Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

When I told brother Highers if he chose to respond I felt sure Guardian of Truth would print it, but I had no idea he would write 13 pages. It should be a matter of record and stark contrast that his article is being printed, whereas, such is unheard of in their papers (Gospel Advocate, Spiritual Sword, Firm Foundation, etc.). Since the Advocate editor placed a “Yellow Tag Of Quarantine” on conservative brethren in 1953, exchange in their journals has been stifled while they continue to honor the quarantine. Others have tried to preach the funeral of conservative churches. In 1971, Tom Warren said in the Advocate that “anti-ism” was a “dead issue” and he proclaimed its “demise.” Still others have said we would split and splinter among ourselves and “die on the vine.” There are a number of us who didn’t attend the funeral. If I didn’t know better I would think it was wishful thinking. But like Haman’s gallows, the fate that was prophesied against us has come back to haunt them as we see a number of institutional churches splitting and splintering, including the one which publishes the paper edited by brother Highers and for which he formerly preached.

The Pattern

I did not state that other factors are never involved when a brother becomes theologically liberal or that all of them depart for the same reason. I did state that there is a connection between the “no pattern theory” and present attempts to restructure the church. Brother Highers ‘ fourth reason for theological liberalism was “the presence of some among us who are seeking a ‘renewal’ and ‘restructure’ of the church.” I contend that brother Highers is among the leaders in “restructure” by promoting the “sponsoring church” concept which perverts God’s limitations on the oversight of elders (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28). When local elders start making plans for the whole brotherhood, even with consent, they become more than local elders and have gone beyond the scriptures and corrupted the organization of the church. Also, the entity which is separate and apart from any local church known as a “Board of Directors” is a part of the restructure. These are innovations of mere men having their origin in this century. Others want more restructure, including changes in worship and doctrine. Brethren such as Highers, Warren, Deaver, Taylor, and Elkins are having a time putting the brakes on.

I did not accuse him or his associates of rejecting pattern authority altogether. I have frequently made the point that they can see a pattern everywhere except when it comes to the work of the church. There, everything becomes vague and fuzzy and they claim to see no pattern. Just as they go to various scriptures throughout the New Testament to establish patterns in the plan of salvation and the worship, they can do the same with evangelism and benevolence.

A.C. Pullias rightly said, “When God has spoken on any subject . . . what he has said is definitely in the realm of faith.” Then to “prove” there is no pattern for the church’s work in benevolence he used only one verse, addressed to an individual (Jas. 1:27  this verse says absolutely nothing about congregational cooperation) and totally ignored all God spoke dealing with congregational action in benevolence. All the passages in Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, were omitted. Then brother Highers wants to know why I didn’t quote from it! Brother Pullias certainly did deny there is a pattern in benevolence. He just ignored everything the Bible says about congregational action, making it appear God had not spoken on the subject so it can’t be in the realm of faith.

Going a step farther, to become a Presbyterian Pullias had to handle other subjects the same way (worship, organization, etc.). That is necessarily inferred. There are a number of verses he had to ignore and he already had experience. Hear brother Highers: “I am shocked at the manner in which the title of this tract has been distorted to convey an impression that is wholly different to what the tract plainly teaches.” And I am shocked that brother Highers cannot see that Pullias “proved” there is no pattern by ignoring the verses that deal with the subject. What would Alan say to the person who singles out Acts 8:22 (“Repent and pray”), ignoring all other scriptures dealing with salvation, and denies there is a pattern for the salvation of alien sinners? Would he defend that person like he defends this tract? The logic is the same in both cases.

He quoted a few good statements from it, which makes the way Pullias mishandled the scriptures even more disarming. One can do the same with Billy Graham’s writing. This is why I said no tract did more harm. Few have enjoyed such wide circulation. Brother Highers thinks it “preposterous” to suggest Pullias left the church as a result of what he taught. I have just shown that to become a Presbyterian Pullias would have had to handle the scriptures in the same way he did in the tract. Brother Highers may not want to see that, but it’s there.

