Truth Magazine

By Norman Midgette

There are those today who would like for you to think that the events recorded in Genesis 19 are fiction not fact. The record shows that these cities were cremated by God overnight with fire and brimstone because of their wickedness, including homosexuality. The sodomites and lesbians today, who want religious respectability and church membership, try to claim this story is fiction not fact. It is their claim that their lifestyle is not an abomination to God but is acceptable to him. After all, this story is buried far back in the book of Genesis and has questionable authenticity. This is what they would have you believe.

If this story if fiction, Moses did not know about it just before his death. He said God overthrew those cities with brimstone and burning in his anger and wrath (Deut. 29:23). Neither did Isaiah believe it was fiction. He referred to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah three times and speaking of the brazenness of their sin said, “they hide it not” (Isa. 3:9; see also 1:9, 10, 13:19). Jeremiah also referred to this event three times, likening the wickedness of Israel and Judah to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer. 23:14; see also 40:18, 50:40). In Lamentations 4:6 he speaks of Sodom again. Ezekiel elaborated on Sodoms sin and destruction in 10 verses of Ezekiel 16 and there is no hint of him believing it is fiction not fact. He says they committed, “abomination” before God and he, “took them away” (16:50). And the prophet Amos records Jehovah as saying, “I have overthrown cities among you as when I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah” (Amos 4:11). Then finally Old Testament testimony comes from Zephaniah who affirms, “Therefore, as I live saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, a possession of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation” (Zeph. 2:9)

The first three books of the New Testament record Jesus talking about Sodom and Gomorrah as fact not fiction and saying in Luke 17:29,”but in day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.” Peter said, God, “turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemning them with an overthrow” (2 Pet. 2:6). And, Jude writes with this devastating conclusion: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal life” (June 7). The last biblical reference to Sodom is in Revelation 11:8.

From Genesis to Revelation God affirms this story of the homosexual character and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as fact. No religious respectability can be given this sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 4
October 7, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

More and more we are hearing that “we need to major in the gospels and minor in the epistles.” What is that all about? What it is about is the so-called “new hermeneutic.” It places greater importance on what Jesus said and did than on what the apostles said and did. It is a part of the scheme to rid ourselves of the restraining influences of finding a direct statement, approved apostolic ex-ample or necessary inference to authorize our teaching and practice.

We have some among us who are terrorized by the ghost of tradition. Never mind that traditions are sometimes approved and other times condemned. Paul wrote, “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:17). He also said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). The church at Thessalonica was charged to “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). So, all traditions are not to be rejected.

The Source of Apostolic Teaching

Those who worry about putting too much emphasis on the epistles need to be reminded of the source of the message in the epistles. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth, bringing to their remembrance what Jesus had taught them, and revealing to them truth which Jesus had not expressed while with them in person. Read John 16:7-14. Paul said, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches” and then added, “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:13,16). “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. 14:37).

Now, if the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit, had the mind of Christ, and what they wrote were the words of Christ, how say some among us that we need to minor in the epistles?

New Testament congregations which received and obeyed apostolic instruction in the epistles were following the will of Christ. That is why Jude wrote, “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17). Those words were a pattern to shape our thinking and practice.

A “Better” Way?

Some of those who are weary of precept, approved apostolic example and necessary inference, tell us that this is not all bad but they have found a “better way,” that in addition to these means of establishing divine authority, we may add the three “P’s”  principle, purpose and perception. Older brethren will recall the time when E.R. Harper was trying to find divine authority for the Herald of Truth sponsoring church arrangement and came up with “principle eternal.” He had no precept, no approved apostolic example and no necessary inference from the word of God, so he found it in “principle eternal.” But how do we know what principle to follow except in terms of what the word of God actually says? How do we know what purpose is to be served apart from divine instruction? How do we know what perception or perspective was present except from what is said in the text?

It is being argued that the only pattern for us is what we think Jesus would do. That is a subjective approach to religion. We “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Faith rests upon solid evidence, not subjective feelings and perceptions. The truth of the matter is that Jesus taught by the use of commands and precepts. What do you make of the Great Commission if that is not so? He “left us an example that we should follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). He also drew necessary conclusions (Matt. 22:23-33) or left it so that his hearers would do so.

There seems to be a terrible dread among some (especially some younger men) that they will do something which brethren have done before and therefore will fall into some theological rut from which they will not be able to extricate themselves. So they tinker with the order of the worship until it borders on disorder. They fear that worship will not be exciting enough. But exciting to whom? To us, or to our God? They must deliver us from boredom. But who is bored? Are we bored, or is God? Certainly worship ought to be offered from the whole heart. We ought not to go through empty rituals. But God has ordained certain acts of worship and who am Ito say that he is bored when his children perform these acts in harmony with what God himself instructed us to do?

