Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

Our text for this study is Titus 2:1-5; and it would be wise for the reader to at least read these verses at this point.

Our story really begins on the is-land of Crete, a large island off the southern coast of Greece. Several references are made to Crete in Acts 27, as one place visited by Paul on his journey (as a prisoner) to Rome  a brief stay here was an effort to escape a storm. According to Acts 2:11, some Cretes were in Jerusalem and heard the preaching of the apostle Peter. Anciently Crete was a very populous country. Both Jew and Gentile were found here, though the Gentiles greatly outnumbered the Jewish population.

The Cretians did not have a very good reputation, “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (1:12). And, Paul says, “This witness is true” (1:13). This was an apparent quotation from the Cretian prophet and poet, Epimenides; he is also quoted in Acts 17:28. This corrupt reputation plays a part in some of the instructions given by Paul, which we shall discuss. Watch for them.

Most probably after his first imprisonment in Rome, Paul made a trip to Crete and left Titus there. He specifically says, “Left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting” (1:5); and this would include the ordaining of elders. Further, Titus was charged, “Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” (2:1).

To Aged Men

One of the “sound things” that Titus was to speak concerned aged men, “That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience” (2:2). We shall briefly notice each of these terms. First, let us recall that much has already been said to some men in chapter one. In verses 5-9 the qualifications for those who serve as elders are given. These place a heavy burden upon the shoulders of such men; for, the purity of the whole church there was at stake. This is clearly seen in verses 10,11,13,14,15 and 16. Now, let us go back to what Paul says to aged men (2:2).

Sober (sophron). This means “sober-minded”; but more, it means “a self-controlled mind.” Whatever else one might say about this word, he cannot escape the idea of a self-controlled mind. The verb form (nepho) of the word originally meant “free from the influence of intoxicants,” but, is used metaphorically in the New Testament (see W.E. Vine). To the thinking person this contrast is vivid. What a difference there is in the thinking of one who is under the influence of intoxicants and one who is not. We simply must not be foolish, irresponsible, and degrading like the one under the influence of intoxicants.

Grave (semnos). Vine says this word first denoted “reverend, august, venerable; then serious, grave.” Vine’s quoted comments should be very helpful here. He points out that neither “grave” nor “gravity” really state the meaning of this word; but that it is a combination of gravity and dignity. He goes further to point out that the word “inspires reverence and awe.” He points to a third author which says, “The word points to seriousness of purpose and to self-respect in con-duct.” Aged brethren, these are weighty thoughts!

Temperate (self-control). All powers placed upon man, by God, are subject to abuse; the right use requires control  self-control. In 2 Peter 1:6, this word follows the word “knowledge,” suggesting that which is learned must be put to practice. Self-control is both negative and positive; it is not merely abstaining from some-thing. It is negative when it forces us to forego the things that are sinful; it is positive when it forces us to do that which is required. He who lacks either the negative or the positive aspects does not have self-control; and the aged are told to have self-control.

Sound in faith, or healthy in faith. Whether we apply this to one’s personal faith or to “the faith” (as in 1:13), the idea of “healthy” is still there. And, brethren, there is a great deal of difference between a healthy faith and a sick one. As age and related infirmities take their toll, we may be inclined to permit our faith to become sick; and, Paul says to the aged men, “Don’t you permit this!”

In charity (love). There is absolutely no place for bitterness, vindictiveness, and the like, in the heart of the aged. “Christian” love acts in wisdom and kindness; and, the aged men must show maturity in this. Love always does what is best for the object of that love.

In patience. This includes the ideas of perseverance, steadfastness, and endurance. James says, “The trying of your faith worketh patience” (Jas. 1:3); and, in so far as I know, this is the only thing that is said to produce patience. Patience is not, I repeat  is not, a passive and dull acquiescence with the inevitable, as the aged often practice it. Such an attitude does not show either perseverance or endurance.

