Truth Magazine

By Andy Alexander

Must Be Right on Christian Living

In order to be the right church, the church must teach what the Bible teaches on Christian living. The church must attempt to persuade its members to follow the Bible in their everyday living and it must also discipline those who disobey (Tit. 2:11-12; Jas. 1:27; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). The church which teaches what the Bible teaches on Christian living and strives to enforce that teaching is right, because the Bible is right and that’s what the Bible teaches. It could be right on this point, yet wrong in its worship or wrong in its teaching concerning the conditions of membership and this would make it the wrong church.

Must Be Right In Name

Christ built the church, is the head of it, the Savior of it and responsible for adding those who obey the gospel to it (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Matt. 16:15; Acts 2:47). So what name should the church wear? Since the Bible is right, what does the Bible say? We see it called the church, the church of God, the churches of God, and the churches of Christ (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 1:2; 11:16; Rom. 16:16). These are not titles given to the church, but simply expressions of ownership. In the broad sense, speaking of all the saved it is called the church. When speaking of it in terms of different local congregations “church” is used in the plural form.

Denominations of men wear differing titles based upon different teachings, different creeds, and different practices. There is no such division in the New Testament church. In fact, division is condemned (1 Cor. 1:10-13). The church that wears a Bible name is right on that point. It may be wrong elsewhere in its doctrine and practices, but it is right on that point.

Must Be Right In Its Organization

The Bible teaches that local congregations are independent bodies. They are to manage their own affairs and to be organized as God instructs in his word. Each local congregation is to have its own elders, deacons, and members (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Phil. 1:1). The church which teaches this plan and strives to be organized in this way is right on this point. In order to be the right church, it must be right on all of these points.

Must Be Right In Its Benevolent and Missionary Work

It is the duty of the church to help poor saints and preach the gospel to the world (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Phil. 4:10-18). The church may be right in name, organization, its teaching on Christian living, worship, and conditions of membership, but if it does not make a scriptural effort to help poor saints and preach the gospel to the world – it lacks that much being right.

What the Bible Teaches Is Right

The church which does what the Bible teaches is right, because the Bible is right! The church which leaves off some of the Bible’s teaching or adds to what the Bible teaches is wrong. It may be right on some points, but in order to be the right church it must be right on all these points. We must learn to keep our own opinions out of the matter and listen to God.

Study your Bible. Examine what you are doing. Is what you are teaching, supporting, and practicing found in the Bible? If not, then obey the gospel and identify yourself with a congregation which follows the Bible completely. The church of Christ is following the Bible as its one and only guide. If we are failing, then point out our faults, even if its just one point. We want to go to heaven and the only way is to follow the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, p. 263
May 2, 1991

By Robert F. Turner

(Editor’s Note: The following article from brother Turner is part of a correspondence he had with a brother from the British Isles who had questions about the organization of the church. Brother Turner thought his answers to these questions might be helpful to other readers as well.)

1. Is the “single independent local church the only organizational structure divinely authorized”?

(lb) Does “elders in each church” mean a plurality in each congregation in a local church? For instance, (1c) did the church in Jerusalem have elders over it as a whole, spread out in 2 or 3 congregations, or (1d) did each congregation within the Jerusalem church have its own elders over that congregation only? To me, if the church there had a plurality of elders, maybe one in each congregation, could even have been in one congregation, overseeing the whole Jerusalem church, don’t you think?

Answer to One: Yes, I believe it is. There is no authority for an organization of saints on a scope larger than what we call a “local church;” and the burden of proof is on any who would contend otherwise. To reply to other questions and comments in an understandable manner we must first clear up the use of some terms.

“Congregation” is seldom used in the New Testament (Acts 13:43) but is often found in the Old Testament, coming chiefly from two different words: edah and qa1ah. The Hebrew edah is translated into the Greek LXX by sunagogue with its basic meaning of “gathering. ” (There was no institutional synagogue in O.T. times.) In the New Testmaent the word is applied to the Jewish synagogue and may even refer to the building where the Jews gathered (as “church” is so often applied today), but it retains its meaning of a “gathering” of people, or things (Jas. 2:2; cf. sunago,- Matt. 13:2; 18:20).

