Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

In recent years, several major publications among our liberal brethren have issued a call for a new hermeneutic. The old hermeneutic is rejected. The restoration plea is castigated as backward looking and divisive. In calling for unity-in-diversity, the restoration plea is thrown aside.

Several historians assert that there are two sides to the restoration movement of the 1800s: (a) a unity plea and (b) a restoration plea. The unity plea was followed by the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ which led them into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism and the ecumenical movement. The restoration plea was followed by the churches of Christ and led them into dozens of divisions (or so the claim is made). Significantly, some historians ignore the division between the independent Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ which the “unity plea” brought and exaggerate the number of divisions among churches of Christ.(Though there are brethren who hold many different positions on a number of different subjects, the divisions which have come in the churches of Christ can largely be reduced to two or three: the institutional division, premillennialism, lesser and isolated divisions [one cup, no located preacher, etc.].)

The fact of the matter is this: the early restorers understood that the restoration plea was a unity plea. Of the many different plans for the unity of the church, the restoration plea was the one which was founded on Bible precepts. In this article, I would like to reproduce the restoration plea as a plea for Bible unity, using the language of the early restorers to state it.

Plans of Unity

There have been, through the ages, a number of plans of unity, including the following:

1. Associations of churches. Most denominations have an association of churches under some commonly agreed upon governing and legislative body. This concept of unity also has been suggested to bring churches in all denominations under one governing body.

2. Creeds. A document drawn up by representatives of churches has been imposed on churches as the governing law for an association of churches.

3. Councils. Ecumenical councils have tried to determine the boundaries of fellowship for churches. Denominations are still organized under synods and councils that have governing authority over churches.

4. Ecumenism. The ecumenical movement has accepted churches in all denominations, regardless of what they teach and practice, into fellowship. They are willing to accept into their fellowship those who deny the inspiration of Scripture, miracles and deity of Christ, necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, and other fundamental concepts of Christianity in the interest of unity.

5. Evangelical unity in fundamentals. The Evangelicals have reduced the number of essentials to a bare minimum in an effort for the Protestant denominations to have unity in gospel but diversity in doctrine. The Evangelical unity enables the various Protestant denominations to recognize each other as saved, work together on common good works, and peacefully co-exist.

6. The unity-in-diversity movement. This movement differs from the Evangelical unity only in minor details. It redefines the fundamentals of the gospel on which all must agree to include baptism for remission of sins. It is defended by a gospel/doctrine distinction, the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer to cover his moral and doctrinal errors, continuous cleansing, a misuse of Romans 14, or some other theological method of having the grace of God to forgive men of the sins which they defend as righteousness and continue to practice.

However, none of these platforms of unity was that taught by the restoration plea. The restoration plea taught that men could be united through a restoration of the ancient order. The restoration plea was an effort to call Bible things by Bible names, to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), and to bind nothing on the consciences of men except what was authorized by command, example or necessary inference (1 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:18-19).

The Restoration Plea

The following expressions of the restoration plea for unity are not cited as having equal authority with the Bible. Rather, they are concise statements of Bible principles which are true because of the Bible teaching they represent, not because of the men who said them. They are worded better than I can word them myself and for this reason they are reproduced:

1. Alexander Campbell: Writing in the Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell said, “But this we do sincerely declare, that there is nothing we have hitherto received as matter of faith or practice, which is not expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God, either in express terms, or approved precedent, that we would not heartily relinquish, that so we might return to the original constitutional unity of the christian church” (p. 11).

Campbell’s understanding of this is illustrated by his approach to infant baptism. The Campbells held that “all matters not distinctly revealed in the Bible should be held as matters of opinion and of mutual forbearance.” In a sermon laying out the basis for unity, Thomas Campbell said, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Having concluded his sermon, Andrew Munro said, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in Scripture, we can have nothing to do with it” (see Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell I:235-238).

The Scriptures included everything which should be practiced and taught and excluded everything else. The silence of the Scripture was not viewed as opening the door to many unauthorized practices, but as closing the door to them.

2. J.M. Mathes: “If all would consent to give up their human isms that now divide them, we should come together in happy union upon God’s own foundation. . . I, therefore, propose the `Bible  the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible’ as the platform and bond of union. In making this proposition, I offer a platform, that you all acknowledge the best one on earth; nay, the only one that is infallible. . . In accepting it, no one is called upon to make more sacrifice than others. All are required to sacrifice their human isms, and those party names and sectarian peculiarities, which distinguish one sect from another, and all are required to take the word of God alone as the rule of their lives” (The Western Preacher 145,150).

