Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

Sixty-seven percent of Americans own a home, which means that 70 million people are interested in home ownership. I just got to thinking, I wonder how many of these have an interest in owning a home in heaven after this life ends? Let me excite you about a heavenly home.

1. Earthly Homes: The word home often refers to a family, a dwelling, or an institution of some sort. It has been said that, “home is where the heart is.” Paul referred o a home when he instructed the Corinthians, “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation” (1 Cor. 11:34). The church is not to be an eating place but our homes are. At the death of Jesus, John took the mother of Jesus “unto his own home” (John 19:27). We should be ready to care for those who are our own as Paul told Timothy, “But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim. 5:4). The Holy Spirit enjoins upon women to be, “keepers at home” (Tit. 2:5). One of the reasons for so many divorces and stray children is a failure of women to be keepers at home.

2. Heavenly Homes: The wise man, in discussing the days of old age and ill fortune says that, “. . . man goes to his long home” (Eccl. 12:5). Are you as interested in a home in heaven as you are in your earthly one? No one, responsible to God, goes to heaven accidently! It takes preparation. Going to heaven involves faith in God (Heb. 11:6), repentance of sins (Acts 2:38), confession of faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32), baptism into Christ (Gal. 3:27), to be added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47), then living “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world” (Tit. 2:12). Have you made this necessary preparation? The heavenly home has been described as “a city in the country” (Heb. 11:10, 14). Abraham was said to have “. . . looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). Those of Old Testament times desired, “. . . a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city” (Heb. 11:16). Do you have your heavenly home on reservation? You can as Peter described, “To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:4).

By P.J. Casebolt

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty as an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

The use of aids, even visual aids, is a well-established principle in preaching and applying the word of God. Jeremiah used a linen girdle (Jer. 13), and a potter’s vessel (Jer. 19), to em­phasize his message to God’s people. But, these visual aids did not supplant the message, they supported it.

In preaching and teaching the gospel, we have used newspapers, radio, and TV as mediums by which we spread the gospel message. Some have employed chalkboards, cloth charts, flannel ­boards, overhead projectors, and possibly other aids to illustrate their messages. I have seen some teachers and preachers use these aids smoothly and effectively, while other attempts simulated the slapstick comedy of the Three Stooges and distracted from the les­son instead of supporting it.

Now, we have a new technology which some are using to convey their message to visible and even invisible audiences. This new­est form of technology is basically called a computer, but I have neither the ability nor the desire to describe the terminology or language by which owners and operators of these devices communicate with each other, and possibly with thousands of recipients unknown to the operators.

I can see how the medium of E-mail may reduce the volume of telephone calls and even messages now handled by the U.S. Postal service. Families and churches have communicated with those who live and labor in foreign fields. We may even teach the truth and convert people by means of computers, just as we have done by the printed page, radio, TV, and telephone. But you can’t baptize peo­ple by any of these mediums, and neither do I see how we can ful­fill many of our other responsibilities (and privileges) such as assembling with the saints, by joint sessions via computer. But I’m not naive enough to think that someone won’t attempt to prove me wrong.

Within one week’s time, I was made aware of the potential abuses which can accompany this latest invention of the world, and this in spite of the fact that I live in a rather remote area and don’t even own a computer. This forces me to conclude that other such instances are happening to others elsewhere, and given the very nature of computers, it will be impossible to determine to what extent either good or evil has been served.

One such instance of abuse was the report of a kidnapping with detailed descriptions, the information was disseminated and passed on by E-mail, and I heard about it by word of mouth from a recipient of the E-mail transmission. I don’t know how many others saw it, read it, or passed it on by some other means of communica­tion. But, by a purely unrelated telephone conversation with an acquaintance in a distant town, I learned that the whole thing was a hoax. Maybe we had better keep a phone, a fax, a mailbox, or a bonfire with blanket and smoke signals as a back-up in order to atone for these “glitches” in the latest technology. Or even a me­chanical typewriter in case the electricity goes off.

I know some of the people involved in this hoax, feel sorry for them, and know that they would and will do everything possible not to become involved in such a scenario again. But sometimes others involve us, like Achan did Israel (Josh. 22:20), and such perpetrators of such hoaxes suffer not alone in their iniquity.

The second example in what seemed to be a national week for ­observing worldly abuses came just a day or so after the first one (which came on the Lord’s day just as we were assembling for worship). Two preachers in distant states were conversing via the In­ternet (something like interstates for vehicles I think, only faster), one of the preachers made an accusation against a third preacher in a still different/distant state, and a fourth preacher in yet another state picked up the conversation via his computer and notified the third preacher by letter to his RFD mailbox, be­cause the third preacher doesn’t own a computer, can’t afford one, couldn’t operate one if he had it, and has no place to put one at present unless it would be in the attic.

