Truth Magazine

By John R. Hurt

In the changing of every season we see powerful convincing testimony to the truthfulness of the Word of God. Note the reading of Genesis 8:22.

“While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, And cold and heat, and summer and winter, And day and night, shall not cease,”

As we see the splendor of spring, the burgeoning flowers, the green sprouts and the whole of nature come alive again, we know that God’s Word is true. Just as surely as the green sprouts grow into summer’s lush growth and each tender bud blooms into summertime’s radiant blossoms, we can rest confidently in the unshakable fact that the Bible speaks the truth. With the coming of fall and all the beautiful colors that make the hues of the greatest Italian artists pale in significance, the Word of God is authenticated. Then with the arriving of the harsh cold, the falling leaves, and the stark brown bareness of winter’s landscape, you may be assured of the indisputable fact that countless centuries shout and proclaim. While the earth remains it shall ever be so! The word of God is true!

In this tribute to the veracity of God, this miracle of his creation, do we not also see the answer to Job’s ancient question, “if a man dies will he yet live again?” (Job 14: 14) Each year we witness God take the seemingly dead lifeless plants and revive again the germ of life within them. In the explosion of new life that follows, all nature is robed in the brilliant splendor of the season. Surely then, it is but a small thing, for the Creator of this vast universe to reach down to our narrow house beneath the earth and revive again the germ of life within the soul of man. Ah, the changing of the seasons attests to the irrefutable truth of God!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 15
October 19, 1995

By Jim McDonald

An attempt to stereotype the Philippine preacher would be as foolish as to try the same with his American counterpart. It is true that he is greatly influenced by his culture; yet it is true his American brother-preacher is influenced by his society. The Filipino preacher is a distinct individual with his own special needs, idiosyncrasies, strengths, and weaknesses. He cannot be cast into a mold so that we know he needs “X” amount for support and that he will behave in a certain way. His needs are as diverse as are the needs of preachers here. Much misunderstanding about the Philippine preacher results because the particular one we are acquainted with does not seem to “fit” what we have heard about the preachers there.

Filipino preachers are impoverished, to be sure, but they are not ignorant. Education is greatly emphasized in the island nation and most attain high school educations and many go on to graduate from college. Philippine preachers are familiar with premillennialism, Calvinism, as well as most of the other “isms” of our time. In addition ;o this, he is familiar with the errors of the cults and denominations that are peculiar to his own nation. There are some eminently qualified men in almost every region one visits. There is a thirst for knowledge by Filipinos and this spills over to a thirst for knowledge of spiritual things emphasized in preachers among brethren there. Tracts, periodicals, and books all are avidly sought and hungrily devoured by them. Preachers or brethren here in the States who have books, especially debates on Calvinism, Pentacostalism, premil- lennialism, or Sabbatarianism and who would rather that those books be read and studied than to gather dust, would do well to seek out some “hungry-for-knowledge” brother there and send such books to him. The church in the Philippines is in an age of “inquiry,” of “zeal,” of “set for the defense of the gospel” much as characterized brethren in the early years of the restoration movement here in the States. Postage is expensive but books, Bibles, and tracts can be sent fairly reasonably by M-Bag (79″ per pound)  slow to be sure, but one of the Filipinos’ qualities is patience  they will wait.

Most Philippine preachers are first-generation Christians although there are many who come from second-generation families. These brethren come from Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Iglesia Ni Christo, and Pentecostals who have proven to be an exceptionally fertile soil for converts. Oft times the preacher was formerly a denominational preacher who, with his conversion, was able to convert most of his “old” congregation withhim. Elpidio Ascuncion and Martin Ibus, his father-in-law, were converted from Pentecostalism in Sinait, Ilocos Sur. Actually brother Ibus was restored. He had been baptized some years earlier. At their conversion almost the whole congregation followed with them. The work of our Lord has just been opened in northern Samar, the result of a Seventh Day Adventist preacher being converted by Ben Cruz of Manila, who was also able to bring most of that former Seventh Day Adventist church with him. Such stories as this are reported all over the Philippines. It is true that many of these preachers find it difficult to rid themselves immediately of all their denominational thinking, but it is also true they have learned the truth and were willing to surrender denominationalism to have it. To such folks the charge: “Buy the truth and sell it not” has special meaning.

