Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

World War II

In truth, although there were such previews of what was to come, World War 11 can be seen as a chronological line of demarcation. First, as one generation passed from the earth, another was coming to prominence. In one eighteen month period during 1940-41, as the nation prepared for war, a number of well-known older preachers (Daniel Sommer, J.D. Tant, Joe Warlick, F.B. Srygley – household names in many places in the brotherhood) passed away, and were “replaced” in positions of editorial responsibility by much younger men such as B.C. Goodpasture.(1)

Reactions to the war itself, and the discussion of the “carnal warfare” question revealed that an interesting shift of opinion had occurred between the wars as this new generation had come to prominence. As late as World War 1, David Lipscomb’s strong non-participatory stance still held sway among a strong and vocal minority in the church. Objections to Christians serving in war resulted in such incidents as the closing of Cordell Christian College by the local “defense council,” and the arrest and threatened execution of two young Christians who were shipped to, Leavenworth Prison, and lined up before a firing squad to be shot.(2) The Gospel Advocate ceased the re-publication of David Lipscomb’s old articles on “Civil Government” and no-participation in warfare only under threat from federal government either to cease and desist the publication of such anti-war propaganda or be shut down altogether.(3)

By World War II, however, shifting sentiment, the emergence of a new generation, and, to be sure, the surge of patriotic opinion following the attack on Pearl Harbor, produced a strikingly different environment. B.C. Goodpasture needed no government intervention to persuade him to close the columns of the Gospel Advocate to further discussion; by 1943 he did it voluntarily. Indeed, a close examination of some of the early criticisms of the cooperative efforts in preaching in Italy and Germany stemmed from the fact that some of the “missionaries” seemed to their critics much too quick to “apologize” for the devastation inflicted on Europe by American armed forces.(4)

The Post-World War II Era

Even before the army of GI’s returned home in 1945 to marry, continue their education, or launch careers (or all of the above), a new consciousness regarding evangelism and a seeming willingness to try whatever sounded good in spreading the gospel had overtaken many of the churches and those who preached or served as elders over them. The educational boon of the GI Bill also swelled the ranks of colleges across the country – and “Christian colleges” seemed determined not to be a whit behind the chiefest.

Spurred in most cases, no doubt, by well-intentioned impulses to spread the gospel as widely as possible, churches were inundated after the war with numerous appeals: to support cooperative works in Germany, Italy, and Japan (“overseen” by churches in Texas and Tennessee who assumed a centralizing role in such support); or the proliferation of institutions soon swelled to more than thirty);(5) and not least by the “Christian colleges, whose swelling enrollments of returning GI’s helped create a seemingly insatiable appetite for funds to sustain their growth.

That there had been some “historical precedent” for centralized support of city-wide evangelistic endeavors cannot be successfully disputed. The cooperative efforts of the Hardeman “Tabernacle Meetings” of the Twenties and Thirties were reflected in other such post-World II endeavors as the Houston Music Hall meetings, in which the Norhill church undertook to oversee funds from Houston-area churches so that Foy E. Wallace, Jr., could p reach lessons which, transcribed and later published as God’s Prophetic Word and Bulwarks of the Faith, would provide sermon material on which an entire generation of preachers would “cut their teeth.” The local preachers at Norhill at that time were Luther Blackmon and Wallace’s close friend, Roy E. Cogdill, who before long would launch his own printing company largely to be able to publish Wallace’s books as well as his paper, the Bible Banner Oater, the Gospel Guardian – in which Cogdill would later renounce the centralized arrangement of the Music Hall meeting).(6)

Cogdill, Blackmon, Guardian editor Yater Tant, and others who initially supported such efforts were forced by conviction of conscience, and, as they saw it, consistency, to withdraw their support for such collective endeavors in much the same way as men like Tolbert Fanning and Benjamin Franklin, initial supporters and defenders of nineteenth-century missionary society endeavors, eventually withdrew their support for such efforts and indeed became vocal opponents of such works.(7)

For those who began to think twice about centralized foreign evangelistic efforts “under the oversight” of a single large American church, an additional concern was the message preached (or, in the eyes of many, not preached) by the “missionaries” receiving such support. David Filbeck has ably, demonstrated that much of the opposition to the centralized missionary society of the Christian Church was due to the diluted (even modernistic) message of those so supported, and some of the same concerns – as much about message as about methods – are, I believe, reflected in some of the writing in opposition to centralized evangelistic support, where many smaller churches contributed to support preachers in the countries devastated by World War II by sending their contributions to a large, prosperous, “overseeing” church.(8)

What Were “The Issues”?

