Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

An “ism” is a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory. Peculiar presumptions and well-defined views are commonly dubbed as “isms.”

Christians are confronted with a wide range of “isms,” and many of these threaten our spiritual welfare. In this article I mention a few of them so that we may guard against them.

Materialism

There are religious people who suppose that man is wholly material or physical in his nature. They therefore see death as cessation of existence. They are like the ancient Sadducees (Acts 23:8). There is more to man than physical life (Matt. 10:28). Others hold to materialism in a different sense. They know that man has a soul or spirit made in the image of God, but they over emphasize material things. They permit the material to crowd out the spiritual. Jesus taught that temporal things are not the most important (Matt. 6:33; 16:26).

Sensualism

Commercial advertisers, entertainers, movie producers, many book and magazine publishers, TV programmers, many video makers, and others are promoting sensualism. The public is being flooded with pictures, words, and suggestions that develop and encourage lewdness, licentiousness, sexual permissiveness, carnality, fleshly lusts, and wantonness. Moral impurity is flaunted, paraded, and exhibited openly. The Bible includes as works of the flesh “immorality, impurity, sensuality” (Gal. 5:19, NASB), warning that “those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Pharisaism

The members of the ancient Jewish sect known as the Pharisees were noted for hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and insincerity. A splendid example of their attitude is found in the parable in Luke 18:9-14. Jesus exposed their wickedness in Matthew 23. Many today are given to Pharisaism. They are sanctimonious in their own eyes. They see themselves as righteous and virtually all others as less than righteous. Some of the most severe denunciations delivered by Christ were directed against the pharisaical outlook. It is much easier to see fault in others than to admit one’s own sins.

Liberalism

Some take very broad views politically and socially. The same is true in religious matters. Many indulge in practices which the New Testament does not allow. They throw off the restraints imposed by apostolic authority. Some are so tolerant and unrestricted as to fellowship people who do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, and do not believe that Jesus arose bodily from the grave. Some are not that liberal, but they accept sprinkling and pouring for baptism, think one church is as good as another, and sanction denominationalism. Others take undue liberties with the word of God on such subjects as worship, the organization and work of the church, and women’s role in the church.

Creedalism

A creed is a brief authoritative formula of religious belief or a set of guiding principles. Human creeds have been the occasion of division and discord through the centuries. Pioneer preachers in America spoke and wrote against such creeds, urging that we have no creed but Christ and no guide but the Bible. There is today a subtle tendency among well-meaning brethren to revive creedalism. Questionnaires circulated as tests of faithfulness carry a creedal flavor. There is a danger here that must not be overlooked. The New Testament is all-sufficient as a measure of soundness. The Lord will judge us by his word.

Defeatism

There are people who convince themselves that failure is inevitable. Ten of twelve spies took this attitude in Numbers 13 and 14. God had promised Israel the land of Canaan. The defeatism of the ten spies spread to the whole congregation. God punished them with forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Some Christians constantly focus on difficulties and dangers. They see a mirage and throw on the breaks. They are full of pessimism. Weak faith prompts them to suppose that we are whipped before we ever start, no matter how worthy the undertaking. But victory belongs to God’s people who persevere (Rom. 8:37; 1 Cor. 15:57,58).

Let us not be deterred by “isms” such as those mentioned in this article.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 9
September 1, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

At a wedding in a southeast Texas nudist camp, the bride wore a veil, the groom a bow tie, and the minister his glasses  nothing more! No, this is not a joke, nor is it funny. Such events are degrading to marriage and the home, and demoralizing to our nation, state, and community. This mockery of a marriage ceremony was covered by Richard Kotrla II in the “Browsing on the Brazos” column for 23 September 1993 (Brazoria County News). Can’t the press report on Peeping Toms, voyeurs, exhibitionists, nudists, and other perversions without going along for the ride? Public nudity is a moral outrage. Indecency does not become pure when those who practice it gather into a camp. How about an incest community (for consenting children only, of course), a free-sex commune, a polygamy colony, or a bestiality camp? This is like sanctifying the sin of homosexuality by forming a homosexual church, or sanctifying the slaughter of infants by calling an abortion death house a “health and reproductive services clinic.” Shall we sanitize murder by establishing a Mercy Assisted-Suicide Hospital? Almost anything is possible in a society where the “proper” technique of committing fornication is facilitated by teaching “safe sex” to unmarried teenagers.

