Truth Magazine

By Steve Curtis

In Ephesians 3:9-11, Paul establishes the fact that the church is the “eternal purpose” of God. Like an architect, God planned and organized the church from eternity, long before man was created. The idea Paul is trying to establish is that the church was purposed throughout the ages. Therefore, the church we read about in the New Testament was not specifically created and organized for the culture of the first century, but by God’s wisdom it was designed for all cultures or ages.

However, the fact that different cultures have affected the church, as our culture today does, cannot be denied. The question that has to be answered is to what extent can culture affect the church before it violates God’s eternal purpose, his design of the church.

The Church Manifests the Manifold Wisdom of God

Concerning the church Paul states, to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church” (Eph. 3:10). When God purposed the church, it was planned in such a way that its organization and work might make known the many-sided wisdom of God.

No one can know the mind of God unless he reveals it (1 Cor. 2:11,12). This is true no matter what subject is being discussed, including the church. Therefore, let us look to the Scriptures in order to learn God’s will.

God’s will concerning the church was first made known to man by his Son. Jesus’ public ministry was a preparation for the establishment of the church (Matt. 4:17; 6:33; 16:17-19). After the death and resurrection of Christ, this responsibility of revelation was given to the apostles (Matt. 28:18-20; Jn. 14:25-26; 16:13; Lk. 24:49). In Acts 2, the apostles received the power of revealing God’s will and began preaching the gospel of the kingdom which Jesus has revealed and died to establish.

On the day of Pentecost, those who gladly received the words of the apostles obeyed them and were added to the church (Acts 2:41,47). Were those being saved added to the church eternally purposed by God, or were they added to some type of infant church which could grow into the one eternally purposed by God?

Despite the arguments from some of the advocates of the “new heremeneutic,” New Testament Christians were added to the church eternally purposed by God. Did they know on that day God’s will concerning the work of benevolence? More than likely they did not. Did they know on that day that each congregation was to maintain its autonomy? Again, it is likely they did not. However, this does not make the church we read about in the New Testament an under developed church.

The apostles still had the ability and responsibility to make God’s will known. In fact, Paul in the text of Ephesians 3 lets us know that it was his responsibility to make known the church. Which church? There is only one (Eph. 4:4). Paul made known the one eternally purposed by God which manifested his manifold wisdom. An under developed church could not be spoken of as “eternally purposed,” nor could it make known God’s man-sided wisdom. There-fore, the New Testament church completely manifests God’s revealed will concerning its organization and work.

Along with the spoken works of the apostles, the early church had their written word to furnish them completely unto every good work (2 Thess. 2:15; Col. 2:16; 1 Pet. 12-15; 1 Tim. 3:14-15). The apostles’ work was aided by gifts of revelation given to individual Christians (Mk. 16:17-18,20; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:28). By this process, we know that each congregation we read about had the ability to know God’s eternal design of the organization and work of the church.

The New Testament Reveals

A Pattern for Us to Follow

There is no doubt that the infinitely wise architect of the church has made known his will concerning it. God has revealed his will to us in the New Testament Scriptures. This revelation is complete. For every aspect of the organization and work of the church, we can know God’s divine will (2 Tim. 3;16,17; Jude 3).

The written words of Paul were a pattern for Timothy to follow (1 Tim. 3:15). The spoken words of Paul constituted a pattern for Timothy as well (2 Tim. 1:13). Timothy was instructed to teach these to other Christians. Peter’s written word served as a reminder of the truth revealed by him for Christians to have after his death (2 Pet. 1:12-15). Someone might say, “Yes, but it was a pattern for the New Testament Christians. Not a pattern for us.” On the contrary, remember the apostles were not making part of God’s will known concerning the church and establishing an infant church. They were revealing the church that God had purposed throughout the ages.

At this point, let us establish some facts concerning the pattern of the church in the New Testament. First, the pattern was not man-made by early Christians. Secondly, the pattern revealed was not a pattern demanded by culture but a pattern given by God. Thirdly, the pattern revealed to us makes known the will of God concerning the organization and work of the church for all ages. Therefore, if we want to please God, who designed the church, Christians today must follow the New Testament pattern.

