Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

In March of 1972I moderated for A.C. Grider in a debate with brother Alan Highers. The few times I have seen brother Highers since then have been congenial, but we do have a difference that keeps us divided. This is not a response to his complete editorial, for much of it was commendable. However, one paragraph deserves a reply. (Note: My use of the term “liberal” and “conservative” apply to the institutional issues among brethren.)

In the October, 1992 issue of the Spiritual Sword an editorial titled “We Must Face The Facts” appeared. In it, brother Higher said:

The problems of theological liberalism in our midst have not arisen because we support orphan homes or engage in church cooperation. The very suggestion that this is the case (as found occasionally in the periodicals of our anti-cooperation brethren) manifests 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 .. .

In his footnote, brother Highers then says, “Edward Fudge, who denies eternal punishment in hell, came from the anti-cooperation movement”

FIRST, brother Highers would agree that there was nothing being taught among those of us who oppose the “Sponsoring Church” and church donations to a Board of Directors of a human institution that would cause brother Fudge to take his unscriptural position on hell (Matt. 25:46). The subjects are totally unrelated. Nor is there an attitude among us toward the Scriptures that would cause him to adopt this position. The whole point of what brother Highers said is that one may adopt a position that is totally unrelated to his background. With this we would agree.

SECOND, we do not agree that this is always the case. Unless I missed it I do not recall any of us saying theological liberalism has arisen because brother Highers and those associated with him support orphan homes or engage in church cooperation. However, one would have to ignore the obvious not to see a connection between such attitudes as “We don’t have to have authority for everything we do,” “Where There Is No Pattern,” “What the individual can do, the church can do,” etc., and the “restructuring” some are wanting today.

(1) Some want to restructure the church’s worship so as to tolerate instrumental music and/or the sounds of instruments duplicated with the voice. They feel “there is no pattern” that applies. (2) Some want to restructure the organization of the church to include female elders and “The Nashville Jubilee,” which appears on its way to becoming a “Church of Christ Convention.” They believe “there is no pattern” that would prohibit this. (3) Others want to restructure the work of the church to include the modem “Family Life Center,” social work, etc. After all, “what the individual can do, the church can do” and “there is no pattern.” There is no end to what a church can do, given these premises. (4) Still others want to restructure in the area of interpretation. The “new hermeneutic,” which essentially says “there is no pattern on how to interpret Scripture” is the fruit.

This “restructuring” began with the “Sponsoring Church” (the best known fruit of this is The Herald of Truth) and an entity separate and apart from the local church known as the “Board of Directors” (often composed of men living many miles apart and in other states) which calls itself a “home” (before and without children) and in turn oversees a “home” (two different usages of the word “home”). This is what we have said! This is what brother Highers has defended in debate (both of which originated within the past 100 years). That is a far cry from saying theological liberalism originated because someone supports orphan homes or engages in church cooperation, for one can believe in both without believing in the modern “Sponsoring Church” or the institutional “Board of Directors.” It makes one’s position sound good to imply that he is against someone who opposes homes for orphans or to churches cooperating, but I do not know anyone who holds such views. Brother Highers uses a “straw man” and a misrepresentation.

Just as we can tell when one is following the philosophy of evolution (by his actions), those wanting to restructure the church are following the philosophy they learned from those who advocated “There Is No Pattern,” “We don’t need scripture …,” etc. It is only fair to say that brother Highers will no longer defend some of the things he defended in the past because they have gotten more liberal than he is. Nor would they want him to, for he is a “neoanti” from their point of view.

No tract did more harm to the cause of Christ in leading the apostasy over institutionalism than “Where There Is No Pattern” by A.C. Pullias. It was a lecture delivered at David Lipscomb College on April 25, 1957, while Pullias was president of that institution. The tract was published by the Gospel Advocate in 1963. This was the popular theme of the day. Thousands of copies of the tract were distributed by liberal churches, among whom was the Getwell church in Memphis where brother Highers used to preach and which publishes The Spiritual Sword. Brother Pullias eventually left the faith and died in a manmade denomination. It is the genuine feeling of many of us that he followed the consequences of his teaching, taking his philosophy a little farther.

