Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

I recently subscribed to a religious journal published by the Getwell Church of Christ in Memphis, Tennessee entitled The Spiritual Sword. The issue for January 1991 was a special having to do with the Role of Women in the Church. The editor, Alan E. Highers, set the stage for the special issue in an editorial he entitled “The Winds of Change.” In that article Highers identified the changes being made among those liberal churches that left us years ago. He opposes some of these changes as much as we would oppose them. However, he has apparently failed to learn that you cannot have a little liberalism in the church. Here are some of the things that are happening in liberal churches according to Highers.

The Bering Drive Church in Houston, Texas issues a “Report on Women’s Participation in Public Worship,” dated March 5, 1989. It said, “On July 31, 1988, the elders presented a statement to the Bering family concerning the use of spiritual gifts by both men and women, expressing our conviction that it is scriptural and appropriate for sisters as well as brothers to serve in Sunday morning worship roles of ushering, greeting visitors, receiving the offering, reading Scripture, leading prayers, leading singing, and serving communion.”

Highers also quoted from a January 1990 letter which the Cahaba Valley Church in Birmingham sent to their members. “We further assert that women in the Lord may minister not only to women but also to men, as God calls them, as long as they are submitting to God’s authority, the leaders of the church, and their commitments to their families.” They also announced that they were appointing deacons, both male and female, on Pentecost Sunday, 1990. By 1994 they said woman will also be “speaking to the assembly in sermon.”

Highers printed an exchange that occurred at the 1990 Preachers and Church Workers forum at Freed-Hardeman University. The exchange was the response to a question by Robert Randolph, preacher for the church at Brookline, Massachusetts, and Lynn Mitchell, an elder at Bering Drive in Houston. Here is the exchange:

Question: I would like to ask brother Randolph, can women serve as elders today? If not, why not? Our culture today would allow it even though the culture of the Bible in general might not permit it.

Randolph: I have no problem with women serving as elders today. . .

Mitchell: I wouldn’t take any exception to what brother Randolph said.

The Gospel Advocate, a well-known journal among the liberals, wrote in their March 1989 issue on this subject: “Some have assumed that as long as women do not act contrary to the specific command to ‘keep silence,’ they can assume a leadership role in the service, such as serving communion. . . Some are saying that serving communion is not a leadership role . . . in at least one instance, women are not content with serving communion but now also lead singing and prayer, make announcements, read the Scriptures, and even preach on occasion! . . . A recent decision in a second congregation affirms, ‘after much prayer and thought and discussion, the conclusion was reached that there was nothing in Scripture denying women the freedom to serve in the following capacities: ushering, serving communion, Scripture reading, song leading, leading prayer and making announcements.”‘

It is evident that our liberal brethren have a problem on their hands. They abandoned the authority of the Scripture many years ago, and they do not appreciate the liberties that some of their churches are now exercising. They demand the right to exercise their liberties without Scripture, but they do not want others to do the same if they go farther into denominationalism than they choose to go.

For a long time the denominational world has had women preachers and church leaders. Now we know that liberal churches of Christ have followed that same path. The evidence of history is that faithful churches will have difficulty with the same questions if we fail to teach the truth in a forthright way concerning these questions. This one is easy to deal with.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak,- but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). It also should be noted that Paul is discussing conduct when “the whole church be come together into one place” (v. 23). Paul also said, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). As it regards women elders, we need to note simply that the Scriptures teach: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:1-2).

We must make a decision to live by the Scriptures. If we do so, we will know that God has limited a woman’s activity in the church and we must not go beyond what he has authorized. If we are going to abandon the Scriptures regarding some of these things, it really does not matter what we do after that. To go beyond the Scripture – any Scripture – means that we have abandoned God (2 Jn. 9). We will not take that first step away from God’s Word.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 264, 269
May 2, 1991

By Mike Willis

The unity of local churches must be preserved. One reputable preacher among our liberal brethren is reported to have said that very few churches exist 25 years without having at least one major conflict resulting in a division. Whether that is absolutely true or not, my limited experience confirms that it is near enough to be being true to be of concern to each of us.

