Truth Magazine

By Randy Blackaby

Good people aren’t really that good unless they know how to practice healthy hate. That may seem a bizarre statement, especially from a Christian, but it is true. And, I’ll argue, the Bible sup-ports this position.

Let me explain.

Good people can’t love the way the Bible teaches without hating the way the Bible teaches. That’s paradoxical but true.

Now we’re not talking about malicious and unjustifiable feelings of animosity toward others. Rather, we’re talking about a deep, gutteral feeling of aversion toward what is evil or wrong.

I’m speaking of the sense of repugnance and disdain that wells up inside us when we hear of someone raping, molesting, murdering or maiming another person. This hatred is righteous and critically needed in our society.

The Bible says God hates. He hates idolatry (Jer. 44:2-5). In fact, Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that God hates. Those include prideful arrogance, liars, murderers, hearts that devise wickedness, people who love to do evil, false witnesses and those who sow discord.

So, if God hates, we ought to hate. We ought to hate every false way (Psalm 119:104). The old ’60s slogan that each person ought to “do his own thing” and leave the other guy alone is wrong and unloving.

The church in Ephesus was commended for hating (Rev. 2:6). Why? Because those persons and congregations of persons who are not opposed to wrong are supporting wrong.

As the result of perverted religious teaching that leads people to think love and hate can’t exist side by side, even good people have come to believe that it is unloving to condemn homosexuality, abortion, lying politicians, lazy people who won’t work, adulterers, filthy TV, pornographic movies and false religious teachers.

So, there is an awesome silence in America. As a result, the liberal minority in this nation holds sway. Our children are being inculcated with their anti-religious dogmas and politics. Good people stay quiet. Evil men seek to censor the few good ones who speak up.

It’s time we stir up our righteous hatred of all this evil. It’s time to let our righteous indignation be seen and heard. Our past silence has been an acquiescence to evil.

Now, one last point, lest all this be misunderstood or misapplied. Hatred must be focused on evil and not on people. We must hate evil behavior but love the people practicing it enough to stop them.

God hated sin enough to sacrifice his Son to eradicate it and forgive people who practiced it. He loved sinners enough to save us by the same sacrifice.

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

By John T. Lewis  Reprinted from the Gospel Guardian

Anything that sounds like religious controversy in pulpits or papers gives a certain class of men spiritual meningitis. But the first martyr in the church was its first debater. The Bible was taken from the people by compromise but can never be restored by that method.

The question that forms the heading for this article is based on the stereotyped phrase heard by every gospel preacher in every “neck of the woods.” Its twin sister is “preach the gospel in love,” which is used to mean, preach nothing antagonistic to anybody. Of course, that kind of preaching will never save any one, not even the one that does the preaching. “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). By deceptive phrases the gospel too often suffers in the house of its friends.

The First Challenge

God created man an intelligent being, and recognized his intelligence by speaking to him and giving him a law, in the keeping of which the welfare of man was involved.

But no sooner had God spoken than his Satanic majesty appeared on the scene and challenged God’s word through the best medium at his command in that early age  the Serpent. God has spoken to man; the devil has challenged his word. This is the issue  the battleground. Around this fact the war has raged for six thousand years, with the defenders of God’s word on one side and the challengers on the other side. Therefore, ever since the creation of man these two great powers have been engaged in a life and death struggle for the mastery of man’s soul. It is well, therefore, to study their methods of approach. God approaches man only through his understanding, or reasoning faculties. The devil uses different methods of approach; his is through the emotional, and baser appeals to the lusts, passions, and weaknesses of man. The devil, therefore, has the advantage in the struggle in that he offers man anything he wants, whereas God offers only what is for man’s eternal good.

The Spirit of Compromise

The most deadly weapon the devil has ever used in this warfare has been the spirit of compromise, his last resort when all other methods have failed. There is a species of fish in the ocean which emits an inky substance that colors the water and conceals the movements of this fish when-ever an enemy approaches. Just so the enemies of the truth have saturated the church with the spirit of compromise which conceals their purposes from thousands of good conscientious people whose emotional nature predominates their reasoning faculties. Therefore, anything which smacks of religious controversy either in the pulpit or the papers gives that class of men spiritual meningitis, which so impairs their mental equilibrium on spiritual questions that they will blatantly declare and contend that the defenders of the truth are the “troublers in Israel.”

The First Debater

Just as the devil challenged God’s word as soon as he had spoken, so he assaulted the church as soon as it was established. The first efforts of the devil’s cohorts in religious discussion are recorded in Acts 6:8-10. “And Stephen full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people. But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he speak.” Their defeat was so crushing and humiliating in this controversy that the devil never has believed in debating since. His emissaries were so enraged over their defeat that they suborned, or hired, witnesses to swear away Stephen’s life. So Stephen, the first debater in the church became the first martyr in the church.

But because this is a fact shall we selfishly agree with the devil that religious controversy is wrong, and that Stephen was the “trouble in Israel?” Around the first altar was committed the first murder, but does this prove that religion is wrong?