I attended the Blakely-Highers Debate on instrumental music in Neosho, Missouri, in April, 1988. Brother Highers had to affirm a pattern in worship. But he didn’t find the pattern all in one verse. He had to use various scriptures on the subject of church worship to establish the pattern. When one does this on the work of the church he will not find churches donating to a “Board of Directors” who then decide the methods of “how” to do the work. (The “Board” is not a method. These “Directors” are a separate organization who decide or “direct” the methods. They are another “who” that decides “how.”) Nor will he find “Church hood Elders” as in the “Sponsoring Church” deciding methods for the brotherhood.

For the past 32 years I have heard conservative brethren preach that God gave us a pattern for every aspect of the church. I checked several old periodicals of institutional brethren and there were few articles on the topic of “the pattern.” There was a dearth of lectureships advertised, dealing with this subject  until about 4 years ago! Brother Robert Taylor (a frequent writer and speaker for The Spiritual Sword spoke on “Pattern Authority” on the Southwest Lectures in the late 1980’s (it was printed in In Word and Doctrine, July-September, 1991). Sounding like a conservative, he said ,”Pattern authority undergirds every fundamental facet of the Lord’s church.”

Now, as though there was a “Great Awakening,” those associated with brethren Highers, Warren, Deaver, and Elkins are acting as though they just discovered the “pat-tern” idea. It has suddenly become the theme of many lectureships and periodicals. One brother has even recently written a book, Behold, The Pattern (Goebel Music, 1991). Where were these brethren 25-30 years ago when conservative brethren were preaching this message? Many of them were traveling the circuit preaching “Where There Is No Pattern!”

Brother Highers and his associates have not been willing to accept the consequences of the “no pattern” doctrine. In the debate on instrumental music, Given O. Blakely was honest enough to admit that “worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it.” That is true, if there is no pattern. Brother Highers pointed out that this would allow the rosary, snake-handling, etc.

If, as Robert Taylor said, “Pattern authority undergirds every facet of the Lord’s church,” then it must, by necessity, include the work and organization of the church. For some strange reason those who preach or write on the subject stop before they get to the church’s work in benevolence and evangelism. If there is such a pattern, our institutional brethren have never shown it to us. And if there is no pattern, then “there is no wrong way to do it” (sponsoring church, board of directors, missionary society, conference, convention, a “Vatican-type” council etc.). My institutional brethren are in a “catch-22” situation. They can’t have it both ways.

THIRD, brother Highers referred to us twice by the prejudicial term, “anti-cooperation brethren.” Because we believe in one kind of cooperation, direct and independent of a “Board of Directors” or a “Church hood Eldership” (Phil. 4:16-18; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Cor. 16:1-3), does that make us “anti-cooperation brethren”? Was Paul one of the “anti-God” brethren because he believed in only one God (Eph. 4:6). Was he one of the “anti-baptism brethren” because he believed in only one baptism (Eph. 4:5)? Was Paul one of the “anti-faith brethren” because he believed in only one faith (Eph. 4:5)? Was he one of the “anti-church brethren” because he believed in only one body (Eph. 4:4)? Brother Highers’ logic, misrepresentation, and use of a prejudicial term would force him to call Paul by these terms.

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. Yes, as the title of brother Highers’ editorial says, “We Must Face The Facts.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 11-12
October 21, 1993

By Mike Hughes

Every question in life ought to be considered in light of, “What would Jesus do?” What does his Word say? It is by his Word that all mankind will be judged (Jn. 12:48). Is it right or wrong?

