Truth Magazine

By John Shadowens

From the New International Version (NIV), Galatians 5:15 reads, “If you keep on biting and devouring each other watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” These verses are the opposite of verses 13-14 where Paul tells these Galatians to serve God and love one another.

Often, a congregation is destroyed by internal strife. By this I mean the brethren are self-seekers and they wear their feelings on their sleeves. They wait for something to happen so they can quit, go somewhere else, or jump right down the throat of another. They also serve as judge, jury and executioner. Such characterized the early church in Corinth, and maybe at Galatia, as might be implied from the words written by the apostle Paul when referring to biting and devouring one another.

Let us think about the church for a moment. The church is the called out body of people to receive eternal life, and to set forth a good and proper example for the world to see. The church is the most blessed of people. The church should always strive to eliminate the self-righteous and critical spirit. Where there is always strife, self-righteousness and perpetual criticism, it is difficult for a local church to make any progress. When people leave for reasons that are not friendly, they may take these feelings ot other places or quit going all together. They may talk about brother and sister so-and-so who said or did something to them. The work that they leave is going to suffer tremendously. In fact, the church may never recover from the reputation it has received over the years. Thus, we should be able to see the wisdom of God when the apostle Paul wrote these brethren that biting and devouring one another can result in destroying the entire church.

“What can I do?” is a fair question. It is obvious that anyone who has come on the scene, after the church has received the damage done to it, that the road is a difficult one, but not impossible. If all brethren would cease being critical of one another, quit speaking evil to and about one another, then this would be a great start. We are often a people who have forgotten the meaning of Jesus’ words about long-suffering. Do you remember what Jesus said about the woman taken in the very act of adultery in John 8? He told those who were doing the accusing, “if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” At this time those who heard began to go away one by one. Why is it that brethren want to destroy the unity of the local church? Why do brethren want to continually fight and cripple the work? There is in the church personality differences. There will always be, and if that is the case, then make sure all is done to work toward peace (Rom. 12:18), and continue to worship God in an acceptable manner. Why open your mouth and bite and devour another causing a terrible mess and wreck of the work? Now, if sin is involved, that certainly needs to and must be dealt with. It must be exposed and done away with and the perpetrator must face the consequences. This though, is not what this article is all about. This article is about getting along with brothers and sisters in Christ and worshiping God together so we can all get to heaven. This writing is about doing the Lord’s work in an acceptable manner so the Heavenly Father will be pleased and will bless and give increase. This is about conducting oneself as Christians should. This is about encouraging brethren to see that internal actions can cause external harm. What each of us ought to resolve to do is: To love their neighbor as himself. Apply James 1:19, “My dear brother, take note of this: everyone should be quick to listen, slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires” (NIV).In so doing, we might be surprised at what God would do for us. Another benefit is that righteousness breeds righteousness. But if brethren continue to bite and devour one another that church will sit dormant for years to come and may possibly cease to exist. We do know that a church can lose its candlestick (Rev. 2:5)!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 15, p. 467
August 6, 1992

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

In August of 1956, 1 heard the late brother Gardner Hall preach on “The Baptism of Diotrephes.” I recall very little of the sermon beyond the announcement of the title and brother Hall’s unique way of introducing it. It went something like this:

We do not know who baptized Diotrephes. We do not know when or where he was baptized. We only know that he must have been baptized somewhere by someone, since he was a member of the church. All we know for sure about his baptism is that with it the church received a first class troublemaker.

Brother Hall then went on to say that it is a pity that about all we can say about some members of the church is that when they were baptized that the church received trouble rather than an asset.

I was a very young and inexperienced preacher. I am sure I had read Third John before, but had not been impressed with this character, Diotrephes. I knew little about congregational problems, so had little to which I could relate the application of his sermon. In the years since, I have come to know churches whose effectiveness has either been greatly hampered or even destroyed because they have allowed themselves to be dominated by a modern Diotrephes. Let me remind you of what John said about Diotrephes:

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who love to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church (3 Jn. 9).

How could a church become a victim of such a church bully? How does such a church dictator gain enough power to lord his will over a whole congregation? These questions were raised in my mind when this passage was first called to my attention by brother Hall’s sermon. As I have since meditated on this passage and personally observed a few modern cases, I think I have a better insight in to it now. Though I have known so very few churches who, in my judgment, were under the power of such a person, those I have known have truly suffered at their hands. Among the church bullies I have known, one was an elder, one was a preacher and another was “just a member” of the congregation. In each case they all had a common denominator they loved preeminence and would do almost anything to gain it over their brethren.

