Truth Magazine

By P. J. Casebolt

Comparing the widow’s two mites with the gifts of the rich men, Jesus concluded, “Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all” (Lk. 21:1-4).

Rich men are condemned, not because they are rich, but because they trust in riches (Mk. 10:24), bestow gifts to be seen or praised of men (Matt. 23:5), or because they fail to “be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate” (1 Tim. 6:17-19). The gifts of the rich can be used for good, but so can the widow’s mites.

Too often, we fail to “bestow more abundant honour” upon “those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble. . . And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable” (1 Cor. 12:22,23). We need to remember that God has “set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him,” and that all members of the body, the church, “are necessary” (1 Cor. 12:18,22).

In our public assemblies, the preacher may be the most visible member in that assembly, because of the emphasis placed on preaching in the edification process, and the time set aside for such teaching. But that is not to say that the preacher is the most important member of a congregation, or that either he or the congregation regard him as such. If so, we need to rearrange our thinking.

Though invisible, Christ needs to be the central figure of our lives, and in our public assemblies. Christ “is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18), and has promised, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20).

We need to give honor to the elders who oversee the flock at all times, and not just during the public assemblies of the church. Teachers need to be commended and appreciated for the many hours of time which they have devoted to study, class preparation, and actual teaching done. We pause from time to time and express our appreciation for “all those who have taken a public part” in the assemblies of the church, and well we should.

But we need also to recognize those who go about quietly in their daily lives ministering to the Lord and the needs of others, and may just as quietly come and sit in the public assemblies of the church, though they may not be seen in some public capacity. But they are there, they are seen, and without them, those who take an “active” part couldn’t be very active without an audience. The widow’s mites are needed as are the gifts of the rich, though the mites may only “seem” to be less honorable.

During my stay in the hospital, and during recuperation from surgery, I received hundreds of cards and other expressions of well-wishing from concerned people. No two cards were alike — some were large and elaborate with flowery decorations and verse, some were of medium size, and some were small with simple expressions of sincere words on my behalf. And the most appreciated cards were those where the sender took time to write a personal note.

One of the smallest cards I received was from a brother and sister of few worldly goods, who themselves had suffered in the flesh. There was a short, handwritten note in-side the card, written by an unsteady hand in slanted lines, and a misspelled word or two. All of the cards served their purpose, and I was moved and humbled by such an out-pouring of love and prayers on my behalf. I pray that the Lord will remember all for their good deeds, long after I, because of human frailty and forgetfulness, have forgotten the names and messages attached to each card.

But I cannot forget that one small card, containing the full expression of someone’s heart. Like the widow’s mites, that card has an honored place in the treasury of my heart. And if some of us can give no more, we can give our hearts and ourselves to others and to the cause of Christ (cf. Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 8:5).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 9
January 21, 1993

By Carol R. Lumpkin

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58).

The work of the Lord consists of those works authorized by the Lord as recorded in the New Testament. Any work engaged in, in which the Lord has not authorized would be moving away from the Lord without his approval and would be labor in vain. We now mention some (not all) of the works churches of Christ are doing and that without divine authority:

Support of colleges, fellowship halls and/or youth centers, youth camps, ball teams, benevolent institutions, Herald of Truth, benevolent support of non-saints, hospitals, marriage counselors, sponsoring churches to support gospel preaching, and so forth.

John wrote, “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). Elders of the church do not have the approval of God to lead the local church into performing any work not authorized of the Lord. No preacher can contend for the above works and please God. Local members can-not follow elders, or preachers, into such works without also being without God.

Works of the Lord are confined to such works as are found in the New Testament law of Christ. “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). Every work per-formed by the Lord’s church in a given place must fall into one of the above three areas.

The church must preach the gospel of Christ to extent of her ability, both locally and in other places as ability allows (Mk. 16:15-16; Phil. 4:15,18; 1:5; 2 Cor. 11:8). The church does not have the approval of God to assume a work of gospel preaching beyond that which she can fully pay for. Each local church is independent of all other churches of Christ.