The proliferation of humanly-arranged institutions seeking church contributions (particularly the increasing volume of educational institutions openly soliciting money from churches) and the growing numbers of congregations assuming the right to “oversee” the work of other churches with the financial support of many more were only a part of the scenario. Combined with the upward socio-economic mobility of members of the church, many of whom experienced the shift from the day-to-day, hand-to-mouth existence of Depression-era poverty to the disposable income and consumerism of the post-war boom which moved the South toward parity with the nation, these factors and more provided a complex scenario fraught with possibilities for differences, disagreement, and division.

By the time a national radio (and later, television) program, the “Herald of Truth,” was added to the list of orphanages, homes for the aged and for unwed mothers, schools, colleges, publishing ventures (Gospel Press, for example) and intermittent appeals for increasing numbers of projects centralized under a few large, prosperous churches, an increasing number of brethren began to question various aspects of these endeavors. The study of “the current issues” (as they were often generically labeled) produced a tension between the boosters of the new projects and those who raised pesky questions about their scriptural validity. That tension was reflected in the increasing vehemence with which both sides pressed their positions in various “brotherhood journals.” Roy Cogdill’s Banner Publishing Company was created in large part to allow Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to continue in the Banner/Guardian his opposition to the increasingly open appeals for church support of colleges, orphanages and other parachurch enterprises which surfaced with increasing frequency in B.C. Goodpasture’s Gospel Advocate and in Texas Firrn Foundation after G.H.P. Showalter was succeeded in 1954 by Reuel Lemmons.(9)

Other papers were begun as well, often for the expressed purpose of examining these issues. The Preceptor, begun in 1951 by several brethren affiliated with Florida Christian College was followed almost a decade later by another Tampa journal, Searching the Scriptures. Halfway between the launching of these journals, and half a continent away, TRUTH Magazine was begun in the Chicago area. None of these upstart journals, however, enjoyed the extended longevity and familiarity (to say nothing of the large subscription lists) ‘ of the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, which were joined by new journals such as the Spiritual Sword in the flight against the “antis.”(10)

The discussion of these “issues” was perhaps most vocally expressed in a series of formal debates in the half-decade beginning about. 1954. From Indianapolis (Holt-Totty, October 1954; Woods-Porter, January 1956) to Texas (Harper-Tant, Lufkin, April 1955 and Abilene, November 1955) to Alabama (Cogdill-Woods, Birmingham, November 1957; Wallace-Holt, Florence, December 1959), men who had once stood shoulder to shoulder and made common cause against all enemies did battle with each other. These debates, published and re-published for wider consumption by various brotherhood printing concerns, reflected hundreds of other unpublished public discussions and thousands of private conversations and arguments which spread to nearly every hamlet in the land where there was a church of Christ. Together with the written discussions in various “brotherhood journals,” they provided an arsenal for anyone who sought to do battle on either side.

The Arguments

In debates, sermons, and various articles in religious journals, non-institutional preachers have normally advanced the following propositions:

1. That God has revealed in Scripture certain patterns for believers to follow in executing their collective duties in congregational work and worship (Heb. 8:5).

2. That these “binding” patterns are expressed in terms of (a) “generic” or “specific” statements or commands; (b) specific accounts of action, and (c) necessary conclusions or inferences drawn from Scripture (Acts 15).(11)

3. That the “general” or more “generic” statements or commands allow differing optional or expedient ways of obeying those requirements, while specific statements or examples provide more restrictive instructions and do not authorize alternative procedures.

4. That the differences between “general and specific” can be detected, and distinguished from incidentals, or from a variety of expedient ways, by correctly following common sense hermeneutical principles.(12)

5. That the Scriptures enjoin upon Christians a broad range of individual duties, obligations and privileges which can be carried out in a variety of optional and expedient ways, that God may be glorified.

6. That, by contrast, the collective duties enjoined upon Christians in their collective congregational capacity, are fairly limited and consist of worshiping God through prayer, vocal music, proclamation of the gospel, and the first day of the week observance of the Lord’s Supper and financial collection to enable the congregation to carry out its collective responsibilities in discharging its own edificational and teaching duties, assisting needy sanits, and supporting preachers in their work of proclamation and teaching.