The Hebrew qahal of the Old Testament, also used for “congregation,” is translated in the LXX by ekklesia, and carries the idea of “a people joined to one another by laws or cords although they may not be collected” (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament). In the New Testament it is applied to all saints (joined in Christ, Matt. 16:18); to saints distributively (Acts 8:1-3); as well as to saints who function collectively (Phil. 4:15). We usually use “local church” to designate this latter application. J.W. Roberts (Firm Foundation, July 6, 1965), writing about ekklesia says, “But as the ‘local church’ the meaning is that of the body politic, the totality of the individual Christians at a given place in their organized capacity.” Johannes Weiss, in Earliest Christianity (V. 2, 620), is quoted as saying, “Ecclesia therefore finally becomes a particular designation for the organized local church ” (my emphasis, rt). Please note Acts 14:27 where both words are used side by side “. . . and had gathered (sunagogontes) the church (ekklesia) together.”

The “local church” is a plurality of saints who have covenanted together to work as a “team” in the service of the Lord. They agree to work as one; to this end they pool funds, accept some means of reaching a common mind (when men are qualified they appoint elders), and they act as a team. Note Philippians 1:1, the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (overseers and servants). In Philippians 4:15 these saints are called “church” and the word takes a singular verb. A local church (organized body) can function when not assembled, through its servants, or by funds sent to procure a service (cf. Phil. 2:25-30). One may call an organized local church a “congregation,” because these saints do “come together,” but a local church consists of many saints, not of many “congregations. ” The simple “gathering” of saints (for example: a home Bible study) does not constitute them an organized local church or congregation.

(lb) We first read of elders in Acts 11:30, before Paul’s first Journey, and there were a plurality. During that first journey Paul and Barnabas put “elders in every church” (14:23). During Paul’s second journey he wrote about “them” (plural pronouns) who are “over you in the Lord” (I Thess. 5:12-13). And thereafter, all reference to elders, bishops, pastors (shepherds) in a church are plural. In the absence of any other directions for church oversight I must conclude that God’s plan for organization structure is “elders in every church”; and that means elders in every congregation, if one wishes to use that designation.

(1c) The early church in Jerusalem had the apostles for teaching (Acts 2:42), leadership in handling problems (6:1-4), and contributions were laid at their feet (4:34-37); indicating they had control over those funds. The apostles appointed servants to handle certain physical matters (6: If). We have some indication of how they handled gatherings (see Acts 2:46), but there is no evidence of a plurality of churches congregations – at that time. Within a very few years the saints “were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (8:1). However, by 50 A.D. the church in Jerusalem had elders (Acts 15:4f) and acted as one (15:22). Perhaps we need to realize that in those early days things were in a formative stage, inspired men directed the development as God would have it, but time was needed for full realization. Today we must be directed by the inspired written word.

(1d) As explained above, I do not believe scriptural terminology will allow us to treat “congregations” as units of a local ” church. ” Elders ” in every church ” means ” in every congregation” as well. If a group of saints qualify as an organized congregation, they should strive to appoint qualified elders (plural) as their overseers.

“The ‘local church’ is a plurality of saints who have covenanted together to work as a ‘team’in the service of the Lord. They agree to work as one; to this end they pool funds, accept some means of reaching a common mind (when men are qualified they appoint elders,, and they act as a team. (le) Shepherds of a local church are to “take the oversight thereof” and are to be “examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2-3). This, coupled with “elders in every church,” seems clearly to teach that the elders of one church-congregation have no business claiming or taking oversight of some other flock or of their work. Church historians agree that the early apostasy began with the Metropolitan system, whereby overseers of one church controlled other churches around them, forming a diocese. This is a change in God’s plan for independent churches, and is as wrong today as it was then.

Paul told Titus to “ordain elders in every city” (kata polin) and some contend this means only one church per town. Of course it could as well mean elders in every church in every city. Crete was famous for its 100 cities. Are we to conclude there was a church in each of them? I believe the truth is far less speculative. Greek scholars (Robins, Lenski) say this is the distributive use of kata, and many of them (Expositors, Alford, Meyer) cite passages for comparison (Lk. 8:1; Acts 15:21,26; 20:23). They translated “city by city,” and indicate it means “all over the island,” “of the church in several cities,” etc. Pulpit says, “It shows Christianity was widely spread in Crete,” and Lenski says “the placement of elders in each congregation.” These men are not quoted as final authority, but their expertise in Greek is respected.