The church must edify the local body of saints. This is approval for a place to worship and to have class rooms (Heb. 10:24-25; Acts 2:42; Col. 3:17).

The church must render benevolence to needy saints locally and at other churches as the need arises and according to her ability (Acts 6:1-6; 2:27-30; Rom. 15:25-26,31; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8,9; 1 Tim. 5:14-16).

When the Lord’s church performs these works God is pleased. A church which does any unauthorized work has disobeyed God. This means the entire body is in error and remains in sin until the work is dropped and proper repentance, confession and prayer are made to God (see 1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 8:22).

Paul wrote, “Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:16). “That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). “That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). God expects all churches and brethren to abide by the above rule.

The one and only possible way to comply with the above Scripture is to do what the Lord authorizes and stop there. Any work not sustained by the Lord is of the devil regardless of any possible good realized. Paul wrote that some were saying, “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). Some are still saying the same today let us perform works in addition to what the Lord authorizes that good may come. How unwise! A good lesson in divine authority is in order. Read 2 John 9; Matthew 28:19.

The authority of Jesus is binding today (Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17). We as individuals, though members of a local church, will be judged by the words of Jesus. Jesus said: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48).

I would hate to appear before Jesus on the judgment day and hear him say, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23), because I was not pleased to do what he commanded. This is the state of all churches, individuals, preachers, elders, who make themselves wiser than God (Isa. 55:8-9).

Check the proposed work with the divine pattern; if you find it there perform it with all you might. But if it is not there drop the work as you would a hot potato.

Eve thought she could eat the forbidden fruit; she ate and lost. Nadad and Abihu used a different fire than God required; they lost. A man picked up sticks on the sabbath; he lost. Every church and every individual who adds to God’s law are losers (Rev. 22:18-19; 2 Jn. 9).

Let us all serve God as he authorizes, nothing more, nothing less. This is right for it is the Bible truth for God said it. So be it!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 13
January 21, 1993

By Irvin Himmel

Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint” (Prov. 25:19).

A total loss of confidence in other people can make one lonely and miserable. Some have so soured on the world that they trust no one. They have become cynical, suspicious, and bitter.

There are still some good, reliable folks in this world. And despite the carnal-minded and hypocritical among them, there are Christians who are sincere, God-fearing, and trustworthy.

Due to our inability to accurately measure our acquaintances in every case, and due to the deceptive manners of some, coupled with the fact that people do change, we sometimes misplace our confidence.

Examples of Misplaced Confidence

We sometimes confide in another personal matters which we expect him to hold in strict confidence. He betrays our trust and openly publicizes what we thought he would keep to himself.

We may have confidence in someone’s loyalty to the truth. When the time comes to stand up and be counted on the side of right, instead of contending for the faith, he defects. To say that we are disappointed is an understatement.

A report comes from someone on whom we rely as a trustful person. We believe what he says and proceed on the basis of his testimony. Later we learn, much to our chagrin, that he distorted the facts and misrepresented the whole affair. With a red face and a painful heart we must back track.

We help put a certain man in a position of responsible leadership. We show confidence by recommending him, or suggesting his name, or encouraging him for the task. He proves in time to be fickle. He may display undesirable qualities that we have never seen in him. We regret that our confidence was misplaced.

We have a great deal of personal admiration for someone. We have known him for a long time and feel comfortable in his presence. We esteem him a warm friend. We detect no weaknesses greater than anyone else might have. Then one day like a bolt out of the blue the news comes that he has done some awful thing such as deserting his wife and children for an immoral woman in another city. We are shocked, saddened, and bewildered. What suddenly happened to this man? Our confidence in him is shattered.

These examples could be multiplied. Many times we have placed some degree of confidence in someone who proved to be unreliable, fickle, untrustworthy, or disloyal. A trying experience may have brought his true character to light. Or he may have lost the stability that he once had. Faithful men sometimes change and become faithless.

All of this teaches us to be careful about the people in whom we con-fide, upon whom we rely, for whom we make recommendation, to whom we look for counsel, and with whom we share a common trust.