Such a person seldom stops until either his control over the church is near absolute or the church is in shambles. It is his way or no way. His self-evaluated superior judgment must reign supreme or else. He seldom stops until he can yell “jump” and the brethren reply, “How high?’9 It matters little to him how many are hurt or how much confusion is created on his way to gaining control of the church.

If one, like Diotrephes, could ascend to such power in a church during the apostles’ lifetime, how much more likely is it to happen today? Sometimes it takes place with good brethren being almost powerless to prevent it. However, if brethren can identify a preeminence lover early and understand how he maneuvers his way into position, it will go a long to minimizing the damage he can do.

So, we again we raise the question, “How can a Diotrephes happen?” We need to understand, first, that one cannot do it alone. He must have either the support or acquiescence of other members of the church. As a starter, he can generally count on that goodly number who are going to remain passive, regardless of what happens. They will not actively support wrong, but they are not going to actively oppose it either. A Diotrephes may not gain their active support, nor will he ever provoke their active resistance.

In most cases, like a school-yard bully, he gains the active support of a few disgruntled cohorts who, for reasons of their own, are willing to join hands with him in his work. From this power nucleus, unless stopped early, he gradually extends his power over the rest of the congregation until his judgment becomes the law for that church.

A Diotrephes usually skillfully makes use of three powerful tools to reach his ambitious goal of controlling the church -captivation, intimidation and elimination.

Captivation

At first, he wins as many supporters as possible by turning on his charming personally. Like the young man out to win the heart and consent of an innocent young maiden, he zealously circulates among unsuspecting members of the congregation, zealously courting them with “smooth words and flattering speech” (cf. Rom. 16:17,18), sometimes even showering them with gifts and favors. Paul, in another place, mentions such captivators: “They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them ” (Gal. 4:17 with emphasis mine). Those first century self-serving courters had an advantage of sorts over Paul. Paul was duty bound to tell the Galatian brethren the truth – no matter what. He must tell them what they needed to hear, not merely court their favor. So, he raised the rhetorical question, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (v. 16) in contrast to those who were courting the brethren for their own purposes.

One seeking preeminence over people is usually a good student of human nature and the art of having one’s way with people. He knows how to cleverly manipulate their base yearnings and anxieties to his advantage. Man’s basic desires for attention, acceptance, approval, or affluence can be skillfully used by a would-be Diotrephes to gain control over his brethren. It matters not whether he can deliver these things, as long as people think he can.

Of those modern Diotrepheses that we can observe, such courting or charming is their first and most productive approach. They use the dangling carrot to the fullest before bringing out their sticks. But, since they are seldom able to gain complete control over the congregation through captivation, they now must take additional measures.

Intimidation

Having failed to charm all the brethren into subjection, the Diotrephes now rips off his sweet-spirited mask and begins to play hard ball. He proceeds to whip the remaining hold-outs into line through intimidation. The Diotrephes of 3 John used “malicious words” against those who stood in his way of complete control.

Some brethren, though they may be as harmless as doves, are as wise as serpents and can see right through a veneer of “smooth words and flattering speech.” They are not fooled for a minute. Brother Diotrephes must, somehow, gain control over these brethren. Smooth words have failed, now it is time to beat them into subjection with malicious words, if he can. Where enticements fail – attacks and/or threats often succeed. He now plays on their fears, rather than their aspirations. So, brethren often cease all resistance and let him have his way, rather than subject themselves to continual verbal abuse.

If he does not get his way, he may threaten them, personally or collectively as the church, for not yielding to his judgment. Such a person often threatens to leave the congregation, taking with him those under his influence. So, not only would the church lose members, it would also likely lose money and talents. So, intimidated by the threat, brethren yield rather than run that risk. So, he has now extended his control a step further.

Elimination

Now the very few who were not wooed by his sweet courting nor intimidated by his malicious words, still stand in the way of his complete control. It is elimination time. Note what John said Diotrephes did: “And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. ” As long as he gets his way, a Diotrephes cares not how many good brethren he eliminates – either by driving them away or wrongfully “putting them out of the church.” His basic problem is his love for preeminence and he will resort to any measure to get it.

Brethren, if you have in your midst one that is showing signs of seeking preeminence over his brethren, you need to keep an eye on him. When and if he begins to form a faction around himself, deal with him early (cf. Tit. 3:10) or he will make havoc of the church. The sad truth is, he may gain the upper-hand before his true character manifests itself to enough people to stop him. We need to study diligently and regularly pray for wisdom and courage so that perhaps we can keep the church where we worship from being ruined by a modern Diotrephes.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, pp. 483-484
August 20, 1992

By Mike Willis

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11).

