Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In Psalm 58, David brings his complaint to God against those rulers in Israel who allowed Saul’s unjust assault against him to continue. He wrote, “Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge uprightly among men? No, in your heart you devise injustice, and your hands mete out violence on the earth” (58:1-2, NIV).The context of his complaint is described by Adam Clark as follows:

Saul having attempted the life of David, the latter was obliged to flee from the court, and take refuge in the deserts of Judea. Saul, missing him, is supposed by Bishop Patrick to have called a council, when they, to ingratiate themselves with the monarch, adjudged David to be guilty of treason in aspiring to the throne of Israel. This being made known to David was the cause of this Psalm (402-403).

The leaders of Israel should have spoken the truth to Saul. They should have told him that David had been faithful as Saul’s servant. He won a significant victory over the Philistines when he defeated Goliath. He was such a successful leader in Saul’s army that the women sang his praises. In all of his conduct, David had acted honorably as Saul’s servant. Instead, these rulers apparently encouraged Saul’s suspicious jealousy of David and charged that he was guilty of treason. When David spoke to Saul following his cutting off the hem of Saul’s garment at En-gedi, he said, “Wherefore hearest thou men’s words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt?” (1 Sam. 24:9).

The Jewish commentator, Rabbi Sampson Raphael Hirsch adds these words about the psalm:

It contains a reproach directed at those who, by virtue of their high position and station, should have deemed it their duty to intervene, both in word and in action, to put an end to the evil done in the land but who, instead, have kept complacently silent in the face of widespread lawlessness. David feels that, because of their complacency, they share in the guilt for all the evil that is done within their jurisdiction. If all the good men who condemn evil in their hearts were to rise up openly against evil both by word and by action, most of the crimes that have been perpetrated in this world would never have been committed (The Psalms 396).

Writing on Psalm 58:3, he frankly said, “David declares, `You of whom it would be expected that you act and speak out against evil, commit a crime simply by not attempting to stop the evil acts of others’ (397-398). This establishes a clear biblical principle which we need to consider both with reference to our society and to the church. When those who have the ability to do something to stop evil sit in silence, they are culpable for the crimes that are committed. The Mosaical Law stated it like this: “Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt” (Lev. 19:17). Let’s consider some applications of this principle.

In Society

The more familiar one becomes with the crimes committed by the Nazi’s against the Jewish community, the more he is moved to ask why the morally upright people in that society sat back and did little or nothing, allowing Hitler to continue his pogrom of the Jews. There must have been high ranking generals, lieutenants, governors, mayors of major cities, and others who, at one point in time, could have done something to stop the progression of destruction. There were some people in that society who did what they could under those circumstances to save those who mercilessly were being put to death, placing themselves in grave personal danger. Appropriately, they have been applauded as heroes.

As I think about the crimes being perpetrated in our society, I ask myself, “Have I done enough to stop the slaughter of the innocent, unborn babies in the abortion clinics in America?” There was a time when enough righteous people speaking up, enough powerful political figures in positions of authority, could have stopped what is now an accepted practice in our country. I think also of those liberal judges who have allowed criminals to be released in society to commit their crimes again and again because of their aversion to capital punishment. Have we done enough to protect the innocent? Are we culpable because of our uninvolvement in the political process?

Among Our Liberal Brethren

The principle that righteous people can sit back and do nothing when crimes are committed is equally true about spiritual crimes. Godly brethren become culpable when they do nothing when wickedness occurs in the church. I have witnessed the righteous sit in silence while strong-willed brethren destroyed the unity of a local church, trying to become the rulers of the congregation. The “silent majority” in such cases is culpable. They should have stopped the wickedness of the factious.

Max Lucado: Today is the first day you ever prayed a prayer like that. Could you do me a favor? Could you write me a letter? I don’t have anything I am going to ask from you. I do have a letter I am going to send you, I’d like to give you a word about the next step or two. I want to encourage you to find a church, I want to encourage you to be baptized, I want to encourage you to read your Bible. But, I don’t want you to do any of these things to be saved. I want you to do all of them because you are saved. You see, your Father has a great life planned for you, and I want to tell you about it. Give us a call, and drop me a note. And, thanks for making the greatest decision of your life. I’ll be back Monday, hope you will be too.

