Truth Magazine

By Mark White

Many of our brethren across the country are sore distressed by the state of affairs in churches of Christ today. To say that many churches are undergoing change is a gross understatement of the situation. Radical changes in thought toward the authority of the Scriptures are allowing many churches of Christ to take even more liberal views toward the work and worship of the church. With the “New Hermeneutic” as their license (which denies that the New Testament reveals a pattern for our organization, work and worship) the movers and shakers of the institutional churches of Christ are leading their people toward the wholesale acceptance of a myriad of innovations and compromises with denominationalism. Our brethren are rethinking such issues as instrumental music and the role of women in the leadership and worship of the church. Additionally, many brethren area abandoning “book, chapter and verse” preaching and teaching for a modernistic higher criticism that seized the pulpits of denominational churches many years ago. Moral issues such as social drinking, mixed swimming, divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, etc. are no longer dealt with in sermons lest we appear too strict and legalistic. Even the plan of salvation is under serious attack, for many leading, influential elders, preachers, and professors are not too sure that there is a “plan” as we have always preached it. Baptism is being re-thought and re-hashed in many circles, and it appears that before long the necessity of immersion for the remission of sins may become a bone of contention in some churches of Christ.

Within many of the churches troubled by these issues are some brethren who sense strongly that the church is “leaving” them. They see these changes for what they are apostasy – but it is so hard to break long-standing ties with friends and family and leave such rank infidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ and his will. They know the church is not what it should be, nor is it even moving in that direction. The preaching is no longer distinctive, and could be served up in any denominational pulpit in town. They have tried to warn the elders, the preacher, their friends and anyone who will listen. But they are considered “old-fashioned,” “non-progressive,” and even “anti.” Eventually, the elders no longer listen to them. The preacher berates them for trying to hold on to a “1950 mentality.” Each passing week brings more compromise, more innovation, and more liberalism. What must they do if the tide cannot be stemmed?

A Case in Point

King Jeroboam of Israel introduced the apostate worship of idolatrous golden calves in an effort to keep the northern tribes from going to Jerusalem for worship (1 Kgs. 12:26-33). He even appointed non-Levites to his new “priesthood.” Not being able to squelch the apostasy, many Levites had no other recourse but to leave Israel and flee to Judah (2 Chron. 11:13-17). Remaining faithful to God meant separating from their homes and friends with whom they had previously worshipped. Doubtless it was painful to do this, but it resulted in the strengthening of Judah (v. 17). Men and women who stand for the truth always strengthen the people of God who are like-minded.

When John heard the announcement of the imminent destruction of “Babylon,” he heard another angel warn, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities” (Rev. 18:4,5). While opinions vary regarding what “Babylon” is in this symbolic passage, the warning is clear that God’s people must flee from Babylon or perish with her. Even Lot was warned to leave Sodom or be destroyed with the wicked city (Gen. 19:13-14). It is no different today. God’s faithful people must no longer tolerate apostasy.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 491
August 20, 1992

By David E. Discus

Lately, there seems to be more and more evidence that many of the followers of the liberal persuasion are becoming quite apprehensive about the direction that liberalism is taking. Some would like to scale back some of the trends in their liberal activity, but they are at a loss to know how to go about it. Of course they could make a complete about face and stop it all but this would be out of the question. This would make “Antis” out of them and everyone knows that this is a dirty word. It is starting to dawn on them that they have created a monster which is leading them into complete apostasy, if it has not already done so. It is as if they are on run away roller coaster and they would like to stop it and get off.

Recently, this correspondent acquired a copy of a monthly bulletin from a local congregation which strongly supports liberalism. In it was a very impressive article entitled Dangers and Advice. It was written by a preacher who has been advocating liberality around Chattanooga for many years. Much of the discourse dealt with some of the same problems we of the conservative persuasion have been cautioning them about all along. The article had some sound scriptural advice and would fit very nicely in some of our conservative papers as far as it went. The only problem was that this author shunned to declare all the counsel (Acts 20:27) and stopped short of calling attention to some of the major causes of the dilemma they now find themselves in.