On his second missionary journey, Paul left Philippi where Lydia and the Philippian jailer were converted and went to Thessalonica. Having arrived in the city, Paul entered the synagogue to announce to the Jews the good news that the prophesied Christ had come and established the kingdom of God. For three consecutive Sabbaths, he preached in the synagogue and converted several Jews and many of the God-fearing proselytes, including some of the chief women of the city.

His success stirred the jealousy of the Jews. Rather than taking the Scriptures and showing Paul where he was preaching that which was not true (which was impossible because he was teaching the truth), the Jews in Thessalonica arranged for some of the wicked men of the city to create a disturbance aimed at Paul. Not finding Paul in the house of Jason, they dragged Jason to the rulers of the city and brought false charges against him. The Christians saw that Paul must leave Thessalonica. During the night, they helped Paul leave the city. He went to Berea.

He found a different audience in Berea. These men were “more noble than those in Thessalonica.” Their nobleness did not consist in their birthright, wealth, or position in society. Luke describes what constituted their nobility: they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. True nobility still has these attributes.

True Nobility

True nobility requires a ready mind to receive the word of God. The word of God is not to be forced upon unwilling minds. The Lord himself taught, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matt. 7:6). Sometimes we waste our time trying to reach those who make perfectly obvious that they have no interest in the “pearl of great price.” The Lord’s instructions teach us to turn from such people and search for those who are good and honest in heart. We cannot and should not “cram the gospel down the throats” of those who are not interested.

True nobility requires that we test the message which is taught. That which will free us from sin is the truth (Jn. 8:32). False doctrine and error will lead one away from God. Jesus said, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). We do not want to be “blind followers” of “blind leaders.” Consequently, we must beware of false teachers. Jesus taught us to “beware of false prophets” (Matt. 7:15). John instructed, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

The Bereans had learned this concept. Consequently, when Paul came to Berea, they listened to his preaching and “tried the spirit” to see if the things taught were so. The truth will shine where such attitudes prevail.

Gospel preachers have publicly announced that the truth has nothing to fear from investigation. If we are preaching something which anyone believes not to be true, we will be glad to listen to what he has to say and search the Scriptures to see if the things which are taught are so. In our quest for the truth, we have gladly provided for such discussions in honorable debate. Honorable men have presented both sides of an issue to give the audience an opportunity to 4 ‘search the Scriptures to see if the things which are taught are so.”

False doctrine cannot survive and thrive where this attitude prevails. False doctrine wants to hide behind the pleasant personality of back slappers with a smile on their face. False doctrine does not want to be investigated in the light of the Scriptures.

Just as we fear false prophets and their false doctrines, we fear those who want to undermine the open investigation of truth. From time to time, we hear someone condemning debates. Many times those who condemn debates have never even attended one to know what occurs in such studies; on other occasions someone has gone to one where poor attitudes were shown. Despite the fact that some debates have occurred in which poor attitudes were displayed Oust as there have been some sermons delivered and classes taught in which poor attitudes were displayed), we would err to throw out all debates because of a few abuses. Debates have served the Lord’s kingdom well in helping honest-hearted men search the Scriptures to see if the things which are taught are so. Many have been converted through the good done in such discussions. When debates were prevalent with denominational preachers, the Lord’s church was one of the fastest growing religious groups in America. Denominationalism soon learned that debates were doing them no good and ceased participating in them.

A New Spirit

A new spirit is growing among us. This spirit fears and hates controversy. This spirit does not want preaching which contrasts the false doctrines of denominationalism with the truths of Scripture. This spirit will not listen when someone challenges the teaching of another. This spirit views opposition to the teaching of certain revered men as a work of the flesh. This spirit is unwilling to provide for open discussion of issues on which brethren differ. This spirit is the seed bed for false doctrine!

In the recent book The Cruciform Church (published by Abilene Christian University Press), C. Leonard Allen explained that some among us “have not intentionally rejected the traditional method (of hermeneutics, that is the restoration plea, mw) but, weary with the pugnacious, debate-all-comers attitude nurtured have found themselves spiritually malnourished, hungry for the things of the Spirit” (19-20). In The Worldly Church (published by Abilene Christian University Press), Allen, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed made the same change saying, “Others, having associated a rigourous method with the hard and ugly sectarian spirit that did incalculable damage to our movement for so many years, may now resist a rigorous message of any sort” (2). They continued, “in the old days we often nurtured a rigid dogmatic, sectarian spirit” (7). They added that men were looking for a positive alternative “to the negativism, the sectarian diviseness, the debating, and the argumentative spirit that often dominated the church’s past” (38).

