Truth Magazine

By Tim Mize

When we remember the cross, we remember our sacrifice. The death of Christ is our perfect sin offering (Heb. 9:26). His blood is the blood of the new covenant, the sacrifice that ratified it (Matt. 26:28). But we see in the cross not just our offering for sin and the sacrifice of our covenant. We see also there our passover lamb. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).

Once a year, at springtime, Israel used to keep the passover. Each family would take a lamb and sacrifice it to God. They would then gather around and eat the lamb along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread.

The first passover was eaten in Egypt. Before God sent the last plague on the Egyptians, he told Israel to eat this passover lamb and to smear its blood on their doorposts. Where God saw the blood, he would “pass over” that house, and not strike it with the plague. And so, the lamb and the feast was called “passover.” Year by year they kept the feast in remembrance of their deliverance.

Our passover, however, is no lamb from the flock. As Paul said, our lamb has already been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7). Christ is the lamb that was slain.

It was no accident, but by God’s holy plan, that Jesus was slain at the passover (see Jn. 13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14). During the very season when Israel offered its passover lambs, the true lamb of God was offered. We can see, then, why John the Baptist said of Christ, “Behold, the lamb of God!” (Jn 1:29,36; see also Rev. 5:9)

It was no accident, either, the occasion when the Lord gave us his supper. It was as he ate the passover that he did so. Even as the lamb lay spread on the table, Jesus our lamb instituted this feast. The connection is obvious. Christ is now our passover lamb, and the supper, in a manner of speaking, is our passover meal.

We eat this supper, therefore, in the faith that our lamb has been slain, and the blood applied. When the great judgment comes on the world, God will see the blood, and he will pass over us (Exod. 12:13). This we believe, and for this we are thankful.

We eat this supper, as did Israel its passover, looking back to our salvation. God has carried us out of Egypt. In baptism we crossed the Red Sea (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-2). He has freed us and made us his own. We eat, then, remembering our salvation, and anticipating eagerly what lies in store ahead (1 Cor. 11:26).

Our passover lamb has been offered already. It only remains for us to eat the meal and “keep the feast” (1 Cor. 5:8). But as we do so, let there be no leaven in our houses (Exod. 12:19). As befits those who eat this unleavened bread, let us remove any leaven of sin that is in us. Repent, and pray God’s forgiveness. Our passover is not completed nor does it benefit unless “the leaven of malice and wickedness” be cast out (1 Cor. 5:8).

Furthermore, we should go forth from the table and keep the feast with the whole of our lives. Moment by moment, we must cast out the defiling leaven wherever we find it. The lamb has been offered, and the blood is on the post, but if we would be passed over then the leaven must go.

Let us think on these things as we eat the Lord’s supper. G

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 5
July 21, 1994

By Olen Holderby

“But none saith, Where is God, my maker, who giveth songs in night?” (Job 35:10) Here is the only place in the Bible where we have the expression “songs in the night.” Because this is located in the book of Job, we immediately connect the phrase with suffering of some kind; and, so it is. Elihu is the bright young man who appears with Job and Job’s three friends; and he is to give four speeches. Chapters 32,33 relate his first speech, chapter 34 his second, chapter 35 his third, and chapters 36,37 record his fourth. Our text is found in his third speech. What use is to be made of the words “songs in the night”?

To understand this we need a close look at the context. Elihu may not be completely accurate in the things with which he charges Job; but, the points which he makes are valid, both then and now. A few of his charges against Job may be helpful. He believed that Job justified himself rather than God (32:2). He says that Job has declared himself innocent, and accuses God of treating him like an enemy (33:8-11); and, as he closes his first speech, he is pleading with Job to listen (33:31-33). He understands Job to have questioned the justice of God (34:1-9); and, he brings his second speech to a close by declaring that Job had added the sin of “rebellion” to his other sins (34:37).