The death of Stephen was the signal for the most determined and merciless persecution against the church that was ever waged against any institution on earth; but the persecution “fell out rather to the progress of the gospel.” The church was never hindered in its spiritual growth and development as long as the devil assumed the role of a lion and fought in the open. But it was an evil day for the church when the devil fled from the field of persecution and open controversy, and like a chameleon transformed himself into an angel of light, and fashioned his ministers into ministers of righteousness, draped in robes of humility and piety, and sent them down the corridors of time scattering his compromising propaganda. By this method he convinced the church that departure from God’s word was not an issue until he got the situation completely in hand. He then substituted for the elders of the church the Roman hierarchy, and for the church itself he substituted Roman Catholicism, which hung as a pall over a duped and deluded people for a thousand years.

It took the blood of martyrs to give the word of God back to the people. During this period of restoring the Bible to the people, we have the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, in which “more than five thousand Protestants were murdered in cold blood, in the city of Paris alone, and about thirty thousand in all were killed. The news was received at Rome with joy, and a medal was struck having a picture of the pope on one side and on the other a rude representation of the massacre.” We also have the burning of Mrs. Elizabeth Gaunt, Anne Askew, John Bradley, James Bantam, and others at Smithfield. The bones of John Wickliffe, the morning star of the restoration, were dug up by orders of Pope Martin V, after they had rested in the dust of the dead for more than forty years, and scattered to the four winds of the earth. Thus, through blood, fire, and desecration of the dead, the Bible was restored to the people.

In this warfare I can only speak for “me and my house.” So long as God blesses me with health, strength, and vigor of mind, I shall make an issue of, and fight everything that detracts from the glory of the church, or challenges the present kingship of the Messiah. It makes no difference whether I am in the city or in the woods where the owls hoot at noon, the devil shall not gum up my weapon of warfare with his compromising glue.  Adapted from Gospel Guardian, February, 1936.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 9-10
January 5, 1995

By Joe R. Price

The following announcement was seen in a recent bulletin from the Salt Lake Valley Church of Christ:

Please don’t feed the ants: Anyone who brings food into the building is asked to be mindful of the fact that we have a severe ant problem. Please be sure to clean up the area in which food is served and make sure any to be left is sealed in air-tight containers (The Salt Lake Messenger, from the Salt Lake Valley Church of Christ, May 30, 1993).

I am sorry to hear of the ant problem these folks seem to be having. Ants are pesky things. And diligent, too. “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provideth her bread in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest” (Prov. 6:6-8). It seems the ants have been harvesting their “bread” at the Salt Lake Valley Church of Christ with a good deal of success.

The suggested remedy for this ant problem is to clean up the food-serving areas and make sure the food left behind is tightly sealed. We all know this helps reduce the chances of ants getting to their next meal, but someone is sure to forget, and as quickly as they do those tireless creatures will once again make their presence known. Therefore, I would like to propose to these brethren a remedy which, if observed, will greatly reduce their ant problem. In fact, if this precaution is taken, in all likelihood the ants will soon go looking for their “bread” somewhere else. The solution is found in 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34. “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall! say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I praise you not…. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”

You see, there is a greater problem here than not feeding the ants. It is one of not feeding the people! It is a foregone conclusion in the denominations around us that a part of the work of a church is to provide social gatherings for its members and the community. Indeed, to suggest that it is not the work of the local church to plan, promote and provide social and recreational activities is viewed as narrow-minded to some and blasphemous to others. However, we are content to let the Bible answer the issue for us. And, we plead with our brethren in Salt Lake and elsewhere to respect what the Bible teaches on this important subject.

The local church has God-given work it is to be doing. Briefly stated, its work is evangelism to the lost (1 Thess.1:8; Phil. 1:5), the spiritual edification of its members (Acts 2:42; 20:28-32; Eph. 4:11-16), and benevolence to needy saints (Acts 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Tim. 5:16). This is the sum of the work authorized in the New Testament by Jesus for the local church. Since we are to function only under the authority of our head (who is Christ Eph. 1:22-23; 5:24; Col. 3:17), we should be content with the work he has instructed us to perform in our congregational capacity.

But, for a variety of reasons, brethren have had trouble being content with the simplicity of the gospel as it relates to the work of the church. Whether it is to “be like the nations around them” (I Sam. 8:5,20) or to draw people together in the hope of teaching them the gospel and/or fostering improved relationships (Jn. 6:26-27,44-45), the result is the same. Additions to the work of the church are made. Disobedience of 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34 occurs. Good motives behind the church-sponsored and promoted dinners, get-togethers and “fellowship meals” do not change these facts. The end does not justify the means (Rom. 3:8). We must do God’s work, not our own (Eph. 2:10).

