Truth Magazine

By David D. Bonner

In 1994, Jesse G. Jenkins debated Pat Donahue twice and Christian Garrett once. The first debate was in early May in the building of the Pleasant Grove, Alabama, church. About 300 attended each evening and it was a very cordial discussion with the church there hosting the debate and saints there providing housing and food for the debaters and their moderators. Although all there do not agree on the subject of the covering (1 Cor. 11:2-16), there is no division over this matter. Pleasant Grove is a good church with a good preacher and they are supporting about twenty preachers in the field.

Relative to the Bible study of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, both debaters agree that the passages enjoins long hair on women and short hair for men. Donahue argued the artificial covering for women while praying is the focus of the passage and the woman must wear it at all times when praying (in or out of the assembly). Jenkins argued that subjectivity (v. 3) is the focus of the passage and the covering a woman must wear is the long hair and is worn all the time she shows subjectivity which is all the time. Jenkins argued the word for “covering” (katakalupto) is a word which means a covering that hangs down and after discussing it for about twelve verses the writer finally names it in v. 15 as the hair. He showed the word “covering” in v. 15 is a different word and means a covering that is wrapped around, and the woman’s covering that hangs down (hair) is given her for (anti, instead of) one that is wrapped around.

The debate was repeated in Oklahoma City in the building of the 59th and Santa Fe church in June. This debate was just as cordial and the brethren there fed and housed the debaters and moderators. Little interest in this subject exists in Oklahoma City and the attendance indicated as much.

The last of June and first of July Jenkins debated Christian Garrtett, a young debater with the Pentecostals, in Choctaw, OK, in a large rented hall. The Pentecostals furnished the building and Garrett had challenged any preacher of the church of Christ to meet him in debate. There was only about a week to prepare and since Jenkins has debated this subject several times before, he answered the challenged. Hedge’s Rules of Controversy were not signed and the only rule of conduct was for Garrett’s people not to talk or disturb when Jenkins was debating. As is Jenkins’ custom, he took passage after passage and showed there are three distinct persons in the one God or Godhead. Garrett got up and led a “pep rally” with his people as they showed vocally and bodily their approval of him. Written questions were entertained by both debaters and a host of questions came in.

Garrett had promised at least 200 of his people for the debate, but later changed that to 100, but had fewer than half that attended. A majority of the people present were faithful saints in the area who appreciated the truth Jenkins taught.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 25
January 5, 1995

By Larry Ray Hafley

Had there been such a headline in the “papers” of the day, mighty men derisively would have scoffed and said, “What a laugh!” Yet, there it was; the affirmation and confirmation of the fact was made: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant” (Jer. 1:10).

God had done the same sort of thing many years before with Moses. Imagine, a lowly, banished shepherd approaching the military might of the potentate Pharaoh and saying, “Let my people go”! Again, what a laugh! As Pharaoh contemptuously asked, “Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?” (Exod. 5:2)

Centuries later, the Lord repeated the effort and its effect. After listing the magnificent seven in the courts and congresses of the world (Caesar, Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysanias, Annas, and Caiphas), Luke said, “the word of God came unto John” (Lk. 3:1, 2). Not unto the popes and political powers of the civil and religious realm, but unto John “the word of the Lord came.”

Jeremiah, Moses, John the Immerserwhat an unlikely trio! But to each man, God gave a message and a mission. The men were unimposing; their message appeared impotent; their mission seemed doomed to failure. Jeremiah was sent to a miry dungeon. Moses was rejected by his own people. John, an ascetic, backwoods preacher, was be-headed.

If you were of “the nations” and the kingdoms” of those eras, would you have considered these men a threat? Would you have given their word a second hearing? Would you have wagered anything on the chances of their success? No, a thousand times, no! Yet, in the end, each ultimately prevailed through him that ruleth in the affairs of men. It required many years. Moses and John did not live to see the full fruition of their word and work, but, as was said of later ventures, “So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed” (Acts 19:20). Count on it (Isa. 55:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 4
January 19, 1995

By Marc Smith

Psalms 77:5, “I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.”

