Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The chart on the next page illustrates a complaint that frequently is heard.

Who is guilty of calling names? “Well, old brother So & So calls names.” You have just named someone who calls names. Does this make you a “name caller”?

What is meant by the charge that “preachers call names”? (1) Do preachers call people ugly, dirty names? Do they refer to other folks as “dirty, rotten blankety blanks”? If so, they should be opposed. There is no place for childish name calling  “Johnny is a big, fat slob!” “Catholics are a bunch of mealy-mouthed minnow munchers.” That sort of thing does not belong in the life of a Christian, let alone in preaching! Who does such a thing? If you find someone, we will join you in reprimanding him.

Suppose an example of such improper name calling is found. Is it typical? Does it occur during most sermons? No, it is an isolated event. It rarely occurs, and when it does, it is not condoned. So, why the charge? Why bring it up as a general criticism if it is not generally practiced?

(2) When it is said that “preachers call names,” do you mean by this that they name and identify the what and the who about which they are speaking? Define the complaint. When you say that someone is a “name caller,” you have called him a name, i.e., “name caller.” “Thou that sayest a man should not call names, dost thou call men `name callers’?”

Notorious New Testament Name Callers

Jesus was perhaps the “worst” name caller who ever lived! “Woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites!” “Ye make him twofold more the child of hell than your-selves.” “Ye blind guides.” “Ye fools and blind.” “Ye blind guides which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” “Thou blind Pharisee.” “Woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers.”

If a preacher today referred to religious people as “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” “children of hell,” and as “snakes” and a “generation of vipers,” he would be told that he lacks “the spirit of Christ.” Would Jesus be allowed to preach where you worship if he called names as he did in Matthew 23? When Jesus referred to “Gentiles,” he was identifying his subject in order to emphasize his point (Matt. 6:32). Ifone speaks of the second coming of Christ, he might say, “For after all these things do the premillenialists seek.” Or he might say that, “like the Methodists, Baptists seek for salvation by faith only.” Does the preacher sin by labeling and identifying the group he is talking about? If so, did Jesus (Matt. 6:32; 21:31)?

In Mark 7:6-13, Jesus (1) called his audience “hypocrites,” (2) said their worship was “in vain,” (3) charged them with rejecting “the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Then, (4) he specifically described and defined their particular doctrine and (5) rebuked it. Is this an example of good, sound gospel preaching? May a preacher today refer to (1) “Baptists” and (2) say their worship of God is in vain because (3) they reject the commandments of God that they may keep their own traditions? Then, would it be proper to take a (4) specific doctrine, such as, “faith only” and show how it contradicts Mark 16:16, and (5) rebuke it as a human tradition that makes void the word of God? Would such a sermon lack love? Would it be “filled with hateful `name calling’?” May we do what Jesus did in the way that he did it (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Pet. 2:21; 4:11; 1 Jn. 2:6)? Please tell us!

If we may do what the Lord did in the way he did it, why the charge that the Church of Christ is wrong because it calls names? Either withdraw the charge, or else tell us that we may not follow the Lord’s example in preaching. Which shall it be?

Paul was another first rate “name caller.” He named “Hymanaeus and Alexander” as being examples of those who had “made shipwreck” of their faith (1 Tim. 1:19,20). Would it be proper today to say that Darwin Chandler “made shipwreck” of his faith when he joined the Pentecostals? (In the 1980s, Darwin Chandler, who was then preaching for the House St. church in Alvin, Texas, departed the faith and started preaching for the Pentecostals.) Assuming it to be true, would it be sinful to say it? Paul said, “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10). “Alexander the coppersmith (not the blacksmith, the tinsmith, the silversmith or the goldsmith, but the coppersmith  LRH) did me much evil” (2 Tim. 4:14). “Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.” Would it be scriptural to tell someone today that there is a certain ironworker in a certain church that will oppose you when you teach the truth about the church and recreation? May we do as Paul did (Phil. 4:9)? May we speak as he spoke (1 Pet. 4:11)?

