Truth Magazine

By Steve Ellis

Wednesday, January 22, 1997, was the 24th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s most shameful and most despicable decision: the legalizing of infanticide in America. While millions of Americans mourned and voiced their opposition to the continuing wanton slaughter of some four thousand babies every day in this nation, others saw this anniversary as an occasion to affirm their support for this barbarity. For example, both the vice-president and the first lady appeared at a meeting of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (a pro-abortion organization) to praise and to encourage those who support this monstrous wickedness.

As expected, the vice-president harshly criticized those who have committed various acts of violence against baby-killing doctors and other abortion clinic personnel. While it is certainly appropriate for our leaders to condemn acts of violence against adults who choose to be involved in the murder of babies, they also should be condemning the vastly more numerous and far more horrible acts of violence being perpetrated against the babies! There is nothing that more forcefully demonstrates the undeniable hypocrisy and inconsistency of the pro-abortion position than for some-one of this persuasion to attempt to denounce violence and sound credible while so doing!

Is it not a despicable act of murderous violence to use a loop-shaped knife to slice a baby’s body to pieces? Is it not a despicable act of murderous violence to kill an innocent baby with forceps or salt poison or surgical scissors? All of these methods are routinely employed to murder over four thousand babies each day in our country. Why are the lives of these babies of so little value compared to the lives of other citizens?

Our society’s stubborn determination to be blind and inconsistent relative to ensuring the safety of children has also been well illustrated by the tremendous amount of attention given in recent months to the issue of the potential threat of air bags to small children riding in the front seats of automobiles. One recent news report stated that, while air bags save some 500 lives per year, by 1998 they could kill one child per week. This is without question a serious matter and worthy of attention, and people need to know about the potential danger and should be given the prerogative to legally disable the passenger-side air bag on their cars if they so choose. But in light of all the professed concern for the potential, accidental air bag-related deaths of up to 52 children per year by 1998, the dire lack of concern for the intentional brutal murder of over 4,000 children per day right now is made even more conspicuous!

It is not realistic to expect the major news networks or the vice-president or the first lady or any other part of the system of evil controlled by Satan to acknowledge these colossal ironies and inconsistencies. However, all of us who truly do value all human life and who truly do abhor all acts of violence and who truly are concerned for the safety of all of America’s children will continue to try to correct our nation’s warped sense of values. Those of us who truly respect God and his will for our lives should constantly pray that he will help our beloved country to recognize and to repent of the enormous evil and inconsistency of abortion, that she might soon cease this self-destruction.

Reprinted with permission from the Knight Arnold News, Knight Arnold Church of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 6 p. 5
March 20, 1997

By Steve Wallace

In Revelation 12:10 Satan is referred to as “the accuser of our brethren.” The word “accuse” is defined, “(1) to charge with, or declare to have committed a crime, (2) to find at fault; to blame . . .” (Webster 14). Sometimes a person is justly accused. However, that is not what is spoken of here.

Do we have any examples of Satan accusing “our brethren before God” (Rev. 12:10)? Yes, we find such in Job 1:6-11; 2:1-6. Job was a good man! God himself testified to this fact. However, it did not matter to Satan. He accused Job anyway. Here we see a true picture of Satan as “the accuser of our brethren.” Satan also tempts mankind. Hence, people can become “accusers of our brethren” and share in the devil’s work.

We see people carrying out the work of the devil in both testaments. Job’s brethren falsely accused him (4:7-9). The Pharisees falsely accused Jesus (Matt. 12:22-24). Among the sins characteristic of the “last days” is that some will be “false accusers” (2 Tim. 3:3). If people can become false accusers, then brethren can become false accusers. The danger that brethren might partake in the devil’s work evidences the need for this study.

Anyone Can Accuse Anyone of Anything!

The Bible teaches that the above point is true. Job said to his accusers in the long ago, “I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul’s stead, I could heap up words against you and shake mine head at you” (16:4). Likewise the Pharisees’ accusation against our Lord shows that anyone is able to dredge up any kind of charge against another (Matt. 12:24).

