Truth Magazine

By Steve Klein

The American public’s perception of Christ and Christians is, to say the least, flawed. This fact is of great concern to those of us who believe that men and women must come to truly know Christ if they are to have a hope of eternal salvation.

America’s misapprehension of Christ can, in part, be attributed to the news media. The reason is that the news media fails to cover or miscovers many religious events as well as the effect that religion has on the lives of Americans.

Religion is a major part of life in America, but you could not tell it by the amount of news coverage it gets. Statistical evidence reported in the June 1994 AFA Journal and the August 6-12, 1994 TV Guide attests to this fact. It was reported that 90% of Americans say they believe in God or a higher power, and eight out of ten pray regularly. Money contributed to religion in 1992 equaled $56.7 billion compared to $4 billion spent to attend major league baseball, football, and basketball combined. According to a Gallup Poll, attendance at religious services in 1993 totaled 5.6 billion, about 55 times greater than the total 103-million reported by the three major professional sports leagues. One ABC media executive said, “on any given weekend there are more people in houses of worship than attend major baseball games all year long.” Yet, in 1993, evening TV news shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and PBS offered only 212 stories on religion out of a total of more than 18,000 stories aired.

To add insult to injury, besides the lack of coverage, the stories which are carried by the news media often leave wrong impressions. From the news, one might get the idea that every person with a pro-life conviction based on Scripture is prepared to murder abortion doctors. Or that, anyone who wants the evidence for creationism taught in our public schools is an ignorant, uneducated bumpkin who has never examined the evidence for evolution.

This kind of problem is not really new. The published reports (and thus the public perception) concerning Christ and his followers were off the mark in New Testament times as well. In Matthew 28:13-15, we find that the story told by the guards (that Jesus’ disciples had removed his body “while they slept”) was “commonly reported among the Jews” for years. In Acts 17:5-8, the Jews in Thessalonica claimed that Paul and his companions were “acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king; Jesus.” No doubt, these false reports and others like them skewed the opinions of those who heard them.

There is evidence from outside the Scriptures that this was a pervasive problem in the first and second centuries A.D. Tacitus, a Roman historian who was born about A.D. 52, reported the following: “(Nero) punished with the most exquisite tortures the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also . . . a vast multitude were convicted, not so much of the crime of incendiarism, as of hatred of the human race.”

In his History Of The Christian Church Philip Schaff explains that the common people of the Roman Empire “readily gave credit to the slanderous rumors of all sorts of abominations, even incest and cannibalism, practiced by the Christians at their religious assemblies . . .” The charge of cannibalism resulted from false reports concerning the nature of the Lord’s supper observance.

Public opinion regarding the true nature of Christianity was at least as flawed in New Testament times as it is to-day. What was done about it? The apostles and other New Testament Christians recognized that it was not the job of unbelievers to accurately report the message of Christ. It was theirs. Today, it is not the news media’s job to present an accurate picture of the religion of Jesus Christ to the public. It is ours.

The gospel, the good news, is to be proclaimed to all, so all men might know Christ (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:16). In the days of the apostles, this charge was vigorously carried out. The gospel “was preached to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23). Edward Gibbon, in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, wrote, “When the promise of eternal happiness was proposed to mankind, on condition of adopting the faith and of observing the precepts of the gospel, it is no wonder that so advantageous an offer should have been accepted by great numbers of every province in the Roman empire.”

Our quest, in the words of the Psalmist, is to “Proclaim the good news of His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples” (Psalm 96:2b-3). We can sit back and complain about the slanted misrepresentations of Christianity in the news media, or we can become “lights in the world, holding forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:15b-16a). What are you doing to spread the news?

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 10-11
May 2, 1996

By Mike Willis

Our common experience has shown that brethren do disagree, despite a desire to come to the unity of the Spirit. We are no more likely to eliminate all areas of disagreement than we can eliminate all sins from our lives, de-spite our desire to live godly. Therefore, we are forced to grapple with what our conduct should be toward those with whom we disagree. I would like to make some suggestions for more cordial treatment of one another.