Lottery means “a drawing of lots in which prizes are distributed to the winners among persons buying a chance.” Therefore, a lottery is a means of gambling, and gambling is wrong, dead wrong. Gambling, in whatever form it takes (lottery, bingo, etc.), is sin. It violates every principle of truth, equity and honesty. There is not one good thing that can be said of gambling. In spite of arguments made to say the profits will be used for education or some other good work, it remains a dishonest and damnable venture. There were some in Paul’s day who slanderously accused him of saying, “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). He declared that “damnation is just” for people who think that way! One can never scripturally do a wrong thing in order that good may be the end result. A lottery is evil and we must not do evil and unjustly seek to disguise it under the cover that good will come from it. It’s just not right!

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Violates the Golden Rule

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ” (Matt. 7:12). In gambling, one seeks all others to lose while he wins. It is depriving others of the means of their living. It doesn’t matter if they are a willing participant or not, the result is the same. People may agree to commit fornication with each other but their agreement doesn’t make it right! Fornication is sin, period (I Cor. 6:18)!

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Is Not An Honest Day’s Work

For An Honest Day’s Pay

Gambling is trying to beat someone else out of what they have without having to compensate them for it with honest labor. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28).

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Violates the Principle of Proper Stewardship

“Moreover it is required is stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). God has entrusted us with all our material possessions. They are not to be squandered and misused on our own lusts, but to be used to his glory. When a person takes that which should be used in support of his family and “throws it to the wind” on some get-rich-quick scheme, he is not providing for his own (1 Tim. 5:8).

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Sets an Evil Example

We are to “recompense to no man evil for evil, provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17). Gambling is not an honest way of making a living. It is living off the misfortune of others. “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God” (3 In. 1:11).

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Joins You With Evil Companions

“Be not deceived: evil communications (companionships) corrupt good manners (morals)” (1 Cor. 15:33). Gambling is the very stock and trade of organized crime which preys on people who are willing to squander their living. Is this the company you desire to keep?

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Leads to Other Sins

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Gambling leads to dishonesty, immorality, theft, lying and fraud. Such crimes are higher where gambling is present.

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Destroys the Home and Family

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). The addictive nature of gambling has caused many to get into debt so deep they lose everything they have, even their family. Any activity which results in the destruction of the home cannot be right.

A Lottery Is Sinful Because It Violates the First and

Great Commandment To Love God Supremely

“Jesus said … Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). Gambling becomes the master and enslaves millions. You can’t serve God and riches (wealth) at the same time. It takes one away from God.

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ” (Matt. 22:39). How can one love, which means to “seek the best interest of,” his fellowman while trying to gain what is his? It doesn’t make sense.

Lottery means “a drawing of lots in which prizes are distributed to the winners among persons buying a chance.” Therefore, a lottery is a means of gambling, and gambling, in whatever form (lottery, bingo, raffle), is sin. No, Jesus would not endorse a lottery. He would oppose it!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 23
October 21, 1993

By Billy Ashworth

At the close of President Eisenhower’s eight-year tenure, this nation elected John F. Kennedy President. He was the first, and as yet, the only Roman Catholic ever elected President in America. He was also the next to youngest President ever elected, at the age of 43.

In his inaugural speech, Kennedy said: “The torch has been passed to a new genera-non.” How little he could know of what was to come during his brief two years and ten months as President.

The Lawless Sixties and Seventies

For the next fifteen years after Kennedy assumed office as President, this nation experienced one of the most difficult periods of its history. There were the youth and sexual rebellions; civil, racial, and religious turmoil; integration of the public school systems, done at times with the presence of troops armed with bayonets! In addition, quite a few schools had deputies patrolling the hallways of school buildings. This nation was almost in a state of anarchy. I preached through this period, and served as Postmaster at Franklin, Tennessee. I say without hesitation that it was the most difficult time of my life.

Early in the sixties, the rock group called the Beatles came to America; Elvis Presley surfaced with his wild gyration music, which he said he learned in his church; the youth and sexual revolutions emerged; and the drug abuse culture all dovetailed. Violence was rampant in the land. Youths, aided and abetted by radical “intellectuals” (some college professors, others radical so-called lawyers) paraded in the streets in defiance of all properly constituted laws, civil and divine.

