Truth Magazine

By Ron Daly

The New Testament teaches that worship must be “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24). Worship, from the Greek proskuneo, is the respect, reverence, adoration, obeisance, or homage that we render to God by means of specific acts. When we survey the New Testament, we find that the Lord’s people in the first century, under apostolic guidance, engaged in the following specific acts: (1) apostolic teaching and preaching (Acts 2:42; 20:7); (2) the eating of the Lord’s supper also called the “breaking of the bread” (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-34); (3) praying to God through the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:42; 12:5; Eph. 6:18-20); (4) placing a sum of money into the treasury on the first day of every week (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8,9); and (5) the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12).

Worship which is “in spirit and truth” occurs when the participant is aware of the following elements: (1) the proper object of worship – God, “God is spirit: and those who worship him”,- (2) the proper acts – implied by the word for worship, proskuneo; (3) the proper attitude, mental cognizance, disposition, and state of mind – “in spirit”,(4) the proper standard, pattern, and instructions – “and truth. ” This possibly implies “with proper motives” (Jn. 4:24; cf. Phil. 1:18). All of the aforementioned elements must be present in each of the acts of worship in order for the worship to be acceptable to God. “Music” is an element of our worship, and the New Testament teaches the following facts regarding the “music” we offer unto God and for the benefit of the saints:

First, we are “teaching and admoinishiing” as we sing (Col. 3:16). “Teaching and admonishing” (didaskontes kai nouthetountes), are two plural present participles, showing that the actions enjoined occur as “the word of Christ dwells in you richly.” It is “the word of Christ” which is the instrument used in the teaching and admonishing! To teach is to instruct or impart information, and to admonish is to warn. It is, therefore, imperative that the songs we sing express scriptural sentiments. We must vigorously insure that the truth is sung as well as preached! No song should be sung on the basis of melody and rhythm alone. The legitimate criterion by which we determine the worth of a song is, whether or not it is true to the word of God.

Second, we are told who is to sing unto God and the saints in worship. “Teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16), “speaking one to another,” (Eph. 5:19) are expressions which include all those addressed and exclude none of the ones addressed. The pronoun heautois in (Eph. 5:19) is dative masculine plural, and the term heautous (Col. 3:16) is accusative masculine plural. Both pronouns are used in both texts with present active plural participles, demonstrating that one or several are not told to sing (1) to the saints, (2) for the saints, or (3) instead of the saints, but each one is to sing with the saints. Whenever God issues a command and stipulates who is to perform it, none less than those whom God has specified are excluded. The same ones who are to do the “teaching and admonishing” are to do the “singing,” and the “teaching and admonishing” are to be going on as those who are singing are “allowing the word of Christ to dwell in them.”

Third, we are told what kind of songs we are to sing: “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” A psalm is a pious song, a hymn is a sacred song in which God is praised, and a spiritual song is a song relating to spiritual things. The kinds of songs specified by God disallows Blues, Bluegrass, National patriotic songs, Rock-N-Roll, Country and Western, songs with empty repetition, and songs teaching error.

Fourth, we are told how we are to sing, “with your heart to the Lord.” We must sing heartily, with great emotion and understanding. Though we may not be the most professional artistic performers on earth, we can be among the most lively.

Fifth, we are told what kind of music we are to offer to God, “singing and making melody with the heart.” We are to offer only one of the two kinds known – vocal. And this vocal music is to be a certain kind, namely speaking and singing, not whistling, humming, or any other unintelligible vocal sounds! Mechanical music in New Testament worship is unauthorized. God the Father’s plan does not include it, Jesus Christ his Son did not shed any of his precious blood for it, nor did he execute a plan that mentions it. The Holy Spirit did not reveal a message that teaches the use of it. The apostles of Christ did not preach a gospel that allows its use in worship, nor did any congregation under apostolic guidance use it instead of singing or as an accompaniment to the singing! Therefore it cannot be right and pleasing to God.

Mechanical music in worship violates the following: (1) The clear distinction of the covenants. Most of those who participate in its use appeal to the Old Covenant for authority, ignoring the fact that we are bound by the precepts and edicts of the New Testament. (2) God’s silence. The Lord has simply not authorized us to use it by direct statement, approved apostolic example, or implication. (3) The separation of human and divine legislation. Many use it on the dangerous assumption that it does not matter what God’s will is. As they presumptuously think, God will accept human admixture with the divine will. It would do them well to consider “Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron” (Lev. 10:1-2). Man has no right whatsoever to alter God’s word, nor may we substitute our own will and expect God to be pleased.