7. That, while some collective duties may overlap individual obligations (teaching, singing, prayer, for example), individual and collective (congregational) activity are not identical and can be easily and clearly distinguished one from the other.

8. That since collective activity, which requires a common mind, acceptance and agreement to common supervision (by elders, if qualified), and the pooling of financial resources is inherently fraught with possibilities of disagreement in matters of detail, it should be limited to those activities clearly enjoined upon Christians in acting together as a congregation, allowing room to respect the conscience of others, even of weak or untaught brethren (Romans 14).

9. That, in regard to preaching the gospel, Scripture reveals only that evangelism was accomplished by individual preachers, self-supported or remunerated by congregations (by example, directly, without the aid of some itermediary or “sponsoring” church, or “missionary society,” whether called by that name or identified as a “steering committee” or other terminology – 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-18).

10. That Scripture several times records that churches assisted their own needy saints, or sent funds for the temporary relief of congregations in “want,” – but that such relief was temporary, not sent from one prosperous church to another, and never for purposes of evangelism in which each congregation has equal obligations to the limit of its ability. Most conservatives have stressed the independence and autonomy of each local congregation, insisting that twentieth-century “sponsoring-church” conglomerates or other centralizing tendencies, no less than a missionary society or the Baptist associations and conventions, compromise New Testament principles regarding the nature of Christ’s church.(13)

11. That the church Jesus died to purchase is a spiritual institution with a uniquely spiritual function, and is therefore not to be remade into a hybrid welfare organization-country club responsible for alleviating social ills or for the entertainment of its members.

12. That human societies and institutions (colleges, orphanages, publishing companies, hospitals, etc.) which may be utilized as expedient means on a fee-for-service basis, am not be appended to the church and maintain their livelihood by church donations, and that all such attempts to make them parachurch or church-related institutions is foreign to the New Testament.

Endnotes

1. Ed Harrell, “B.C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought, in They Being Dead Yet Speak. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Tampa: Florida College, 1981). Note Harrell’s observations that “Foy Wallace scorched heretics; Goodpasture warned them that they would lose their position in the brotherhood” (p. 250). See also J.C. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: The Life of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1971).

2. Sears, For Freedom, pp. 156-157.

3. Earl West, “World War I and the Decline of David Lipscomb’s Civil Government” (unpublished ms., Harding Graduate School of Religion Library, 1976, p. 11); see West, III, chapter 13. For background on Lipscomb and nineteenth century pacifism. See David Edwin Harrell, Jr., “Disciples of Christ Pacifism in Nineteenth Century Tennessee,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 21:3 (September, 1962), pp. 263-274.

4. Cled Wallace, “That Rock Fight in Italy,” Gospel Guardian 1:36 (January 19,1950), pp. 1,5; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “Going Off Half-Cocked, ” Gospel Guardian 1:44 (March 16, 1950), pp. 1,5; Roy E. Cogdill, “We Are Not Anti-Foreign Evangelism,” Gospel Guardian 1:47 (April 6, 1950), pp. 1,5. See Willis, W. W. Otey, pp. 306f.

5. Willis, W. W. Otey, p. 312. In 1949 there were 14 “Orphan Homes and Homes for the Ages” listed in G.H. P. Showalter and Leslie G. Thomas, comps., Church Directory and List of Preachers of Churches of Christ (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1949), p. 212).

6. See Cogdill-Woods Debate. A Discussion on what constitutes scriptural cooperation between churches of Christ (Lufkin, TX: Gospel Guardian Company, n.d. [1958?1, pp. 204-208, 214-215.

7. See James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, TX Sweet Publishing Company, 1969, chapters 10-12, especially pp. 176-181, 187-188, 193-195; Earl West, Elder Den Franklin: Eye of the Storm (Indianapolis: Religious Book Service, 1983), pp. 158-160, 211, 222ff.; Joseph Franklin and J.A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Burns, Publisher, 1879), pp. 304-305.

The discussion of “historical precedent” is an interesting one which one or both sides often adduce to bolster claims, but which is ultimately meaningless since, even if uniform, what the “pioneers” did provides no validity for doctrine or practice unless one accepts an “authority of tradition” viewpoint akin to that of Roman Catholicism. In this context, it simply demonstrates that sincere, intelligent, and honorable persons can and do change their minds and actions for a variety of reasons; or, that people sometimes do contradictory things and are not always self-consistent.