When people lose their moral bearings, they consider perverted practices to be “freedom of expression in its purest form.” They consider clothing and standards of decency “a facade.” They may hide their practices for a while but then they want to come out of the closet and be accepted as “a part of the community.” Some of us may feel we could not join such infamous camps and communes, but we “admire” how “friendly and open” their inhabitants are “about their lifestyle.”

We need to get back to the Bible, back to its family and moral values, back to its teaching on how to truly love God and our fellowman (Matt. 22:37-40). We are losing sight of our very purpose for existing: “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 Jn. 5:3). Every word of God was given for our good. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).

We need to put our clothes back on and respect Bible standards of modesty and decency. God himself put proper clothing on man and woman after sin entered the world, for their protection from temptation (Gen. 3:21). This garment covered more than their fig-leaves briefs, covering the upper body and hanging down around their knees. Since that time, God has taught that it is shameful for men and women to uncover their nakedness in whole or in part (Isa. 47:2-3; 1 Tim. 2:8-10). Proper clothing prevents displaying “the shame of thy nakedness” (Rev. 3:18). When men harden their hearts against God, they lose their sense of shame and no longer blush at immodesty, indecency, or immorality (Jer. 6:15).

Let us forsake our sins and hardness of heart. Believe in Jesus, repent of all sin, confess him as God’s Son, and be baptized for the remission of sins (Mk. 16:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 5
September 1, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters (1 Pet. 4:15).

The folly of such a practice was identified by Solomon when he said, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears” (Prov. 26:17). It is dangerous to take a dog by the ears. If you turn him loose, he is apt to bite you. But you can’t hold on to him forever! You are in a predicament. So it is with one who implicates himself in the affairs of others. Before you know it, you are in deeper than you want to be and getting out of it may prove troublesome.

The Lord has given all of us plenty to do to mind our own business without trying to attend to the affairs of others.

What Is Not Meddlesome

It is not meddlesome for parents to seek to guide their children in the way that is right. Parents have a right to know where their children go, with whom and what sort of activity takes place there. That is parental responsibility.

It is not meddlesome for elders to guard the flock. “They watch for your souls” (Heb. 13:17) and must give account for it. That does not mean that elders have a right to pry into the private affairs of Christians and to take over the management of their homes and lives. Sinful attitudes and actions need to be corrected in the interest of growth and for the welfare of the while congregation.

It is not meddlesome for gospel preachers to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2), nor to declare “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It is their God-given duty to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2-3). That is included in doing “the work of an evangelist” and making “full proof” of their “ministry” (2 Tim. 2:3-5). It is not meddlesome to warn of dangers that threaten souls. Paul “warned everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). It is not out of place to insist on sound doctrine (Tit. 2:1,7-8) and to oppose those who bring “another” or a “perverted” gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). It is not wrong to warn of errors which are swirling about and which may, in time, become a threat to the well being of brethren who, as yet, have not been affected. Much of the New Testament teaching was preventative in nature. A constant dose of sound doctrine, balanced presentation of the whole truth, is the best preventive. Long before elders arose “speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them” Paul warned of it (Acts 20:29-30). It is not meddlesome to lock the barn door before the horse gets out.

It is not meddlesome for the “spiritual” to “restore” those who are overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6:1). We are our brother’s keeper and his spiritual well being should ever be our concern.

What Is Meddlesome

It is meddlesome to intrude our personal opinions upon the lives of others. Your standard of living is your business unless it is evident that you have sacrificed your soul to maintain it. Family choices do not require a quorum of congregational consensus. How a family handles its own financial affairs, where it educates its children, the use of personal time, the choice of a job, are off limits to the rest of us unless it is clear that heaven is being sacrificed in the process.