And if someone suggests that here is proof that the third preacher needs a computer to protect himself against slander, li­bel, gossip, or backbiting, that third preacher may counter with two good recent arguments as to why he doesn’t need or even want one (and wouldn’t know how to abuse one even if he had it).

Before these abuses of innocent aids get out of hand, the owners and operators of computers had better read up on the civil laws regarding libel and/or slander (The Newspaperman And The Law, Walter A. Steigleman, 1950, 235-342). I’m assuming that simi­lar laws apply to computer usage, unless operating a computer isn’t as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle on an interstate. The latter requires an operator’s license and registration. Maybe we will need some such restraints for computer owners/operators before too long.

When it comes to abusing the things of this world, even more of a deterrent (than civil law), should be the law of Christ. “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake” (Rom. 13:5). We are not to use our liberty as “a cloak of maliciousness” (1 Pet. 2:16), nor should we let our “good be evil spoken of” (Rom. 14:16). It is never expedient to abuse the things of this world.

It may now be rumored that I am opposed to computers, even as it has been rumored that I am opposed to preaching the gospel, co­operation, education, and helping orphans and widows, simply be­cause I have opposed abuses, excesses, and even plain violations of the doctrine of Christ in these areas. But my readers and lis­teners will not have to depend on rumors to find out what I am for or against. They will hear it from me, and “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err” in understanding my position (cf. Isa. 35:8), for I will not speak with “forked tongue,” nor do I “speak into the air” (1 Cor. 14:9).

But for the present, don’t waste your time surfing the Internet to find a message from me. You can use (not abuse), that time more profitably.

By Olen Holderby

In the October 1971 issue of Plain Talk brother Dan Shipley had a splendid article under the above title. His article is dealing with how well we are carrying out the instructions of the Great Commission (or failing to do so). That was 28 years ago, but the points which he made are worthy of further consideration. For, it appears to me that we have the same problems today.

Brother Shipley said, “While the need for pulpit and classroom teaching cannot be discounted, it is simply not enough. We need to get out of our own ‘front yard’ with the incorruptible seed that can save souls!”With this statement I wholeheartedly concur. I think the need is well expressed in the second paragraph of brother Ship- ley’s article, “We must go because many will not come. Relatively few non-Christians are attending worship services and Bible classes. Those who do attend seldom do so with any regularity and even then are not likely to hear lessons that are most appropriate to their needs. Let’s face it, most who need the gospel are not coming to our front yard to get it. If they are to be reached it will take more than the pulpit, and it will take more than the man who stands in the pulpit.”

There can be no doubt that the Lord intended that ev- ery qualified member of his church be about the business of teaching others the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). Surely we ac- cept this as being true. Yet, we continue to hear some say that they will not or cannot do what they seem pleased to call “door-knocking.” I have personally heard this come from the lips of some preachers as well as others. More recently some are quoted as saying that the emphasis in the gospel was on pulpit preaching. My studies have not found this to be the case. While there may be some disagreement on what Bible examples might be classed as pulpit preaching, I have tried counting them with the following results: In Matthew there are ten examples of what might be called pulpit preaching, as compared to 49 examples of other arrangements more closely resembling what is called “personal work” or “cottage classes” today. In Mark the ratio is eight pulpit and 54 others; and, in Luke it is nine to 71. John gives five examples of public preaching to 47 that are less than public. Acts presents the same sort of picture, giving a 29 to 60 ratio. Even al- lowing for a margin of error in judgment, the claim that gospel emphasis is on pulpit preaching does not appear to be justified.

Most of the teaching done by Jesus and his apostles was done under circumstances which permitted ques- tions and answers to repeatedly pass back and forth, and this does not resemble pulpit preaching of today. I believe it would be more accurate to say that the emphasis is on “teaching,” and all these avenues are open to us and should be used.

I am aware that the command to teach is generic and that many methods may be used; but, it would appear that apostolic example would furnish the most effec- tive way or combination of ways for this being done. “. .

. I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house” (Acts 20:20). Both these methods should be utilized by every Christian, including preachers. I am not so naive as to think I can spell out the abilities or limits of my preaching brethren in this matter of door knocking, but I am criticizing the attitude that prevails in some quarters.

In 2 Timothy 4:1-4, we have Paul’s instructions to Timothy to “preach the word.” Should Timothy follow Paul’s example in doing this, what would he do (Acts 20:20)? Who would Timothy “reprove, rebuke, and ex- hort”? Would it be only those in regular attendance at the public services? From the pulpit members are urged to do this “door knocking” and this is as it should be. However, Timothy was told to be an example to believ- ers (1 Tim. 4:12).

If any one member of the church is to do such work, all are to do it, limited only by opportunity and ability. And, with effort, both opportunity and ability can be enhanced.

