Truth Magazine

By David L. Eubanks

(Editor’s Note: Shortly after the following article appeared in the 10 November 1991 issue of Christian Standard, I contacted Editor Sam Stone and obtained permission to reprint this article. Having obtained permission, I prepared a reply to the article and sent it to brother Eubanks requesting permission to reprint his article and extending to him an opportunity to answer my reply in the same issue of Guardian of Truth. He wrote giving me permission to publish his article but declining the offer to answer my reply.

Eubanks has written a good explanation and defense of the unity-in-diversity approach to the issue of mechanical instruments of music in worship. This is the popular approach to the instrumental music question which is having a great impact among our institutional brethren. Too, a similar appeal for unity-in-diversity has been made among us for fellowshipping those who are teaching and practicing loose doctrinal positions on divorce and remarriage. For these reasons, this material deserves a rebuttal. Please consider this article carefully and my reply to it which begins on p. 18.)

I have the greatest respect for many of our brothers and sisters who prefer to worship without the instrument, particularly those who do not believe that it should be made a test of fellowship. I even respect the zeal and commitment of many of those who believe that it is a matter of faith, although I do not agree with them.

At the same time, I am forced to the conclusion that the devil has used this controversy to sow the seed of discord among the brethren and hinder the growth of the church of Jesus Christ.

In this article I wish to explain my reasons for believing that the use of instrumental music in corporate worship should not be made a test of fellowship. I would sincerely hope that this paper would be the source of healing and harmony rather than productive of more discord over this troublesome question.

The use of instrumental music in corporate worship should be considered a matter of preference and forbearance. There is some indication that singing with instrumental accompaniment was prophesied and commanded of Christians. Psalm 87:5-7 reads, “As of Zion it shall be said . . . ‘the singers as the players on instruments shall be there: all my springs are in thee.”‘

Many Bible scholars agree that these words were a prophecy of the church of Jesus Christ and are fulfilled in the church. If so, then the psalmist prophesied that there would be the players on instruments as well as the singers in the church.

In Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 Paul commands us to admonish one another with psalms. In James 5:13 we are commanded to sing psalms when we are merry. The words psalmos (noun) used in Ephesians and Colossians and psallo (verb) in James – in their root meaning – refer to striking, twitching, or twanging on a musical instrument. There is little doubt that in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament they refer to singing with a stringed instrument, generally a harp.

Some people consider the above Scriptures alone to constitute a positive command that instrumental music be a part of the worship of the New Testament church. Why then would it be a matter of forbearance?

First, because an understanding of these Scriptures requires a measure of interpretation. Some Bible scholars do not feel that Psalm 87 refers to the church. If they are honest in their questioning, then their consciences must be considered. Some scholars suggest that, although psallo and psalmos referred to singing a sacred song with the accompaniment of a stringed instrument in the Old Testament, they refer merely to the singing of a song of praise in the New Testament.

From my study, I would say that the arguments on both sides are inconclusive.

Perhaps my major reason for treating it as a matter of forbearance is that we have no New Testament precedent for the complete list of complements to a corporate worship service.

Acts 2:42 indicates that the Jerusalem church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. From this text and others, we conclude that these elements should be included in the Lord’s Day gathering of the church.

However, if this text is considered to provide complete instruction for corporate worship activities, then singing itself would be excluded. Such is not the case. Paul recognizes that one or more people in the Corinthian church had presented a psalm in the assembly and seems to approve the practice if it were done decently and in order.

In the absence of any inclusive list of expedients for corporate worship in the New Testament, we must be forbearing in the use or non-use of musical instruments to accompany singing. It is not facetious to suggest that church buildings, hymn books, Bible-school literature, tuning forks, and other expedients for corporate worship that have been commonly accepted fall into a category that also includes musical instruments to accompany singing. An expedient is not a necessity but an aid to those who use it wisely.

It is argued that musical instruments have been misused n the corporate worship of the church. Indeed, sometimes they have. So have church buildings, but they are not rejected as sinful simply because of that fact.