Any alteration of God’s pattern is an attempt by man to make “better” that which is complete. Who is man that he should question the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:13)? “But the Lord is in his holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before him” (Heb. 2:20).

The New Testament pattern for the church is God’s pattern, not man’s. It is applicable to every culture of any time. Each culture should conform itself to his word instead of conforming God’s word to the culture. This is clearly demonstrated with the matter of circumcision. In order for Abraham’s descendants to keep the covenant God made with him, it was necessary for all males to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14; Lev. 12:3). However, at Christ’s death, circumcision was nailed to the cross and was no longer necessary (Col. 2:14). At that point, circumcision became part of the Jewish culture.

Many of the Jews still continued to practice circumcision after Christ’s death. Did the apostles try to stop them from being circumcised? If they did, we have no written record. It was no more wrong for the Jews to be circumcised than it is for males to be circumcised today. However, when the Jews tried to bind their culture on the church, the apostles determined that it was a violation of God’s will and they tried to put a stop to it (Acts 15:6-29).

Circumcision is just one aspect of the Jewish culture which some used in an attempt to pervert God’s purposed church. The observance of new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, and the eating of certain foods were all part of the Jewish culture which affected the New Testament church (Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:9,10). If culture is to be used to determine doctrine, organization, and work of the church, then why was the Jewish culture dogmatically opposed by inspired men of God?

To What Extent Does Culture Affect the Church

The fact that culture has an effect on the church cannot be ignored. History shows that culture has affected the church. For example, Christians in the early centuries did not have four part harmony for singing. Four part harmony was something introduced by culture. Early Christians did not have radio and television to aid them in evangelism. These are things introduced by culture. However, these cultural effects did not add to or take away from the revealed pattern for the church.

History also shows culture effects which have destroyed the pattern for the church. This can easily be seen in Roman Catholicism which grew out of a perversion of the over-sight of the elders. Other things such as instrumental music, infant baptism, financial support of orphanages and colleges by congregations, and the social and recreational activities provided by many congregations all demonstrate cultural effects which have perverted God’s pattern for the church.

However, if one opposes cultural changes which manipulate the church designed by God, some will accuse him/her of “patternism” or adhering to a “pattern theology.” Advocates of the “new hermeneutic” movement would like to destroy God’s revealed pattern for the church. “The Bible is not a blueprint or pattern,” they say. “If my method isn’t the same as your method, or if my method isn’t the same method in vogue among the Jews of Palestine some 2000 years ago, then God will torture me in a lake of fire for all eternity” and similar comments like these are made in hopes of destroying the New Testament pattern for the church.

If their arguments are applied to Jewish culture and its effect on the early church, the apostles would have been legalists because they were binding where God had not bound. That is interesting, considering that the Son of God had given them the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Also, Gentile converts of the New Testament would have been forced to adhere to Judaism which Paul spoke of as a perverted gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7). What is even more interesting is that if the church is defined by culture as some are saying it is, notice that the Jewish culture, which was based upon traditions of men, would destroy the church of God (Gal. 1:13-14). Also, if it had been allowed to affect the church, there would have been no justification and the death of Christ would have been in vain (Gal. 2:16,21).

Using the reasoning of the advocates of “new hermeneutics,” if Judaism was to become an issue today, it would have to be accepted. Of course, that is assuming the fact that the church is a spiritual institution designed by God in order for man to use in meeting his own defined “needs.” To disagree with this is to admit that the New Testament Christians had a divine pattern which the Jewish culture threatened to pervert. Also, it would have to be admitted that since the Scriptures provide a divine pattern and not a cultural one, the New Testament church makes known God’s will concerning the work, organization, and work of the church today.

God never intended the church which he eternally purposed to be defined and molded by culture. Cultural effects upon the church that would alter the New Testament pattern are nothing more than perversions of the gospel of Christ, based upon the traditions of men, which will destroy the church of God.