Likewise, the claim not to see a connection between a “Fellowship Halls,” youth camps, trips to Opryland, etc. where people come together to feed and exercise their bodies and a “Family Life Center” where they come together to do the same thing is hard to swallow. There is only one spiritual meal which the church is authorized to practice and that is the Lord’s supper. The scriptures tell us nothing about a church sponsored meal of any other kind. Some have tried to make it a spiritual meal by calling it “fellowship.” But those who want “Family Life Centers” do the same. Brethren associated with brother Highers have tried to put the brakes on when it comes to “Family Life Centers.” Brother Highers may not want to see that, but it’s there. The “restructure” on this began with the “Fellowship Halls” brother Highers eats in.

Continuing the same parallel, why can one not see that the “Sponsoring Church” and church support of orphan homes under a “Board of Directors” has led to church supported hospitals, unwed mothers homes, and colleges? At one time brother Highers opposed church support of colleges, but now nearly everyone of them accepts funds from churches. Where was brother Highers’ voice and pen when colleges gradually slipped their hand into the church’s pocket? He may not want to see it, but it’s there.

Previously, I stated: “I checked several old periodicals of institutional brethren and there were few articles on `the pattern.” Brother Highers confirmed my observations. Well over 500 articles have been printed in the 25 year history of The Spiritual Sword. He found three which affirm the New Testament is a pattern. That is few! How many of those tell us there is a pattern for the evangelistic and benevolent work of the church and what that pattern is? Not one! He also found an article from the Gospel Advocate where brother McCord said God laid out a blueprint. Did it tell us the pattern for the work of the church? No, and brother Highers won’t tell us there is a pattern for the evangelistic and benevolent work of the church or what it is. During those years when many of brother Highers’ brethren were preaching “there is no pattern” in the work of the church it was rather difficult to proclaim at the same time from the other side of their mouths that the New Testament is the all-sufficient pattern for congregational action in evangelism and benevolence! Brother Highers’ research did not cite an article that does. No Not One! The record will bear out that Alan is simply wrong about this. And even if he should find one or fifteen that would still show the scarcity of such articles over the past 30 years, until four or five years ago. Since then, there has been a definite increase. The neglect of this subject may have more to do with recent apostasies than many realize or will admit. One of the Spiritual Sword’s frequent writers and speakers has admitted this neglect:

Our preachers need to dust off those sermons of yesteryear that are not used much nowadays and teach with renewed fervor about the authority of the Scriptures and their application to the church’s work (Gary Workman, “Will Jesus Cleanse The Temple Again?”, The Sower, Sept./Oct., 1993).

What I said is neither untruthful, inaccurate or unfair, as he accuses. He can gather up the scriptures for a pattern in the worship, but those who want restructure “can’t see it,” and history repeats itself. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Brother Highers passes judgment on those who want to restructure the worship, but he restructures the work and organization. Yet he

Brother Highers puts words in my mouth when he says I accuse him of rejecting the whole New Testament as a pattern. I have never said that about him or his brethren. I have pointed out that their view of” no pattern” in the work of the church is one step away from “there is no pattern in the worship” (See my article, “The Disciple of Christ (Christian Church) The Rotting Corpse of `No Pattemism,”‘ Guardian of Truth, Vol. 35, No. 22). It is a step in the wrong direction and it gives ground to those who want to restructure the worship on the same basis. The reason he says they do not accept the consequences of this doctrine is “we do not believe it!” Then why circulate thousands of tracts by Pullias and Woods which taught there was no pattern in cooperation? That’s not something I dreamed, brother Highers. The Getwell church helped circulate those tracts. He says “they have not researched what some of us have written in order to represent us accurately.” Then show is where you have written what the pattern is for the work of the church.

Again, “We do not agree with brother Blackford as to what the pattern is in the work of the church, but that does not mean we reject the New Testament as a pattern.” Does the pattern include hospitals, colleges, unwed mothers homes, etc.? He switches horses here since I never accused him of rejecting the New Testament. In fact, I said he affirmed a pattern in worship in his debate with Blakely. Besides no pattern in the work, other downward steps are no pattern in the worship, organization, plan of salvation, doctrine, morality, who the Savior is, etc. It soon becomes a matter of degree. His statement that we do not agree on what the pattern is, does not state the case correctly. It is not that we don’t agree on what it is. It is that they don’t even believe there is one.