The article started out by quoting our beloved old modern patriarch, brother N.B. Hardeman, on his fear of the direction that the church was heading 50-55 years ago. (Be aware that this was before liberalism had gained any sort of a foothold. – DED) According to the article, when asked what dangers he saw in the Church in his day, brother Hardeman replied:

1. A lack of Bible knowledge and a light regard with what it says.

2. A tendency to make the church a social club or entertainment center.

3. A disposition to compromise the truth and discourage sound preaching.

4. A love for the praise of men more than the praise of God, lest they should be put out of someone’s social circle.

Using these four points as a basis, our liberal author commented on how the church seemed to be drifting toward apostasy by trying to be like all the nations (1 Sam. 8:20). He said “we” are getting away from the simplicity of the Bible, and preachers are doing more lecturing instead of preaching. He pointed out that worldliness in the church is wide spread, and that emphasis on entertainment was turning it into a social club.

It is evident that this author is not fully informed about brother Hardeman’s position on liberalism. It has been this writer’s understanding that he opposed any sort of organization that collected funds from other congregations and Christians to do the work that the Bible assigned to the local congregation and/or its members. This would include such things as a sponsoring congregation, Board of Elders, or any structure doing work reserved for the local church and its members. It was his belief that there is no scriptural precedent for these things. Also, that it gives the individual a false sense of security that he has fulfilled his responsibilities as a Christian, when he drops his contribution into the collection plate.

About 150 years ago, the Church of Christ and the Christian Church divided over what most people consider the instrumental music question. What has not been as well publicized, was this concept of a centralized headquarters designed to collect and dispurse funds for missionary work (Reference – Christian Missionary Society). It is hard to understand why institutional people cannot see that this is nothing more than history repeating itself. On the other hand, maybe it is to be expected. It is rumored that some “ultra-liberals” are now advocating a merger with the Christian Church.

Brother Hardeman expressed a fear that the day would come when Christian colleges would accept and/or solicit congregational funds. That day has arrived. In fact as you look at the many institutional practices today it seems that most anything goes. As indicated above, the institutional element is rapidly becoming just like any other denomination.

Just as in all digressive movements, the changes did not come all at once. Rather, they occurred slowly at first but gathered speed over the years. It all began with the seemingly innocent concept of the Herald of Truth and today it has evolved into a multimillion dollar boondoggle of one nation under God. Once the barriers were broken down there was no stopping the movement. It will continue to gather momentum until what is claimed to be the church that Christ built will no longer resemble New Testament specifications. Could this be the “lack of Bible knowledge and a light regard with what it says” that brother Hardeman had in mind? Or is it his “disposition to compromise the truth and discourage sound doctrine”?

Our author quoted brother Hardeman as saying there was a tendency to make the church into a social club or entertainment center. Yet in the same bulletin in which is article appeared, the number of announcements of social events for the congregation exceeded the announcements about worship services. It is doubtful that he was even aware of this inconsistency. This writer does not wish to sound vindictive nor to single out any specific congregation, but this particular example just happened to be readily available. It is highly typical of the situation as it exists among institutional churches today.

Items number 3 and 4 of the quotes from brother Hardeman should present little cause for friction between conservatives and liberals. It seems conservative brethren are just as guilty as liberals. Both groups have members who tend to compromise the truth and discourage sound preaching, and both have their share of individuals who seek the praise of men rather than the praise of God. This is a common problem about which neither group can afford to point an accusing finger. Rather they ought to be quick to welcome suggestions that would improve the situation. Most conservative advocates, who have ignored the praise of men and spoken out against liberalism, certainly know what it means to be put out of the social circle of the liberals. This was/and is a powerful ploy used against anyone who refused(s) to go along with the concepts of liberality. In fact it was this attitude that gave rise to the demeaning term “anti.” Brother Hardeman’s fear was justified. Social pressure did become a powerful tool that caused untold numbers of Christians to walk the primrose path of liberalism.

The author of Dangers and Signs ended his article with the old plea that we go back to the Bible and the Bible alone. That we speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent. This is indeed very excellent advice. However, if he applies the Bible and the Bible alone to the concepts of Liberalism, he is going to have to remain silent. He will not find any scriptural justification for his liberal activity. This has always been (and still is) a major argument of the people who oppose liberalism.

