Truth Magazine

By Mike Hughes

Introduction:

The Christmas season has become so much a part of our national life that is it practically impossible to isolate oneself from it. Manger scenes, the “Christmas Story” in schools, and appeals to put Christ back into Christmas have the effect of presenting as truth what are really fictional parts of the “Christmas Story.” These fictional parts have no foundation in fact, as presented in either the Scriptures or in historical record otherwise. We must be willing to investigate biblical teaching concerning the Birth of Christ to separate fact from fiction, so we might believe whatever truth is presented and practice whatever is authorized. We also should want to avoid believing that which isn’t justified in the scriptural account.

Body:

I. The Facts about the Birth of Christ.

A. It is a fact that a baby boy named Jesus was born in Bethlehem more than 1900 years ago and that he became one of the most influential men of history.

1 . Biblical and extra-biblical sources prove his birth.

2. Josephus the Jew, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger support the fact that he lived and was believed and followed as the N.T. teaches.

B. It is a fact that he was born in a stable.

1. Read Luke 2:7. The innkeeper was the first in a long line of people who turned away the Son of God. He still finds no room in the lives of many.

2. Archaeological discoveries have confirmed the general accuracy of Luke’s account of the circumstances.

a. It was denied by many that there was imperial census, that Cyrenius was governor (Lk. 2:2) or that all had to go to their ancestral home.

b. Archaeological finds have shown all three to be true – papyrus documents indicate a census every 14 years, that Cyrenius was governor on two occasions that would allow him to have been governor at the date of Jesus’ birth, and that Roman-ruled countries were required to return to ancestral homes for taxation.

C. It is a fact that angels announced his birth to shepherds (Lk. 2:8-14).

D. It is a fact that wise men from the East came to worship Jesus.

1. These were magi (magoi), possibly priests or philosophers from the Euphrates Valley with the learning of the East, guided by the Lord by means of “his Star” (Matt. 2).

2. They came asking the location of the new-born King!

E. It is a fact that Jesus was born of a virgin.

1. Read Matt. 1:22,23.

2. Notice the evidence for the virgin birth.

a. Mary (Lk. 1:34,35): She immediately went to see Zachariah and Elizabeth, although Zachariah would have condemned her for adultery. At the cross she remained silent when her admission of adultery would have saved Jesus from death. What kind of mother was this?

b. Joseph: Why would Joseph invent such a story?

c. Elizabeth, Matthew, Luke, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and others preached he was not the son of a mere man.

3. Acceptance of this evidence prepares one to accept all else the Bible says of him, but repudiation undermines the trustworthiness of the whole Bible.

F. It is a fact that Jesus came on a mission of salvation (Matt. 1:21; Lk. 2:29-32).

II. Fiction Surrounding Jesus’s Birth.

A. It is fiction that there were three wise men.

1. The three gifts could have been brought by a smaller or larger group of wise men.

2. The Bible doesn’t say how many came.

B. It is fiction that the wise men visited the stable.

1. In spite of the manger scene depicting wise men there, Matthew 2:11 says they visited Jesus in a house.

2. The flight to Egypt after their visit, as well as the public presentation in the Temple at age of 40 days, would indicate the wise men came after 40 days (cf. Lev. 12:1-4).

C. The principle fiction is that he was born on December 25.

1. The Bible does not date his birth, and learned men have put the date in various months of the year.

2. Articles in any encyclopedia will show lack of evidence to support December 25th as being Jesus’ birthday!

3. The rainy season of Palestine makes it very unlikely that shepherds kept flocks out in the fields.

D. It is fiction that Christ wants us to observe a special day in honor of his birth.

1. Too many of us are inclined toward special observances rather than regular observances. We render service in spurts.

2. Christians remember his death on the only special day found in the N.T. teaching – the first day of every week, even as the early church did Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

3. Since we walk by faith, which is based on the Word of God, we cannot make a special religious observance of any day in the absence of any justification from the Scriptures.

Conclusion:

Notice the facts and fiction stated above. As a national holiday, December 25 may be observed by Christians as any other such holiday; but we should not attach any religious significance to Christmas. All Christians should give thanks daily for his birth and his willingness to sacrifice his life on the cross so we, through obedience to his will, will have hope of eternal life with him in Heaven (Jn. 14:1-4).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 744, 751
December 21, 1989

By David Weaks

Have you ever been to a restaurant where the employees seem unfriendly and unmotivated? Such a place makes for a very unpleasant dining experience. Sometimes we may get the feeling that our waiter or waitress feels “put out” in serving us. The very idea! Don’t they know that my patronage helps provide for their job security? On the other hand, if you have ever worked in a restaurant, then you probably look at the situation in a different light. I worked in a restaurant for three years and, as a result, I am generally very patient with these people.