8. David Filbeck, The First Fifty Years: A Brief History of the Direct-Support Missionary Movement (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 36-59. While the objections of some of the opponents of centralized missionary work among churches of Christ did not center around traditional “modernism,” the heavy emphasis on the social gospel aspects of much “mission work” was a definite factor. See the articles cited in note 23 above, as well as Otis Gatewood, Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler (Nashville: Williams Printing company, 1960), pp. 72-75. Though defending his “relief works” in Germany, Gatewood acknowledged that “Problems arose as a result of such work, it is true. Some wanted to be baptized only to get food and clothing.” Furthermore, “all this [distribution of food and clothing] took much time that could have been spent teaching the Bible” (pp. 70, 72).

9. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Fanning Yater Tant, and Roy E. Cogdill, mimeographed letter, March 21, 1949; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “The New Gospel Guardian,” Fanning Yater Tant, “Policy of the Gospel Guardian,” and Roy E. Cogdill, “Publisher’s Statement,” Bible Banner 12:3 (April 1949), 1-2.

10. Harrell reports that “by the early 1950’s the Advocate’s circulation had grown to over 20,000; during the centennial drive of 1954 and 1955, the number of subscribers rose to an inflated figure of over 100,000; by the time of Goodpasture’s death in 1977, the circulation had stabilized at just over 30,000.” Furthermore, he observes: “The Gospel Advocate was the most powerful single center of influence among the churches of Christ of the 1950s. Goodpasture formed strong alliances with other institutions, particularly David Lipscomb College. He was the outspoken friend of all the institutions supported by churches; . . . in return the leaders of those institutions promoted the Advocate” (“B.C. Goodpasture,” in Florida College Annual Lectures, 198 1, pp. 243, 249).

11. See David Koltenbah, “The Three Methods of Argument to Establish Divine Authority and the Three Arguments in Acts 15 (Parts I-III)” TRUTH Magazine 11:10-12 (July, August, September, 1967), pp. 234ff., 255ff., 275ff.; “The Apostles’ Appeal to Scriptural Authority,” in Biblical Authority., It’s Meaning and Application: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1974 (Fairmount, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1974), pp. 80-94. A M.A. thesis by Milo, Hadwin at Abilene Christian College which assails the idea that apostolic examples provide any basis of New Testament authority was published as The Role of New Testament Examples as Related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974). A conclusion, subtly stated on p. 53, is that there is no way to authorize observance of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week from the New Testament evidence (cf. pp. 39, 53). For alternate viewpoints, see Thomas B. Warren, When Is An Example Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” Restoration Quarterly 30 (First Quarter 1988), pp. 17-42.

12. See Roy E. Cogdill, Walking By Faith (Lufkin: Gospel Guardian Company, 1957; 6th Ed., 1967), especially pp. 13-28; Earl West, “Learning a Lesson from History (no. 1-3),” Gospel Guardian 1:40, 41, 42 (February 16, 23 and March 2, 1950); and “Congregational Cooperation,” Gospel Guardian 13:18 (September 7, 1961, pp. 273ff. [reprint)). For contrasting views, see Athens Clay Pullias, “Where There Is No Pattern,” Lipscomb Spring Lectures: Volume I (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 19″, pp. 90-102 (see Cecil N. Wright a lecture in the same volume [pp. 103-11.2], “Principles of New Testament congregational Cooperation,” a summary of his series in the 1951 Gospel Advocate).

13. See Robert F. Turner, “Cooperation of Churches, in The Arlington Meeting (Orlando, FL: Cogdill Foundation, n.d. 11969]), pp. 252ff. This work is probably the most extensive and best discussion of the institutional “issues.” See also Gaston D. Cogdell and Robert F. Turner, The Cogdell- Turner Discussion (Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1983). On congregational independence, perhaps the clearest statement is Turner, “Restoration of Congregational Independence,” in The Restoration Heritage in America. A Biblical Appeal for Today. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976 (Marion, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1976), pp. 213-229.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 240-243
April 20, 1989

By Mike Willis

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that be were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matt. 18:6-7)

A church is privileged to have newborn Christians. They are babes in Christ (1 Pet. 2:2) who are weak and need to grow spiritually (Eph. 4:14). Watching them grow is encouraging to other Christians (1 Tim. 4:12). Having baptized my son Corey last year, perhaps I am more conscious of the spiritual growth of young Christians.

