Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Arkansas: “Does Titus 1:6 require an elder to continue to have faithful children? For example, an elder has reared faithful children; however, after departing the home they become unfaithful. Does he still qualify?”

Reply:

“A bishop then must be . . . one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4, 5). “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be ”blameless as the steward: of God” (Titus 1:6, 7).

“His Own House”

Titus 1:6 should be viewed in light of 1 Tim. 3:4, 5. The “faithful children” are those in the father’s “own house.” These texts do not directly deal with the child who has, as our querist demonstrates, departed their own parental home. They contemplate children under the care of the parents, still in their “own house.” However, this question concerns children who have formed a home of their own. Does their unfaithfulness after “departing the home” and forming one of their own disqualify an elder?

First, is a “parent responsible for his child’s life and faith after that child leaves home? Is it the fault of every parent who has a child go astray? God has children whom He loses (Isa. 1:2; Heb. 2:13; 3:12): Is God at fault? Is He responsible? I do not think so. While a man has children at home he must be one who “ruleth well his own house, having his, children in subjection,” but does that same subjection inhere when the child leaves that home? No, for the child is not then under the father’s jurisdiction.

The man has shown his ability to rule well those under his direction. It is only after they leave his home that they “become unfaithful.” As an elder, he will “take care of the church of God,” those under his oversight. His oversight contemplates only those in the local church. It does not include those without. Under his rule, his children were subject and faithful. Hence; he has proven he can take care of those under his exemplary leadership.

Second, to say that an elder is not responsible does not remove all taint or stain that may occur. An elder must be blameless. Whether the child is in the home of his father or out of it; if the deeds of his children cast aspersion on the father, he will be disqualified. Often the nearness or nature of the unfaithfulness of a child, whether in or out of his home, may strip an elder of his qualification, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Titus 1:7). “Moreover, he must have a good report of them that are without; lest he fall into the reproach and snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:7) Obviously, these texts deal with the man himself and not his children, but a child’s riotous, unruly behavior, even those out of the home, may disqualify an elder if the influence of the deeds shadows or casts reflection upon the man himself.

The great character and integrity of elders must not be undermined. Only the best of men may serve as the scriptural qualifications indicate. May we never lower the divine standard of virtue and excellence for the sake of an office or position.

Truth Magazine, XX:6, p. 2
February 5, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

In the conclusion of an article in the Gospel Advocate, February 27, 1975, in which he was rebuking classical modernism within institutional liberalism, Thomas B. Warren said, “A few years ago, we had to meet the unscriptural `anti’ doctrines, such as: (1) ‘It is sinful for a church to take funds from its treasury to buy a bottle of milk for a starving orphan child,’ (2) `It is sinful for one church to send a Bible to another church,’ (3) `It is sinful for a congregation to have more than one Bible class being taught at the same time, and so on.”

Brother Warren mimics the sectarian denominationalist who, upon hearing Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 quoted relative to baptism and the remission of sin, cries, “Campbellism.” When all else fails, try a prejudicial epithet or an emotional innuendo. They work on the unthinking. This is what Brother Warren has done with schooled and skilled intent, or with purpose aforethought, if you prefer.

The Church Or A Human Organization?

The question of the church’s care of orphan children is not about “a bottle of milk for a starving orphan child.” The issue is, “Can a church make contributions from its treasury to a benevolent society which will take money from its treasury to `buy a bottle of milk for a starving orphan child?’ ” Assume a similar case in evangelism or missionary work. Has anyone ever inquired whether or not the church can use its funds from its treasury to preach the gospel to a spiritually starved sinner? No, the controversy is, “Can a church take funds from its treasury to build and maintain a missionary organization which in turn must use its treasury to finance the preaching?” Brother Warren knows this only too well. He would rightly resent one who would accuse him of being “anti” gospel preaching simply because he opposes societies and organizations which usurp and supplant the church. The parallel inference and insinuation in the field of benevolence is also justly and properly protested.

Congregational Cooperation Or Ecclesiastical Organization?