Note the case, the example, of 2 Timothy 2:16-18. “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as cloth a canker: of whom is Hymanaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

First, Paul characterized the doctrine in very harsh terms, comparing it to “profane and vain babblings.” Second, he noted its threefold effects: (A) “increase unto more ungodliness,” (B) “eat as doth a canker (gangrene),” (C) “overthrow the faith of some.” Third, he identified the proponents of the doctrine; he called their names,”Hymanaeus and Philetus.” Fourth, he defined the doctrine, “saying that the resurrection is past already.” Did Paul sin? Should he be ridiculed and reviled as a “name caller”?

May a preacher today do as Paul did? Can we obey 1 Timothy 5:20, “Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear”? May one say that brother Guy N. Woods’ views on benevolent societies and the sponsoring church, as exemplified by the “Herald Of Truth,” are “profane and vain babblings” that have led to “more ungodliness” (church gyms, camps, etc.). May I say that his teaching has eaten as a cancerous gangrene in the body of Christ and has overthrown the faith of some? Should one refrain from such characterizations in order to avoid being called “a name caller,” or should he do as Paul did?

May a preacher say that brother Charles Holt’s views on the church and elders in the local church are “profane and vain babblings” that will “increase unto more ungodliness,” “eat as doth a canker” and “overthrow the faith of some”? If one does so, is he guilty of sin, assuming that he correctly represents brother Holt’s false doctrines? Strangely, those who refer to gospel preachers as “name callers” never seem to apply the same criticism to brother Holt when he calls gospel preachers “hirelings” and charges them with preaching for money! Critics jump on men who properly identify and rebuke brother Holt’s doctrine, but they never reprove brother Holt when he says that women may be “elders” and that “elders” are power hungry autocrats. Now, we are getting to the heart of our critics’ goals. They love the darkness of error more than the light of truth. That is the basis of their complaints On. 3:19-21).

May a preacher do as Paul did regarding brother Homer Hailey’s views on divorce and remarriage? May we say, with all kindness and respect, that brother Hailey’s views, if followed, will lead to “more ungodliness,” leaving some in an adulterous marriage? May one say that the toleration of adulterous marriage will “eat as doth a canker” and “overthrow the faith of some”? If we may not speak in such a manner regarding brother Hailey’s doctrine, why is it right to do so concerning Guy N. Woods, Charles Holt, Hymanaeus and Philetus? Brethren, these questions can-not be answered with your best grin. They demand an answer. (Or will you simply call me a name for having raised the questions?)

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:9-13).

Paul cited a religious party, “the circumcision.” May we cite a religious party, “the premillennialists”? Observe the “name calling” that Paul engaged in! He accepted the verdict of uninspired men regarding the character of “the Cretans”; hence, an uninspired man may make such judgments. I believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are “unruly and vain talkers and deceivers.” May I cite their doctrines and “rebuke them sharply”? May I say that Mormons “subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not”? May I say that the convicted and imprisoned preacher, Jim Bakker, preached “for filthy lucre’s sake,” for money, and that he “with feigned words (made) merchandise” of millions of people? If I do so, am I a sinful “name caller”? May elders in the church today do as Paul instructed the elders to do in Titus 1:9-13?

If “name calling” is one of the things that “is wrong with the Church of Christ,” then the “wrong” has been around for a long time. “0 full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10). Do such folks exist today. Ben M. Bogard, a Missionary Baptist preacher, was such a man. Marvin Hicks of the United Pentecostal Church is such a man. Oral Roberts is such a man. But our critics will not challenge the evil and wickedness of those men. No, they would rather criticize those who expose the deceit of such men.

The apostle John named and identified Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9,10). “Yes, Larry, but John was an inspired man. He knew Diotrephes’ character (“loveth to have the preeminence”), but you don’t possess John’s insight.” Where is the proof that John revealed Diotrephes’ character by divine insight? If so, the error is not in the “name calling,” but in the fact that one is not inspired when he does so. (Remember, though, Paul’s acceptance of the “names” that uninspired men “called”Titus 1:12, 13).

