Truth Magazine

By Glenn Jones

For many years I had heard the term “state religion” used, but I never was confronted with it personally until I came to Germany. The state religions of Germany can be divided basically into two major affiliations, namely the Catholic and Protestant Churches. The employees of these institutions have the same status and benefits as do government employees, and the churches are supported by “church taxes” deducted from the earnings of their respective members. As a whole, one’s religious affiliation is determined at birth by his parents, who generally follow the family tradition. There are those who faithfully attend the services of these churches, but for the most part church life is reduced to a few major social events: christening as an infant, confirmation or first communion, marriage, and one’s funeral. For some people these occasions are the only times they ever enter the church building.

For over one hundred years Germany has been the home of very liberal theology which denies the divine inspiration of the Bible and presents God’s Word as a collection of legends. Such theology has resulted in various humanistic and political philosophies which see the improvement of man’s physical welfare as the basic goal of Christianity. Consequently, the state churches are heavily involved in the social gospel, including the support and operation of medical, educational, and charitable institutions throughout the world. This liberal theology coupled with the post-war prosperity in Germany and with the miserable historical record of the church and its clergy has caused many people to view the state religions as useless institutions. As a result, an ever increasing amount of Germans are officially withdrawing their membership from these churches and turning their backs on Christianity altogether.

These circumstances present a rather bleak picture for those of us interested in New Testament Christianity. However, recent experience has shown me that I ought not to give up too soon. Having known that most Germans reach conclusions about Christianity on the basis of virtually everything except the Bible, I was curious to see how they would react to a quick and simple reading of the life of Christ (Luke) and of the origin of the church (Acts). I designed a Luke-Acts reading program whereby one could read Luke in six sittings and Acts in seven. This program was not intended to be a detailed exegesis of these books, but rather a brief introduction to the Bible for those thousands of Germans whose knowledge of the Scriptures is very weak. I asked several of my German friends for their help in this reading experiment, and received enough positive responses to keep me booked up almost every night of the week. I believe the response was positive for several reasons. First, I came as one seeking to learn from them, and not as a preacher trying to push conversion upon anyone. Secondly, the fact that I came with the Bible, as opposed to my own study outlines, helped diminish the fear that I was trying to press some American sectarian system upon them. Thirdly, it was clear that every reader would be free to reach his own conclusions after investigating the text, although there would be a responsibility to defend his positions. Finally, some viewed this program as a challenge to make an intellectual judgment about the Bible, while others responded to it out of curiosity, desiring to see what is in the Bible.

From the standpoint of my own learning this program afforded me invaluable insights into human nature and into the problems of people in understanding the Bible. From the standpoint of teaching others, the Biblical text itself gave me opportunity to bring up numerous fundamental points of the faith, including Christian evidences, the authority of Jesus and the Scriptures, sin, judgment, salvation in the gospel, the cost and rewards of discipleship, and many other items. Although we are not yet certain of the outcome of this reading program, we are having more opportunities than ever before to plant the seed and are seeing people seriously considering their eternal destiny. If we had more workers, we could find even more willing to read the Bible with us. For this reason we want to make a special appeal for faithful workers to come to Germany. There is much to do, and the Lord needs you here!

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 330
May 18, 1978

By Ray F. Dively

On December 25, 1977, Windell Wiser and I left for a preaching trip to India. This was my fifth trip to India and Brother Wiser’s first. Our main purpose in this trip was 4o encourage and edify the brethren. There have been approximately seventy churches established in the Hy4orabad area. These brethren are young in the faith as the first churches were established in 1972.

After arriving in India, we visited some churches and taught the brethren. Then, we held a week of training classes at the village of Thummalapally. We invited three of the leading members from seventeen churches. Near the end of the training classes, we began to get suspicious of our interpreter, P. V. Devedanam, who is also a preacher. After the training class Brother Wiser and I spent some time checking on him. We found that he had overcharged us on printing, his hotel bill and food for the training classes. We confronted him with the evidence and later he sent word that he would repay us part of it, but we never saw him again. He has proven to be dishonest, deceitful and a liar.