The needs of the Philippine preacher are as different as there are different preachers. Perhaps he is single, as are many with whom I am familiar. Or, he may be a young married man with just a child or two; or he may have been married many years and have 6-7 children. Perhaps he or his family have health problems. Obviously, in each of these situations financial needs to sustain him are going to differ radically. Additionally, there is the “extended-family” of that preacher. Perhaps it is his aged parents, an afflicted brother or sister; perhaps it is an uncle, aunt, or grandmother. Maybe it’s nieces and nephews he’s called upon to help. Perhaps it’s the needs of brethren in the congregation. He grieves for the needs of his fellow-brethren often literally dividing the two coats, shirts, or pants he has with another who has none. Almost never does he have insurance for his family. He has no social security, no savings. Some-times he and his family will only eat twice or sometimes even just once a day  not to diet but simply because he does not have the finances to buy a supply of rice for his family to eat. He may make appeals to American brethren for his personal needs but that does not mean he is preaching for money. More often than not he has been preaching for several years having had no recompense for what he did. I have seen dozens of brethren who have never received anything for their preaching, not even for transportation. He writes to American brethren to help alleviate his need, that is true, but remember the plight he describes to you is generally true: he is in need, his family often does without the necessities of life, and we in America do live in the lap of luxury. Just one visit to the Philippines would open our eyes to their poverty and to the realization of how blessed we are. He asks because he has no one else to turn to.

There are unworthy Filipino preachers to be sure. Some are dishonest and lazy, viewing preaching the gospel as simply a “way of gain.” There are American preachers who fall into that same category. By far, however, the vast majority of preachers we found love the truth, are willing to preach intwo or three different places (without help, if necessary), share with their brethren what meager provisions they have themselves, have no real hope of ever escaping from the poverty they know but have a sincere desire and hope for a better land. When he writes you, read what he has to say. His is not just another “begging letter” but a letter from one who is your brother in Christ and who very likely is notexaggerating the condition he describes to you. Answer him. Thank God your life is not as hard as is his and just know that for all the misunderstanding some have of the work in the Philippines, that work is genuine, is growing, and it is still true that the American dollar going there for support will produce, in terms of conversion of souls, as many converts as can be seen in any place on this planet we call earth and in most instances far more! They call, as in Paul’s vision in Troas: “Come over into the Philippines and help us” and they are indeed (admittedly not exclusively so) included in Jesus’s command: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “Next Article: Personal glimpses.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 12-13
October 19, 1995

By Mark A. Cascairo

I wish to respond to an article which appeared in the July 20, 1995, Guardian of Truth written by Michael W. Green of Orange, Texas. The article began with a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution and ended with the statement, “If you do your job properly, you have nothing to fear with respect to the teaching in public schools.”

The intervening lines of the article point out two examples of religious activities in public school settings which caused controversy, and the court decisions, in each case, prohibiting the activities. The argument is made that the decisions were based on the Constitution’s directive to “protect religion from government interference.” The conclusion was that, when decisions are made based on the First Amendment which prevent the state (schools) from “proscribing” religious expression, these same court decisions also protect our religious freedom, and therefore, we should not be alarmed. We should let the state do its job (secular education), and Christian parents should do their job (religious training, Eph. 6:4). Then came the ending statement cited in the previous paragraph.