The problem is not new; divisions also occurred in first century churches. Most of us are aware of the divisions in the church at Corinth; we may not be as aware of the threat of division in the church at Philippi. In the four short chapters of that book, Paul exhorted that the church preserve its unity in four different places (1:27; 2:2; 3:15; 4:2). The problem in Philippi, like that in most church divisions today, was not doctrinal. Division was threatened by brethren who were unspiritual, if not carnal. Such is more likely the case among us today. A study of these four Scriptures may help us ward off division in the local church.

Philippians 1:27

Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.

This passage exhorts Christians to stand fast in a common element (one spirit – not the Holy Spirit, but the human spirit) to maintain the unity of Christians. The oneness of the spirit is “the perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling” which “presents the appearance of one spirit which the various persons have in common” (H.A.W. Meyer 42). This spirit existed in the church at Jerusalem, for Luke records, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32). They “continued daily with one accord” (Acts 2:46). This bonding of brethren is necessary for the preservation of the unity of the local church.

Some churches lack oneness of spirit because they have strong-willed brethren pushing to get their own way. Where this occurs, there may exist three or four parties within the local church, each vying with the other for control of the church. (Do a word study of the works of the flesh, “strife, seditions, heresies,” in Galatians 5:20 to learn the progressive development of division in a local church.) The congregation may continue meeting together for a time, but there is no meshing of the gears together, no oneness of spirit; instead, there is strife, factions, and division.

Philippians 2:1

If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, or one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

The motives for unity in the local church are our consolation in Christ, the comfort of our love one to another, our fellowship of the Spirit and our bowels (of compassion) and mercies toward one another. As we think of these precious blessings available to us in the local church, we should work to attain and maintain the unity of the local congregation. The psalmist described the blessedness of unity as follows:

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments.

As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore (Psa. 133).

The blessedness of this unity should cause us to “give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Therefore, we should be likeminded, which is further defined as having the same love toward one another and being of one accord to each other. This is destroyed by strife and vainglory. Strife (from eritheian) means “a desire to put one’s self forward, a partisan and factious spirit which does not disdain low arts; partisanship, factiousness” (Thayer 249). The word was “used of those who electioneer for office, courting popular applause by trickey and low arts.”

Perhaps you have seen this spirit at work in the local church. A man who is bent on having his own way begins politicking among the brethren to line up a coterie of followers who might look toward him as their leader. When he has enough power to push his way over the objections of others, such a man will make his move to seize control of the church.

The word vainglory (from kenodoxian) means “glorying without reason, conceited, vain-glorious, eager for empty glory.” There is a spirit which sometimes manifests itself among brethren in which a man desires to exalt himself. He would rather be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond. Arrogance and conceit destroy the unity of the local church. Where arrogant, conceited brethren are, the peace of the church is threatened. Sometimes vainglorious men seize control of the church and dominate it with their high-handed rule, lording it over the flock (1 Pet. 5:3). Humble men can take only so much of this kind of rule before they rise up in rebellion against the arrogant. The cause of such church troubles is not the humble men who rise in rebellion but the arrogant, conceited brethren who trample under foot the consciences, wishes and desires of others.

As a preventive to division caused by arrogant brethren, Paul instructed brethren to manifest “lowliness of mind” and to “esteem others better than themselves.” Where brethren imitate the humility of Jesus, the sacrificing of his best interests in order to secure the best interests of others, division will not occur (Phil. 2:4-5). The humble mind cannot co-exist with the selfishness which has its own bests interests foremost in its mind.

Every brother should “esteem other better than themselves.” Contrast this with that spirit of strife which is bent on having its own way at all costs. Every man should look out for what is best for others, rather than promoting his own selfish interests. Where this spirit of cooperation exists, unity and peace will prevail.