As in India, there are also false brethren in America. Several years ago, Richard E. Swan introduced the false doctrine that women could not teach children or other women. This has caused some problems among the brethren, setting brother against brother. But many of the brethren have rejected this false doctrine and love among the brethren is much stronger now. In May 1977, Richard E. Swan was disfellowshipped by the Winchester, Virginia church, at which time, he was their preacher.

Near the end of our stay in India, Brother N. A. Lazarus agreed to be our interpreter when we return. He speaks excellent English. He is a very good interpreter, as I have used him in three previous trips, when he could get leave from work. He has agreed to take leave from work without pay, when need be. I baptized him during my first trip in India.

The Lord’s work in India has problems, as does the work here in America. Even with false brethren and problems, the Lord’s work looks very promising in India. We have faithful and honest brethren as N. A. Lazarus, B. Samson, B. Rathnam, G. Lazar, Sir Ramulu and others. We must not get discouraged in supporting the Lord’s work in India.

Brother Wiser and I both agree that we had a successful trip. We spent our time in edifying the brethren and straightening out some problems.. We had two tracts printed in Telugu. We hope to have more tracts printed in Telugu. There is a great need for gospel literature in their own language. We need to go to India periodically, to strengthen the brethren and teach the lost. These trips must be made as an American cannot get a permanent visa to preach in India.

Surely, all who read the above will agree that such trips are vital to soul saving efforts in India. We work and pray for the day when brethren over there will be able to carry on by themselves, but until that day arrives we must conserve and stabilize the good accomplished by continuing to do as our Lord commanded, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:. . .” It was for these very same reasons that the apostle Paul went back confirming the churches that he had established. “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”

I will always be grateful for the fellowship the brethren have given me in preaching the gospel in India. As the apostle Paul stated, “Not that I seek for the gift; but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account.” I am thankful to God and the brethren that I am able to have a part in the Lord’s work in India. Lord willing, I wish to return to India in December. Please pray for the brethren in India.

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 329
May 18, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

When a companion is snatched away by death, whether after a very few years of marriage or after several decades, the surviving spouse is thrust into a condition of shock at first, of loneliness a little later, and of frustration finally. The intent of this article is to be helpful to such troubled people and to also help all of us in our association with such lonely and frustrated ones.

However, this is obviously a sensitive subject and any recommendation that is made is necessarily drawn at least partly from personal experiences and individual ideals. Thus such recommendations would vary from one advisor to another. Consequently, I shall limit myself to general ideals and to Bible principles.

Finances

Most preachers have not had sufficient training or experience in significant financial matters to equip them to advise people in this area. But the following advice is surely wise, yet may be in areas often overlooked and forgotten by those who become widows and widowers: (1) Do not be hasty to settle all financial matters. Give yourself a little time–some weeks or months to reach decisions. (2) Seek a competent and reliable financial advisor if you are not already skilled yourself. (3) Especially, give yourself some time to adjust to the new life-style before changing residence and/or selling a home.

To Marry Or Not To Marry

It is impossible to advise “yes” or “no” in this regard without a full consideration of the many variables from one case to another. But again there are some fundamental principles that can be suggested that really should help each person to determine his or her action: (1) It is assumed that every Christian will recognize that he or she is free to marry (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). (2) One does not show disrespect to his first companion when he consummates a second marriage, being guided by righteous principles. (3) Yet, if there is a significant burden imposed by present conditions that would be escalated and aggravated by a second marriage, then Paul advises one to remain single (1 Cor. 7:40). Thus, one’s health, age, finances, children, work, and such matters must all be considered.

But I believe the most significant factor in deciding whether or not to re-marry is: Do you really want another companion? Or the question may be: Do you need a companion? Obviously, some men and perhaps many women have no emotional need for a second companion. But most people probably do have that need, for it is a basic characteristic of human beings. Therefore, a second marriage may be wise because of the very same reasons for any marriage at all (1 Cor. 7:2, 8, 9). How pitiable it is when some have lived chaste lives throughout a first marriage, and then when they find themselves “single again” they decline marriage and live in sin-sin that brings shame, disgrace and eternal ruin.

