Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

When used metonymically in the Bible, “tongue” represents one’s language and the expression of it by any means. Hence, “tongue” includes every form of linguistic expression, not merely oral speech. One could lose the use of his physical tongue and still need to “bridle his tongue.” He could write in an unbridled way or even nod or shake his head “yes” or “no” to a truth or lie.

James warns us of the dangers of the “tongue.” We are to be swift to hear, but slow to speak (1:19). An unbridled tongue renders one’s religion useless (1:26). One should speak as one who shall be judged by the law of liberty (2:12). Teachers need to especially guard the tongue because of its unruly nature (3:1-12).

All of this suggests that Christians, especially those of us who publicly speak and write a lot, need to keep a bridle on our tongues. A bridle has a two-fold purpose: (1) restraint and (2) guidance. Bridling one’s tongue does not always mean to refrain from speaking, but to properly guide one’s speech. Silence is not always golden, sometimes it is plain yellow.

When there are things that should not be said, a bridled tongue will refrain from speaking, When there are things that need to be said, a bridled tongue will say them in a way they should be said.

We would like for you to consider three critical misuses of the tongue found among brethren. These, in the judgment of his writer, cause untold harm to the Lord’s cause.

A Hypocritical Tongue

Peter warns us against being exploited by “false teachers among you” who use deceptive or feigned (KJV, ASV) words (2 Pet, 2:3). The word translated feigned or deceptive is plastos, from the verb plasso, meaning “to mold, i.e. shape or fabricate” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). Such teachers carefully mold their hypocritical words so as to dupe naive brethren into furthering their devious purposes. “They speak great swelling words of emptiness” (v. 18). “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption” (v. 19).

We must not allow conniving brethren, teachers or otherwise, to sweet talk or flatter us into advancing their unscrupulous goals with their hypocritical words. Sometimes brethren, with malice toward others, will skillfully enlist good brethren to grind their axes for them. It is easy for those of us who preach to allow someone, with malice toward another, to enlist us to become his whipping boy. He may praise our ability, knowledge, and courage to boldly preach the gospel and let the chips fall where they may oh, how we like to hear it. He just happens to know of something that needs a strong rebuking sermon devoted to it. He is just sure that by making us aware of the problem he can expect to hear a good scolding shortly. If we listen closely, we may be able to detect that his interest is not in saving anyone from sin, but to see that the object of his malice gets the verbal whipping that he so richly deserves.

Not only do we need to be careful lest we be exploited by feigned words, we need to constantly examine ourselves to make sure that our own speech is sincere – without ulterior design or double talk.

One should not be a double-tongued (cf. 1 Tim. 3:8). Vincent says this means “saying one thing and meaning another, and making different representations to different people about the same thing” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 234). Strong says it means “equivocal.” Equivocal means “having two or more meanings; purposely vague, misleading, or ambiguous: as an equivocal reply” (“Webster’s New Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition).

I heard a story that allegedly happened during the premillennial controversy among brethren several years ago. A teacher in one of “our” colleges was thought by most informed folks on campus to hold premillennial views. Yet, no one had been able to pin him down on it. So, three or four of the students on campus, who had heard the rumors, decided that the best thing to do was to just ask him. So, they went to the brother and asked, “How do you stand on the premillennial issue?” He replied, “Now boys, I stand foursquare!” That settled it! Or did it?

Brethren, our speech needs to be kind and courteous, yet strait forward, without guile, deceit, craftiness, equivocation or hypocrisy (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 2:3)

A Noncritical Tongue

Some pride themselves in being virtually noncritical that is, except for their sharp criticism of critics. These like to think that they are “accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative.” Over a period of time, this shows in their public speech and writings. Like the proverbial monkeys, they hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. These are very long on exhorting and extra short on reproving and rebuking (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-4). Exposing the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11) is generally beneath their dignity.

These are aware, even quite sure, that brethren must have faults, after all no one is perfect. But to tell another his fault (Matt. 18:15-17) – now that is a different matter. If you must tell one his fault, then make sure to do it so that he will not feel badly about it. And above all, no matter how public the fault, these would never openly criticize publicly -like telling it to the church.