Some among us have described those who expose both the false doctrines which circulate among us and those who teach them as “professional buzzards” who “circle, swoop, and devour.” They have been maligned with loving an argument, being contentious, and self-promoting. They are caricatured as a group who fancy themselves the keepers of the kingdom like the spiritual F.B.I. Men who have exposed the false doctrines on divorce and remarriage taught publicly by well-known preachers have been publicly maligned both orally and in print. The effect of such treatment of brethren is to discourage the spirit of trying the spirits to see whether or not what is taught is the truth.

The devil has succeeded in deluding a number of brethren into thinking that “true nobility” consists in rising above controversy. The devil teaches that “true nobility” means avoiding the brotherhood fights. The devil has persuaded some into thinking that a lower class of brethren engage in debates over such issues as divorce and remarriage, institutionalism, baptism, apostasy, etc. In a former generation, the men who met false teachers in public debate to expose their errors were honored. We respected W. Curtis Porter, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., N.B. Hardeman, Roy E. Cogdill, and a host of others. A man who was unwilling to defend what he preached was not honored among us. But another generation has risen. Men who engage in debates are viewed as factional know-it-alls who are going around looking for a fight. Truly “noble brethren” preach a positive message without engaging in “brotherhood dog fights.” Those brethren who oppose the false doctrines circulated by false teachers among us are to be tolerated, not honored. Papers which expose the false doctrines which are circulating among us and those who teach them are an embarrassment to the cause of Christ. Such magazines are to be hidden from new converts and weak Christians. “Positive” papers which have a policy precluding controversy are preferred by some.

That the devil has succeeded in redefining true nobility is ironic. He has made many believe that true nobility consists in exactly the opposite of what God considers to be the marks and traits of a noble character.

Conclusion

Let us revive the traits of true nobility. Because of our respect for the truth which frees us from sin, let us treasure it above all else. Let us pursue it. Let us examine everything which calls itself truth in the light of the Scriptures. Let us show no respect of persons in “trying the spirits” (1 Jn. 4:1). None of us is infallible.

Let us teach our children to bring their Bibles to church and follow along when the lesson is presented to see if the things which are taught are so. In this manner we can rear noble-minded children who search the Scriptures to see if the things which are taught are so. As these noble minds prevail we prepare the soil in the hearts of our children for the truth to prevail. False doctrine cannot long survive in the hearts of those who “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, pp. 482, 502-503
August 20, 1992

By Joe R. Price

Scientists recently announced the discovery of gaseous residue in far off outer space which they believe is evidence supporting the “Big-Bang” theory of the origin of the universe (a primeval explosion which they conjecture created the universe 15 billion years ago).

Now, theologians are heralding the harmony between the Big-Bang theory and the biblical theme of creation. Rev. Frederic B. Burnham, a science historian and director of the Trinity Institute said, “Christian cosmology and the Big Bang are very compatible understandings of the arrow of time . . . there was a beginning and there will be an end” (The Salt Lake Tribune, April 25, 1992, A-1).

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans showed that 47 percent believe that mankind was created by God in the last 10,000 years. Only 9 percent polled said they believed mankind evolved without God, while 40 percent stated a belief that mankind has evolved during millions of years, but that God guided this process (Ibid.). This last figure is interesting. Many people are convinced they can harmonize the theory of organic evolution with the biblical record of divine creation. It cannot be done. One must either deny the inspired record of creation or give up the humanistic philosophy of general evolution. The question is: “Will we believe the Bible or not?”

The Bible says that God created the universe, including man, in six days (Gen. 1; Exod. 20:8-11). In attempting to harmonize his faith with scientific theory, the religious evolutionist changes the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1 to “eons” or “ages.” This is presumptuous handling of the word of God without grammatical support (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15).

Organic evolution says man is an animal who arrived here by chance. The Bible says man is the result of the deliberate, creative planning of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Theistic evolution cannot make these points agree.

Organic evolution asserts that man evolved from a one-celled creature to the fully developed organism he is today. The Bible says exactly the opposite. It reveals the creation of a man mature in body and intellect. The evolutionary theologians don’t like to discuss this!

No, God is not an evolutionist! God did not use organic evolution and natural selection to create and develop humanity. Divine command produced the heavens and the earth: “By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Psa. 33:6). Let there be no mistake: Theistic evolutionists are infidels who deny the biblical record of creation! Male and female were made ‘!from the beginning of the creation” (Mk. 10:6). So said Jesus.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 486
August 20, 1992