Truth Magazine

By Wayne S. Walker

There are two basic attitudes toward Bible authority. One attitude says that the New Testament was intended as a divine pattern or rule book for the church and that we must have Bible authority for everything we do in religion. (Such is the position taken by this author.) The other says that the Scriptures are more of a general guide for us today and that we can use our own judgment in following or not following certain specific teachings based upon our own needs and circumstances. This difference can be seen as far back as the early Reformation period. The Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli taught that, if the Bible does not tell us to do something, we ought not to do it. In contrast, the German reformer Martin Luther held that if the Bible does not tell us not to do something, then we are at liberty to do it.

This same difference arose among New Testament churches of Christ back in the middle to later part of the nineteenth century of our nation when brethren were discussing the missionary society and instrumental music issues. In his book The Stone-Campbell Movement (1981), Leroy Garrett gave an illustration of this divergence of view. Speaking of a 1969 unity dialogue, he quoted a statement made be Reuel Lemmons. “When Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, was asked if he saw instrumental music as the main roadblock to fellowship with the Christian Church, his answer was no. ‘The thing that really separates these two great groups of the brotherhood,’ he said, ‘is their respective position regarding the Scriptures.’ He explained that the Churches of Christ speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent, while the Christian Churches speak where the Bible speaks and ‘where the Bible is silent we are free to choose'” (p. 666).

Brother Lemmons has said much with which I cannot concur. However, with this observation I am in full agreement. (By the way, the book which is the source of this citation is not one which I can recommend.) Even closer to our own time, the attitude, “We can do many things for which we have or need no authority,” has led to the introduction of sponsoring church arrangements, church-supported benevolent institutions, church-subsidized colleges, church-arranged recreation and entertainment, and other innovations which have divided congregations of God’s people. And now, there are some among us who are saying that we ought to go ahead, recognize all the people who accept these things as faithful brethren, and have fellowship with them because if we do not find a passage of Scripture that says, “Thou shalt not” do something, we cannot say that folks are wrong when they do it.

What does the Bible itself have to say about this problem? We need to lay aside all that fallible men have said about the silence of the Scriptures, go back to the Bible, and see what it says about what to do when God says nothing. And the best place I know to turn is Hebrews 7:11-14. “Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” (See chart #1).

The Principle Stated

First, we want to look at what God said. Concerning the priesthood, God said that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi (v. 11). God named Aaron, a Levite, to be the first high priest (Exod. 4:14; 28:1-3). He and his sons after him were appointed to this office (Exod. 40:12-15). The tribe of Levi was appointed over the tabernacle (Num. 1:47-54). This tribe was to minister to Aaron instead of the firstborn from the other ten tribes (Num. 3:6-13). Aaron’s brethren of the tribe of Levi were to be joined with him in keeping charge of the sanctuary (Num. 18:1-7). The Levites were separated from the other tribes to stand before the Lord (Deut. 10:8-9). They were specifically chosen by God to come near him (Deut. 21:5). God gave them authority to bring incense before him and offer burnt sacrifice to him (Deut. 33:8-10). Thus, any of the descendants of Aaron would be qualified to serve as priests.

God did not say, “Thou shalt not have priests of the tribes of Reuben, Benjamin, Ephraim, Judah, etc.” But neither did he say that such was permitted. He was silent on the matter. Did his silence authorize or prohibit? It certainly did not permit Dathan, Abiram, and On, descendants of Reuben, to bring incense before the Lord (Num. 16:1-35). King Saul, of Benjamin, was rejected because he offered a burnt sacrifice (1 Sam. 9:1-2; 13:8-10). One of the sins of Jeroboam, king of Israel and member of the tribe of Ephraim, was to make priests of people who were not the sons of Levi (1 Kgs. 12:25-31). Even in Judah, when king Uzziah tried to burn incense in the temple, he was struck with leprosy to show God’s displeasure. Why? Because he was not of the tribe of Levi.

As we turn to the New Testament, the same principle holds true. Even God’s own Son, Jesus Christ, could not be a priest upon the earth. “Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . . . For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:1-4). Why? Again, it was because he was of the tribe of Judah, “Of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” God did not have to say, “Thou shalt not. . . ” and then name every other tribe of the children of Israel. When he specified one tribe, Levi, he automatically forbade all others.