Today our media has dredged up countless “witnesses” of questionable character and quoted them to the hurt of some public figure. A headline I have before me now reads, “_________accuses ____________ of dishonesty.” I have deleted the names as they are unimportant. Experience with our news media tells us that we could place almost anyone’s name into the blanks, so rampant is the practice of trumping up charges against others. The danger is that, in such an environment as we presently live, brethren might adopt such tactics. In fact, they have.

Let us note some false accusations that have been leveled among brethren. When brethren opposed church contributions to orphans’ homes and “sponsoring churches” in the 1950s and 60s they were accused of being “orphan haters” and “anti-missionary.” More recently, when faithful brethren have taught against fellowshipping those in adulterous marriages or those who teach false doctrine on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, some have accused them of not believing in local church autonomy. (What about when we teach against what Baptists believe about inherited sin? Are we infringing on the autonomy of Baptist Churches?) In the last few years, when some brethren’s teaching on fellowshipping error or influence towards that end was called into question, they accused those who differed with them of having an “inferior motive,” of being “extremists who have their own cause to promote,” and other similarly reckless charges and have therewith stifled Bible study. (Let us all take note that the Bible teaches that only God and the person in question know what motivates that person [1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Cor. 2:11].) Accusations have been based on what part of the country a person is from. Some on the West Coast have prejudicially used the label “southern preacher,” and the term “West Coast preacher” has at times been too broadly used in light of the faithful men doing the Lord’s work in that area of the country. If a brother writes an article that uses Bible teaching to expose sinful practices or erroneous teachings of a brother or brethren in other places, whether in a paper or in the bulletin of the church where he preaches, he is accused of “trying to control the brotherhood” or “trying to make a name for himself.”

A major cause of problems among brethren today is unproven accusations and brethren feeling free to make them. Brethren are doing the work of the devil! What happens when brethren so conduct themselves?

The Effects of Unproven Accusations

1. Such accusations hurt people. Even a child is up-set when accused of something of which he is not guilty. Job’s friends hurt him with their words (Job 16:1-2). Job felt the inward pain that comes to one who is falsely accused as have many brethren today who have faced such accusations.

2. Such accusations hurt people’s reputations. It is evident that Paul’s reputation suffered in the eyes of some of his brethren in the church at Corinth because of false accusations made by his enemies there (2 Cor. 10:2, 10). They apparently even turned Paul’s refusal of support from the church there into an accusation (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7-9; 12:13). This reminds me of a story from modern day America where a public figure was accused of a crime or impropriety and “tried” in the media. He was eventually found not guilty and, upon pronouncement of the verdict, asked the judge, “Now where do I go to get my reputation back?” When we consider what it takes to build a reputation, it is sad to note how a person can be hurt by the false charges of irresponsible people.

3. Such accusations can result in physical harm. Our Lord’s treatment at the hands of the Jewish authorities shows the truthfulness of the above point. He was accused again and again (Matt. 12:24; 26:59-61; Luke 23:3, 10) and though he was found innocent (Luke 23:14), they killed him anyhow! The false charges against Jews of being untermensch (subhuman) and plotting against non-Jewish people made by the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s resulted in the mass killing of millions of them in the 1940s. In our day, who will deny that the rash of black church building fires in our country is not at least partially fueled by the racist accusations made by hateful people? While all hope that accusations made by brethren today would not lead to the bodily harm of those accused, we must admit the possibility in light of the above facts.

4. Such accusations can poison the atmosphere among brethren. We need only look at Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians to see that this point is valid. Because of the charges made against Paul by his enemies at Corinth, he was not able to continue with his work of building up the church there. Rather, a large part of his second letter to the Corinthians was taken up with explanations of his conduct and answers to enemies (cf. 1:12-2:4; 4:2; 7:2; 12:19; chs. 10-12). Brethren can come to believe the worst about their brethren simply by hearing and believing false accusations. Brethren can be motivated by the desire to accuse others (Mark 3:2; John 8:6). False accusations can lead to the severing of relationships among brethren.

Conclusion

Such results as we have listed above ought to cause all to think soberly before blasting off with some wild charge against a brother or believing an accusation made by an-other. Call the brother in question or write him, seek to build bridges, not to destroy them. Remember, anyone can make false accusations about anyone else. God’s people should seek what is true and not be led by idle charges. They should treat others as they would like to be treated (Matt. 7:12) and judge others by their fruits, and not by accusations they have heard (Matt. 7:20; Gal. 2:14). The devil is “the accuser of our brethren.” It is bad enough that he is involved in such activity. God’s people should want no part of the devil’s work.