It appears to me that very poor judgment is being used in choosing a man to begin or to build up a new work. To choose a man who is, admittingly, not very effective in any way except in the pulpit is normally to add to the length of time necessary for “outside” support for such a work. I personally know of no such work that has been built upon pulpit preaching alone. Someone simply had to do some “door knocking” (as to new converts). It does not do the cause of Christ justice by choosing to labor in a place where strong talents are needed that one simply does not possess. Another quote from brother Shipley fits just here, “For these, and other reasons, it would seem a wise redemption of time for us to become more involved in this house-to-house kind of teaching. We need more kitchen-table lecterns and sofa-pews!”

And again, “Let’s get out of the ‘front yard’ to do the sowing.”

What is the advantage(s) in house-to-house teach- ing? Brother Shipley expresses this very well, “We need to take the gospel to the lost because in their homes is often afforded the most favorable of teaching situations. There the student is not lost in the crowd; the lessons have a more personal flavor. Where else could a student feel more “at home” and feel free to ask pertinent ques- tions without fear of embarrassment? There, he relates himself to the subject more readily; he hears lessons most relevant to his needs. With home studies the prevalent problem of absenteeism is almost nil. Many will keep an appointment with a teacher at home who won’t do so at a church building. What better arrangement for teaching Bible truth?”

Some will criticize the idea of “door knocking” while they reap the benefits of the “door knocking” of others; and this certainly comes with poor grace. I am not urging indiscriminate, uninformed, and unprepared house-to- house efforts. I do, however, insist that we need a great deal more of this type of teaching, by both members and preachers.

It has been my experience that where there is a pro- gram of house-to-house teaching, involving preachers, elders, and members, the most conversions, the greatest ratio of faithfulness, and less difficulties will normally be found. When folks have their hands full of working for the Lord, there simply is not time to introduce divisive situations into the church. There seems to be a problem for many — where do I find prospects? This problem will not go away simply because we do not do the work. So, we must find a solution and put it in operation. There are still plenty of people who “would give anything in this world” for what the Christian has if he only understood it. No, we cannot make a horse drink by merely leading him to the water, but we can labor to make him as thirsty as possible! Then, he will drink! Of course, all whom we teach, will not accept, but we will at least have given them a chance of making an informed decision. It is God

The word of the Lord recognizes how much we need each other. The church was purposed in the mind of God before time because the All-wise saw the need for it in human relationships. Loneliness can be a terrible and destructive thing. Other human contact, especially if it is with like-minded people with a desire to do the right thing, can be entirely wholesome and good. This is what the church as an organization and agency in human society is mostly about. As the Scripture says, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falleth, and hath not another to lift him up” (Eccl. 4:9-10).

So, two are better than one because when one falls, the other can help him again to stand. We must remember this, when we consider why the church must be a part of our lives, and why we must not let this precious coopera- tive relationship slip from us by abandonment.

Two are better than one because one may help to bear the burden of another. How many times have you heard someone say, “This is almost more than I can bear.” Often we can sympathize that what they must bear is nearly more than one person can deal with alone. But the wonderful thing is that we never ought to have to bear our burdens alone. Of course, we know the Lord helps up at such times. But it is a great boon to our souls to know that we have brothers and sisters in Christ who share our grief and pain, and help to love us through those trying times. As Paul wrote: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Observing the law of Christ involves sharing the burdens so heavy upon our fellow Christians.

Two are better than one because the prayers of one may benefit another. Those who pray for us are our “help- ers.” They may be confined to a bed or wheelchair, but if they are supportive of the work we are doing through their prayers, then they are friends of the first order. Paul spoke of the prayers which the Corinthians uttered on his and his fellow laborer’s behalf, with fond appreciation and deep love: “Ye also helping together on our behalf by your supplication; that, for the gift bestowed upon us by means of many, thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf ” (2 Cor. 1:11).

Two are better than one because the great work of the gospel is too much for any single individual to ac- complish. Paul spoke of the work that he and Apollos did together, even though they were at Corinth at different times and under wholly different circumstances. Still he viewed himself and Apollos as working together toward a common goal. Paul had converted the majority of those whom Apollos later instructed: “I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6). “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common” (Acts 4:32).

Two are better than one because there is moral and spiritual strength in numbers. The presence and encour- agement of our brothers and sisters in Christ is a source of spiritual strength to those of us who attend the wor- ship activities with regularity. One who is a member of the body of Christ feels that he is a part of something wonderful and good. There is a feeling of belonging to something important. And there is a feeling of being associated with someone (Christ) who is worthy of all of our praise and admiration. Being a member of the church is a thing to be thankful about, grateful for, and ever overflowing with thanksgiving because of. As Paul stated: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12).

Two are better than one because when we work to- gether with one another in the church, we are working together with God. At times we tend to view the church as a wholly human relationship, a segment of the overall community or society that we live in. But it is not so. The church is his fold, his holy temple, his royal priesthood of believers, his blood bought and Spirit filled body. It was his intent that through this means men and women might enter into covenant relation with the Father and serve as spiritual stewards in common cause with the Lord himself: “And working together with him we entreat  also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1).