He acknowledges that “Some may have taught that we do not need authority for what we do, but that has never been generally characteristic of us … ” Maybe so, but we have heard it in studies and correspondence with institutional brethren often enough that it is obvious some feel the need to say it. It is usually followed by the same question asked by the Christian Church, “Where do you get authority for lights, seats, restrooms, etc.?”

“Liberal”

The brotherly thing for brother Highers to have done would be to give me credit for being honest in how I said I was using the term or show I used it to mean he rejected verbal inspiration, etc. Instead, he said my explanation was “somehow supposed to cleanse and sanctify …” I wonder if he read the October, ’85 editorial in The Spiritual Sword. In it Tom Warren says:

Liberalism, in the sense in which we are using the term here, can take either one of two forms: (1) it can hold that no one is under obligation to have Biblical authority for what he does in religion or (2) it can take the form of holding that while one must, to be pleasing to God, have biblical authority for what he does in religion, one may hold that some belief/ practice is authorized by the Bible when such is not actually the case.

He then says he is using the second definition (the same one I used and I did as brother Warren in explaining what I meant by the term). Did brother Highers correct brother Warren? Was Warren’s statement “somehow supposed to “cleanse and sanctify,” brother Highers? Was it “no explanation at all” and “unconscionable”? I am sure he will tell him that “it takes more than neat little distinctions to overcome the fact that it arouses prejudice, ill will, and preconceived notions.” If “liberal” means “theological liberal,” why did brother Highers preface it with “theological” twice in his article? Isn’t that being redundant? In the October ’83 Spiritual Sword Roy Deaver said:

Those who introduced instrumental music and the Missionary society into the worship and work of the church “split the log” in so doing. This is “liberalism.”

At that time they were still trying to show that the society and instrument were authorized in the scriptures, so they weren’t “liberal” according to brother Highers. But he needs to correct brother Deaver. He also needs to correct Garland Elkins for his “cleansing and sanctifying statement” in his article “The New Anti-ism” (SS, Oct.’85). Notice something else brother Deaver said:

… the real issue was not “instrumental music” at all. Rather, as someone has well expressed the matter: “This was just the horse upon which the real issue rode out.” The real issue is involved in the question: what is the proper attitude toward the Bible? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant, infallible, all-sufficient word of the living God? Can we do anything and everything not specifically and directly condemned in the word of God? Or, must we do only that which the Bible authorizes? This is the starting point in the study of instrumental music in Christian worship. This is the starting point in our discussions with others. The answer to this question involves the basic differences between the church of Christ and the Christian churches. And, in fact, the answer to this question sets out the difference between the church of Christ and the rest of the religious world (Roy Deaver, “The Symbol At Midway,” Spiritual Sword, Vol. 10, No. 1).

By substituting the Board of Directors and the sponsoring church for instrumental music, and institutional brethren for the Christian Church, we could make a similar statement regarding our differences with brethren who do not believe the scriptures sufficiently furnish a pattern for the work of the church. Institutionalism is a degree of liberalism. And let me say again in case brother Highers missed it, I did not accuse him of denying the inspiration of the Bible, etc. Robert Taylor said instrumental music opened the floodgate to later errors among the Disciples of Christ (Spiritual Sword, Vol. 16, No. 2). Likewise, saying there is no pattern in the work of the church opens the floodgate for others to say the same about the worship, organization, etc. The “fellowship hall” opened another floodgate. The “Board of Directors,” “sponsoring church,” and “fellowship halls” are the horses that “no-pattemism” rides out on. Jesus was amazed at how the Pharisees and Sadducees could be so perceptive in predicting the weather by the color of the sky but could not discern the signs of the times (Matt. 16:2, 3). And I am amazed at how brother Highers’ brethren can be so perceptive in seeing what led to liberalism in the Disciples of Christ but cannot see it among themselves.