We have a burden of responsibility toward these young Christians to so conduct ourselves that we not be an occasion of stumbling to their soul. We should do nothing to discourage them or otherwise hamper their spiritual growth. We certainly should not place a stone of stumbling in their paths.

Little Ones Can Stumble

The word “offend” (Greek: skandalizo) means “to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall; to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey; to cause to fall away” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 576). The warning that we should not “offend” emphasizes the possibility of a Christian’s falling from grace (Gal. 5:4). There is a world of temptation into which many Christians fall. Their fall into sin brings them into condemnation.

The Calvinist doctrine of “once in grace, always in grace” is false. There would be no reason to warn of the danger of becoming an occasion of someone stumbling were stumbling into sin not possible.

Responsibility for Sin

The fact that one can become an occasion for another person falling into sin does not excuse that person from the guilt of his sin. Should I become an occasion for another person stumbling, he still would be accountable for his sin. Nevertheless, I would be held accountable for my sin – my sin of causing him to stumble.

Things Which Cause People to Stumble

As we witness the growth and sometimes the apostasy of little ones who have recently been baptized into Christ, we are able to identify some of the stumbling blocks which threaten their souls. Here are some of them:

1. Evil companions. The wicked are not content to be involved in sin; they must pull someone down with them. “For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some one to fall” (Prov. 4:16; cf. 1:10ff). Unfortunately, some of the wicked who induce young Christians to commit sin have been baptized and attend the services regularly. Sometimes the social activities of “Christians” are the very occasions for worldly “Christians” to cause younger Christians to stumble.

I have witnessed this in different local congregations. A group of worldly “Christians” begin sitting on the back seat, obviously uninterested in the worship and service of God. A new convert begins to sit with them and learns their ways. When he goes with them to recreational outings, he learns to swear, smoke, and any other things in which they are involved. These worldly “Christians” will be held responsible for leading these newborn Christians into sin. Jesus said, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than to be an occasion of causing these little ones to stumble.

2. Indifferent church members (Rev. 3:14-15). Another cause of young people falling away from the Lord is indifferent church members. Have you noticed what becomes of the children of indifferent parents? The parents go through the motions of coming to church (at least once a week). They do not prepare for their Bible classes, half attend gospel meetings, seek every excuse imaginable for missing, etc. Sometimes their children obey the gospel. Soon they understand the lack of commitment of their parents and begin walking in their footsteps. When they turn 18 and are allowed to make their own decisions, they walk away from the church never to return. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than that an indifferent church member become the occasion of someone falling away from the Lord.

3. Church squabbles. Fussing and fighting among the members causes weak and newborn souls to fall away from their Lord. Paul warned, “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15). When church fights occur, the members scatter. Some will stay where they are; some will attend another nearby congregation. Unfortunately, some members will quit altogether. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than for a person to participate in a church squabble and become the cause of a young Christian falling away from his Lord.

4. False doctrine. Young Christians are especially vulnerable to false doctrine. Unlearned in the word of God, they are tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of false doctrine (Eph. 4:15). When a false teacher assaults a church, the young members are his prey. We have witnessed a number of young preachers fall into the grace-unity apostasy. We see the vulnerability of young members to the loose teachings on divorce and remarriage. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than a man be the bearer of false doctrine which causes a Christian to stumble into sin.

5. Hypocrites in the church. Anyone who has visited members who have fallen away has heard them explain their absence by pointing to the hypocrites in the church. Unfortunately there are some hypocrites in the church – men who serve at the Lord’s table but curse like a sailor, elders who are involved with women other than their wives, preachers who do not pay their bills and lie about it. Young Christians who witness this hypocrisy sometimes quit coming to worship. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than to be a hypocrite who causes a Christian to stumble into sin.

6. Weak Christians. None of us is perfect. We all fall into sin from time to time. Peter was just such a man. When he fell into sin at Antioch, other Jews (including Barnabas) followed his example (Gal. 2:11-14). He was an occasion for many stumbling at Antioch. A private confession of sin would not correct that situation. A public rebuke of the sin and a public correction were necessary that the truth of the gospel could be preserved (Gal. 2:5).

Conclusion

Becoming the occasion of someone else sinning is a serious offence. Therefore, Jesus said, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire” (Matt. 18:8). Jesus was emphasizing the necessity of giving up anything which might cause us to be lost because we become the occasion of someone else stumbling into sin.

