Truth Magazine

By James P. Needham

“Are we the Bible believing and Bible preaching people we once were? Do we still carry that reputation in the community? Or do we have babble in our Bible classes and piffle and pablum from our pulpits?”

My father used to tell about a man in the community where he once lived: He was not a religious person, and was a member of no church in the community. He had several daughters. When they reached the age at which they became concerned about religion, they asked him where they should attend church. His advice? “Go to the church of Christ, they believe and preach the Bible. ” This has been the reputation of the Lord’s church throughout the years, but one must ask, “Is this true now?” I challenge you, dear reader, to consider the question of whether this can be said of local church pulpits and Bible classes in our generation. I think we need to give serious consideration to what is taking place in the Lord’s church in our time. Are we the Bible believing and Bible preaching people we once were? Do we still carry that reputation in the community? Do our actions merit it? Please consider what I say with a prayerful attitude.

Babble in Bible Classes

What is the average criterion of a Bible class teacher in local churches? We often put people up as teachers simply because they are members of the church without regard to their skill and experience as teachers, their Bible knowledge, or their faithfulness. Usually, in the lower classes, if one is a member of the church and is older than the students, he/she is qualified to be a Bible class teacher. In the upper classes, if a person can stand up before the class and mechanically go through some other person’s prepared material, we consider him/her a qualified Bible class teacher. Some such teachers wouldn’t be able to detect or refute error if it occurred in the material they teach.

A common complaint of teachers where I have worked concerns the literature. It’s too difficult, or the lessons are too long, etc. So much of the published literature for Bible classes is just plain babble at its worst, and misdirected and shallow at its best. It tends to cater to and accommodate the shallowness of Bible knowledge that exists among us. Some of the literature is so concerned about the method of teaching that it ignores the substance. Consequently, people complete the book with little or no more knowledge than they had when they started it. We need to study the Bible, not about the Bible.

Much of the complaining about the literature comes from a desire on the part of inept teachers for someone to “shell the corn” for them. They sort of want the book to lie on the podium and teach itself! They want the literature to do their work for them. Excuse me, but I have always said that a bad teacher can’t teach a good class with the best literature, and a good teacher can teach an excellent class with the worst literature. Beside that, God gives us teachers who can simply teach the text of God’s holy word. Why have we developed such shallowness that we must depend upon commercial material for our Bible classes?

Writing new Bible class literature is about like the constant escalation of what I call “popcorn” versions of the Bible. Men keep trying to remedy the problem without knowing what the problem is. We don’t need new versions of the Bible, but conversions. We need teachers who are willing to conform their lives to the versions which have served us well for hundreds of years; who so saturate themselves with Bible knowledge that teaching it to others becomes natural and easy. Likewise, we don’t need new Bible class literature, we need literate Bible teachers. We don’t need new kinds of literature, we need a new kind of teacher. The problem is the ineptitude of so many of our teachers, not just the inadequacy of commercial literature. I am not anti-Bible class literature, but I am anti much that is on the market today. From time to time someone comes along with the idea that we need new Bible class literature and proceeds to produce the same kind we already have.

There is more to teaching than standing before a class and sequentially going through a book prepared by some-one else where all one has to do is fill in the blanks. In many such classes there is little or no discussion because of the teacher’s lack of depth in Bible knowledge, the skill to generate discussion, or the ability to challenge the students to think. If the blank is filled in, the student reads what he/she has written, and the teacher says, “next question.”

I am not exaggerating when I say that the church contains many, many members who have mechanically gone through our Bible class system from pre-school to adult class who can’t give the plan of salvation or the acts of worship and substantiate them with Scripture. It’s like our public education system’s graduating students who can’t read. The dumbing down of America by the public school system has its counter part in the church. I once received a phone call at midnight from a sister who had been in the church all her life; as long or longer than had I, and her request was, “Brother Needham, l am discussing the Bible with a friend, and would you give me some Scriptures that teach that baptism is essential?” Obviously, she thought baptism was essential, not because she had read it and been convinced of it on her own, but because she had heard preachers preach it. I fear this is not unusual among us. This is like a person who finishes high school without the ability to look up a phone number or fill out a job application.

A preacher friend told of how he was about to teach the Book of First Corinthians. He gave a thorough introduction to the book. When he was ready to begin a study of the text, one of the elders said, “Brother was First Corinthians written before or after Pentecost?” Lord, help us! I once commented in a Bible class that not many brethren are Bible scholars. A brother replied, “Not many are Bible students.” Is that correct?