In his third speech Elihu answers Job’s inquiry into the lack of benefits for righteous conduct. He affirms that God does not answer the pleas of an empty cry; God has not answered Job; thus, Job is guilty of uttering empty and meaningless speeches to God. Elihu says that Job has said that his righteousness was more than God’s; and, that there is no profit in being free of sin (32:2-3). He sees Job as being inconsistent in placing his case in God’s hands (13:18); while, at the same time, claiming that he cannot find God (23:8-9; 34:29). Further, Job was willing to wait for God to clear him; yet, he says that Job felt that God did nothing about sin (24:1-12). Elihu correctly points out that the oppressed often cry out to God just because of God’s strength (35:9); and, not because he is their Maker, not because they owe allegiance to him, not because they seek a right relationship with him, and not because they wish to acquaint themselves with him (35:10). Elihu is arguing that God is to be top priority in one’s thinking; and, that one is to humbly, patiently, and penitently approach him. Further, if the oppressed get no relief, it is their own fault (Jas. 4:3; 1 Jn.3:22). How could a heart that is full of pride (35:12) or a heart that questions the value of serving God expect the Great God to favorably respond (35:3)?

Many may ask: Where is laughter? Where is joy? Where is wealth? Where is my fortune? However, the search should be: Where is God my Maker? Now, back to “Songs in the Night.” When our circumstances appear to be the darkest, when sadness and melancholy encircle us  if we have (and are) properly respecting “our Maker,” his providence and promises are at our disposal. “Songs” of joy can ring out in the very midst of our tribulations (night). As we patiently wait for God, in his own way, he “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser than the fowls of heaven”(35:11). Must we forget the promise of the Saviour, “. . . he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matt.10:22)?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 11
July 21, 1994

By Kevin Campbell

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

By now I’m sure that most people have heard of President Clinton’s new policy regarding homosexuals in the military. If you haven’t, it has been labelled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The idea, if you are a homosexual, is not to tell recruiters or other military officials about your homosexuality and they in turn will not ask you about your “sexual orientation.” The result will be that homosexuals will be allowed to serve in the armed forces without a big fuss being raised over the issue. There is a provision that those who openly advocate their homosexuality can be court martialed and expelled from the military.

Understandably, many of the militant advocates in the homosexual community are outraged and upset by Mr. Clinton’s compromise on the issue. He had campaigned for homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the armed forces openly. Due to strong opposition, however, he had to modify his policy, the result being that the homosexual community has felt betrayed. This was not the first, nor will it be the last, time that the President has found himself attempting to straddle a fence and flip-flopping on an issue.

Some in the homosexual crowd however will applaud Clinton’s policy. Now they will be able to serve in the military with all the benefits of other servicemen and maintain their immoral lifestyle at the same time. They won’t want any controversy over the subject and will feel safe holding to their beliefs and practices without others knowing about it. As long as no one asks, they won’t tell and all will be happy, right?! Wrong! Many in the military do not relish the opportunity of sharing close quarters with homosexuals. They also feel betrayed by the administration’s policy and would prefer to have the homosexuals excluded from the service. Such a policy demonstrates the difficulties involved in trying to hide activity or belief that is immoral and ungodly (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-11). We must always remember that the Lord knows our hearts and thoughts and secret actions, all of which we will be held accountable for (Eccl. 2:14; Prov. 5:21; 15:3; Mk. 4:22; Rom. 2:16).

Given Mr. Clinton’s penchant far upholding immoral and ungodly activities (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, etc.), it causes one to wonder and question his stated religious convictions. How can a man who professes to be a Christian be a staunch defender of those who disdain, denounce, and despise biblical values and morals? What would he say to those who might question him regarding his stand?

Biblical Examples of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Even in the Bible we can find examples of some who desired to practice a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Notice the first example in Matthew 21:23-27:

And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things (KJV).

On this occasion, the Jews asked Jesus specifically about the authority he had to be teaching and preaching. Jesus responded with a question of his own that placed the Jews in a difficult circumstance. If they answered the question honestly, they would be at odds with the people, for the people believe in John as a prophet. If they answered falsely, then Jesus would have sprung the response on them, “Why then did ye not believe him?” In essence, they were stuck and could not afford to give an answer. We might say that they developed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regards to the questions that Jesus asked them. Because of their opposition to John and Jesus, they didn’t want to be asked and didn’t want to tell what they believed about the baptism of John.