Occasionally our weaknesses cause others to fall into sin. When we recognize that is the case, we need to correct the sin in order that we can be forgiven. However, we need then to become concerned about the impact of that sin on others, making correction to lead them to repentance as well.

There are some Christians who are constantly kicking against the boundaries of God’s word, seeing just how close to sin they can come without actually committing it. They want to go mixed swimming, social drink, attend dances, and other things which they place in a “gray” area. What impact will they have on the young Christian? He will not stop where they stop. He will step further across the boundary, doing things which even they disapprove. Then, he wilHI defend his conduct on the grounds of what he sees in their lives. Would you want to enter judgment bearing the responsibility of leading these newborn Christians into sin by your participation in, at the best, questionable activities? “Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matt. 18:7)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 258, 278
May 4, 1989

By Irvin Himmel

Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus after his resurrection (Mk. 16:9). When he spoke to her, she supposed that he was the gardener. It was not until he called her by name that Mary turned and said to him, “Rabboni,” which means Master.

Jesus said to Mary, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (Jn. 20:17).

Why did Jesus forbid Mary Magdalene to touch him? This questions is puzzling especially in view of the Master’s having said to others following his resurrection, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me, have” (Lk. 24:39).

Also, it was after his resurrection and before he ascended to, the Father that Jesus said to Thomas, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing” (Jn. 20:27).

For what reason would some be invited to handle his body while Mary was forbidden to touch him?

Shortly after the appearance to Mary, Jesus met certain Women as they went to tell his disciples about the empty tomb, “And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him” (Matt. 28:10). Why were they allowed to hold him by the feet but Mary was prohibited from touching him?

The key to this puzzle seems to be in the meaning of the word “touch” as it is used in John 20:17. It denotes much more than reaching forth with the hands to make contact. It signifies “to cling to, lay hold of” (Vine). The New King James Version renders it, “Do not cling to Me.” The New International Version translates it, “Do not hold on to me.”

Mary longed for unbroken fellowship with her Master. She wanted to cling to him. Jesus told her not to hold on to him, for he had not yet ascended to. ‘ the Father. The constant communion which she desired must wait until after his return to heaven. Jesus would not resume his daily visible association with his followers. He would soon leave this physical realm to be with the Father on high. The fellowship which we now have with Christ is far richer and need not be interrupted.

Now that Jesus Christ has ascended to the Father and is seated at his right hand in the heavens, we should cling to him and hold to him.

(1) We have fellowship with Christ. Through submission to the gospel we are brought into a shared relationship with our Savior. And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:3). This divine and precious communion is sustained by our walking in the light, confessing our sins, keeping his commandments, loving one another, abiding in him, believing in him, and overcoming the world.

(2) The Spirit of Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying , Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). Paul prayed for his brethren that they might “be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” (Eph. 3:16,17). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” (Col. 3:16).

(3) We are to hold on to our profession of him. “Seeking then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession” (Heb. 4:14). One who confesses that Jesus is Lord should stick to that acknowledgment. “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (Heb. 10:23).

(4) We are to cling to the Lord. The converts to Christ at Antioch of Syria were exhorted by Barnabas, “that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). The true disciple continues with the Master, abides in him, and refuses to turn loose.

To Mary Magdalene the crucifixion of Jesus was a horrible experience. Perhaps her hopes were shattered. To see the Master alive brought joy indescribable. She yearned for his abiding presence, but Jesus was not long to remain in the visible flesh and bone body. She must not hold on to him. Soon he would ascend to the Father. After the ascension and the sending of the Spirit to guide the apostles, uninterrupted fellowship began to be offered through the gospel. No longer does the Master forbid clinging to him. Through the message of the apostles he encourages us to come to him, to abide in him, and to hold constantly to him.

I will cling to my Savior and never depart,

I will joyfully journey each day,

With a song on my lips and a song in my heart,

That my sins have been taken away.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 244
April 20, 1989

By Bobby L. Graham

About thirty years ago at the Holt-Wallace Debate in Florence, Alabama, brother G.A. Dunn remarked to this writer’s father that most problems that had come about among the Lord’s people related to money. Whether his judgment was -precisely correct or not, experience indicates his remark apropos. The variety of problems involving money in local churches and among different local churches has included disdain for the very idea of a local-church treasury, reluctance to use the money collected, and looseness in the use of church funds.

