Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

When I was a lad, my parents ran a country store that sold gas, feed, groceries, and also housed the local post office. From the time I was old enough to be responsible, I worked in the store. I usually opened or help open the store about 6:00-6:30 a.m. in order that we could pick up the business of men on their way to work.

When logging was in our area, so that the workers passed by the store for gas and supplies, an older Black gentleman known to me only as “Cat Whiskers” frequently stopped in. His body was racked with arthritis. He would hobble in with a noticeable limp, buy a 6 ounce Coca-Cola and pour one or two packets of Stand-Back powder into the Coke to kill the pain from his arthritis. When he finished his Coke, he would leave for work. I have no way of knowing how effective his medical treatment was, but I am able to judge his work ethic.

Work was honorable in those days. I heard many of my elders comment about how they endured the hardships of the depression. They would relate their sufferings but would emphatically assert,

“But we never did take a government hand-out.” But things were changing, even in the isolated section of East Texas in which I was reared.

A welfare state was being created. Men learned that they could make nearly as much money through unemployment, food stamps, aid for dependent children, and other federal programs as they could working. The reasoning prevailed, “Why should I work when I can make just as much without working?” Once a generation was raised on these roles of dependency, the attitude became that of “the government owes me,” “I am entitled (government entitlement programs) to it.” Now we are several generations into a welfare state and the work ethic in our country is suffering. It has produced poor work habits and loss of self-esteem among those who have accepted government handouts rather than working for their living.

The Sinful Sloth

The book of Proverbs condemns laziness. Laziness not only makes one obnoxious (“As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him”  Prov 10:26), it is sinful. Consider these passages:

Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, 0 sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: so shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man (Prov. 6:6-11).

There are several consequences from laziness mentioned in the Proverbs:

1. Laziness brings poverty (Prov. 6:1 1; 24:33-34). “He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: but he that sleepeth in harvest

2. It is a son that causeth shame” (Prov. 10:4-5). The natural result of a good work ethic is prosperity. He that is faithful in little will be made ruler over much. As a good worker is promoted, he increases his income and prospers.

3. Laziness brings one under tribute. The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute” (Prov 12:24). Lazy people are always in debt and working to pay high interest on credit cards, always trying to catch up but falling further behind.

4. Laziness leads to unfulfilled desires. “The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour. He coveteth greedily all the day long: but the righteous giveth and spareth not” (Prov. 21:25-26). In contrast, a man who is zealous in his work is motivated by his desires. He sees things that he wants and he works to obtain them. “He that laboureth for himself; for his mouth craveth it of him” (Prov. 16:26).

5. Laziness leads to shame. “He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: but he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame” (Prov. 10:5). A lazy son is an embarrassment to the family. A person increases his self-esteem, his feelings of self-worth, by being a productive member of society.

6. Laziness leads to not taking care of what you have. The wise man described the field of a lazy man: “I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; and, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down” (Prov. 24:30-31).

The New Testament Work Ethic

The New Testament continues in the same vein in its instructions about good work ethics. Consider these verses:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free (Eph. 6:5-8).

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men (Col. 3:22-23).

These and several other passages emphasize the true value of work. Work is a blessing given to us by a beneficent Creator. Remember that man worked before the fall into sin (see Gen. 2:14  Adam and Eve were put in the Garden of Eden to dress and keep the Garden).

Social scientists have long recognized the association between the so-called “Protestant work ethic” and the success of capitalism (see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism 1958). We are the heirs of a society of abundant material prosperity primarily because our ancestors had a good work ethic. The standard of living has increased continuously for several decades. What will today’s generation pass down to its children?

Conclusion

When we create a circumstance in which a sizable segment of society can live from unearned income for a lifetime, we create a dependency that is passed down from generation to generation, a group without positive role models, a group without initiative, and a people believing that society owes them what they need for survival (food stamps, medicare/medicaid, housing, etc.). When the number of the unproductive leaches in society reaches higher limits than productive workers can support, the society collapses. We are dangerously close to that happening.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 2
January 6, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

The chart on the next page introduces our theme. Our purpose in this article is expressed in these words, “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion” (2 Cor. 11:12). Shadowy shoals of shame will shipwreck faith; unrevealed reefs will wreck redemption’s ark of safety. It is imperative, therefore, that we understand the nature, method and character of the evil “which doth so easily beset us.” We must “cut off ” opportunities to them who seek “occasion” against the truth.

