Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

The question of fellowship seems to be a preoccupation with some brethren. Usually this signifies something rather ominous. Those who make this their chief thought are usually the ones who are trying to figure some way that fellowship can be extended to people who are teaching or practicing things that violate the Scriptures. They come up with all kinds of ideas about how you can have things like “limited fellowship” with these apostates. I suppose it is probably a good mental exercise, but it surely has caused a lot of trouble in the Church, especially over the last few years.

I have to confess to you that it interests me when I find a simplistic answer to problems that arise. Such an answer usually gets right to the heart of the matter and solves the problem quickly. Where the subject of fellowship is concerned I have always regarded Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5 as one of those simplistic answers to what would otherwise be a complex problem. In verse 11 he said, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” I just believe that you have to want to believe something else very badly if you misunderstand what Paul says. There is a lot of difference between having “no fellowship” and in having “some, a little or limited” fellowship. It actually appears to me that one’s intelligence is insulted to imply that this passage cannot be understood. All of the rationalizing in the world cannot change what Paul said. If we follow human, uninspired analysis and conclude that we can have some fellowship with darkness, all we have done is become “partaker of . . . evil deeds” (2 Jn. 11).

Even so, Paul’s statement gives us a sure-fire method for settling the question of who will be fellowshipped. When the “light” of the Lord – the Word of God – is applied to a practice, you determine immediately if the practice is darkness or light. If it is “darkness,” not only can we have no fellowship with it, we are told to “reprove” it. When you reprove darkness or evil works, you rebuke and expose them. Now, admittedly, my experience has been limited, but my experience has shown me that when you reprove, rebuke and expose error, those who want to practice it soon form their own fellowship. In other words, do what this passage says to do and you solve the problem of who is to be fellowshipped. It is impossible to have fellowship with someone who refuses that fellowship. And, if one finds his practice being rebuked, as the Scripture says, that will become so disconcerting that the person will separate himself from God’s people. So, if we will just do what Paul says, we solve this problem.

The process works like this: if you point out the sin of using instrumental music in the worship of the Church, the instrumentalist picks up his gear and forms a new fellowship. We call it “The Christian Church.” When you expose the sin of institutionalism, fellowship halls, ctc., those who want these works of darkness go out and form another new fellowship – we know them as “Liberal Churches of Christ.” When you expose the unscriptural organizational setup of the Boston/Crossroads Discipling Ministry, those who want this sinfulness form their new fellowship and they are known as “Crossroads Churches.” Simply by preaching truth and exposing error, the apostates depart to form their new church fellowship. It’s as simple as that! We have no choice but to preach the truth and expose error. So, when we do this, the problems about who will be fellowshipped take care of themselves. It is only a problem if we decide not to preach truth and expose error.

David seemed to have this same simple concept about this subject. He wrote, “I am companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts” (Psa. 119:63). Those who do not fear God and keep his precepts “do not fit” in the House of the Lord. They are out of place and ultimately they will leave and form their own fellowship. However, this is usually done after having caused all the trouble they can cause, and, after they have deceived and duped as many brethren as possible into believing their error. Hear David again: “Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies (lying is standard procedure for false teachers and those that follow them, LW) shall not tarry in my sight” (Psa. 101:6-7).

Truth and error do not mix. Those who urge the restraint imposed by God’s Word will not be tolerated by those who refuse those restraints. Therefore, they have historically gone forth to form new, false religions or fellowships. If that is their intention, let them depart and the sooner the better! God’s Word will solve the problem of fellowship if we will but respect and apply it!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, p. 421
July 18, 1991

By Bobby R. Holmes and Ron Hallbrook

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you (Matt. 5:10-12).

We can well understand it when people who do not profess to be believers persecute the people of God, but it is ironic and especially sad when those who claim to be servants of God abuse his people. “So persecuted they the prophets which were before you,” Moses was called the meekest man of his day because he endured repeated opposition and abuse at the hands of the very people who claimed to believe in God (Num. 12:3). Jesus Christ himself was delivered to be crucified by the religious leaders of the Jewish nation “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn. 1:11).

Apostate movements among God’s people breed disrespect for God’s Word and contempt for those who stand in the way of digression. Of all the things Paul suffered, none could have been more painful and frustrating than the blows of false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26). Paul warned, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers . . . . For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:2,18). This was not a warning about atheists but about digressive brethren who bite and tear, and do damage to the cause and the people for whom Christ died! John, the apostle of love, said that digressive brethren not only reject apostolic doctrine but also abuse brethren who insist on following the apostolic word (1 Jn. 2:9; 3:10-18; chapt. 4).