John said, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar” (1 Jn. 2:4). Imagine that! John used the word “liar.” Did he sin? “No, Larry, John did not sin; he wrote as the Spirit directed, but you cannot do that.” (1) Is it possible for an uninspired man to know if a man claims that he knows God? Yes, I can know when one claims that he knows God. (2) Is it possible for an uninspired man to know whether or not one keeps God’s commandments? Yes, I can know whether or not one keeps “his commandments.” Since I, an uninspired man, can know that one claims to know God, and since I can know whether or not he is keeping God’s commandments, I can know whether or not one is a “liar.”

In debate with Pentecostal preachers, I have had three of them claim that they were apostles. Raymond Cochran claimed that he was an apostle as Paul and Peter were. He said he did not know who the other eleven were. I told Mr. Cochran that I believed he was indeed an apostle, and that he was mentioned in the Bible  “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Did I do wrong? Am I sinning by naming the man and his claim in this article? If not, then why charge that “the Church of Christ is wrong because they call names”? The church at Ephesus was commended thusly, “Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2).

The Pope of Rome claims to be an apostle. Mormons say they have twelve apostles. Mr. Cochran said he was an apostle. May we try or test such men and their claims? If they fail the test of Scripture, is it proper to say that we have “found them liars”? I asked Mr. Cochran if he could do “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). He could not! The Pope, the Mormon apostles and Mr. Cochran are “liars.” If that is “name calling,” then I plead guilty.

Here is what puzzles me. Gospel preachers are attacked and condemned “for calling names.” What do our critics say about Mr. Cochran or the Pope? Do they protest against their claims? Do they teach against the Pope’s usurpation of the apostleship? Why is it that gospel preachers are the “bad guys” when they teach and tell the truth, but the Pope and Mr. Cochran are to receive our sympathy and love? “What is wrong with this picture?” The truth is that there are those who love darkness rather than light. That is why they criticize gospel preachers for doing their duty and apologize to false teachers who are doing the devil’s work. While none of us desires to be unnecessarily abusive and offensive, there are others who are unwittingly deluded by these false teachers who have adopted their maxims.

Elijah’s Sarcastic Mocking

The prophets of Baal were to have their god answer them. They “called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, 0 Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awakened” (1 Kgs. 18:26, 27).

Did Elijah sin? We know that the wicked king Ahab said that Elijah was the one “that troubleth Israel” (1 Kgs. 18:17). In our day, those who challenge the modern prophets of Baal are regarded as those “that troubleth Israel.” It was not so then, and it is not so today! The Ahabs of our day want to throw up a smokescreen to hide their altars that burn with the fires of error and iniquity. They will seek to intimidate by saying that we are hateful, mean spirited “name callers.” Listen, and you will hear the “names” that they call all of us who “call names.” Those who are opposed to “name calling” do it with a vengeance against those they judge to be guilty of it. They call our names, and the call us names for calling the names of false teachers and false doctrines. That is more than a bit ironic!

Chart:

Whats Wrong with the Church of Christ?

“Preachers Calling Names”

 

1. Name One! (When you do, are you a “Name-Caller”??

 

 

1. Notorious N. T. Name Callers

 

 

1. Jesus: Mt. 23; 21:31; 6:32 (Gentiles = Baptists) Mk. 7:6-13, Lk. 13:32 (“Fox”) Rev 2:6, 15, 20

 

 

1. Paul: 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 2 Tim. 4:10, 14; Titus 1:9-13; Acts 19:24; 17:23

 

 

1. John: 1 Jn. 2:4; 3 Jn. 9

 

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 10-13
March 17, 1994

By Johnie Edwards

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they mayhave the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14).

The apostle Peter said, “… the ark, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us . . . by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Let’s take a look at what it means to saved like Noah.

Saved By Grace

Just as “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8), “For by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2:8). As Noah found God’s favor and was saved from the waters of the flood, so it is by God’s favor that we can be saved from our sins. It is not by grace alone, or anything else alone, but a number of things work together to bring about our salvation. Noah was saved by grace, but not by grace alone and neither are we.

Saved by Faith

Noah was saved by faith. The Hebrew writer stated, “By faith Noah . . . prepared an ark in the saving of his house” (Heb. 11:7). We, as was Noah, are saved by faith. “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is” (Heb. 11:6). Unbelievers were told to, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). Every case of conversion in the New Testament, was that of believers. In fact, one must believe in order to have the right to be saved (Jn. 1:11-12). At the point of faith, one may exercise his right to be saved or stay lost! True, we are saved by faith but “not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24).