The tragedy is not that one preacher has apostatized from the truth, which is a tragedy itself. The real tragedy in what is happening among our liberal brethren is that the majority of them are saying nothing to oppose his error, continuing to use him in meetings, recommending his books, and otherwise supporting him. If a significant number of those who are in positions of authority would speak up and refuse to accept the one who has gone beyond the doctrine of Christ, the leavening influence of his apostasy could be stopped. However, the influence is spreading and will continue to spread. Preachers, elders, and other teachers who are keeping silent share in the culpability for the apostasy.

Among Us

What is true about the spread of false doctrine among our liberal brethren is equally true about its spread among us. In recent years, we have had several brethren publish books asserting that Matthew 19:9 (“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”) is not applicable to all men today. They argue theft position from a variety of presuppositions.

We should not be surprised that a few brethren would conform to the society around us and teach loose views on divorce and remarriage, although it is tragic to see brethren apostatize. However, the greater tragedy is witnessing how brethren react when influential men who, by their own ad-mission, have accepted and are propagating these loose views. Rather than speaking out about the false doctrine they are preaching, they sit in silence, continue to arrange up the opportunity. The number is 1-800-822-WORD. Next week, we will take a break from our series titled “The Great House of God,” giving way to an uplifting selection of holiday lessons specifically designed to help you grow stronger in your faith. As with today’s study, each of these lessons is available on extended audio cassette. The title of this week’s series, “When Your Heart Needs a Father.” Every tape contains an additional bonus message from Max on the reverse side. Cost is just $5 for each additional cassette. Max Lucado returns with a special word for those who received the gift of salvation just moments ago in prayer.

The same is true about the teaching of false doctrine. Men who know the truth sometime sit back and say nothing when men who have chosen not to abide within the doctrine of Christ are spreading their error. That is happening among our liberal brethren right now. A transcription of Max Lucado’s radio sermon in which he takes the Baptist position on baptism (baptism is not essential to salvation) is being circulated. In that sermon, Lucado said,

You can be sure that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor ruling spirits, nothing now and nothing in the future, no powers, nothing above us, nothing below us, not any-thing else in the world will ever be able to separate us from the love of god that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. You see, in God, by virtue of your adoption, you have a divine affinity, you have eternal security, and you have a golden opportunity. I cannot imagine an orphan turning down an opportunity to be adopted. With one decision, with one raising of a hand, with one agreement to leave the orphan-age, that person all of a sudden goes from being abandoned to being claimed, from having no name to a new name, no future to a new future, he leaves the orphanage, and enters the house of the Father. That’s what God offers you. No quiz, no examination. All you have to do is to say “yes” to the Father. And many of you have done that. But I have a hunch that not all of you have. I have a hunch that there are a few of you listening, eve now, and God is using this to pull on your heart. The Holy Spirit is informing you of something you have never really heard before  that is, that God is ready to be your Father. Maybe you never understood that the invitation was for everyone. Maybe you thought you were unworthy. Maybe now you do understand. God will make you worthy, and the invitation is for you. All you have to do is to call Him Father. Just call Him Father. Just turn your heart to Him right now as I am speaking. And your Father will respond. Why don’t you do that?

“Father, I give my heart to you. I give you my sins, I give you my tears, I give you my fears, I give you my whole life. I accept the gift of your Son on the cross for my sins. And I ask you, Father, to receive me as your child. Through Jesus I pray, Amen.”

Announcer: And friend, if you prayed along with Max Lucado just now, here at UPWARDS, we want to welcome you into the family of God. We hope you will contact us and share your personal testimony. If you are already a believer, we thank you for praying for these new brothers and sisters in Christ. Because Christmas is an excellent time to receive God’s gift of salvation, and whether you are a new believer or a veteran of the faith, Max Lucado has prepared an uplifting new printed resource. He has titled it “When Angels Came Down.” You will want a copy for yourself or perhaps share it with a loved one about whom you may be concerned spiritually. With your December donation of any amount to UPWARDS, you may request a personal copy. The place to write is UPWARDS, Box 5860, San Antonio, TX 78201. Or, if you like, you may phone us toll free for added convenience, and it would certainly speed praise these men for their contributions to the cause of Christ. They also publicly and privately criticize those brethren who have refuted the false doctrines being promoted by those with loose views on divorce and remarriage. Some have even entered pulpits and/or written articles to justify an on-going fellowship with those who are teaching what they are admitting are loose views on divorce and remarriage. Such men are culpable for the apostasy that their silence allows to spread.

There was a time when men in positions of influence could have spoken up and stopped the leavening influence of this error among us. The leaven is spreading among us and the time when it can be stopped is quickly passing away. Those who do nothing share the blame for its spread among us.