Not All Disagreement Is Bad

One must begin by acknowledging that disagreements are healthy. Christians are not a bunch of mindless drones who yield to the ipse dixit of whoever speaks. The fact that there are disagreements is indicative of the healthy existence of such admiral traits as independent thinking, personal Bible study, and a refusal to submit to any authority except that of Jesus Christ.

Because no one is infallible, we need brethren who challenge what is said to see whether or not it is so. The wise said, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). Unless one is so arrogant as to think that he is infallible, he should give thanks that thinking brethren examine what he teaches to test it in light of the Scriptures. This is a safeguard, not only to others, but also to one’s own salvation. One’s own salvation depends upon his abiding in the truth. Remember the words of Paul: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Although disagreements may be unpleasant on some occasions, they are healthier than the alternatives available to us  mindless submissive to some human authority, such as a pope, council, or creed. Brethren need to adjust their thinking about disagreements among brethren to see them as signs of life and health, rather than seeing them as works of the flesh (although disagreements can degenerate into works of the flesh).

How To Treat One Another When We Disagree

1. We should be willing to discuss our differences. Isaiah invited Israel to a study saying, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18). The Bereans were noble because of their willingness to “search the Scriptures” to see if what was taught was so (Acts 17:11).

When any group reaches the point that its members are unwilling to study  to meet and discuss their differences  division is inevitable. For that reason, Christian people must always remain open to discuss their differences with each other. Historically we have done this. We have invited our Baptist and Methodist friends to sit down and study the Bible together. We have opened our pulpits to debate because we wanted to see discuss our differences, in the belief that the common study of the Bible will bring us together as one. Controversy causes the truth to shine. False doctrine cannot grow where open examination of the things that are taught occurs.

I have been unwilling to provide an audience to close-minded people who are unwilling to listen to what another has to say. Our Jehovah’s Witnesses friends who refuse to take a tract that I offer to them give up any grounds for asking me to listen to anything that they have to say. If they are so close-minded that they will not listen, why should one listen to them?

2. We should listen to what our brother is teaching so that we can accurately reproduce what he believes. One should be able to state his brother’s position in words that he could endorse. If he cannot or does not reproduce what his brother believes, he has misrepresented him and may be replying to a “straw man.” I have read reviews of what I am supposed to believe. If I believed what was attributed to me, I would be opposing me as well.

3. We should accept one’s basic integrity until and unless compelling evidence forces us to believe other-wise. Paul taught that love “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). Basically, this is teaching that brotherly love believes the best about one’s fellowman until evidence points to the contrary, then it hopes for the best in spite of the evidence pointing to the contrary. When brethren disagree, sometimes brethren are quick to “evil surmise” and attribute bad motives to the other. This contributes to further alienation. So long as is possible, we should treat the brother with whom we disagree with honor and respect, believing that our brother for whom Christ died is a man of integrity.

4. We should avoid inflammatory language. There are times that differences are exacerbated by such inflammatory speech as accusing the one with whom we disagree with being a “liar” simply because he sees a point of disagreement differently. We should be hesitant to brand another as a “false teacher,” “heretic,” “sectarian,” and similar epithets. There comes a time to label what another believes as “false doctrine,” but let’s be careful to make rash charges.

5. We should follow the “golden rule.” Jesus said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). Ask yourself how you wish to be treated when a brother disagrees with you, and use that rule to govern how you treat those with whom you disagree. Many years ago, I decided upon the policy of sending manuscripts that express disagreement with what another teaches to those whose doctrines are being reviewed. I began this when I was reviewing the teaching of another. I asked the brother to read the manuscript and let me know whether or not I had misrepresented him in any way. Then I offered him space in the same issue of the magazine to reply to what was being charged. This took extra time and effort, but I was convinced that I had treated him fairly. I have generally tried to follow that rule in subsequent disagreements, whether written by me or others. My thinking is this: if I were being reviewed, I would prefer to know it was coming and have an opportunity to reply to it in the same issue than to be blind sided and only become aware of it when some friend told me about reading it.