Broken Tooth and Disjointed Foot

Our proverb compares confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble to a broken tooth and a foot out of joint. Chewing with a bad tooth can be a painful experience. A dislocated foot or unsteady foot is unreliable. Trust in an unreliable man produces disappointment and pain. Putting confidence in an untrustworthy person is like chewing with a broken tooth or walking with a foot out of joint.

Trust in the Lord

Only the Lord can be trusted with the fullest degree of confidence. He is never wrong. He never changes. He is not deceptive. He will not lead us astray. His wisdom is perfect. His character is flawless. He is worthy of our complete confidence.

“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes” (Psa. 118:8,9). The Lord will never disappoint us nor fail us.

“Blessed is the man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies” (Psa. 40:4). The Lord’s word is our only infallible guide. The salvation of the soul is too important to trust human schemes and religious systems.

The psalmist said, “For thou art my hope, 0 Lord God: thou art my trust from my youth” (Psa. 71:5). Today’s youth who talk about “finding themselves” need to trust the Lord. When we turn to God we will find what we need to know about ourselves, our purposes in life, and what our Maker expects of us.

Misplaced confidence is trouble-some trust.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 12
January 21, 1993

By Wayne Goforth

Recently, Southern Christian University (new name for Alabama Christian School of Religion) sent their paper to churches across the country to inform everyone of their name change. In News and Notes (volume 1, number 2) Rex Turner, Sr., co-founder of the school, had some articles at-tempting to justify the school as an adjunct of the church and the schools involvement in missions.

On page 21 there were charts on mission work showing the various “methods” he believes the Bible allows in organizing such. The typical sponsoring church arrangement was presented, using the cooperation of churches in the area of benevolence as his proof. “The argument is that if the sponsoring church concept can be Script rally verified in the benevolence work of the church, then the concept could be employed in supporting missionaries or preachers,” said Doctor Turner. Not only is that a gross assumption on his part, but also he does not then prove a sponsoring church in the area of benevolence. He cites Acts 11:29-30 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 as his examples of such. But, where is the sponsor in these passages? Where is a church taking on a project knowing it is bigger than it can support? Where is the middle man church collecting and overseeing the use of said funds as it is distributed then to other churches? In-stead, these funds were simply sent directly to the destitute church giving us authority for concurrent cooperation, not joint. Though this is standard operating procedure for the institutional mindset, he then took a sharp twist from such in the next part. He raised the question, “Is the sponsoring church concept the only authorized method for sending out missionaries? No.” The article then answered, “. . . (Phil. 4:15) The church sent directly to Paul. To say that one must have a sponsoring church is to make a law where God has not made one.” (Liberals define “Anti” as one who “makes a law where God has not.” Does this mean that those who argue that the sponsoring church is the only correct method are “Anti”? By this, Guy N. Woods, Roy Deaver, Ben Vick, et al, are “Anti,” awg).

Brother Turner even went as far as to admit that churches lose their autonomy under the sponsoring church by saying, “The autonomy of a church is maintained when it sends its support to an individual to do mission work… . There are many churches and individuals who do not want to go through a sponsoring church but would rather have direct contact and reports from the one they are supporting.” I could not have said it better! Thank you, Rex

Turner. One does wonder how he could have begun the article by saying the sponsoring church is scriptural if he admits that autonomy is lost under such a practice?

What makes his appeal to Philippians 4:15-16 so unusual is that this passage has been consistently used in debates by these brethren as a proof text for the sponsoring church. He will no doubt have some backlash from his own brethren in this. The argument generally runs as follows: Philippians 4:15 tells us that only Philippi sent to Pauls needs, while 2 Corinthians 11:8-9 states that many churches came to Pauls assistance. Therefore, it is argued, many churches sent their support through the Philippian church. They have argued that the expression “giving and receiving” of Philippians 4:15 is a banking term indicating that Philippi simply kept the books of all the donations and funneled them on to Paul, diagrammed thusly:

