Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Ben F. Vick, Jr. has said:

Those who oppose Bible classes and orphan homes to the division of the church are not walking in the light. Therefore, we do not have fellowship with those who oppose Bible classes and orphan homes to the division of the church . . . . The brethren who oppose Bible classes and orphan homes fit into one barrel. They have divided the church by binding where God has loosed. God said, “teach.” He did not say how to do such. Bible classes are one way. God said to “visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.” He did not say how . . . and . . . I have not been told “how” it must be done (Ben F. Vick, Jr., The Informer, Nov. 11, 1990, p. 2).

Brother Vick equates opposition to Bible classes and orphan homes. Such items, he infers, “fit into one barrel.” Would not the same be true of support for institutional Bible classes and orphan homes? Would brother Vick endorse a Sunday School society, an organization set up to provide facilities, teachers and literature, for churches of Christ? Could churches send contributions to a board, an edification organization, which exists to promote Bible classes for the churches?

Does our brother think that a Boles Bible Class organization or a Schultz-Lewis Sunday School society, arranged like the “orphan homes,” would be scriptural? Would they “fit into one barrel”? Could churches support them as they do the “orphan homes”? After all, “God said, ‘teach.’ He did not say how to do such.” Therefore, Sunday School societies, like benevolent societies, may be supported by churches (?). Or does brother Vick now have two barrels?

“God said to ‘visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.’ He did not say how.” So, brother Vick concludes that churches may support institutional benevolent boards such as Schultz-Lewis. Likewise, “God said, ‘teach.’ He did not say how to do such.” So, does brother Vick conclude that churches may support institutional edification boards? If not, then these items are not parallel; they do not “fit into one barrel.”

Indeed, churches may “teach.” God did not say “how.” But he did say “who,” namely, the church, and not an organization separate and apart from the church. Churches are to provide relief for certain needy ones. God did not say “how,” but he did say “who,” namely, the “church” (1 Tim. 5:16), and not an organization separate and apart from the church. However, since the church, according to brother Vick, may build and maintain benevolent boards to provide care for the needy, then the church in its teaching can build and maintain Sunday School societies to provide edification. Both concepts “fit into one barrel.” Is brother Vick in that barrel? If he is not in that barrel, he is over it.

Christian Church Argument

Suppose a Christian Church preacher, speaking of brother Vick’s position, were to say:

Those who oppose Sunday School societies and Missionary organizations to the division of the church are not walking in the light, especially since they condone the same principle in benevolence that they condemn in teaching. Therefore, we do not have fellowship with those who oppose Sunday Schools and gospel preaching to the division of the church. . . . The brethren who oppose Sunday Schools and preaching to the lost fit into one barrel. They have divided the church by binding where God has loosed. God said, “teach.” He did not say how to do such. Sunday schools are one way. God said to “preach the gospel to every creature.” He did not say how . . . and . . . I have not been told “how” it must be done.

Would brother Vick think that the Christian Church preacher had correctly represented his position? Would he like his “fit into one barrel”? I think not. Brother Vick recognizes that a missionary society is not a way, a “how,” to preach the gospel. It is an organization that must use means and methods to preach. Just so, the Sunday School society is not a “how” of teaching. It is an organization that must employ means and methods to teach. Likewise, the benevolent society is not a “how,” or a “way” of caring for the needy. It is an organization that must utilize means and methods to provide for the needy. All such organizations “fit into one barrel.” And that barrel is not found in the New Testament.

The church is God’s divine organism and organization. It is completely, thoroughly furnished and equipped to do the work God assigned it to do. It can conduct Bible classes, preach the gospel and care for the needy (Eph. 4:12-16; 1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 11:22; 1 Tim. 5:16). The church does not need human boards or barrels to do the work God gave it to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, p. 174
March 21, 1991

By Randy S. Reese, Sr.

In teaching the Bible in Japan, the subject of our having sinned in our relationship to God (Rom. 3:23), frequently evokes many Japanese to quickly say, “I have never sinned, I’ve never stolen or killed!”