Philippians 3:16

Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Paul exhorts the Christians not to deviate from the revelation which they already have received, but to continue walking according to divine revelation. This might be illustrated as follows:

C

A ———————————————————B ——————————————————– D

E

The person who is walking the line from A to B should continue the line from B to D, not deviating to C or E. To do so would be to change one’s direction, to head in a different way.

We need to “mind the same thing.” So long as Christians resolve to abide in the doctrine of Christ, there will be unity. Those who depart from the doctrine of Christ trouble churches (Gal. 1:7) and cause division.

Philippians 4:2

I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

Paul referred to two sisters in the church at Philippi who were having conflict. He exhorted them to “be of the same mind” because their differences were troubling the church. Sometimes the unity of the local church is destroyed by women who have conflict one with another. Perhaps one did not invite the other to her Tupperware or Home Interiors party; maybe one gossipped about the other; perhaps one was caustic in her speech and hurt the other sister’s feelings. We will never know what the circumstance was which created the dissension. We only know that it was damaging the unity of a good church.

When two or more sisters “lock horns” in a local church, it still destroys and damages the unity of the local church. Sometimes the tension is noticed by all and transmitted to others (“if you are her friend, you are not my friend”). For the sake of the peace of the local church, let every brother and sister “be of the same mind in the Lord.”

Conclusion

The unity of the local church is precious. We must not allow carnal men to destroy local churches by their political self-assertion. God-fearing brethren, in a spirit of true humility, must stop the spread of strife and vainglory before it destroys the local church.

Let us resolve to grow spiritually. Let us be Christ-like. This is the best preventive to discord and division. Let us receive the rebuke of spiritual men, making correction wherein we are out of step with God’s word. Because of the consolation which we have in Christ, the comfort of love, the fellowship of the Spirit, and the bowels of compassion and mercies, let us have the same love one toward another, show true humility, and esteem others better than ourselves.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 8, pp. 258, 277
May 2, 1991

By John A. Smith

Pre-marital Sexual Abstinence Offers True Freedom!

The wisdom of pre-marital sexual abstinence can be seen in the world around us. In it we find a powerful confirmation of the wisdom of God’s law. God’s prohibition was not issued to be mean or deprive the unmarried of pleasure. It was given to make life better and full of pleasant satisfaction.

Pre-marital sexual abstinence offers true freedom from many things which are not in the young person’s best interest.

1. Freedom from unwanted, unplanned pregnancies.

a. 90% of girls who are sexually active without the use of some form of contraception will become pregnant within 1 year. (I do not mean by this to endorse the use of birth control as an alternative to chastity.)

b. 85% of teenage boys who father a child will eventually abandon mother and child.

c. Pregnant and parenting teens are less likely to obtain a high school degree or its equivalent.

d. Babies born to teenage mothers are 2 1/2 times more likely to die in the first year of life than those born to women in their twenties.

Clearly God knew what he was talking about! David had to struggle with just such a consequence (2 Sam. 11-12). When he had an affair with Bathsheba, he had no intention for a long term relationship. Sexual activity had become addictive. The momentary pleasure of this “one night stand” brought a life time of grief (2 Sam. 12:10-14).

But not everyone who is sexually active outside of marriage will get pregnant. If you avoid this physical consequence is it OK? Think again!

2. Freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS.

a. 12 million new cases of STD are reported annually in the U.S. Many of them won’t kill you, but you won’t kill them either. They will be with you for life. A STD caught before marriage could present a serious health threat to one’s spouse.

b. If current rates continue one in four Americans between the ages of 15 and 55 will eventually acquire a STD.

c. Since the “sexual revolution” the number of known STDs has risen from 5 to more than 27.

d. If global predictions are correct there may be as many as 50 to 100 million AIDS infected persons in the world (Dr. Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services).

e. Dr. C. Everett Koop observed that nothing was more frightening to him than the “specter of AIDS in the future of public health.”

f. Symptoms may be dormant for 7 years or more. Many people who are infected and carriers do not know that they have the disease.

g. AIDS infection is not limited to the homosexual population. It is spreading most rapidly among heterosexuals.

