Truth Magazine

By James P. Needham

In Philippians 4:5, Paul said, “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.”

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1-3).

Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another (Rom. 12:10).

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient (2 Tim. 2:24).

To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men (Tit. 3:2).

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy (Jas. 3:17).   

We live in an angry society, the age of rage. Patience is almost non-existent. Everybody is on edge, and demands instant gratification. Airports are crowded. Traffic is bumper to bumper. All this pressure and tension leads to all kinds of rage: air rage, road rage, domestic rage, child murderers, parent murderers, and abortion by the millions. 

It is a fact of history that the church is influenced by its environment. We can find in the church parallel conditions and situations that we observe in its environment. Corinth tolerated fornication; it was the way of life in the city.  

We can see in the church today the intemperance and rage that we observe in our society. The best illustration of that is to be found on the Internet and the printed  pages of the journals among us. Preachers seem to be the worst offenders. So many seem to be unable to discuss differences without reflecting upon motives and personality traits, which have nothing to do with the  issues discussed. Language becomes acrimonious, harsh, and unkind. Egos get in the way of honest consideration of the divine word. It is almost as though being a Christian is an automatic adversarial relationship with fellow Christians.

This has caused many to turn away and not consider the issues involved. It is difficult for some people to ignore the intemperance and focus on the core issue. They are sensitive to the lack of brotherly love and kindly consideration. Such poor behavior blinds them to what needs to be studied.  I do not mean to excuse this, but to state a fact. Important issues are not considered because brethren perceive of them as paper fights, just competition between periodicals, or preacher fusses brought on by egocentric individuals who want to be somebody in the kingdom. Sometimes this may be a fair evaluation, but not often.  

Some brethren would do us a favor by turning off their word processors, do a little introspection and undergo an attitude adjustment before they turn them back on. If we are studying issues, why don’t we do just that, carefully consider each point of view until we have settled the matter in our own minds. Sometimes when brethren approach me with a disagreement, their very method of approach is obnoxious!

It’s seldom if ever proper to impugn the motives of the persons with whom we disagree. Such is almost always just and assumption. Motives sometimes are obvious, but not usually. A brother said to me recently that my disagreements with a brother were more personal than doctrinal. Now, how could he know that? It absolutely is not true. I refuse to discuss the matter further with him because my motives and integrity are not a matter of debate so far as I am concerned. Paul said (1 Cor. 4:5): “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.” I understand this to be a condemnation of judging motives, things we cannot know. Paul said, No man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him (1 Cor. 2:11). We may suspect that a brother has bad motives, but unless we know for sure it is best not to approach it. 

Today there are several issues that trouble the church: The nature of Jesus controversy, marriage, the divorce and remarriage question, the unity-in-diversity issue, etc. Rather than deal forthrightly with the issues involved, we have seen efforts to intimidate by questioning motives, trashing  the opposition, attempts to minimize the seriousness of these issues, or sweep them under the rug in a unity-in- diversity scenario.

Good brethren who have been known for their intelligence, soundness and good work are sometimes caught up in these unbrotherly tactics. It is a shame to see great mental energy wasted on side issues and personal insinuations that cannot be proven. Men of good will and great intelligence should not be swayed by worldly pressure or brotherhood politics to violate the principles we know they have embraced all their preaching lives.

The church today is burdened down with problems. The solution is not losing our patience and composure and venting our spleens at each other, but rather settling down and in a cool and collected manner study the issues in the light of God’s word. If we don’t get down to this task, we are about to undergo another split. If a split has to be, then let it be over error, not over personality conflicts that come about by intemperate outbursts, religious rage and poor attitudes unrelated to the core issues that divide us. 

When brethren cast aspersions on each other and assume bad motives, these actions can accumulate to the point that we can’t stand each other’s company; so we divide not over issues, but because of personal bitterness. It is sad to see brethren unwilling to sit down and discuss scriptural issues because of personal dislike and intemperate language used in the fray.