If, indeed, the assumption that the liberal persuasion is becoming apprehensive about their movement, it is curious that they have not come forward with any ideas as to how solve the problems. Do they suggest that some of their practices be discontinued? If so which ones or how many? Do they plan any cut backs on social functions or organizations supplementing the local congregation? Just what would they be willing to concede? It is indeed strange that we never hear any concrete suggestions that would help to alleviate their problems. Like the Bereans of old, would they be willing to receive the word with all readiness of mind and search the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11)?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, pp. 501-503
August 20, 1992

By William V. Beasley

One of the great themes of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the superiority of the new dispensation over the old one. This is taught each time; with but one exception (6:9), the word “better” (Gr., kreitton “better; i.e. a. more useful, more serviceable . . . b. more excellent. . .” – Thayer, 359) is found. The English word “better” is found thirteen times in Hebrews. In fact, “better” is found more often in Hebrews than in any other New Testament book. It is found more only in Proverbs (20 times) and Ecclesiastes (23 times). The gospel dispensation is shown to be superior by having, among other things, a better.- (1) Hope – 7:19; (2) Testament – 7:22; (3) Covenant – 8:6; (4) Promises – 8:6; (5) Sacrifices -9:23; (6) Possession – 10:34; (7) Country – 11:16; (8) Resurrection – 11:35.

After having demonstrated the superiority of the new covenant, the author shows (Heb. 13:10-14, our text) that it is in fact exclusive. It is not a question of degrees (good, better, best) and of being able to choose. The “better” is the one and only one.

It is a question of “We” versus “They.” “We” are Christians, those of the new, better covenant; “They” are those people remaining in Judaism, serving at the physical tabernacle. The “altar” is by metonymy (a figure of speech; li., change of name), Christ himself. To eat (partake) of the altar is to partake of the sacrifice on or of the altar (see Jn. 6:53-55). Remember: “they have no right to eat” (13:10).

A reason is given from the Old Testament to explain why “they have no right to eat” (13:10). “For” (13:11) ties what is to be said back with what has already been said; the sin offering was to burned “without the camp” (13:11; see Exod. 29:14; Lev. 4:12, 21; 9:11; 16:27). I do not know if the Jews, as they burned the sin offering without the camp, understood the significance of their actions or if they understood the import of the Old Testament passages or not. The Hebrew writer did; it was to typify the coming Messiah’s death. “Wherefore” (13:12) ties this verse with what has just preceded. “Jesus . . . suffered without the gate” (13:12; see Jn. 19:17). The suffering of Jesus without the gate/camp disassociated him and all blessings in him from the old covenant. The blood of Jesus was shed for those who lived under the old covenant (Heb. 9:15), but that ceased when the old was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). All who would come to Jesus, both Jew and Gentile, must come to him without the camp (13:13), i.e., outside of Judaism, outside the precepts of the old law.

The application in context is, as we have already said, to Judaism, to the law of Moses. The Jews were now free from the man-made corruptions of the law of Moses; they were to come to Jesus separate from the law of Moses as it was revealed by God. They were set free from all of the law (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:13-17 [“shadow” – Heb. 8:5; 10:1]).

Jews had to come to Jesus without the camp,- they had to leave the religion of the law of Moses, Judaism. No right thinking man would advocate that Gentiles, who never were under the law of Moses, are to go back to Judaism. Sad to say some do so teach (premillennialism, dispensationalism). To appeal to the law of Moses for authority to do anything is to attempt to go back under the old law (Gal. 5:4).

This principle (“without the camp”) plus other passages of Scripture shows that other applications can be/should be made. We can be impressed with the exclusiveness of the gospel system (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-27; Matt. 10:34-39; 15:13; Jn. 14:6).

One must come to Jesus without the camp of paganism and/or idolatry. One cannot come to Jesus and continue to serve at the altar of an idol (Matt. 6:4). I have read of American Indians who practice their native religion . . . and are members of some denominational church. They have not, in fact, come to Jesus. To come to Jesus one must leave the idol (Col. 3:5) of modern America, covetousness.

Jesus is to be found, as a Redeemer and constant Guide, only when one is without the camp of worldliness. The worldly man is a “profane person” (Heb. 12:16; see also 1 Tim. 1:9; 4:7; 6:20). The fornicator is not the only profane person. This would include all who: (1) Treat the religion of Jesus Christ with contempt; (2) Are “too busy” for the Lord, worship services, speaking to others about the Saviour; (3) The “Here and Now’ers.” Worldliness also refers to all liars (Rev. 21:8). Included are the religious liars, those who know (?) more about what pleases God or is acceptable to him than God himself. These reveal themselves with such statements as: “I know the Bible teaches ________ , but I believe ” or “I wouldn’t trade what I feel/have in my heart for . . . Truly, man must learn to “Let God be found true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

“Let us therefore go forth unto him without the camp” (13:13) of denominationalism (Eph. 4:4 [1:22-23]; Matt. 15:13). Denominationalism is the exact opposite of that for which Jesus prayed (Jn. 17:20-21). Can we obey 1 Corinthians 1:10 while we teach different doctrines (different from one another and different from the word of God)? Wear different religious titles? Are members of different churches (so-called)? How can we obey the precept of Romans 3:4? We must learn to give Book, Chapter and Verse for all that we believe, teach or practice. We must learn to respect the silence of the Scriptures (Heb. 7:11-14).