Conclusion

When cultural changes manipulate God’s pattern for the church, they must be avoided. Such cultural effects are nothing more than “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” and should be rejected (Matt. 15:9). Such things as the “new hermeneutic,” the redefining of the roles of women in the church, the Positive Mental Attitude philosophy of preaching, and the redefining of the purpose of baptism are such cultural effects that are changing God’s pattern for the church and must be avoided. Christians can not conform God’s word to culture. We must conform ourselves to God’s word.

The church is a spiritual institution “eternally purposed” by God. He has authorized his Son to have all authority over the church. As such, every aspect of the church  the role of men/women, the work of benevolence, evangelism and edification, worship, etc.  must be done by the authority of Christ according to the pattern which God designed. Even the hypocritical Jewish leaders recognized the proper source of authority, heaven (Matt. 21:23-27).

Christians must be open to the fact that different cultures will have an effect on the organization and work of the church. When such effects are authorized expediencies and lead to edification, they can be used as aids in fulfilling God’s commands (1 Cor. 10:23; 14:40). However, when such changes call for a perversion of the New Testament pattern of the church, they must be resisted they are nothing more than a rejection of the commandments of God (Mk. 7:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 18-20
October 20, 1994

By Richard Boone

This article is a byproduct of research on the institutional debates of the 1950’s which served as the basis for an article in the recent special issue of GOT, “Bible Authority: Problems Past and Present.” As I studied each debate and considered the argumentation, I was constantly reminded that there was a generation now on the scene which does not know about the division over institutional-ism because the division has been pretty well settled since 1960. In the last twenty years, there has not been as much teaching on these issues as there used to be. That can be dangerous. Without continued teaching on these matters we become ripe for another apostasy (Judg. 2:1-15). In light of this, I want to give a few quotations from those debates which I hope will redirect some of our attention and teaching towards these issues. There is much to be learned from these quotes and the materials which are listed for study.

Basis of convictions: “Brethren, in the moments remaining, can you see the proposition my friend agreed to affirm? Can you find where he has introduced scriptural proof tonight? He has called upon the Guardian, he has read from the Guardian, the Gospel Advocate, and referred to individuals in this audience, and other individuals living and dead. And he offers all of that as proof. He must think it germane. He must think he needs it to establish his proposition. It looks like he has more of a personal grudge, more of a personal animosity in his heart than he does a desire to establish the truthfulness of his proposition. Brother Totty, I hope tomorrow night when you come back that you will have some Scripture for this audience. Some of the word of God, and that you will get down to this issue. I hope that you will not be so interested in talking about Holt or what I may or may have not done; or Cox, or Tant or Campbell or anybody else. I hope you will debate the issue, the proposition to which you have signed your name” (Charles A. Holt, The Indianapolis Debate, p. 126).

Spreading the gospel: “As we close this discussion, it is going to be my earnest plea and my prayer that every person present here tonight will resolve in his heart that he will not be content to rest until he has arrived at the truth of God’s word, and is doing everything within his power to spread the gospel of Christ over all the earth. If that happens, the radio will not be limited. The Herald of Truth program being discontinued will not mean that radio preaching will cease. On the contrary, the gospel will be preached on far more stations than it is being preached on now. Millions of people will hear the gospel who are not hearing it now. The trouble with us is that we get too big ideas. We want to do big things and make a big show. An elder of a church in this state spoke to me not long ago about this. It is a big church, with a big budget of over $2,000.00 a Sunday, and a congregation of 1100 members. He said, `In six months we have baptized fourteen people here, most of them children.’ Here is a congregation in which people take great pride; it is a big church; they can have a big show  but it is not getting the job done! Success comes by earnest, sincere, persistent work, quiet, and unassuming. It is not the Billy Graham sort of thing, sensational, and that shakes the world. It is simply doing God’s work in God’s way. That is that way the church spread in the first century. That is the way for the church to spread today. We do not need any half-million dollar `recreation centers’ for the Lord’s church. The Bible does not provide for such. Let us do God’s work in God’s way” (Yater Tant, The Harper-Tant Debate [Abilene], p. 178).