The Principle Repeated

Before we go on, we want to look at a few passages of Scripture where this principle is repeated. From a positive standpoint, all we do is to be done in the name of Christ Jesus. “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Col. 3:17). To act “in the name of” someone means to act by his authority. An ambassador who goes to another country “in the name of” the President of the United States is authorized only to do those things which the President actually instructs him to do. Also, we are to speak only as the oracle of God. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 4:11). This verse is the basis for the saying, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Only in this way can God truly be glorified.

From a negative standpoint, the Bible tell us not to go beyond the things that are written. “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other” (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV). Also, we are told that the one who transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11). Furthermore, the latter passage commands us not to have fellowship with nor give our approval to one who has gone beyond the doctrine of Christ.

In fact, Jesus condemned those who work lawlessness. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonderful works in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'” (Matt. 7:21-23) The word “lawlessness” (KJV, “iniquity”) is defined in the original language by C.L. Wilibald Grimm (translated by Joseph Henry Thayer) as, “prop. the condition of one without law, – either because ignorant of it, or because violating it.” It describes one who is acting without authority. Those who operate without the expressed approval of Jesus are guilty of lawlessness or iniquity. Thus we can see that only what can be proven to be the will of the Father in heaven is authorized.

The Principle Applied

Let us look at some examples of the application of this principle. First, we shall notice how it applies to specific authority (see chart #2). God has said that we are to eat the Lord’s supper. In addition, he has said specifically that we are to use bread and the fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29). He was silent about using any other elements, such as hamburgers and sodas. Does this silence authorize or prohibit? There is no command, “Thou shalt not use hamburgers and sodas on the Lord’s table.” If the position that when God’s word does not specifically condemn an action it is permitted be true, does that mean that it is all right for us to have hamburgers and sodas in the Lord’s supper? And, if we decide not to, but other folks do, can we be united with them and bid them godspeed?

What God Said:	This Specified:	Silence:
Eat the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-29)	Bread and   Fruit of Vine	Hamburgers   and Soda
Baptism Essential   (Acts 2:38)	Immersion   (Rom. 6:3-4)	Sprinkling   Pouring
Music in the   Worship of the Church	Singing   (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)	Instrumental   Music

Christ has said that baptism is essential for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Moreover, he has specifically said that the action of baptism involves a burial or an immersion (Rom. 6:3-4). His word is silent concerning any other action, such as sprinkling or pouring. Does his silence prohibit or authorize? We have no command, “Thou shalt not practice sprinkling or pouring for baptism.” If the view is true that whatever is not prohibited is permitted, may we be allowed to substitute sprinkling or pouring for immersion? Or, if we choose not to do so but other people do, must we refrain from condemning them because “the Bible does not say not to”?

The word of God has spoken concerning music in the worship of the church. And whenever music is used to praise the Lord under the new covenant, singing is specified (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Some have argued that the New Testament is silent about congregational singing but mentions only individual singing. But it should be obvious that for us to “teach and admonish one another,” we must be together. “One another” is a reciprocal, reflexive pronoun that suggests mutual action. If it could be established that congregational singing is not authorized in the New Testament, then we should abandon it. However, congregational singing in worship is authorized. Instrumental music is not. Therefore, by the same principle that using hamburgers and sodas in the communion service or substituting sprinkling or pouring for baptism is to be rejected, instrumental music must also be prohibited and those who practice it considered apostates.

However, it is also affirmed that the New Testament is as silent on instrumental music as it is on church buildings, song books, and collection baskets. These are expedients, therefore instrumental music can be classified as an expedient and its use thereby justified. The argument runs, “Since the Bible is ‘silent’ about all these things, we may choose to use nor not to use any of them.” The problem here is one of equivocation as to what is meant by “silent.” We must understand the difference between generic and specific authority. If God had merely told us to “make music,” the choice of what kind would be left up to our discretion. But the Bible specified “singing.” That is what God said. To add another kind of music (whether in congregational or individual worship) is an area where God has not spoken. Thus, we need to examine how the principle applies to generic authority (see chart #3).

God says to assemble for worship (Heb. 10:24-25). However, he has said nothing specifically as to a required place. (Actually, such a place is loosed for us in Jn. 4:21-24.) A church building, with pews, lights, etc., is simply an expedient way of carrying out a generic command. When we have a building, lights, and pews, we are still assembling for worship. However, the Bible is silent about churches building kitchens, dining halls, gymnasiums, etc., because we have no command, even generically, to assemble for recreation or entertainment. Thus, there can be no expedient ways to do such.