It is meddlesome to intrude into the affairs of another local church. When a congregation openly teaches error, or supports it, it is in order to openly point that out where the spiritual welfare of others may be involved. But all of us need to respect local church autonomy. We do not know all the circumstances involved in public disciplinary action in other congregations. We do not know all that is involved when local churches have troubles over elders and their decisions, or over the termination of the work of a preacher.

It is meddlesome for preachers to come into an area for a meeting, and without knowing all the circumstances and after hearing a considerable amount of gossip, to then attempt to take this dog by the ears. What often happens is that men stir up a problem that local brethren either have handled, or are in the process of resolving and either hinder the process or else make it impossible to resolve. Then, the visiting expert goes home and leaves a mess for others to adjust.

I do not understand why some preachers are privy to so much personal correspondence over the country. They are continually in the eye of a storm involving the affairs of other brethren. Why is this? Who appointed them as mediators and adjustors of other men’s matters? Is it not meddlesome to scour the private correspondence of others to find something to file away and drag out later to use in building a case? I have never found it necessary to send several dozen copies of my personal mail to brethren scattered over the country to get their input on it. That serves to publicize things which might be resolved more easily were it not brought to such a wide audience in the beginning. Over the years I have had my share of controversial correspondence. You cannot publish a paper long without that happening. Sometimes in the course of private correspondence two brethren will confide in each other things that were never meant for public consumption. The publication of these things would prove a great embarrassment to those who thought they spoke, or wrote, in confidence. Sometimes, in private correspondence, we will make unguarded statements which could come back to haunt us if they were publicized.

The end does not justify the means, even in the use of private correspondence to try and build a case against a brother whom you regard as on a dangerous path. Sometimes churches circulate to other churches information which was understood to be between them and the individuals who communicated with them. Brethren, I believe there is a principle of honor here that ought to be respected.

“If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are yet” but if you get into trouble for meddling in other men’s matters, it is a shame. The cause of Christ is dishonored and the resolving of difficulties is hindered.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 3-4
September 1, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

One of the curses of every generation is the cause and effect, action and reaction of religious extremism. Rendering it difficult to achieve objective biblical understanding, extremism pushes and pulls one like a pendulum on a clock: back and forth, back and forth. Those caught in this vicious cycle are condemned to an endless series of drastic doctrinal positions, none of which is solidly based on a “thus saith the Lord.” Thus denied a scriptural foundation, each swing of the pendulum takes one further and further from truth until any semblance of identity is lost.

The apostles had to contend with this problem. While some Judaizing teachers advocated for a law/gospel merger (Gal. 3:12) that would permit justification by “perfect law-keeping,” the opposite extreme championed grace that would cover all sin unconditionally (Rom. 6:1). One extreme would attempt to merit salvation by works; the other would cheapen grace by making sin impotent. Neither was right.

Martin Luther was the product of the pendulum effect. He accurately saw Catholicism as an advocate of salvation by works. In his reaction to this error, however, he swayed to the opposite extreme of justification by faith only. Failing to see the truth (justification by faith), his extremism became popular and has doomed Protestantism for generations to a denial of all works and a false security upon faith alone. The biblical truth of an obedient faith that accepts God’s grace (Eph. 2:8, 9) is lost to millions.

But however ancient this problem is, it is yet modern and remains with us to this day, clouding our understanding of revealed truth. A proper understanding of the “body of Christ” (Eph. 1:22, 23) or the “church” (Gk: ekklesia, from ek, out and klesis, a calling) is made more difficult because some have succumbed to extreme positions that pull us, as the pendulum, back and forth, back and forth.

Centralization vs. Individualism

There are two passages of Scripture that describe opposing, extreme views of man’s service to God: centralized control and individualism. The truth lies not in either pole.

We are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 of the “man of sin who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

On the other hand, Judges 17:6 describes a time when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

If the question were asked, “Which of the two passages accurately describes the church of Jesus Christ?” we would have to answer, “Neither.” One teaches coercion, the other chaos. Both passages describe extremes which deny the truth of God about the body of Christ.