Making instrumental music in worship a test of fellowship is inconsistent with one of the most precious principles of the New Testament and the restoration movement. The issue over instrumental music is not a subject on which there is a clear “thus saith the Lord.” To make the use or non-use of it a test of fellowship is to reject the founding principle of our movement: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

Speaking where the Scriptures are silent can be almost as dangerous and divisive as failing to speak where they speak. Those who follow such a course have difficulty stopping with instrumental music. Many of them have also divided with brothers over Bible-school literature, orphans’ homes, the use of multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.

The clearest answer to the controversy over instrumental music in the restoration movement is the solution Paul gave to the church at Rome over the issue of eating unclean meat. The great apostle contended that there is room in the church for both those who eat meat and those who do not. There is room in the church for those who prefer to sing with an instrument in corporate worship and those who do not.

The redeeming principle is that no person judge his brother (or sister) in these matters. That position belongs to Christ alone (Rom. 14:4,10).

Thomas Campbell made this same point in his Declaration and Address of 1809. He wrote in proposition three: “Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion; but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them, in the Word of God.”

Again in proposition six he affirmed: “Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word: yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so.”

What do these propositions say to the controversy over instrumental music? They say the same thing that Paul said in Romans 14. One may infer from the New Testament ‘that instrumental music should or should not be used in worship. He may even consider his deductions to be the teaching of Scripture. He cannot, however, judge the conscience of a congregation in this matter.

J.W. McGarvey, who was strongly opposed to instrumental music in worship and belonged to a non-instrument church, did not believe that it should be made a test of salvation. In fact, he was a contributing editor to the Christian Standard, which took a different position than he did on the subject. He stated his personal views with force and conviction, but he refused to judge his brother’s conscience on this nonessential issue.

Most of the passages of Scripture that are used to condemn instrumental music in corporate worship are used out of context. One such text is Ephesians 5:18,19 (similar to Col. 3:16), which reads, “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” It is certainly doubtful that the plucking implied by the word is on the strings of the heart. Besides, the fact remains that the text is neither describing nor prescribing a corporate worship service.

The context deals with the daily Christian walk, the lifestyle of believers. If instrumental music is excluded when Christians gather for their assemblies, it should also be excluded at all other times, just as husbands are to love their wives at all times, not just when the church gathers.

Many other texts (such as Matt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:12; and Jas. 5:13) are cited to condemn instrumental music in worship. Each of them enjoins singing, but none of them prohibits musical accompaniment per se. Not one of them refers specifically in context to congregational singing in what we would call a corporate worship service, with the possible exception of the texts in Matthew and Acts, both involving extraordinary circumstances. If the Scriptures that are generally used to condemn instrumental accompaniment to singing in corporate worship are being accurately treated as such, they also would condemn the use of instrumental music of all kinds at all times – a position few would hold.

Conclusion

If I do not believe that instrumental music in worship should be made a test of fellowship, and I know that others are offended by its use, why do I not get rid of it for the sake of unity? If the issue were that simple, I would be glad to do so. If the controversy were simply over offending or not offending a brother’s conscience, I would be glad to follow Paul’s admonition in Romans 14:20,21.

But the situation is more complicated than that. Some years ago we had a married family come to Johnson Bible College months before the husband was to enroll in classes. They lived in Knoxville much nearer to a church that did not use the instrument than to one that did, so they began worshipping at the former. They agreed with what was taught, were warmly treated, liked the people, were faithful to all services, and soon walked forward on a Sunday evening to place membership with the congregation.

Their action had apparently taken the minister and leaders of the church by surprise. A hurried conference with the couple revealed that, before they could be extended the right hand of fellowship, they would have to declare publicly before the congregation that they considered the use of instrumental music in worship to be a sin. They, of course, could not declare something which they did not believe, so their relationship with the congregation ended on a sad note with the family deeply hurt by the whole affair.

Granted, this situation does not repesent the sentiments of all those who prefer to worship without the instrument. It does represent the sentiments of a large number, however. Some of these people would even require someone who came from a congregation that used an instrument in worship to be immersed again before that person could be accepted into fellowship.

