Truth Magazine

By Robert E. Waldron

When I preached the funeral for brother Lee’s mother, he emphasized to me again and again that he wanted me to thank the friends for coming. I know he would want me to do so now. Sister Lee, Sandra and 1, Judy and Wayne, and all of us who are his family in the flesh, want to say thank you for your kindness in being here.

In recent years I have told Daddy Lee that I have known him since he was a young man, because the first time I saw him, he was about 45. That is several years younger than I am now. During the past thirty years, he and his family, particularly my wife Sandra, have been by far the predominant influence in my life for good.

One of the points brother Lee told me he wanted me to make was that his work has been among the common people and, for the most part, among small churches. There is an additional point I want to make today, and that is that when one sets out in his life to accomplish something, he sometimes forgets what his priorities are, and he forgets what it was he set out to do in the first place. Brother Lee did not seek for fame and prominence; he sought to please God. Whatever fame and prominence he attained came solely through the pursuit of this goal. This is a marvelous lesson for us to keep in mind – all of us – but especially those who are preachers.

His books are among us, and the fruit of his work lives on. Various friends have told how Daddy Lee touched their lives, how he helped them. One of the things I told him in his last days was how comforting it is to know that our work goes on beyond the limits of our earthly life. This is a comforting thought, and it was comforting to him.

I think that the story of his life is an interesting story, and he told about his life in his books. I would strongly recommend that you read what he wrote, but now is not the time for us to narrate his life.

Instead, I want to make a few observations based on what I learned from Daddy Lee. He would not want me to preach on him, but he would like for me to emphasize the principles he followed in his life. It is surprising how little he taught me by word, but what I learned from his life is incalculable in value.

Daddy Lee was a preacher of the gospel; not only did he love preaching, he loved preachers of the gospel. More than anything else, he would applaud my efforts to say something to Christians in general, and to preachers in particular.

Character

Whatever a man may do in his life, whatever his occupation may be, his character is the spiritual clothing which he wears all the time. Irven Lee was the best man I have ever known. This is not to say there are no other men as good, but I did not have the pleasure of knowing them as I did brother Lee. His life was a life of service and dedication to God from his earliest youth.

Brother Lee was definitely not of this world. He walked with his feet on the earth and his heart in heaven (Col. 3:2; Heb. 11:10). We, his family, often wished we could have had a bigger share of him, but we all knew and appreciated his dedication to the cause of Christ. We knew that he loved his family and enjoyed very much the times we were together.

In talking about character, we need to say that Daddy Lee was an honorable man. He did not leave a trail of bad debts. There was never the slightest taint of the unsavory about his life. There was no scandal in his life, and he is living proof that preachers, elders, and saints do not have to have scandals in their lives. It has come to the point where we think it necessary, that we are not full-grown spiritually, until we have a scandal in our lives. I feel sorry for those who are caught in the traps, who stumble and fall, and have some horrible blight to come into their lives, to stain their reputations. But I am saying to you that one of the lessons I learned from brother Lee is that it is not necessary for such things to happen. He took thought for things honorable in the sight of men.

Though acquainted with sin, and he was acquainted with sin, Daddy Lee lived the principles he taught. Sin did not rule in his mortal body that he should obey the lusts thereof. Often we preachers make the mistake of getting out of balance. We enjoy the intellectual exercise of studying and preaching, the association with other preachers, the collecting of books and tapes, and the accumulation of knowledge. Many times in our quest for the goal of knowledge and scholarship, we forget the rock bottom essentials of righteousness, holiness, and godliness. In a day when, more and more, our society is tempted by the display of fleshly allurements, how important it is for all Christians to put on the whole armor of God.

The beatitudes were given to us by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. They were given as a description of the character of a child of God, and it is interesting to read these beatitudes and remember the godly whom we have known. “Blessed are the poor in spirit (the humble), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3-10).

Manner of Preaching

The second point I would like to mention is that Daddy Lee was an incomparable teacher of the Bible. The few times I sat in his Bible classes I was spellbound by two things: one was his complete mastery of every jot and tittle in the text, and the other was the utter simplicity with which he could present even the most difficult material.

He delighted in teaching and preaching the word. His lessons reflected profound understanding which enabled him to make the messages of God’s word simple. This is another lesson we who preach the word need to bear in mind: that it is possible to take the word and use it merely as a tool to display our intellectual prowess. Or we can make it our goal to take the profound message God has given and preach it so that all men may see what is the mystery which was hidden for generations but now has been revealed.