If You Marry Again

It is assumed that Christians recognize that they must marry a companion who is faithful to the Lord, if they marry at all (1 Cor. 7:39). Paul chose to remain single for the sake of the gospel, but he said he had a right to have a wife who was a believer (1 Cor. 9:5). Please think how harmful it would have been for him to have led about a wife who did not share his faith.

When young people marry there are adjustments to be made, but these come quite naturally, usually. However, in later life such adjustments are much more significant. We may have each become quite “set in our ways.” And at these later ages we do not bend as easily as we did when we were young! So, let us enumerate a few principles (again) that are important to success in a second marriage:

(1) Marry a Christian — and to assure this, do not even consider any other — do not even date or otherwise become closely associated with one who is not a child of God. (2) But remember, this alone will not guarantee success. Even Christians are not always just naturally compatible. Evaluate in yourself and in the prospective companion: (a) flexibility in attitude, (b) joyful, pleasant disposition, (c) mutual likes and dislikes, (d) emotional stability, etc. (3) Enter your second marriage with even more resolution than you did the first one. Remember, this one may not have all the magic that usually accompanies the easy-going emotions and passions of youth.

Finally, expect your second marriage to be good. It can provide a needed companionship, a happy association, a joyful participation, a realistic security, a fruitful partnership as two lives blend in mutual devotion to God and in unselfish sharing with each other-a sharing of joys, sorrows and goals-a sharing of lives that are lived with hope and assurance and trust.

Addendum

Because of the scarcity of prospective companions for widows, great care should be exercised lest in a desperate attempt to find companionship and/or security, scriptural and logical considerations may be cast aside and a very unwise marriage may result. Conversely, since suitable companions are so readily available for widowers, they too must exercise great care lest they be pursued by — the least desirable ones and be led to the most unsuitable choice. And I hasten to add: not one of the points I have made in this article is inconsequential. It is a serious matter and, for the sake of all who need these words, I have treated the subject with strict seriousness. Next (and finally): “Senior Citizenship.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, pp. 328-329
May 18, 1978

By Guthrie Dean

The Scriptures Authorize One Set of Elders to be over the Work of that One Church Only

We refer to this arrangement as “congregational autonomy.” Any time any part of the work or resources of one church are placed under the supervision of elders of another church (for a “cooperative” brotherhood work), in that case and to that extent the one church is relinquishing its autonomy to another church.

What the Bible Says about the extent of elder’s oversight:

(1) Acts 14:23 — “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” When fully organized, each church has its own elders (Phil. 1:1).

(2) Acts 20:17 — “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” To the Ephesians elders, Paul said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (20:28). It is obvious, then, that those elders were over the flock at Ephesus only. Surely the Holy Spirit had not placed them as elders over more than the one flock at Ephesus. The local flock was the extent of their oversight.

(3) 1 Pet. 5:1-3 — “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not be constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” Verse 3 in the American Standard reads, “Neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock.” There are several self-evident truths in the above passage. To a particular set of elders, Peter writes: (a) The elders which are among you, (b) Feed the flock of God which is among you, (c) Taking the oversight (thereof), (d) Neither as being lords over the charge allotted to you.

There is no way such a passage could be construed to mean that those local elders were authorized to oversee or to become the “sponsoring church” for part of the work of another flock. The elders were among the brethren in the church to whom Peter writes. They were to “feed the flock” among them. They were to take the oversight of it. And the work and oversight of the one church only was the extent of the “charge allotted to (them).” If anyone believes otherwise, the burden of proof is upon him. The language of 1 Pet. 5:1-3 is plain. Local elders over the work of the local church only. To become the “sponsoring church” with “sponsoring elders” over the work of more than the one flock is to violate the obvious truth in this passage.

