Truth Magazine

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

By W.R. Jones

As the Women’s Movement grows in the world about us it is having its effect on some ladies in the church. I was recently confronted with this question by a Christian who worships with a congregation where sisters attending business meetings is a fairly common practice. I am told they attend and speak out concerning their views. The first thing this practice tells me is that sisters who attend and so exercise themselves do not properly understand their role in the kingdom or they have no respect for God’s &vine arrangement. The second thing this practice tells me is that brethren who allow it are either poorly informed of women’s role in the New Testament or they have lost their courage to speak against such conduct. In either case it is an indicator of spiritual decline.

On the basis of what I see and hear, I fear some ladies in the church think the Women’s Movement as seen in the world has liberated them from the role assigned by our Lord in the New Testament. We must Dot judge the church by the standards of the world. I freely admit that faithful sisters in the congregation have a right to know what the church is trying to accomplish. I would readily listen to and respect their sound counsel. But this can be effectively accomplished without women pushing themselves into a “leadership” position in church decisions.

I do not question the “value” of faithful women in Christ Jesus. Dorcas assisted the needy (Acts 9:36). Priscilla and her husband taught a young preacher in the right way (Acts 18:18). Phebe and Mary were commended for their assistance to Paul in the gospel (Rom. 16:1,6).

Women were waiting in prayer following the ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:14). In Philippians 4:3 Paul said, “Help those women who labored with me in the gospel.” As a young preacher I kept preaching appointments where there would have been no congregation, except for the faithful sisters. I have won battles for truth on some occasions only because faithful women backed me. Godly women have done much to encourage, mold and shape me, for a half-century of effective preaching, Don’t try to tell me they are not valuable. But the truth remains, the Lord did not put them in places of leadership. Men and women are equal in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), but they are not equal in their role assignments. Women were not assigned leadership responsibilities in kingdom matters.

What Can a Woman Do in the Worship?

She can do anything a man can do – except take the lead. She can sing, pray, commune, contribute and study – anything but take the lead. Women’s rights to equality in worship is not to be questioned. But dominion over and teaching men publicly is forbidden. Why is this so? 1. God so commanded (1 Cor. 14:23-35). 2. Adam was first created, then Eve (1 Tim. 2:13). There was no woman among the apostles, the seventy, elders, deacons, preachers and evangelists in the New Testament. But, women must not feel badly about this. They have been vindicated by the Lord. The word “mother” has elevated her above all in another role (v. 15).

Yet, a sister may ask, “Is there nothing else for me? Can I do nothing but quietly sit in the assembly and praise God?” If this were all, it would still be an honor, but God has not limited your duties to simply that.

Woman and Her Work in the Church Daily

Women are commanded to teach. But, what about 1 Timothy 2:12? Of course, she is not to usurp authority. She is not to push her way into the lead. Older women are to teach the younger. They are to teach the younger women to be good wives (Tit. 2:3-5). They are permitted to teach privately (Acts 18:26). Sisters can teach classes of children or other women. They can teach their neighbors. Many individuals, male and female, have been converted by women. Women would do the church a great service if they would teach our young ladies to be proper wives for elders, deacons and preachers. You can’t believe how many elders, deacons and especially preachers I have known whose labor was greatly hindered by a wife whose heart and conduct was not in his work. Sisters, you can visit the sick and shut-ins at home or in the hospital, help the needy, and like Dorcas, you could even make a garment.

Female Christians, ask yourselves these questions. 1. Am I an asset or a liability in the church? 2. Am I a help or a hindrance to the work? 3. Do I add strength and character to the church? 4. Is my daily life an influence for good? 5. Am I daily growing in grace and knowledge? 6. Have I led anyone to Christ? Am I even trying? 7. By my attendance and interest am I giving encouragement to the young converts and the unsaved?

Let me proudly say, “God bless our righteous women!”

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 9, p. 265
May 2, 1991

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