Brother Highers mentioned Edward Fudge. Let it be remembered that brother Fudge found a comfortable home among institutional brethren. But notice what brother Highers says. He says “anti-cooperation brethren” manifest a myopic analysis and a failure to recognize that some of the most liberal thinkers among us came from the most conservative backgrounds, including some from their midst.

Here he has a footnote which says, “Edward Fudge, who denies eternal punishment in hell, came from the anti-cooperation movement.” Whoa, brother Highers! When and where did Ed Fudge deny verbal inspiration, inerrancy of the scriptures, etc.? Fudge is as wrong about hell as the Baptist on Acts 2:38 whom brother Highers will not call liberal, but he hasn’t denied the inspiration of the Bible. In fact, he tried to prove his position by the scriptures just as the Baptist does, yet Alan says Fudge is one of the “most liberal thinkers among us.” It appears that Alan’s tirade about the term liberal has really been “much ado about nothing” and he applies rules to others from which he is exempt. What was it he said about Matthew 7:3 and Romans 2:21? Meanwhile, let the reader decide if brother Highers has shot himself in the foot.

“Anties, Anti-ism, Anti-brethren,

Anti-cooperation, Anti-orphan home”

It seems unreal he could say all he did about “liberal” and turn around and do the very thing he condemned. Yet he wants me to read Matthew 7:3 and Romans 2:21. He says “anti” is not necessarily prejudicial. Then why do brother Highers’ brethren get so upset when those to their left refer to them as “neo-anties”? See Elkins’ “The New Anti-ism” (SS, Oct. ’85) and Deaver’s “When A Brother Accuses Me of Practicing Anti-ism” (Oct. ’86). This is probably the longest article ever to appear in the Spiritual Sword.

The term certainly carries prejudicial implications when it states a falsehood, such as the term brother Highers used  “anti-cooperation.” I observed that because we believe in only one kind of cooperation that does not make us “anti-cooperation” any more than Paul’s believing in one God made him “anti-God.” Nor was he “anti-baptism,” “anti-faith,” or “anti-church” because he believed in only one in each case. And what did brother Highers say? He said “Brother Blackford goes on at length about this.” He then says we must consider context. Let’s see. In the context at Athens with their many gods (Acts 17) would it have been appropriate to refer to Paul as “anti-God”? Early Christians were sometimes called atheists because they rejected many gods. In that context would these terms misrepresent them, brother Highers?

He says he has “never taken offense when Christian church preachers have called me `anti-instrument.”‘ Never, brother Highers? Responding to a tract which referred to “Anti Musical Instrumental Factionists,” he said:

This scurrilous epithet is applied to those who refuse to use mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship. It comes to me in a blasphemous little tract entitled, “Why I Didn’t Leave The Christian Church And Join The A.M.I.F.” … Of course A.M.I.F. is an abbreviation for that opprobrious language (Alan E. Highers, The Vindicator, March, 1957, p. 14).

Scurrilous means “indecent or abusive language; coarse; vulgar, foul mouthed” (Webster New World Dict., p. 1282). Opprobrious means “abusive, disgraceful” (Webster, p. 998). Even if he no longer thinks it “scurrilous, opprobrious, or blasphemous” he doesn’t have a parallel. What if they called him “anti-music,” when he believes in only one kind (vocal)? He says “anti” means “against.” It would be false to say he is “against music.” Then “Anti-brethren” means “against brethren.” The point is, they have defined it to mean more than “against.” They have given it a “theological” definition. Warren and Elkins say “anti-ism” refers to those who “forbid what the Bible authorizes” (SS, Oct. ’85). Warren says,

When I use the term “anti” in a religious context, I refer to a person who opposes . . . what the Bible actually does allow (See 1 Tim. 4:1-5).

