Truth Magazine

One day a neighbor came to our door with a Bible in hand which his mother had given him. He had been crying. He told me that he had just learned that his mother had died. He said that his mother had wanted him to start going to church, that he didn’t know much about it, but his mother had given him the Bible shortly before she died. This neighbor was a very worldly man, having a rough background which included drugs, alcohol, and immoral lifestyle. I had tried previously to get him to go to church with us and to have a Bible class. Hee had previously re fused. But on this day he was. ready to try. We began to study the Bible and after a few sessions and his attendance at church, he was baptized. As he came up out of the water, he had tears in his eyes and said, “I don’t know much about this. You will have to treat me like a baby.” I reassured him by telling him that the Lord now considers him a babe in Christ, a child of God – his child. He got a large grin on his face and said “I am his child. That’s great! In the days after his baptism, we studied the Bible and prayed together. He and I did not have the same back-ground but now we had Jesus in common. I began to write “I Am His Child” shortly afterward.

However, some grow weary and pursue sin. About four months later, this new brother slipped back into sin for a moment’s reckless folly. One afternoon he became intoxicated, grabbed his truck keys, drove one mile to a shopping center to purchase some liquor. When he came out of the liquor store, he got into an argument with a man over how he had parked. The man, claiming to be afraid, drove to his home, got his gun, came back and shot my new brother three times as he sat in his truck. He died instantly. I was asked to identify the body at the morgue, an experience I will never forget. The thought occurred to me that here was a man broken by sinful living who, for a short time, was mended and whole. I wrote “Mended and Whole” after performing a memorial service for one who had not learned to follow the Savior in the control of his anger and paid dearly for it.

My father died on the Lord’s day in 1980. My mother died ten years later. They had lived most of their years in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee. Dad had served as a deacon and later as an elder during a difficult time in middle Tennessee, 1940s-1950s. He was a quiet man who became vocal when the situation called fora stand for truth. He was known as a song leader, often leading singing at gospel meetings. Our home was a gathering place for preachers and others who discussed “issues,” My mother taught Bible classes and insisted that we study our Bible lessons on Saturdays before going out to play. She also would sing hymns throughout the day and at bedtime.

I believe the first time I became aware that Jesus would be coming back for his people was from her singing, “When He Cometh.” Both Dad and Mom “went about doing good” in humble, quiet service. Dad often prayed, “Wear us out in thy service, and when thou art done with us here, give us a home with thee in heaven.” After Dad died, I began to think about his attitude to work while he waited in the kingdom of Christ. Over the next decade I worked on the lyrics which then became, When The King Comes to Claim Even Me.

A good personal, family friend, Tommy Hagewood, who preached at the Locust Street church of’ Christ in Mr. Pleas-ant, performed Morn’s funeral and graveside service. After the funeral Tommy asked me if I had ever thought about writing a song about Christian families. I said I hadn’t, but on the plane back from Tennessee, I penned the words to “Led. By The Savior’s Hand” While others will sometimes be critical of those of us who were “born and raised in the 0church, “‘I praise and thank my God for such a blessing!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 19
August 15, 1996

By Louis J. Sharp

Much is being written and spoken concerning worship we offer to God. From the January 1996 issue of the Christian Chronicle we offer two quotes as specific examples:

Among churches of Christ today many questions are being asked, and disputes sometimes are being raised, about worship. These questions generally focus on methodology rather than theology. “How shall we worship?” rather than “why and whom shall we worship?” And the answers to these questions seem to cluster around two poles, each of which turns out to be anthropocentric: Either “We should worship as we have always done”  “three songs and a prayer, using hymn books and a pitch pipe, with the Lord’s Supper always preceding the sermon,” or “We should worship in innovative, pleasing ways” “with new, upbeat praise-songs, using overhead projectors and being led by a Praise-team, with a short positive message delivered in the best televangelistic style” (Paul Watson, Essays on Worship Challenge us to Think about its Purpose, 22).

Worship is today’s hot topic. Suggestions for improving worship include making it more interesting, more emotional, and more varied. But each of these can be good or bad. To make worship more interesting by a better sermon, thoughtful song selection, or helpful comments before communion is good. To create interest through entertainment, however, is to change the basic purpose of worship from communication with God to performance for man (Stafford North asks, “Where do we go from here in public worship?” Elder and Educator, 20).

These two examples express concern as well as foment, in the thinking of many brethren. There seems to be general unhappiness and dissatisfaction as to our past practices in our worship.

Demands are being heard:

 There must be a change!

We are failing our children!

They will not worship as we always have!