These are dangerous times. The only safe guide to see us through these times is the inerrant, eternal word of God. It is a perfect guide. Our eternal destiny is too important to entrust to the shifting sands of human opinion and subjective religion. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psa. 11:3) Let’s hear what Jesus said in the gospels but let’s not minimize what he said in the epistles through Holy Spirit-guided apostles. That is also a part of the word that will judge us in the last day (Jn. 12:48-49).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 3-4
October 7, 1993

By Bobby L. Graham

(Editors’ Note: The Florence Times (June 27, 1993] carried the following article about this march for freedom.)

Both in ancient times and in modem times young people have sometimes taken bold stands for right and truth on matters that were not popular with all of their peers. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the food and drink regimen prescribed by the Babylonian king for the young men in training for places of leadership. The Bible’s emphasis on his purpose of heart is crucial in the understanding of this matter of conviction. Once one has learned what truth demands and God de-sires, he must act on that conviction. Doing so often requires courage, giving rise to the expression “the courage of his conviction.”

The young preacher Timothy had been taught and trained by a mother and a grandmother who understood their role. The result was a young man who became a Christian during Paul’s first missionary trip and a travel companion and helper in the gospel on the second such trip of the apostle. In a pagan society filled with the worship of idols and associated immorality of that society, it was not easy for Timothy to take his bold stand for Jesus Christ. His mixed religious background (father a Greek and mother a Jew) likewise did not make his turning to Christ easy. He became convicted by truth and then acted on it out of courage.

In the last few weeks two young men in the Florence area, Drew Jamieson and Steve Graham, Jr., took a stand that could have been unpopular and undoubtedly is in many instances. They chose to speak up for God and his gracious blessing in the lives of all and to pray during a graduation ceremony at a public high school. For their action they were criticized by some but praised by most. It was conviction and the courage of their conviction that worked to produce their stand. Later events related to this situation included a march for such freedom in Florence. It is gratifying to know of young people today who will take such stands.

Are you one who has convictions, strong beliefs based on the truth set forth in the Bible? Do you act out of conviction or out of convenience? To do the first is to please God, but to do the latter is to please self. Why not learn from the examples of young people who lived long ago and some who live now what it means to be courageous. Their examples surely inspire us to do what we should do.

In what police referred to as the city’s largest gathering of its kind in decades, several thousand people sang, prayed and carried signs with biblical references at a religious free speech march and rally in Florence, Alabama.

3000 Attend Prayer Rally, March – Florence police estimated the march crowd at 3,000 and said it was the largest single gathering they had seen in 20 years.

The march was held in sup-port of two former Bradshaw High School students, Drew Jamieson and Steve Graham, Jr., who violated school officials’ orders by saying a prayer and making religious references at their graduation ceremony June 3.

Jamieson, a youth minister at a local church, led the audience in prayer after a speech he made to his graduating class. Graham changed the graduation speech he was supposed to give and had supplied to Bradshaw officials. In his altered speech he made several religious references.

The prayer has prompted the threat of a lawsuit by the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and a statement by school system officials that student involvement in graduation activities may be limited in the future.

Marchers sang songs such as “Lord, I Need Thee,” as they marched and several carried signs that said things such as “We believe in prayer,” “In God we trust,” and “Our nation needs to return to honor and respect for God.”

Graham said some Bradshaw officials supported the students’ desire to say a prayer at their graduation, but were bound by the law to put aside their personal beliefs. He called on those attending the rally to fight to change the laws.

“So let us come together to place blame not at the local level or on men who are but helpless pawns in this struggle, who are unable to take any other course due to rulings by the courts, each seemingly in an effort to outdo the other and take the prohibitions against religious speech to more outlandish limits.

“Let us not blame them, but let us take our fight and our cause to our homes, back to our communities, and finally into the halls of justice, where basic and important changes can be made.”

Some of those in attendance said they saw the march and rally as an opportunity to express their religious beliefs openly and proudly.

“I feel like this is a golden opportunity to get out and stand up for Jesus,” said John McDaniel of Florence. “Two thousand years ago he died for us. I believe I can walk a few blocks for him. In the past we have been too apathetic. I think this will get a lot more people to stand up.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 1
October 7, 1993

By Mike Willis

In recent months, we have seen several articles which have called brethren back to Christ-centered preaching. Indeed, Christ should be the central focus of our preaching (1 Cor. 2:1-5). These articles generally charge that brethren have been guilty of preaching a church-centered or institution-centered message rather than a Christ-centered message.