I have heard brother Highers (in person) quote 1 Timothy 4:1-5 about the “doctrine of devils” and apply it to conservative brethren. Deaver says, “Anti-ism is the practice of making a law which God did not make” (SS, Jan. 86). These quotes show you brethren mean more than “against,” brother Highers, and you should not pretend otherwise. Since you coined this derogatory theological term, “anti-ism,” I suppose you can write your own definition. Further, you use the same term “anti” to include those opposed to located preachers, Bible classes, colleges, women teachers, and multiple containers in communion  views which we reject. Yet you complained when you thought I used the term “liberal” to mean you reject verbal inspiration, etc. (an accusation to which I plead not guilty).

He says “there has to be a better way to disagree.” I agree. One thing we don’t need to do is stop having discussions. The “Dallas Meeting” was reported favorably by both groups. Another thing would be to reopen the pages of the Gospel Advocate and open the pages of the Spiritual Sword to opposing views as we have to brother Highers. Brother Highers chided the publishers of One Body, an Independent Christian Church publication, for not doing so (SS, April, 1988).

Finally, he asks me to consider my own advice when I said:

The gap between conservative and liberal brethren will not be bridged until we accept the fact that there is a pattern for the work and organization of the church and until we correctly represent (without prejudicial terms) those with whom we disagree.

Throughout my preaching life I can honestly say I have made a conscious and sincere effort not to violate Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 2:21, knowing that teachers “shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). Both the readers and the Lord can decide whether I misrepresent brother Highers and made out that he was “theologically liberal” (denying verbal inspiration, etc.). I went out of my way to be fair in pointing out what I meant by the term. He would not think of impugning the motives of brethren Warren, Elkins, and Deaver when they identified what they meant by using this and other terms. Why can he not be as charitable to me? Yet he labored to make me say he rejected the whole New Testament as authority. If brother Highers’ manner of reasoning is prevalent, is it difficult to see why division remains?

I can only hope that this exchange will contribute to a better understanding. If so, it will have been worth it. I am open to further communication with my brethren from whom we are divided. The judgment may come before we are ready.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 20-23
November 4, 1993

By Mike Willis

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye (Col. 3:12-13).

We have previously considered some dangerous works of the flesh (October 21, 1993), so let us now consider some attributes of the Spirit with which we should clothe ourselves. The transformation which occurs when a person becomes a Christian is compared in our text to changing clothes: a person puts off his filthy rags of sinful conduct and puts on the attributes of the Spirit. Look at these things which should characterize every Christian:

1. Bowels of mercies. The Greek words are translated by William Barclay as “a heart of pity.” The ancient world did not display much compassion toward the weak. Female babies were sometimes left by the sea shore to die because they were unwanted by parents who wanted a man-child. The aged and infirm were left to fend for themselves by their children who were without natural affection. The wounded may have been put to death, as the slave did King Saul, rather than mercifully cared for.

This attribute is the ability to feel for the suffering and to react to relieve their pain. Too often, Christians show little compassion for those who are hurting. Someone may say, “He doesn’t deserve any better.” Is mercy ever deserved? Isn’t mercy something which we give to the sufferer without regard to whether or not he brought his painful condition upon himself? Even those who are suffering the horrible pains of AIDS are still human beings in need of compassion. May we show “a heart of pity” or “bowels of compassion?”

2. Kindness. This lovely quality which should be in Christians holds the neighbor’s good as dear to himself as his own. Barclay explains, “Josephus uses it (the Greek word chrestotes, mw) as a description of Isaac, the man who dug wells and gave them to others because he would not fight about them (Gen. 26:17-25). It is used of wine which has grown mellow with age and which has lost its harshness. It is the word which is used of the yoke of Jesus, when Jesus said, ‘My yoke is easy.’ (Matthew 11:30). Goodness by itself can be stem; but chrestotes is the goodness which is kind, the goodness which Jesus used to the sinning woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:37-50)” (188-189).

The contrast to kindness is caustic, biting speech and mean-spirited actions toward others. We who are Christians must give attention to how we come across to those around us. The tone of our voice, the look in our eyes (sometimes we can say a lot by rolling our eyes and giving a person a harsh, “you-stupid-idiot” look), and our gestures may send the message to someone of strong disapproval, bitterness, and hatred in the heart. We can learn to be winsome and attractive in our speech. If you have trouble with this, watch someone who is more skilled in these areas than you are and imitate his actions. A person does not have to be a wimp to be kind.