Checking their references we find “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (Acts 15:21), i.e., every city where there was a synagogue. Paul said the Spirit told him “in every city” that bonds and afflictions awaited him (Acts 20:23), i.e., those cities along his route to Jerusalem (21:4,10f). This is called “synecdoche”: the whole put for the part (cf. I Cor. 6:12). The meaning in Titus is, wherever there was a church, appoint elders there.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 8, pp. 261-262
May 2, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

Have you heard this common retort, “Don’t try to lay a guilt trip on me”? In the slangy vernacular of our day, it is a Protestant’s way of avoiding indictment and conviction of wrong doing. If someone wants to evade and avoid the pricking of his conscience, he merely has to sav. “Don’t lay a guilt trip on me, man.”

Sadly, this “guilt trip” philosophy has made its way into the thinking of professing preachers. The idea is to present the gospel in an inoffensive manner, and who is against that? One means of not being offensive is to preach so as not to “lay a guilt trip” on the hearers. The goal is to reach the sinner for Christ without “driving him away.” Again, who is opposed to that? However, if we “lay a guilt trip” on our prospective convert, we will “turn him off.” Hence, our aim should be to leave him “feeling good” about himself, but we cannot do that if we burden him with a “guilt trip.”

Assuredly, only a preacher with ill motives and a rotten attitude would seek to hurt people, to make them mad. No one condones preaching that is mean and spiteful or that is impelled by “envy and strife” (Phil. 1:15). Let that be understood, but what are the tactics, the devices of the Bible? How does God approach the sinner? How did Jesus? Did the apostles preach the gospel without confronting people with their sins? We cannot improve on the methods and manners of the word of God. Should the sinner be faced with his sins? Should he feel their weight and force in his heart and conscience?

(1) Evincing Eviction From Eden. Adam and Eve sinned. Did the Lord seek to calm their fears, to assuage their shame? Did he avoid the subject of the eating of the tree, or did he face them with their actions? You be the judge. What if Adam and Eve had left the garden “in a huff,” saying over their shoulders, “We’ll never be back; one little mistake, and we get clobbered.” At any rate, the Lord confronted Adam and Eve with their sin and pronounced sentence upon them (Gen. 3). Should preachers do less? But what if the sinners reject their guilt and turn away in anger? Should the preacher be charged with “driving people away”?

It is ironic that preachers are “condemned” for “condemning people. ” Those who protest against laying a “guilt trip” on the audience, are eager to lay a “guilt trip” on the preacher for laying a “guilt trip” on the sinner. But if it is wrong to lay a “guilt trip” on a sinner, is it right to lay a “guilt trip” on the preacher?

(2) “Thou Art the Man.” When David sinned with Bathsheba, the piercing words of Nathan penetrated the heart of Israel’s great King. “Thou art the man” sounds like a fairly direct accusation to me. Read 2 Samuel 12:1-14. David, if the Psalms are to be believed, did not “feel good” about his guilt. He suffered greatly. The sinner must be brought to his spiritual knees. How else can he kneel at the cross? Is there a sadistic glee to be derived from humbling the sinner? God forbid! “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18). Paul hung the “guilt trip” around the necks of the enemies, but he was not glad about it. Compare 2 Corinthians 2:4 where he refers to the direct confrontation of sin – “For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.”

(3) The Methods of Jesus. Jesus exposed both sin and the sinner. Consider the rich, young ruler (Mk. 10:17-22). Jesus laid bare his covetousness and the young man went away “sorrowful.” Now, if a preacher has to leave his audience feeling good about themselves in order to be viewed as a success, then Jesus failed miserably. This young man came seeking “eternal life.” He had the proper goal. He came to the correct source, to Jesus. He came eagerly, “running. ” He lacked one thing, just one, but Jesus laid hold of it, and the young ruler left. Should we blame Jesus? After all, the young man had many moral virtues; his money could have been useful to the Lord and to the disciples; so, if the Lord uses a little tact and caters to him, perhaps this wealthy man can be a great asset to the Lord’s work. Jesus evidently, though, laid a heavy “guilt trip” on this young man, and he went away sorrowful. Is Jesus to blame? Who will say so?

How about, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29)? Should such astonishing language be used today? Reckon it put a “guilt trip” on those Sadducees? Yes, it did, and it was not a pleasant journey, either.