Historical parallels: Though it has been repeatedly denied, there are parallels between church supported benevolent organizations and the operation of the missionary society. Some of the finest material on these subjects can be found in two debates. In The Indianapolis Debate Charles A. Holt presented his material in charts and explanation (pp. 241-318). Furthermore, in The Porter-Woods Debate, Curtis Porter presented his “Deadly Parallel” material via chart and explanation (pp. 164-168,196-199,276-279). Both of these are worthy of close and careful study.

Establishing and applying Bible authority: There are many sources available for studying the proper establishment and application of biblical authority. However, none of them is any better than the speeches by Roy Cogdill on the first night of his debate with Guy N. Woods. The added benefit of studying them from this source is that one can see direct application to subjects under immediate discussion. I recommend them highly to anyone desiring to study this subject (The Cogdill-Woods Debate, pp. 11-25,43-58).

Fellow gospel preachers (especially those of us who are younger), let us be studying and teaching on institutional-ism lest another generation arises which knows not the truth relative to these matters. God forbid that we should contribute to an apostasy because of our failure to properly teach (cf. Ezek. 3:16-21)!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 21
October 20, 1994

By Ken Marrs

Being raised in the 50’s and 60’s by parents who were both faithful Christians, I certainly heard my share of sermons on “Authority.” I must admit there were times when I grew tired of these same lessons, and thought to myself: “O.K., I got it, now let’s get on to something else!” However, several years later as I began to teach and preach, I found myself more and more appealing to the authority of God’s word as the key to the many different problems and controversies that I and my brethren were facing.

Although I had no bias in my approach to Bible teaching (as a matter of fact, if I had any conscious prejudice it was to not be like some of the preachers I had been exposed to in the years when the “issues” were sharply debated in the brotherhood), I soon discovered that the principles of biblical authority were at the heart of almost every controversy in the religious world; from all the various ideas from baptism, church organization/work, and worship, to the questions surrounding divorce and remarriage.

My experiences showed me that strangely, the subject of “authority” is heartily endorsed . . . as long as the appeal to God’s authority is made upon the behalf of an accepted practice in someone’s life; but let the same message of “authority” be discussed in opposition to one’s baptism, worship, marriage, or lifestyle and dissension is almost always inevitable. Rather than following a “party line,” I learned that the authority of God’s word unified those who would faithfully submit, as well as separated those who had other agendas. It is a peculiar characteristic that “authority” is so potent to polarize.

This special issue has given a brief historical perspective of the principles and problems of biblical authority as it has and continues to affect the Lord’s church. One thing that should be obvious in reading these articles is, though the issue(s) may change from generation to generation, the principles of biblical authority are fundamental for a correct understanding of and compliance to God’s will. Sadly, the lack of regard for, the absolute authority of God’s word is also timeless.

What We Need

Though the potential for division is always at hand, clearly the need for preaching and teaching on the absolute authority of God’s word is no less today than it was 40 years ago.

As the Lord told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 6:6-9 to diligently teach their children, so must we. It may seem repetitious . . . because it is; and it may seem trivial and even unnecessary, but it is not. Quite to the contrary, we know the most effective way to learn and retain facts is through initial teaching and then reinforcement . . . continual reinforcement. When the writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:34 (Heb. 8:9) and states that the Israelites “did not continue (emphasis mine: KM) in My covenant,” we understand the problem was in the Israelites’ failure to follow the admonition of Deuteronomy 6:6-9. This should really grab my attention, as a parent as well as a gospel preacher. The wise man realizes the need for teaching is never out-grown, nor the task ever completed.

An older preacher once told me about a “preacher’s luncheon” he had attended in the early ’60s. After lunch, all the preachers in this area got together at the office and began to discuss what they thought would be the next “issue” the church would have to face. With all of the combined “wisdom” in that room, no one guessed it would be the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. You see, the church hadn’t had that problem for generations, so there was no real need to teach on these things . . . or so they thought.