Lincoln asked his cabinet, “If you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?” “Five,” they replied. “No,” said the president, “calling a sheep’s tail a leg does not make it a leg. A sheep has four legs.”

Appear Devout

Calling a wolf a sheep does not make him a sheep. “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). Outer clothing does not change the inner being. From among the eldership, from within the church, “shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 28:29,30). “But there were false prophets also among the people (God’s people in the Old Testament), even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Paul knew the problem by personal experience. “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2:4). Secret, sinister subterfuge was employed. These men were not obvious in appearance; their demeanor did not declare them to be what they really were. “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (Ask yourself how an apostle of Christ would appear, how he would present himself.) And no marvel (this should not be amazing to you); for Satan himself is trans-formed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Our Lord was confronted by the same deceit. “And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor” (Lk. 20:20). “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him” (Jn. 8:6).

We all know the things described above are true. We, too, may have had experience with such wolves in sheep’s clothing. We learned it, though, too late. After the damage was done, we saw their true nature. Success against a wolf can be attained only when we expose him before he deals out death and destruction. This is one of the goals of this series of articles. Examine the teeth of those who bleat out complaints and criticism against the church of the Lord.

Merely “Raising Concerns”

The wolf in sheep’s clothing will profess his love for the truth. He will resent your questioning of his soundness. He will tell you that he is “merely raising some concerns that have troubled me for a long time.” He will assure you that his intentions are pure, that he only has “the best interest of the church at heart.” He will speak of our “misguided emphasis,” saying that our preaching is “out of focus,” and that he seeks to find ways that may “fine tune” our “approach.” He will speak of “our archaic, out-dated methods.” He will praise, subtly, “some of the things” he has seen that “have worked” in “other churches” (by “other churches,” he means liberals and the denominations).

The critic, the sheep, the wolf (they are all one and the same), will cite some examples of some things that have “troubled” him. He will bring up an extreme situation, a radical case. He will wrest it out of context if he has to, in order to make a favorable impression. You are expected to nod and support him, and, of course, you will, for you are certainly not in favor of “driving people away.”

What he says will be portrayed as being “typical of us.” For example: (1) “You know, we have carried our opposition to gymnasiums and kitchens a little too far. Why, I heard of a church that had a member who was a diabetic. The diabetic had to eat at certain times. Since the church had a business meeting immediately following morning services, the brother with diabetes brought a sack lunch which he planned to eat so he could attend the business meeting. Did you know that those brethren wouldn’t even let the poor man eat his lunch because that would be a sin! That’s a little `far out,’ don’t you think?” Well, of course, you think it is “far out.”

Here, though, is what the wolf will never tell you. He will say that he opposes gymnasiums “and such, just like you do,” but what he will not tell you is that he seeks to restrict preaching against such things. He does not want liberalism to be specifically denounced. In a few years, unknown to the wolf himself, he will “see nothing wrong with such things,” but the evolution of his digression has not yet reached that point. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Presently, though, he is sending out signals, feelers, antennae which he hopes will attract you to his course.

(2) The pseudo-sheep does not want to hear preaching against immodest dress. He is not immoral himself, and his reputation for clean living may be beyond reproach, but his appetites and social position are leading him toward beer, beaches and bikinis. He is “uncomfortable,” he will tell you, “with our strident, judgmental condemnation” of wearing shorts and swim suits. Then he tells you “of this case I heard about. Did you know,” he says, “that there is a preacher who said that if Christians have a private swimming pool on their property that they are guilty of sin?” Again, he has taken an extreme case in order to win your sympathy. You are supposed to think, “You know, maybe our preacher is a little too hard in preaching against such things. Why, it is crazy to think that a Christian cannot own his own swimming pool.” You are hooked. You have enlisted. You “bought in.” You do not realize that it is a “package deal,” that there is more you will have to swallow, but you will be brought along and reeled in slowly. By the time you sense that there is something wrong, you will have swallowed so much and your mouth will be so full that you cannot spit it out. That is the way it works, folks (Eph. 4:14).