Perhaps such experiences help us to understand what Paul meant in Colossians 2:16 when he wrote, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” We must resist legalistic attitudes in which some Christians try to bind the consciences of other believers over matters that are not essentials, for which there is not a clear “thus saith the Lord.”

At the same time, we must exercise a loving spirit of forbearance among brothers over this extremely sensitive matter. I am convinced that we could resolve the issue if we were willing to follow the important principle of maintaining unity in essentials, allowing liberty in non-essentials, and demonstrating love in all things. We must practice this vital message which we have preached so long.

The end of the whole matter is Paul’s assertion that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink” (Rom. 14:17). Neither is it singing with or without the instrument. Let us hear the great apostle’s admonition and “follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 144-146
March 5, 1992

By Dick Blackford

The Sycamore church in Cookeville, Tennessee decided to “meet the challenge” of raising $17 million to mail out a brochure to every home in the U.S., purchase ads in leading publications and conduct a TV program. When it became obvious they were not going to get $17 million they went back to the drawing board and decided they could do essentially the same thing for only $10 million. They were about to waste $7 million of the “brotherhood’s” money before they realized this. The thing that kept them from it is that the “brotherhood” didn’t send it. Would you consider it a good risk as an investor in a $17 million project with me if I cut the cost nearly in half when I realized I couldn’t get the full amount?

The Sycamore church is donating about 2 percent of the total. So did they meet the challenge or did they meet only 2 percent of the challenge?

From the Mail-Outs

Numerous high quality, three color mail-outs have repeatedly been sent to thousands of churches begging funds. Add to that video tapes, postage, salary and travel expense for the promoters. It would be safe to say that approximately $1 million was spent on begging. Note what these mail-outs have had to say.

1. The Plan – “Brethren offer $17 million to evangelize the nation. Elders of the Sycamore church of Christ accept oversight of the project.” That’s not quite the way it happened. It didn’t happen in that order (brethren offer, Sycamore accepts). The brethren didn’t offer $17 million. They didn’t even offer $10 million so Sycamore had to mortgage their building and continue to beg (see The Update, July 1991).

If Sycamore “accepted” the oversight, who told them they could have it? Where did those who gave it to them get that right? Who were these people? Who had the authority to make plans for “the brotherhood”? In August, 1989 (before oversight was assumed by Sycamore) there were “brainstorming meetings with brethren experienced in evangelistic outreach, seeking advice and counsel. ” The only officer in the universal church is Jesus. He did not ordain “brotherhood” elders (1 Pet. 5:2). Such authority was usurped. They didn’t “accept” oversight, they seized it! They assumed more than God assigned. And there was no authority for these “brainstorming meetings” (which originated outside any local eldership) to decide anything for the “brotherhood” (actually, a “churchhood”).

2. A message from the elders – “Never before (that we know of) has there been a realistic plan for national and world evangelism. ” They should read more of the Scriptures than the manual on denominational schemes. Paul said the gospel had been “preached to every creature under heaven” during his lifetime (Col. 1:23). Is that not realistic enough? How did they do it? Jesus gave the Great Commission to the apostles who told them to teach others “to teach others” (Matt. 28:19,20). Paul taught the same (2 Tim. 2:2). He taught that the local church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Local churches “sounded forth the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:7,8). This was how they did it. No mention is made of a sponsoring church or brotherhood eldership. Even if they had never heard of a “realistic plan” it would not justify an unscriptural project.

3. What Christians deserve. Christians deserve the opportunity to participate in something bigger than a budget, larger than the local work. ” What did they do to deserve something the Lord didn’t authorize? The Lord didn’t give us anything larger than a local work so he must not have thought we deserved it. Surely his wisdom and knowledge are not so limited as not to see that we needed something larger than a local work. Why didn’t he set up some centralized mechanism for doing it? He didn’t, so some of our brethren did it for him. Some elders have stepped beyond the role of local elders. They think such limitations are old fogey and they have “improved” upon the Lord’s way. But, “My ways are not your ways, saith Jehovah” (Isa. 55:8). Yet all oversight, flock feeding, worship, discipline, and evangelism was done by each local church (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-34; 16:1,2; 14:16; etc.).