What we should know by now is that every generation needs to be taught about the authority of God’s word. If we fail, the church will soon find itself as Israel did in Judges 2:10 “. . . another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work which he had done for Israel.”

A Word of Warning

It doesn’t take a Solomon to see the church is standing at the threshold of apostasy. Social drinking, gambling, drug use (of all kinds whether you smoke it, snort it, drink it, pop it, shoot it, or chew it), promiscuity, immodest behavior, etc. have long been a problem in the church. Now abortion, adulterous marriages, instrumental music, women leaders and coming soon to a congregation near you . . . homosexuality, are the new threats to the cause of Christ. How could the Lord’s church get to such a point? Why do people who profess to believe in and love God insist upon justifying such things? The answer is rooted not just in the absence of teaching, but in the absence of teaching on the absolute authority of God’s word.

While I was a student at Florida College, brother Robert Turner came to the campus to present a series of lessons on “Authority.” His beginning premise was that “absolute” or “ultimate authority” could not be found in the union of the highest position (“imperial authority”) with the purest truth (“veracious authority”).’ Who is above God, and whose word has consistently proved to be true through the ages? . . . none! Consequently, God has not only the power to command, but also the right. As a young man, this is where it began to “click” for me. As the creature, it doesn’t matter what 1 may think. . . God is my Creator, and I must heed him . . . period.

When the Bible says “… baptism doth also now save us…” (1 Pet. 3:21), it means just that. When the Bible says “. . . women keep silent in the church, for they are not permitted to speak. . .” (1 Cor. 14:34), it means just that. When the Bible says “. . . singing and making melody in your heart. . .” (Eph. 5:19), it means just that. When the Bible says “. . . whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. . . (Matt. 19:9), it means just that. When the Bible says “. . . do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites . . . will inherit the kingdom of God,” it means just that. When the Bible says something, it means just that and nothing more, unless elsewhere authorized in the word of God. Do we get it?

The problems the church is facing just didn’t appear overnight, the ground-work was laid years earlier with a relaxing attitude toward and growing ignorance of Bible authority. I am afraid that while many preachers were applying the principles of “authority” to oppose “institutionalism” in the congregational realm, the same principles were not being consistently or equally applied to immoral behavior and unscriptural thinking in the individual realm.

The Results

When “biblical authority” is ignored, the Bible eventually becomes a facade. While there may be the external appearance of a religious faith in God, in reality, the core objective is the pursuit of a religious “comfort zone” where one can find a framework of accepted behavior and beliefs .. . and woe to anyone who would question it!

No one plans to leave the Bible message, we are simply deceived into accepting the logic that will allow a certain practice, while still functioning under the guise of a religious “faith.” This “faith” is what makes apostasy palatable. As long as we are believers in God’s existence and grace, and we want to be good people, we couldn’t possibly be wrong . . . or so the logic goes. Again, the basic problem is not in understanding that a faithful relationship with God is predicated upon his authority, not our logic!

A Request

I’ve been asked to make some remarks about preaching “the Cross/Christ, not the church.” With all love, I must say I never cease to be amazed at how short-sighted some of my brethren are. I would hope that all of my brethren understand in the light of the subject of biblical authority, you can’t preach one to the exclusion of the other! To preach Christ is to preach his church (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:24). To preach the cross is to preach baptism (Jn. 3:3-5; Rom. 6:3-9). Read Acts 8:12 and see if you can honestly exclude preaching Christ from preaching on the church or baptism. These cannot be made mutually exclusive!

This reminds me of the attitude of the Calvinist who sees one particular aspect of salvation (grace) to the exclusion of all others. Certainly grace is a necessary part, just as faith, repentance and obedience are; but to take any part of God’s word to the exclusion of any other is not rightly dividing or honestly handling the word of God.