There is a dear band of saints at Sturgis, Mississippi, which is not ashamed to stand with Christ and with all who have suffered for truth and right throughout the centuries, They are not afraid or ashamed to suffer for Christ, though they are few in number and poor in this world’s goods. They are strong in faith and rich in love for the Lord and for the truth of the gospel. We can help them in the midst of their great trial of affliction.

The Sturgis church began in 1974 with the conversion of Lela McCarter. The meetinghouse is located in a rural area some three and one-half miles off State Highway 12 between Starkville and Sturgis, Mississippi. Recognizing the need to preach Christ to the black race, the Lee Boulevard church in Starkville helped to plant the Sturgis church. The history of the relationship between the Starkville and Sturgis churches is a classic example of the results of the liberal movement within the body of Christ in departing from the Bible pattern on church organization and other things.

When a very small church building was constructed at Sturgis about 1984, these brethren were put under the oversight of the Lee Boulevard church, located fifteen miles away in Starkville. Sturgis was even required to send their Lord’s Day contribution to the Lee Boulevard eldership, which in turn took care of paying the bills. The Sturgis meetinghouse was built by a combination of efforts and labors by members from Starkville and Sturgis, but the deed to the Sturgis property was put in the name of Lee Boulevard and was held by them, through the years. Later, a larger meetinghouse was built next to the small one (which was then used for classes and a kitchen for social meals) but, again, the whole thing was kept under the oversight of the Lee Boulevard eldership.

In late 1987, a young preacher named Mike Hurst was attending Mississippi State University in Starkville. He heard of the small church at Sturgis and inquired about preaching for them since they were without a preacher at the time. Mike began preaching on Bible authority, local church organization, and related subjects. The Sturgis brethren also began reading Truth, a bulletin published by the Dallas Avenue church in Lancaster, Texas (edited by Bobby Holmes). As a result of plain teaching from God’s Word, the Sturgis church realized it had no business allowing another church to “assume oversight” over them and immediately shook off the chains of liberalism.

Not only have the kitchen facilities been removed, but other important steps have been taken. A letter was sent to the elders at Starkville. It read in part,

The men of the Sturgis Church of Christ, in the business meeting of January 24, 1988, reached the conclusion that the church here must be totally independent of the Lee Blvd. church in handling its own matters, financial and otherwise. In a study of God’s Word, we find that each congregation is to be independent of all others. In 1 Peter 5:13, the elders are charged to “tend the flock of God which are among you, taking the oversight thereof. “We have both violated God’s Word. We in allowing you to take the oversight of this church and you in doing it. We cannot help the past but we can correct the present and protect the future. Please read Acts 20:17 and 20:28.

The letter respectfully requested “that the Lee Boulevard church turn over to the Sturgis church the deed to Sturgis church property and all monies accruing from the Lord’s day collections of the Sturgis church.” Though Lee Boulevard offered no records to verily their accounting of the Sturgis church’s money, they answered by letter that Sturgis was due less than $500.00 and transferred the money to the Sturgis church’s own bank account.

The Lee Blvd. elders refused to transfer the deed for the Sturgis church’s property to the Sturgis church. At first Sturgis was told they could continue to meet in their building rent free, but then later they were told they could purchase their property for $35,000! Lee Blvd. pretended that this was fair because they had paid off part of the loan from their own treasury. Sturgis offered to make arrangements to pay back that amount, to no avail.

On 26 November 1990, Lee Blvd. transferred the deed for the Sturgis meetinghouse to the name of a third church, the Highway 82 church in Starkville. This is another liberal church made up of black members, to which some of the Sturgis members had moved their membership several years ago. Next, the Hwy. 82 church wanted $200.00 rent per month from Sturgis. When the Sturgis church protested this move, Hwy. 82 said Sturgis could continue to assemble in their meetinghouse until the property is sold. At that point, Sturgis would be evicted.

Being poor, unknown, and isolated, the saints at Sturgis asked us to help them to find a solution to their problem. Both of us (Holmes and Halbrook) have preached there. We made a trip to Mississippi the week of 26 November 1 December 1990 to preach, to encourage the brethren, and to see what more could be done. We have consulted with gospel preachers in Mississippi, with lawyers in three states, and with other brethren. We are not alone in our interest in the Sturgis brethren. Clark Buzbee preaches for the sound church in Starkville and is well acquainted with the problems at Sturgis. He graciously helped to get someone to go out to Sturgis so they could have monthly preaching. J.F. Dancer at Grenada has driven one hundred miles to visit the church at Sturgis and to encourage them during gospel meetings. Wayne Fancher an elder from Grenada has accompanied brother Dancer. Frank Butter, now of Shelbyville, TN, and Roosevelt Johnson of Columbus, MS have also come to help. Other brethren who have preached or otherwise participated in the services at Sturgis include Kyle Smith (Grand Prairie, TX), George Slover (San Marcos, TX), and Gene Lyles (Brady, TX).