Conclusion

David’s rebuke of the influential men in his day who could have stopped Saul’s crimes and did not contains a lesson for us, with reference to both the society in which we live and the church. Remember the words of Leviticus 19:17  “Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt” (Lev 19:17, MV). Will you be one of those who helped stop the liberal trends that are developing among us or one whose silence allows the continued progress of evil?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 22 p. 2
November 20, 1997

By Cecil F. Cox

We hear much today about those who are anti-cooperation. This is a charge that is usually leveled against those who are opposed to the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation. This is, of course, a false and prejudicial charge. To be “anti-cooperation” would be to oppose congregations cooperating. So the charge of anti-cooperation is a charge that is not true of any faithful church. We believe in the kind of cooperation that is taught in the New Testament. Brother H. Leo Boles put it so well when he said,

Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches never the less are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission (Gospel Advocate, January 28, 1932, 114).

Yes, my brethren, we can and do cooperate with other churches without supporting unscriptural projects.

We have some brethren who themselves admit that they are non-cooperative. I have a book in my library entitled New Testament Churches of Today, Vol. 1. In this book there are some 873 congregations listed with information about each one. Among the questions asked is this one, “Do you engage in congregational cooperation in preaching the Gospel?” Among the answers which were given in reply are “yes,” “when possible,” and “no.” Please note, there are congregations, by their own admission, that do not en-gage in congregational cooperation. Therefore, we could rightly refer to them as non-cooperative. But I’m sure that they would object to this. They would possibly explain that what they mean is that they do not contribute to a “sponsoring church” arrangement of some kind to do their work of preaching the gospel. Isn’t it strange that if a congregation wants to be referred to as one who believes in and practices congregational cooperation that it must make a contribution to an arrangement which is not found in the New Testament? If you oppose it, you are an anti-cooperative. If you do not contribute, then you are non-cooperative. Let it be remembered that churches in the first century believed in and practiced congregational cooperation hundreds of years before the “sponsoring church” set-up ever came into existence. As they did, so can we. God forbid, that just because faithful churches do not surrender their funds to another congregation to preach the gospel, that we are anti-cooperative or non-cooperative in the work of preaching the gospel.

This reminds me of some things that happened during the “society controversy” back in the 1800s. Back then, those who did not “line up” with the Missionary Society were called anti-mission. They did not believe in preaching the gospel, according to those who were supporters of the Society. On November 27, 1865 Thomas Munnell wrote a letter to David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, concerning the Gospel Advocate. He said, “I am told that anti-mission (emphasis mine, CFC) is to be one feature of the Advocate” (Earl West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 2, 68). Along this same line W.K. Pendleton said, “Let men who have missionary work . . . take counsel together .. . and let us not be disturbed, or distracted in our work, byoutside railers, who seem to rejoice in nothing so much as their own success in preventing the preaching of the gospel” (emphasis mine, CFC) (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 33, 255). Such charges as “anti-mission” and “pre-venting the preaching the gospel” were false charges and were resented by Lipscomb and others who stood for the truth.

Today brethren are branded as anti-cooperation because they oppose a society composed of the elders of a congregation and generally called a sponsoring church. If one opposes the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation, he is against churches cooperating is the conclusion that some reach. But, such a conclusion is absurd. It is not any more logical than the conclusion that if one opposes a man made missionary society, he is anti-mission.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 21-22
November 6, 1997

By W.G. “Bert” Enostacion

The values on what our Lord Jesus imparted in Matthew 16:24, was a simple “detachment” from self as the way to happiness that lasts. If we want to keep a warm and healthy relationship with others, we should adopt another axiom instilled by the Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:1-5, that of putting others first and placing ourselves last. Paul pleaded, “. . . let this mind be in you as also in Christ Jesus!”

Just very recently, Kenneth Marrs in one of his sorties around, admonished, “. . . when we are faced with a choice, we choose for ourselves the worst, leaving the best for others.” His piece of advice runs counter to modern attitudes of brethren, which drive people to keep on asking, “what is in it for me?” before getting involved in anything or before giving anything away.

For us to be happy, we do need to give ourselves away, a simple but vivid application on what our Lord said as “self denial.” The Chinese proverb about lifetime happiness and the Christian virtues of “taking up one’s cross,” tells us the same basic message: to give of ourselves and to be detached of ourselves are the sure way towards lasting happiness. Detachment first applies to material things for ourselves.

