Truth Magazine

By Wilson Adams

Those who know me well are aware of my love for the old Andy Griffith Show. Many a late afternoon is spent mentally escaping the hubbub of the Washington-Baltimore corridor for the simpler life of Mayberry. (And by your smile I detect that I’m not the only one.)

My all time favorite episode is Man in a Hurry. Remember? (You’re smiling again!) It’s about the uptight businessman whose car breaks down on a Sunday afternoon in Mayberry. His frustrations mount at the slow pace of townspeople who refuse to be rushed until finally he learns that life is more than feverish work and excessive hurry. It’s a lesson many need to learn, including me.

And I did. One moment I was whizzing along Interstate 64 in eastern Kentucky on a quick trip from Washington D.C. to Louisville and the next I was sitting on the side of the road thanks to a fuel pump which decided to “expire.” (If you’ve ever been in that position you know it’s a pretty helpless feeling.) The exit sign ahead said: “Grayson.” I got out and walked towards town.

Thanks to a fellow with a tow-truck, which had seen better days, we limped into the Chevy garage. I soon learned that the Chevy dealer in Grayson is the place where men-folk gather on Monday mornings for coffee and talk about politics, the Cincinnati Reds and whatever else is on people’s minds. “Any of you know where Kehoe, Kentucky is  up on the Carter-Greenup County line?” I asked. Several heads turned in my direction perhaps a bit wary of the stranger whose car bore Maryland plates but who seemed to be well versed in eastern Kentucky geography (it probably didn’t hurt that I still retained my Kentucky accent). “Why sure I know where Kehoe is,” said an older man born and raised in the county. He added, “My wife’s people are from Kehoe.” I replied, “Then you’ve no doubt heard of the Wamocks from Kehoe.” “Wamocks, sure I knew some of the Kehoe Wamocks,” he said with a touch of warmth. I then proceeded to tell him that my father-in-law was Weldon Warnock who grew up in those parts. (There is nothing that promotes acceptability any faster than when people learn that you know who they know.) Our conversation from that point on was especially pleasant.

My car was finally repaired and it was time to leave. The bill was presented and I pulled out the plastic I carry for just such emergencies. A funny look came over the face of the owner behind the counter. “Uh, we’re not set up to take credit cards,” he said. “Just cash or check.” Now that presented a problem since I hadn’t bothered to bring the checkbook and the small amount I had in cash wouldn’t begin to cover the bill.

I explained my dilemma. “No problem,” he said. “Just send me a check when you get back home.” “Say what?” I wasn’t sure I had heard him correctly. He repeated himself. I thanked him and offered my license that he might gain the needed information. He declined. “Don’t need to see that. Just drive careful and send me a check when you can.” And with a grateful smile, I did (both!).

On the road to Louisville later that thy I couldn’t help but be thankful of a few things, namely:

The value of a good name. Solomon said, “A good name is to be more desired than great riches.” It was good to be reminded that one’s reputation carries more clout than the finest credit card. (I might still be in Grayson if the “Warnock” name hadn’t been so well received.) Thanks Weldon, I owe you one!

That people still believe in people. I realize that businesses can’t always operate on the honor system (not and remain in business!) but it’s encouraging to know that sometimes people are willing to trust you anyway. I often think of my grandfather who never had much money but who had more credit than anyone. His word was his bond. He defined integrity. People believed in him and he believed in them. It is very apparent that Jesus lived that way, too.

The need to slow down. I love the verse in Psalms which says, “Be still and know that I am God” (46:10). I am impressed with the fact that as busy as Jesus was he was never hurried. He was never too busy to pray, or answer another question, or bounce a child on his knee. He illustrated in life that God wants us to be faithful, not frantic.

I’m aware that there are some Christians who equate spirituality with busyness and frugality of everything, including emotions. Possessed with the elder-brother syndrome (always uptight and overly stiff about everything including themselves), they feel that life is too serious to be wasted on such frivolous things as laughter and relaxation. (I know some preachers like that. Do you?) That’s sad. Please correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Jesus enjoy periods of relaxation (Mk. 6:31-32)? And didn’t he attend festive gatherings On. 2)? And wasn’t he criticized by some who didn’t consider him to be serious enough (Matt. 11:19)?