What about the church building? The Sturgis brethren have legitimate legal claims to their property after all these years, even though their deed has been held in trust for them by Lee Blvd. Sturgis could defend their property rights by appealing to a court of law, but who among God’s people wants to see that happen? To take that course would raise all sorts of doubtful questions, gender strife, consume thousands of dollars, drag out for years, and even then perhaps end in a miscarriage of justice. The simplest and safest course is to negotiate a more reasonable price on the property and seek to make a financial settlement.

Thomas D. Keenum, Sr. is an elder in a faithful church and an attorney in Booneville, MS. At his own expense, he has done research, offered advice, and served as a neutral and fair negotiator. Through his efforts, the Hwy. 82 church has agreed to sell the Sturgis brethren their property for $17,000.00. Hwy 82 first insisted on a 1 May 1991 deadline, but brother Keenum has gotten us more time.. The Sturgis brethren are in a strait without financial resources. Donations from church treasuries would not be appropriate, but we are asking – even pleading -for individuals to help our brethren at Sturgis who have suffered so much for the cause of Christ. We must not let them lose their meeting place by indifference to their plight. Raising funds is not easy. After all these brethren have-suffered and sacrificed, let us suffer and sacrifice with them by meeting their need.

Brethren Keenum and Buzbee have agreed to help Sturgis by providing a detailed and accurate accounting of every penny received. They are not asking Sturgis or anyone else to pay them for this service, nor will they organize any institution, corporation, or board. They are not taking it upon themselves to make decisions about how the money received will be spent. They are acting purely as individuals to aid Sturgis. Every penny received will be applied to this property settlement and not a penny will be requested beyond that amount. This need is most likely to be met by the average person who can give $5.00, $25.00, $50.00, or $100.00. Send whatever you can to Sturgis Church of Christ Building Fund, P.O. Box 418, Booneville, MS 38829. Your contribution is tax deductible. To “provide things honest in the sight of all men,” checks written from this account will be cosigned by Thomas Keenum and David McCarter of the Sturgis church (Rom. 12:17).

To appreciate the love of the Sturgis brethren for the truth, consider what they did when the butane gas used to heat their building ran out the night before a Saturday morning service during Bobby Holmes’ gospel meeting in February of 1988.

With the temperature at 16 the next morning, you can imagine how it was in the building. Most people would have simply called off the morning service, but not these people. They came to hear a lesson from God’s Word and they stayed. They had already been told the heat was off, but they came anyway. Now folks, that’s having a love for truth (Truth bulletin, 21 Feb. 1988).

This devoted band of 20-25 tries to spread the gospel to their friends and neighbors. Visitors at gospel meetings include denominational people. There is good potential for this church in the days and years ahead. Appeals to Scripture and the autonomy of each local church have been made to the churches at Lee Blvd. and Hwy 82, to no avail. Purchasing the property at a negotiated price is the only viable solution. Our liberal brethren will hear neither God’s Word nor the cries of his oppressed people who love the truth. Their cries are entered into the ears of the Lord of hosts (Jas.5:4). Let us hear them, too!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 422-423
July 18, 1991

By Steve Klein

One of the most ticklish of all religious controversies since the time of the apostles has been over the nature of the deity that Jesus possessed as a man. Historian Philip Schaff observed that in the years before 325 A.D., “the whole theological energy” of church leaders concentrated itself “upon the doctrine of Christ as the God-man” (History of the Christian Church., Vol. 2, p. 248). In fact, from the third to the sixth centuries after Christ lived on earth, one could scarcely find a more disputed topic.

Schaff observed that in the writings of the Christians who lived just after New Testament times, “we find for the most part only the simple Biblical statements of the deity and humanity of Christ, in the practical form needed for general edification” (p. 249). It was only when men tried to fit these simple truths into their human religious systems that perversions arose.