A Local Church Treasury

The first congregation in Jerusalem had a treasury under the control of the apostles. Acts 4:32-5:10 demonstrates that generous saints funded the physical assistance of their brethren’s daily needs. The funds likely never made it to the bank, but a fund was initiated and maintained for an indefinite period of time for the expeditious meeting of needs.

When the apostle was trying to raise funds for the physical needs of the poor among the saints in Jerusalem, Paul instructed local churches in Galatia and Achaia to do as the Christians in Macedonia were doing in this matter (I Cor. 16:14; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:1-7). He told them to store up (“treasure up” in Greek) their money collected on the first day of every week to prevent the necessity for collecting it upon his arrival.

From these two accounts it is easy to observe that an appointed work justly belonging to a local church is the only justification needed for a local treasury, for it helps to expedite work assigned by the Head of the church. Because some works continue over a long time, it is wise to maintain a standing treasury to meet the continuing needs. When the money was collected at Corinth, it remained in a pool or fund for some time. How long that time was, makes no difference in the matter of justifying a local treasury. When a church agrees to support a preacher at home or in another area, it usually exercises prudence in making sure that it has sufficient funds to meet its commitment to the man, either through periodic contributions alone or through both contributions and money treasured up in the event of loss of income to some of the local contributors. Those who decry the scripturalness of a local treasury need to open their eyes to these Scriptures and the wisdom of conducting the Lord’s work in a predictable manner, as much as possible.

Reluctance to Use Money

To some brethren the treasury seems to be an end in itself. The sole reason for having it is to have it. Oh, some quip that the money is needed for unexpected events such as building or equipment repairs or disaster-caused needs among saints. The point that needs to be seen, however, is that they see no imperative for proclaiming the gospel in a single place to the benighted souls of earth. To such the highest calling for that money is to repair the air conditioner, replace the roof, or send $100 to brethren hit by a hurricane. (Such writing does not mean that such needs do not exist and they should not be prepared for by a church.) Evidently they have forgotten they need to sound out the gospel like Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:8), send men to plant the gospel and strengthen the saved like Antioch (Acts 13:1-3), receive laborers in the gospel and send them forward on their journey as in 3 John 5-8, and be partners with workers in their needs (Phil.4:15,16). Is it possible they have closed their eyes to some among than who have medical needs, housing needs, or other physical needs that they are unable to meet except with a forty-year debt. Brethren, need to be more generous in seeing and meeting legitimate needs. We do not need to be loose with God’s Word, but we need to be liberal toward those described by the Lord as objects of our help.

It might be wise to remember that a brother doesn’t need to be penniless before the church can help him. When the congregation waits that long, it only increases the amount of help it must give him. Greedy church treasurers, elders land brethren who close their eyes to needs for the gospel and the needs of evangelists, and churches who disregard the needs of the poor among the saints win answer to God for their neglect. I’ll tell you frankly that the judgment will not be pleasant for such as these.

Some churches envision no more noble use for “their money” than saving it. Could they possibly be concerned about the banker’s needs? Do you think they might be saving it until Jesus returns? Just think of it: they win be able to turn over to the Lord all that money! What a joy that will be. Oh, brethren, how carnal we are. We are willing to give the Lord money, but not souls. Is such really the mission that he has given us?

To those who sincerely fear an emergency need which the local church could not meet without a sizeable fund, some remarks are addressed. Most of the emergencies that brethren anticipate never materialize. When an emergency does arise, brethren who have been taught properly will respond properly. We need to be teaching Christians to be liberal and to respond to increasing needs. Elders who truly lead will teach and challenge the people to rise to needs according to their ability and even beyond their ability (2 Cor. 8:1-6). Christians who learn that the Lord does not seek theirs but them will be better prepared to give themselves unreservedly, with the effect of considering all that they possess as belonging to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5; 12:14). If the need arising exceeds the church’s capacity, there is always the route of borrowing, to which we resort for buildings. Why not for other needs in those very few instances where needed? There is also a lack of trust in brethren in the local church to respond favorably, as well as in brethren in other churches to assist in time of need.

In conclusion remember that every appeal to Christians to give of their financial means was accompanied with the work for which the money would be used. All giving in the New Testament was done for a work. None was ever given to accumulate and hold a large fund I May we all learn the lesson and do likewise!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 257, 279
May 4, 1989