My dear aged fellow-Christians, we must understand that declining faculties that go with being aged must not overshadow those godly qualities within. These are to shine forth as we actively (get this word) anticipate that home-coming (or home-going) in that eternal city of God. There are things that we can do to further the Cause! We must find them; and we must be busy doing them. “Though our out-ward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16). The former grows weaker, the latter grows stronger; one becomes insignificant, the other becomes more significant and obvious; one is less active, the other more active. All the while, remembering, “Our labor is not in vain in the Lord,” never (1 Cor. 15:58).

The Aged Women

Another of those “sound things” that Titus was to teach concerned the aged women  They were to teach the younger women (2:4). They were to teach the younger women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands. This statement gives us an idea of where to draw the line between aged and younger. These younger women had husbands, children, and home; they were not teenage girls.

Now, get this fact — They were to be taught all this “that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Aged women, to ignore or fail to do this teaching invites blasphemy toward God’s Word. Do you want that on your conscience? This is a rather plain command; and one has to wonder why it is so neglected today.

In verse 3 there are four qualifications which the aged women are to have: (1) Her behaviour is to be such that becometh holiness. (2) She is not to be a false accuser (a making of slanderous statements). (3) She must not be a user of wine. Look back to 1:12 and see the statement “slow bellies,” or, as another translation puts it, “lazy gluttons.” This expression includes the idea of drunkenness or drinking  a sin that was prevalent among the Cretians. All three of these have directly to do with one’s character; thus, the power of example is brought to bear. (4) She is to be a teacher of good things. Verses 4-5, give some of those good things which she is to teach; but, it does not end there (see Eph. 2:10). Further, the statement affirms that she must not teach those things that are sinful, questionable, or improper.

Please notice in verse 4 that the aged women are to have these qualifications “that,” (so as, in order to) she may teach the young women. She is commanded to teach the younger women, and these qualifications are given in order that she may be able to do so. Is that the reason that this command is so neglected today?

Of course, inherent in teaching is the idea that those who are taught must listen. Younger women, then, are required to respect, to listen to, to learn from, these aged women. This is God’s order in this matter.

A Closing Observation

The aged will not always find it easy to observe these instructions; they are, nonetheless, instructions of our God. We can do them and we must do them. We must not think of ourselves as useless or fruitless or as rolling stones. Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ who strength-ens me.” Consider this statement, “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immorality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:54). Please see the word “then” in this verse. Then and only then can we rest, and the victory will then, and only then, be ours. May God help us to so do!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 12-13
September 1, 1994

By Ken Marrs

Whatever the issue, the liberal and the conservative stand fundamentally at opposite ends to one another. Clearly, these “labels” come with some fairly emotional baggage, and at times have even over-shadowed the issue(s) at hand. Yet, neither of these “words” is perfect or perhaps even completely understood by the other. I believe a good heart and a better understanding of some of their respective tendencies would help to bring together the best in both of them as well as to eliminate the worst.

The conservative tends to be hard to move for-ward, to motivate into action. His tendency is to stand on the defense rather than take the offensive. The word “conserve” is defined to mean “to preserve from loss.” Projected over a number of years, the conservative finds this position to be counter-productive. He must ultimately admit that no war has ever been won, no crop ever harvested, and no city ever built from a constant defensive position. In conserving the status quo, he labors, but without new growth inevitably loses what he has through stagnation.

On the other hand, the liberal is hard to hold back. By definition a liberal favors reform or progress that tends toward more individual personal freedom. He is principally concerned with doing more, with reaching out, trying new things, conquering new territories, but often forgetting to defend and hold what he already has. Sometimes he finds himself a long way from where he started; and with difficulty or even little desire to find his way back. He labors but doesn’t really gain, losing what he had through neglect.

Neither position is uniformly static, but is found in ever-changing degrees among individuals.