God says for us to sing in worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But he has said nothing as to the specifics of how to read the words or obtain the pitch, two necessary elements of singing. Song books are an expedient to obeying a generic command and do not add another kind of music. We are not singing and “booking.” We are merely reading the words to facilitate our singing. Nor does a pitch pipe add another kind of music. It merely gives us a pitch which enables us to sing. However, the Bible is silent about instrumental music, and the use of a mechanical instrument does add a different kind of music. It is no longer just “singing” but singing and playing. It is not an expedient to singing.

God says for Christians to give of their means on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). He has said nothing about a specific method of taking up this collection. A collection plate is only an expedient tool to accomplish this generic command. It does not in any way change the nature of the command itself. At the same time, taking up weekday collections and selling goods for profit do change the nature of the command. The first changes the specified day and the second changes it from a free-will offering. Therefore, these cannot be expedients because they do not accomplish what God has said that he wanted to be done. The Bible is silent about them.

So the equivocation is clear. The Bible is not actually “silent” about church buildings, song books, and collection baskets. While they are not mentioned specifically by name, they are authorized generically to carry out what God has specifically told us to do. We shall close this article at this point and in a concluding article we shall continue our application of this principle of Bible silence to some other problems that have bothered members of the Lord’s church down through the years.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 434-436
July 20, 1989

By Mark Mayberry

“God washes the eye by tears until they can behold the invisible land where tears shall come no more” (Henry Ward Beecher).

We cannot know for a certainty when Job lived, but there is compelling evidence to believe that his name should be included among the ancient patriarchs. He could easily predate the time of Abraham. His home was in the land of Uz, which was probably in the northern Arabian desert in a territory that came to be known as Edorn or Idumea.

Job was blessed with great abundance and a large family. Most importantly, Job was a righteous man, respected by his peers and servants alike. However, calamity struck Job: all his flocks, herds, and possessions were swept away through a succession of disasters. Even worse, the children whom he adored were all killed. Finally Job himself was beset with a terrible and painful disease. Although he questioned why such calamity should befall him, Job still maintained his faith in God. In the end, his wealth was restored to twice its original value, more children were born unto him, and he died a happy man.

Job struggled with the problem of suffering. Every person will eventually wrestle with the same questions that he faced. We all must come to grips with the problem of suffering and sorrow, pain and agony, disease and death. Thus, the Book of Job is a cherished treasure; its message is timeless. Little did this humble man know that the story of his personal adversity would become a source of comfort to countless millions who, down through the centuries, have faced tragedy themselves. This fact alone might well have been why Job was called upon to endure adversity. Humankind has been taught a valuable lesson from his example.

Summary of the Book

The Book of Job takes the form of a historical poem. The first scene opens with a picture of Job’s great prosperity, and then quickly turns to a discussion between God and Satan. God proudly points to Job as an example of a righteous man. However, Satan challenges God by suggesting that Job is faithful only because of the cornucopia of blessings he has received. The Lord permits Satan to test his theory by removing Job’s abundance, but this honorable man’s faith remains intact. Next, Satan suggests that physical suffering will cause man to curse God. Yet when Job is tried again, Satan is disappointed.

In the second scene, Job still does not curse God, but he does put some hard questions to the Lord. Bewildered and confused, he asks, “Why must I suffer such loss? What have I done to cause God to punish me so severely? What sins have brought on this calamity? Why is God so inconsistent in his punishment of the wicked? Why do the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper? Is there justice with God?” Thus Job challenges God, demanding to know why he has experienced such misfortune.

While Job presents this case to God, three of his friends – Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar – argue against him. Their approach is based on a simple syllogism: God always punishes sin; suffering is the result of sin; therefore Job is more of a sinner than he is willing to admit. They demand that Job confess his misdeeds. Yet, throughout it all, Job maintains his innocence. His faith has not been a put-on; his fidelity has not been a sham. There must be some other answer.

The third scene introduces a young man named Elihu who claims that neither Job nor his friends are correct. God does not act capriciously, as Job claims. Neither is suffering necessarily the result of sin, as his friends claim. Rather Elihu argues that suffering is often used by God to teach man certain lessons and to strengthen a person’s character.

In the final scene, it is God’s turn to speak. The Master of the Universe challenges Job: “What right do you have to accuse God? What power do you have? What understanding? What control? What authority? What wisdom?” The Lord God demands a response, but Job is dumbfounded. God continues to confront Job. He points out the paltry dominion of man. If man fears the large animals of the field, how much more should he manifest awe and respect for the Creator of all things? Through example after example, Jehovah sets forth the overwhelming difference between man and God. Finally, the Lord turns to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Job’s three friends are rebuked for having spoken falsehood. “My wrath is kindled against thee, ” said God, “for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right” (Job 42:7).