“Our Traditions”

Critics will speak of “our traditions.” The implication is this. Baptists have their traditions. Methodists and Catholics have theirs, and “the Church of Christ” has theirs. There is a silent linking of the Lord’s church to denominationalism. And just what are some “of our traditions”? Well, there is the “oversimplified five step mentality” concerning “the plan of salvation.” The old “five finger exercise” (hold up your hand, extend your fingers and smirk): “hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptized.” “We have made that,” you will be told, “into a magic formula that is supposed to `guarantee’ salvation. We should really be telling people about `the doing and dying of Jesus’ so they won’t think that we believe that one can earn his salvation by following some precise formula that can be `ticked off’ on our fingers.” (We will have more to say about this in future articles in this series. Meanwhile, see the author’s series, “The Preaching of the Cross” [May & July, 1992], Guardian of Truth).

When you hear someone speak derogatorily of “the plan of salvation” and poke fun at the “famous five finger formula,” you may want to lift the fleece and check for dark hair beneath it. In time, given enough time, if these men pursue their present course, they will abandon their present belief that baptism is essential for salvation. Mark it down. The heavenly highway of holiness is strewn with the bleached bones of those who began by “merely voicing some concerns about some of `our’ trite traditions in the Church of Christ.”

The critic will revile “our traditional invitation song.” He will scoff at “our view that `three songs and a prayer’ somehow constitute worship.” He will refer to singing, prayer, teaching, giving and the Lord’s supper as our “traditional ritual of worship.” He will snidely, sarcastically denigrate it as he does so. He will refer to elders as “chairmen of the bored” and to a gospel preacher as an “attorney general in the Church of Christ.” He will decry the subjugation of “our women” as “second-class citizens” and express the “hope that we surely can find some useful ways to use the many talents of our fine, godly sisters,” and of how “our traditions” have unfairly excluded them from participation in business meetings. Scriptures are not cited, discussed and applied. You are supposed to hear of “these abuses in the Church of Christ “and reflect on ways to “overcome” them.

Meanwhile, “what do you think of our preacher? Do you think he has a proper grasp and insight into these problem areas? Now, don’t get me wrong; I like him, and he can really preach the Bible, but he’s from `the old school’ of `do this’ and `do that’ or else you will go to hell with everyone else. What about our elders? Do you think they know what is going on? Are they aware of the real needs of this church. We can talk some more later.”

Later, you will be invited to his den, to his lair. It will look and smell like a sheepfold. There you will meet others who “feel as we do” about some of the “concerns we talked about the other day.” It will be informal. There will be snacks, maybe even a meal. You will be given some “potentially explosive” reading material that you are to “keep to yourself for the time being.” It contains some things that others, who are less informed, would not under-stand. Perhaps some of it is a little radical, but there are some things that relate to our present concerns about “the direction this church is going.”

Make a note of this. Complainers in the church constantly and contemptuously will criticize “our traditions,” but they will rarely, if ever, speak against the “doctrines and traditions of men” perpetuated by denominationalism and liberalism (in fact, to refer to specific denominations and to “liberalism” is to “slur” people and “drive them away”). You will hear them speak against “our traditions,” but you will not hear them outline, define, discuss, reprove and rebuke “Easter” and “Christmas.” In fact, they openly resent sermons “against Christmas that offend our neighbors.” It is proper to speak against “our traditions” (no matter how steeped in Scripture they may be), but you dare not preach a sermon in the spring of the year that teaches the truth about “the Lenten season” and “Easter.” It is alright to criticize “our three songs and a prayer,” but you do not dare to preach the truth about the traditions of men that render worship void and vain (Matt. 15:8,9)!

Listen carefully, brethren, to the bleating that you are hearing and reading. Do you recognize any of the sounds and signals cited above? “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to (you) for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

1. Appear Devout – 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 26

2. Profess Love of Truth – Titus 1:16

3. Merely “Raising Concerns” – 2 Pet. 2:1

4. Want Only to Correct “Misguided

Emphasis”  Preaching is “Out of Focus”

Want to “Fine Tune” our Approach

5. Speak of “Our” Out-dated Methods

6. Praise for Error’s Approach, Appeal

7. Stresses a “Far Out,” Legitimate Gripe as

Being “Typical” (Ex. Sinful to have Swim Pool)

8. Critical of “Our Traditions,” But Not of

Denominational Error (Ex. “5 Step Salvation,”

Invitation Song, But Nothing Against Easter, Xmas)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 6-8
January 6, 1994

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The expression “last days” is used frequently by denominational writers with some reference, most often, to a dispensational event or happening. Likewise, among the brethren, this term is debated as to its specific meaning. Some argue that it is basically used to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Others point out that it refers to the final age in which Christ’s kingdom is established and continuing.

