will make in conjunction with the congregation. And Weldon’s article well shows that actual choices were made by the congregation at large in some instances. Was that false dichotomy?

About generic authority for men meeting for business. Okay. My point was that there is specific authority for some congregational involvement. Why exclusively bind the former and prohibit the latter? Now, where is specific or generic authority for men’s meetings to make all decisions for the congregation? Mike says that “oversight and leadership given to elders is withdrawn to the degree that there are limits in the decisions they can make.” No, limits on decisions they can make does not withdraw their leader- ship. It does say something about what oversight is. It is not totalitarian.  Can elders acceptably impose decisions to use instrumental music? Can they make every decision for the congregation? Who the servants shall be? Are there then limits on their permitted decisions? Relegating some decisions defines the kind of rule they have. They don’t have the kind of “rulers of the gentiles” have (Matt. 20:25-26). Though Mike recognizes that elders are not lords, his arguments tend otherwise.

Elders are not equivalent to the IBM board of directors. Elders are shepherds and watchmen, concerned with people’s souls instead of running a business. The kind of rule they have is effected through the leadership the Holy Spirit insists they have proven themselves capable of, and then assigns to them. And even the IBM board is limited in power. Shareholders can bring issues before annual meetings and out vote the board, and they regularly vote on various  issues. Nor does Congress illustrate Mike’s contention. There are citizens initiatives for which California is famous, and the people decide on all sorts of issues including Constitutional Amendments. Mike’s contentions make elders more lordly than Boards and Congress.

Elders as “government” (1 Cor. 12:28) does not tell us how elders operate. There are different ways of governing. There are kings, dictators, tyrants, and chairmen, anarchies, democracies, and republics. Perhaps the footnote to “governments” in the ASV is helpful when it says “wise counsels.” All this passage proves about their government is that it is implemented by counsel. Others passages tell the flock to respect it. And couple that with the fact that elders are not to be self-willed. This tells us some kinds of government they must not employ. And Mike assumes that in this “government” the word translated “rule” applies only to elders. That is incorrect. Check the word rendered rule, first, and chief  (Heb. 13:17; Lk. 22:26: Acts 15:22). It is the same word. Elders share this distinction with others in the congregation. “Rule” is not speaking of government by decree, or else elders must share the decree making.

Mike’s arguments here do not let the church make any decisions. He is saying the church acts in the action of elders and men’s business meetings. But when the apostles made their decision, the church’s decision had not yet been made (Acts 6). Amazingly, what Mike is arguing is, if the apostles had chosen, it could be said that the multitude chose. Furthermore, a representative doing something may involve, but not exhaust, church action. Or it may not. The elders of Ephesus met Paul at Miletus. The church didn’t. Using the example of the churches sending greeting to Corinth (1 Cor. 16:19), the churches acted before Paul. There had to be some church action for Paul to represent.

Mike would like a list of things the church decided in the New Testament. He has a list from me in private correspondence, and there is a list in my article under, “And More.” If it would please him I will be glad to submit a future article expanding on the points made.

You can re-read his paragraph rejecting “assembly method.” All that refers to is an action taken when all the congregation is together; for instance, to meet and deliver one to Satan. That was done by “assembly method” (1

Cor. 5:4). Assemblies acted at times in things beyond social worship. Must I reply to “assembly method” being un-biblical? If what is described is in the Bible, it is biblical.  Now, while we are requiring an exact quote from an English translation in order to be biblical, let’s find “Men’s Business Meeting.”

Note this faulty dilemma: Would “whole multitude choice” follow the decision of children who might be in the majority? Just apply his hypothetical at Jerusalem: “the whole multitude. . . chose.” Does his dilemma undermine that fact?  And my article has specific comments about the unscripturalness of the immature leading and majority rule.  If it is argued that choosing servants was not done in assembly, how does one know that? And if the whole multitude may act and no way is specified, is not acting in assembly an authorized option where feasible? Stating that the congregation acted authorizes the congregation to act, not an exclusive method. While Mike’s arguments seem to prohibit the congregation from making any decisions, if they do share in them his arguments would bind doing so exclusively by the “unassembled method.” He asks incredulously: “May others take leadership and make persuasive recommendations when elders are present in the congregation?” The Pharisees did, others were involved in much questioning, and Peter, Paul, and Barnabas did, as well as James (Acts 15:5, 7, 12). And the appointed lead- ership with the help of other chief brethren brought what Mike objects to, decisions involving assembly consensus: “Then it seemed good to the apostles, and the elders, with the whole church (assembly), to choose men. . . and send” (Acts 15:22). I rest my case.

I do not call for democracy or for elders being only vote counters. I shudder at the thought. But like apostles, elders have a spiritual work that should not be neglected for all the mundane operations of a congregation. Their leadership, and decisions relative to leading, will determine course, and their watching will correct anything amiss. God bless us with such men. For more study I mention my booklet, The Rule of Elders.  I also recommend the volume of Truth Commentaries by Clinton Hamilton on 1 Peter, both in the comments on 1 Peter 5:1-3, and the appendix on Elders, Bishops, or Pastors.