When one spends some times working as a waiter or a waitress, he learns very well what it means to be a servant. Very often the customers are disagreeable and impossible to please, and will expect your undivided attention, regardless of how many other customers you may be serving. How discouraging it is to be waiting on ten different tables during the “dinner rush,” and have one customer storm out because he wasn’t served quickly enough I Sometimes it is difficult to wear a bright smile, and echo the phrase, “The customer is always right!”

A person who takes a job as a waiter or a waitress does not serve customers for glory, honor, or recognition, but rather because the job requires it. When one provides a customer with good service, it is done out of duty. Jesus illustrated this in Luke 17:10 with the lesson of the servant, “Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it is our duty to do.”

How many of us have really learned what it means to be a servant? How difficult it is to learn that lesson! It is so much easier to be on the receiving end of service, than to be the server. Have you ever heard someone say, “I just don’t seem to get anything out of services anymore”? These people seem to have forgotten that the whole idea is to serve the Lord, rather than to be served by him (Josh. 24:14-15; Lk. 4:8).

We often find it difficult to serve the Lord properly; how much more so, our neighbor? In Luke 10:27ff the Lord gives us an explicit example of our obligation to our neighbor. Truly the Samaritan man looked upon himself as a servant, and demonstrated that type of a spirit. Ali too often I am afraid that we are too proud to stoop to that level of humility. Let us not forget that the Lord is not pleased with that kind of pride (Jas. 4:6). A true servant is a person who has the ability to put away feelings of pride, and do the job that is required. A servant realizes that pride very often causes one to stumble (Prov. 16:18); therefore, he will have no part of it.

Our Lord has provided for us a perfect example of a servant, and all we need to do is look to him. Would you be willing to wash your guests’ feet before dinner? The Lord did that (Jn. 13:14-16)! Are you willing to seek out the seat of least honor at a celebration? Jesus taught us to do that (Lk. 14:7-11)! Would you be willing to give up your highly exalted position and home, just to be a servant to mankind? Jesus even did that (Phil. 2:5-1 I)l Jesus was a servant to the end, “even the death on the cross” (2:8).

If we are ever going to be the kind of people the Lord wants us to be, we must learn to be servants. Jesus beseeches us to “learn i of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29). If we are able to thoroughly learn this quality of Jesus, we will be able to truly “submit to one another in the fear of the Lord” (Eph. 5:21).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 712
December 7, 1989

By Burl Young

Now to you city boys, the above will not mean a whole lot, but those of you who have been blessed with a life in rural America will probably know what it means. For those that do not know. I will try to explain. It means that even a hog with no sense of direction, without the use of his eyes, and just groping along in the darkness, will occasionally find an acorn to eat. I wish to make application of this to the preaching of the gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 3:7, Paul stated that he planted, Apollos watered and God gave the increase. It seems that this is often used to make apology for preachers that sometimes preach several years without any responses to the gospel. It is my conviction that the gospel always gets results. For a preacher to preach for years and years in a local area, taking full-time support for this work and not having any results ‘ is to border on the absurd. At the very best, it is bad judgment on the part of those supporting him and at the worst it is intentionally failing to do God’s will with his money. Because I have preached for some of our larger congregations and some of the smaller ones too, I feel I can be fairly objective in this matter.

I have stated above that the preaching of the gospel always gets results. If this is taken to mean that it always, on every occasion results in a conversion, it is taken other than the way I meant it. On the other hand, if one preaches for years and years in a given area and has no results at all, I believe some things should be examined. First, as a preacher, I must start with myself. Am I doing my job well? Am I using the proper style in my preaching? Do I hurt people’s feelings by my demeanor before I can teach them? Not all men have the proper attitude, demeanor and ability to preach the gospel. Not all men can be carpenters, salesmen, teachers or factory workers. Thusly, not all men should be preachers.

On the other hand, it may very well be that the people you are working with in the local church are such as are not liked by those around them. If this be the case, one should attempt to teach those persons first, before looking toward teaching others.

Getting back to the “style” of some preachers, let us examine some things we might do to help people understand. We should remove all barriers that we can in this area. If it is needful for you to “give in” just a little on matters of expediency, such as length, subject matter, or mannerisms on your part, perhaps you should care enough to be concerned for the feelings of others and do your best to accommodate brethren in these areas. However, one should always preach things that are needed and should never compromise on truth. This is not the issue under consideration. What is under consideration however, is your effectiveness with the congregation. If everyone is irritated At you because you are offensive in these matters, you will have little or no effect on matters of importance, even though brethren should be more patient many times.