They burned college administration buildings; held professors hostage; copulated in the streets; and finally marched on Washington, D.C., with the intention of shutting down the Federal government.

At the same time, militant parties arose professing “the establishment,” and taking important people hostage, such as Patricia Hearst, heir to the Hearst fortune. She was abused, humiliated and forced to take part in a bank robbery for which she was sentenced to prison. The militant Black Panther Party surfaced with such infamous, evil leaders as Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, et al.

Angela Davis, a radical Marxist and apparently a member of the BPP, was on the faculty of a large University on the West Coast. She was dismissed from her position, but later sued to be reinstated and was successful. I have an article that appeared in The Nashville Banner (February 20, 1971), written by Henry J. Taylor. I quote: “ANGELA DAVIS, the darling of the New Left, the Black Panthers, and some tragically confused intellectuals, indicted for alleged complicity in the horrible California courthouse shooting in which four men, including the judge, were killed, went to Castro’s Cuba for unrevealed talks in July, 1969.” Of course a jury found Davis “not guilty” as charged, for whom she threw a party afterwards! The court system had been corrupted with the wild, radical lawyers defending any radical criminal that was indicted.

Another radical “New Left” party was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) under the leadership of Mark Rudd. “The position: Leadership advocates overthrow of the US `System”‘ (Communism and the New Left, Books by U.S. News & World Report, 18). We were living in perilous times. It was a “violent crowd who committed violence to provoke violence that they might protest violence.”

The nation and world were shocked when President Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. To this day, investigators have been trying to determine who killed Kennedy and why. Bobby Kennedy, the late President’s brother, was assassinated in California while running in the Democratic primary for the presidential nomination. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. It seemed as if our society was disintegrating. In retrospect, the influence of Communist/ Marxists on the youth of our nation was, at least to a large degree, the cause of the rebellion sweeping the nation.

The ungodly influence of humanists was another major cause of the turbulent times. Their evil influence upon the Federal Judiciary has been contributory to the “law and order” breakdown. The Supreme Court of the United States began rendering liberal opinions of the Constitution with its Bill of Rights. The Court, in effect, began issuing orders to implement these liberal decisions which consisted of that august body’s becoming a law-making and enforcing branch instead of its being an interpretive body as authorized. These liberal rulings weakened the hands of law enforcement agencies, while coddling criminals. These activities were most detrimental to the apprehension and interrogation of suspected criminals.

“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11). Liberal lawmakers have set up an endless appeals system for convicted criminals to which they are “entitled,” which has almost destroyed just punishment of criminals. Liberal law schools are turning out radical lawyers on fire to see that one who is charged with a crime gets a “fair trial.” But they are not interested so much in a fair trial as they are interested in making a name for themselves as great defense lawyers.

I heard a lawyer on a talk show some time ago say: “I will do every thing I can to keep the truth from coming out against my client.” How does such an attitude as that square with a “fair trial”? Or how does such an attitude on the part of a lawyer square with justice in the judicial system. These men are out to make a name for themselves, along with the megabucks that come from such evil activities! Covetousness is rampant in this humanistic saturated society.

Symptoms of Decay

The famous historian, Gibbon, attributed the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to five causes: “(1) Rapid increase in divorce, undermining the sanctity of the home, the basis of society. (2) Higher and higher taxes, and the spending of public money for bread and celebration. (3) The mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting and brutal. (4) Building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within  the decadence of the people. (5) The decay of religion, faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and impotent to guide.” Plainly, the once-great Pagan Roman Empire rotted within!

Any serious-minded, discerning person knows that all five of the above listed causes for the decline and fall of Rome, are inherent in our once-great nation. Worldly people know it. We should. I heard a worldly woman on TV, who had engaged in receiving pornographic telephone calls, refer to America today as a “morally bankrupt society.”