“There has never been nor is there today any sense of guilt before an Absolute God in Japanese thinking. Hence the word ‘sin’ is always used in the legalistic sense; a person at fault and proven guilty in a public court becomes a sinner.”(1)

The Kanji (Chinese character) for tsumi (sin) is made up of two characters written together, one is net the other criminal. In other words, the term tsumi today means, “to trap the criminal.” “The Japanese term Isumi brings before the Japanese mind a picture of police stations, law courts, crime and criminals; it is a legal, technical term. In other words a man does not become a sinner until he is convicted by a human court.

“If a moral fault is brought to the surface and discovered by another person, the erring one is gripped with a sense of shame, but there is no conviction of sin. The average Japanese is more concerned about social relations and the maintaining of harmony with nature. His moral impurity is easily cleansed by the wave of the (Shinto) priest’s brush at the Shinto shrine, once or twice a year.”(2)

Biblical sin is the interruption of man’s relationship with God. When man trespasses God’s boundary, he misses the mark and falls into self-idolization, pride, and moral perversion.

1 John 1:8 tells us, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” This concept of universal sin is completely alien to Japanese logic.

It is difficult for the Japanese to understand how one man (Christ) could die for all the sins of the world. I explain it to them by drawing a comparison between Christ’s sacrifice and a custom here in Japan. When a scandal arises, like the recent high-level bribery cases, the Japanese custom calls for one man to take all the responsibility for the wrong done by many. In the most recent example Prime Minister Takeshita resigned in order to take responsibility for the misdeeds of some in his political party. Christ, by his own free choice, chose to die on the cross in order to save all men of the world from their sins.

Only after we realize that Christ loved us enough to die for us can we fully appreciate what he has done for us.

The Japanese must first accept the idea that Christ loved us. Then they can embrace the concept that he would choose to die for us. This usually takes two to three years of continuous teaching and nurturing.

I pray that this article helps to give you a better insight into the difficulties of teaching the gospel in Japan.

Endnotes

1. Biblical Encounter with Japanese Culture, Charles Corwin Christian Literature Crusade (Tokyo, Japan 1967), 153.

2. Ibid., 155.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, p. 169
March 21, 1991

By Phil T. Arnold

Recently there has been a great deal of discussion among brethren regarding choirs and/or soloists in the worship assembly. While such things are certainly not new to the religious world, their acceptance among churches of Christ by my limited knowledge is only of recent vintage. Certainly a great deal of the discussion must revolve around Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 for those who are interested in God’s point of view. To those even as simple as myself, it can readily be seen that these passages authorize congregational singing but make no mention of a spectator form of worship.

In addition, one of the things that such performances do is to violate the individual, participatory nature of Christianity. In Christianity the individual is active and not some institution. The individual is at times to act collectively with others but again it is his participation as an individual that is blessed. No one can be baptized in the place of someone else. No one can partake of the Lord’s Supper on behalf of someone else. In fact, none of God’s commands may be fulfilled in simply a proxy fashion. It is only in institutional religions where the members became spectators rather than participants. The Old Law was, in fact, an institutional form of religion where the priests carried out the acts of worship on behalf of the people. Under the New Law as well, the priests participate. But if we are in Christ, then we are priests (1 Pet. 2:5,9) and endowed with the rights and responsibilities of personally approaching and serving God through our High Priest, Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:14-16; 13:15).

As many churches of Christ continue their progression down the road of institutionalism, they will become more and more conditioned for the acceptance of a spectator, rather than participatory, form of religion. They will inevitably accept choirs and/or soloists even as some of them already have. It is becoming, and for many has become, the very nature of their religion. But it will be just that – their religion and no longer Christ’s.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, p. 173
March 21, 1991

By P.J. Casebolt

Our subject is not a new one, but there appears to be an inordinate number of extreme positions being embraced throughout the country. Maybe it is time to study the matter again. Generations have a way of coming and going before we realize that some basic principles have been neglected.

Let us not make the mistake of concluding that all extreme positions are the result of abuses. Some folks can seem to find an extreme doctrine or practice without any provocation whatsoever. But both inspired and uninspired histories are replete with examples of abuses which engendered extreme reactions.