In addition, though Brother Lee was very reverent, and not a comedian, he sometimes injected a note of humor into his lesson which brought the house down. He never told a joke in the pulpit to be funny. His humor always was secondary to the lesson and served somehow to enhance the point.

The first story I ever heard about brother Lee was from Earl Kimbrough. It was the winter of 1960, and I was home for the Christmas holidays. I had gotten a little too involved with one of the young ladies at Florida College and, since I did not think I had a chance in the world with her, I was glad to have a break so that I could get over her. I got to talking to brother Kimbrough about her, and he told me this story about her father Irven Lee.

Daddy Lee was on the lecture series at Florida College. His assignment was a sensitive subject. At the time, weather permitting, lectures were held at the amphitheater on the banks of the Hillsborough River. Every speaker therefore spoke with the black, swirling waters of the river flowing behind him. Brother Lee said, as he began his lecture something to this effect, “I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to you today, and I would also like you to know that this is the largest baptistry I have every had behind me during a sermon.” This simple, gentle humor helped to dispel some of the tension which was so heavy in the audience.

Conviction

Closely related to brother Lee’s life and his teaching was his conviction, his profound commitment to truth. He did not know how to shirk a duty or to compromise the truth. I have heard him preach sermons that made me glance around to see if anyone were picking up stones. I never knew a man with more courage.

There were times when his convictions got him into trouble; there were times he had to pay a tremendous personal price. Nevertheless, he paid the price and kept his convictions – to the very end of his days. He bought the truth, whatever the cost, but he never sold it for any price.

Our age of relativism has affected us more than we care to admit. How easy it is to relax our convictions on worldliness, on divorce and remarriage, to ease our opposition to denominationalism and to false doctrine. It is more comfortable to take a broader view, one which is more acceptable to the masses. True preachers of the gospel can never do that. We must preach the word.

In taking our stand for truth, we can be Christians, we can be gentlemen, we can be kind. Brother Lee was as bold as a lion, yet he was meek and gentle. We do not have to be ugly to be right. Though conduct in this area should grow out of principles of Christian character, yet, as a practical matter, we should realize that we will get much further in reaching people if we seek to persuade and teach. Nevertheless, there comes a time to reprove and rebuke. When that time comes, our voices must not be silent.

I would like to close my lesson by telling you a story about a Bible character. Many times I have applied this story to the end of Daddy Lee’s life.

In 1 Samuel 12:1-5 the Bible says that Samuel came before the people and said, “I have done everything you asked for, and have given you a king. He now walks before you, and I am old and gray. I have walked before you from my youth until this day. Here I am. Before the Lord and before His anointed, witness against me. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I cheated? Whom have I oppressed? From whom have I taken a bribe? Tell it now, and I will repay it.”

The people answered, “You have not cheated anyone. You have oppressed no one. You have never taken a bribe.”

Samuel said, “The Lord is witness against you, as well as His anointed, that you have found nothing in my hand.”

The people cried, “He is witness.”

Then in 1 Samuel 25:1, the Bible tells us that Samuel died, and all Israel gathered together to lament him, and they buried his body at his house in Ramah.

What a record for a public figure to have! Let it be our goal to have such a record, when we reach the end of our way.

I want to append here the poem which my brother-in-law, Wayne Moore, read at brother Lee’s funeral. With some adaptations by Wayne, it reads:

Lord Jesus, Receive My Spirit

This is the aftermath of war

This is the end of the symphony, the final note, the second before the final applause.

This is the end of the journey, the sight of home.

This is the end of the storm, the sun piercing the clouds.

This is the Christian’s sigh of joy: “Lord Jesus.”

The Eternal Word, the Eternal Life, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Prince of Peace, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Lord our Righteousness.

“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

It’s over.

An angel sighs, a star wipes away a tear.

“Take me home!”

Yes, take him home.

Take this prince to his king, take this son to his father, take this pilgrim home.

Let him rest from his labors.

“Take me home! To be with you is much better.”

Come, ten thousand angels.

Come take this wounded soldier home.

Take him to the cradle of his father’s arms.

“Farewell, earth.”

Bless you, slave of God.

Go home.

Rest, sweet soldier.

The battle is over.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 358-360
June 20, 1991

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received from us (2 Thess. 3:6).