I have observed a thing that is true of recent history. One might study a particular piece of ground, let us say an 800 acre tract of land purchased 100 years ago. When the original owner died he left the land to be divided between his four surviving children. They each get a 200 acre portion. When each of these dies, having an average of four children each, the land is again divided till all now have title to 50 acres each. When they die and pass it on, their children receive just a few acres each and so on with generation after generation till the land disappears into tract homes or small lots that have only value as residential sites. The land no longer retains its original possibilities as a farm, ranch, or for timber.

This was not the way things were done in Israel under the Old Law. The Bible tells us the land of Canaan was divided by the authority of God to the conquerors, the Israelites, as God had promised. The land was given in portions to various tribes and families who were to hand it down to the eldest son only. There were very rigid guide-lines governing this inheritance and genealogies were studiously and pains-takingly kept up with in order to ascertain true ownership through the generations. Markers, universally of stone because stone is a stable sub-stance, were set at the boundaries of these family plots. These are referred to as “landmarks.” Landmarks were extremely important then, to know where to gaze sheep, pasture herds of all kinds, build pens, dwellings, walls, vineyards, etc. If landmarks were moved arbitrarily, confusion would abound.

The Danger of Removing the Ancient Landmarks

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). “Remove not the old land mark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless” (Prov. 23:10).

The Israelites were commanded under the Old Law not to remove the landmarks (Deut. 19:14; 27:17). Why? All sinful activity brings about confusion.

Read from Job 24:1-9, 19-25. Those who remove land-marks have no regard for order and authority. The sinner is a transgressor of the order and authority of God, the lawgiver himself. Again we note that confusion is the consequence of the one who removes the spiritual land-marks. The very nature of God is goodness, righteousness, and by those attributes all that is good and right in the physical and spiritual realms. Confusion is neither good nor righteous, therefore cannot be of God. 2 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

Is There Danger in Removing “Ancient Landmarks” For Us Today?

The landmarks which were set by our fathers very often bother us. We may honestly feel that because of our fear of blindly following traditions set by the uninformed or the uneducated without our own investigation of biblical authority we may be following a false spiritual road. Or we may simply be rebelling against our fathers regardless of whether or not their “land-marks” are scriptural.

It is true that every generation wants to think its own ways are superior to the ways of the generation that has gone before them. Youth view traditionalism as a mortal enemy. But the truth is that the vitality and youthful energy of the upcoming generation is a good thing, by and large, if guided correctly, and stagnation and decay are swept away by it. This is a natural occurrence evidenced by all of creation. The Creator planned for and intends for renewal to bring needed growth and a new attitude that is so characteristic of youth, an attitude of untested zeal.

But every generation as it comes up and takes its place must look for spiritual balance. Youth is usually not very adept at finding balance or moderation. Remember the warning given in Proverbs 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” ” Notice: God ordained the borders of the properties and men were to mark them and keep them. “… which thy fathers have set.” What must a new generation, only now arising, do about “land-marks” of a spiritual kind when warned so severely not to remove them?

While we Christians are certainly to question the reasons for our faith and learn for ourselves the evidences that will prove our faith and make it our own, it is never wise to completely get rid of established practices simply because our forefathers practiced and believed them. Has it never occurred to us that the reasons why they have held to many positions over the years might just be that they through much labor, mishap, experience of many years, suffering, and sometimes through trial and error arrived at the most workable solutions even if it cost them deeply and personally a great deal? Positions held by our fathers on all kinds of “issues” are like this. Name one issue that has not been thoroughly expounded, application sought and practiced. That would be a difficult task indeed. Since the positions held by our fathers are not hasty and ill informed, why do many feel like they must start all over again by first destroying these “landmarks”?

