Truth Magazine

By P.J. Casebolt

Age distinction can be a good thing; age discrimination can be a bad thing.

The same is true of sex distinction and discrimination. If we are to reap the benefits of the male/female relationship, we must first recognize and admit that there are certain distinctions to be made between males and females. Some are trying to ignore this fact, and any lawful effort to distinguish between male and female is branded as discrimination.

In the social sector, some progress has been made in the area of age discrimination, but we still have a long way to go. Arbitrary age limits are established for job, military, and educational qualifications, and if you are one year younger or older than the lower or upper limit, you are disqualified. In fact, you could miss the cut-off limit by even one day, and still be disqualified, depending on your birthday.

We may not have too much control over age discrimination in the social or civil sector of life, but we should be able to capitalize on the advantages which both the young and the elderly have to offer in the church. And, while preaching is not the only work to be done in the church, it may tend to illustrate our tendency to discriminate when it comes to the matter of age.

Under the law of Moses, certain age limits were established for service in the tribe of Levi, including those who served in the priesthood. It was not God’s idea to have kings ruling over his people in the first place, but certain restrictions were placed upon those kings. Yet, no age limits were established as to when a king’s reign was to begin or end. Some younger kings put some of the older ones to shame when it came to using common sense or obeying the Lord.

In this dispensation of time, we have a better covenant than the one which God made with Israel. We need to act accordingly.

Let me cite a real-life example of show how we sometimes discriminate against the youth of the church.

This particular young man has been preaching for a couple of years, and has the knowledge and poise of those who are much older. He is so young that he still has to have someone drive him to his preaching appointments, because he isn’t old enough to obtain a driver’s license. He often completes his newspaper route before going to preach at some area congregation. I remarked that he may be the only boy who ever had to make a choice between being a paper boy or a preacher.

While this young man is now receiving encouragement to develop his talents, the case illustrates my point. If you were to suggest sending a 15-year old boy to preach for a congregation which was not aware of his talents, he would be rejected on the basis of age alone.

On the other hand, if you suggested sending a 95-year old man to preach for the same congregation, under similar circumstances, that man would probably be turned down on the basis of his age. Yet, I knew a preacher who continued to preach at that age, whose physical stamina and mental alacrity would equal that of many preachers half his age.

Admittedly, these two “Alpha and Omega” examples are exceptions to the general rule, and yet they show how arbitrary we can be by not taking advantage of the youthful and elderly talents in the church.

I have known young preachers with years of experience and good recommendations who desired to preach, but were turned down because the brethren wanted “a more experienced man.” In some instances, the congregations had elders who could have continued to oversee the flock while giving a young man the opportunity to do the work of an evangelist. All too often, the younger preacher has to get his “on the job training” under some of the most difficult (and often disastrous) circumstances.

At the other end of the age discrimination spectrum, there are preachers who are still physically and mentally alert even at the threescore years and past, but still are hindered from fulfilling their potential because brethren have decided that anyone that old could not possibly meet their concept of what a preacher out to be.

When I first began to preach, several brethren thought that I was 10-15 years older than what I actually was. I just hope that some may think I am that much younger than what my birth certificate indicates. And, I have known brethren to miss a preacher’s age by that many years, just judging by appearance. I have also known brethren who thought a certain preacher had a college education when he had never even finished high school, and some who thought a preacher had not finished high school when in reality he held a college degree.

The apostle instructed a young preacher how to behave himself so that no one would despise his youth (1 Tim. 4:12). And, in all fairness to many brethren and congregations, age alone has not been a factor when considering men for the work of an evangelist. It certainly hasn’t been in my case, or if it has, I never knew about it.

Maybe Jack Benny had something when he kept telling folks he was 39 years old. Some preachers are either too young or too old to suit some brethren, but a middle-aged man (whatever that might mean), may still not have the other qualifications necessary to do the work of an evangelist.

We need to take advantage of the talents of youth, and the church is the ideal place to blend the zeal and energy of youth with the knowledge, wisdom, and restraint characteristic of older Christians (cf. 1 Tim. 5:1,2; Tit. 2:4). And, the beautiful thing about it is, we don’t have to start special organizations for either the young or old in order to capitalize on this rich resource of talent, The church and the home are still sufficient to this end.