4. The Great Privilege. “It allows the individual to feel that he is an integral part of the congregation. ” You mean he wasn’t allowed this before the campaign? That is what is implied. When each member functions in the body as he should (whether he is an “eye,” an ‘gear,” a “foot,” or a “hand,” 1 Cor. 12:15-25), he is an integral part. He was allowed to do this before the “One Nation Under God” Campaign was ever heard of. It was not a privilege that was not allowed when he was functioning in the local church before this churchhood project came along (something larger than a local work).

5. Grand Claims. “Here at the end, is your opportunity to be part of the greatest, most successful evangelistic effort in our brotherhood’s history. ” This was said even before all the brochures were mailed out and the results were known. Is it greater than what happened in Jerusalem beginning on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:5,9,41; 4:4)? Is it more successful than when Paul stated the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Col. 1:23)? Our “brotherhood’s history” goes back to when it began. Promoters are careless to make grand claims (before the facts are known) when they want your money.

6. Something larger and something smaller than a local work. When elders assume oversight of a multi-church project they take on a dual role. They may still be over their local congregation, but they are something more than local elders when they put themselves in charge of a churchhood (misnamed “brotherhood”) project. They are making decisions over something other than and more than their local work (1 Pet. 5:2).

Also, Bible classes are taking collections and forming their own treasuries and taking action under the oversight of someone in the class. They organize and someone acts as treasurer. “___________ and her 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade class have set a goal of $50 to contribute to the ‘One Nation Under God’ Campaign. ” (Other similar quotes appear in the mail-outs). Regardless of good intentions, there is no authority for a functioning organization larger or smaller than a local church. Both have been involved in the “O.N.U.G.” Campaign.

7. Aimed at the “unchurched.” The brochure briefly mentions personal problems such as drugs, materialism, divorce, pornography, but says nothing about the sin of denominationalism, a sin which is causing billions of people to be lost eternally. Concerning their TV talk-show we are told that it is “aimed at 45 percent of the United States population which believes in God, but is not part of any organized denominational group.” Whereas, the gospel is for all (Mk. 16:15).

8. Brotherhood Thinking. “As a brotherhood, we will give an answer as to why we have neglected the Lord’s command to take the gospel to every creature. . . ” Where does the Bible teach we will be judged “as a brotherhood”? No where! If so, a few bad apples in the brotherhood could cause the whole brotherhood to be lost. Our individual salvation would be dependent on what others had left undone. The judgment will be on a personal basis, whether your own name is written in the book of life (Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 25; Rev. 20:13-15).

“Anxiously we await newsfirom the brotherhood that the funds areforthcoming. ” There are numerous references to the “brotherhood.” It seems some “local” elders can think on no other plain. They think “churchhood” when they say brotherhood. A brotherhood is made of brothers, not churches. And then they refer to churches as “sister” congregations! Boy, try making sense out of that! They have drunk too much from the polluted waters of denominationalism and are engaged in the language of Ashdod.

A churchhood is a “hood” of churches. Christ did not authorize a churchhood. Churches are not tied together but are local, independent and autonomous. The only oversight is local. A brotherhood is a “hood” of brothers. Christ is the only officer in the brotherhood and he gave it no function as a brotherhood. It is only mentioned one time in the New Testament and the extent of brotherhood responsbility is specified. “Love the brotherhood” (1 Pet. 2:17). That’s it! The way some sponsoring elders speak and think for the brotherhood you would think it was mentioned on every page of the Bible and in the margin.

9. “Why your congregation deserves a special collection opportunity” for the campaign. “They get to participate in something Biblical, like the ancient Christians. ” As if they were not able to do so long before any “Sponsoring Church” project was ever heard from or thought of! It is hard to believe some know so little about the Bible that they fell for this.