Now, on the positive side, and lest I seem harsh and uncharitable, let me commend all teachers for their willingness to do their best, even though in some cases their best falls short of adequate. The condition I am describing is not altogether their fault. The fault lies largely with the leadership in local churches. If I had my way about it, and I don’t, no per-son would ever be appointed to teach a Bible class who is not regular in attendance, whose life is not exemplary, who does not dress properly, who does not have a working knowledge of the entire Bible, and who has not gone through a teacher training class. It is absurd to place the responsibility of teaching a Bible class upon a person who has absolutely no training in the skill of teaching. That’s like buying your teenager a newcar, giving him/her the keys without giving them driving lessons. Driving is a skill to be learned, not something inborn. I use the word “skill” intentionally, because teaching is a skill. A skill is something one learns, not something with which he was born. To be sure one can have inborn traits and abilities that will enhance his/her skill as a teacher, but teaching is a skill that must be learned. This is obvious from the fact that our public education system has a minimum requirement of four years of college including education courses before one can be a licensed

For over a year now, due to health concerns, I have been forced into what might be called “semi-retirement.” This means that I have not preached every Sunday, or had a Bible class to teach all the time. Thus, I have been in Bible classes taught by others, and have listened to others preach more than I have in the last 49 years. This article is based upon observations during the last year, and upon experience over 49 years in local work and 13 years as both an elder and local preacher.

I recently sat in a Bible class in which Jesus’ first miracle at the wedding in Cana was the subject. Here are some of the comments and questions that occurred in the class. Who catered the wedding feast? Since Jesus’ mother asked him to provide the wine, and told the servants to do whatever he told them to do, perhaps she was in charge? Since she seems to have been in charge, was the bride or groom a relative of Jesus? How many gallons did the waterpots hold? How many persons were present at the wedding? These and similar questions consumed the entire class and the students went away without learning anything of the significance of the event or lessons to be learned from it.

I also sat in a Bible class in which Dorcas (Acts 9) was the subject. Here are the questions and comments that consumed the class period. How old was Dorcas when she died? What was the cause of her death? How many garments had she made and given to the poor widows? She must have been wealthy to have given all those garments to the poor widows. Of what fabric were the garments made? Why was she called by two names, Tabitha and Dorcas? Most of this is just plain babble, speculation, and shallow.

I know of a Bible class which at “Valentine” season had valentines all over the room. Another one taught a lesson out of published literature about Easter and Christmas. Another class was teaching children that they should not be ashamed to be different by suspending pictures of penguins from the ceiling. A vacation “Bible” school class had silly looking cartoon characters riding camels, palm trees, etc. all over the walls from ceiling to floor, and a make-shift booth where animals were supposedly sold for sacrifice. In all this there is more entertainment than Bible study. It demonstrates artistic ability not teaching skill.

It may be shocking to some but it is a fact that a good artist is not necessarily a good Bible teacher. It is sometimes the case that in trying to use visual aids the student’s attention is drawn more to the art, the technology, and the gimmicks used to present the lesson than to the lesson itself. The end result is that knowledge of God’s word is not increased. A brother recently told me of a business presentation he saw. He said the teacher had the latest technology in visual aids. He had every-thing set up on a computer, and all he had to do to project a chart on the screen was to push a button. He said I was so fascinated by his slick machinery and technology that I got nothing from his presentation. Please consider the implications of this with reference to Bible classes.

This shallowness in our “Bible” teaching is manifested when local churches choose elders. An elder is supposed to be “apt to teach.” The general concept of this qualification is this: can he stand before a class and mechanically go through material prepared by others? He may never have taught but a class or two, and the majority of the members who select him were never in a class he taught. He may not be able to handle controversial questions and false concepts that rise in the class, but if they know that he has made any kind of an effort, regardless of how feeble, to teach a class, then he is “apt to teach.” Now, does any serious Bible student believe this to be what the Spirit had in mind in requiring that an elder be “apt to teach”? Come now, let’s be serious! I’ve heard it said that someone asked brother J.D. Tant once if he thought elders should be apt to teach, and he replied, “Where I have preached elders are apt to do most anything.” Once I was going to be absent from my Bible class, and I asked one of the elders who attended the class, if he would fill in for me. His reply was, “You wouldn’t put that on me, would you?”