The same thing occurred in Matthew 22:15-46. After being asked several questions by the different sects of the Jews, Jesus turned the tables and asked them a question that they could not answer (vv. 41-45). It should be noted that Jesus did not refuse their questions but used the opportunity to boldly and directly confront the issues raised. He did not have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but was willing to state for the benefit of the people his convictions on these questions. After having the tables turned though, the Jews decided that they had had enough of this question and answer period and developed a modified form of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (v. 46).

False Teachers and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The examples above simply illustrate what Jesus said in John 3:19-21:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Those who believe the truth and practice it are not afraid to have their deeds and activities examined. The apostles preached the word with great boldness in the book of Acts (4:29,31; 9:29; 14:3). Even when in prison, Paul continued to preach and to teach and thereby caused others to be “much more bold to speak the word without fear” (Phil. 1:14). Some may have thought that the best thing for Paul to do would be to just be quiet and not keep pushing. Maybe things would be easier on him if he would just adopt a quiet, non-combative posture. Surely a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regards to the truth would have lessened his suffering! Paul however, continued to seek opportunities to teach and to preach, even while an “ambassador in bonds” (Eph. 6:19-20; Col. 4:3).

When one is confident of what he believes and is not afraid of being exposed to the rejection of others for his stand, he will adopt an approach like that of Paul’s. False teachers however, and their sympathizers, will learn to evade and dodge questions regarding their beliefs and practices. Like some of the homosexuals in the military, they would prefer that their beliefs, convictions, and actions remain secret. They want to have all of the benefits and blessings of being counted as a faithful brother in Christ while at the same time harboring false and damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2:1). Others who teach and believe the truth will nonetheless aid false teachers by not exposing them for being wolves in sheep’s clothing. Those who aid and abet in such a way are guilty of not following Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:11: “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose, NKJV) them.”

In January of 1993, I debated a Baptist preacher by the name of Bobby Sparks on the question of the necessity of baptism to salvation. One of the questions that I asked him during that debate is given below:

Which of the following statements gives the correct order of occurrence?

1. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

2. He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized.

Even though Mr. Sparks had answered that very question in a previous debate (he answered “number 2”), this time he refused to answer the question and kept saying night after night that they were “both saying the same thing.” Mr. Sparks learned the value of adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it came to Baptist doctrine. I told him during the debate that if he would ask me the same question, I’d be glad to tell him which one gave the right order (see Mark 16:16). Nevertheless, he never asked and he never told! I’m sure that there are many other examples that could be given but this just helps emphasize that false prophets and Bill Clinton have one thing in common: they both like the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

It should also be pointed out that false teachers are not limited to the denominations. There are those who would profess to be sheep among the Lord’s people but who “inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). I know personally of a church that asked a man to come work with them only to find out later that he held to doctrines that were false regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. The end result was a church that split, with the majority going off with the false teacher. The reason I use this example is to emphasize the responsibility of the elders of the church to know beforehand what a particular preacher teaches and believes on various subjects. If a church asks a preacher with whom they will have fellowship what his beliefs and convictions are on certain matters and he won’t tell, a red flag should go up. Not only does a church have the right to know what will be taught by a preacher, but they have an obligation to the cause of truth to find out. On what grounds would someone deny a church the right to know what an evangelist believes and teaches when they are considering having fellowship with him in the gospel? The above is not the only example I’ve heard of and I’m sure that there are a number of others examples that could be cited, whether it be a located preacher or a meeting preacher, of churches that found out too late what was being taught.