That section of early church history could be studied profitably by many today who are speculating about the divine prerogatives Christ exercised as a man. Much energy is being expended in a vain attempt to back up the assertion that “man has to sin” and still explain why the man Jesus did not sin. Suffice it here to say that in days long since past, many religious leaders lost their honor and their reputations in such vain and needless disputes. In those debates, one or both sides frequently lacked any biblical foundation for their beliefs. The spiritual carnage that resulted from those ancient factions stand as a monument of warning to any who would wish to follow a similar path in our own generation. Truly, let us “beware” lest we be “consumed by one another!” (Gal. 5:15)

Presently, perhaps as a result of some of the speculations that have been noised abroad, a question has been raised among sincere Christians across the country concerning how it was that Jesus was able to live a sinless life. Did he receive special help from God? Did he not need any special help because he was himself God and used his divine powers to resist temptation? Or did he live a perfectly sinless life, overcoming temptation as a man, with no extra edge whatsoever? We need not speculate. The Bible answers these questions plainly:

Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “In all things he had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of he people. For in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18).

Jesus was made “like his brethren” and was “tempted as we are” so that he could aid us. If it were possible for him to have been tempted as God (which it was not, Jas. 1:13), what good would it have done you and me? Had Jesus not been tempted as a man, could he have become our helpful High Priest, blazing the pathway to God? Not according to the Scriptures. “He had to be made like His brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest” (Heb. 2:17).

As a man, he is our example, our Mediator, and our sacrifice for sin. “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: who committed no sin” (1 Pet. 2:21b-22a). “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). “This Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12).

When Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, he was not proving that God cannot be tempted; rather, he was demonstrating how a man who is tempted can overcome it. After fasting for forty days and nights, Jesus “was hungry” as any man would be (Matt. 4:1-2). During that same period he was tempted “by the devil” as all men are (Lk. 4:1-2). He overcame those temptations, not by exercising divine powers or receiving special help from God, but by relying on the Scriptures. Every specific temptation recorded in Matthew 4:1-10 was met with a quotation from Scripture. Jesus demonstrated the attitude of the Psalmist who said, “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You” (Psa. 119:11). He used the same means for overcoming temptation that you and I must use today – reliance upon God’s word. There was nothing directly superhuman or divine about it. It was only after the “devil left him” that he received supernatural help; I angels came and ministered to Him” (Matt. 4:11).

Henry Van Dyke said it so beautifully nearly 100 years ago:

The life which Christ lived on earth was a veritable human life. The person who lived it was the Son of God. But in order to live that human life He had to become man, not in a dramatic sense, but actually and entirely. . . He was subject to ignorance, to limitation, to weakness, to temptation, even as we are. The only point of difference between Him and us is that we sin, but He sinned not. The Godhood that was in Him was such as manhood is capable of receiving. . . His existence among men was simply the human life of God (The Gospel for an Age of Doubt, 1900, preface to the 6th edition, pp. xxi-xxii).

It is interesting that Henry Van Dyke was a noted Presbyterian scholar. As such, he was supposed to be a Calvinist, but he was able to see that Calvinism contradicted the New Testament. He rejected Calvin’s teaching on foreordination and election saying, “I do not believe that all things that happen are determined beforehand. The soul is free” (p. xxiii). Van Dyke’s writings on the nature of the divinity of Christ were “criticized as dangerous” by the Calvinistic scholars of his day who labeled them “a violent and unfair attack upon Calvinism” (p. xxii). Like some among us today, Van Dyke’s critics had probably become used to de-emphasizing Jesus’ humanity and over emphasizing His deity. Only in this way could they uphold the Calvinistic notion that man “has to sin” because of his polluted nature, and still explain how Jesus did not sin.

In the person of Jesus we have a Being who not only shows us what God is like, but also reveals what man ought to be. Surely, in Jesus dwelt “all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). He was “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb. 1:3a, NIV). He told his disciples, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9b). And yet Jesus lived a human life. He was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3). He “suffered, being tempted,” but he remained “without sin” (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). His accomplishment is one of the highest points of human history -that a weak and starving man could turn to the prince of darkness and say, “Away with you Satan!” “Get behind Me” (Matt. 4:10, Lk. 4:8).

No other man has lived a “perfectly sinless life,” and none ever will (Romans 3:109 23). That is not the fault of human nature, but of human choice. Man simply cannot blame his sin on his humanity, for Jesus was a sinless human.