May God be our ruler, his word our guide, his Son’s obedient life our model, and his home our eternal abode on the last day.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, pp. 677-678
November 21, 1991

By Lewis Willis

Is there anyone who would deny that life imposes upon us many burdens? Sometimes we are frustrated by them. Occasionally someone is broken by them, i.e., they are overwhelmed with burdens which break their spirit. It often appears that some try to ignore their own burdens, and they certainly do not want to be troubled by the burdens of others. It is not unusual to see someone borrow burdens from others quite unnecessarily and fruitlessly. Christians recognize and accept the fact of burdens and seek to use them to develop strong character that will not only sustain us, but will enable us to assist others.

The Bible discusses burdens, and it identifies three different kinds of burdens. This article will discuss these different Bible views of burdens.

1. There are burdens we must bear alone. These are personal burdens which we, and we alone, must accept and discharge. One of the truly amazing developments in our time is the attitude that I can look to the government and the government will take care of me. There are times and circumstances where governments sustain an obligation to help temporarily. However, each one individually must accept the responsibility for providing his own needs and those of his family (1 Tim. 5:8). No society will ever reach optimum effectiveness until the members of that society accept the obligation to “carry their own weight.” The duty is set forth in the New Testament in these words, “For every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:5).

What are some of these personal burdens which we must each bear alone? The material necessities of life obviously fall in this category. However, there are great spiritual burdens that are unique. Every person bears alone the burden of choosing between things that are right or wrong. We each bear the burden of the guilt and consequence of our sin, It is evident that the burdens of death and eternal judgment are borne by self, and self alone.

2. We must often bear the burdens of others. Paul wrote, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). He further wrote, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1). The well-being of those around us must never become a matter of indifference, enabling us to ignore their circumstance. The Bible makes no provision which justifies selfishness in such matters. In a real, practical sense, we are our brother’s keeper (Gen. 4:9).

God expects us to strengthen each other by prayer and deeds. We are to cooperate and be at peace with each other within the church. We are to be compassionate and sympathize with those who suffer. We are to rejoice with those who rejoice. We are to comfort the bereaved. H. Leo Boles once wrote, “Make people glad you are living and they will be sorry when you are dead.”

3. There are burdens which we are to cast on the Lord. David said, “Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved” (Psa. 55:22). The Apostle Peter said, “Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (1 Pet. 5:7). The simplicity of this process reflects the wisdom of God. We deliver all of our burdens into the care of God. We then do everything we can for ourselves, and accept the assistance of others when it is necessary. Having done so, we do not fret and worry ourselves, for such is useless. AD old song says, “Take it to the Lord in prayer.” When this has been done, and every human effort has been made, leave the rest with the Lord who cares for us. Why worry over something beyond our ability to handle? A Reader’s Digest quote (6/91) says, “Blessed is the person who is too busy to worry in the daytime, and too tired to worry at night.” If we will deliver our burdens to the Lord, it will deliver us from the vanities of worry and anxiety.

The Bible does not promise us that every situation we encounter will provide us with the solution we desire. Through the introduction of sin into society, human life was plagued with difficulty. Often we can work around some of these problems, and we should. We, and our friends and brethren, should work together and assist each other in achieving the best possible solution to these hardships. However, we must recognize that there are things that we cannot change. These must be delivered to God for whatever action he chooses. When these things have been done, we must accept whatever life brings. It is futile to worry and frustrate ourselves with things over which we have no control.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, p. 682
November 21, 1991

 

By Ben F. Vick, Jr.

In the January 3 issue of Guardian of Truth, a scion born from the union of two papers, Gospel Guardian and Truth Magazine, brother Larry Ray Hafley wrote an article reviewing a pamphlet on the African Christian Hospitals Foundation. In his article he compared the foundation in question with the missionary society. He also suggested that the same scriptural justification which would allow such a foundation would also favor a veterinary clinic, a recreation foundation; and again he makes an attempt to place the orphan homes and homes for the aged into the same category.

First, I do not know much about the African Christian Hospitals Foundation, other than what was in the article by Hafley. Since, it is not wise to commit one’s self in the dark, I cannot give a full assessment of it, based on the Scriptures. However, there were some questions and parallels which brother Hafley raised which need to be addressed.

Brother Hafley tells us that, because the African Christian Hospitals Foundation is “an organization separate and apart from the church, which is designed to do the work God assigned to the church,” it is unauthorized, just as the missionary society is. Well, let’s apply that same reasoning to the Guardian of Truth. Is it an organization, separate and apart from the church, designed to do the work God assigned to the church? It is a separate organization from the church. It has a board of directors. (Incidentally, where in the New Testament does one read of a board of directors for a paper? Inquiring minds want to know.) The editor, Mike Willis, tells us “Published twice monthly, Guardian of Truth contains excellent teaching articles written by some of the best preachers among us. It contains news of what is happening among Christians, advertising of places to worship when traveling, inspiring articles, teaching articles, and other material designed to help the Christian grow.” Now, does that should like the work of the church? If so, on what basis? Anti brethren need to wrestle with these concepts and questions. Inquiring minds want to know.

