Truth Magazine

By Randy Blackaby

Cruelty to animals certainly isn’t something to be ignored or upheld but some American activists certainly seem to have their priorities upside down. Human life consistently seems to be getting subordinated to the value placed on fish, owls, bears and the like.

The latest examples of this topsy-turvy logic involve a U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning religious animal sacrifice and an advocacy group’s efforts to get the Chinese to stop using bears in medical research.

At the same time, the U.S. government continues to promote and fund programs that advocate and assist in the slaughter of millions of unborn human babies in the world’s abortion mills.

Sometimes, ironically, it is the same people who demonstrate for “abortion rights” and “freedom to choose” who are vociferously dogmatic about any infringement on an animal’s “rights.”

In Miami Beach, that city passed an ordinance barring animal slaughter, even for purposes of religious sacrifice. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Miami’s ordinance unconstitutional.

Just imagine being a faithful Jew two millennia ago and living in Miami. The daily sacrifices of the Old Testament, commanded by God, would have been illegal.

On the other hand, the ancient pagan, idolatrous practice of burning one’s children in sacrifice to the stone deity Molech probably would pass muster in our strange-thinking society.

What is the matter in a society that puts more value on a snail darter than human progress? Where is the logic in stopping medical research that could save human beings untold suffering and death to save a Chinese bear from the embarrassment of having some of his internal fluids siphoned off into a test tube?

For a hundred years now, many in our world have not seen the need to challenge the ideas of godless evolutionary theories. Some Christians even have sought to make the Bible and evolutionary thought compatible.

But one of the results of accepting that we emerged from primordial ooze to evolve through animal stages to our current position is the comical present where many are willing to treat a bobwhite with as much or more care than a baby.

You don’t see college students and animal rights advocates marching in parades and blockading or burning buildings to force the government to do something about drunk driving deaths or aborted babies or the growing incidence of rape. But you do see them doing those things to stop people from wearing fur coats or to protest a laboratory’s plans to inject some rats with cancer agents as they test new medical technologies.

You see, to one fully sold on the evolutionary theory and its consequent philosophies and anti-theologies, a rat is as important as you.

And why not? Human beings stripped of souls really wouldn’t be any different from a minnow, a weasel or a wasp. In fact, Darwinian theorems make them our relatives of the long past.

So, we as a nation are at the bizarre threshold of idiocy. We pass laws to protect what God has given us to eat and clothe ourselves with and we pass other laws to permit the killing of that which is most valuable next to the unseen soulhuman life.

Are we through with the insanity? I don’t know. I’m waiting for the “vegetable rights” and “insect advocacy” groups to emerge and then I want to see what vegetarians do for food and whether we begin building new malarial swamps.

Am I being silly? Most certainly. But friend, I’m certainly not alone.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 13
January 6, 1994

By Sherrel A. Mercer

A Christian will endeavor to give cheerfully and responsibly to the local church of which he is a member. His conscience will be his sole guide, both in the gift he makes, and in his reporting of his annual contribution as a deduction. No other party is involved, since churches of Christ, in adhering to scriptural standards, normally have no direct accountability to the Internal Revenue Service concerning the contribution received from their members.

It is fitting and proper for a Christian to claim his correct itemized deduction for religious contributions. By so doing, the wages he earns will have its greatest value, since more of it will be available to do good works. But some individuals have abused the privilege of giving, and as a result, new IRS regulations effective in 1994 will require a change in the way churches handle the contribution received from members.

Effective January 1, any contribution of $250.00 or more to a church will be excluded from the IRS as a deduction unless a signed receipt is obtained from the receiving church. A cancelled check will no longer be sufficient to substantiate such contribution, and the testimony of knowledgeable individuals will not be accepted! In addition, if a group of checks, each of which is less than $250, is given on the same day, the deduction for those checks will be excluded if no receipt is obtained.