Some Dangers

Liberalism and conservatism are both potentially dangerous. Both of them skirt the precipice of extremes, and are only a half step from unfaithfulness. Liberalism tends to drift away from established authority. It sees little or no danger in departure, and tends to put confidence in the reasoning of good men, popular movements, and well intended aspirations rather than in the absolute authority of God’s word. There is a tendency to walk by sight rather than by faith. It matters not that a position or practice may be on shaky ground morally, ethically or scripturally. The battle cry of the liberal is: “the end justifies the means.” Truth, principle, or being right is not the main concern of the liberal … results are. No wonder liberals have problems among themselves . . . not all of them are that liberal.

On the other hand, conservatives tend to confuse custom and tradition with authority. It tends to walk by fear rather than by faith. It is so terrorized by the possibility of apostasy, that it freezes in its tracks and mistakes its fear for faith. The one talent servant of Matthew 25:24-30 was conservative . . . and he lost his soul. While departing from truth is a valid concern, the conservative’s attitude can at times paralyze the body and hinder future growth. It often sees nearly every new method and untried approach to the Lord’s work as a departure, or a potential departure from the faith . . . even though they may acknowledge it to be scriptural. There is a tendency to be intolerant even to the point of simply preserving personal preferences and prejudices. No wonder conservatives have problems among themselves . . . not all of them are that conservative.

Fundamental Virtues/Flaws

Both have virtues. There is a distinct virtue in reaching out, in stretching for new horizons, and in seeking new ways to do the Christian’s task. As time and circumstance change, so must some of our methods change and adapt. But in our zeal for revival, we must never go beyond that which God has authorized.

In the effort to reach men, sometimes the liberal will change the message of the gospel to accommodate a different need.’ At other times in an effort to justify men the liberal will “reinterpret” the Scriptures to accommodate an unscriptural practice? Tragically, with this approach the liberal will bring men to a humanist way of thinking, rather than the Savior’s words. We will witness a fatal conversion to a “school of thought,” rather than to the “words of life.”

There is also a distinct virtue in holding fast the form of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13). We owe a great debt to those who faithfully stood against error in times past. But we must also take care not to mistake a fear or a prejudice for the faith. Repeatedly we are exhorted to remain steadfast, but this does not mean to stand still, doing nothing. There is a big difference between standing firm and standing still. As disciples of Christ we are to walk in the light. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking we are going anywhere spiritually when a refusal to act is mistaken for “the defense of the gospel.” While we must be steadfast and unmoveable, we must be abounding in the work of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58).

Problems With Liberalism

Liberalism is deceptive. Liberalism reasons that the apparent goodness of a work will suffice as authority for that work. The final test in liberal thought is “how will this help/hurt man?” For this reason liberalism tends to be subjective in its faith. The fervor to do godly things in godly ways, gives way to doing good things in anyway that seems best to man. In the long run liberalism worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator.

Liberalism is wrong because its basic expression is one of unfaithfulness (read: doesn’t put its total trust solely in the word of God). God’s word is faithful and must be held fast (Tit. 1:9). However, liberalism considers additional criteria for its justification. In Numbers 22:18; 24:13

Balaam twice tells King Balak that he cannot go beyond the word of the Lord (this is the correct and scriptural attitude) . . . however we later discover that Balaam relents from this position and counsels Israel to trespass against the Lord (for personal gain, Num. 31:16; 2 Pet. 2:15). The basic problem Balaam had was that what he wanted to do was not approved of within the will of God, so he had to go beyond the word of God to find justification for his actions. This is liberalism as it is driven by human rational.

In Numbers 20 when Moses was instructed by the Lord to speak to the rock, instead he struck the rock and consequently was not allowed to enter into the promised land. We discover in verse 10 that Moses considered himself the main character in this episode and thus acted upon his own judgment of right and wrong concerning the circumstance. This too is liberalism.

The liberal sees the personal individual as the yardstick by which every situation is finally discerned. The liberal tends to treat the integrals of the gospel as peripherals of judgment and opinion. Thus ultimately, liberals cannot agree among themselves except it be to oppose all conservatives.