Sound doctrine, contrary to what many may think, has necessary “traditions” to be upheld. Loyalty to any man is just not a part of it. All there is really, is just taking a stand for the truth even if it is the same truth as a hundred generations before us have held. We admire and follow the attitude personified by the Bereans who were pronounced “more noble.” Why? Because they “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” ” These people were making their faith their own in doing this, not just blindly accepting what they were told, even if by the apostles. But in seeking the balance of Scripture, notice Paul’s strong admonition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle.” ” Our beliefs and then necessarily our spiritual practices must first come from God. If our fathers practiced God’s will, we must not change these traditions or landmarks simply because they are old or, in our eyes, outmoded.

The Problem With Wanting to be “Progressive”

“Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 In. 9). To “go onward” is in the Greek, proago or to progress. We can clearly see that this means that anyone who progresses onward is not “abiding” in the teaching of Christ and leaves God behind. Traveling onward and away from the guidance of God’s word is like the sinner removing the ancient landmarks. It causes confusion and chaos, is therefore not of God, and causes men to lose their souls.

For ages men have sought to justify all the change in the name of being progressive. Religious movements of all kinds have used this excuse for anything goes and the Lord’s church has suffered plenty through the years because of this unwise misconception. 2 John 9 teaches us that progress is good only when it is in the direction of Christ, and not away from him.

The serious child of God can come to only one conclusion regarding the concept of being “progressive.” In spiritual matters it is far preferable to be “non-progressive,” particularly in not going beyond what the Lord has said. Any movement which is away from the teaching of Christ is progress in the wrong direction, and results in the loss of God himself.

Just what has so-called “progress” gotten us anyway? The tremendous confusion called “denominationalism” is what progress has brought. We can also chalk up the division among churches of Christ to a misguided desire to be progressive at any cost. The justification of the so-called “progressives” has always been, “At least we’re doing something!” They never seem to care that they are doing “something” without God!

Let’s just consider what we have gotten from those who desire to “go onward” and “not abide” with God:

Among those who rush to “shoot first and ask questions later,” our brethren who are not bothered too much with scriptural authority just so “they are doing something,” the “liberal” churches of Christ, the spectre of “Modernism” is scything through them taking many casualties. They are running back to the Bible to find out how to justify instrumental music in worship and to see if they can explain away the Bible reasons why women cannot take a usurping part in worship and leadership. Concerned brethren are disturbed by people clapping during worship and spontaneously singing solos, etc. These troubled souls need the Bible but years ago they laid it aside to open the door to any “program” in the name of “change” or in the name of blind compassion for the orphans or widows of the world. Now they know so little about what God’s plan in these areas actually is that they cannot defend even baptism for remission of sins! This is the paradox of the “tradition-bound liberal brethren.” They “progressed” and left God behind and in leaving him behind they lost the light of truth which is the only power to guide us in spiritual matters. May they come back to God and give up the “progress” that is error.

Fundamental subjects are plaguing many today like the popular notion that the Lord’s church must keep pace with society in issues like women’s rights, social and psycho-logical welfare, etc.

We are now faced with those whom we formerly thought of as “conservative” or “sound,” that is, we thought they wanted to hold a scripturally accurate view not affected by the pressures of our times, now asserting that divorce can be had for any reason and that one can remarry as often as he may wish. Every case of divorce and remarriage can be justified somehow by certain “progressive thinkers among us.” And that this has been God’s wish all along. The sophistry of this point is that those who claim these things loudly assert that no matter how you have heard it or interpreted this before, if you disagree with them on this point you are pathetically ignorant and unenlightened. You are in fact “a traditionalist.” The only real excuse as to why formerly sound brethren will take such an ungodly position as this is that they have become affected by progressivism. A sad thing to consider is that there are some who really do it because of loyalty to older preachers they look up to and admire and with whom they are willing to jump off the cliff of no scriptural authority. And again the only thing that can come from something like this is impure churches unable to deal with disciplinary needs, more unqualified men seeking to become elders, and the perception that they are not taking a stand when God does! The fruit of such beliefs will only be more confusion and God is not the author of confusion but of peace so it cannot be God. Cannot these brethren see their inconsistency?