I once asked for a meeting with the elders to challenge some false doctrine that was being taught by the preacher. I asked, “Do you brethren endorse this teaching?” To which they replied, “No, but we don’t know how to refute it. We don’t have a spokesman.” Interesting! It has been my understanding of the Scriptures that the elders are supposed to be their own spokesmen. Paul said elders are to “Hold … fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:9-11). It was argued that elders don’t have to be able to refute false doctrine, but provide a refutation of it. Please read the above passage carefully, and see if you think that’s a proper understanding of it.

Piffle and Pablum From Pulpits

There is a lot of piffle and pablum pouring forth from pulpits across this land in what we think of as conservative churches. “Sermons” consist of quotations from Calvinistic theologians, philosophers, and pop psychologists.

Personal motivation talks are not gospel sermons. Quotations from C. S. Lewis and Karl Menninger are not equal to quotations from Peter, John, and Paul. I am not saying it is always wrong to quote from men when they say something better than we can, but when such quotations dominate our preaching, or become the basis of our faith, something has gone wrong with our priority list.

Many young preachers today don’t know how to refute false doctrine and have no interest in learning how. They don’t see the refutation of false doctrine as part of the work of preaching the gospel. They shy away from controversial subjects. I sometimes refer to it as “slap Jane preaching.” A mother took her little Johnny to school for his first day. Knowing that he was wont to get out of hand sometimes, she said to the teacher, “If Johnny misbehaves, slap Jane who sits next to him, and it will scare him and settle him down.” Paul said, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Preachers who don’t have the courage to preach the truth and expose error by name, need to find something else to do. If they curry the favor of men, they should not be servants of Christ (Gal. 1:10). They ought to be politicians. They need to spend more time studying the word of God and less time drinking at the fountainhead of denominationalism. Many are not looking for an opportunity to serve the Lord but a way to serve their own interests. As N.B. Hardeman used to say, “They want to sit down in a tub of butter.” Some who have never been involved in the rough and tumble of contending with false teaching and teachers, criticize the fight we made in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s over institutionalism and the sponsoring church concept. They criticize the way we went about it. Good friends, it is one thing to be in the thick of the battle and quite another to sit on the sidelines and criticize the way the soldiers hold their weapons. Their philosophy is, “Let error alone, let it die a natural death.” How naive can we get? Error never dies a natural death, it has to be killed with the sword of the Spirit.

I knew a young preacher who persuaded the church to conduct a call-in radio program. He asked preachers in the area to be his guests. During all the time that I listened to the program, he invited only young preachers even though older and more experienced preachers were plentiful. One could have listened to the program for a year and never learned what to do to be saved or that there is a difference between the Lord’s church and human denominations. This young man and his guests conceived of themselves as counsellors, and every question was approached from the viewpoint of pop psychology. They quoted psychologists, C.S. Lewis, Carl Menninger, and other popular writers, and almost never the word of God.

College lectureships used to be staffed by the most able preachers in the brotherhood who filled their lectures with solid Bible teaching. I can remember hearing men like Homer Hailey, Gus Nichols, John T. Lewis, Harry Pickup, Sr., Frank Van Dyke, and others deliver masterpieces of solid Bible teaching. In my day brother Hailey was best known for expository work on one of the epistles. John T. Lewis walked through the halls of the Old Testament with a knowledge of every character as if he were personally acquainted with each one. One came away feeling he had walked through faith’s hall of fame. He quoted long passages from the prophets, and could recite the genealogy of Christ all the way back to Adam without missing a link. A brother from the “conservative liberals” recently said, “In our lectureships we have such wonderful subjects and such poor speakers, in your’s you have such poor subjects and such wonderful speakers.” I don’t know if his evaluation is true, but maybe its something to think about. I do know this, nothing, but nothing, beats old time gospel preaching and hard-nosed Bible study. This is what it will take to keep the church on the straight and narrow path. When we depart from the fundamentals, we take our first step toward apostasy. Could it be that we are more concerned with being politically correct than with being scripturally correct?

I once heard a gospel preacher spend several minutes apologizing before he quoted Mark 16:16! He wanted all to know that he was not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, he just wanted to tell the people what the Lord said. He realized that not everybody agreed on what the passage teaches, but he wanted them to know what it says. Brother L.L. Briggance, one of my beloved college professors, told of a preacher who gave the invitation in these words, “If you don’t believe in some degree, and repent to some extent, you are liable to be damned somewhat.”

Let me hasten to add that there are some notable exceptions to what I have said here (thank the Lord!). I don’t want to paint every young preacher with the same brush. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the conditions I have described exist to an alarming degree. And let me as-sure you that I am not the only person who thinks so.