This article raised concerns for a number of reasons. First, brother Green has attempted to prove too much with his evidence. The article revolves around the “separation of church and state” issue and the constitutionality of religious activities n public schools. Then, the conclusion suggests that the “teaching” in public schools is not to be feared. These are two very broad and different issues, and the article left many stones unturned, prior to its confident conclusion. I can appreciate brother Green’s main point, that Christians must assume diligently the responsibility to provide the religious training for their children. I believe, however, that his confidence in the state to “do its job” is somewhat misplaced.

There are many in our country who are appalled at the state’s lack of success in even providing the basics of a “secular education.” This is enough to make a parent fearful, or at least a little concerned. But more importantly, the values often taught (yes, taught, both actively and indirectly) are to be feared. From evolution (taught as fact, not theory), to values clarification (home of situational ethics), to health curricula depicting premarital intercourse, homosexuality, and abortion as popular and potentially “healthy” choices, the teaching in public schools is not benign.

Secondly, who relinquished the responsibility to provide a “secular education” for our children to the state? It is my opinion that Ephesians 6:4 must include proper “secular” training in a father’s responsibility to his child. “Secular education,” itself, is a myth. Learning skills to function in society so as not to be a burden, to provide for one’s own family, to be respectable husbands, wives, mothers and fathers, and to be able to share with those less fortunate, are all part of the Lord’s admonition or instruction (2 Thess. 3:11, 12; 1 Tim. 5:8, 16; Titus 2:1-8).

In most cases this part of the parent’s responsibility is delegated as regards the details of the training, but I believe parents are accountable ultimately. Public school is a relatively new invention, and it has served a useful purpose in our nation’s history. Many alternatives exist, however  parochial schools, home school, private schools, and education co-ops. A parent who blindly entrusts his child to the “teaching” in the public schools is similar to a parent who gives his child a remote control to a cable television and then leaves the room. Nobody would suggest, “Let the entertainment industry do its job. You have nothing to fear if you’re doing your job properly as a parent.” Likewise, the responsibility of appropriately educating our children is not to be “rendered unto Caesar.”

A third concern returns us to the “separation of church and state” issue. May it be noted at the outset that the phrase, “separation of church and state,” is not even to be found in the Constitution. The authors of the First Amendment did not view religious activity in a state institution as a violation of this amendment. The Founding Fathers were highly religious men who included God and the principles of the Bible in framing the Constitution and in conducting governmental business. Their intent was to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination as the state church (like the Church of England) with emphasis on allowing the free exercise of any religion. Separation of church and state, as an idea, is a recent invention of the courts, as they inappropriately interpret the intent of the First Amendment. Though the courts may claim to rule based on a desire to protect religion from government interference, the tragic effect is often government interference.

The two examples of the graduation ceremony prayer and required Bible reading in school, given by brother Green, were cases in point. The court decisions to prohibit these religious activities were violations of the First Amendment clause regarding “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Countless other cases could be cited in which courts have interfered with religious activities in public schools, even if the entire district, classroom, or graduating class were in favor of the activity. This is not the effect of the First Amendment the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yes, we must submit to the laws of the land, including these court decisions which misinterpret the First Amendment, but we need not happily agree with the misinterpretations. We have a right and a responsibility as citizens to strive for more accurate and equitable decisions by the court. If these efforts are unsuccessful, then appropriate action to protect our children from the resultant ill effects of such decisions (e.g., removing our children from the public school) need not be regarded as a lack of submission to the governing authorities.

In addition, many local school officials and administrators of public schools have been influenced by such misinterpretations of the First Amendment. In many in-stances, the officials have concluded that the proper adherence to the “separation of church and state” mandate prohibits all activities which mention God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. These are activities in which the courts have not been directly involved. Here are some absurd examples: a Christmas bulletin board (which featured a snowy landscape and a church building) was disallowed in a classroom, though witches and goblins were allowed at Halloween; an after school Bible study club was banned, even though it was conducted off campus; lettering forming the Ten Commandments was ordered to be removed from a school hallway wall, while elsewhere, rock and roll music with explicit profanity was allowed in a physical education class.