Water And Baptism

The waters of the flood kept the ark afloat, so the Bible says, “eight souls were saved by water” (1 Pet. 3:21). The Bible does not teach that we are saved by water, but it does say, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). You see, the word baptism does not mean water. It means immersion. Baptism is an act of obedience, commanded by the Lord. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

Obedience Saves

Just as Noah was saved because, “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22); we are also saved by obeying the Lord. For Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8-9). At the very outset, God demanded obedience from man. “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17). A failure to obey brings about the penalty of death. The book of Revelation closes with the demand for obedience. “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). It takes the same things to save us today that it took to save Noah in his day.

Have you been saved like Noah? You can be!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 7
March 17, 1994

By Lewis Willis

I want you to stay with me now, because this is going to take a while to develop. The Akron Beacon Journal (4-24-92) carried a front-page article entitled, “Scientists Discover Relics of `Big Bang. Scientists believe they have observed relics of the primeval explosion that created the universe 15 billion years ago. They believe this is “the strongest support yet for the controversial theory.” What is all of this evidence? They have found “massive wisps of gas more than 500 million light years long  about 59 billion trillion miles” which are believed to be “the largest and oldest structures ever observed.” These observations came from instruments aboard NASA’s Cosmic Back-ground Explorer (COBE), launched in 1989.

The scientific community is ecstatic. Physicist Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa Cruz says, “It’s one of the major discoveries of science.” Physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago said the discovery is “unbelievably important!” The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the holy grail of cosmology. . . If it is, indeed, correct, this certainly would have to be considered for a Nobel Prize.” The researchers “are confident” in the accuracy of their measurements.

The “Big Bang” is designated as “one of the most difficult physics concepts for layman to accept.” Now I want you to notice this statement carefully: “Its chief assumption is that 15 billion years ago all matter in the universe was compressed into an unimaginably dense sphere smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. The ball exploded at a temperature of trillions of degrees, launching all the matter on the expansionary course it continues to follow today. Within the first millionth of a second after the explosion, quarks and other exotic particles combined to form protons and neutrons, most of which were just as rapidly annihilated by collisions with antiprotons and antincutrons, releasing their energy in the form of light waves.” Did you get all of that? They know all of this is true because they have found massive wisps of gas more than 500 million light years long.

Actually, what these scientists have found “are large regions of the sky in which the temperature is very slightly, as little as one-hundred-thousandth of a degree, from that of the areas around them.” I’m already convinced, aren’t you? Such evidence cannot be denied. It is extremely conclusive, except for a few unfounded assumptions.

1. Scientists have rejected the idea that God created the world. Furthermore, they have “assumed” that all living matter is traceable to a “Big Bang” in the distant past. Acting on this “assumption,” they have sought any evidence that might suggest they are right. And, they are not too terribly careful what evidence (?) they accept.

2. They have not arrived at the conclusion that the “Big Bang” occurred 15 billion years ago. Until recently they were equally convinced that it occurred 4.51 billion years ago. These “wisps of gas” have now enabled them to correct their 10.49 billion year error. I begin to wonder if this “gas” to which they have been exposed is not laughing gas.

3. Let me give you a hint of how certain they are about their findings. The article says, “It now seems clear” that they have found this evidence. Scientists are operating on their “chief assumption” that there was a “Big Bang.” They say that “If, indeed, this is correct” their assumptions are true. They “believe” that the “Big Bang” occurred with the explosion of particles of matter “smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.” I know better than that. It could not have been the size of a “.”, it had to have been at least the size of a marble. This was a “big” explosion. It set in motion billions of years of evolution. No, it had to be at least the size of a marble  maybe even the size of a walnut. Or, possibly as large as a physicist’s brain!