The disciples said to Jesus, “Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?” (Matt. 15:12) Imagine that! The teaching of the world’s only sinless man actually “offended” folks. “And they were offended at him” (Mk. 6:3). In Luke 6:11, Jesus succeeded only in filling his audience “with madness.” In fact, it was so bad that they wanted to kill him. Oh, oh, must have been another case of “guilt trip.” In Luke 11:45, a lawyer said, “Master, thus saying thou reproachest (insult) us also.” Can you believe it? Here is a man who calls himself a preacher, and all he does is “insult” and “offend” people and send them away feeling sorrowful – it is time to change preachers! But it gets worse. “And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed” (Lk. 13:17). Now, how is that for making people “feel good” about themselves?

Remember, the purpose is not to offend, to insult, to shame and embarrass, but it is often the effect. Jesus would not compromise; he would not vacillate or bargain with sin and error. He loved the people he convicted (Matt. 9:36-38; Lk. 13:34; 23:34). He loved the very ones he so antagonized. He died for the ones he angered with his withering words. True gospel preachers must speak the truth in love – in love for the Lord, for the truth, for the souls of lost men and women. They also must speak the truth in hate – in hatred of sin, Satan and evil and error of every kind (Rev. 2:6,15; Psa. 104; 128; 139:21,22).

(4) The Apostles. The very first gospel sermon ever preached is an excellent model. Observe how it pricked, pierced, the hearts of the audience (Acts 2:37). It did this by pungently pointing out the specific sin of the audience – the murder of the Messiah (Acts 2:22,23,36). It was successful in Acts 2, but it had an adverse reaction in Acts 5:28,40. Were the apostles at fault in Acts 5 for not making their audience “feel better” about themselves? Quite obviously, they “laid a guilt trip” on the Jews — “ye . . . intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28; cf. v. 30; 2:23). Stephen received a similar reaction in Acts 7 when he charged his audience with stubbornness, betrayal and murder (Acts 7:51-60).

When Paul preached to the Jews, he did not focus upon the idolatry and immorality of the Gentiles. Conversely, when he spoke to the Gentiles, he did not emphasize the sins of Israel (cf. Acts 13:16-39; 17:2,3,16-30). Rather, he faced each audience with its own particular circumstance. Paul often fled from hostile mobs. Was this the result of his lack of prudence or kindness? Was Paul a hateful man who took pleasure in inciting riots? Was he simply ignorant of how to properly approach and handle an audience? No, but as he himself said, to the lost we are the smell of death and to the saved we are the aroma of life (2 Cor. 2:15-17). “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3:12). “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11).

The New Testament is a living “guilt trip” – “for all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23); “If we way we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us . . . . If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (I Jn. 1: 8, 10). The Holy Spirit was sent in Acts 2 to “convict the world of sin” (Jn. 16:8). W.E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says that word “convict” signifies to “refute, usually with the suggestion of putting the convicted person to shame. “

Sinners need to be convicted with guilt, shame and sorrow for sin, for godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation. Do not be hesitant or squeamish about it. It must be done if the sinner is to be saved. Be aware, of course, that it will not always be successful. Sinners may resent efforts to convict them of sin (Acts 7:54; 13:44-46). They may resort to harsh language in their protests against such efforts, but do not be dismayed or distracted from the work. Be on guard against the weak and shallow gospel of “self-confidence” and self-image. It is precisely our own self-confidence that puts us into sin in the first place and we have an “image” problem that needs to be changed, and only the solemn tour of a New Testament guilt trip can help us to see the alteration that must be made.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 8, pp. 259-260
May 2, 1991

By Dick Blackford

It is difficult to find anything good about war. While we pray for sustained peace let us use a bad situation as an opportunity for some good. The time is ripe for us to focus on some valuable and needed lessons. Those who teach Bible classes should seize the opportunity while the middle East is on everyone’s mind.

Our young people, especially, have often been left with the feeling that Bible events occurred in some obscure “never-neverland,” leaving them with the feeling that these “long ago, far away” happenings are mythical. But they happened in time and space and in real places. Here is an opportunity to make the Bible come alive to our students and relate today’s news to biblical places and events. It is also an opportunity to expose a false religion and extol the peaceable kingdom of God.