Guy N. Woods, like Rex Turner now, taught the truth on this passage at one time. In his Annual Lesson Commentary of 1946, brother Woods stated “The brethren simply raised money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today” (Via Cogdill-Woods Debate, p. 291). But, in the debate with brother Cogdill, he then denied that Philippians 4:15 is an example of direct support. Brother W.W. Otey taught the truth on this verse in his debate with J.B. Briney in 1908. Brother Otey stated,

Now who sent it? Was it some great missionary society or organization? Oh, no, but the church at Philippi, sent directly to Paul, the man in the field. . . . The largest single working organization in the world for more than 100 years after Christ, was a local congregation” (Otey-Briney Debate, pp. 280-281).

Ben Vick, liberal preacher for the Shelbyville Road church in Indianapolis, Indiana says however,

You cannot prove if your life depended upon it (and your soul may) that Philippi sent directly to Paul. However it is my contention that Philippians 4:15 and 2 Corinthians 11:8 refer to the same thing and that Philippi set up an account to receive monies from churches and then, in turn, sent to Paul. Otherwise, how could Paul have robbed other churches when he says only Philippi sent?

(Personal letter dated 5-19-86 after my coming out of liberalism. The content of his letter is well known, for he has written and debated publicly the same on numerous occasions.) Perhaps we shall soon see a Turner-Vick debate since Vick denied in his 1984 debate with L.A. Stauffer that there is any New Testament example of direct support! Let me know and I shall be most happy to moderate for you, brother Turner!

When properly examined, the incidents of Philippians 4 and of 2 Corinthians 11 actually have more differences than they do similarities:

Philippians 4:15 2 Corinthians 11:8

At the time Paul left 1. At the time Paul was at

Macedonia. Corinth.

Philippi only church 2. Many churches gave

who gave to Paul. to Paul.

Philippi only church 3. Many churches had

who had fellowship fellowship with Paul. with Paul.

 

Can two examples so different be the same case?

Much time and many incidents separate Philippians 4:15 from the occasion of 2 Corinthians 11:8, so that there is not even a chronological connection between the two. In Acts 16 we find Paul along with Luke, Timothy, and Silas at Philippi. Luke remained at Philippi (Acts 16:40) while Paul and the rest went on to Thessalonica (Acts 17:2). Paul and Silas next traveled to Berea (Acts 17:10). Paul then moved on to Athens (Acts 17:16), thus leaving the region of

Macedonia and going to the region of Achaia. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea (Acts 17:14). Paul preached in Achaia waiting for Silas and Timothy to come (Acts 17:15). Paul went to Corinth and made tents (Acts 18:1-3) while he waited for Silas and Timothy to come bringing the sup-port from Macedonia (Acts 18:5; 2 Cor. 11:8-9). From Philippians 4:15 we know that Paul received their support as he was leaving Macedonia (his last stop being Berea). Adam Clark estimates there may have been up to a year between leaving Macedonia and the arrival of Silas and Timothy to Corinth, as mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:8-9.

What then is the meaning of the expression “giving and receiving” in Philippians 4:15? Thayer states, “A giving .. . an account of giving and receiving . . . Phil. 4:15; Here Paul, by a pleasant euphemism, refers to the pecuniary gifts, which the church bestowing them enters in the account of expenses, but he himself in the account of receipts . . . of money given and received.” Thus, Paul is in no wise saying that Philippi kept the books on all transactions of monies which other churches sent to an account at Philippi, and then of transfers and bookkeeping of monies sent from the account at Philip-pi to Paul.

Thank you, brother Turner, for clarifying this passage for your institutional brethren. It is my prayer that you and others will accept this as the pattern and drop the sponsoring church machinery. By your own admission, it is destructive to local church autonomy.

When conservative brethren speak of direct support as op-posed to the sponsoring church, we are labeled as “Anti cooperation” and “Anti evangelism.” Is brother Turner now “Anti Cooperation” and “Anti evangelism” for suggesting concurrent cooperation of churches? If not, will his brethren cease to refer to us in such language? Alas, the “legs of the lame are not equal.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 6
January 21, 1993