3. Humbleness of mind. Humility is the opposite of arrogance. Again. Barclay says, “The Christian humility is not a cringing thing. The Christian humility is based on two things. First, on the Divine side, it is based on the ever present awareness of the creature likeness of humanity. God is the Creator; man is the creature; and in the presence of the Creator the creature cannot feel anything else but humility. Second, on the human side, it is based on the belief that all men are sons of God; and there is no room for arrogance when we are living among men and women who are all of royal lineage” (189). I would add that humility is related to our recognition that we are sinners. I have my standing with God based on grace, not human merit.

There is no room where humility exists for a self-asserting, arrogant, better-than-others, holier-than-thou frame of mind. We Christians must be careful not to come across in this manner to our friends and neighbors. Too often Christians turn off any potential prospects to study the gospel by coming across with arrogance.

Furthermore, humility enables brethren to work together. Paul wrote, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others” (Phil. 2:3-4). Where brethren have this disposition toward each other, they are able to watch out for what is best for each other instead of selfishly seeking their own way and self-interests.

4. Meekness. The word prautes may be difficult to completely understand. William Barclay quotes Aristotle as defining the word to be “the happy mean between too much and too little anger.” He said, “The man who has praotes is the man who is so self-controlled, because he is God-controlled, that he is always angry at the right time and never angry at the wrong time. He has at one and the same time the strength and the sweetness of true gentleness” (189).

The text in James 1:21 also sheds light on the meaning of the word. James wrote, “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” Receiving the word with meekness would imply that one brings his life into conformity with the revealed word of God. He is willing to change.

Sometimes men become so rigid and unyielding that in areas of human judgment they are nearly impossible to work with. We need to develop an unyielding and uncompromising defense of the revealed word of God; however, in areas in which no principle of truth is involved, we must learn to work together as one. A spirit of meekness is necessary for this to occur.

5. Longsuffering. The word makrothumos is made up of makros, long and thumos, temper. We speak of a person being short tempered but do not have its corresponding idea of long tempered in our English language. A person who has developed this fruit of the Spirit has learned to be patient with his fellowman. None of us is perfect. Consequently, we have to live with the fact that our brethren have faults  faults which sometime injure each other.

Barclay described this trait: “This is the spirit which never loses its patience with its fellow-men. Their foolishness and their unteachability never drive it to cynicism or despair; their insults and their ill-treatment never drive it to bitterness or wrath. Human patience is a reflection of the divine patience which bears with all our sinning and never casts us off’ (189-190).

6. Forbearing. The word anecho means “to hold up.” In the middle voice it means “to hold one’s self erect and firm, to sustain, to bear with, and endure.” There are times when a Christian will be injured or sinned against. When this happens, a person just has to endure until the provocation is past. How a Christian reacts under pressure and criticism reveals the steel of his character. A person who is quick to quit is weak in faith. The wise man said, “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small” (Prov. 24:10). The way of the Christian is not always easy; consequently, the trait of forbearance is essential.

7. Forgiving. After the provocation is past and the sinful brother has come to himself, he sometimes confesses his sins and asks for forgiveness. There must be a willingness to forgive in the heart of the person sinned against. Jesus demanded as much when he said, “But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:15). He taught the same in a parable in Matthew 18:21-35, concluding with these poignant words: So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses” (Matt. 18:35). There is none of us so perfect that he can afford to be unforgiving of others.

Conclusion

Let us abstain from the works of the flesh. However, let us not be content merely to abstain from sin; let us also grow in these spiritual graces.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 2
November 18, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

It has been my privilege to preach in five gospel meetings at Kaysville, Utah, one of only two sound churches in that state. Joe Price has been there for several years and has done good work. Some, who were children the first time I was there, have grown up, married and have become capable teachers and workers for the Lord.