It may be unwise at times not to recognize age distinction, but it may be just as unwise to practice age discrimination.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, pp. 206, 214
April 5, 1990

 

By Tom M. Roberts

Have you ever talked to the older preachers among us and heard them describe the meetings of years gone by? It is not unusual to hear them relate instances of baptisms by the score. I have heard of ten, twenty, even forty baptisms during a single gospel effort. Today, if a gospel meeting results in one or two baptisms, it is unusual and highly uplifting. But more often than not, we have to be satisfied with the thought that “though there were no visible results, the local church was edified.” This lack of baptisms has caused some to question the validity of gospel meetings in our age. Seldom are meetings planned around those who are not Christians but usually, today, we plan lessons that deal with social issues, motivation or the like. Also, instead of meetings that last over a “protracted” period of time or even ten days, or two Sundays, we have reduced most meetings to one week (Sunday-Friday) or, shorter yet, a two or three-day meeting over a single weekend. And, sad to say, many times we have to depend on visitors from other congregations (mostly the preachers), since local members do not attend.

I certainly do not want to be counted among those who feel that the time of gospel meetings is gone, nor do I wish to be viewed as cynical about the use of various types of efforts (long or short, to aliens or saints, or addressing any needed subject). However, I am realistic enough to know that we are not “stirring the waters” of the baptistry as in years gone by. There may be isolated instances of churches that are baptizing a large number of people, but it is safe to say that this is not the usual case. I feel a personal sadness in that I can tell a difference between the results of efforts when I first started preaching and now. I can tell a difference in the manner of attendance by local members. Many just don’t bother to attend at all. I can tell a difference just by looking at the meeting house and remembering times when chairs had to be put in the aisles to accommodate the crowds. I can tell a difference in the vigor (or lack of it) of singing that once accompanied gospel meetings of which I have personal memories. What was once the type of singing that “raised the roof,” now has become a mere whisper by comparison.

Though it might be said that memories are faulty and that we tend to bask in the “good old days,” I do not think that it is erroneous to say that, by comparison, our efforts are not reaching out to the lost as in times past nor are our assemblies as fervent in worship. Generalizing can be a faulty way of reaching conclusions, but I truly feel that we need to look objectively at what is, in truth, a situation less favorable than the past and certainly less favorable than that of the New Testament age. Simply put, why aren’t we baptizing more people than we are? Unless we assess what is wrong and take steps to remedy the situations, we tend to go off into radical directions such as the Boston/Crossroads heresy or opt for a “quick-fix” by mocking some denominational scheme to draw the crowds. I am a firm believer that God’s way works! We don’t need to invent new doctrines or change the Lord’s church to preach the gospel, reach the lost and edify the saints. What we do need is to learn what we are doing wrong and set about effecting the change. What is wrong? Is it the times in which we live or are we doing something wrong?

The Times, They Are A Changing

It is not a “cop out” to realize that we live in a different age with different values than even a generation ago. When churches had large crowds in attendance “back then,” they did not have to compete with the pernicious influence of television. Today, a new phrase has entered our language because it describes what many have become: “couch potatoes.” In actual terms, this means that both men and women have adopted a lifestyle so sedentary that it has affected our health, social customs, buying habits and, yes, attendance at worship services. People stay home and watch TV rather than assemble with the saints! Further, a generation ago (at least before World War II), most families did not have both husbands and wives working at full-time jobs. We must realize that not only has the home suffered because Mother is always busy with her career and nobody is minding the children, but Mother is tired when she comes home and is not eager to go out again to attend a gospel meeting. She is ready to take off her shoes and rest, not get into the car and go again. Remember that the backbone of many churches in the past has been the dedicated wives and mothers who were the driving forces behind faithful attendance. Today, many of these are just too tired to bother.

Additionally, we must recognize that technology, education, sports and businesses have so complicated our lives that we are no longer an agrarian, pastoral society that, once the crops are “laid by,” has long hours to be filled with optional activities. We are living a complicated existence. Such things vie for our attention and, though we may have lost our priorities, something must be given up. With many, religion is the first thing to go.

To the untaught, religion does not have much to offer anyway. In the eyes of many, religion is judged by the Jim and Tammy Bakkers, the Oral Roberts, the Jimmy Swaggerts of the world. Those of us who live moral and dedicated lives are often tarred by the same brush by a cynical public who needs little excuse to cut religion out of their lives. Their minimal need for God can be satisfied by an occasional drop-in at any denomination. Who needs this business of attending three services a week and every night of a gospel meeting when, even among us, men such as Charles Holt say that organized religion is just so much “pay and obey.”

Yes, the times have changed and we must realize that this does affect our ability to reach the lost. But we must also realize that the Roman Empire had its peculiar problems that opposed faithfulness to God, and so does every age. We must not let these problems cause us to cease our efforts or become so discouraged that we lose faith in the gospel as the “power of God unto salvation” in every age. Though one age will allow a freer course to the gospel than others, every age needs the gospel. We must remember that God has chosen man as his earthen vessel to sow the seed and we must not be found wanting in our own age. What others did in past generations was done in the context of their own opportunities and hurdles. We must do the same in our age. But there are other considerations.