Conclusion

In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me.” He also said, “believe in God, believe also in me,” and, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:1,6). When will those who wish to do everything so that they might be progressive learn that Christ is not just “a” way but he is “the way” ? Stop removing the ancient landmarks because there is confusion in the land.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 21-23
January 5, 1995

By Connie W. Adams

All too many have become masters at beginning projects which they never finish. I have been brought face to face with some old fashioned virtues this week, while in a meeting with the small congregation at Wilkesville, Ohio in the southern part of the state, about 25 miles north of Gallipolis. I am staying with some wonderful folks who live on a farm a few miles from Ewington. Yesterday, brother Sydney Harless decided to repair a flat tire on a manure spreader. The piece of equipment is old and the wheel was rusty. Even the tire was rusted to the rim, which was one continuous circle. His son, Jim came to help and it took them the better part (2/3) of the day of get that wheel off and repair the tire. They sweated and strained (Jim has a had back), got dirty, endured set-backs and frustrations, but they prevailed. The job is finished. Being the practical man that I am, I asked why they did not get someone to do it for them. Brother Harless replied, “Why that would have cost S20.”

How many worthwhile projects languish because we lack the determination to see them through. We have become dabblers and talkers,” jacks of all trades and masters of none.” Folks, I have to tell you.’ am much encouraged. Old fashioned virtue yet lives! “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might” (Eccl. 9:10).

Talking About It

The last item made me think of the story I heard about a city boy who came to spend some time with his grandparents who lived on a farm. He was anxious to get into the spirit of farm life and insisted on taking his turn at feeding the livestock. Being somewhat apprehensive about it, they questioned him when he returned to the house. “Did you feed the horses?” “Yes,” he said.” Well, what did you feed them?” “Hay,” he said. “Did you feed the pigs?” “Yes” came the answer. “What did you feed them?” “Hay,” he said. “Well, did they eat it?” “I don’t know, but they were standing around talking about it when I left,” he said. And that is how many of us are about the Lord’s work. We do a lot of “standing around” and “talking” about it.'”

Would that we had the spirit of Nehemiah. Several decades had passed since the first group of captives returned to Jerusalem. Still, there no walls around the city. When Nehemiah was granted a leave of absence from the Persian court to go and see to the task, he got it done in 52 days (Neh. 6:15). He had a plan, laid it out and put the people to work on it. We could use some Nehemiahs among elders in the church and among the host of members.

Has Beens, Gonna Be’s and Is’ers

A tourist was visiting one of the famous horse farms in the bluegrass country of Kentucky. The guide proudly showed him an old horse who had won many races including the Kentucky Derby. Then he showed him a frolicking colt in the pasture and told what outstanding blood lines this animal had and what great things were expected of him. The tourist said, “Well now, that’s interesting enough all right. You have shown me a has been’ and a ‘gonna be.’ What I want to see is a real ‘is-er.'”

We have congregations and preachers who live in the glories of the past. They can tell you what has been. There are some who have grandiose schemes for the future which never seem to get off the drawing board. But, brethren, what we need are “is-ers”  folks who day by day are quietly going about the task of serving the Lord. There are many congregations which are minding their own business and doing their own work without much fanfare and little notice from the brotherhood. There are many gospel preachers who are quietly and competently preaching publicly and from house to house (Acts 5:42). They don’t write for any of the papers and some don’t subscribe to many, if any, of them, but they are doing the work of an evangelist, converting the lost, strengthening the souls of the disciples, refuting error, just simply preaching the word in season and out (2 Tim. 4:2-3). They are “is-ers.” May the Lord bless their labors.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 3-4
January 19, 1995