Do brother Hafley and these connected with GOT believe the concept of schools and colleges operated by individual Christians is scriptural? We would all stand opposed to the abuses of these schools, but is the concept scriptural? I would defend the concept that these schools have a right to exist as an adjunct of the home (Eph. 6:4; Gal. 4:1-2). I am not discussing the means of their support. Perhaps he and I would agree that individuals can support the school, but the church is not authorized to do so. Would Hafley take the position which Daniel Sommer at one time held, until late in his life; i.e., that the Bible College is unscriptural? If not, then, is the school or college an organization, separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work God assigned the church to do? Now, brother Hafley, “root, hog, or die” in answering your own article! Inquiring minds want to know.

Brother Hafley asked, “Could Boles Home and Schultz-Lewis Children’s Home [sic] promote mission work as well as benevolent work and ‘avoid being’ a missionary society if they insisted that each missionary was sent by a sponsoring church?” I will happily comply with the brother’s request, if he will first answer this question: Could Hafley’s private home promote mission work as well as benevolent work and ‘avoid being’ a missionary society? The very argument which Hafley and others make in opposing the orphan homes can with equal and telling force be made against the private home. Give me the exception! Inquiring minds want to know.

It seems almost never to fail that when our anti brethren begin to speak or write they have the proclivity to lump all brethren to the left of them on the same pile. Those who eat in the building are lumped with those who build fellowship halls, gymnasiums and provide recreation for their members. But each is “poisoning the wells” to prejudice the minds of the readers. I, personally, resent that tactic. If I were not interested in practicing the golden rule, I would lump all anti-literature, anti-classes, anti-women teachers, anti-multiple container, anti-sponsoring church arrangement, and anti-orphan home brethren into the same category. This same tactic is one which was used by Ketcherside and Garrett and is still used by Rubel Shelly.

Brother Hafley says, “The truth is that there is no scriptural authority for churches to fund organizations which are established to do the work God gave the church to do. That is true in evangelism and benevolence. ” This would eliminate churches funding Guardian of Truth and the private home’s teaching the Bible. It would also mean that, given the view that the church is to care for the fatherless, then it must provide recreation and social events for them. Does the church where Hafley preaches provide these things for the fatherless and widows? What about any of the churches where the Board of Directors for GOT attend? Inquiring minds want to know.

Brother Hafley waxes eloquently in placing the blame for the condition of the church at the present time upon faithful brethren of the past who defended the sponsoring church arrangement and the orphan homes. His reasoning is that if brethren had not defended the right for such to exist, then the church would not have gone into the entertainment business, building gymnasiums and providing recreation as it presently has. He avows, “But Fifth and Highland in Abilene is now the mother of the Boston Church.” “Upon what meat doth Caesar feed, that he should wax so fat?” Could the anti-Bible literature brethren accuse Hafley and his bunch for all the liberalism that is found in the Sunday school literature today? If we were to use Hafley’s measuring rod on him, we could say that he, along with the rest of his group, opened the door for liberalism when they defended the right to use such literature. If not, why not? However, it is a maxim which cannot be successfully denied that extremes beget extremes. Ketcherside, Garrett and Charles Holt are prime examples. Why would it not be just as reasonable to assume that this anti-ism that swept the church in the late forties and early fifties, led some brethren to back, and back, and back until they landed in the camp of liberalism? That is just as plausible to believe as Hafley’s charge.

The preaching and defending of a principle of truth does not mean one is responsible for the abuses and fallacious inferences pertaining to that truth. For an example, the brethren who oppose the sponsoring church arrangement believe that the only way to support the foreign evangelist is through direct support from the churches. Yet, in my files, I have a case of a brother who was evidently taking advantage of that method by receiving more from the churches than he was acknowledging. This is a brother among their ranks! Does that mean it is wrong to support a preacher directly? No. (But it may not be the best way to support the preacher.) Would we not be unjust to accuse all brethren and churches who approve of this method of being guilty of the same or encouraging the same? We would indeed. Thus, Hafley is not fair in accusing faithful brethren of the past or present of being responsible for liberalism in the church today.