Where Is Guilt When You Need It?

Guilt has been almost expunged from modern society. We are told by psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. that guilt is bad and that we must learn to rid ourselves of it by detaching it from anything we do. The modern amoral climate says, “I am okay, you are okay, we all are okay” whether homosexual, pornographer, adulterer, liar or cheat. From the White House to the insane asylum, people are told to do what they want to do “so long as they do not harm anyone else.” We hear of “victimless crimes” (prostitution, sodomy with consenting adults, etc.) and crime without punishment (criminals just need rehabilitation). Try preaching repentance to people who have been conditioned to feeling no guilt! In fact, one national writer stated that anyone who preached the possibility of hell was actually mentally ill. Are we failing to proclaim guilt to a society that desperately needs to understand it? Who is going to walk down the aisle to be baptized or admit to sin in his life if he does not believe himself to be guilty?

Peter and the apostles on Pentecost stated, “You by the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay” (Acts 2:23), and “this Jesus whom ye crucified” (2:36). Like the prophets of old who preached that sin “separated from God” (Isa. 59:2), New Testament preachers laid guilt on sinners and taught them to repent (Acts 2:38). Jesus himself had taught, “Nay, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” (Lk. 13:3).

Are we failing to preach plainly enough about sin? Are we as fearless as John the Baptist or have we become too polite to proclaim the message? Has the truth been divided into the “positive” and “negative,” with only positive motivational messages designed to make us feel good about ourselves becoming the theme of our meetings? Understanding and accepting guilt for sin, brethren, is necessary to the conversion process. We must not fall for the ruse that our job is to make people feel good and be happy, regardless of adultery, child neglect, doctrinal error, etc.

One of the reasons why we are not “stirring the waters of baptism” more, I believe, is that we are not confronting people with their sins and making them understand that they are lost without repentance. This means that we must be willing to pay the price of stirring animosity by the impenitent. But those who are of “good and honest heart” (Lk. 8:15) will make the desired response. Listen, my preaching brother, are you preaching so as to convict those in sin and turn them to the Lord? This distinctiveness and fearlessness of the gopel message must not be replaced by the Peale message of positive mental happiness. True preaching may make some uncomfortable until they repent and are saved. But the Peale message, while making us all feel happy, will save no one.

Is Sin Really Sinful?

Another factor that keeps many from obeying the gospel in our age is that sin has been white-washed. It is now the common idea that anyone can sin with impunity. And, after all, sin is lots of fun. Did not Moses understand that sin could be pleasurable (Heb. 11:25)? Why would anyone give up a practice that is pleasurable and acceptable to society? Las Vegas spells out in neon letters that gambling is exciting, nudity and prostitution are titillating (and legal in Nevada), and that sin can be practiced either in broad daylight or around the clock without criticism by anyone. Even the local cheerleaders have costumes that leave nothing to the imagination and some elders’ daughters lead the parade. Beer drinking is defended at business meetings and many members imbibe and defy the preacher to preach against it. Doctrinally, we have been told that the grace of God will cover any deviation from the truth and that we are not to be alarmed when brethren practice “another gospel.” Immorality is not sinful any longer. Doctrinal impurity is not sinful anymore. Divorce is acceptable in nearly every case, for any cause. Why should anyone get excited about sin? The world has wrapped it in a glittering case of respectability and too many of us love to have it so.

But we must see sin as God does, to really understand its nature and evil. “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). Sin caused Jesus to be crucified in order that God could righteously pardon the sinner (Rom. 3:21-26). We must preach about sin so clearly that all men can see the sinfulness of it and turn in abhorrence and repugnance from it. Only then will we start to baptize the lost and regain the fallen Christians. As someone has said, “It is not our job to ease the afflicted, but to afflict those at ease.” Hasn’t this always been the task of God’s workmen?