In an article written by Dr. Cecil May Jr. (President of Magnolia Bible College), he tells of a sermon he heard while a student at Harding College. J.P. Sanders stated that while baptism, worship, church organization, and such like are essential, they were not really “first principles” of the gospel. Christ, the cross, and the resurrection were the “center of apostolic teaching.” Dr. May states that years later Sanders began preaching for the Disciples of Christ, and that he (Sanders) said he was mistaken about the essential nature of baptism, worship, church organization, etc. Dr. May comments:

. . It is a mistake, however, to think we can effectively promote greater obedience to Christ in neglected areas by undercutting the authority of the Bible in other areas. Worship, the church, and the answer to `What must I do to be saved?’ are not peripheral. They matter.”

He concludes:

“There also are some today who seem to have bought the latter view, that baptism is not essential and the forms of worship and church organization are not even important. They have not left to preach in `Disciples of Christ’ pulpits. They will, however, if they continue unabated, lead their congregations to be what the `Disciples of Christ’ now are. It is not as far as some think from, `What the Bible says about baptism doesn’t matter,’ to, `The Bible is not the word of God,’ from, `I’m not sure women preachers are wrong,’ to `I’m not sure homosexuality is wrong.’ Check the road the `Disciples’ have taken, and see.”2

Interestingly, even one having accepted “institutional-ism,” upon further analysis, has to agree that the integrity of “biblical authority” is the fundamental issue.

A Word of Caution

At the same time, we need to be careful that in our judgments we do not see apostasy where there is none. Granted, there are those who are disputing or disregarding the importance of baptism and the church in their teaching. These individuals need to be reproved and must repent … no question. Yet, if a brother speaks of the cross of Christ and his great love and does not mention baptism, or doesn’t put what we think should be the proper emphasis on baptism, this does not necessarily mean he is a heretic. I am afraid there sometimes exists a “protector of the faith” attitude in some who see apostasy in many things done and said. I am reminded of the danger of using the term: “total commitment.” When the term is used, this does not necessarily mean it is a message from a “multiplying ministry” (there’s another red flag). I would pray that all of my brethren are “totally committed,” and their efforts were “multiplied,” but this does not mean that I am endorsing the methods of the “Boston Church.”

Brethren, let us always stand upon the authority of God’s word in all we say and do. Let us never surrender to the efforts designed to undermine God’s authority. Speaking out on the sinful practices of men is quickly becoming “out of season,” let us be “instant.” And at the same time, let us be patient, understanding and righteous in our judgments of one another (Jn. 7:24).

Footnotes

‘”Truth is, abstractly, `a conformity to fact or reality.’ Its authority is, therefore, the authority of reality.” Series on Authority, Notes by Robert F. Turner, Lesson #1, page 1, c. 1972.

‘May Jr., Dr. Cecil, “The Heresy of False Emphasis,” Preacher Talk, June, 1993.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 22-24
October 20, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

Over fifty years ago, on a darkened road in northeast Texas, an automobile accident occurred which would severely cripple and forever change the life of a young baby, now a grown man, who, without intending to do so, has been an encouragement to many who know him. I have never told him until now, but he is also my hero.

Heroes come in different sizes and from different places. Some people look for heroes in far away, exotic places, failing to realize that heroes may live next door. Some look for heroes among the rich and famous, not realizing that heroes may be unknown, obscure and unsung. Many admirable people are overlooked because they are so close that they are taken for granted.

I am lucky enough to have a hero in my family, and to realize it. Billy Joe is my brother and, at the same time, the per-son I admire most in all the world. The fact that he is my brother is unimportant to his value as a person. Billy is not well known, has never accomplished feats of valor, amassed a fortune, or in-vented anything. He is important to me because, in his own unassuming way, he exemplifies what faith can do under adversity. Surely, there are many like the Christians of Hebrews 11 who “time failed to tell,” unknown to any but to God. Yet their faith under fire becomes the example and pattern for all of us and their personal triumph over tremendous odds sets the standard for others when difficulties arise in our own lives.