Brother Warren’s second example misses the heart of the “sponsoring church” contention. The difference is not the sending of Bibles from one church to another. More correctly, can one church plan, direct, and supervise the funds and function of another church -that is the question. Or, to use Brother Warren’s idea, is it scriptural for one church to serve as the Bible distribution agency of all the churches? No Christian is opposed to congregational cooperation as set forth in the Bible (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). However, it is well to ask whether Brother Warren would be “anti” or against a church which: (1) seeks and secures funds from other churches, (2) and solicits Bibles, (3) to serve as the transferring agent of all churches who want to send Bibles to other churches. That is more nearly similar to the argument involved in the study of congregational cooperation. (See Acts 14:23; 20:28; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Bible Classes Or Sunday School Societies

True, some sincere but misguided Christians repudiate a Bible class arrangement. Brother Warren lists this in the same category with the institutional and cooperation conflict. Do they belong in the same lump? Perhaps the separation could be seen more clearly by means of illustrative comparison. Churches may use Bible classes in their teaching program, but may they form Bible School organizations, separate and apart from the organization of the local church, which provides the class arrangement? Again, no, and it is probable that Brother Warren would concur. Thus, the discussion of the first two points are not synonymous’ ” `anti’ doctrines” as Brother Warren would have us believe.

Conclusion

The generation that does not know the issues described above is destined to repeat the apostasies of the past. Every age must learn the sufficiency of the church of God. Human institutional encroachments will blur and blight the glory of the local congregation if the completeness of the church is not understood and respected.

Truth Magazine, XX:5; p. 13
January 29, 1976

By William C. Sexton

Perhaps I am completely in the dark and fail to understand what Peter meant in (1 Pet. 3:15) when he said, “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; .. . .” I have come to understand Peter to be saying to give the basis for what you believe and practice when called upon to do so. I understand him to be saying show proof that your hope is legitimate! If I am missing the message, I pray that someone tell me what is meant by this revelation from Peter. In light of the verse and my understanding of it and something that has happened to me recently, I present the following for your consideration. I would be pleased to hear from any one who can show me that I have missed the mark that the Lord has set for me, a child of His trying to proclaim the good news of Christ.

An ad was placed in the El Dorado Kansas paper by the church which meets at 1924 Dearborn in Augusta, Kansas, inviting the children to attend a Vacation Bible School. At the bottom of the ad, in bold type capital letters was “REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED.” Again in a box appeared “FUN & GAMES.” In as much as this ad had been published in the paper for the community to examine, I felt it in order to ask for some scripture to sustain this type of activity by a congregation claiming to be a church of Christ. So, I wrote the following letter:

Dear Brethren:

I have seen a copy of your advertisement that you ran in the El Dorado paper. I would like to have an explanation, if you were interested in truth and righteousness, as I assume you feel that you are. I see a contradiction: You say “BACK TO THE BIBLE” and then you say “REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED,” and “FUN & GAMES.” Brethren if I know my Bible and what is going on in the religious world today, then these things are not compatible. In my mind, instead of going back to the Bible, you are adapting the SOCIAL GOSPEL concept of the denominational world. If you think otherwise, where is the passage that authorizes the church to use as a drawing card REFRESHMENTS AND FUN AND GAMES?

I trust that you are sincere in your efforts. Therefore, I believe that such as you have advertised to the community is degrading to the church of Christ: you have left the impression that the church of Christ, like the denominations, uses the social gospel appeal to gain people. I don’t believe that such is scriptural, and I would like to have a public discussion of the same, to examine the scriptures to see if such is authorized. I propose that we discuss the matter one night or two if your desire in your building in Augusta, then the same amount of time we can use in discussing it in facilities that we will provide in Wichita. You can affirm that the church has the right to use REFRESHMENTS, FUN AND GAMES to draw people and I will deny it. In Wichita, I’ll affirm that the church of Christ is limited in its appeal to the use of the gospel, thus it is unscriptural to do what you have done. You may word the propositions as you like as long’ as they conform to the above.

I believe that such a discussion could be very profitable if we are really interested in truth and righteousness-which I believe I am and if we conduct ourselves as brothers in Christ. I promise to conduct myself as a Christian, seeking the truth.

I would be pleased to have quick response.

Your brother in Christ,

William C. Sexton.

I wrote the above letter August 6, 1975. A few days later, I received the following letter:

Mr. Sexton:

In response to your letter of August the 6th it will be of no useful benefit for us to “discuss” the issue that you presented since they do not represent issues, but rather your own warped view of what the scripture says. Secondly, we have several babes in Christ in this congregation and I would not subject them to your poison at any price. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ad which you referred to in your letter. We are talking about a Vacation Bible School in which each child received a minimum of 100 minutes of Bible teaching per day. In the past week we have been put into direct contact with more new prospects for teaching than you and your persuasion have seen in the past year. I am quite confident that you received word of this ad from . . . (brother’s name withheld because it would serve no good purpose to use it here) in El Dorado, I’m insulted by this second hand challenge.