Young preachers are being paid more today than preachers ever have been paid. Young preachers with little experience and mediocre ability are being paid two and three times as much as the older more experienced preachers were ever paid, and for what? A couple of canned sermons per week based in pop psychology and Dale Carnage type personal motivation that make people feel good, and perhaps a Bible class or two. It’s nice to make people feel good if it is because they are on good terms with the Lord, but most often the preacher’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In many cases these young preachers are being paid outstanding salaries to lead the church down the prim-rose path of compromise and eventual apostasy. For months I listened to sermons that could have been preached in any de-nomination in town without raising an eyebrow. These sermons would have received a warmer reception among the sectariansthan they received from some of the brethren.

I recently sat through a “sermon” in which the young preacher compared the local church to a football team. He had the elders as the coaches, the preacher as the quarter-back (he runs the game, you know!), and the members as the players. He spent about 45 minutes on this. I learned a good bit about football and nothing about the scriptural function of the Lord’s church.

I don’t begrudge a sound, hard-working gospel preacher being paid well. It has been my philosophy that a good gospel preacher cannot be overpaid, and a bad one is always overpaid. I certainly am glad gospel preachers are paid bet-ter than some of us older ones were.

The first two years I tried to preach I did two-thirds of it for nothing! (That’s probably all it was worth!) Some churches would give me the Lord’s day contribution, three or four dollars. (The contribution always seemed to be smaller the day I preached!) I often bought gas on credit, drove my old car 100 miles to preach on Sunday with 50 cents in my pocket which would buy my wife and me a hamburger on the way home.

Conclusion

God said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6). It seems to happen in every generation. Some writer said, “they who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” So true. Amos said, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD” (Amos 5:11). No doubt Amos had reference to a time when God would send no prophet to a rebellious and apostate people, but we are dangerously close to a spiritual famine in our time. There is a famine of hearing the word of the Lord because it is not being preached, and because when it is preached there is an unwillingness to hear and heed its divine message. 0, my dear brethren, what can we expect from present trends? Will America become a “mission field” for the religion of Christ? Will brethren from Nigeria or South Africa have to send brethren to re-establish the Lord’s church in the United States? When the apostasy over institutionalism and the sponsoring church started, a brother predicted that Nashville, Tennessee would become a “mission field.” (Did he ever take some “flack.”) It all but came true! Apostasy’s broom swept quite cleanly in the city that had more churches of Christ than any place on earth, and for years had been known for its devotion to the faith of our Lord  the city of the five tabernacle meetings of the late N.B. Hardeman (known as “the prince of preachers”) in which he preached the old Jerusalem gospel to many thousands in attendance. We can read of strong churches that existed in the first century in places like Ephesus, Corinth, Colosse, etc. What happened to those churches? Can one find a congregation of the Lord’s people in any of those places today? Don’t say it can’t happen here.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 8-11
November 16, 1995

By Don Wright

“Living together” as opposed to marriage is becoming more popular every day. It seems that many no longer view marriage as honorable. It is an unnecessary thing of the past in the eyes of a growing number of people. In a handful of states, unmarried couples who live together long enough are as good as married. Johfiette Duff, a Houston lawyer and author, says, “Common law essentially is a marriage. A divorce is required to dissolve the relationship.” Needless to say man’s ways are not al-ways God’s ways. God’s way is marriage. Man’s way is a cohabitation outside of marriage. The number of unmarried-couple households has grown 80% in the last 10 years. The Census Bureau tells us that there was 2.9 million unmarried couples living together in 1990, and surely the number has steadily increased.

Certainly we can see that there is still a need to preach on the sanctity of marriage, and to continue to emphasize that fornication is a sin. As parents who are Christians, let us not neglect teaching our children about God’s marriage law. God’s ways are always best. They are not just statues that God forces us to live by in order to encumber our existence. They are guidelines for our living that will bring us joy. I know that many consider the ways of God old fashioned and out dated. This is especially true regarding the commands of God concerning marriage. Some say, “It is better to live together before marriage to make sure that a couple is compatible.” But did you know according to recent studies, that married couples who once cohabited are 15% more likely to break up than those who did not? So much for the wisdom of man. No wonder Paul said, “. . . the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” Surely men, in professing to be wise, have become fools.