 We need new and improved ways to worship God!

What is worship? How would you define it? Have we missed the mark in our attempts to worship God? Why must we always be in a state of flux? Why so much discontent? Why so many iconoclasts seeking to overthrow our standard of worship?

A little research reveals that there are at least fifteen words in the Hebrew and Greek that have been translated “worship, worshiping, worshiped, worshipers” in our English Bible. These words are variously translated as: (1) “to bow down, do obeisance,” (2) “to do, serve,” (3) “glory, esteem,” (4) “to be reverential, pious,” (5) “to kiss (the hand) toward,” and others. From these definitions we learn that our worship is offered to God, not for man. It is to be in harmony with the divine will, not ours. It must be with “sincerity” and “in truth” (John 4:24).

We sympathize with those who are concerned about “unspiritual” and “unemotional” worship. The advice of brother North to prepare “better sermon(s)” and have “thoughtful song selection(s)” is something we have worked on for years. But never have we attempted to compete with the televangelists with their worldly, entertainment style presentations, nor do we intend to do so now. The “upbeat, praise songs may be good for the dance floors, (and those who use them do dance and clap their hands) but not as respectful, reverent worship offered to the Almighty.

There will continue to be those who cry out for change, even after some of these “popular” changes have been implemented. There will be dissatisfaction with the “new style.” Their clamor and cries for change will call for still further changes. As for me, I shall continue to search out “the old paths,” and be content to “walk therein” (Jer. 6:16).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 19
August 1, 1996

By Tom Kelton

Criticism is often a gift from someone who knows what you have done wrong and is kind enough to tell you about it. When this is the case the critic is your best friend. At other times critics are wrong and the latest critic is not necessarily the truest prophet. Such was the case with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

When Abraham Lincoln delivered a five-minute speech dedicating a soldier’s cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 1863, his talk drew little attention from the journalists of his day, except those who criticized it as being unworthy of the solemn occasion. The major New York paper noted the President’s speech, but did not discuss it. It had praise, however, for the dedication prayer and the operation of the principal speaker of the occasion, Edward Everett. Another New York paper merely reported that a few remarks were delivered by the President, and gave the short speech without comment. A Philadelphia paper gave more attention to the fact that there were a number of dead horses lying about the battlefield than they did to Lincoln’s speech.

Some papers criticized the speech bitterly. A Chicago paper called it an insult to the memory of the men who had died on the battlefield. A Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, paper said: “We pass over the silly remarks of the President.” The American correspondent for the London times wrote: “Any-thing more dull and commonplace it would not be easy to produce.” Only a few writers had kind words for Lincoln’s speech. Perhaps the most significant thing said about it was by a writer in Harper’s Weekly, who did not sign his name. He wrote: “The few words spoken by the President of the United States were from the heart to the heart.” In spite of all this criticism, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is today hailed as one of the greatest speeches ever given.

Lincoln had a philosophy toward criticism that carried him through the dark, troubled days that he faced during his life. “If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep on doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, then what is said against me won’t matter. If the end brings me out wrong, then ten an-gels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

When we are troubled with criticism that we think is unjust we could profit from thinking about these events in the life of Lincoln.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 25
August 1, 1996

By H.E. Phillips

Every time I see or hear of this I think of the scene the Lord gave of the judgment in Matthew 25. He said the treatment one gives to “one of the least of these my brethren” is the treatment given to the Lord. You just remember this: what you do (or do not do) to the brethren, you do to the Lord.

That feeling of disgust becomes more loathsome when I see some brother unduly honored, praised and bowed to as if he were an emperor, and for no reason other than that he is rich, popular, highly educated academic-wise, and socially or politically powerful. The political maneuvering, financial mergers, and social alliances are avenues by which many seek to have others respect their persons, or they seek to express their respect of the persons of others.

I can imagine someone saying, “That writer is trying to make himself a champion of the poor and less fortunate among brethren,” or “He is envious and jealous of those who are more fortunate and more popular than he.” Nothing is further from the truth on both counts. There is no special virtue and purity or literacy, and there is no special evil and impurity about wealth, fame and academic attainment. It is as disgusting to me to see the poor and less educated look with disdain upon those who have worked hard to acquire wealth and education as it is in reverse. The extremes in wealth, popularity, educating, etc., have nothing to do with how onebrother ought to treat another. This is the very point of this lesson. Men ought not to be judged and respected upon their persons, but upon what their lives are as measured by the word of God.

Let me give the reason why I abhor the abuse of some and the unearned praise and honor of others. To show respect of persons means to accept (or reject) one upon the basis of who he is or what he has. It means “acceptance of faces” or persons; to receive or reject one on appearance or recognition of his person alone.