By “special collection” perhaps they had reference to the time when congregations sent relief to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1,2). But consider: (a) Jerusalem was a destitute church. Sycamore is not. They contributed over $200,000 to the campaign. (b) The Jerusalem church did not launch a 10 year program of being destitute. Sycamore launched a 10 year program of begging the “brotherhood” for their churchhood projects. (c) Jerusalem did not launch a massive campaign to solicit funds. Sycamore spent huge sums to beg more money. (d) Jerusalem’s want was in benevolence. Sycamore’s was not. Sycamore wants, but they are not “in want.” (e) Jerusalem’s want was peculiarly theirs. Sycamore’s “want” is no more theirs than it is any other congregation’s. God has not assigned world obligations to one congregation alone. We all have identical and equal duty according to our ability. (f) Jerusalem’s case is in the Bible. Sycamore’s is not. So where is the parallel?

Conclusion

The Sycamore elders have allowed themselves to be influenced by “brotherhood” planners – the “brainstormers.” They seized the oversight of a churchhood project. In doing so, they took more authority than God gave them and involved the congregation in error. The contributing churches have become partakers of their sin. We must strive lawfully and follow the pattern. The Great Commission does not give us a blank check to do anything we want. We cannot “do evil (that which is not authorized, db) that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). We plead with the Sycamore elders to give up their project for the sake of the Scriptures and unity or else have the courage to defend it in public debate.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 112-113
February 20, 1992

By Roy Deaver

These words are sad words – some of the saddest ever uttered in all restoration history. The dictionary says that “sad” means “to be associated with sorrow. . – ” Some words are sad because of their inherent connotations. Some words are sad because of the circumstances out of which they came. Some words are sad because of the consequences which they brought.

On Monday, September 1, 1873, in the pioneer village of Thorp Spring, in Texas, Thorp Spring College came into being. This year – 1973 – is the centennial year. In celebration, the ex-students of Thorp Spring Christian College held a reunion i4on campus” July 21 and 22. At the time, I was in a gospel meeting at nearby Morgan Mill, and was privileged to attend the reunion. Brother Don Morris spoke on Saturday afternoon, and brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was the speaker on Saturday night. Because of my own preaching engagement I did not get to hear brother Wallace, but I did get to hear brother Morris. Brother Morris spoke on “Add-Ran and its Heirs.” His lecture was tremendous. It will become an exceedingly valuable document in Restoration literature.

Brother Morris spoke at length about unscriptural organizations in Texas, and the consequent divisions among brethren. He spoke of the steps which led to the formation of the “Texas Christian Missionary Society” in Austin, Texas 1866.

Brother Morris then discussed the introduction of mechanical instruments into Christian worship. He mentioned that the instrument was introduced “. . . first in congregations in Dallas, San Marcos, Waco, and Palestine.” He continued as follows: “But the place at which the introduction of the organ received most attention was, without doubt, Thorp Spring, in Add-Ran College. The occasion was a gospel meeting in February, 1894. The speaker was B.B. Sanders, and the song director, E.M. Douthitt. These two often worked as a team and were known to use the instrument in worship. Before the meeting began, there was much discussion – on and off the campus of Add-Ran – about whether the organ would be used. As the meeting began, a crisis at Add-Ran was developing. It proved to affect the church throughout the state.

On February 20, 1894, the climax was reached. Before the service began, Joseph Addison Clark – the father and pioneer – and his wife took seats at the front of the auditorium. Their son, Addison Clark, the president arose to begin the service. Joseph Addision Clark arose, walked toward the pulpit, took a paper from his pocket, and presented it to his son. It was a petition. The petition was signed by the elder Clark and more than a hundred others who asked that the organ not be used, on the ground that it was not authorized in the New Testament. Addison read the petition, conferred briefly with his brother Randolph, and then announced that he had promised the students the organ could be used in the meeting and that he could not go back on his word. He turned to the organist and said, “Play on, Miss Bertha.”

At this point, brother Don Morris was not able to continue for several moments. He wept audibly, and most of the audience wept with him. Brother Morris continued: “As the organ and singing started, Joseph Addison arose with his wife and led the opposition out of the auditorium. He was a graybearded man, seventy-eight years old, and with a cane. About 140 people, according to Randolph’s son, Joseph Lynn, followed the elderly Clark out of the building. Many in the remaining congregation wept. My father, who was a student that year, was present, and he told me many times about Uncle Joe Clark – how he appealed to the audience not to use the organ and how he led the group out of the auditorium.”