Neither do we wish to leave the impression that truth is always found midway between two positions. It is possible that two conflicting positions could both be wrong. But, it is possible that truth may lie somewhere between two extreme positions, and that the abuse of a practice may have contributed to these extremes.

The sons of Eli abused their position to the point that “men abhorred the offering of the Lord” (1 Sam. 2:17). Eli was partially to blame for the misconduct of his sons, for “he restrained them not” (1 Sam. 3:13). This abuse was augmented further by the sons of Samuel who “walked not in his ways” (I Sam. 8:3). These abuses prompted Israel to reject a rule by judges, and demand a king, but the abuse did not justify such extreme action (Hos. 13:11).

Rehoboam made the mistake of abusing his rule over Israel by increasing the burdens of his subjects, which in turn provoked Jeroboam to lead a rebellion “against the house of David” (1 Kgs. 12:6-19). But, both Judah and Israel were reaping the results of their first mistake, which was a substitution of kings for judges.

In contemporary history, we have seen examples of abuses which have been at least partially responsible for some extreme positions taken by brethren. And, while the abuse of a practice is no justification for an extreme position, neither is the abuse of a lawful practice justified.

Congregations have been rent asunder and new congregations established because of the complaint that the old congregation “wasn’t doing anything.” In some instances, this charge was justified, though it was not sufficient reason for the strife and contention which followed. Of course, in some cases, the complaint that the church “wasn’t doing anything” was simply an excuse to start doing things which the church had no business doing in the first place.

Some of the extreme positions being taken with reference to the Lord’s supper may be traced to abuses which never should have begun, and which should have been corrected or approached in a sensible fashion.

The time and order of worship on the first day of the week are matters to be decided by the local congregation, based on local conditions. The size of the congregation, geographical location, and economic factors can affect such decisions. A Filipino congregation on Samal Island (accessible only by boat) will surely have to consider factors which would not even enter the picture for a congregation in the hills of West Virginia or the plains of Texas.

If you have the Lord’s supper before the sermon, some members will come early and leave after they have “observed” the Lord’s supper. If you have the Lord’s supper after the sermon, some will come to the assembly just in time to “get communion.” If you have a morning assembly, some will skip an afternoon or evening assembly because they “had the sacraments” in the morning. Trying to find the perfect time, place, or number of songs for a given congregation can be an exercise in perpetual futility. And even when the local congregation resolves such matters, some outsider will come in or write in to bind his opinions upon others.

And I’m persuaded that such extreme positions regarding the Lord’s supper are simply the result of someone’s reaction to a real or imagined abuse which he has experienced.

Church buildings can only be authorized by generic authority, and fall into the category of a “place” to assemble (Heb. 10:25), just as a place for baptism is essential before you can baptize anyone (Matt. 28:19). It is impossible to obey either command without a place to baptize or a place to assemble.

Some brethren have built and rented buildings in places that almost defy discovery, even by local residents. Some church buildings and houses for preachers are monuments to poor judgment, considering local needs and circumstances. Some congregations have added facilities for recreation and entertainment, none of which falls within the scope of a congregation’s work, mission, or worship. Some pervert the church building and grounds into rental or other financial ventures, including secular schools and projects.

But such abuses of church buildings do not justify some of the extreme positions being taken by some in this area. If we could somehow abolish the protective restraints of congregational autonomy, and decide to demolish or sell every church building in the country, the next generation would still be faced with the same decisions we have faced – where to meet, when to meet, when to observe the Lord’s supper, and how many songs to sing before and after prayer.

And if some of us could live long enough, we’d probably find the next generation doing things about the same way we have done in the area of generic authority. And there would be the usual abuses, and extreme reactions to those abuses.

And sooner or later, the Lord would return and want to know why we were wasting our energy, time, and talents on things which are only incidental to the work which he left us to do.

And some of us who have talked and written incessantly on such matters would for once in our lifetime be speechless (Matt. 22:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, pp. 168, 171
March 21, 1991