It is a wonder that Billy Joe is even alive. He was but eighteen months of age when injured in that dreadful wreck near Tyler, Texas that damaged him and other family members so severely. Perfectly normal before the accident, he would never be the same again. Suffering spinal damage and massive brain concussion, his small body was packed entirely in ice for hours to reduce the swelling, prevent brain damage, and reduce the dangerously high body temperature that followed the immediate wreck. Given up for dead by one of the ambulance attendants, he nevertheless survived, being tenderly cared for by our mother during the long months of recuperation. Mother never left the house during that first year of grave convalescence. Billy had to be carried on pillows and carefully watched during every moment lest complications put his life in imminent danger. After many months of care, Billy Joe gained strength, became healthy and was out of danger. But his life was forever changed.

Because of his injuries, Billy suffered permanent and irreparable damage to his nervous system and muscular control. He was fortunate to escape brain damage, retaining full use of his mental faculties, but his body was severely handicapped. Lacking proper muscle coordination, his speech was blurred and indistinct, his feet unsteady and stumbling and his hands unable to hold objects without dropping them. It is in this strange dichotomy of full mental acuity but limited physical abilities that Billy has been tested, tried and triumphant through faith. Having all the desires and aspirations of anyone else with full mental capacity, he was unable to achieve many of the normal act ivies that we take for granted. It has been my sorrow to have witnessed the years of frustration that ensued to this man, now 57 years of age, as he came to realize his limitations while fighting to attain a normal and reasonable measure of life.

While in grade school, he suffered the taunts and teasing of cruel and unthinking children because of his clumsiness and thickness of speech. Unable to participate in sports, to be a part of the crowd, to mix and mingle with others of his age, he nevertheless persevered, graduated from high school and made it his determination not to be a burden on his family or society. Through sheer persistence, he first got a job in a nursing home where his understanding of physical limitations made him a friend to every patient. Later, he worked in the janitorial department of a university, earning accolades for the attention to detail with which he performed his duties. Finally, forced to retire because his age intensified his disabilities, Billy lives with his mother (now 86 years of age) and assists in keeping the home.

Had Billy Joe been able to talk clearly, he would have preached the gospel. In fact, while worshipping at the East Side church in Denton during the time that Jesse Jenkins labored there, he “filled in” while Jesse was away in meetings. Those in the audience had to listen carefully to understand Billy, but brother Jenkins relates that the sermons were well crafted, faithful to the truth and spoken from the heart. Billy prays a beautiful prayer. His speech is difficult to comprehend to the human ear, but it is evident that Billy speaks to God who is able to read his heart. Singing tunefully escapes him since his hearing is nearly gone, but he “makes melody in the heart” (Eph. 5:19) and sings with grace to the Lord (Col. 3:16). No longer able to serve the communion because of his unsteady hands, Billy can have no part in the public worship service. Locked into near silence due to his advanced deafness (a legacy from the accident), unable to write legibly, and no longer able to work outside the home, Billy yet visits the sick, reads the Scriptures and worships with the saints regularly.

Becoming a Christian early in life, Billy Joe has shown the true meaning of faith under fire. Not a day of his life has been free from adversity and hardship. No achievement has come easily, being reached only through sheer will power and stubborn determination not to give in or give up. He has borne the barbs and darts of insensitive people with grace and dignity, though in his earlier years, in tears. His great love has been the Lord and his church. Constant through all his years of affliction has been that shining faith that has given him the courage to bear up under his burden. Job had great afflictions but his latter years were better than at first. Billy has had hardship more years than Job and will never find release from his burden in this life. His name is not found in Hebrews 11, but it deserves to be. I am sure that God recognizes, even more than me, the triumph that Billy has brought to a life of difficulty. I have learned much about patience, forbearance and tolerance during the decades of his life. I am proud to be his brother. He is my hero. May God grant to me the ability to face the problems of life with the faith and dignity that Billy Joe has brought to his. Few deserve more than him the promise of Christ of that glorious body of the resurrection: “It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power” (1 Cor. 15:42-43). Freed from physical restraints and limitations at last, Billy will be able to fully participate in all the “joy of the Lord” (Matt. 25:21). May God grant to him a full measure of this reward.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 12-13
October 20, 1994