Conclusion

Job learned his lesson. In the end, he confessed the greatness and majesty of God; he repented in deep humility (Job 42:16). Job’s humble response demonstrates the depth of his righteous character. This indeed was a man of faith. The book closes with a picture of Job’s restored prosperity.

Then Job answered the Lord, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not, things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak., I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear. but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes (42:1-6).

Still we are left with the quandary, “Why does man suffer?” Even this masterpiece of literature does not answer all of our questions. Job was never given a direct answer as to why he suffered adversity. However, that itself is part of the lesson. True faith does not require an immediate or complete understanding of the workings of God. We cannot know all of God’s wisdom. In some respects we are not even in a position to ask “Why?”

However, the Scriptures do make several matters clear. First, we are reminded that all men, righteous and wicked, will one day stand before God in judgment. Evil men may prosper in this life, but their crimes will be exposed on that final day and they will be swept away like a flood. Secondly, we learn the fallacy of believing that suffering is always the result of sin. Job was a righteous man; he was not being punished for his wrong doings. Finally, it becomes obvious that man is in no position to accuse God of injustice. Man must learn not to blame God for all human suffering. We cannot plumb the ways of God; instead, “the just shall live by faith. ” When all was said and done, Job gained an understanding of the overwhelming might and majesty of Jehovah.

An awareness of these truths will not stop the tears of one who is suffering heartache or facing calamity. But they do challenge us to recognize the sovereignty of God. We must trust in his wisdom and understand that he has a time and purpose for all things, including adversity and suffering. It may not be apparent, but God works providentially’ in life to bring his people into a closer relationship with him, and thereby into greater harmony within themselves and with each other. Through faith, we can triumph over difficulties, even though we may not fathom all the circumstances of suffering (by Mark Mayberry. Adapted from The Narrated Bible by F. LaGard Smith [Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1984], p. 22,1155-1209).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 424-425
July 20, 1989

By Alan Jones

Much good material has been written on the subject of dancing from a biblical perspective. This article is not written to duplicate or in some way improve on such material.

Have you ever taken time to study dancing from a worldly, historical perspective? I took the time to research the subject at the public library and would like to report my findings to you. Perhaps you are a parent or a teenager conscientiously struggling with the question of whether a Christian should be involved in dancing. Perhaps you have been unimpressed with word studies you’ve read or heard on “lasciviousness” and feel that preachers are “making much to-do about nothing,” binding their personal opinions as the law of God.

I want to share with you some information from the book Let’s Dance, written by Peter Buckman in 1978. Mr. Buckman who has an honors degree in history from Oxford University, examines the development and social acceptance of the modern dance. Mr. Buckman is not a Christian who is trying to condemn dancing (in fact he actually belittles those who do). He writes as an historian, not a moralist. Consider his writing and then ask yourself, “Is dancing something a Christian should be involved in?”

Pre-Couple Dancing and Sex Appeal

We have been born into a world where men and women dance together and we may presume that this has gone on since ancient times. However, this is not so. Note what Mr. Buckman has to say below about dancing in Roman times. Throughout his book, he unashamedly points out the connection between sex and dancing, from how that dancing could be used for sex appeal in the pre-couple days to how that sex is the appeal of the dancing of our time. Here’s the author’s assessment of the “solo” dances of the Roman age:

“The couple dance had not yet arrived, so there was no question of learning how to move across the floor with a partner. But dancing gracefully in public was still a useful means of attracting the attention of the opposite sex” (p. 50).

“Mixt Dancing” Slow in Coming

Couple dancing, perhaps to your surprise (it was to mine) is relatively modern in its origins and took quite awhile to be morally, and thus socially acceptable. According to Mr. Buckman.

“The couple dance as we know it, with a pair of dancers actually touching each other, did not arrive until around the fifteenth century, and even then it was a decorous affair. Among the early cultures even the crudest sexual pantomime rarely involved a touch more intimate than a grasp of the hands. Most dances were sexually exclusive, for men or for women only. Some tribes insisted on the opposite sex absenting themselves from the dance area for certain dances, though these were always of a sacred nature. But, even at celebration, or in mimetic wooing dances, men and women danced in groups at each other, and not with each other. This sort of exclusivity enjoyed a very long life: ‘mixt dancing’ was frowned upon by many Puritans in the seventeenth century, by orthodox Jews, and also by strict Muslims” (p. 43).