Many would argue that the decisions that are rendered are purposely aimed at removing God and the Judeo-Christian influence from the public arena especially since other types of religious expression are not prohibited in the schools (for example, transcendental meditation is actually taught). Even a goal of promoting secular humanism has been attributed to the educational elite, and this with a large amount of supporting evidence. John Dunphy expressed this goal in a 1983 edition of The Humanist: “The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

Truly, as brother Green has stated, one cannot expect the state to provide religious training for our children. That is our job as parents. On the other hand, we are commanded to “walk circumspectly” (Eph. 5:15), and our attitude to-ward our children’s training in the public schools should be one of sober vigilance, both in regard to the content and quality of the “teaching,” and in regard to the free exercise of their religious expression. It is our parental responsibility to see that the religious training we diligently provide is not undermined by any influence, including those that may emanate from the public schools.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 20-21
October 19, 1995

By  W. R. Jones

Have we forgotten what our business really is? For the most part I think the answer is yes. Peter Drucker, a well known business management expert, has written several books advising business people how to be successful. In one book, The Practice Of Management, he points out that the most dangerous and destructive thing any business manager can do is to forget what “the company’s business really is.”

A case in point is about a mile from my house. Many years ago a man started a lawn mower sales and repair business which became very successful. He was honest and did good work. His prices were high, but we stood in line to trade with him because he attended to business in a depend-able way. The owner grew old and had to step down. He turned it over to his son whose only interest in life is “scuba diving.” Within a year he divided the showroom in half, reduced his lawn mower stock, and reduced his faithful crew. His main interest became scuba diving equipment. The business began to decline and a reputable competitor opened up which no one had dared try in past years. Early on I predicted the demise of this business. Sure enough, I passed by the other day and the sign is up: “out of business.” The son, whose only interest was “scuba diving,” had forgotten what their business really was. He “killed the goose that laid the golden egg” because he forgot and neglected their foremost business.

When I observe preachers, elders, and other leading men in the church today, I am made to wonder if we haven’t to some degree forgotten “what our business really is.” I know the church is not a “business” like Mr. Drucker advises, but I believe we would do well to take a look at this advice about “forgetting what our business realty is.”

What Is Our Business?

“In a nut shell” our business should be, as Jesus said, “my Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). Our business should be the mission of Christ which was to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). This, of course, includes restoring the erring, edifying one another, and as Paul instructed Timothy: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Plain and simple,our business is “soul saving.” In the past forty years many churches of Christ have drifted into the “social gospel” mold and have turned to entertainment, recreation, secular education, and other things of the same secular stripe. But I am not writing about these brethren who have chosen to follow after “liberalism.” I am talking about those of us who are trying to maintain the church on a solid foundation. Have we forgotten what our “business” really is?

Why Are We Not Reaching Many of the Lost?

Is it impossible? Is it because there are no honest souls left and our task is an impossible one. No, it is not true. There are still many about us who are “disciple material” and can be converted. The trouble with many of us, after having the door slammed in our face a few times, is simply this: nobody cares, and nobody will listen. We have talked ourselves into a negative attitude and have withdrawn into a dark cave of defeat to wait for the end. If the Lord had been so easily discouraged, we would never have had redemption.

Difficult times. Obviously, we are in hard times and most people are not interested. Let us remember, however, this was also true when Jesus came and through much of the ministry of his apostles. In spite of that, people were converted and the church grew rapidly. I have heard it said, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Maybe we need a little more of that spirit.

The Value of the Soul. I think the “value system” about the soul of man has been misplaced in many of us. Materialism has greatly diminished our value of a soul. Many of us have lost our “everlasting” view of the soul. Case in point: a man drowned in a bayou and hundreds joined in the search for his body. Thousands of dollars were spent in the recovery effort which, after four days finally succeeded. I am not criticizing the effort, but I could never find where any concern had been shown for his soul during life, even though he was surrounded by Christians. In death his body was supremely important. In life his soul was supremely unimportant. Jesus said, “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt.16:26) Consider the following thought. I don’t know where it came from and I wish I had said it, but I didn’t. “There are many things in life worth winning, but when one is won over to the side of truth, we beat the devil in the battle over the eternal soul of man. This will outshine and outlast all the achievements of the world put together.”