Bible History and Geography

Most are now able to locate Iraq on a map and recognize it on sight. The land now occupied by Iraq is the cradle of civilization and is a little larger than California in square miles. Many of the most important events of the Bible occurred there. The two major rivers of Iraq are two of the rivers which flowed through the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14). This area was called Mesopotamia in early Bible history and means “the land between two rivers.” Babel, on the plains of Shinar would be located in the land now occupied by Iraq and near the city of Babylon. Ur of Chaldees, the early home of Abraham (Gen. 11:31), was located about 150 miles inland from the Persian Gulf and a little north of modern Kuwait. It was 11 miles west of the Euphrates and east of modern Bosra, which is much in the news. Ruins of this ancient city were discovered in the 1920s. Abraham’s father Terah emigrated with his family to Haran, located in northern Iraq. Later, Abraham’s servant was sent here to seek a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24:1of) and in which Jacob served for his wives, Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29).

Assyria was in northern Iraq. The famed city of Nineveh, which repented at the preaching of Jonah, was its capital (located on the eastern bank of the Tigris near modern Mosul). Jesus said the men of Nineveh would rise up and condemn his generation (Matt. 12:41). About 100 years later Nineveh was destroyed in the time of Nahum. It was the Assyrians who captured the ten northern tribles of Israel and sent them into oblivion.

The ruins of Babylon are located 50 miles south of Baghdad. It was during the Babylonian Empire that such Bible notables as Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, the three Hebrew children (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego) crossed the pages of history while Judah was in captivity. Nineveh and Babylon were once the greatest cities in the world.

The events of the book of Esther occurred in modern Iran. Shushan (Susa) was not far from the Iraqi border. King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), Queen Esther’s husband, ruled the Persian Empire “from India even unto Ethiopia” (Esth. 1:1). One of the many attempts to exterminate the Jews was thwarted by Mordecai and Esther when Haman was hang ed. It was during the Persian Empire that King Cyrus permitted the Jews captured by Nebuchadnezzar to return to Jerusalem and build the temple (Ezra 6:3). It was also during this period that Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi did their work.

Not many places in Saudi Arabia are mentioned in Scripture. Sheba (Seba), in the southwest, comes to mind. The queen of Sheba, who marveled at Solomon’s wisdom and riches, was from what is now Saudi territory.

Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Israel have also been in the news. I recommend showing students these areas on maps of the Bible lands and comparing them with some modern maps of the same area. The February 3, 1991 issue of Newsweek has some excellent pull-out maps. We should seize every lawful means to make our Bible classes more interesting and relevant.

Exposing a False Religion

Of the 5 billion world population, one billion are Moslems. Mohammed began the religion of Islam with violence and violence has been a major part of its history. Many converts to Islam have been made with the sword. As with socalled Christendom, the Moslem world is divided. The two best known groups are Sunnis (who are moderate) and Shiites (who are more radical). While Sunnis are in a vast majority, the Shiites are the majority of Iran and Iraq.

Moslems believe Mohammed was the last (and superior) prophet of God. It, like many religions, particularly the Mormons, is based on the doctrine of continuous revelation. The Koran, which contains the religious teachings of Mohammed, is devoid of the high standard of morality presented by Christ in the New Testament. Nothing in it equals the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:29) or the Golden Rule (Lk. 6:31). The Koran teaches carnal aggression against its enemies. Since this is a growing religion (expected to reach six million in the U.S. by the year 2000) our people need to be informed. Some good encyclopedias will inform you of the origin and history of this religion. To learn more about the doctrine I recommend the Hutto-El Dareer Debate between Hiram Hutto (a gospel preacher) and Salah El Dareer, President of the Islamic Center of Birmingham.

The Peaceable Kingdom of God

We are glad the “wars and rumors of wars” with its horrors are over. Let us point all those who long for peace to the Prince of Peace. He is the only answer to the world’s problems. His lofty and sublime principles call us to a higher order and regard for our fellowman. Prophecies concerning his kingdom say, “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end” (Isa. 9:7). It was described as a realm in which men would beat their swords into plowshares, spears into pruning hooks, and would learn war no more (Isa. 2:4). Jesus said if his kingdom were of this world then would his servants fight (Jn. 18:36).

Let us continue to preach this kingdom to a lost and dying world.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, pp. 257, 278
May 2, 1991