A brother or sister “quits the church,” or more correctly quits the Lord. Is there anything the church can do beyond urging him to return? Usually when we suggest that maybe the church should consider withdrawing from such a one, we are faced with: “You can’t withdraw from those who have withdrawn themselves.” We do not believe that those who raise this objection are wilfully trying to avoid responsibility for discipline. I have heard it from some of the finest and more conscientious brethren that I know. But, I do believe that they have a misconception of the withdrawing process.

There is more to “withdrawing yourselves” than making a formal announcement at church and then no longer “using them” in a public way. Many seem to think that since the quitter no longer attends and participates in congregational activities that this constitutes his having withdrawn himself so we cannot “withdraw our fellowship” since the quitter has already withdrawn himself. But this solution to the problem will not do.

We suspect that part of the problem is that of referring to discipline as “withdrawing fellowship. ” The Scriptures refer to “withdrawing yourselves. ” There is a difference. When one withdraws himself it is true that his spiritual fellowship is withdrawn, but it goes beyond that. One withdraws his person, his company, or his social association from the offending party. Surely one can do this even though his brother or sister no longer attends the meetings of the church. Such withdrawal or isolation is designed to make the offender ashamed of his conduct and produce repentance. If Christians refuse to have any social association with such a one and let him know why he can have none then many would feel the pressure and be restored that probably would otherwise be lost. Of course, this severing of company does not preclude contacts for the purpose of admonishing (2 Thess. 3:15) and/or fulfilling other obligations one may have toward the person.

I have known many who have “withdrawn themselves” who continue to enjoy the day-to-day association with Christians. That association has not been severed at all. It is precisely the company (“mixing up with” – Vine’s Dictionary) that must be withdrawn (see 1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 Thess. 3:14). Such a person can still be “marked” or “noted” by the church and then each member can withdraw his company (association) that the one might be ashamed.

The concept that we cannot withdraw from the withdrawn (meaning one who no longer attends) because he has withdrawn himself presents still another problem. Suppose a brother (or sister) becomes an adulterer but still attends all services, sings, bows in prayer, eats the Lord’s supper, etc. (we have known this to happen) withdraw from him?

“Of course, they can,” you say.

But wait a minute. Does the fact that he still attends regularly and participates in worship not mean that he refuses to be withdrawn from? How can the church withdraw from one who refuses to be withdrawn from?

“But, we can’t keep him from coming and participating,” you say.

Right again!

“Each member can refuse to associate with him on a day to day basis.”

Right one more time!

“After all, we can ‘withdraw ourselves’ from him even though he is regular in attendance and participates in the worship.”

Now, my brother, you are beginning to get the point! If the fact that one quits means that he has “withdrawn himself” and we cannot withdraw from him – if one refuses to quit it must mean that there is nothing further we can do, since he refuses to be withdrawn from. If not, why not?

I believe that we can mark and refuse to company with a brother who walks disorderly whether or not he attends services. In fact, the very refusal to attend faithfully is walking disorderly and is grounds for marking and withdrawing ourselves.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, p. 340
June 6, 1991

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Peggy Noonan, What I Saw At the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York: Random House/Ballatine Books, 1990, 1991), pp. 202-203.

Peggy Noonan is a former newswriter for Dan Rather on CBS Radio news who in 1984 became a speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and, later, George Bush. She wrote some of the more memorable speeches delivered by Presidents Reagan and Bush, including the Reagan speech at Pointe du Hock in Normandy in 1984, the January 1986 speech following the space shuttle “Challenger” disaster, as well as George Bush’s nomination acceptance and Inaugural addresses.

Although not a “religious” book, it contains some enlightening passages about issues where politics and religion frequently intersect, and provides some insight into the often anti-religious bias of our public news media. I offer several of these passages for your consideration, and hope you will profit from them as I did.

[Another speech-writer] felt that this was a good time for the president to reassert his opposition to abortion and some of his reasoning. I thought it a good time to bring some of the reasoning up-to-date. A number of people I knew, friends who were approaching their middle thirties, were trying to have children and, for a variety of reasons, having trouble. One, who’d been a newswriter with me in Boston and become a close friend, was trying to adopt and finding it very difficult. One of the unanticipated results of Roe vs. Wade was that people like Judy couldn’t find babies they wanted to adopt anymore.