“Good understanding gains favor, but the way of the unfaithful is hard” (Prov. 13:15). “The integrity of the upright will guide them, but the perversity of the unfaithful will destroy them” (Prov. 11:3). “He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, but he who is careless of his ways will die” (Prov. 19:16). Clearly, God knew what he was talking about.

But not everyone who is sexually active outside of marriage will get a STD or AIDS. If this consequence is avoided, is it OK? Think again.

3. Free from the pressure to marry before you are ready.

a. Sexual relations create a bond between the partners that, when mistaken for genuine love, fools the young couple into believing that the relationship is deeper than it really is.

b. Builds a relationship on an emotional bond which can easily be faulty.

4. Freedom from the guilt, self-doubt, disappointment, worry and ruined reputation often associated with premarital sexual activity.

a. Guilt is one consequence of pre-marital sexual activity which may last longer than any other.

b. Casual sex without deep-rooted committed love proves to be damaging to one’s self-image.

c. No pill or device can guard your mind against the terror of self -accusation.

After his affair with Bathsheba, David had a terrifying experience with the guilt. He became physically and emotionally sick. Describing his condition, David said, “There is no soundness in my flesh because of your anger, nor is there any health in my bones because of my sin. For my iniquities have gone over my head; like a heavy burden they are too heavy for me . . . I am troubled, I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. For my loins are full of inflammation, and there is no soundness in my flesh. I am feeble and severely broken; I groan because of the turmoil of my heart” (Psa. 38:1-8).

These few consequences only begin to address the issue. Imagine sitting across the dinner table and having to tell your parents that you are pregnant, or having to tell your girl friend’s father that she’s pregnant and you’re the father. Shattered dreams and innocence lost never to be regained are not the consequences which get publicity, but are consequences that often linger long into adulthood.

Pre-marital sexual abstinence offers the young person the opportunity to experience the better things in life.

1. Freedom to be in control of your own life.

2. Freedom to experience fuller communication in dating relationships.

3. Freedom to develop greater respect for yourself.

4. Freedom to have greater trust in marriage.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 266-267
May 2, 1991

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Peggy Noonan, What I Saw At the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York: Random House/Ballantine Books, 1990, 1991), pp. 23-24.

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 Hoc 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.

CBS, like all the networks, all media, was shaped in part by a certain political spirit.

My peers at the network, the writers and producers in their late twenties and thirties, thought of themselves as modern people trying to be fair.

There are conservatives over here and wild lefties over there – and us, the sane people, in the middle. If you made up a list of political questions – should we raise taxes to narrow the deficit; should abortion be banned; should a morning prayer be allowed in the schools; should arms control be our first foreign-policy priority? most of them would vote yes, no, no, yes.

And they would see these not as liberal positions but as decent, intelligent positions. They also thought their views were utterly in line with those of the majority of Americans. In a way that’s what’s at the heart of our modern political disputes, a disagreement over where the mainstream is and what “normal” is, politically and culturally. I think a lot of the young people at the networks didn’t really know what normal was in America, and I hold this view because after working six years in broadcasting and three in New York, I no longer knew what normal was.

A small example. Once I wrote a radio script in which I led into a story by saying, “This Sunday morning you’ll probably be home reading the papers or out at brunch with friends, but Joe Smith will be. . . ” A middle-aged editor listened as he walked by the studio and approached me afterward. “Peggy, a small point but maybe not so insignificant: This Sunday morning most Americans will be at church.”

He was, of course, correct. But I forgot. I wasn’t at church on Sunday mornings, I was in a restaurant on Columbus Avenue eating mushroom omelets and reading the Arts and Leisure section of The New York Times.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, p. 267
May 2, 1991