The noncritical religious leaders of Israel (“watchmen”) were called “dumb dogs.” “His watchmen are blind, they are ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (Isa. 56:10). He goes on in his criticism of these dumb dogs, showing why they choose to be dumb: “Yes, they are greedy dogs which never have enough. And they are shepherds who cannot understand; they all look for their own way, every one his own g~in, from his own territory” (v. 11). They were more interested in personal prosperity, safety and comfort than the welfare of Israel. While one would not want a watch dog that barked at everything, he would not need one that barked at nothing.

There were non-critics in the New Testament. The Corinthians were not critical enough of the man who had his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5). Paul had already judged in the matter, but they were dragging their feet. They needed to correctly judge this man and deal with him (vv. 12-14).

Then, there were those who sat idly by and allowed Paul to stand alone in his confrontation with Alexander, the coppersmith (2 Tim. 4:16). No doubt, these folks did not want to be too critical of Alexander. I suspect they had rather for Paul to have accentuated the positive. However, the Lord stood with Paul. That is what counted.

A Hypercritical Tongue

We can go to the opposite extreme by becoming excessively critical – hypercritical. Rather than the dumb dogs of Isaiah, we may become as dogs that bark all the time at everything and nothing.

Some hyper-critics constantly find some way to criticize the best of deeds because they are sure that they must be done from ulterior motives. These constantly suspect sin without having any real reason for suspicion. They just know it must be there somewhere. I heard of one brother who was so intent on keeping the church straight that he was caught peeking through the windows of brethren to catch them in sin so they could be weeded out of the congregation.

Other hyper-critics are nit-pickers. They find some fault in the most innocent of people and activities. They can take the least of their “don’t likes” or judgment-calls and elevate them to a major church problem. They can find the one insignificant misspelled or misspoken word in the midst of hundreds of words excellently spoken – and magnify into a blunder of major proportions.

Hyper-critics are a clear danger to themselves and the church. They sin against brethren by condemning the innocent (cf. Matt. 12:7; 7:1). They disrupt congregational peace by tearing down rather than edifying (cf. Rom. 14:19). They destroy their own closeness with brethren. Brethren avoid becoming too closely associated with them out of self-defense. Then the hyper-critic wonders why brethren avoid him and feels persecuted. He seldom realizes that he has destroyed his right to close association by his ceaseless, senseless, judgmental prating against his brethren.

Let us watch our tongues for our own good and that the cause of Christ. Let our speech be with without hypocrisy and guile. Let us also strive to settle on that righteous ground between total non-criticism and hyper-criticism. We will all be the better for it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 494-495
August 16, 1990

By Michael Garrison

Whether or not parents should discipline their children by spanking is of concern to many. Some actually teach it is wrong for parents to use any physical action as discipline. Others think if they “love” their children, they should not ever strike them in any way as punishment. God’s word provides directions in this matter.

In the pamphlet, For Kids Sake (by an unidentified author and available at some health clinics), the author quotes the Bible at Proverbs 13:24: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (RVS). The author then tries to prove that a rod was not used for punishment. The author defines the word “rod” as only a shepherd’s rod, staff, or scepter and then states, “it was not used as a weapon or to hurt people” (his emphasis, mg). But when one checks the lexicons, he finds the truth. Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary defines “rod” as being “from an unused root prob. mean. to branch off; a scion, i.e. (lit). a stick (for punishing [my emphasis, mg], writing, fighting [my emphasis, mg], ruling, walking, etc.” So, the word was used as a weapon and to hurt people! Then, in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, “rod” is defined as “a staff, stick, rod . . . specifically (1) used for beating or striking . . . and chastening . . . Prov. 13:24. . . ” Gesenius also shows the word to be used as “a shepherd’s rod, a crook . . . the sceptor of a king. . . ” etc. To ignore all the meanings of a word is not honest.