The question addressed in this article concerns the last days.

Question: Is the term “the last days” ever used in reference solely to the days prior to A.D. 70? Does the term always, or does it ever, refer also to the day in which we live? Another question in this vein which I have also is as follows: Does Hebrews 8:13 relate to A.D. 70?

Response: The expressions occur multiplied times in the Bible. Attention to the passages where it occurs and the context with the corroborating passages will bring to light its meaning. It would not be possible, within the restraints in space for this column, to deal with every passage. However, it is possible to look at the uses of the expression in order to come to a conclusive answer to the questions posed.

An examination of all the scriptures in which the expression “the last days” occurs will convince one that the expression in no instance refers solely to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The period including the days prior to A.D. 70 are included in the expression. Isaiah 2:2 states that “in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” This began to be fulfilled on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ in Acts 2 with the establishment of the church, the kingdom of Christ. Of necessity, the days prior to A.D. 70.

Paul used the expressions to include the days near the close from that point are included in the expression “in the latter days.” Micah 4:2 foretells what Isaiah 2:2 does and similar comments can be made in connection with it as are made for Isaiah 2:2.

Peter referred to Joel’s prophecy as beginning to be fulfilled in the event of Pentecost in Acts 2:16-21 (Joel 2:28-32). The first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ and the immediately succeeding years are prior to A.D. 70. The expression “in the last days,” however, includes more than the days prior to A.D. 70.of the current age during which Christ is on David’s throne and his kingdom is in the world (2 Tim. 3:1). Characteristics of those who love themselves and not God are set forth indicating that these days would be “grievous times.” A similar use of the expression “in the last days” occurs in 2 Peter 3:3 with reference to the mockers who doubt the second coming of Christ.

The Hebrew writer referred to God’s manner of speaking to the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners. Then he said, “at the end of these days” he has “spoken unto us in his Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). This period is the New Testament age; the message was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by them that heard (Heb. 2:1-4), the last revelation being the book of Revelation in about A.D. 96.

The expression “in the last days” James 5:3 has reference to one’s eternal condition following the conclusion of this age with the judgment. These individuals under consideration have no treasure in heaven but will receive the wrath of the Lord in the last day.

Another expression used is “the last day” to refer to the resurrection and judgment day. Jesus spoke of this day in John 6:39-40,44,54 to refer to the day when men would be raised from the dead. He also used the expression to refer to the judgment day (Jn. 12:48).

Space constraints preclude an examination of every pas-sage where the expression “in the last days” occurs. However, the generalizations made above from a review of all these passages demonstrate what the answers to these questions should be. No, the expression does not always refer to the day in which we live. But it does refer in some instances to the day in which we live.

The Hebrews 8:13 passage will now be addressed. This comment by the writer comes after a quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34. Two covenants are under view: the old or the Mosaic one and the new one under Christ. When Jeremiah spoke his prophecy, the old one was waxing aged and was nigh unto vanishing away. The comment refers to the situation in Jeremiah’s day and not in the days of the writer of Hebrews. When Jeremiah spoke of the new covenant to be made, the old one was waxing aged. Accordingly, it was nigh unto vanishing away and did with the death of Christ on the cross (Col. 2;14). No, Hebrews 8:13 does not relate to A.D. 70.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 5
January 6, 1994

By Ed Brand

I returned from an extended preaching trip on November 6th. I would like to inform the readers of ‘e Guardian of Truth about three areas of interest.

India

1. I arrived in Hyderabad, India on September 30th, the day the killer earthquake struck. There was no noticeable damage in Hyderabad and the state of Andhra Pradesh, but to the north and west, in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka, damage was severe. Before I arrived in India, plans had already been made to go into the state of Maharashtra. On October 3rd, T. Wilfred and I took an overnight train into that state and attempted to visit Killari village, where we knew there were some Christians. After driving five hours, we got to within 12 kilometers of the village, only to be stopped by army personnel. We could go no further, since the village had been completely destroyed. We had no alternative but to turn around and return to Prabhani, five hours away by jeep.