The matter of showing “respect of persons” is mentioned nine times in the New Testament: five times of God and four times of men. In each of the five passages relating to God it is affirmed that He is no respecter of persons and the areas where he does not respect persons are given. But in the four verses where showing “respect of per-sons” relates to man they show the very nature of the sin and where it leads. Three verses are found in James 2 and one in Jude. This respect of persons is unjust and unfair in the measurement of a man; it makes man a judge of others by his own standard and ignores God’s standard of right and wrong, and the word of God says it is sinful. This pits the truth against the person. If I respect the person I tend to “bend” the truth to make it conform to the per-son. But if I honor God and his truth I will strive to persuade the person to conform to truth. He then deserves respect, not because of his person, but because of his obedience to the truth.

We are taught to be like Christ. All who believe the Bible believe God to be perfect in every sense. If God does not respect the person of any man, it must right, merciful, just, holy, and Christ-like to show respect to no man’s person. If we learn to do this the law of the Lord will be far more meaningful to us. The law of the Lord will become the standard of judgment and not the person of any man.

First, God respects the person of no man in accepting those who be-come his children. The Jews had the notion that they were favored by God because of their nationality, but God showed Peter and the six Jews with him when they went to the house of Cornelius that “God is no re-specter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34, 35). Every man is not accepted by the Lord, but it is not on the basis of his person that he is rejected; it is because of his disobedience. Peter said the truth is that “God is no re-specter of persons: but in every nation” (Jew and Gentile) “he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” It is what a man does and not who he is that determines whether he is accepted with God.

Second, God respects the person of no man when sin is involved. The righteous judgment of God, “who will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6), applies equally to “the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (vv. 9, 10). With God sin is sin whether it be by Jew or Gentile. “For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:11, 12). If you transgress the law of the Lord, he will not stop to check whether you are a Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, popular or unknown, ruler or servant, scholar or unlettered. You will be a sinner whoever you are because God respects the person of no man when sin is involved.

Third, God will render good to those who do good without respect of persons. The poorest, least es-teemed man on earth will receive good from the Lord for the good he has done, and it will be by the same standard and on the same principle that the most es-teemed on earth will receive it. “Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free . . . neither is there respect of persons with him” (Eph. 6:8, 9). What-ever good any man doeth he will receive of the Lord, and the person of that man has nothing to do with it. It is what the man does, not who he is, that counts with God.

Fourth, God will render just punishment to all who do wrong without respect of persons. “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of per-sons” (Col. 3:24, 25). The most noted evangelist or the most highly esteemed bishop in the Lord’s church will receive the same punishment for his wrong as any other person on the face of the earth. His position or his honor will in no wise affect God in dealing out the just wages for his wrongdoing.

Fifth, the judgment of God to-ward every man will be without respect of persons. “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of per-sons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear” (1 Pet. 1:15-17).

Now compare this with man’s dealing with man. “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou here, or sit here under my footstool: are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? … But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors” (James 2:1-4, 9).

These verses picture the abominable condition so evident among many brethren today. A well-known evangelist will come into an assembly and some brethren will act is if Christ himself has arrived. They must honor him with special eulogies and favors. They do the same for a very rich man, a famous political figure, or a noted entertainer. But these same brethren will hardly speak to an unknown, poor man who is “just a faithful Christian.” If you think I am saying that all well-known evangelists, rich brethren, and brethren who have become successful in their fields of endeavor should be ignored and the poor honored, you have missed the point of this study. The word of God teaches that we should treat the rich and poor alike. We should honor the brethren  all brethren, regardless of who they are or what they have. They should be respected for what they have done and are doing for the living word of God. This is the way God deals with all of us.

We show respect of persons for personal advantage. It is a selfish move. We tend to favor the wealthy because we hope to profit by it. We run after the influential because we expect to enhance our own influence and popularity by the association. We associate with the powerful because we desire to be secure. What can the poor, weak and unknown do for me? Nothing! Why then should I give him any special attention? This is the root of the whole matter. There is no love for the brethren, and, consequently, no love for God (1 John 4:20, 21).

The Spirit said by Jude that the evil “brute beasts” who had committed every conceivable sin known to man, were walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage (Jude 16). The ASV says, “showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.” Like many brethren today, these were using flattering words to show respect of persons for their own personal advantage. Let us learn to treat others without partiality and measure them by what they do according to the standard of God’s word and not according to their persons, who they know, and what they have.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 16-18
August 1, 1996