In the final analysis, “living together” is sinful. Sin condemns. It brings about spiritual death and destines its captives to an eternal hell. Is enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season really worth an eternity in an unquenchable fire? I think not! It is far better to simply obey God and to follow his laws. Let us never con-form to the world, regardless of how popular certain customs become. Re-member, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whore mongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Yes marriage is a commitment and does require a certain amount of sacrificing. There is even an element of risk involved; but obeying God is al-ways the best thing to do. And if one obeys God while married, most of the risks disappear, and all the sacrificing is well worth it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 13
November 16, 1995

By Daniel H. King, Sr.

One is seldom surprised anymore at the ludicrous assertions of the godless of our age. I suppose that the “animal rights” coalition is the most brazen and offensive in their pronouncements, of-ten contending that animals ought to be given consideration over the health and safety of human beings. They argue that animals are our evolutionary cousins and that the welfare of a dog or cat ought to be deemed as equal to that of a human child. Therefore, animals should not be eaten by human beings as food, nor should they be used for laboratory testing of drugs or other medical devices and products which will later be used to cure human diseases and save human lives. As a matter of fact, many of us today are alive because scientists have been able to test drugs and procedures on animals like rats and mice before they came to market. But animal testing is particularly distressing for many “animal rights” activists, since monkeys and chimpanzees are also frequently utilized in testing procedures. And, according to the theory of evolution, primates are man’s nearest evolutionary kin.

Now, there is a move afoot to give to certain animals, under the law, the same protections which are afforded to human children. In case you think I have imagined all this, let me quote from The Humanist (July/August 1994), from the pen of Edd Doerr, under the heading “Church and State: Ape and Essence”:

Nearly twenty years ago in this column . . . I concluded that, if chimps can function as humans even if only on the level of human children  we would need to include them in our legal and social definitions of “persons” and accord them some-thing like the legal rights that we enjoy … Two decades later, we know a great deal more about our nearest evolutionary cousins, the great apes … Genetically we and the great apes are quite closely related …The bottom line is that the great apes are so much like us that there is no logical reason not to treat them as “persons”  at least to the same degree as children and mentally impaired human adults …Great apes function men-tally at the level of children or impaired adults and thus should be as much a part of our moral community as our children …Large brained cetaceans (whales, dolphins) certainly appear to have high intelligence, but they are sufficiently different from primates that it may be some time before we know enough to ascribe personhood to them (43-44).

Doerr makes special reference to a recent work written by 34 scientists, The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity (St. Martin’s Press, 1994), edited by P. Cavalieri and P. Singer, which demands “the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.” The purpose of the book is to protect the lives and liberties of these species and prohibit their torture and mistreatment. “Medical experiments without the consent of both humans and apes would be banned” writes Doerr approvingly. I wonder how you would get permission from a monkey?

This leads us to make a few comments:

1. All of Nature Is Based Upon The Principle of Kill or Be Killed, Eat or Be Eaten. Scientists frequently speak of the “food chain,” i.e., the natural order of plants and animals which feed upon one another. At the top of the food chain are the predators: the meat-eating carnivores. On the land there are such swift and powerful animals as the lion, tiger, cheetah, cougar, etc. They feed on the smaller, slower, and less powerful animals. Tigers, in particular, have been known not only as carnivorous, but even as man-eaters when they live in close proximity with humans. The shark is the great terror of the deep, eating smaller fish and even humans if they venture into his domain when he is hungry and motivated to attack.

The point is, that man is at the top of the food chain, even by their own admission and reasoning. Why is he the only carnivorous predator in nature who is not permitted to use lesser animals for food? By what twist of logic must he permit his fellow humans and his children to suffer in order to save lesser animals from harm? If man is merely an animal, for what reason should he exempt himself from the whole natural order and place himself in a servile and obsequious position with respect to the rest? If he possesses the highest intelligence, why would he wish to place himself at the mercy of bacteria and virus, sickness and disease? Even common sense militates against their approach. This is the epitome of elitist intellectual stupidity!

2. The Theory Of Evolution Is The Culprit In All This Nonsense. In the background of much of this nonsensical environmentalism and “animal rights” activism lies the assumption that man is merely the product of millions of years of naturalistic evolutionary development. Since man is the highest achievement of that process, he is the only god there is. So, in the place of the theism of the past, there is only human-ism. And this is the kind of thinking that humanism produces! As the Bible says of the intellectual elite of another but similar age, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image make like to corruptible man . . .” (Rom. 1:22-23).