The vast majority of contributions in support of churches of Christ are under $250 each. But consider these scenarios that do regularly happen:

1. A family takes a four-week vacation, and provides the contribution for four Sundays on the last Sunday before they leave. The parents regularly contribute $75 each week. The contribution for the four weeks together amounts to $300. Their contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

2. A sizeable gift is made to the congregation in memory of a departed member. If $250 or more, the contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

The new law places no responsibility on churches, but rather on individuals who make gifts of $250 or more. But clearly, churches must make adjustments in how they handle the offering in order to assist members in preserving their privilege under the tax law. And the adjustments need to maintain the privacy of the offering in order to be consistent with the scripture.

The IRS is seeking to prevent, for example, a person from writing a check of $300 to a church, and then receiving $250 in change from the collection plate. Such a person in the past could declare the $300 as contribution, when in reality his gift was only $50. (This actually was happening!) Since churches are not accountable to the IRS, no one was the wiser.

In 1994, it will be important for churches to put in practice one or more of the following changes:

1. The persons who count the contribution must be pre-pared to issue a signed receipt to anyone who gives $250 or more on any occasion. The receipt must include the name of the church, the date received, and a statement that no goods or services other than intangible religious benefit was received by the giver in exchange for his offering. The receipt must be signed. Or,

2. The endorsement stamp used on the back of personal checks could be worded as above to make the endorsement a valid receipt when signed. For example, it could say: “This check was received by the Any town Church of Christ as contribution on (date). The donor received no goods for services other than intangible religious benefit for his gift. Deposit to account number 123456 of the Hometown Bank. Signed

3. In addition, as additional protection of the rights of the giver, my advisors say that the one who signs the receipt or the receipt stamp should not be a close relative of the one who issues the check.

4. Finally, these changes need to be explained to the members of the congregation, so that there will be no surprises if someone is audited by the IRS.

The rules seem to indicate that the receipt could be given at a later time, so long as the receipt is in hand by the time a person files his personal income tax return.

A local congregation could choose to do nothing in preparation for these changes, and hope that the need for a receipt will not arise. That seems tantamount to hoping a large contribution will never arrive! Brethren, leadership demands that those in positions of responsibility initiate actions that serve to defend against undue criticism.

We are fortunate to live in a great country which allows churches to function without monitoring or interference from the government. There are forces at work that will, I am sure, make many more changes in the way churches function in the next twenty years. The 1994 changes seem to be reasonable, but churches must respond in order to assist their members to be the best possible stewards of the funds they possess.

(Information is from the RIA Analysis of the 1993 Federal Law Changes.) GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 14
January 6, 1994

By H. E. Phillips

Law is: “A general rule of action or conduct established or enforced by a sovereign authority; as, a law of Caesar; a law of God” (Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged). Webster says of legalism: “Close conformity to law.” Law and legalism are not the same. “Law” (nomos) means “. . . anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law.” The New Testament uses the word as “a command, law; . . . of any law whatever”. . .”a law or rule producing a state approved of God” (taken from Henry Thayer’s Lexicon). It is a rule or principle established by authority.

The law of Christ is his word: the truth by which men are made free (John 8:32). It is that perfect law of liberty which will convert the soul (James 1:25; Psa. 19:7). It is the inspired scriptures that is sufficient to perfect a man unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The only way this law will make one perfect unto all good works is to obey it. How else could it be done?

Legalism

“Legalism” has several, different definitions, opinions and views. The word is more often used by those of ultra-liberal attitudes toward the authority of Christ, and obeying all the commandments of God for the remission of sins, worship, etc. Some will deny this conclusion, but hundreds of quotations from books and magazines are available to prove it. Their writings and preaching bewail the idea of “keeping the letter of the law” and conforming to a rigid code of rules to be perfectly obeyed in order to obtain the blessings of salvation promised by God upon obeying him. The nature of law, the purpose of law, and the author of law make little difference to those who shrink from the very idea of obeying divine law. Law keeping, they say, smacks of Phariseeism.

