Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

The children of Israel were often taunted by their heathen, idolatrous adversaries. Because they could see no physical presence of Jehovah, they mocked at his existence. One of the Psalms makes an excellent point based on this conflict:

Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased (Psa. 115:2-3).

The Psalmist proceeds to discuss the idols of men. He said they were made of silver and gold. They had mouths but could not speak; eyes but could not see; ears but could not hear; noses but could not smell; hands but could not handle; feet but could not walk; nor could they speak through their throat. In fact, he said, they had been made in the image of the men who made them (vv. 4-8). How could these people seriously question Jehovah? They wanted to know where God was. David said that he was not on the earth, but that he resided in heaven. Thus, to expect God to resemble dumb idols made in the image of man, by men’s hands, was futile.

All of this is undoubtedly true and I have noted as much in the paragraphs above. However, the point I wish to make is stated in the last phrase of our test: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. This is a truly profound and important fact to recognize and respect. In his deliberations concerning time, earth and man, he has acted as it has pleased or suited him! Candidly, I do not see how we could ever please him without recognizing this truth.

Furthermore, things that God has done to his own pleasure are “good” for man. Moses spoke of God’s commandments, “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day” (Deut. 6:24). Jeremiah made a similar statement, “And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good,- but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me” (Jer. 32:39-40). It is essential that we recognize today that when God did as he pleased, his every act was good for man.

If we deny this, then we will be searching for something else that we believe to be good for us. If we acknowledge this truth, we will content ourselves with what God has done and set ourselves to the task of submissive obedience unto his will. It occurs to me that this could well be the reason why so many of us are disobedient unto God; why we are trying almost constantly to rework what God has done.

Now, let us apply what we have learned. God had the right, being Almighty God, to do whatever pleased him. That is exactly what he did and we must accept this. “Good” will come to us only if we confine ourselves to his pleasure. Consider, then, the following thoughts:

1. It pleased God to put the blessing of salvation in Christ and his body, the church (Eph. 3:11; Acts 2:47). We must be careful to respect this and get into Christ and his church.

2. It pleased God to grant entry into Christ on the conditions and terms of the Gospel (Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:3-4; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). We must be careful and obey those things he has commanded.

3. It pleased God to assign a specific worship to be offered by the church (Acts 20:7; 2:42; Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 16:2). We must be careful that we confine our worship to that which pleased God who appointed it. After all, we are not worshiping ourselves so it does not matter what pleases us.

4. It pleased God for the church to engage itself in only edifying itself, discharging its benevolent duty and evangelizing the world (Eph, 4:12). We must be careful that we not try to involve the church in more than God assigned.

5. It pleased God to organize the church so that each congregation was independent of all the rest, governed by elders who were assisted by deacons, evangelists and all the saints (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Phil. 1:1). We must be careful that we not try to set up an organizational structure different than the one God gave.

Many other aspects of the doctrine of Christ could be included in this list of things that pleased God. I think enough has been said to establish the point I am seeking to emphasize. Too many people are trying to re-work the provisions God has made, and re-write the law that governs our lives today. We cannot improve upon that which God has given, nor should we try. We should simply be obedient to his will in all things. Only then will things be “good” for us.

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, p. 170
March 21, 1991

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