3. What Does The Bible Say? For those of us who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, there is a very different perspective. The Bible says that man is the unique creation of Al-mighty God: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). He is not the chance amalgamation of atoms and molecules that evolutionary theory says he is. A human being is unique also in that man was made in the di-vine image: “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). Moreover, the entire creation is here for man’s use, including all the various types of animals: “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, And didst set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet…” (Hebrews 2:7, 8; cf. Gen. 1:26, 28).

4. Watch Out For Their Hidden Agenda! Man is not “a monkey’s uncle” nor is he his “nearest evolutionary cousin.”

Such talk is not calculated to exalt the lower animals to a higher station. In reality, it’s purpose is to bring man down to the level of the “creatures without reason” (2 Pet. 2:12). Doerr’s article, interestingly enough, makes an argument for “freedom of choice,” which, as most of you know, is the vernacular way of describing the “right” to murder human children in the womb. He is no doubt also a proponent of euthanasia, the kill ing of those whose “quality of life” does not meet his criteria of happiness. These go hand in hand with those who follow this line of thinking. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx and Nikolay Lenin used such twisted reason to slaughter millions of human beings. Humanistic thinking is not compassionate at its essence, but insidious and dangerous. This is especially so when it controls government. Don’t buy it!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 12-13
November 16, 1995

By Al Sandlin

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). This adjective comes from a Greek word deilos which means “cowardly; timid.” Lack of faith is the basis for this transgression as it is cited in Revelation 21:8.

In Matthew 8:26 this word also appears. The disciples along with Jesus had entered a ship to cross the Sea of Galilee. During that journey a tremendous storm arose and the waves were so severe as to cover the ship. This caused no small degree of anxiety among the disciples but Jesus was asleep during it all. They aroused him with a message of doom: “Lord, save us: we perish.” Jesus’ response included our word under consideration. “Why are ye fearful, 0 ye of little faith?”

  Just why, do you suppose, will the fearful not be allowed in heaven? Why would a loving Heavenly Father refuse the timid and the cowardly person an eternal home in heaven? For the precise reason that Jesus berated his beloved apostles’ lack of faith. “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). With Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of mankind, in the ship with his disciples, they doubted their own safety and security. But on the other hand, Jesus was sound asleep, not concerned for he knew that the Father would care for him. Jesus set the example for our faith. Our faith in God must be so thorough and so grounded that it raises our confidence and trust in the Father above the level of the cowardly and timid. Whether physical or spiritual storms, our faith must be such that total and complete trust in God clothes our character. God demands that kind of faith. If we are Christians and abide in Christ, we must indeed follow in the footprints of Jesus. 1 John 2:6 says it this way, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” We must aspire to have the faith of Jesus. That’s why Jesus said in Matthew 11:29, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me … ” Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” 1 Peter 2:21 says, “For hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.”

The fearful, the timid, the cowardly, put their faith only in that which they can see. Paul says to young Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” We must not, we cannot, be fainthearted and mousy with the gospel he has given us. It is powerful, it is reasonable, it is the only way to save souls. Paul intended to encourage the young preacher Timothy to be bold in the gospel. Not only has God given us a gospel filled with power, but his love is ours. We are the objects of his love. Just as husbands and wives reassure each other of their love regularly, God does so with us daily. First of all, he gave us his Son as a propitiation for our sins. Then, daily he gives us sustenance. Daily he blesses us with sunshine, rain, food, clothing, shelter, brethren, and on and on the list goes. We have no basis for being wimpish in our faith. We have every reason to put our complete trust in him to the extent that we are confident that he will not leave us or forsake us.

Deiliao (to be fearful) appears in John 14:27. Just prior to his trial and crucifixion, Jesus said to his closest friends upon the earth, “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.” In the tenderest of moments, if it were possible, Jesus would have wrapped his loving arms around this dozen men to let them know that there was nothing to fear. In spite of what they were about to see their Master undergo, there was still no reason to be shy, timid, or fainthearted. Jesus is telling them these things in advance so that they might believe (John 14:29). May our prayer be according to the apostles in Luke 17:5, “Lord, Increase our faith.” The Psalmist spoke words of comfort concerning fearfulness in Psalm 27:1-3, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; whom shall I dread? When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, my adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell. Though a host encamp against me, my heart will not fear; though war arise against me, in spite of this I shall be confident.”

Confidence is the perfect antidote for timidity and shyness. God has always intended that his messengers go forth with confidence. Luke says of Paul in Acts 28:31, “Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”

May God increase our faith and give us the confidence and conviction to meet Satan head on with the gospel. “Lord, increase our faith.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 24-25
November 2, 1995