Consider the Following Symptoms in the USA

Since “the wicked will be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God,” we need to examine the condition of this once-great country and be alarmed at the direction it has taken. We cannot afford to be arrogant and expect God to make an exception of us just because we were once, at least to a large degree, a God-fearing, morally-oriented people. I personally am incensed at the deterioration of the moral standards that were once held by the majority of people in this country.

Cal Thomas, a conservative syndicated columnist and TV commentator and once a vital part of the “Moral Majority” that was most instrumental in the presidential election in 1980, wrote an article recently in which he affirmed that there is no longer a “moral majority” in this country.

In his incisive article, Thomas said that, in the twelve years from 1980 through 1992, the majority of people in this country no longer adhere to the Old and New Testaments as the standard of morality. How sad. I feel as Jeremiah did when he sat in the rubble of the once-great Jerusalem: “Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and great servitude . . . for the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions . . . Jerusalem hath sinned grievously … All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their pleasant things for meat to relieve the soul; Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (Lam. 1:3-12a) It seems to me that the majority of people of this once great nation either do not see the grievous sins committed with no sense of shame, or they just do not care! Do we not see that this is the same condition that caused Rome to fall  the decadence of the people?

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). “Fools make a mock at sin” (Prov. 14:9). This nation has run the gamut of folly, wickedness and mockery against God. During the mid-sixties, Phil Donahue initiated a daytime talk show. He is outrageous in his mockery of God and everything good. Then along came Oprah, Sally Jessy, Maury Povich, Arsenio Hall, Geraldo, et al. All of these deal in the weird, vulgar, perverted and pornographic jungle in which they revel and “make a mock at sin.” ” What they have done is try to make every evil activity in America “socially accept-able,” which sometimes deceives even professed members of the Lord’s church.

But Paul warned: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal. 6:7, 8). The word “mock” means liter-ally “to writhe the nostrile,” to treat with contempt, to sneer at. Today, we use the term, to turn up the nose at. Of course, Paul did not mean that people could not try to mock God. He did mean that one cannot get away with it, and warned of the consequences of trying. “He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.” Fools still try to “mock” God!

Consider the hue and cry by the liberal, humanistic gaggle demanding our government spend millions of dollars to try to prevent or cure the AIDS infection. The immoral reprobates who have contracted the virus because of their evil “lifestyle,” tried to mock God and demand acceptance of our society on an equal basis with the black race that fought the civil rights battle. But there is no comparison between the two. It is not immoral to be black or any other skin color. But it is immoral to try to mock God and “receive in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (due, ASV, Rom. 1:26, 27) The context here shows Paul was describing homosexuals/ lesbians and was affirming they got what they deserved!

I am not saying that these miserable creatures should not receive medical treatment for their sexually transmitted diseases. I grieve over the poor hemophiliacs who have contracted the disease through contaminated blood from the immoral reprobates. I think any person who knows he/ she is infected with HIV and gives blood which contaminates an innocent person who is afflicted with hemophilia, should be tried and convicted of murder! I have very little respect for all the movie stars who are feverishly pressing the government for millions of dollars to find a cure for AIDS with my taxes. Paul warned: “For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

The Blight of Secular Humanism

As one surveys the chaos in which U.S.A. 1993 finds itself, he should be impressed with the fact that in the last quarter of a century there has been a profound change for the worse in our society. The change came slowly, insidiously. It reminds me of a statement by our Lord in the parable of the tares: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat” (Matt. 13:24, 25).

While America was lulled into complacency by a false sense of great prosperity, good times, financial security, pleasure and inflated money, the secular humanists (atheists) sowed seeds of a God-denying, faith-destroying, codified philosophy, set forth in their own publications  Humanist Manifesto I, published in 1933, and Humanist Manifesto II, published in 1973.