What Others Have Said About Sponsoring Churches and Sponsoring Elders and Congregational Autonomy

Truth is not determined by what men say, but that you may know what others have taught on the subject, I shall quote from a few brethren who have written in the past.

David Lipscomb: “A Christian, one or more, may visit a church. . .to stir them up to a faithful discharge of their duties. But for one or more to direct what and now all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church” (Gospel Advocate, 1890, p. 295). — “All such concentration of power is destructive of the activity and true liberties of the church. It tends to exalt the elders of one church and degrade and dishonor those of the other” (Gospel Advocate, Dec. 3, 1931).

H. Leo Boles: “There was- no common fund for churches, no `central church’ with a treasurer to receive the funds from the other churches, no general treasury to take care of the funds, no call from any church to other churches to help them do the work which fell in their province to do” (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 10, 1932). — “No church consulted any other church. They did not form any organic cooperative plan or union with other churches. Each church, guided by the instruction from God that it had, acted upon its own independent responsibility” (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 10, 1932).

C. M. Pullias: “But men would take this glory from God and bestow it upon themselves by combining small things. For instance, one would yoke a number of local congregations together to do a given work. This destroys the congregational independence and sets up the very thing that God sought to avoid in arranging nothing larger than the local congregation through which to work and worship” (Tidings of Joy, July, 1919).

F. W. Smith: “There is not the slightest intimation in the New Testament of any organization for any purpose whatever other than the local congregations, which were independent of each other” (Gospel Advocate, July 22, 1920).

F. B. Srygley: “The work of the elders stopped at the church in which they lived and labored. The elders had no authority to take charge of the missionary money or any other money or means of any church except that one over which they were overseers. Elders of one church should not try to get hold of the money that has been contributed by others to direct for them in foreign fields or other places” (Gospel Advocate, Dec. 31, 1931).

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. : “History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church-which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning the responsibility of their work over to big elders — which is diocesan in principle ….With one eldership of one church taking over the work of many elders of many churches, and with this centralized eldership overseeing workers by the dozens who are not even members of the church where these elders are suppose to elder, what will be left of the local autonomous organization of the New Testament church?” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 3). — “For one church to help another church by relieving an emergency there, where the elders elder, is one thing; but making the elders of one church a `board of elders’ through which all other churches can operate in doing their missionary and benevolent work is another thing-a cocky thing at that. This idea of a `centralized eldership’ is more than `half-cocked’, it is a mis-fire. Any church able to build a half-million dollar cathedral does not need the kind of help mentioned in Acts 11:29, 30” (Gospel Guardian, Vol 1, No. 44).

Summary of Church Cooperation in the Area of Evangelism

While Paul preached to the church and to others in Corinth, “other churches” cooperated with one another and Paul by sending “wages” to him (2 Cor. 11:8). They sent his “wages” directly to him (Phil. 1:5; 2:25; 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8-9).

The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to preach and to teach the word to the church and others in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Therefore, it is scriptural and right for churches to cooperate in sending and supporting gospel preachers all over the world. Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. expressed some truths that I think are appropriate just here: “When we criticize these deviations from New Testament principles in the organization .and work of the church it does not mean that we oppose the work. All of the effort to foment feeling and plant prejudice against men who plead for adherence to `the stipulated conditions of the New Testament’ by charges that we are anti-foreign-mission, anti-Christian-education, and anti-cooperation will not prevail in the end. Many sober minded brethren are already seeing the light on these issues and many others will as we shall continue to set forth these principles. It is the same battle over the same issues that had to be fought fifty years ago” (Torch, Vol. 1, No. 2).

The sponsoring church idea is not taught in the Bible, nor is there anyone who can justify it by the Bible. To say that we are anti-cooperation because we do not accept the unscriptural sponsoring church arrangement is to completely mis-state the case.

I believe the following chart will help all to see what the real differences are. The chart is copied from Brother Clint Spinger’s book: Church History and Present Issues.

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, pp. 326-327
May 18, 1978