4. This assumed explosion occurred because the ball developed “a temperature of trillions of degrees.” They have omitted some key elements here. For instance, what caused it to get so hot? Did it happen quickly, or did it take billions of years to get that hot? Are they sure it was “trillions” of degrees? How do they know it was not “billions of trillions of degrees”? Who measured how hot it was? Does it not seem more likely that this whole business is nothing more than a wild guess made by an infidel? I find it easier to believe this to be the guess of an infidel than to believe a tiny speck of matter got hot enough to explode in such a way to finally form this universe and everything and everybody in it.

5. We are told that “within the first millionth of a second” protons and neutrons collided with antiprotons and antineutrons. How do we know it was the first millionth of a second? It might have been a billionth of a second. It might not have been protons that collided with antiprotons. It might have been antiprotons that collided with neutrons. Or, there might not have been a collision at all! I know the whole business had to take at least an hour.

6. But there is still a greater assumption that needs to be considered. These scientists believe there was some “matter” that existed 15 billion years ago, which ultimately exploded. Where did that matter come from? You cannot get something from nothing! How did they account for the presence of these life forms before the “Big Bang”? How do they account for the heat source that created the explosion? What other explosion have they ever observed which has produced such a marvelous result as this universe? I think the scientific community has been given so much rope that it has finally hung itself.

The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). It also says, “Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Ps. 90:1-2). Note what David said in Psalms 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” It seems to me that a good explanation for the expanse of the universe is found in Psalms 104:2: “Who coverst thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.”

I still find the explanation of the Bible about the origin of things to be more plausible than the assumptions of infidels, even infidel scientists. What about you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 12-13
March 3, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

There is a growing agitation in some quarters to have the women present in business meetings both in places with and without elders. Some insist that they be silent observers while others argue that they may speak in the decision making process. One brother has argued that the women not only may be present and participate, but that they must or else the deliberations are unscriptural. Articles have appeared in some periodicals over the last few years advocating these views.

It is God’s plan that elders be ordained in every church (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). The qualifications indicate men for this work. They are to be husbands and rule well their own houses (1 Tim. 3:2,4). That precludes women. Deacons likewise are to be men, husbands, with wives who are faithful (1 Tim. 3:11,12). Elders have the oversight and deacons function as special servants of the congregation.

But congregations can scripturally exist and function before elders and deacons are appointed. The divine qualifications must be met. The churches in Asia Minor which were established by Paul and Barnabas functioned without elders until they came back through that region and appointed elders in every church (Acts 24:23). When a body of people meet together for worship and undertake the work God has assigned a local body of his people, some decisions have to be made. At what hour on the Lord’s Day shall the congregation come together? Who will see that the Lord’s table is ready? What place shall be secured and prepared for the purpose? Who shall teach? Who will lead singing? How many songs? Who will lead the assembly in prayers? How many? How shall the congregation proceed in relieving saints in need, or in choosing and supporting those to preach the gospel at home and abroad? Any congregation which functions scripturally, has business with which to deal.

A scripturally unorganized congregation, as well as one scripturally organized must work within certain divine precepts. “Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26). “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

Limitations

Women were taught to “keep silence” in the assemblies and if they wanted to learn of things said by the prophets, they were to “ask their husbands at home” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). This was considered part of being “under obedience” and was consistent with what the law had said (“as also saith the law”). It was “a shame” to do otherwise (v. 35). Inspiration also taught, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). He gave two reasons for this: (1) seniority rights (“Adam was first formed”), and (2) Eve was deceived in the transgression. Her judgment was flawed. She ran ahead of her husband and yielded to emotion and not reason.

Any argument from other passages which ignores these divine truths is misplaced from the outset. Men do not have infallible judgment, but there is a divine order which must be respected.

I am convinced that many are now feeling the pressure of society which has witnessed a great change in the roles of women and men. Confusing these roles has resulted in great damage to the family structure. Evidence of this is seen in the terrible divorce rate, in unhappy men, women and children. In many congregations many of the women work outside the home. This may be from economic necessity or else from choice to have more, to justify education, or to attempt to feel fulfilled. With this has come a changed attitude among some sisters in the Lord. Some are much more outspoken, some are used to giving orders, and some have a chip on the shoulder. Many are the product of the modern educational establishment. The entertainment media continually preaches along these lines. As we reach out and bring to Christ younger people whose minds have been saturated with these views, it is to be expected that there will be some tensions along these lines.