These two manifestos have been published together in paperback form by Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, NY 14215. The publication is edited by Paul Kurtz and should be bought and studied by every person who is concerned about the moral decay of this nation. I urge all gospel preachers, Bible class teachers, parents and all Christians to become knowledgeable about this destructive false religion whose propagators are deter-mined to rid the world of “faith in the prayer-hearing God.” If this warning fails to get the attention of the reader, I am convinced he/she is “sleeping the sleep of death.” My copy cost me only $2.95. Buy it, study it. It will be time and money well spent. One preaching brother reportedly said, “I have never preached on humanism. I don’t see any need for it.” This is one of the preachers and public Bible teachers who are to be blamed for the decay of our society, including decline in the church. They saw no need! GI.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 8-10
October 21, 1993

By Bobby L. Graham

“The spirit of pacifism is taking the fight out of the church. But the conflict between truth and error is unending. Victory does not come by truce. God’s terms are unconditional surrender…. The church grew when the fight was waged and the battle raged. When the letup came in the fight, the let-down came in the church. It is said that the sectarians do not fight any more. That is because the church has quit fighting and they have nothing to fight. If gospel preachers (and other Christians  BLG) will fight now as preachers fought then, the denominations will also fight now as they did then . . . and truth will triumph now as it triumphed then. Shall we yield to the line of least resistance, or shall we challenge error in its strongholds and its citadels?”

 The preceding quotation from brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., which I read sometime ago, has provoked the thought ex-pressed in the title of the article. If anything needs to be said to Christians of our time, it is what brother Wallace said. We have, beyond any doubt, experienced a let-down in the church in numbers of places because many members have little faith and even less conviction or courage to stand for their faith. This article is not commending the use of mean and ugly tactics, but rather the vigorous waging of the battle for truth in the spirit of love and kindness.

We do follow the line of least resistance. Many choose to disregard errornot fight it; others suggest that we condemn sin in generalities  not in specifics; yet others say that we should accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. Whether we realize it or not, such is the very path Satan would have us to follow if we are not fully pledged to him. We are playing to his hands.

Let us look to the pages of God’s Word to see how earlier men of God reproved error. Elijah called upon the prophets of idolatrous Baalism to demonstrate the authenticity of their claims or to quit making them. He also urged the undecided Israelites to commit themselves to either Jehovah or Baal and quit limping between the two sides (1 Kgs. 18). John the Baptist stood in the courts of royalty and rebuked Herod for his adulterous marriage to his sister-in-law (Matt. 14). Jesus, from his first confrontation with the Devil in Matthew 4 to his return to the portals of glory, condemned sin and challenged the sinner. The Chorazins and the Bethsaidas and the Capemaums were the objects of his rebuke, nor did the Jewish hierarchy escape his woeful warnings (Matt. 23). In the instructions Jesus gave to the disciples in Matthew 10 when he sent them on the limited commission, he told them to leave behind those who had no appreciation for the gospel message; even Sodom and Gomorrah will be sooner the recipients of divine mercy than those who spurn the saving news of Jesus and his kingdom. Peter on Pentecost pointed the accusing finger of inspiration at the very Jews who had slain the Christ and blamed them with his death. He and John courageously informed the Council of the Jews, that they took their instructions from the Lord, not men (Acts 4-5). Paul strolled the streets of Athens, was stirred in spirit by the idols in evidence, and subsequently preached to the people Jehovah whom they knew not and his son Jesus who would judge even them (Acts 17). Preachers are urged to preach the Word, whether it be seasonable or unseasonable. In doing so, they must reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and teaching, even when men call for teachers to scratch their itching ears (1 Tim. 4). Jude exhorts Christians to contend (agonize) earnestly for the faith of the gospel (Jude 3).

When gospel preachers, elders, and other Christians do as these did, do they show a lack of love? No! Let us pray and teach for the day when the people of God see themselves as the mighty army of the living God going forth full-force to follow their leaders in doing battle against the forces of sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 4
October 21, 1993