The Parents of the Blind Man (John 9:18-23)

One final matter to consider is that of those who sympathize with false prophets, or those who are afraid to confront them, although they are not false prophets them-selves. In John 9, we read about a blind man who was healed. When the Jews found out about it, they denied that the man had ever been blind to start with. When his parents were called in to testify, they confirmed that he had been blind from his birth. However, when they were asked how it came that he was now able to see, they said:

But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. (John 9:21).

The truth of the matter is, they did know but were afraid to say. Notice the statement in John 9:22:

These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

In the above example, we can see that the man’s parents believed the truth, but because of their desire to please the other Jews and to avoid being put out of the synagogue, they decided “not to tell.” The problem they had, simply put, is that they were trying to be men-pleasers. Paul posed the question in Galatians 1:10, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Our confidence is to be in the Lord and his word, not in ourselves or our standing with other men. Sadly, some seem to value the praise of men more than the praise of God and are thus willing to sit silently by while error is promoted and applied (Jn. 12:42-43). Brother Dan Shipley commented on this very problem in an excellent article entitled “Closet Convictions” (Plain Talk, Vol. 17, no.2, p. 3). After quoting the passage in John 12:42-43, he said:

From its beginning, the cause of Christ has suffered because of disciples with closet convictions; the kind of men who know and believe the truth but will not stand up for it. Consider for example, these influential rulers of our text. Potentially, their worth to the cause of their unconfessed Christ was immeasurable; effectively, how-ever, they contributed absolutely nothing. Worse, their influence remained where they did, as must always be the case. What a testimonial to the tremendous swaying power of cowardice and pride:  it keeps them among those who they oppose and puts them in opposition to their own faith and convictions. “But, after all,” they may have reasoned,” we do have our standing in the community to think about. And besides, how could we ever explain to our friends of the synagogue circle about what we really believe? Why, what would they think?”  and so goes people-pleasing religion.

To the above I can only add a hearty “amen”!

As preachers and Christians all of us must realize that we have a grave responsibility to stand up and stand firm. There is no excuse for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of some in the religious world and even some among our own brethren. I have heard reports of some capable and eloquent gospel preachers who go to areas where certain false doctrines are not only taught, but also practiced, yet nothing is said regarding these problems from the pulpit. Are we developing our own “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding controversial issues? Do we have the concept that if “they won’t ask me about these matters, I won’t tell them”? And even if I am asked regarding my convictions, am I willing to state them forthrightly, without fear of losing friendships and acquaintances?

Peter commands that we “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). Are you ashamed and embarrassed to do so? Paul was not (Rom. 1:16). May our attitude be that of the apostle Paul as expressed in 2 Corinthians 5:9: “Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 16-18
July 21, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

Part Three: Spread By Discontent

The popularity of the Unity in Diversity Movement, the New Unity Movement and/or the New Hermeneutic concept so enhanced by the gospel/doctrine (or “word of the cross”) error could not gain a foothold in churches of Christ without a spirit of discontent that is so evident today. Some people absolutely hate doctrine! Their severest criticism is reserved for those who are labeled “brotherhood watchdogs” or “keepers of orthodoxy.” They are tired of “the old paths.” They are not to be bound by rules, regulations, commands, law, or traditions of the past (whether apostolic or not). Faithful obedience is opposed as “salvation by works” and “Pharisaical legalism.” They have yet to learn this truth: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3).

From dissatisfaction with the eldership, to vocal music, “five-finger salvation,” the Lord’s supper on Sunday only, scriptural baptism, congregational autonomy, male leadership, plain preaching, to every aspect that is a distinctive mark of New Testament Christianity, there are those who despise such, call it “doctrine idolatry,” goose-stepping conformity, and are dedicated to change. Like ancient Israel, we have lifted up our eyes to the (denomi)nations around us and envy them for their women preachers, choirs, gymnasiums, ball teams, positive-only preaching, youth churches, institutions, big numbers and community acceptance.

It is anathema to the New Unity Movement of our generation to be separate as God’s people (2 Cor. 6:17), to speak of the one church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23); to preach that anyone is lost without complete gospel obedience (Matt. 28:18-20), to insist on the Lord’s supper only on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), to insist on the “old hermeneutic” of commands, examples and inferences. Though theirs is a magnanimous spirit and love and acceptance to those in sectarian error, the most stringent condemnation is poured out against any brother seeking to “walk in the old paths” (Jer. 6:16).