Couple Dancing Faces Opposition

After couple dancing was introduced, many different dances for couples were invented and promoted. Among these, the La Volta was considered highly indecent by moralists of the day. The dance was taught with warnings to women. A woman was warned to keep her left hand against her thigh to hold her skirt “lest in gathering the wind it should display her chemise (undergarment) or bare leg.” The instructions went on to say, “I leave you to judge whether it be a proper thing for a young girl to make large steps and wide movements of the legs: and whether in this Volta her honor and well-being are not risked and involved” (pp. 91-92).

As mentioned in a quote above, the Puritans vigorously opposed the introduction of “mixt dancing.” They described the activity as “lascivious dancing to wanton ditties with amorous gestures and wanton dalliance (playing around – AJ)” (p. 104). The Puritans had such an influence that the Continental Congress, on October 12, 1778, prohibited dancing as an activity which produced “idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners” (p. 107)., Yes, it is hard to believe that dancing was once against the United States Federal law!

The Waltz Introduces Close-Dancing

Despite any religious protests and legislation, couple dancing did not die out, but rather gained social acceptance. The next major change in dancing came with the waltz which introduced close body contact between men and women for the first time. Mr. Buckman reports that this change, too, did not come without opposition. He writes, “Naturally the pleasure it gave to the couples who lost themselves in each others arms, who pressed breast against chest, and who, as the music whirled on, embraced each other more and more tightly, itself attracted strong criticism” (p. 104). In parts of Germany and Switzerland the waltz was banned altogether (p. 104).

In 1812, Lord Byron of England, speaking of the waltz, objected to the “lewd grasp and lawless contact warm,” and to the fact that “thin clad daughters, leaping around the floor would not leave much mystery for the nuptial (wedding night – AJ).” Mr. Buckman quickly discounts Lord Byron because “he also objected to mixed bathing” (that doesn’t destroy his credibility with me!) (p. 124).

Imagine waking up to this newspaper article found in the London Times in the summer of 1816:

“We remarked with pain that the indecent foreign dance called ‘waltz’ was introduced (we believe for the first time) at the English Court on Friday last. This is a circumstance which ought not be passed over in silence. National morals depend on national habits; and it is quite sufficient to cast one’s eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies, in their dance, to see that it is indeed far removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is attempted to be forced upon the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it is a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion . . . We owe a due reference to superiors in rank, but we owe a higher duty to morality. We know not how it has happened (probably by the recommendation of some worthless and ignorant French dancing master) that so indecent a dance has now for the first time been exhibited at the English Court; but the novelty is one deserving of severe reprobation, and we trust it will never again be tolerated in any moral English society” (p. 125).

Despite such pleas from the media, the waltz continued its course from the prostitutes and adulteresses to the nobles to the common people of England and of the world. Allen Dodwort commented in 1885 that the waltz “has for fifty years resisted every kind of attack and is today the most popular known” (p. 127). But, even he said that gentlemen should wait until the dance begins before encircling a woman’s waist. They never should put a bare hand there. If they lacked gloves, they should hold a handkerchief in their hand (p. 127). This was barely over 100 years ago. My how things have changed!

Objections to Close-Dancing Wane

Many religious leaders refused to accept the “closed couple” position required by the waltz until the nineteenth century was well advanced. Perhaps one of the last big attacks on dancing was by “revival” preachers after the economic crash of 1857 which ushered in the “Great Awakening” (p. 116,117).

Yet, despite the efforts of those who spoke out against dancing, society as a whole had less and less objections to it. Mr. Buckman, commenting on the polka, the next popular close dance introduced after the waltz, said, “Despite such complicated instructions, the dance triumphed over all objections and, like the waltz, its steps were incorporated into the other round dances which called for the close hold that no amount of sermonizing could loosen” (p. 146). He said the reason that dancing continued to gain popularity despite objections to its propriety was that “the god of profit was replacing that of the Bible as the chief totem (emblem – AJ) in American life” (p. 116).

Conclusion

Society today would laugh at the objections of their forefathers to the waltz and the polka. Certainly dancing has gotten much “dirtier” since then so as to make these dances look “pure,” “wholesome,” and “harmless.” But the introduction and acceptance of these led women down the road to the dancing that is more overtly sexual in nature (all of which Mr. Buckman reveals in great detail).

Every three weeks, I take an allergy shot. The shots are not to cure my allergies, but to desensitize me to them. Through the shots, doses of what I am allergic to are sent into my body; the dose being periodically increased, so that after a while my body will be so used to these substances that they will not bother me hardly at all when I come in contact with them.