We can see the dangers of blind conformity to a centralized hierarchy which denies the validity of individual discipleship. But there is an equal, if antithetical, danger in stubborn individualism which would shatter the concept of a congregation which is designed by God to harness the personal strengths of disciples into a viable unity that avoids both extremes.

We must consider the third alternative, in the light of the Scriptures: congregationalism that recognizes individual discipleship without a conflict in either case.

The Church Is “People”

Most of us know this, but it is worth saying again, “The church is people,” not bricks and mortar. Denominations often confuse this, but surely we know better. Jesus said that “God is a spirit” (John 4:24) and Paul added that he “dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24). But God dwells in the church for we are “builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22). Whatever God’s people are, God dwells in them. He dwells in us as individuals (1 Cor. 6:19) but he also dwells in us as a body of people (1 Cor. 3:16). This knowledge should help us in our understanding of our relationship to God through Christ “in the church.”

It has been argued by some that “church” is a mistranslation. Some “versions” of the Bible have been written to erase this word. “Church,” we are told is a hold-over from King James’ prejudice and reflected his concept of a centralized institution similar to that of Catholicism. Granting that Catholicism (if not King James) did and does see “church” as a centralized hierarchy with universal control, does this necessarily mean that the truth must only be found in the opposite extreme of separate individual-ism? Must we fall prey to the pendulum effect and swing to an opposite extreme or can we come to the Scriptures and define ekklesia in terms that will avoid such wild contrasts?

In objecting to “church,” one writer has said: “Put this down as fact: In the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ as proclaimed by His apostles there was no such thing as a church, a religious institution. There was no `universal church’ nor a `local church (Charles Holt, “The Myth of the CHURCH of the Bible,” The Examiner, Vol. 2, No. 6 [11/87], p. 5). Again, he stated, “God’s smallest, largest and only functional unit is the individual” (Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 21). Again, “the Lord does not have a church” (Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 2); and again, “there is no church in scripture” (ibid., p. 3).

If this were all the information available, we would be on the horns of a dilemma indeed. Thankfully, the Bible presents us with an alternative view which avoids these mutually exclusive extremes and describes God’s people in unmistakable terms.

The Bible Ekklesia

The ekklesia is people, seen at times as individual disciples in their relationship to Christ. We find this distributive sense in Hebrews 12:23 (“general assembly and church of the first born”); Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22, 23; etc. As individual disciples, they were to render service (Matt. 5:16; 1 Tim. 5:16; etc.) as opportunity permitted. Much of the New Testament refers to individual service.

The ekklesia is people, seen at times as congregations, local collectives of people who have been saved, added to Christ (Acts 2:47), then joined together (Acts 9:26; Eph. 4:16) for service as a local body of people (Phil. 1:1; 1 Cor.1:2; etc.). This group may be assembled (1 Cor. 5:4) or unassembled (Acts 8:3), but they are identified as a congregation, acting as a whole (corporately). Each congregation is an entity, having letters addressed to it (epistles), having a treasury (1 Cor. 16; 2 Cor. 8, 9; Acts 11:27-30; 2 Cor. 11:8), and acting as one (1 Cor. 5:4).

As one man may be both a son and a father without a contradiction of terms, so also may a Christian be an individual disciple and a member of a congregation with-out conflict. In fact, to fulfill our responsibilities to God we must operate in both realms of service. Isolating one relationship from the other and pitting them against each other results in the extremism which has so damaged the Lord’s people in our times.

Extremism Hinders the Gospel

While it is a fact that truth is often perceived by many to be radical when it is not (baptism, one church, adulterous marriages, modesty, etc.), there is an extremism that is a violation of true biblical teaching. Extremism is a caricature of truth. It is truth bent out of shape. Since it is the zealot that most often falls into extremism, it should come as no surprise that the most vocal and strident extremist is the very one that generates the polar opposite; the vicious cycle continues, extreme begets extreme, and the pendulum continues to swing.

While we should never be afraid of being wrongly charged with extremism, radicalism or fanaticism (the early church “turned the world upside down,” Acts 17:6), let us be sure that we build our faith securely on the foundation of truth, avoiding extremes that hide the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 6-7
September 1, 1994