This is what I wrote:

“I believe that when we allow ourselves to take the lives of our smallest, most vulnerable members, we coarsen ourselves as a society. And it is surely a terrible irony that while some abort their children, so many others who cannot become parents cry out for children to adopt. Abortion has emptied the orphanages – and emptied the cradles of those who want a child to love.

“Our nation has made great strides in helping unwed mothers bring their children to term. Churches, private agencies and individuals are housing, feeding, clothing and treating young mothers, helping them to keep their children or put them up for adoption. This great movement has spread across the country like wildfire.”

Dick Darman did not like anti-abortion language (in the speech-writing business the word “language” is used in place of “argument” and “words”), partly because the president’s stance did not reflect, he said, the will of the majority of the people, and partly, I think, because he himself did not support a ban. We talked about it once. He brought up the polls and said it’s an 80-20, 1 said if you polled the German people in 1939 killing Jews would be an 80-20, he said you can’t squander political capital, I said the courage to take unpopular stands is this president’s capital, he referred to Prohibition and back alleys. I don’t know what I said but I probably conceded yes, people will still do it and they’ll get hurt, you’re right, and more than a change of law is needed – but a change of law is needed.

(I know I lose some people here. I don’t have a single woman friend who agrees with me on abortion, and the woman who edits this or sets the type is steaming. But it’s what I think. When people say abortion is a visceral issue I think they mean it’s purely instinctive: One’s instinct is either to rush to the aid of the frail thing that will be killed or rush to the aid of a freedom that could be lost – and there is no room for compromise. But I’ll tell you something that some members of the anti-abortion movement are privately wrestling with. I had a talk the other night [it is late autumn ‘891 with an anti-abortion activist who is a distinguished writer and thinker. I told him of my growing fear that moving for something like a constitutional amendment when so many women want to keep the abortion option open was – maybe right now not the answer. If we just pass a law and everybody breaks it, what have we gained? There would be so much profit made by bad people, by the worst of our society. And since the decision to abort is made in a single woman’s mind . . . maybe what we really have to do is keep changing minds. He surprised me. “I know what you’re saying,” he said, “and I think about it too.” Maybe the real battlefield is in literature and the arts, in the media, in the fields of political debate. Republican politicians hate to talk about abortion, and then once a year they line up behind a bill to ban it. They have it backwards. They should talk and talk and not move until they have the people. Maybe in this case action must follow consensus, or the action will be meaningless.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, p. 356
June 20, 1991

By Dennis Tucker

At one of the Gainesville hospitals they have a register that shows their patients’ religious affiliation. I heard one of the staff workers say that they wished that all of these different churches would just unite. That caught my attention because recently in a Bible study that same idea was mentioned. Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, expressed that same desire. “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (Jn. 17:20-21). Jesus did not wish for denominations and division but instead unity.

The result of unity would be great. As Jesus mentioned in his prayer, the unity would be proof that he came from God. If every so-called Christian would apply the Bible the same, we would be able to convince others that Jesus is God’s Son and we are his disciples. We would also need fewer church buildings.

In Trenton there are a number of buildings dedicated to worship God. They were not built because of over crowding but because of religious division. Many are only half full on Sunday mornings. This is testimony to the fact that they are not in fellowship with the same God; if they were they would be in fellowship with each other. Fewer preachers would be necessary and less time would be used to teach against the false doctrines of many of these churches. Can anyone question the good that would come about by true religious unity?

What would have to be done to establish unity among all religious people? We are not talking about union but unity. Union seeks to bind people together along with their differences. Unity seeks to do away with all differences and establish a true togetherness.

1. We would have to let Christ be the head of his church. “And He is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18a). This means that there would not be a “Pope” or any other unbiblical office to guide the church.

2. We would have to cast aside all creeds and doctrines except the Bible. The Book of Mormon, Discipline of the Methodist Church, Baptist Manual, etc., would be thrown away. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11a). The Bible would be our only guide.

3. We would teach the Bible plan of salvation. We would teach the same things as the Apostles taught on the Day of Pentecost and throughout the New Testament. “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:38).

4, We would worship God as the Bible instructs us. We would sing with our hearts (Col. 3:16), give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2), observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of every week (Acts 20:7), pray to our heavenly Father (Acts 2:42), and study his Word (Acts 2:42).

5. We would let the church be the church. That means we would not make it a social institution nor create a system of government different from that mentioned in the Bible.

Everything mentioned above would create true religious unity. Jesus would be glorified and souls would be saved.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 355-356
June 20, 1991