What Mr. Buckman reveals in his book, Let’s Dance, is the desensitizing of the world to the lust of the flesh. Gradually, over a few hundred years, the world accepted larger and larger doses of it, until now its conscience is no longer bothered. Mr. Buckman, a man of the world, admits it. Will we?

Sometimes the “sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8). Won’t you and I, as sons of light, admit what a son of the world sees. But, let’s go beyond him and let the appeal to the lust of the flesh bother our consciences, if indeed they are not already desensitized. In light of the history of the modern dance, do you really thing a son of light ought to participate?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 422-423
July 20, 1989

By P.J. Casebolt

Webster defines name-calling as “the use of disparaging or abusive names in attacking another” (New 20th Century Dictionary). hen we d not know how to assail another’s position, we resort to name-calling.

As children, we have either been the giver or the recipient of such names as “fraidy-cat,” “sissy,” “tattletale,” or “teacher’s pet.” Some may use the terms “hill billy,” “Yankee,” or “Rebel” in a derogatory way. When certain philosophers could not account for the resurrection of the dead, they called Paul a “babbler” (Acts 17:18).

My earliest recollection of a disparaging religious name was the use of the term “Campbellite. ” Alexander Campbell left the Baptist church, was baptized for the remission of sins, and began to exhort others to do likewise. While the Baptists were instrumental in coining the phrase “Campbellite,” other sects followed suit when they could not answer the Bible doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Even though Peter and other inspired men preached that baptism was essential to the remission of sins, and though other restoration pioneers in this country preached it before Campbell, the followers of Christ were still called Campbellites. It was ironic that people who wore and honored the names of such men as John the Baptist and Luther, would use other human names in an attempt to discredit someone’s religious position.

When I first began to preach, I was called a “Sommerite” because I held the position that colleges should not be supported from the church treasury, or by any other collective action on the part of the church. Some brethren didn’t even know what Daniel Sommer really taught on the matter, but that didn’t stop them from calling other brethren Sommerites.

Again, it was ironic that one preacher who took exception to an article I wrote along these lines in the old Apostolic Times, ended up being called an “Anti” within the same decade.

The term “Anti” was used (and is still used) in a disparaging way to make up for the failure of some brethren to answer another’s argument. It didn’t seem to matter that the ones who used this abusive term were against some things themselves, or that Jesus, God, Paul and Peter were against (anti) certain practices and doctrines. The purpose of those who use the term “anti” is not to tell what someone is against, whether it be instrumental music, missionary societies, or church support of human organizations and recreation. The motive behind the practice of calling someone an “anti” was to hinder the influence of a brother, not an exercise in fair representation of another’s position.

And the reason that some brethren are not using the term as much as they used to is simply because they are being called “antis” by someone else, and are getting a taste of their own medicine. But I still haven’t heard of anyone apologizing for the prejudicial use of the term “anti” in their own vocabulary.

I have been called a “legalist” because I insist on speaking as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11) and for insisting that others follow the principle of going “to the law and to the testimony” (Isa. 8:20), for religious authority.

But, I have the consolation of knowing that other good men would be called legalists also, simply because they give, and ask for, “book, chapter, and verse.” In the 119th Psalm, David made reference to the word of God 181 times in 176 verses (by my count). And though I could be off a verse or two, David would qualify as a “legalist” if anyone would.

I’ve been called some uncomplimentary names because I try to speak plainly enough so that folks can understand what I’m saying (2 Cor. 3:12). But I have never yet had an occasion to call anyone a “viper” (Matt. 23:33) or a “child of the devil” (Acts 13:10).

I’ve been called a perfectionist in a friendly way, and also in an unfriendly way. But when Solomon tells me to do a thing “with thy might” (Eccl. 9:10), and Paul says “do it heartily, as to the Lord,” I can’t help what motive people may have when they call me a perfectionist. Some people may be “slothful” (Rom. 12:11), and can’t stand to be around people who are “diligent” (2 Pet. 1;5,10).

We should be more concerned about what the Lord calls us, than we are about what men call us. There is a “worthy name by which ye are called” (Jas. 2:7). “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). While some may use the name Christian in derision and some wearing that name may bring reproach upon it, the name itself came from God (1 Pet. 4:16).

Jesus commended the church at Philadelphia because they had not denied his name (Rev. 3:8). And if we can just hear Jesus call us “blessed” when he comes to call us home, that name will be sweet to hear (Matt. 25:34).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 428
July 20, 1989