In “Dear Abbey’s” column for May 22, 1990, Joy Byers of the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, equates spanking of children with child abuse. Certainly, we all oppose child abuse, but proper spanking, as discipline, given in love, is not abuse!

In Proverbs 19:18 we learn, “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.” Also, in Proverbs 22:15, we read, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

The word “chasten” above is defined by Strong’s dictionary as a “prim. root; to chasten, lit. (with blows), correct, instruct, punish, reform, reprove, sore, teach.” So, one can be chastened with blows. That is not the only way, but it is a way and to equate spanking with abuse misses the mark of truth!

We learn in Hebrews 12:9-11, “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh who corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much more be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure (note: they are not condemned for this); but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them who are exercised thereby.” Those of us who were spanked when we disobeyed our parents as children, now look back and realize it was for our own good that we were disciplined. Parents who love their children will discipline them in appropriate ways. Too, each child is different and needs to be disciplined fairly but firmly.

Dr. Max Rafferty (formerly of Troy State University, Troy, Alabama) wrote an article in the Birmingham (Al.) News (June 15, 1980), in which, after he gives examples of teenage delinquency, murder, etc., writes:

Okay, now what . . . is going on? Have we as a people become so permissive, so craven, so downright chicken, that we are unable and unwilling to defend ourselves against our own young? Where are the paddles, the switches, the hair bushes?

And don’t tell me I’m advocating brutality and “negative motivations.” During the centuries when we laid the wood to potential delinquents, we had the merest fraction of the juvenile crime and terrorism which we see around us today. And you’d better believe it.

I agree with Dr. Rafferty and he gives some good words for all to consider.

Let parents properly discipline their own children in accord with God’s instructions revealed in his Holy Word.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, p. 493
August 16, 1990

By Lewis Willis

An article in the Akron Beacon Journal (5-4-90), reports that scientists have succeeded in growing human brain cells in their laboratories. This offers the A possible hope of having these brain calls available to replace those that are damaged. Many years of study remain before the technology can be developed for infusing these new cells into our heads. However, the prospects are challenging, to say the least.

I’m going to put my name on the list to receive some of these brain cells. I’m going to order some Jack Nicklaus cells in the hope that I can learn how to hit a golf ball. I want some Chet Atkins cells to improve my guitar playing skills. If I had some Donald Trump cells, maybe I could make more money. Who knows, maybe one day I could become an instant brain surgeon, like Jethro Bodine on the Beverly Hillbillies. The potential is too great to imagine. It might be difficult to find somebody with desirable brain cells who would be willing to donate them, but I want to get my name on the list, just in case.

In all seriousness, the scientific community envisions this development as a possible solution to problems like Alzheimer’s, stroke or head injuries. All of this notwithstanding, I get concerned about some of our so-called “advancements. ” It seems to me that we have some people who are “playing around” with the natural order of things and the use they are making of some of these new-found technologies is frightening.

Scientists have developed an abortion pill which facilitates in the continued slaughter of unwanted babies. The total now exceeds 20,000,000 abortions in America since 1973! New and better ways to commit this murder are not “advancements. ” It is now possible to know not only the sex of an unborn baby, but whether or not it has any defects. This will help in getting rid of the “undesirable” children. Scientists can determine the sex of a human egg, artificially inseminate it and guarantee a couple that they will have a boy or a girl. It is now possible to control the gender and health of future offspring. Hitler envisioned a “super race” and we now have the technology to produce it. Given the movement in thought toward euthanasia – getting rid of the old, infirm and useless – one has to wonder about the future of the human race. Thus, it is time for concern about where all of this is headed and what use is going to be made of all of these new things we are learning to do.