Conclusion

What I am saying, then, is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the gospel, the church, or any part of the Divine order. We do not need to do reconstructive surgery on God’s revealed plan. What we do need, however, is to reassess what we are doing with what God has given us. Realizing that we do live in changing times, we must accept that the gospel will not be as effective in one era as it has been in others, and will be again. We must not become so discouraged by the lack of results that we seek to change God’s will. But, with renewed vigor, let us preach the old Jerusalem gospel as plainly as it ever has been. Paul knew what he said when he cautioned Timothy to preach “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). It may be that our time is one that is “out of season” when people don’t want to hear it, but we must preach it regardless. The only hope we have to turn our age around is to “preach the word” and not spare. Other “gospels” may seem to be more effective for a while, but there is only one true gospel. It is this that we must preach and not be ashamed of (Rom. 1:16) and with effort, prayer, and God’s good grace, we may yet see the day when people are walking the aisle, stirring the waters of baptism and turning to God. I long to see the day when the aisles have chairs in them, when singing is loud and fervent, when the word grows and multiplies. May God grant that we live long enough to see it in our times.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, pp. 200-201, 212
April 5, 1990

By L.A. Stauffer

When I began preaching in the late ’50s, what we commonly call “immodest apparel” was worn only by Weak and indifferent members of the church. Women who seldom attended Bible classes and only assembled once or twice a month had few scruples against wearing shorts, halters, one-piece swim suits, low cut dresses, skin tight pants or jeans, etc. These same ones donned the mini-skirts, two-piece swim suits, and bikinis when they became popular a few years later. Men, except for wearing swim suits at public pools or beaches, weren’t involved as extensively in immodesty.

But now that has all changed. 1, for one, am convinced that we have all but lost the battle against lascivious apparel. When the middle-aged generation of today is gone and our new generation of youth become the core and backbone of the church, I shudder to think of the meager clothing that will be accepted. Preachers, elders, deacons, Bible-class teachers, and other stable members in many sound churches are caving in to the demands of young people and the numbing influence of an ungodly world. What is mind-boggling and disturbing is that this includes the wearing of immodest apparel by the children of some of the most dedicated members of the church – brothers and sisters who themselves would not think of dressing as their kids do.

These very parents will let their kids spend a day of vacation on the beach, permit them to sunbathe in full view of the neighbors, allow them to wear swim suits and short shorts to work in the yard or wash the car, encourage them to wear low-cut, backless dresses to formal parties or join the pom poms, ignore the tight-fitting pants or tops that vividly outline appealing parts of their anatomy, etc. And what’s really sad is that many of these kids have high moral standards otherwise. Why, then, has this become so prevalent?

Many answers, no doubt, can be given. But the fact is that kids do it because they want to, like to, and think nothing of it. A humanistic philosophy dominates today’s society – the schools, print media, movie and TV productions, advertisements, commercials, etc. And that philosophy has bombarded us with “do your own thing,” “you only go around once in life – get all the gusto you can,” “take care of number one,” etc. They have also sold everything from toothpaste, to big “K” cereal, to health-spa memberships with lewd, sexually enticing commercials. Displays of near nudity have become so commonplace in our homes that kids view it as a normal part of life.

What all this hype brings to mind is an important fact of life. We are reminded daily that God made the bodies of man and woman attractive to one another. He made them pleasant to look upon and created in each a desire for the other sexually, It must be, next to eating, the strongest urge of the flesh. And when he finished this creation be saw that it, along with all things, was “very good” (see Gen. 1:27-31). But God from the beginning placed boundaries on man and woman, limiting their desires for one another and the fulfillment of those urges to marriage. Only there they can become “one flesh, ” only there the bed is “undefiled, – only there “thy desire shall be” to a man, only there shall a man “looketh upon a woman to lust after her” (see Gen. 2:18-25; Heb. 13:4; Gen. 3:16; Matt. 5:27,28).

When men and women dress in a way to create this “lust” and “desire” in someone other than their wife or husband, they promote lasciviousness – inordinate and lewd urges. This includes women who wear tight pants and attractively display an area of the body that entices men, who adorn themselves in clothing that in a sensuous way either accentuates or openly shows the bosom, and who dress in apparel that reveals the most alluring parts of the body, including the legs, and stirs the imagination of the average man. Sadly enough, men now dress in the same manner and women shamelessly and glowingly speak of the impure thoughts this provokes. Paul surely condemns this kind of immodesty when he says: “I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety . . , appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1 Tim. 2:9,10, NIV).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, p. 202
April 5, 1990

By Mark Mayberry

Hypocrisy is an unpleasant word that signals an empty and shallow life. A hypocrite is defined by Webster as “a person who pretends to be what he is not; one who pretends to be better than he really is, or to be pious, virtuous, etc., without really being so.”(1) The English word “hypocrisy” is a translation of the Greek word hupokrisis. Thayer defines this word as “the acting of a stage-player . . . dissimulation, hypocrisy.”(2) In Classical Greek, this word referred to a stage actor. He usually wore a mask, and in speech and action imitated the character whom he represented in the play. There was no inherent connotation of evil or deception involved in the early use of the term. However, with the passing of time, the word took on a bad meaning. It came to denote one who pretended to be what he was not, especially in the areas of religion and morality. The New Testament always uses the word in a evil sense.(3)

What does the New Testament have to say about hypocrisy? Jesus repeatedly condemned the Scribes and the Pharisees for this failure. He said, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1). Matthew 23 contains a scathing rebuke of their fraudulent faith. Seven times Jesus said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23:13,14,15,23,25,27,29) The language of this chapter is harsh, blunt, and severe. Our Lord had no patience whatever with their inconsistency and deception. Jesus said that Isaiah had prophesied of their hypocrisy, saying, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mk. 7:6).