Perhaps you can think of other things that could be added to this list, but this should get us started thinking about how to handle our disagreements without further alienating us.

When A Brother Asks to Discuss Our Differences

What else can a Christian say when someone asks him to study about their differences than to say, “I am ready to study”? I have never learned another or better answer than to express my willingness to sit down with my brother, to listen to what he has to say, and to weigh what he says in the light of the Scriptures. We should always remain open to such exchanges. It appears to me that a person who is unwilling to sit down and reason with his brother gives up his right to be heard.

Conclusion

What fate can lie ahead of brethren who refuse to discuss their differences? When the bonds of communication are broken the gap between their thinking will quickly be-come larger. If we do not wish that to happen, men who love Christ and their brethren will work to keep the lines of communication between them open as together they search for unity based on the revealed word of God.

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 2
May 2, 1996

By Connie W. Adams

Four families are now meeting in Geneva in the home of Ignaze Llusea. These families have been a part of the institutional congregation there but have grown increasingly concerned over unscriptural practices which they have opposed without success. Some months ago, brother Llusea translated Walking By Faith by Roy E. Cogdill, from Spanish into French and has conducted a weekly study using that material. These families have ties to either Spain or Chile and through that connection, Efrain Perez of Barcelona, Spain has been called on to help as he has been able to do so. We were invited there in February. Brother Perez came also and interpreted for me into Spanish. Studies included God’s pattern, scriptural authority, history of institutionalism, and the nature and work of the church. We expect to hear of progress in this work.

Progress in Bergen, Norway

We spent a week in February with the church in Bergen, Norway where Tom and Shirley Bunting work along with Terrell and Karen Bunting and their three daughters. The Buntings have spent many years in Norway and have exercised much patience. Terrell and family plan to spend their lives in Norway and already have several years in the work. Having kept up with the work there from its beginning in 1957, I am glad to report that the work in Bergen looks the best I have seen it. They have a good location and have their meeting place attractively arranged. They have space to seat about 40 with three classrooms (one of which doubles as an office) and have their own baptistry. There are five husband and wife sets of members, plus others whose spouses are not Christians. Several times during the meeting we had 100% attendance from the members (and the other times sickness hindered). We had eight different visitors during the meeting, one of whom came four times. Attendance ranged from 16 to 22, most of the time 20-22. They have prepared many tracts in Norwegian and have several different correspondence courses which they have pre-pared especially to meet needs there.

The work in Norway has been slow and at times discouraging. Lesser people than the Buntings would have given up long ago. But they have continued to plant and water and things are looking much better. One of the members, Bjorn Ringdal, interpreted for me when it was necessary. Bjorn was converted by Chuck Durham at Southside in Pasadena, Texas, while an exchange student. He is now married to a faithful Christian.

The cost of living in Norway (all of Scandinavia and most of western Europe) is very high. While gasoline was $4 a gallon in Geneva, we found it $6 a gallon in Bergen. Even public bus transportation is costly. If Terrell Bunting and his family of five rode the bus to services from where they live, it would cost in excess of $150 a week. Food and clothing are equally high. Brethren who support these men and others in that part of the world would do well to keep abreast of actual living costs and not try to determine adequate support by American prices. Ferrell Jenkins has led tours to all parts of the world, including two or three trips to Scandinavia, and says that is the most expensive area to which he has gone.

We rejoice in the progress that has been made and believe the work will continue to grow.

Where Calvin Preached

During our trip to Geneva, we visited the Reformation memorial and the church building where John Calvin preached. It is still in use. It was interesting but also evoked some sadness for me. I remarked to Bobby and to Efrain Perez that I had spent my adult life trying to rescue people from the snares of John Calvin’s doctrine. Total depravity, predestination, limited atonement, the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, and the impossibility of apostasy are still deeply ingrained in the fabric of Protestant denominationalism. Faithful gospel preachers have joined battle with these errors for several hundred years. Much of Protestant evangelicalism is still caught up with various forms of this error. It is at the root of much Baptist error, as well as most of the charismatic movements. Many of the popular writers and preachers of the day are influenced by it. Many gospel preachers have filled their libraries with the writings of those who have imbibed this error. Some of the pro-family, religious conservatives of the day, such as James Dobson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, the Christian Coalition, and others, are deeply influenced by Calvinian theology. Yes, the Reformation monuments are interesting to see, but also places for very sober contemplation.