Problems With Conservatism

Conservatism has its expressions of faithlessness also. Fear is the great danger and mortal enemy of conservatism. Fear serves to discourage the hearts of brethren and to deter (sometimes even prevent) solid scriptural works. The example of the twelve spies is well-known. The ten spies whose report was eventually believed and became the cause of Israel’s 40-year journey through the wilderness, was prompted by fear (Num. 13:31-14:3). They were unwilling to follow God’s will in moving forward and taking the promised land, but rather wanted to select a new leader to take them back to Egypt. This is conservatism as it is driven by human fear.

The conservative sometimes may feel it necessary to accept some extreme position for sake of consistency. Even though he may doubt the position, he cannot satisfactorily explain it .. .so he accepts it. With a few experiences like this he can easily become ultra-conservative. Forgetting the intention of a particular teaching in the Scriptures, it may be mistakenly extended and a judgment reached according to appearance or preference rather than by right (Jn. 7:24). The example of the Pharisees comes to mind. In their zeal to protect the Law of Moses, they not only established their own code of rules and conduct, but when they felt that system threatened, they crucified the Son of God. This is ultra-conservatism.

The conservative will many times unwittingly surround (read: smother) the gospel with a standard or code of personal preferences and prejudices that are designed to repel liberalism and conserve conservatism. Yet, because these preferences are of such an individual nature and origin, there is confusion and even strife among the conservatives as to which of these “standards” is to be employed. Conservatives tend to treat the peripherals of judgment as integrals of the gospel. Thus conservatives cannot agree among themselves except it be to oppose all liberals.

Common Faults

Both can be reactionary. For example, a charge is made from the community that the church is discriminating against women. An outspoken sister of the congregation wonders why she can’t publicly address the assembly. She has some biblical knowledge, is capable, and after all we don’t want people in the community thinking we’re sexist . . . so the decision is made to let her preach. This is liberalism as it inevitably responds in kind.

In another case, a preacher was appointed to be an Elder and he proved unfaithful. Others saw this and reacted later by refusing to appoint another preacher to the eldership (even though they acknowledged him to be qualified) because he might also prove to be unfaithful. Such is more than mere conservatism, it is an expression of unfaithfulness as surely as any liberalism is.

Both liberals and conservatives lose. The liberal plays it loose in hopes of gaining more, and the conservative plays it safe to protect what he has. Neither is fully consistent with the faithful life as described in the New Testament.

Being “Faithful”

In the story of the twelve spies, Joshua and Caleb are the heroes because they put their trust in what God said, and determined to follow it regardless of personal feelings . . . this is neither liberal nor conservative but scriptural. One must never be blind to dangers, but neither must the child of God be afraid to do anything scriptural.

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2 Tim. 1:7).

Liberal or conservative? Why hold out such a poor choice? Why not just be faithful; perfectly united in our collective efforts to follow the unadulterated gospel of Christ, and liberal in our love toward one another as concerning our personal opinions and privately held judgments? Seems simple enough if we genuinely have the spirit of Christ. After all, it is the good and faithful servant who will enter into the joy of the Lord (Matt. 25:21) . . . not the liberal or conservative.

Footnotes

‘Observe the “social gospel” as the main message in the religious world today appealing to man’s “need” of self-esteem, meaningful social relationships, etc. rather than his sense of sin against God and what God has required of him.

‘One principle that has served me well is to recognize that one of the earmarks of a liberal’s attempt to defend an unscriptural practice is the inevitable change in arguments. The “interpretation” of a particular passage may temporarily meet the criteria of an immediate situation, but when circumstances change or the former “interpretation” is proved wrong, a new “interpretation” or argument is quickly adopted. Witness the “new hermeneutic” for those who would defend instrumental music; or the changing interpretations of “commits adultery” in Matthew 19:9 by those who would defend adultery in a second marriage.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 20-22
September 1, 1994

By John Humphries

By God’s grace and your prayers, Bill Beasley and I returned safely to the U.S.A. after some six plus weeks of gospel work in India and Sri Lanka. We believe that much good was done and the gospel efforts are going forward in a fine way.