The next day we searched in three near-by villages, where some refugees from Killari had gone. We were able to locate about 280 brethren. This figure is only an estimate, since some had lost their lives in the earthquake. Those who survived lost everything: food, clothing, cooking utensils, housing, and livestock. Most of these brethren were living in livestock shelters. Some were being housed in a school building.

David Watts, John S. Tyler, and T. George Fred (Wilfred’s brother) went west into Karnataka. They were able to briefly visit a destroyed village, but were unable to locate many brethren. According to their estimates, about the same number of brethren are in this state as are in Maharashtra. Their needs are the same: food, clothing, utensils, housing, and livestock.

When I called John Humphries in Louisville, he and my wife Pat, immediately got the word out about this great catastrophe and the need our brethren faced. The response was immediate and gratifying. Within a week, $40,000+ had been sent to Wilfred’s account to be distributed among our needy brethren. Little did we know that forces were at work which would prevent us from receiving any of these funds. The Foreign Exchange manager at the Central Bank of India called Wilfred to appear at his office as soon as possible. I accompanied Wilfred to the bank the next day. The manager was rude, loud, and abusive. He told Wilfred that it was against the law for an Indian National to receive this amount of foreign currency. “For what is this money to be used?” he asked. We replied it is to be used to help our brethren who are suffering from the earthquake. Our response was useless, he would not allow any money to be withdrawn. We were shocked and angry, but helpless. The only way left open to receive any funds was for Wilfred to be registered with the central government. Such a process would take about a month, if everything ran smoothly. Of course in India, hardly anything runs smoothly.

After consulting with Ed Harrell, who is the Director of the American Studies and Research Center in Hyderabad, we decided that Wilfred does not need to register with the government. There is too much red tape, and someone would be continually looking over his shoulder. His ad-vice, and also that of his financial advisors, was to tell the Central Bank of India to return the money to the donors and we would devise another way to get the money into the country. We immediately notified the Bank to return the funds.

As of today (11-16), the money is still in India. The CBI has moved at a snail-like pace to get the money returned to Citibank of New York, so the donors can get their money refunded. If you sent funds by telegraphic transfer, you should immediately contact your bank and ask for a refund. After you receive the refund, you may send a check to:

Dr. David E. Harrell

Department of History

2227 Haley Center

Auburn University, AL 36849

Ed’s secretary will be able to deposit this money into his account and he can draw against it. I believe his services will be invaluable in this regard.

The last reports I have received indicate that about 70 people were converted during the time the three American brethren were there.

Belfast, Northern Ireland

2. After corresponding with John McCourt in Belfast, Northern Ireland, I made arrangements to return to the U.S. through Belfast. John invited me to come and work with a small, new group meeting in that city. I am sorry to report the following about my stay there:

The group is called the “Arches Christian Centre.” It is composed mainly of two men and three women (who are sisters in the flesh). The two men are “married” to two of the sisters. John and Tony have been withdrawn from by churches (which have since disbanded) for the sin of adultery. They were previously married, separated from their partners, but they did not obtain a legal divorce. They then married as “common law” their present partners. Most of this was unknown to me when I arranged to go to Belfast.

John has written numerous brethren in the U.S. He usually asks for teaching materials, sometimes re-questing that someone “come over to help us.” You need to be aware of these circumstances about John McCourt and the Arches Christian Centre. I will not return to work with them again, and I want our Irish brethren to know that I do not endorse or condone the existence of this group. They have some other doctrinal “peculiarities.”

Bratislava, Slovakia

3. Before returning home, I went to Bratislava, Slovakia. I spent a week with the David Diestelkamp and Rick Liggin families. I delivered three “lectures” (otherwise known as “sermons”) about the nature of the Bible, its authority, and how to understand it. We had visitors from the community each evening for the lectures. There were other studies conducted by David and Rick in Brno, Czech Republic, on Sunday evening and Monday, which I attended.

It was a joy for me and my wife (who met me in Bratislava) and several ladies (including Fran Liggin, Rick’s Mother) to be included in their household. Rick, David, and their families are committed to bringing the gospel to the people of this region of eastern Europe. Remember them.

My sincere thanks to those congregations and friends who provided the funds for this trip. Special thanks to the West Side church and her elders for their “leave” for me to go and do my small part in this great work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 12-13
January 6, 1994