Jesus Christ suffered without the gate, showing that one must come to him without the camp of Judaism in order to be saved (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Let us, you and me, determine to come to Jesus without the camps of idolatry/paganism, worldliness and/or denominationalism that we might serve God in the one body, the one church.

To do so will place you in the position of “bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:13), and also give the promise of dwelling in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 13:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, pp. 466-467
August 6, 1992

By P.J. Casebolt

A good preacher’s wife would be the female counterpart of what some brethren consider to be the ideal preacher. She would be the composite of a woman 39 years old, with 35-40 years of experience; a mixture of blonde, brunette, redhead; outgoing, yet reserved; always with her husband, but never away from her children; stands beside him in the pulpit and at the door as he shakes hands with the congregation, but stays in the background; fashionable and attractive, yet plain; a social butterfly who is conversant on every topic, but never gossips.

What I mean to say is that no two preachers are the same from the standpoint of personality and ability, yet we have arbitrary concepts of what “a good preacher’s wife” should be.

I was preaching for several years before I was married, and I would have to be a polygamist if I had married all the woman that brethren (and sisters) told me would make a good preacher’s wife. But, according to some preachers now, I could have done that as an alien sinner, and baptism would have washed away all the polygamy, if not the wives, Of course, I would have to have done it (the marrying), in a country where polygamy was lawful. And every single preacher and every preacher who has become a widower knows whereof I speak.

When I went to one congregation for a meeting, the brethren had three prospects that would make me a good preacher’s wife. One was not a Christian, one was only half-converted, and the other one was 15 years older than I was. I guess the latter would be somewhere around 80 now, and brethren would be gossiping as to why I married a woman 15 years my senior.

The sectarian concept of a good preacher’s wife for me would be embodied in the title, “Evangelist and Mrs. P.J. Casebolt” – a husband and wife team with the wife singing or playing special music or testifying publicly about what a good preacher her husband was. And the modern concept of assigning (or usurping) public roles for women in the assemblies of the church is becoming all too prevalent among the Lord’s people. For the benefit of those who have never read their Bibles, or who have never heard “their” preacher teach on the subject, I refer you to such passages as 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and Titus 2:3-5.

I have no objection to a preacher’s wife, or any other woman, teaching children or other women. And if the preacher’s wife is capable of doing this in her home congregation, or in a meeting where her husband is preaching (both by invitation), I have no problem with that as long as she behaves like a woman should and doesn’t neglect her other duties as a wife and mother.

Brethren have prayed for me and my wife, and for our family, and such prayers were and are appreciated. But I think (and hope) that they understand my wife’s role in her relationship to the preacher as well as I understand it. But within the past few years I keep getting the impression that some folks are making arbitrary qualifications for preacher’s wives which may make it either impossible or unscriptural for the next generation of preachers to find “a good preacher’s wife.”

Even as one preacher may have talents above and beyond those of other preachers, that doesn’t mean that all preachers have to possess those talents. In a verse, the qualifications for a good preacher or “minister” (1 Tim. 4:6) are stated in 2 Timothy 2:2 – “faithful” and “able.” And while one preacher’s wife may have talents not possessed by other women, it doesn’t follow that we should use one woman’s talents as a criterion for all preacher’s wives.

Some preachers are married before they decide to preach. Must they trade in their wife for “a good preacher’s wife”? Some preachers quit preaching for different reasons, but should they trade their wife to some other preacher who needs “a good preacher’s wife” (by brotherhood standards)? I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s the way I intend for it to sound, to get my point across.

Some preachers’ wives have all that they can do being a wife (“help meet” – suitable) to their husbands and a mother (or grandmother) to their children. They may have to try much harder than the many-talented women who can do several things well.

A good wife will make a good farmer’s wife, a good carpenter’s wife, a good lawyer’s wife, a good doctor’s wife – or a good preacher’s wife. And God will be satisfied, and so should the brethren.

“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord” (Prov. 18:22). And the good wife of Proverbs 31 is not necessarily a preacher’s wife. But if a preacher has a wife like that, “she shall be praised” (v. 30), by the preacher, by her children, and by the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 487
August 20, 1992