I want to give a brief report on the materials used or given during the trip. These materials were provided by brethren here in the U.S.A.

Telugu Bibles 800

Hindi Bibles 200

Telugu Song Books 1000

Telugu and Hindi gospel tracts 325,000

Mimeograph machine (and supplies) 1

Typewriters for Indian brethren 4

The Telugu and Hindi Bibles were given to needy saints. Telugu and Hindi are Indian languages. The Telugu song books are hymns that were written by faithful Indian brethren to be used in churches of Christ.

The 325,000 gospel tracts are some 15 different titles written by faithful gospel preachers (including Bill Beasley and John Humphries). Faithful Indian brethren translated the tracts into the Indian languages and we printed them in India. We printed 10,000 copies of some titles and 15,000 copies of the other titles. We printed all titles in both Telugu and Hindi for wide distribution in south central India. It was a sizable undertaking with much hard work but we believe that good will come from this effort. Many souls have obeyed the gospel in the past from the tract effort. Some of these tracts have gone through multiple printings over the past number of trips that we have made to India.

The mimeograph machine and typewriters will be used by faithful brethren in gospel work. The mimeograph machine replaces the one that I had given to brother T. George Fred many years ago and is now completely worn out.

Bill and I conducted Bible classes for preachers in several places. Sometimes Bill and I worked together and sometimes we worked in different districts (and even states) in order to cover more territory and meet with more brethren. I must say that brother Beasley is a wonderful companion and fellow servant of Christ. We worked well together and I hope that we can make other trips to India together in the future, God willing.

I have been going to India since 1976 and I have seen many things there. I have seen storm damage that was heartbreaking. I have been in several storms there over the years. The Indians call them cyclones and we call them hurricanes on the Atlantic ocean side of the U.S.A. Some of these have been horrible indeed.

However, I have never seen or experienced anything in all of my life like what I saw in Kilari, Maharashtra, India, which was the very center of the devastating earthquake that made international news last fall. Brother T. Wilfred, who visits that area to do gospel work, and I visited that city of what used to be stone houses and buildings. We saw only rubble where houses and building used to stand. Street after street after street of nothing but piles of stone. 33,000 people died in that city alone. Some 38 brethren lost their lives in this earthquake that hit just before dawn on the fateful day. People were sleeping and many of them never knew what hit them as the stone walls collapsed upon them. The city is dead at this time. No one lives there now. The only people we saw were workmen here and there gathering stones to haul away to build in some other location. T. Wilfred showed me what was left of homes of some of the brethren.

We visited the survivors (brethren) who had settled in various places far away from Kilari. Widowed women, who lost their husbands and children, and also orphaned children, who lost their parents, are now being cared for by other Christians with our financial help. Even now, I fight back the tears as I write these lines. They lost everything but their faith in the Lord. We took benevolence to them that caring brethren here in the U.S.A. provided.

On a different note, brother Beasley and I baptized 21 precious souls into Christ. Indian brethren were also baptizing just about as many or more in the gospel meetings they were conducting in other places at the same time.

As God is willing, I will return to India next year. I am to have more surgery this month (my fourth operation) on the 20th of June. I hope and pray that this time the surgery will hold. Please pray for me.

If there are any questions concerning the Indian gospel effort, please left me hear from you. Thank you for your support and prayers and please help us return next year to continue this work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 10
September 1, 1994

By Lanny Smith

The Bible teaches that elders are to bear “rule” in the local church (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17). However, there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to the nature of this rule. Therefore it would be wise for us to carefully consider this subject. As with many other Bible topics, there are extreme views on the rule of elders. Some believe that elders stand in the place of God, and thus “to disobey the elders is to disobey God.” But at the other extreme are those who would strip elders of any rule, and make them subject to the will of the congregation. Both of these extremes are wrong!