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

 

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the headline, “Assisted suicide is all about care for the dying,” the following argument for the clinical dispensing of death was made:

“A merciful gentle death when continued life is intolerable is a kindness we routinely extend to pets, point out those who argue for making assisted suicide legal. Do not human beings deserve the same compassion?” (Joan Beck, Houston Chronicle, January 12, 1997, p. 3C).

First, the cases are not parallel. Some men do reach out and ask others to kill them. However, when my parents had to put the dearest dog in the world to death, old “Sam” was not requesting their aid. “Sam” was not seeking to kill him-self. Further, when whales “beach” themselves and apparently seek their own demise, do scientists rush out to “assist” their “suicide” attempt? No, rather, they do every-thing in their power to keep the unfortunate beasts alive. According to the Kevorkian mentality, the scientists ought to run to the beaches and help the whales untie the knot that binds their spirit to the string of life. But do they do that? No. Therefore, the cases are not parallel.

Second, “we routinely” spay and neuter animals to control their reproduction. Do immoral women who “routinely” bear children and increase government welfare rolls “deserve the same compassion”? If not, do the fathers? Farm animals are “routinely” castrated, but even when sex of-fenders ask to be castrated they are not shown “the same compassion.” Liberal engineers of social justice go “hog wild” when someone suggests that an animalistic, sexual predator should be castrated (“natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed”  2 Pet. 2:12). Since “we routinely” castrate certain animals, should these also not be castrated? If not, then down goes the argument which equates putting a horse with a broken leg to “sleep” with the issue of “assisted suicide.”

Third, “we routinely” declaw cats and other animals which destroy property with their claws. Since some human beings use certain of their body’s parts to maim and murder, should “we routinely” show them “the same compassion” and cut off their offending members?

Fourth, “we routinely” make animals our slaves. We feed and shelter them and compel them to serve us. If the fact that “we routinely” put animals out of their misery justifies assisted suicide, does the use we have made of donkeys, oxen, and horses justify human slavery?

Conclusion

When men do not recognize their special creation in the image of God, and when they equate themselves with the beasts of the fields and forests, we may expect them to act and analyze accordingly. Some scientists believe that the more common threads we find between ourselves and the animal world, the better we will understand one another. Such “findings” have been used to justify everything from homosexuality to man’s “natural tendency” to seek multiple sex partners. “We” contracted it from “them.” In other words, “monkey see, monkey do,” is that it? Yes, to them that is it. Sadly, for them, however, that is not all. Judgment awaits (Jude 15)!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 5 p. 22
March 6, 1997

By Weldon E. Warnock

Far too little preaching, teaching, or writing has been done on the rights of a congregation. How long has it been since you heard or read anything along this line? It would be accurate, I surmise, that many churches think they have no God-given rights, no consideration or voice after they have elders. In fact, in some places a few men take it and run with it, never giving the church as a whole any input. Neither the elders nor the men should ignore or always bypass the consideration of the members.

Brethren, the local church has rights and it is duty bound to exercise them. Let us notice some of these rights.

To Choose Officers

Each congregation has the right to choose its own officers. Acts 6:1-7 shows this beyond any doubt. The apostles told the Jerusalem church, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men . . . whom we may appoint over this business” (v. 3). The church did the selecting and the apostles appointed them.

Robert Milligan wrote concerning this matter in Acts 6, “And there were the apostles who knew all the members well, and their respective qualifications, and in whose judgment and impartiality the whole congregation had entire confidence. Surely to the eye of sense and finite reason, the shortest and best way to settle the whole matter would seem to be that the apostles themselves should choose and appoint men to wait on the poor and needy. But no; under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, the apostles thought very differently . . .This one example, then when fairly and fully considered, should really be an end of the whole controversy touching the election of church officers” (The Scheme of Redemption 345-346). J.W. McGarvey said, “We conclude that all church officers were selected by the congregation at large . . . The only certain fact is that the people elected their officers” (The Eldership 73).