3. N.B. Hardeman: “I would God to-night that all professed followers in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, and elsewhere, would be content to have but the Bible as their creed, their discipline, their church manual, their church directory, their rule of faith and practice throughout life. There would be oneness on the part of all the splendid people of this great country…. I pledge my word and promise myself to-night, if the man will thus show me that God’s book does not plainly demand it, I will gladly surrender and give that up that the cause of division may cease. . . . When I announce that platform, it is not narrow, it is not limited, it is not human; but it is big enough, broad enough, wide enough, and comprehensive enough for every son and daughter of God on earth to occupy and none feel that in so doing they have had to sacrifice a single principle of faith. . . .Take your stand on God’s book and eliminate all things that are not plainly taught therein; and when you so do, I will gladly come to you and take my stand with you, if there be any preference as to which way the coming is done” (Tabernacle Sermons II:185,186,187).

“Now, for the sake of unity, why not give up that which is in doubt in the minds of some, and walk by faith, and by that which is conceded by every scholar on earth?” (Tabernacle Sermons III:146)

4. Elijah Goodwin: “I answer, let the Bible, and the Bible alone, be adopted as the Christian’s creed. What the Bible says, all believe. Let opinions be held as private property, while faith is made the test of union” (The Family Companion 422).

5. M.C. Kurfees: “Again, some one may ask: `Since men do not all see alike or have the same opinions on certain religious subjects, how is union, in such a case possible?’ It is possible by every man preaching `the word’ and keeping his opinions strictly and always to himself, as the Bible distinctly and positively requires. We have already seen that the preacher’s inspired charge is to `preach the word,’ not his opinions nor the opinions of anybody else. Paul distinctly tells Christians what to do with their opinions in religion. In the case of eating certain meats where some Christians had scruples against it, he says: `The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God’ (Rom. 14:22). There it is in plain and specific words, clearly and distinctly showing what the preacher is to do with his opinions. He is not to be teaching, preaching, and parading them among the people at all, but always and everywhere to keep them to himself `before God.’ No harm can ever come of opinions where that most vital and important command is carefully and strictly obeyed. In fact, strict obedience to it would be the grand panacea against all strife, all confusion, and all division among the people of God. They are not divided over what is in the Bible, but over what is not in it; not over what the Bible says, but over what it does not say; not over the word of God, but over the opinions and speculations of men” (The Need for Continued Emphasis on the Restoration of the Ancient Order 32).

Union Versus Unity

As brethren were working their way toward a Bible-based unity, they were confronting the denominational plea for union. The plea for union was understood to be a plea for the combining of different sects in some kind of organizational structure, a unity-in-diversity, or other kind of union of the sects. The disciples were not interested in union. As a lad, I remember hearing “union” and “unity” distinguished by use of a common illustration. The preachers would say, “You can tie two cats’ tails together and throw them over a clothesline. You will have union, but you do not have unity.”

“Union” is “a uniting or being united; combination; junction, fusion; an agreeing or leaguing together for mutual benefit.” “Unity” is “the state or condition of being one; oneness; singleness; being united; concord; agreement; harmony; oneness of sentiment, affection, or the like.”

Compare the two with reference to water baptism. The denominational plan of union recommends that each church be allowed to choose for itself whether to use sprinkling pouring or immersion as the action of baptism. The subject of water baptism in denominational plans of union can be either infants or believers, depending upon the free choice of each local church. The purpose of water baptism varies from one denomination to another: an outside sign of an inward grace, to be admitted into the particular denomination, a testimony to the world, or to receive forgiveness of sins. In denominational union, there is an agreement to have unity-in-diversity. Every church teaches its particular sectarian dogma on the subject but the other churches will continue to recognize them to be “of Christ” and receive one another into their respective fellowships.

In contrast to unity-in-diversity or union, true Bible unity works toward the “oneness of sentiment” revealed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. The action of Bible baptism is immersion. The subject of Bible baptism is penitent believers. The purpose of Bible baptism is salvation, being variously described as “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to be “saved” (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21), to “wash away” sins (Acts 22:16), and parallel expressions. In Bible unity, the disciples of Christ become united by every person believing and teaching what the Holy Spirit revealed.

A true unity was preached and practiced. It was a “the state or condition of being one; oneness; singleness; being united; concord; agreement; harmony; oneness of sentiment, affection, or the like.” What worked on the subject of baptism worked in other areas as well and the unity of the Spirit  not some denominational imitation of unity  was the result. True Bible unity can still exist today when brethren are committed to the restoration of the ancient gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 2
September 1, 1994