They are basic and necessary, but we cannot be avaricious of them, for putting our heart on them, and counting on them as the measure of the success of our life would leave us holding on to wealth that slips inexorably out of our hands; moreover, it leaves our hearts empty and our spirits in a void.

Neither can we put our fate on the accumulation of honors, praises of lips, and symbols of fame and adulation by the masses; neither on the self-satisfaction of good feelings and of self-pride; neither on the dominion and “lordship” over others of our ideas and preferences. Like wealth, honor, emotions, power and glory pass, many times sooner than we like to imagine. They may all be vital and important, up to a point. But we cannot be so attached to them that we are blinded from the pursuit of the good of others; for it is this noble pursuit, which makes us fly away from the narrow cage of self, which also makes us bigger, far better and happier!

The Need of Generosities and Understanding

It is by going out of ourselves, to the family, to friends and most of all, “unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10; 1 John 3:16-18), that we broaden our horizons and expand our field of vision and interest. We see and treat our brethren not as “stepping stones” to the satisfaction of our appetites, lusts, and pride as well as to the realization of our ambitions as with regards to those who have possessed the “crab mentality”; but rather, as objects of love and affection, in whom we can invest our variable time and generosities Thus, we make ourselves available to them. We look for equal time to them. We give ways by which we can steal a piece of heaven for them even whilst they are here on earth with us. Through small details of service, we try and build up ever bigger positive reserves in the “spirit of Christ” for the spirit of peace. How long we have been separated from each other? I don’t want to think of it.

We manage to keep our relations with them always warm, full of attention and affection. Good feelings can be sustained only by concrete expressions of warm and tender caring; to reinforce their strengths; to give in to their lives; to draw them out particularly when they are feeling down; to help them in their struggles to be better. Often, we have to put ourselves in their place, and then to practice the “Golden Rule” of doing to them what we would want others to do unto us. In this way, we will always be positive and creative, knowing that others go through changes of circumstance and therefore are in need for help, advice and emotional reinforcement.

We cannot love others with our heart alone. We also have to give them a piece of our mind and share of our spirit. By taking a deep interest in their changing circumstances, we show genuine understanding of the predicament they may find themselves in. When they have gotten off the main road, we feel sorry and feel their frustration (1 Cor. 12:26), and with compassionate love, delicacy, and patience we ex-tend a guiding hand if and when they decide to make a turn and get back on to the right track. When they slow down their pace of improvement on the gospel efforts, we can show them how to catch up and take on a more healthy speed, with love and comfort. Always we ex-tend to them a sincere friendship that never fades nor wavers, good examples that inspire, benevolent hands that share, and many possible grace from our prayers that uplift.

Our Need of Openness and Sincerity

Divisions destroy a nation; factions create hatred and stimulates by envy and jealousy! The Apostle Paul laid down some thoughts in 1 Corinthians 6:7 to “suffer yourselves to be defrauded!”

Friendship keeps us ever open to family, friends, and brethren. We are transparent to them. We keep that attractive simplicity in our feelings for unity among all and peace with no reproach. We let them know where we stand, how we feel, and why we draw the line of importance and essential points. Within proper bounds, we keep no secrets from all and the less barriers we allow to stand between them and ourselves, the better the flow of communication, the easier the over-all relationship.

Ordinarily, we speak out of our mind. We tell the truth. We remove as much guile as possible from our interaction with them. Our “no” is a real negative reply, and our “yes” connotes nothing other than real affirmations. We know how to stand our ground and take whatever consequences it may for doing so. We state our opinions always clearly and politely, and we are smart enough to distinguish the many points where we can easily change our mind after listening to others, and the few essential points where we cannot give in, not even by an inch, because principles and convictions of faith are involved.

Our oneness to family, to friends, and to our dear brethren, makes us readily submit to their opinions, preferences, and wishes. We do not hang on to our own as though these are all carved in stone before which everyone else must bend. Indeed, part of the excitement of life lies in the diversity and differences presented to us by others whom we put our trust and confidence without any mixture of animosity. We certainly can enrich our life by picking and choosing those many elements, better than the ones we started out with, from this rich menu of peace, love and genuine understanding, coming from our Lord into ourselves.

Conclusion

We trust that those brethren in our midst who nourish axes to grind to learn from this thesis. Submitting to others in this regard does not make us smaller, poorer, or worse off; however, taking up our own “Cross” is far better. Such humility only raises us to a much higher level, where we end up bigger, richer in spirit (matured!) and far more wiser.