This is no defense of softness or compromise, but a plea for us all to be civil in our discussions. It is proper and right to press one’s point with vigor, but remember, it is lightning that kills, not thunder. 

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789

By Larry Ray Hafley

The snippet below was sent in by Bill Reeves, a brother beloved in the Lord. 

According to a televised CBS news report, Aug. 30, 1999, a privately owned Lutheran High School in Michigan demonstrated how it deals with teen violence: a strict dress code! Girls wear modest dresses; boys wear shirts and trousers — no jeans for either sex! One day out of the month both can wear jeans. The principal reported that it is on that day (Jean’s Day) that he sees more students in his office needing disciplinary action or lecturing. “You act according to your dress.” Additional restrictions presented in the dress code were these: no pierced ears on the boys, no bright nail polish on the girls, no shorts on either sex.
    
Of course, I am not proposing that ladies wear jeans one Sunday a month, or that we measure the brightness of nail polish. Otherwise (at the risk of being charged with being the “clothes police”), perhaps brethren need to adapt the Lutheran School’s dress code. Yes, I know that the poor are not to be judged or shunned because of shabby clothing (Jas. 2:1-5). However, poverty is one thing. Slovenly, sloppy, indecent attire is quite another (Gen. 41:14; Prov. 7:10; 1 Tim. 2:9). 

Is the scriptural appeal for “modest apparel” without meaning? Does it elude all judgment and discretion? Is it impossible to define and apply (cf. Phil. 1:9-11; Col. 1:9, 10; Heb. 5:14b)? Evidently, though some brethren think so, a certain Lutheran High School does not so believe. Sad it is when children of the world act and dress with more wisdom than the children of light.   

By Bobby Graham

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven (Matt. 18:10).

Many of us have seen the bumper sticker that says, “Abortion stops a beating heart.” Is it not tragic that our national morals have declined to such a low point that abortion has become a means of ending unwanted pregnancies? In many, many cases it is the result of fornication and the associated desire to live as one pleases without the unwanted consequences. Selfishness is the cause of the problem, and the so-called remedy of terminating the life of another in abortion is the ultimate expression of selfishness. One life is stamped out for the sheer physical pleasure and enjoyment of another.

I recently read the account of a doctor’s delivery of a “breech baby.” In one case out of ten this kind dies during delivery. This doctor, who normally would not have ever thought of aborting a life did give it some thought in this one instance.  Once the birth had begun, he was able to see that one thigh of the baby was missing completely, so that the little foot, attached at the hip, would never have reached past the knee on the other leg. Upon seeing this defect, the doctor actually thought about sparing the parents the pain they would surely experience later. However, he just could not bring himself to commit the act. Under the circumstances death would have been somewhat expected, but he expected much more of himself. He delivered that baby, pitiful leg and all. There was one heart unstopped by the tragic act of abortion.

Some twenty years later the same doctor was present at a ceremony honoring some nurses. There a number of musicians entertained. There he saw her again — the one he chose not to abort. The harpist on the occasion was that very young woman. What talent she displayed as she beautifully performed for the people assembled! There was one harpist  who would have never played if abortionists had had their way. There was one heart that abortion did not stop.

We are reaping the harvest of bitter fruit resulting from the sowing of the wrong kind of seed — humanism, evolution, atheism, and moral relativism. When people believe human beings are merely elevated animals, they soon begin to act like animals. Only a firm faith in God that treats human beings as the special creatures of God that they are will solve this worldwide problem.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens, Alabama 35613

By Steve Wallace

The Bible teaches local church autonomy. However, it seems that some brethren do not understand this subject as well as one would hope. This is seen from their condemning or refusing that which the Bible allows with regards to autonomy. Let us notice some examples.