One common response to the foregoing position of no church-sponsored social functions is frequently stated thusly: “You are misapplying 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. The Corinthians’ problem was that they were abusing the Lord’s supper by introducing their common meals into the assembly. The church can promote `fellowship meals,’ etc. as long as these activities are kept separate from the assembly.” It is true that the Corinthians were abusing the Lord’s supper (vv. 20-21). Nobody denies that. But please look carefully at the remedy the apostle prescribes. He did not say “separate your church-sponsored meals from the assembly.” He did say you have houses to eat and drink in (v. 22). He did say let the hungry man eat at home (not at the “fellowship meal” in the “fellowship hall” after services). The remedy was to remove all common meals from their “coming together” (vv. 33-34). The work of the church is spiritual, not physical (cf. Rom. 14:17). Let the home supervise common meals (vv. 20,34). Let the church “come together” to partake worthily of the Lord’s supper (vv. 20,23-33).

Another often heard reason legitimizing church-endorsed social gatherings is this: “Only individuals are providing the food, etc. The church is not involved, since none of its money is being used to occasion the event.” Honestly now, were not individuals the ones who were providing the food in 1 Corinthians 11? Of course they were, for the Scripture says “… for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper… ” (v. 21). Further-more, the church is using its money when its building and facilities are used for the separate activity for pot-luck dinners, “fellowship meals” and the like. Since the building expedites (aids) the church in evangelism, edification and benevolence (these are authorized works for the local church, as noted above). The authority for church-promoted social activities is lacking in the Scriptures (Col. 3:17; 2 Jn. 9). Therefore, to use the building for such is to use it to aid in an unscriptural work.

Other defenses are offered, but when they have all been heard, 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34 remain. They are clear and decisive. Let the church be about the scriptural business of honoring the Lord’s death and promoting gospel preaching and teaching. Let the home be about the business of feeding the stomach and arranging social gatherings. God’s way does work. We need not tamper with it. We ask our brethren in Salt Lake and elsewhere to come back to the Bible way and stop adding to God’s word and work (Jer. 6:16; 10:23; Matt. 7:21-23). When you follow God’s way, you will not have to worry about feeding the ants. The church’s full attention can be given to feeding souls the word of God (Acts 20:28; Deb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 8-9
January 5, 1995

By J. Wiley Adams

Most of the time the above title will be a misnomer for many preachers will never own the houses they live in here and there as they do local work. It is a common practice for many local churches to buy a residence for whoever is preaching for them to live in. Let me hasten to say that I find no fault with this practice as such. It falls under the category of preacher support, for which we have authority in the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 9:14 says “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Other passages could be added to this. Whether the preacher’s support is in the form of cash, benefits, or facilities will stand as a matter of judgment. Preachers may support themselves totally through a secular,job, or, by making up the difference in church support by secular work (Paul made a few tents), or by accepting total support from the local church or churches. This preacher has done all three.

My purpose in writing on this matter is to point out some disadvantages both to the local church and to those preachers who live in a church-owned house. While we (preachers included) are to walk by faith and not by sight, it is not to be through faith only.

In the normal course of events preachers will grow old. What security will they have as far as a place to live when that time arrives. Many preachers grow old and have to move out of a house they have lived in for many years while knowing full well that day would arrive. What will they do? What will happen to them? Where will they live?

In fact, since preacher’s houses are considered to be part of their wages, they must pay taxes on such. One place I preached, some of the brethren wanted me to raise full outside support, including enough to buy a house and put the house in the name of the church. I refused on the grounds that if I was going to buy a house out of salary that the house would be mine. Some were unhappy about this! They wanted me to buy a house and deed it to the church, then later on when I moved to another place the church would have a house. Do I have a point in all this some-where?to pay preachers a total amount out of which they can buy or rent their own place of abode. (Then if he is not satisfied with where he lives it is his own fault.) This total amount should be enough for them to be able to do this. In this way preachers can build an equity wherever they go and have somewhere to live when they grow old.

Furthermore, this can help the churches as well. A house needs maintenance and this can get expensive and not a little sticky. A house will have normal wear and tear and it can become a burden to the local church. Many churches are good landlords but some are not. If the preacher tries to get some needed work done on the house, he is sometimes accused of wanting to live too high on the hog. One place built a house “hard by the synagogue” (not the best thing to do for various reasons) and one brother who lived in the country and had outside facilities thought the preacher’s house should be no better than his. It was pointed out to him that, among other things, the city laws required indoor facilities in town. He was still unhappy.

Sometimes the only substantial maintenance done on a house is “between preachers.” Then the cost is so high that sometimes the former preacher is accused of not taking care of the place. It might be that things need repair or replacement that will cost so much the preacher hates to bring it up. Then, again, jealousy can arise in the church if too much is spent for the comfort of the preacher and his family.

So, brethren, whenever possible please pay the preacher enough so he can furnish his own house and can feel more secure in his old age. He deserves this for his services to the churches. It will also eliminate the problems that can arise due to maintenance. The church will be out of the real estate business and the preacher will be in the real estate business.

Does this make any sense at all, brethren? Please consider these thoughts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 11
December 15, 1994