For the hypocrite, religion is but an outward show; he only pays lip service to Christianity. Let us remember that Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees because “they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:3). A hypocrite is a fellow who isn’t himself on Sundays. He prays, “Lord, help me be an influence for good,” and then lives like the devil. He sings, “Have thine own way, Lord,” and then does as he pleases. The hypocrite prays, “Bring us back at the next appointed time,” and then sits home on Sunday evening to watch television. The hypocrite prays, “Grant that sinners may be saved,” but never talks to his friends and neighbors about their souls. The hypocrite prays, “Forgive us of our sins as we forgive our debtors,” but will hold a grudge till his dying day. The hypocrite prays, “Help us raise our children to be faithful to the Lord,” and then leads them astray through his bad example. He sings, “All to Jesus I surrender,” when in fact he is the servant of sin. Let us remember that the Lord has never been pleased with those who “say, and do not.” The same could be said of those who “pray, and do not.”

Paul said, “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:9-10). The Greek word translated “sincere” has an interesting history. In ancient times, certain dishonest merchants would take a damaged vessel, and smooth wax into the cracks to make it look unbroken. The word “sincere” describes that which is found to be whole when examined by the sun’s light.(4) In a moral sense, our lives must be “without wax”! Our outward appearance and our inner character must match.

However, some people attempt to hide behind a mask of pretended righteousness. They try to deceive others and also attempt to fool themselves. They think that as long as their sin is not discovered by men, God won’t notice it either. Hypocrisy is foolish and futile because we cannot hide anything from the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient One who will judge us in that final day. At the day of judgment, our character and manner of life will be exposed for all to see. Every idle word, every evil thought, and every hidden deed will be brought to light. Hebrews 4:12-13 says, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

The wisdom that is from above is “without hypocrisy” (Jas. 3:17). Those who would grow as Christians must lay aside “all guile and hypocrisies” (1 Pet. 2:1-2). We must avoid hypocrisy both in worship (Matt. 6:1-5; 15:7-9) and in judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3,17ff). When the Final Judgment is pictured in Matthew 24 and 25, those who are condemned to hell are assigned a place with the hypocrites (Matt. 24:51). This reveals the ultimate destiny of those who feign righteousness.

A hypocrite obstructs the work of God. After viewing hypocrisy in the church, the statement is sometimes made, “If that is what Christianity is all about, I don’t want any part of it.” In a way this response is understandable. A hypocrite is universally despised. There is no rogue like a godly rogue. He does the devil’s work in the house of God. Let us condemn this sin in all its forms. No excuse can be made for those whose lights have gone out. No defense can be made for salt that has lost its savor. No justification can be given for inconsistency between faith and practice. Christians should live so as to attract rather than repel. However, anyone who would use the hypocrisy of others to excuse himself is “copping out.”

The fellow who is always complaining about hypocrites in the church has the outlook of a buzzard: he overlooks all the live sheep and sees only the dead ones. The famous preacher, Billy Sunday, once said, “Hypocrites in the Church? Yes, and in the lodge, and at home. Don’t hunt through the Church for a hypocrite. Go home and look in the glass. Hypocrites? Yes. See that you make the number one less.”(5) As Arthur Adams once said, “Don’t stay away from church because there are so many hypocrites. There’s always room for one more.”(6)

No justification can be made for hypocrisy. This horrible sin has no place in the life of a Christian. However, don’t let the hypocrisy of others come between you and God. We don’t throw away good money because some bills are counterfeit. By the same token, we should not reject Christianity because there are some phony Christians.

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College ed. (1970), s.v. “Hypocrite.”

2. Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “Hupokrisis (G5272).”

3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Ed. (1982), s.v. “Hypocrisy.”

4. Thayer, s.v. “Eilikrines (G1506).”

5. W.A. (“Billy”) Sunday, as quoted by Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 242.

6. Arthur R. Adams, as quoted by Mead, p. 240.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 181-182
March 15, 1990