But every time I think of Kaysville, I think of the difference one good family can make. Years ago, Nelson and Sharon McNalley moved to Utah from Denver, Colorado where they had worshipped at Boston Street when Harry Pickup, Jr. preached there. While others have helped over the years, the greater burden of starting and sustaining the work at Kaysville (just north of Salt Lake City) fell on the shoulders of this young family. There they worked for a living, brought up four children, taught them the truth in that sea of Mormonism, entertained brethren in their home, and helped chart a course of soundness for the small church there. Nelson has preached, taught classes, led singing and the whole family has sacrificed much for the cause. Two of their children and their families are active members of the congregation. Another daughter and her husband are faithful workers in the church at Rogers, Arkansas. Through the years, Nelson has lost jobs, but found others. Some of the time Sharon has worked to help out. What a difference this good family has made. The growth of the church at Kaysville has been slow but it is growing in number and noticeably in spirit. Much of this is due to this good family who did not know what it means to give in or give up. May their godly tribe increase?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 3
November 18, 1993

By Brooks Cochran

“Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:24-27).

Paul, in order to have Christians realize the danger of losing their reward or salvation, uses the example of the Grecian games. It is not that salvation comes by competition; but that all who strive to go to heaven run successfully. Therefore, the admonition is given: “So run, that ye may obtain.” To enable us to do this, Paul gives three directives in the text under consideration.

1. Be Temperate: Practice Rigid Self-Control. “And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things” (9:25). The Grecian runner was temperate; for a period of time before the race he submitted to the rules of the trainer; exercising his legs, controlling his eating, drinking and sleeping. He did this gladly in view of “a corruptible crown.” Modem day athletes still attend training camps to prepare for the coming sports season, be it baseball, football, basketball, etc.

The Christian must maintain self-control. There are rules he must submit to if he hopes to gain an “incorruptible crown” (cf. Matt. 16:24; Col. 3:5ff; Gal. 5:19ff). It is not an “on again, off again” situation that many experience while trying to diet. It is a daily task. One day’s lack of training in the sports realm is enough to destroy weeks of training. So one lapse into sin will undo years of training; and in most cases a scar will be left. When such occurs the Christian must seek God’s forgiveness and start training anew. The apostle Peter knew this lesson too well. He lost control, denied the Lord and lapsed into sin. However, he repented, came back to the Lord, lived a life of faithful service and died for the Lord (Matt. 26:33-35, 69-75; John 21:15-19). This lapse into sin left its scar. But Peter came through this crisis stronger. He could later write, with a clear conscience and experience that a Christian must exercise self-control (2 Peter 1:6; cf. 1:12-15).

2. Be Certain: Understand and Know Why You Are in the Race. “I therefore so run, not as uncertainly” (9:26). A runner who enters a race uncertain as to the rules and direction in which he must run will never win the race. The Christian needs to be certain of the course that he is running the race of life upon. He should ever keep the goal, the crown of life, before his eyes. Sadly, many, both non-Christian and erring Christian, will come to the finish line (i.e., the end of life), only to learn they were on the wrong track and/or followed the wrong set of rules (Prov. 14:12; Matt. 7:13, 14, 21-33; 2 John 9). There is no excuse for the uncertainty that exists in the minds and lives of many Christians (cf. Eph. 4:14; Phil. 3:13; 2 Tim. 4:6-8).

3. Be Effective: Let Your Life Be of Value to the Lord… so fight I, not as one that beatest the air: but I keep my body” (9:26-27a). Paul, in fighting the good fight of faith, made his blows count. He made every effort to keep his body under control. He fought himself in bringing every thought and evil inclination into subjection to God’s will (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:3-5). By doing such he was able to let his light shine and bring glory to the Lord (Matt. 5:16). Self is our worst enemy. Unless we bring ourselves into and under the control of God, we shall not be accepted.

By following these admonitions given by Paul we will gain that mastery over self and be better equipped to fight the “good fight of faith” (I Tim. 6:12). Solomon described a self-controlled person as being better than one “that taketh a city” (Prov. 16:32b). One final thought, while you may have the control not to engage in any of the works of the flesh, do you have that control that makes you get out of bed on Sunday morning and be present at Bible study with your lesson prepared? The small matters count too!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 4
November 18, 1993