We always are delighted to see men who are guilty of sin and error in their preaching correct their preaching to bring it back to the standard of right and wrong revealed in Gods word. If these brethren tell us that they have been guilty of preaching a message of salvation on the grounds of affiliation with some human institution and affiliation with a group of people, I will take their word for it. I am delighted that they have recently discovered that salvation is grounded in the blood of Christ and not in men.

However, they would be mistaken to use a broad brush to accuse their preaching breathren generally of being guilty of that which they admit occurred in their own preaching. Many of us cannot admit that we have been preaching that salvation is grounded in anything except the shed of blood of Jesus Christ. I understood that I was saved y the blood of Christ the day I was baptized and shortly after I was twelve years old and have preached salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ from the first day of my preaching. I understood at this early age that the church was people, not a building, and I never thought that any person in any local church saved me. All of the preaching which I have sat under emphasized that salvation is grounded in Christ Jesus. Therefore, I cannot plead guilty to not believing that the grounds of our salvation was the shed blood of Christ or having neglected emphasizing that in my preaching, nor have I heard such preaching from my brethren.

On several occasions, I have asked those who have charged that we have had an improper emphasis on the church (preaching the church instead of the Christ) to show me an example of the kind of preaching to which they object. So far, I have never received a photocopy of an article or a tape of a sermon that gives me an example of the kind of preaching which is elevating the church over the Christ. If an isolated incidence of misdirected preaching were found, I am confident that it would be the exception and not the rule, unless they produce many such examples (which should be easy to do to hear them talk). But, if these brethren say that they have been guilty of that sin, I am willing to take their word for it and express my thanksgiving that they have suddenly learned that they are saved by the blood of Christ. But, I keep asking myself, “What business does anyone who does not realize that salvation is grounded in the shed blood of Jesus have in preaching before he learns this fundamental fact?” Furthermore, I marvel that it has taken some of these men whose brilliance is so widely attested so many years to learn what I knew at twelve years old!

All of the Gospel Must be Related to Christ

We understand and must communicate as we preach on the various subjects revealed in the gospel that they are authorized and prescribed by God. Some have charged that we have been preaching baptism, condemnation of instrumental music in worship, the organization of the church, and other subjects without them being related to the Christ. Again, I ask for some examples so that I can see the kind of preaching which is being condemned. That should not be so hard to produce, since it is supposedly so widespread among us.

However, I cannot plead guilty to separating Christ from these subjects. I understood that I was baptized at twelve years old because Christ made baptism a condition for salvation by his blood. He said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). I was not baptized because it was something the local church determined that men should do as a condition before the church dispensed salvation. I never thought that we opposed instrumental music in worship because of lack of funds to purchase a piano, a preference of the local church, or cultural reasons. I understood that we did not use instrumental music in worship because the one Lawgiver, Jesus Christ, did not authorize its use (Jas. 4:12). I understood that the church was organized under elders and deacons because the word of God authorized it, not because we thought that worked better than the papal, episcopal, and presbyterian forms of church government. Was the little area in Groveton, Texas so unique that this congregation alone was taught that all of these things were related to Jesus Christ and his revealed word? I doubt that!

My conviction is that I was just like most others in the church. If you had asked anyone else in the church the question, “Were your sins washed away by the blood of Christ?” they would have answered the same as I did. If you had asked them why we opposed instrumental music in worship, they would have told you that God did not authorize it in the New Testament. The identifying marks of the Lord’s church were taught in relation to the Christ.

Trends Among Us

We would be naive were we not to observe ‘that one of the trends which is presently active among our liberal brethren is a departure from preaching the truth of the gospel on a variety of subjects under the guise of “Christ-centered” preaching.

C. Leonard Allen, writing in The Cruciform Church, charged that “‘the word of the cross’ has been significantly displaced in the history of the Churches of Christ” (113). The proofs that we have removed the cross from its central place in our preaching are: (a) our concentration of sermons on “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” (119); (b) replacing the gospel of grace with a gospel of duty, law, and perfect obedience  preaching a legalistic message (122-123); (c) treating the Bible as if it were a law or blueprint (19,31); (d) eagerness to debate with our neighbors (19). Allen called for brethren to change their preaching to focus on the gospels rather than the epistles.