I do not know of anything in the Scriptures that prohibits scientific study and development. I think it would be wrong to issue a blanket condemnation of scientific endeavors. Many things have been discovered which are helpful in dealing with disease, as well as every day activities of modern man. One would be foolhardy to object to something that has so obviously helped. However, when Paul wrote to Timothy he issued a warning saying, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Tim. 6:20-21). This suggests that science could possibly array itself against the purposes of God. It could stand in opposition to that which is right. Such, Paul says, should be avoided. Does it not appear to you that there are times when scientists are dabbling in things that they should stay out of? The things we earlier described are cases in point. Let us pray that wisdom will prevail to change the evils already being practiced, and that we might be delivered from even greater evils that might come.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, p. 492
August 16, 1990

By Harold Hancock

A sect exists because of a distinctive philosophy, doc trine, or worship practice. It promotes allegiance to the party and the tenets of the faction. It is “divi sion . . . in contrast to the uniting power of truth” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

Pharisees and Sadducees are two sects spoken of in the Scriptures (Acts 15:5; 5:17). The Pharisees taught people to adhere stringently to their interpretations of the Law of Moses. The Sadducees said there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confessed both (Acts 23:8). Pharisees and Sadducees were segments and perversions of the Jewish religion.

The church was called a sect and was spoken against by its enemeies and by some who misunderstood the nature and purpose of the church (Acts 24:5,14; 28:22). Tertullus was referring to the church when he said Paul was a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). But the church is not a sect. It is not a faction of the Jews nor anything

The man who contends for God’s organizational arrangements in the various relationships he has prescribed, whether in the family on earth or the family of heaven, is the man who has sanctified the Lord. He is the man who truly fears the Lord and who truly submits to his word, power and authority (cf. Isa. 8:5-22). Do not be deceived about these matters. What has God said about our relationships to one another in the marriage unit? what has God said about our duties, obligations and responsibilites as members one of another and of the Lord? Whatever he has said, we had better do it.

Beware lest any man snatch you away as booty or plunder from a raid through means of human wisdom, empty deceit, the tradition of men, and the rudimentary elements of the world and not after the teaching of Christ (Col. 2:8). In the judgment, I would just as soon be the man who denied marital offices and functions (as per Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), as to be the man who denied the office and work of elders and saints (as per I Tim. 3; Tit. 1, and I Pet. 5).

Would you glorify and sanctify God? Would you have him be your dread and fear? Then, in whatever area or station of life, determine his will from his word and live humbly, obediently and stedfastly therein.

It is all the saved, Jew and Gentile (Acts 2:47; Rom. 1: 16). It is not heresy built on one or two peculiar points of dogma. It is the body of Christ and upholds all truth (Eph. 1:22,23; 1 Tim. 3:15). Paul never admitted the church to be a sect. He answered, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy (a sect, hh), so worship I the God of my fathers” (Acts 24:14).

Calling the church a sect did not make the church a sect. Neither were early preachers required to cease to preach “Jcsus of Nazareth ” nor to refuse converts from the region of Galilee near Nazareth because some people alluded to the church as the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9). People’s distorted views and misconceptions of the church did not doom it to defeat or prevent it from growing. The church grew as the word of God increased (Acts 6:7). Truth will overpower the “prejudices” of honest people!

Denominations are religious sects (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Each denomination claims to be a part of Christendom and is separated from all other denominations by distinctive doctrines and names. Some think of the church of Christ as a denomination. It is not. The church opposes division and seeks to unite all in truth as the body of Christ. It is not a faction of the saved; it is the saved (Acts 2:47). It seeks no distinctive name but may be desc4ed by any scriptural appellation – church of Christ (Rom. 16:16), church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), church of the Lord (Acts 20:28, ASV), or church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). These are not proper names but phrases that tell whom the church belongs to and who make up the church.

I am sorry some today still perceive the church as a denomination or sect. Their delusion does not make the church a denomination. I do not believe preachers must cease to preach and talk about the “church of Christ” or that churches of Christ must remove their signs from in front of their buildings because some regard them as the “denomination of the Church of Christ.” These people will likely think “denomination!” no matter what phrase we use to describe the church and no matter what sign appears in front of our buildings. They will think “denomination!” until they learn the truth about the nature and purpose of the church.

Obey the truth and be added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47); do not join a denomination. Take every opportunity to instruct people about Jesus and his church. Truth is the greatest weapon we have to fight false ideas (2 Cor. 10:4).

Teaching the truth is the way we dispel error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 490-491
August 16, 1990