Sometimes we get moving too fast. I’m convinced when such happens our spirituality suffers. I know mine does. That’s when I must listen again to the psalmist’s counsel, “Relax and know that I am God.”

It was Hugh Prather who wrote,

If I had only … forgotten future greatness and looked at the green things and the buildings and reached out to those around me and smelled the air and ignored the forms and the self-styled obligations and heard the rain on my roof and put my arms around my wife . . . perhaps it’s not too late.

My friend, don’t let the time become a tyrant rather than a friend. Don’t allow joy to become something to be done later. Slow down. Do it now. Schedule less and enjoy it more. Take a deep breath and gain a taste of life. And remember that our strength lies not in our hurried efforts and long hours but in our quietness and confidence in God.

And . . . should your travels take you through the hills of eastern Kentucky, stop in at Chevy dealer in Grayson and tell ‘um  “Weldon Warnock sent ya!” ct

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 13
October 21, 1993

By Donnie V. Rader

Near the end of his second missionary journey, Paul went to Corinth with the gospel of Christ. This seems like a most unlikely place to expect to find people interested in the gospel and therefore establish a church. Corinth was the commercial capital of Greece. It was a city of half a million people. It was filled with immorality. I am told that 1000 prostitutes served daily at a pagan temple in the city. It was the Las Vegas or Atlantic City of that day. Furthermore, Paul faced opposition as he attempted to instruct the Corinthians in the way of the Lord (Acts 18:6, 9,10).

However unlikely it may have seemed, many were converted and a church was established in Corinth. Let’s consider what we know about their conversion.

The Message

The message Paul preached was “Jesus is Christ” (Acts 18:5). Later, in writing to those who were converted, he said that when he came to Corinth, “I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

The word that was presented was not the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 2:1), but the testimony of God that their faith would be in God and not man (1 Cor. 2:5).

Paul said the gospel that he preached and they received was the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

These passages tell us that the message revealed who Jesus is, the sacrifice he made, the salvation that is available through him and how man must obey him.

The Response

How did the Corinthians respond? What did they do upon hearing the message? Obviously, there were some who turned a deaf ear (Acts 18:6). However, “many” did respond in obedience.

They heard the gospel (Acts 18:8). They believed the preaching about Jesus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 11). They repented of their sins. They turned from lives of sin to serve God. Later, in writing to these brethren, Paul listed fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, covetous, drunkards, thieves, revilers and extortioners and said, “such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, emphasis mine, DVR). They had changed; they had repented. They were baptized (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 15:29).

The Change (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

In becoming Christians, the Corinthians had to and did make some drastic changes in their lives. From this we learn:

1. The gospel of Christ can change the worst of lives. Some of those in the church at Corinth had been fornicators, others were homosexuals, some idolaters, some thieves and others were drunkards. Sin doesn’t get much worse than that. But, they changed! They stopped their practice of sin. If they could change and live right  anyone else can too.

2. The life they lived after obeying the gospel was different  it was a life unto God. After turning from their sins, they were instructed to give their lives to glorifying God (1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31), following Christ (I Cor. 11:1,3), walking worthy and living lives of a separate people (2 Cor. 6) and fearing God (2 Cor. 7:1).

3. Sin must cease when one becomes a Christian. True repentance demanded that their fornication, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc. stop! Notice again, that the text says, “such were some of you” (emphasis mine, DVR). Their continuing in sin was past tense.

All who come to God must cease their practice of sin. That includes those who live in adultery. If the practice of homosexuality must cease (meaning they must cease their sexual relationship), so must those who have committed adultery by remarrying (Matt. 19:9), i.e. thy must cease their sexual relationship.

The Results

Various terms and expressions are used to describe those who were converted by the gospel. These words tell us what they became by obedience to the gospel.

A church was established (1 Cor. 1:2). The term that is translated by the word church means the “balled out.” Thus they were called out of sin and darkness into the salvation and light.

They were sanctified which means they were separated from sin and unto God (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11). The term saints also suggests this separation.

They were saved (1 Cor. 1:21; 15:2), washed (1 Cor. 6:11) and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). Consequently they gained the hope of eternal life (I Cor. 15:50-58).

You can be saved just like the Corinthians when you believe the same message, obey the same commands and make the same kind of changes. You will also receive the same results.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 15
October 21, 1993

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