I want to give the definition of “legalism” from one who stands opposed to obeying “a code of rules” for the remission of sins. Harold Key wrote an article in Mission Messenger of February, 1963, under the heading, “The Threat Of Legalism.”

What, then, is legalism? Legalism is the attempt to reduce the will of God to a code  to a list of commandments  with the subsequent concentration upon the commandments rather than the God whose will the commandments attempt to express. Legalism is obviously an attempt to be related to God upon the basis of law. It is a legal rather than a personal relationship. It holds the position that justification and eternal life are rewards of fully and correctly doing all that the law requires” (Volume 25, Number 2, page 17). He says further, “Legalism tears the very heart and soul out of the New Covenant” (ibid., page 20).

What if there is no attempt to reduce the will of God to a “codeto a list of commandments”? Take it just as it is! What if there is no attempt to concentrate upon the commandments rather than the will of God? (How could one do that, anyway?) What if one simply obeyed the commandments from the heart, as he must do to obey the will of God? “… but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17,18). Would that make him a legalist? If yes, what is wrong with that? That is what I am: call me a “legalist.” The person who does not obey the law of Christ is under condemnation from the word of God (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

This definition pretends to judge the heart and motive of the one obeying the law of Christ. There is no way to be related to God but by his word his law. One must be born again to be related to God, and that requires obedience in baptism by faith (John 3:3,5; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Robert Meyers edited a book entitled Voices Of Concern, published by Mission Messenger, Saint Louis, Missouri, in 1966. In his Introduction he gave his motive for publishing several articles from men and women who left the church of the Lord. In part he said: “Thousands are restless and dissatisfied with the aridity of exclusivism and authoritarianism. Bright young minds are refusing to be put off with answers that have no more to commend them than the hoary beard of antiquity” (page 3). His goal is: “The book obviously means to urge no one way of religious expression, but to plead from such evidence as is here the need for unity in diversity” (page 5).

The boredom and dissatisfaction of bright young minds to the aridity of the straight and narrow way of Christ (Matt. 7:13,14) does not commend them to the “hoary beard of antiquity” and therefore they turn to freedom of any religious expression that pleases them, and the “unity in diversity” concept of Christianity. That is the reason the author gave for his book. That is rejection of the will of God any way you look at it. These minds do not know God and understand nothing of the “love of God” as revealed in the Bible. If that is the alternative to legalism, I am what they call a “legalist.”

One of the writers in Voices Of Concern, was J. P. Sanders. On pages 40 and 41 he says this of legalism:

We have seen that the priest seeks an exact system of faith which can be the basis for the sect, and he seeks it through the authority of the church or the authority of literal Biblical interpretations. This system is a code of requirements, or what is often called “the plan of salvation.”

Legalism sees sin as a violation of the written code. The code may or may not have relevance to man’s need; it may be simply arbitrary requirements revealed by God. Man’s disobedience to these rules becomes an affront to God.

Arrogance is at its best when man claims to decide which of the commands of God he will obey and which he will not obey; which are relevant and which are not. All scriptures of God are relevant to man’s needs to make him perfect to all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). If the “rules” are from heaven, and they are, disobedience to them is an affront to God. Who will decide which rules of God man can ignore and still please God?

For example, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). Is this relevant to man now? What if the dissatisfaction of bright young minds to the aridity of the rigid rules of God does not commend them to faith in God, may they freely dispense with this rule and seek “unity in diversity”? Shades of infidelity!

Some, for example, put great emphasis on baptism as “essential to salvation.” They do not usually put the same emphasis on forgiving enemies as “essential to salvation”  though Jesus said more about this than about baptism.

This implies that legalism makes baptism “essential to salvation” whereas Jesus gave more emphasis to forgiving one’s enemies than to baptism. Baptism is essential to salvation regardless of how much is said about other matters. Of course, the necessary conclusion is that the rigid rule of baptism for the remission of sins must go in order that the bright young minds that seek the freedom of personal choice for their salvation may not be bound by this unnecessary rule. Baptism is a command in the name of Christ (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 10:48). One cannot be saved without obeying in baptism from the heart (Rom. 6:17).