When was the last time you preached a “first principles” sermon? Are you afraid that the members will think you are shallow? This may be what is needed to convert the children and visitors to the Lord. Simply because you have had a course or two in logic and know what a syllogism is, doesn’t mean your hearers do. Preach things that they can understand. Perhaps the greatest compliment I ever get in my preaching is that I am so “simple.”

Of course, all the blame for lack of conversions must not lie with the preacher. Jesus taught that preaching the gospel is like sowing seed; some will take root and some will not (see Lk. 8). If you find yourself in a place where all you seem to have is wayside hearers, you should seriously consider going elsewhere. Jesus taught his disciples that when they went out to preach, if the people refused to hear their words, they should shake the dust off and leave (Matt. 10:14). Having worked with larger churches that supported men in hard places, I have often heard the remark that brother so and so sure has a hard work. Well, it may be that he is not working at all and should be dropped from support. On the other hand, good faithful working brethren have been refused support because the large church was “full up” on supporting men. Brother, if you are working for a small church and there are no results at all, no one is receptive to your preaching and the future looks dim, consider going elsewhere. Conversely elders should examine the support of men who are having no results and consider using the money to support men who do produce. Brethren, souls are at stake, and this should not be taken lightly. How many salesmen would be kept at work receiving full pay if they never sold any goods? That answer is inherent in the question; none would be kept. Is the preaching of the gospel any less important than selling merchandise? I think not.

Finally, elders who are involved in the decisions to support or not to support men in the field should not treat these men as beggars! Dear elder friend, do you feel that a man is a beggar if he asks for wages in support for the work that he does? If you do, you should study again the fact that a preacher is worthy of his hire and is due wages and not benevolence. Many times a man is working with a small church because he chooses to work in hard places, not because he is unable to do any better. When asking for support men are often told that the church has no money and that we have to examine the budget. Brother, it may be imperative that the preacher have help now. He may not need to wait until a month later for a regular elders’ meeting. These are just some things to think about in that area.

In conclusion, let me say that preachers should convert people to Jesus Christ, and if you are not doing it, please examine your ability, your desire and your location. If any of these is lacking, get a job, make more money and be happy, you can still be saved. But if you are preaching the gospel, be effective, demand the money you deserve, and good elders will see that you get it.

And remember, “even a blind hog gets an acorn once in a while.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 718
December 7, 1989

By Ben Vick

In 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS) was established. A constitution was written, setting forth the organization, objectives, and purposes of the society. Its objectives and purposes are clearly set forth in the preamble of its constitution. It reads:

That the world may the more fully come to know Christ, the Son of God; that all men everywhere may increasingly appropriate for themselves His way of life; that a world of Christian brotherhood may be realized, and that the unity of God’s people may be achieved, this Society is established.

To this end the Society shall aid in the preaching of the gospel of Christ at home and abroad; shall create and foster a program of Christian education and training to the end that men’s minds may be enlightened concerning the Christian way of life; shall lend encouragement and assistance to local congregations with a view of helping them to become as efficient units of the kingdom of God as possible; . . .

Soon after the news had spread that the ACMS had been established, there was opposition from congregations and preachers. Jacob Creath, Jr., was one of the first, if not the first, among gospel preachers to raise his voice in objection to his unauthorized organization which purposed to rob the church of her work. Others later followed the example of Creath in his objections, stating that the Society had no right to exist. Benjamin Franklin, at the first, lent his influence toward the ACMS but then turned and ferociously attacked its right to exist. Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb and others opposed the ACMS as well.

In the fall of 1908 a crucial debate took place between W.W. Otey of Lynn, Indiana, and J.B. Briney of Louisville, Kentucky. The questions discussed were instrumental music and the societies. The second proposition read: “The use of such organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, etc., is authorized in the New Testament scriptures and acceptable to God.” Briney affirmed; Otey denied.

Though surely most in our brotherhood would give lip service to the position taken by Otey in this debate, yet, many in the Lord’s church could not in consistency deny the above proposition, as did Otey, and continue in their practices, for they are involved in nothing more than missionary societies. Paul wrote, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?”

Now, before going any further, let it be understood that I do not have anything personal against the individuals to be named in this article. I am simply naming them for identifying purposes. In fact, I regret to have to call names; but I am not better than Paul; and if he did, then, under similar circumstances, so must I (2 Tim. 1:19-20; 2:17-18; 4:10) Besides, how will we mark and avoid, as the New Testament commands, if we do not know who the errorists are (Rom. 16:17-18)? And if proved to be wrong on any of the organizations to be mentioned, this brother will gladly repent and correct his error.