We noted a jubilant Jim McDonald after witnessing a joyful embrace of brethren, who for long stayed in opposite direction, with teary eyes he said: “Bert, its a good day today.” It really is! It’s a victory for peace and unity! As the Psalmist penned, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1).

Now once again, brethren could renew their relationship and could work hand-in-hand in fellowship with one an-other again. The once lost love and affection with each one has been obtained for good toward the Master for the gospel for a better tomorrow. Then and only then, can we count our faith as matured and our work as progressive  today and in the coming new millennium and beyond.

Brethren, for the sake of unity, why not inhale “the spirit of peace?” It’s the only fat that is non-fattening! Amen!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 17-18
November 6, 1997

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Recently, I have been asked several times what I thought about Romans 14. I have read a lot of what has been written (including various commentaries) and have heard some preaching on the subject lately in view of the marriage-divorce question. I have yet to hear or read any exegesis of this chapter that totally satisfies my mind. While I believe that I have a general idea of the kind of things it is dealing with, I still have a few lingering questions concerning the explanation and application of the chapter.

For example, I am not nearly as sure as some that Romans 14 is not dealing with any matters that pertain to “the faith.” The very first verse speaks of those weak “in the faith.” It is the same expression as in Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5; etc., where it is clear that “the faith” refers to the system of faith. I may write more on this later.

While I may not be sure of all that may or may not belong in this chapter, I am sure of one thing  Romans 14 does not cover adulterers, fornicators, and the like. I wrote the following under the title that heads this article in the August 1989 issue of The Reflector, a church bulletin which I edited at the time, and have seen no reason to change my mind since then:

The Divorce-Remarriage issue has heated up a bit in recent months, especially since it has been widely publicized that a well-known, well-respected and well-liked brother is among those that teach that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to non-Christians. Hence, one may have been divorced (for any reason) and remarried any number of times before becoming a Christian and upon becoming a Christian remain in the marriage he happens to be in at the time  because Matthew 19:9 did not apply to him in his days of alienation. This idea has been around for some time now in rather isolated instances, but has not received such widespread attention among “conservative” brethren until rather recently. It has left some brethren wondering out loud what to do about it.

Of course, those who agree with the position have little problem with what to do about it. Just leave them alone and let them freely teach and/or practice it without interference from those who disagree with their doctrine. It is among those who disagree with the doctrine that the problem comes.

One solution, that has been given rather wide-spread editorial attention, is to make it parallel to the things mentioned in Romans 14  things which we are to “let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (v. 5), with each practicing his personal convictions, without either judging or setting at naught the other (v. 3). We are told, and we agree, that there are areas where brethren have practiced this principle over the years  the covering, military service, etc. In each case the things involve the individual and his conscience before God and not the collective action of the church. We are urged to treat the problems surrounding Matthew 19:9 in the same fashion. Judging from some of the published amen-type responses to the editorializing, the idea may be getting rather wide support even among those who say they do not agree with the position.

Nearly all of us agree that sincere brethren may study passages and reach different conclusions without it having to become an “issue” among brethren. While one may be rather confident that his conclusion is correct, and be conscientiously forced to personally live by that conclusion and even share his conclusion with others under proper circumstances, he recognizes the possibility that he could be wrong in his reasoning, so he must allow others the same right to live by their conclusions.

However, in the case of Matthew 19:9 the conclusion is explicitly spelled out by revelation. What about any person (“whoever”) who divorces for any cause, other than fornication, and remarries? What is the conclusion of this matter? He “commits adultery,” if words mean anything at all. If he “commits (or is committing, a continuing or repetitive action, as the tense of the verse suggests) adultery,” then what should brethren do about it? Again the conclusion is explicitly stated by revelation. In 1 Corinthians 5, we read instructions as to what is be done about “sexual immorality” (all agree that adultery falls into that category). Such ones are to be `judged” (v. 3, 12-13) and then “delivered … to Satan” (v. 5) “purged out” (v. 7), “not kept company with” (v. 11), and “put away” (v. 13), by faithful brethren.

Further, the conclusion is clearly stated that the church cannot “allow (“suffer”  KJV) (one) to commit sexual immorality” nor can it allow one to teach others to do so. (See Rev. 2:20).

In view of all of this, we should not force Matthew 19:9 into Romans 14.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 20-21
November 6, 1997