Like the early Christians Schaff wrote of, we today need to focus on those simple biblical statements of the deity and humanity of Jesus. Let us renounce human speculation and simply believe that in Jesus “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and yet he is “an example” for humans who are to “follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21f). He is the “express image” of God (Heb. 1:3) who was “in all points tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15), and yet “God cannot be tempted by evil” (Jas. 1:13). To believe each of these Scriptures does not promote confusion, but an understanding of the human life of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 419-420
July 18, 1991

By Robert Wayne LaCoste

One of the many problems the church at Corinth faced was what we sometimes call today preacheritis. Webster defines the suffix “-itis” as “an inflammatory disease.” Therefore it can be concluded from what Paul wrote concerning preachers to the church at Corinth, that they had a disease relating to preachers. What was the nature of the disease and what were the symptoms? Paul tells us! Its nature was “thinking more highly of men than that which was written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The symptoms or signs were some saying, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas” (1 Cor. 1:12).

A lot of times, through no fault of their own, preachers are thought more highly of than they ought to be. Surely every servant of the Lord should be esteemed and admired for his work’s sake. However, when men start siding with men who preach doctrines contrary to what is written in the gospel of Christ, simply because of personal admiration, or because they are long time acquaintances, then they have carried the admiration and esteem way too far.

I was reared by two parents who insisted that we boys have the proper respect for older people. Early on, it was “no sir” and “yes ma’am.” Even though I’m 42 years old with teenage children, I still find that well ingrained within me and often I’ll even use such terminology to older people who are total strangers.

Sometimes when teaching a Bible class, there will be an aged pupil quite obviously wrong on a given point, but I take cautious measures to correct him in love, for I respect his years. Surely the Scriptures teach that this should be the attitude of the younger to the older: “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father . . . the elder women as mothers” (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Paul is not saying that there is never a time when you should disagree with an older person. No man has the right to be wrong, regardless of his years, station or status in life. What Paul is saying, is that when you do disagree, voice your disagreement as you would to your father or your mother. I would never have called my mother or father an ugly name, or been hostile. I would point out to them their error with firmness, yet with kindness. Why? Because one’s father and mother are to be “honored by their children” (Eph. 6:1-2). This honor is to be present all the days of one’s life, yes even when parents are wrong.

Lately, I have read some teachings of older preachers that I have felt were wrong – dead wrong! These teachings have ranged anywhere from subjects on marriage, divorce and remarriage, to discussions concerning the Lord’s supper on Sunday night. Then I have read the “rebuttals” of other preachers who disagreed with them. A lot of these disagreeing preachers are considerably younger. Some have responded that these younger preachers are “attacking” the older ones. I have seen absolutely no evidence of that in the least! Attack is a pretty strong word to use against one that simply is disagreeing with someone else. As a matter of fact, all I have seen are the so-called “attackees” becoming the “attackers.” Many younger preachers have been indeed “attacked” because they dared to stand for what they felt was the truth. They have been pounced upon because they dared to tell an older brother they thought he was wrong. Often, the age and labor of the older preacher has been mentioned. “Look at all the good he has done . . . look at the years of experience . . . look at the knowledge and wisdom.” Absolutely no one is indicting any of these virtues when calling into question a certain matter someone may be currently believing or practicing. We must be careful brethren! When we start praising men’s wisdom, knowledge and experience to the degree that we are disturbed if they are even called into question about a matter, then we are quickly on the road to “thinking of men above that which is written.”

I love older people. I always have, I especially have a special place in my heart for those older men who preach the gospel of our Savior. I have known some great preachers in my life. However, I never got to meet such greats as C.D. Plum, Franklin Puckett, or Luther Blackmon. I do long to be with them in heaven. However, what kind of sons in the faith would any of us be, if we respected age over what the Lord Jesus taught? If a man is the kind of man he should be, will he not want to be disagreed with, if there be conscientious brethren who feel he’s in error?

As fathers and sons we need to reason together. Whenever I thought my earthly father was wrong on something, I knew I could go to him and talk to him about it, without him feeling I was attacking him. He would listen and when he was wrong, admit such and make proper correction. Now, I find myself with my own children, though I am older than they, admitting I too am wrong at times. Just being a father or just being older doesn’t make one infallible. Neither does the fact that one may have preached for 50 years! The apostle Peter had preached well over 30 years when the apostle Paul withstood him to the face because of Peter’s error (Gal. 2:11). There is no indication Peter considered it an “attack” for Paul loved -his brother and Peter knew it!

Brethren, there are going to be disagreements among us and sometimes error taught. I hope as I age that when I teach something that someone feels is wrong, he will “entreat me as their father” and correct me accordingly. I hope I never get an attitude that simply because I’ve been preaching a long time that I am incapable of error.

As important as correcting error is, is it not equally important that we treat each other as fathers and sons? That’s what we are you know, and may we strive for truth above all things, with the saving of our family as that great goal firmly implanted in our hearts.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 418, 439
July 18, 1991