Another point to be considered is that I am not opposing the orphan home and scriptural sponsoring church cooperation. This writer has defended both in writing and from the polemic platform and would gladly do so again if the opportunity arose. Just to say the orphan home and sponsoring church are like the missionary society does not make them such any more than to call a man a monkey makes him a monkey. A man may swing from trees and eat bananas, but that does not make him a monkey.

The missionary society is sinful and has no right to exist, because it is an organization separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work of the church. It is wrong because it displaces the work which belongs to the church. It is not the purpose of the missionary society to which we stringently object; but it is its very right to exist that is unscriptural! The orphan homes do the work of a home, not the church. The sponsoring church is simply the church at work; and other congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor. If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?

Brethren, we need to get our eyes open! We have missionary societies among us which have no right to exist. Therefore, we are speaking out against them – not because their purposes are not good and commendable, but because they are organizations separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work of the church.

World Christian Broadcasting Corporations (WCBC) is nothing more than a missionary society. It is separate from the church. It has its own president, Robert E. Scott, and board of directors. Checks are to be made payable to WCBC and are deductible for income tax purposes. In a letter dated April, 1980, the then president of WCBC, B.E. Davis, quoted Matthew 28:19 and mentioned the number of souls in the world today in need of the gospel. He then stated, “The World Christian Broadcasting Corporations has been devised as a way to overcome this obstacle.” Though a number of well-known brethren have endorsed the work, this writer says it is nothing more than a missionary society attached to the church. It seeks church support; but at the same time, it remains autonomous. It even has its own “voice” for raising money called the WCBC News. It is an organization which has no right to exist. Those brethren involved in this work could not oppose the missionary society of the Disciples of Christ and be consistent.

Another missionary society among us is The Center for Church Growth, of Houston, Texas. The president is Joe D. Schubert; and the executive director, according to my latest update, is Tim. E. Matheny. This organization, separate from the church, has its own board of directors which includes a chairman, John R. Bolestawski; vice chairman, Arlen Ashley; and a secretary/treasurer, Dale E. DeCarlo. Some of the board, as of January 27, 1986’s letterhead, include M. Norvel Young and Allen Isbell. “Their purpose?” you ask. It is to help congregations grow. Is it a worthy goal? Yes. But the organization has no right to exist. Will Schubert or Matheny or anyone else connected with this organization defend publicly its right to exist? Peter tells us to grow in grace and in the knowledege of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). This organization is attempting to do that which the church should do through the preaching of the gospel.

Another missionary society among us is Leadership and Church Growth International, of Florence, Alabama. Its president is Jerry Humphries; the executive director is Jim Denison; and the board of directors is made up of five men, one of whom is Jerry Humphries. What is this organization’s reason for existing? Humphries says, ” . . Ao provide Christian leaders and workers the opportunities to receive the training they need without their having to leave home.” Well, that’s wonderful. But what is the church doing? Cannot these individuals be trained by the simple preaching and/or teaching of God’s word without having an organization separate and apart from the church which is attempting to displace the church? This, too, is a nonprofit organization. Why cannot the church do the same work and let God receive the glory through the church rather than through some humanly devised organization? We are told in the LCG International News that LCG International is in harmony with God’s word. But it will take more than telling us; it must be proved to us (1 Thess. 5:21).

There are a number of “organizations” which are “under” different elderships which have no right to exist, for they are nonprofit organizations (considered by the government to be separate and apart from the church) which are attempting to displace the church. Some of these organizations have selected certain elderships which will just “rubber stamp” whatever the organization desires. If the eldership balks, the organization just finds another “yes” eldership. One of these organizations which comes to mind is the Way of the Cross, of Dallas, Texas. It is “under the oversight” of the elders of the Rockwell Church of Christ in Rockwall, Texas. It has been in existence fifteen years. Checks can be made payable to “Way of the Cross” and are tax deductible. I have been told that this organization, Way of the Cross, is a mission outreach to the highways and hedges of the United States and endeavors to plant churches in areas where none exist. When the Way of the Cross publications comes out, it talks of “our” mission and “our” mission workers.

Why cannot we be simply gospel preachers and members of the Lord’s church and spread the gospel and edify the saints? Why do some brethren think they must have some organization separate from the church through which to do the work of the church? Was Paul a member of some organization such as Leadership and Church Growth International or Way of the Cross? Why cannot brethren be content with the Lord’s organization?

This does not mean it is wrong for brethren to go into private business, selling Bibles and good religious material. The Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate are businesses. Churches have the right to buy their services, their material, etc.; but the church has no scriptural right to make a donation, or contributions, to such businesses in order to keep them afloat. If so, I am willing to hear the proof.

Brethren everywhere need to rise up and oppose these mini-missionary societies among us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 720, 723
December 7, 1989