A Tragic Misconception. Sadly, there is a common belief among members of the church that they do not have any evangelistic responsibility. “After all,” they say, “that is why we support a preacher.” When will Christians learn that the presence of an evangelist has nothing to do with their own responsibility toward saving souls. The astounding growth of the church in the first century is not attributed to preachers alone but to individual Christians. “Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). I like the story of the store owner who went to a convention. Someone asked him what his business was. He replied, “My business is to serve Christ and win souls.” He added, “I run a hardware store to make a living.”

Preachers Have a Duty. Preachers should lead the way in spreading the word. They should set an example for others to follow. I fear we dig ponds and sit back and expect the fish to jump in. That is, we build nice buildings and expect the lost of this world to rally in them. We would do well to remember that the Lord has made us “fishers of men” and not merely the “keepers of the aquarium.” Preachers face a lot of discouragement, you may be sure. I fear that many of us have re-treated to ivory towers where we read what pleases us, play with our computers, and look for something to write about that will attract a lot of attention. I don’t look for this to improve unless we get a renewed interest in what our “business” really is. Preachers need to lead the way and also teach the members their responsibility toward the souls of others.

Enlist God’s Help by Prayer. There is a song which says, “Lead me to some soul today; 0 teach me Lord, just what to say; friends of mine are lost in sin, and cannot find their way. Few there are who seem to care; and few there are that pray; Melt my heart and fill my life: give me one soul today.” I believe we ought to pray for the Lord to help us in the work of “saving souls.” When there appears to be a drought of prospects, ask the Lord to help you open a door. But someone fearfully says, “Will I be lost if I don’t win a soul today!” No! Someone else is involved and we can’t always succeed. But the danger of our being lost is because we are not trying. The danger lays with our indifference toward the souls.

What Could We Expect If We

Were To Suddenly Change?

What could we expect if all preachers, elders, and paper editors, along with each congregation suddenly returned to what “our business really is?” This is what I think would happen and it would all be for the good.

1. The number baptized into Christ would increase dramatically.

2. We would be too busy to do much meddling in the affairs of other congregations.

3. We would get back to exposing false religions with more fervor.

4. There would be less time for “finger pointing” about every little thing.

5. There would be an increased degree of unity and harmony among us.

Of Course, Error Must Be Exposed. In the meantime, when real error (not just some slightly different slant) rears it ugly head, sound and faithful brethren must step forth and expose it as needed. We should expose what is wrong and teach what is right and give brethren an opportunity to consider it before we plunge into what sometime seems to be a personal warfare. I still have a lot of confidence in our brethren about seeing the truth when it is plainly and lovingly set forth. Let us trust the power of truth when rightly applied. Don’t look too long and hard for something to expose. If you do, you are likely to see things that really never existed. But, when error becomes obvious, don’t put it off, deal with it.

We Still Have a Common Mission. I remember back in the fifties and six-ties how united we were in our fight against institutionalism, centralization, organizational corruption, and the social gospel. All during that time there were things of a “lesser light” about which we differed, but we rallied to a common and much needed cause. When I was up to my neck in a debate, I remember how so many preachers and others gathered around to help any way they could, great or small. Many of those preachers, in their heart, very likely believed they could have done a better job, but it didn’t matter. They were behind the truth and they were behind my efforts. It was one of the most unselfish outpourings I have ever witnessed, except in cases of natural disaster. My brethren, though the former conflict is in the past, we still have a “common mission” of supreme importance, namely, “to seek and to save the lost.” Let us not forget our real business.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 10-11
October 19, 1995