These tensions have been augmented by well-intentioned brethren who have encouraged a changed role for women in business decisions in congregations. Modern women (and men) do not like to hear about obedience, subjection, submission. After all, this is the age of “rights.” We must not be judged to be chauvinistic.

Acts 6 and 15

Those who contend that women should participate in business meetings hang their hats on Acts 6 and Acts 15. It is argued that in both cases the multitude of the disciples came together to consider the matters at hand. Let’s consider each passage.

In Acts 6 a problem surfaced having to do with benevolent distribution among some of the Grecian widows. This was a matter which had to be resolved. Divine revelation resolved it. Holy Spirit guided apostles called the church together and presented the will of God. It was first of all, a teaching situation, parallel to preaching and teaching on the work and qualifications of elders and deacons. The whole church needs to hear that instruction. Priorities had to be established. The apostles could not neglect their work of teaching the word of God (v. 2) to serve tables. Since they could not do that, then divine wisdom decreed that seven men (enough to handle the problem) be chosen who met the standards laid down. The apostles would then “appoint” them over “this business” (v. 3). The church gladly received this instruction and seven men were chosen. “They” (the church) made the choice. Right here it is assumed by some that there must have been some sort of business meeting which the women attended and had input in order for this to be done. Exactly how they arrived at the seven men is not spelled out. I have been involved various times in my life in the selecting of elders and deacons without ever having women present in a business meeting. Yet, we were always able to set forth a plan by which names could be submitted and time allowed to compare these men with the divine qualifications. Both men and women were permitted to submit names or submit objections to any whose names were set forth. Information must always be supplied in any congregation which works in harmony. But whatever process prudence may decide must not violate the limitations we have seen which must preserve the principle of obedience, submission and subjection. Who is prepared to take this passage and tell us the procedure followed including the role women played in a business meeting? Which sister spoke up? What did she say? Was this not a case of the church “continuing . . . in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)? Advocates of women in present day business meetings must have a good imagination to find any justification for the practice from Acts 6. The church, in harmony with divine instruction, chose special servants, as churches down through the years since have chosen deacons (as well as elders) in harmony with the divine guidelines. Who is willing to contend that the limitations of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 were set aside?

Acts 15 is another case where a problem was resolved by divine revelation. The issue of whether or not Gentiles converts to Christ had to be circumcised and keep the law had to be settled. Some had gone to Antioch and under-mined the work of Paul and Barnabas by insisting that they were teaching contrary to the apostles at Jerusalem. It was a matter of concern to the whole church. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and they were all called together. Some spoke and defended the misguided Jewish position. Which of them were women? What did they say? Did a single sister there violate the limitations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Yes, they all came together to consider the matter. It was a serious doctrinal matter. We have had many others to surface through the years when we had to call whole congregations together to be taught the word of God on premillennialism, instrumental music, the nature, work and organization of the church and a number of other issues. All, men and women alike, needed to hear the teaching. Every one needed to make choices involving action consistent with the truth. When the debating was over, the apostles, with consent and approval of the elders, handed down an apostolic decision which they put in writing and sent to brethren elsewhere which showed that all the apostles, including Paul, were teaching the same thing. Did the women vote? Did anyone vote? This action “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church” (v. 22). They were united.

I have seen a number of occasions when congregations were taught the truth of God and they were pleased with it and acted in harmony with it. I have seen other times when the saying did not please the multitude and they did not receive it or amend their practice.

The fact that the whole church came together to consider the matter in both Acts 6 and Acts 15 says nothing about business meetings in which judgments must be made touching the business aspects of a congregation. In both instances divine revelation resolved the problem at hand. All, men and women, were pleased with what the Lord revealed through his apostles and put into action what they taught.

Why would any sister possessed of a meek and quiet spirit, who honors what the Lord said about being subject and obedient, want to place herself in a situation where there is a great danger of violating 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Why would any brother want to encourage her to do so? God placed men in leadership roles in the family and in the church. Let there be communication, and understanding. Let the decisions be made in consideration of all involved, but let the scriptural limitations be respected.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 3-4
March 3, 1994