Rubel Shelly’s book, The Second Incarnation, picks up where Allen left off to emphasize that the church is the second incarnation of Christ. Shelly stated that the church must lay aside its restoration theology to change the church to meet the needs of every succeeding generation (xii,xiv,3,17,71); there is no pattern for the church (6,31,36,65). He emphasized that we need to give a priority of the gospels over the epistles in our preaching (36); to accept that unity is not uniformity (60); quit calling for the denominations to become “just like us” (81); change the worship to fit the needs of this generation (131-132, 138,140); etc.

James S. Woodruff authored The Church in Transition which also decried the restoration plea charging that it created sectarianism (9,57,109,121,1 49), charged that brethren do not teach salvation by grace (19), stated that when we preach “the true church” we show that we do not understand the true message of the gospel (26), asserted that we have become critics of denominations rather than preachers of the good news (31), affirmed that we have over-emphasized baptism (33), maintained that we have ignored the Holy Spirit (49), etc. Woodruff wants us to quit preaching that the denominations are sinful, quit emphasizing the conditions for salvation, quit quoting so much Scripture in our sermons (49), and practice unity-indiversity (115,117).

Bill Love’s The Core Gospel also charges that brethren have forsaken the core message of the atonement by emphasizing the restoration plea (128) and the conditions for salvation (151,165,231), making the gospel something to obey (159). Love was turned off by “church versus church” preaching (196,206-207), emphasizing the conditions for salvation (201,248), preachers who exposed false teachers (203,326; of course Love himself is excepted when he writes a 318-page book to expose the false teaching of brethren who have departed from the core gospel), preaching on baptism (231), and restoration preaching (235).

Notice from these quotations, that the kind of preaching which is shunned is this: (a) that which emphasizes the Lord’s church in contrast to the denominations of men; (b) debating with one’s religious neighbors; (c) an emphasis on the necessity and action of water baptism; (d) an unscriptural condemnation of instrumental music in worship.

All of this loose preaching is marching under the banner of “Christ-centered preaching.” The use of such banners was no doubt borrowed from our political leaders who can pass a “deficit reduction” budget that increases the national debt, reduce our taxes while increasing that which is withheld from our checks, and affirm pro-choice while denying the unborn the right to ever make a choice. Under the name of “Christ-centered preaching,” the preaching of

Christ is condemned, ridiculed, and forsaken. Its banner is palatable but its message is deadly poison.

What Is Happening?

In observing who is making the criticisms that brethren have quit preaching Christ, one cannot avoid noticing that much of the writing of these reformers among us takes on the characteristics of our liberal brethren. Frequently, those among our own brethren who charge that we have quit preaching Christ seem to avoid writing on such things as the identifying marks of the Lord’s church, debating their convictions with those who oppose them, and exposing the errors of denominationalism. Non-distinctive articles which never contrast revealed and unrevealed religion is the standard diet.

Which is more logical to believe? (a) That we have some brethren who have been preaching the gospel for decades who suddenly realized that justification is grounded in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and that the church is the recipient of salvation instead of the dispenser of salvation; or (b) That the influence of this movement away from distinctive preaching is spilling over among us?

Church Versus Church Preaching

Much has been said about church versus church preaching, implying that such preaching detracts from Christ and exalts the church. I make no apologies for church versus church preaching. I understand this preaching to be a contrast between revealed and unrevealed religion. Jesus did this kind of preaching when he contrasted the traditions of the men with the revealed word of God (Matt. 15:1-14). If we are going to give priority to the gospels over the epistles in our preaching, surely this is one part of the gospels which needs to be preached. Jesus contrasted that which was “from heaven” from that which is “of men” (Matt. 21:25). If we are going to walk in his footsteps, we must do the same. Those who have reached the point in their preaching that they have forsaken “church versus church” preaching have simply quit contrasting revealed and unrevealed religion, quit calling men out of unrevealed religion, and become convinced that men can be saved believing and practicing anything religiously so long as they are good, honest and sincere. Preaching which contrasts revealed and unrevealed religion is “Christ-centered preaching.”

Conclusion

I do not stand opposed to Christ-centered preaching, correctly understood. We must keep Christ as the central focus of our preaching and preach every word which he has revealed to us. However, that which is marching under the banner of “Christ-centered preaching,” which was quoted above, is an insidious doctrine of the devil which must be opposed. Those who oppose the false doctrines of classical liberalism (that is marching under the banner of “Christ-centered preaching”) but are writing their articles about the need for “Christ-centered preaching” need to be aware of the mixed signals they are sending and formulate a way to express themselves without lending their support to this movement in liberalism. It is certainly possible to caution brethren about the need for balance in preaching, without getting out of balance and echoing the unbalanced criticisms by apostates of sound gospel preaching.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p.2
October 7, 1993