We deplore both liberalism and anti-ism and plead for all to return to the old paths.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, pp. 656-657
November 7, 1991

By Tom M. Roberts

Should a Christian smoke? Should a Christian dance? Should a Christian drink alcoholic beverages? Should a Christian gamble? Should a Christian. . . . (insert your own particular question here)? These, and many more questions, are met by anyone trying to teach or preach as he confronts questionable practices among members of the church. On many occasions, these practices have become a battle ground between those who advocate their innocence and those who warn against their evil influence. Not only young people, but disciples who have been members of the church for years often wrestle with such areas of daily practice. When preachers oppose participation in these and similar actions, they are often accused of binding where God has not bound, of substituting their own opinion for God’s, or of being stricter than the Bible.

Since some of these issues are not addressed directly in the Bible (there is no “thou shalt not” regarding smoking, gambling, dancing, etc.), are we to understand that the word of God doesn’t speak to some areas of temptation? Is a practice to be considered sinful only if specific condemn nation is found, or can a thing be adjudged to be wrong based on biblical principles? Surely we must understand the Bible to speak concerning general statements of truth that have an application beyond the immediate subject. Consider that whereas the Bible states clearly that it is a sin to commit fornication (Gal. 5:19ff), it also warns against “lusting in the heart” (Matt. 5:27,28), a statement that would cover many situations in principle that are not stated directly. Is this generic statement in Matthew 5:28 not as much a statement of truth as that in Galatians 5:19? Is it not possible to lose one’s soul over “lusting in the heart” as surely as actual fornication?

With this in mind, we must realize that the Bible addressed temptations of life in methods beyond specific condemnation. The Christian who forms a walk of life based solely on avoiding specifically condemned sins may well be lost eternally because of involvement in practices that are condemned in principle. We need to be sure that our decisions and practices are such that we would never violate the will of Christ, however it may be expressed, in principle or precept.

Please notice that this paragraph heading puts an emphasis by italics on the word “Christian,” rather than on the quesiton of “should?” Many times, we seem to get bogged down in “should I” or “shouldn’t I” without really understanding another, and more important, emphasis: “I am a Christian.”

According to Thayer’s Lexicon, a Christian is “a follower of Christ” (Acts 11:26; 1 Pet. 4:16). Perhaps this noun and its definition offers a principle that may answer a lot of our queries about proper conduct concerning debatable practices.

If I am to be a follower of Christ, it seems reasonable to understand that I would be comfortable doing only what Christ would do in similar circumstances. I would also be uncomfortable doing what Christ would not do in similar circumstances. Realizing that Jesus lived a perfect life and that he has become our example to follow should make a powerful imprint in our daily life.” For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). A Christian follows in the steps of Jesus.

Would Jesus have smoked, knowing that it is addictive, harmful to one’s health, harmful to others’ health, is wasteful, and is a bad influence? Can you picture Jesus with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth? Would Christ have smoked? Now, answer the question, “Should a Christian (a follower of Christ) smoke?”

Would Jesus have danced? Knowing that dancing invites lust in the heart, leads to adultery, leads your partner to lust, and provides a bad influence, would he dance? Can you really imagine Jesus on a dance floor, making indecent bodily gestures, or gyrating to the beat of sensuous music? Would Christ have danced? Now answer the question, “Should a Christian dance?”

Would Jesus gamble? Knowing that gambling violates the principle of honest work (Eph. 4:28), covetousness (Col. 3:5), is addictive, supports an evil industry, and is wasteful of one’s stewardship (Lk. 12:42; Matt. 25:14-30), would Jesus have gone to Las Vegas and played the slots, gambled on sports and led others to do the same? Would Christ have gambled? “Should a Christian gamble?”

Can we not also apply this to modesty, types of companions we keep, places we frequent, or, in fact, any area of doubt? Why not try to see if the life of Christ would support, in principle, his participation in the doubtful practice and then make your decision based on what the Lord would have done in similar circumstances. I don’t think we would be far off the mark at any time if we would conscientiously and faithfully mold our lives into the form of the perfect life of Christ. Perhaps we will find that the real reason why we are having such difficulty in making the right choice in these areas is that we have not really put Christ into our hearts (Phil. 2:5). Our moral life cannot be measured in feet or inches (the length of a skirt, one’s hair, etc.) but in likeness to that of the Lord. Our daily practice must not be to see how much we can get away with without crossing a specific command, but how closely can I follow the path of the Savior.

When Jesus becomes our pattern, our mold, our example, we will be able to find the answer to our question of “Should a Christian. . . ?” on every occasion. And unless he is our pattern, mold and example, we will continue to struggle with rules and regulations (however clear they may be), always looking for loopholes, exceptions, and inconsistencies in other people that would seek to justify our self-indulgence. We need, like Paul, to have “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, pp. 674, 695
November 21, 1991