However, there is a dilemma among those who seek to change the church of Christ into a modern denomination. We have always been a “people of the book.” We have always appealed to “book, chapter and verse” preaching. For centuries, we have blazoned to the sectarians that “we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” The dilemma is that if they boldly denounce this past dependence on the whole gospel as unworkable, they will lose credibility among many who yet repeat this, even as a slogan if nothing else.

Change the Definitions

Consequently, a method has been devised whereby they can yet speak of their love of the “gospel” and change their direction even while boasting of a love for Christ. A New Hermeneutic has been defined that retains all of the platitudes of soundness without impeding progress into denominationalism. Its methodology is quite simple: use the same terminology but just change the meaning! Simple but profound. As Paul warned Timothy, this has “a form of godliness, but denies the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5).

A form of godliness? How else could we describe those who claim to love the “gospel” but exclude the “doctrine of Christ (2 John 9); who claim to love and cherish Christ but disparage the epistles; who preach “the word of the cross” so long as it doesn’t condemn error; who love the church of Christ but do not want to exclude the Methodists and Episcopalians or other sectarian bodies; who weep copious tears about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ but who reject the application to scriptural baptism?

Yes, use the words, but change the meaning. This provides a cloak of religiosity under which to hide a departure from the faith. Consequently, false teachers cry long and loud about their love of the “gospel,” “the word of the cross,” “the church of Christ,” “fellowship,” and “brotherhood.” But they don’t mean the same things that the inspired writers meant when they used the same terminology.

And it is working. Sadly, it is working. Those of us who object to this deceitful use of biblical terminology are criticized as “watchdogs,” “keepers of orthodoxy,” and loveless clones of “doctrinal idolatry.” We are charged with being the “troublers of Israel” (1 Kgs. 18:17) for asking for book, chapter and verse as proof text. We are accused of destroying fellowship by exposing those who teach error that will cause souls to be lost.

Even those who stand with us in fellowship are often confused by these false charges and feigned words. Perhaps the best of motives are misled by unwitting acceptance of this New Hermeneutic. Subtle doubts are permitted to arise about those who “cry aloud and spare not.” Perhaps they don’t have as much love as others. Perhaps they love the plan and not the Man. Perhaps they put too much emphasis on doctrinal matters. Perhaps they really do extol the church above Christ. Not only T.W. Brents and Alexander Campbell, but now preachers of our generation (we are told) have forgotten what it is to “preach Christ.” They love controversy more than Christ, doctrine more than grace, a fuss more than fellowship. Sound familiar?

It matters little how much we know our own heart and how much we balance our preaching and writing to include the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It no longer counts that our emphasis is upon the whole truth for the complete man of God, guided by Paul’s counsel to Timothy: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16:17). No, the rules have been changed. Definitions no longer mean what they did. We have a New Hermeneutic.

Without a doubt, there are doctrines around today that have been bred by infidelity, nurtured by cynicism and spread by discontent. Be very sure that you understand the direction of the “new gospel.” It does not lead to a deeper love of Christ nor does it preach the true gospel of Christ. It is eternally elastic toward error but woefully critical of truth. As Jesus warned, these “gag at a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24). They are capable of sitting and worshipping with Methodists but incapable of telling them that they are lost. They can worship among brethren who are lost and going to hell in adulterous marriages but who refuse to raise the word of warning as a true watchman should (Ezek. 3:17ff). They allow brethren to preach blatant error on divorce and encourage them by using them in publications and gospel meetings while never confronting their sin. If that is love or gospel, please spare me. How much more should we be like Paul who, to men facing the Judgment like ourselves, said, “And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32)? He could do that because he could say: “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). This is gospel preaching. This is “word of the cross” preaching. May it never vanish from the earth!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 3-4
July 21, 1994