What Does it Mean?

A little boy went to services with his grandfather and noticed the preacher laid his watch on the stand when he arose to speak. He said, “Grandpa, what does it mean when the preacher takes off his watch and lays it down?” With a twinkle in his eye, Grandpa replied, “Not a thing, son, not a thing.”

Young Men and Writing

Recently I heard a speech in which a reference was made to a young preacher who said he would like to do some writing but was afraid of the brethren. The speaker said, “I could have cried.” I have thought about that a great deal. No doubt, the speaker was warning about brethren being overly critical and quick on the trigger to take issue with someone. But then, writers, both young and old, ought to have a certain fearlessness borne of a conviction that what they have said, or written, is carefully thought out truth. And if it is, then “let the heathen rage” and the brethren too! I began writing when I was young and have no regrets. I have been reviewed and have had my words taken out of context. But as long as any of us can establish what we have to say by a “thus saith the Lord” then what does it matter what others may say? Years ago, I asked Roy Cogdill what was the best defense against a slander or libel suit. He said, “Tell the truth.” Good advice. If younger or older men want to teach the truth in writing, then learn what the Bible says and then teach that. But if they want to experiment with printers ink and deal with speculation, or flirt with or plunge off into some kind of religious error, then they need to know that once they enter the public forum, what they say is subject to review. I don’t know about you, but I would not have it any other way.

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 3-4
May 2, 1996

By Larry Ray Hafley

Mother’s Day is a warm and wonderful civil and social day. All who have been blessed by a godly mother are moved by sweet memories and loving feelings on this day. As we should be thankful every day and not just on Thanksgiving Day, so we should honor “father and mother,” not on their day only, but every day (Eph. 6:1-3).

Many churches will celebrate Mother’s Day, giving more attention to it than to “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). With carnations and corsages, amid applause, they will recognize “the eldest mother in our congregation,” along with the one who has had “the most children.” These same churches sponsor Halloween parties, conduct Easter egg hunts, and pass out candy canes at Christmas, and interrupt worship services to give gifts to the preacher and/or the elders. Every-one smiles and beams with joy and pride.

But it was not always so. When these things first occurred, they were met with wondering bewilderment by a generation which was unaccustomed to such spectacles. However, their initial doubts and fears were eased when they saw their loving mother’s tears. So, they buried their questions and clapped for those who were being honored. Hesitance and reluctance gave way to acceptance. Yes, they took a pinch of bread and a sip of juice, but it was not the Lord’s day. It was Mother’s Day that they observed. “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9).

These churches no longer advertise in their bulletins and on their radio program that “we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent” (1 Pet. 4:11). They no longer say that “we do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names” (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 John 9). No, those are the echoes of an age long for-gotten. Instead, they speak of “This special day here in the life of our church family when we pause to honor” our mothers, our fathers, our graduates, or whatever the occasion may be. “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have be-stowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10, 11). “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, ac-cording to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

Also, these churches no longer issue strong, scriptural protests against the human traditions of Easter and Christmas. Oh, they may mildly disclaim them, but their works give credence to these human traditions which make worship void and vain (Matt. 15:8, 9). Soon, churches which now honor human holy days will begin to dispute and question heavenly ones. Their observances of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day will become more and more elaborate. Meanwhile, their “questions” about “some of our Restoration traditions” (weekly Lord’s supper, music in worship, etc.) will be publicly aired. It is the way error works. It is how denominations are born.

So, today, while we individually observe Mother’s Day, let us re-solve to worship our Lord “in spirit and in truth” (John. 4:24). As my own dear mother reminds me, it is his day and not hers.

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 1
May 2, 1996