With Regards to Advising Other Churches About a Given Preacher

Please notice the following two quotes from brethren on this subject:

Now may I say to you, brethren, that when brethren go throughout this land, not only informing and fighting error, and there’s not a thing in the world wrong with opposing error, in fact I don’t know how to teach truth without putting it in bold relief against error. If you want to be plain you have to do that. But when men go across the country with the view to influencing churches who to preach for them or not, they are in violation of the New Testament scripture. Have we not heard long and loud for years of the local autonomy of a congregation? Let us not confuse the responsibility of teaching with our limited responsibility of fellowship  (Harry Pickup, “The Holiness of God as Revealed in Unity and Diversity” sermon, Lexington, Kentucky, July 14, 1998, my emph, sw).
No individual has the right to meddle in the affairs of an autonomous congregation. Period. When men begin phoning local church members attempting to gain information about a third party, or in an effort to sway a congregational decision in which they have no lawful involvement, it’s plain sinful. When calls come from ‘concerned brethren’ across the country about which preacher should/should not be hired, or who should conduct a gospel meeting, such brethren have jumped from propriety to politics” (Steve Dewhirst, “Church Autonomy,” Sentry Magazine, June, 1993, 3, my emph, sw).

Brethren Pickup and Dewhirst speak their thoughts clearly. It is sad to note that, in their zeal to condemn actions some would take today to limit the effects of error in other churches, they condemn the actions of New Testament Christians. Please note what the brethren in Ephesus did:

And when he (Apollos) was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren (at the church in Ephesus) wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace (Acts 18:27).

It goes without saying that, had Apollos been unworthy, the evident concern of the brethren at Ephesus for the brethren at Achaia would have been shown in warning them about him. Please compare this verse with the italicized parts of the quotes above. These two brethren are clearly teaching contrary to the Bible. It is sad to see preachers with such influence as these two men so clearly misleading brethren.

In Mission Work

There has been concern expressed with regards to churches in the U.S. sending preachers to a given place in the mission field where a church already exists. I, as well as others, have expressed concern for local church autonomy in such actions. The Bible allows this. Please notice the following account from Acts 11:

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (vv. 19-26).

On its own initiative, one church sent a preacher to another church! There was a “church” in Antioch (v. 26). The “church . . . in Jerusalem” decided to send Barnabas there (v. 22). Some brethren make arguments (wrongly) in our day to the effect that we cannot do today what the apostles did. (See Mike Willis’ recent series on this.) However, we do not have to stop to consider such arguments here because it says the “church” sent Barnabas. Hence, we can see that it is scriptural for one church to send forth a preacher to another church to preach the Gospel. It goes without saying that Antioch could have decided, in harmony with their autonomy, that they did not need Barnabas. However, Jerusalem did not violate Antioch’s autonomy by sending Barnabas.

As it Pertains to Churches Sending Out Announcements and Bulletins

In recent months a church mailed out an announcement to other churches of an upcoming effort it was planning which, being kind, deserved some attention. A brother from another church wrote, questioning that church about the announcement he had received from it. A brother from that church answered saying he firmly believed in local church autonomy and did not believe it was necessary to discuss decisions that the elders had made. Contrast this attitude with the actions of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 15. When they learned that brethren which went out from them had gone to Antioch teaching error (v. 24) they were willing to discuss this matter with the brethren from Antioch. If the church at Antioch had wanted to discuss truth which had gone forth from Jerusalem, it naturally follows that the brethren in Jerusalem would have been willing to do so. Local church autonomy allows for such questions and discussion as found in Acts 15. Yet, some brethren are acting as if church autonomy was violated in Acts 15!

Conclusion

Clearly, statements have been made on the subject of local church autonomy that have not been in harmony with Scripture. Brethren can be misled by them. Indeed, the “church autonomy” charge exemplified by brethren Dewhirst and Pickup is oft heard. Let us not heed such clearly erroneous words. Let us hear the Bible. It tells us what is and what is not in harmony with its teaching on local church autonomy.

2103 Rexford Rd., Montgomery, Alabama 36116