Elders do not stand in the place of God. “There is one Lawgiver” (Jas. 4:12). God has not abdicated his throne. No man, or group of men, has the right to enact or repeal laws for God. Further, Peter warns elders against “being lords over” the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). This phrase suggests “to be master of, to subjugate, to overpower.” Elders do not make laws, nor can they “overpower” anyone to accept their judgments or personal whims. Some elders would do well to seriously consider this, for it has been a root of many evils! Rather, elders “rule” by virtue of their ex-ample. Hear Peter again: “nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3). Their example generates respect, influence, trust, and thus the submission of the flock (cf. v. 5a).

While it is true that elders are not “lords,” they also are not subject to the will of the church. God’s plan calls for shepherds  qualified men of experience  to lead the sheep of the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-5; 1 Tim. 3:4-6). Sheep follow shepherds; they do not lead shepherds! If elders must constantly ask the flock if certain judgments are agreeable with them, then they are not leaders, but followers. The Bible says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive” (Heb. 13:17). Even in 1 Peter 5:3, where Peter warns elders again “being lords over” the flock, there is a legitimate rule implied. If elders bear no rule at all, then this warning against the abuse of authority is absurd.

As previously stated, elders “rule” by virtue of the influence generated from their example (cf. 1 Pet. 5:3). Thus, when selecting elders, we are taught of God to look for exemplary men (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). Therefore, when a church selects and appoints men to be “over this business” of shepherding (cf. Acts 6:3), there is an “implied contract” to follow these shepherds. In effect, the church is saying, “We trust you with our care; please lead us.” While their judgments are not inspired of God, the flock has chosen to put them in the lead, and thus should trust and submit to them. This is God’s established form of oversight (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-5; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17).

Thayer says that those who “rule over you” (Heb. 13:17) do so by “leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel.” Furthermore, W.E. Vine says that the word “obey” in this passage suggests that one is “persuaded” by the counsel of these experienced men. If elders “rule” by influence and persuasive counsel, it demands that they maintain good and open communication with the flock, rather than being secretive about every aspect of their work. It may even be necessary to have public meetings with the entire church from time to time, especially for major undertakings or problems (cf. Acts 6:1-6; Acts 15). Along with their own mature judgment, good elders will take the desires of the congregation into consideration; and then render decisions for the good of the flock, and in harmony with the Lord’s will. This type of “rule” makes them fit leaders in God’s kingdom, and motivates the flock to follow. It also helps them to avoid arbitrary rule (cf. 1 Pet. 5:3), which is a great temptation  especially in “matters of judgment.” But there are also matters that need to be handled privately by elders (cf. Jas. 5:14-15; Acts 21:18-24)! This is not “being lords over” the flock, it is wisdom at work; and it can help keep problems to a minimum (cf. Prov. 17:9; 25:8-10).

It is true that some elders have abused their “rule,” become “lords over” the church, and caused untold harm. But we simply must not allow abuses to cloud the issue of congregational “governments” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28, KJV). The Bible is clear about this matter. It simply is not true that every decision that elders make without consulting the flock is tantamount to “being lords over” the flock. “Per-mission or lording” is a false dilemma! Of course, if elders fail to live or “rule” in harmony with God’s will, they should be corrected, even removed, if necessary (1 Tim. 5:19-20; 2 Thess. 3:6). The elders must be “over” the flock; but the flock must have and maintain scriptural elders!

Greater dedication to the Lord would solve many of the ills that exist with regard to this issue. The truth lies between the extremes of arbitrary, inconsiderate rule of the elders (1 Pet. 5:3), and majority rule of the congregation (Heb. 13:17). Let us thank God for those who understand this, and work to correct those who do not.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 11
September 1, 1994