George W. DeHoff stated, “That forever (commenting on Acts 6:3, WW) sounds the death knell of any hope of any state headquarters of any presiding elders, or presiding preacher selecting any kind of officers in any congregation of the church but rather the New Testament teaches that the power to select officers is in the church itself . . . The church selects its own functionaries for any purpose whatsoever . . . It is not right for a preacher to come in and say, ‘I’11 select so and so for your officers and here they are’. . . It is not right for the elders of the church to get off in a huddle and say, `We’ll select so and so for an elder and put him in  there he is’ … It is not right for a handful of church members to get off in the corner and say, `We’ll pick out so and so and then tell the church’. . . The church must select its own officers” (Gospel Sermons 270-271).

In his excellent book on elders and deacons, H.E. Phillips wrote, “In some places it has been known that the elders in office took full charge of selecting and appointing those who were to serve with them, or in appointing themselves to the work. Many objections may be offered to this method. To begin with there is no Bible teaching that shows any elder had charge of his own appointment to the office, or he so acted to appoint another. This would prove to be an unwise procedure because it would tend to form a clique in the oversight. Elders may select some easily controlled .. . the only example we have places the duty of selecting on the number of disciples (Acts 6:3). Choosing other men to be elders or deacons does not fall in the class of elders’ duty. It is neither their duty to decide when men should be appointed as elders, nor who shall be appointed” (Scriptural Elders and Deacons 246). Yes, the church is to choose its own officers

To Remove Officers

The congregation that selects and appoints its elders and deacons, also has the right to remove them from office if they become disqualified. Men can become immoral, inactive in duty, or other circumstances while elders and need to removed if they will not step down on their own. If such becomes the case the church may remove them, yea, must remove them from office.

E.L. Flannery stated, “The church has the right, if reason or Scripture demands it, to remove elders from their appointment. If their judgment, when guided by the Bible, enables them to properly decide who of their membership shall serve as elders, why should it be considered improper for the very same people, with the very same Bible to be able to remove the eldership from any who neglect, or be-come disqualified for that work? No organization on earth fails to provide legal means for the removal from office those officials who disqualify themselves by inability or in other ways” (Let Brotherly Love Continue 7)that can select a man as an elder can remove him as an elder … There is just as much scripture for firing an elder as there is for firing a preacher and we do that every time we get ready . . . The next verse that says something about firing a preacher tells exactly how to fire an elder and I am amazed that anybody would run around talking about, `If you are once an elder, you are always an elder.’ That is not true” (Ibid., 272).

Of course, scriptural elders are to be esteemed and respected by the congregation (1 Thess. 5:13). The Bible also says, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account” (Heb. 13:17). Thank God for good elders.

To Be Informed

Every congregation has the right to know what is going on. Many times, the business meetings are conducted and the members that are not present are never informed of the transactions. Reports from preachers that the church is helping to support may be read by a few (elders, deacons, preacher), but the church is not told about it. The reports are not posted on the bulletin board. Some elders never let the church know the financial condition of the church. No report is ever given. It is kept secret. However, in recent years we are doing a lot better in this area. Anyway, the church has a right to know where the money is being spent.

Information that relates to the congregation or concerns the congregation should be disclosed to the congregation. Sometimes a congregation is never told who the preacher is going to be until it is time for him to move in. The pulse of the church should be felt when hiring a preacher. All are helping support him and all of them have to listen to him. The attitude “It’s none of the congregation’s business” is a sorry attitude.

The Bible teaches that the church was informed in New Testament days. When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their first preaching tour, we read, “And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27).

The church at Jerusalem was in attendance at the Jerusalem conference because it concerned all those disciples. When Paul, Barnabas, and other brethren came from Antioch to Jerusalem and “they were received of the church, and of the apostles, and of the elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them” (Acts 15:4, cf. verses 22-28).

Quoting George DeHoff again, “The same power that can make a man an elder can unmake him . . . The church Remember that the church is God’s heritage (1 Pet. 5:3). Although the elders have authority to oversee, the deacons the authority to serve, and the preacher the authority to preach the word, the church has its God-given rights, too.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 6 p. 1
March 20, 1997