Brother Morris closed his great speech as follows: “. . . we of churches of Christ today are the real heirs of the first years of Add-Ran and of the gospel taught in the first Texas churches. This is true because today we continue in the slogan first used by Texas pioneers and the Campbells before them: ‘We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.’ This principle has been followed by the Thorp Spring Church from the beginning in 1873 until now. And we believe that this is the true pattern for church organization, for purity in worship, and for all things religious. To use this pattern is more important than excelling in numbers or affluence. We look to the New Testament as the guide in restoring the Lord’s church, and we pray that he may bless us as we attempt to follow it.”

And right now, more so than every before in my lifetime – there are in the church those who saying, “Miss Bertha, play on!” May God help us to have the faith, the conviction, the courage of Joseph Addison Clark (reprinted from The Spiritual Sword [October 1978] 18-20).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 129,151
March 5, 1992

By Kristiana Burke

This is the title of a familiar hymn and the question asked is one that requires thought. How shall the young secure their hearts and guard their lives from sin? This question is answered simply: “Thy word is everlasting truth, how pure is every page! That holy book shall guide our youth and well support our age.” How true! The answer for Christians today is the only answer, the Bible.

We as Christians must be grounded firmly in our beliefs. We must always search the Bible to make sure we are doing what is “right and acceptable in the sight of the Lord.” Paul states this fact clearly in Ephesian 4:14 where he says, “That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” Perhaps this is one of the many reasons why new Christians, and often young people fall away from the faith – they aren’t grounded firm in the word of God. They don’t really have “an anchor of the soul” which is both “steadfast and sure” (Heb. 6:19). They drift unevenly upon the billows of sin. By reading and teaching the Bible, one may know how to keep his conscience clean. They will know how to stand up and defend the faith.

Another way to guard ourselves is to have a pure soul. We must have a soul that is filled with spiritual things and is undefiled with the cares of this world. One way to fulfill this is to stay away from evil companions. I’m sure you have heard, “Evil companions corrupt good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). Peer pressure can ruin a person, but when one has good companions, peer pressure can be good. Our soul and mind are to be clean and not defiled by things that are not acceptable in God’s eyes. Christians must stay away from filthy movies, bad language, and suggestive music along with many other things. Not just people are “evil company” television is bad company at times, magazines can be, as well as music and books. Philippians 4:8 instructs us to meditate on things that are “true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, and full of virtue or praise.” Also, 1 Timothy 6:11 instructs us to “flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.” How can Christians and young people secure their hearts and guard themselves from sin when they are continually around evil company? It’s impossible!

Once again, the Bible must be stressed. God has left his will for us to follow. Children need to be taught continually, day in and day out, at home. Some favorite verses of mine in Deuteronomy 6:5-9 illustrate this point. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart, you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your home and on your gates.” Whew, what a responsibility! Many times we fail in this responsibility. Children depend on their parents. Proverbs 22:6 tells us, “Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” How can this responsibility be fulfilled when parents spend no time with their children? How can it be fulfilled when mothers work full-time jobs, when their place is in the home? How can our young people grow strong without proper teaching? They can’t! How can we have time to study about God when everyone is glued to the TV set 3-9 hours a day? It’s impossible! God’s word is important. New Christians, children, and young people must be taught the Word. They must have a steadfast anchor. God’s word should be to us as “The sun, a heavenly light, that guides us all the day and through the dangers of the night, a lamp to lead our way.”

How shall the young secure their hearts? They can secure their hearts by being grounded firmly in the faith, by having a pure soul, and good company. While our hearts are secure, we will have the knowledge of our reward before us. We must be as soldiers and must “Take up the whole armor of God . . . having girded our waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness . . . having shod our feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace . . . taking our shield of faith with us to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one, to have our helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:13-17). After fighting to the end, we’ll be accepted at the right hand of God as one of his sheep. Let us secure our hearts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, p. 107
February 20, 1992