Since legalism holds sin to be a legal violation, it holds salvation to be a legal payment. Man as a sinner must do certain things required of him for forgiveness.. .

This seems to be sarcasm. It is not “legalism” that holds sin to be legal violation, it is God (1 John 3:4). Sin is the transgression of the law. Salvation is not a legal payment. I know of no one who believes or teaches that doctrine. Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). Faith that saves is faith that works in obedience to the commands of God (James 2:20-26). A sinner must do certain things “required of him for forgiveness” or God’s word has no power to save. But it does have such power (Rom. 1:16).

These statements bespeak one thing: Obedience to law is unnecessary to obtain the grace of God for remission of sins. It is evil and the cause of division in the body of Christ, and a barrier against the grace of God. On the other hand, they claim, love will answer the prayer of Christ for unity and make us acceptable to God without obedience to law. You read the works of the apostles of this rebellion against the law of Christ and see if this is not true. That is the crux of what I have read from advocates of liberalism.

Let us understand the meaning of the words “legal” and “legalist” and “legalism.” “Legal” means that which is authorized or permitted by law. “Legalism” is that system which holds strict, literal adherence to law. “Legalist” is one who accepts the strict and literal obedience to law. If “legalism” is wrong and evil, all law ought to be rejected, and iniquity is a virtue. Whoever requires obedience to the law of Christ promotes division and fosters callous hearts. That is the consequences of this plea for abandonment of the New Testament law as the revelation from God to save the obedient believer in Jesus Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 10-11
January 6, 1994

By Tim Mize

Most of us have heard all our lives about the cross of Christ. A week does not pass without our eating this bread and drinking this cup in its memory. It may surprise us, then, to learn how shocking it was to those who heard about it first. For those first audiences of the gospel, the idea of a crucified Christ was surprising. For many, it was more than they could swallow.

Remember, these people were already hoping for the Christ, their savior:, to come. And they had already seen men come and go, who had raised their hopes only to disappoint them. And now this Jesus of Nazareth had come and also raised their hopes. He, too, however, was stopped. The Romans crucified him, crushing him like any other rebel. If he were truly the Christ, so they reasoned, then he would not have been crucified, or he would have come down from the cross (Matt. 27:39-43).

Furthermore, the scriptures teach that any man who is hanged is accursed (Deut. 21:23). The cross made this Jesus accursed. How, then, could he be the Christ? So the reasoning went among many who first heard the gospel.

Such reasonings were surely in mind when Paul spoke of “the stumbling block” (or, “the offence”) of the cross. “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Cor.1:22-23; Gal. 5:11). The “offence” of the cross refers to the way that people resist the gospel at that very point where it proclaims that Christ died on a cross. The very idea of a crucified Christ does not repulse people like it once did. It is too “old hat,” I suppose, to do that. But humanity has not been relieved of the offence of the cross. The cross is still as resisted as ever. The fact that “Christ died” might have grown acceptable, but the implications of that fact still offend. The cross may not offend human reason so much anymore, but it continues to offend human pride.

The cross will always offend because of the love that is in it. The cross is an expression of love from God, and of love that makes the greatest sacrifice (Jn. 15:13). We resist such a love. It makes us feel uncomfortably obligated. It disturbs our illusions of self-reliance. Our tendency is to say, “I don’t want anyone to die for me.” The word of the cross offends us and says, “Christ died for our sins.”

The cross offends us, too, with the way of life to which it calls. It summons to the way of emptying and forgetting self, of losing oneself in what is good. It is the way of trustful obedience to God and of loving service to others. Our lusts and pride resist this way of the cross.

May there be no offence for us. Let us be open, yielding, and obedient to the word of the cross.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 9
January 6, 1994