May I wish you the best as you try to put down the “Kool-aid” rebellion, meanwhile we’ll be converting souls for the Lord. I believe that if you look you will agree that before you try to find the “mote” in our eye, that there is some “beam casting” that needs to be done from your own.

In Him,

Jim Bailey.

Beloved, I wonder if you feel “insulted” by being asked to give scripture for what you are doing? If you do, then I ask, Why? I hope that you are not insulted by such a request. Instead I hope that you are willing to give a scriptural basis for all that you do, and if you find that you are doing something that is without scriptural authorization that you will gladly and quickly give it up. I believe with all of my heart that such an attitude and stand is required by the Lord. However, if you believe this or not; if you feel insulted or not – I am still asking you to give me a reason for all that you preach and practice. I ask for it because I believe that it is my duty and I want you to be saved and I want to be saved, too. We not only have the right, but we are duty-bound, if I understand my Bible, to call upon all to be governed completely by the scriptures (1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Gal. 1:6-8; 2 Jn. 9-11). If you or I develop such an attitude toward our practice and the scriptures, beloved, we have become somewhat like the religious leaders of Jesus’, day, (cf. Mt. 23). Such, I believe, is a spiritual sickness that will destroy the soul.

Anyone can get angry and falsely charge the inquirer with being wicked and thus less right than self. However, remember, as you engage in such activity that the Lord was thus charged by the self-righteous Jews. I can think of no reason why I should become angry at a person who is asking me to prove that I am doing what the King wants. I might get angry if I am doing something that I have no authority to do and I want to keep on doing it.

My final appeal is this: if you can show me the scripture that authorizes the church to use SOCIAL APPEALS to bring in members, then beloved I will start using them and I will announce to the world that I have been wrong these years. Until you can show me that such is approved of God, then I am determined to keep on challenging you, beloved. Perhaps I can cause you to re-think, re-consider, and re-direct your life. I stand ready to defend what I preach and practice. Futhermore, when I come to the point that I cannot defend by the scriptures what I am doing, I will quit preaching. If I am ever convinced that scriptural proof is not needed, then I will stop preaching, because it will not matter if people are right according to the scriptures any how. Beloved think on this matter, and if I am wrong then tell me; and if I am thinking and acting correctly in this regard, then be glad when one asks you if you have scripture for what you do. Such is an indication that he loves your soul and wants you to be saved, as did Jesus in His day and as His ministers do today!

Truth Magazine, XX:5: p. 11-12
January 29, 1976

By Donald P Ames

For several years I have noted a growing practice that I feel weeds some attention focused on it. We have too many “elders” today who have been appointed to oversee and feed the local flock of God who have absolutely no contact, or very little at best, with the local congregation and thus are totally unable to function as God would desire for them to function. They are often men of ability and influence, and no one doubts but what they may do and have done a lot of good-when they are home. But, they cannot function as true elders because they cannot fulfill the obligations God has placed upon elders. In my opinion, such men ought to be honest with themselves, and if they cannot do the work expected of them, to resign! It would not be a reflection against their ability or teaching or work, but would stand as a tribute to their honest evaluation of their responsibility and ability to function in so important a work as that of an elder over the local flock of God.

“Among Them”

Elders have a responsibility to feed the flock of God “among them” (Acts 14:23, 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). How can they properly determine the quality feed needed or what is being fed the flock when they are not present and have very little contact with the saints themselves? I am not-affirming they must be present locally every Sunday, as they may have close contact and working relations during the week as well. But we do have “elders” who are hardly present any Sunday, and have very little contact with the members during the week either.

We often rebuke the liberals for one set of elders trying to oversee two different congregations, and used to heavily criticize the Herald of Truth for their “traveling elders” who went about the U. S. promoting and begging for their organization. But what is the difference in that and appointing elders who are never home “among” the flock of God anyway? How can one effectively oversee and feed the flock of God among them when they are not among them; when they have virtually no contact with the local church except once a month to be present at he business meeting-and sometimes not even that often? Is there really any difference in effect? Whether it be due to working in another area, preaching, visiting or whatever, absent elders cannot truly oversee and determine the proper feed needed by the local flock of God without being “among” them. Thus the importance of the local situation demands the elders be with those who are present, and “among them.” If an elder finds he cannot be present and has little local contact, he is doing God a disservice in continuing to oversee a flock he is no longer “among.”

“Be Examples”

A second duty of elders is to be examples to the local flock, as seen in 1 Pet. 5:3. Now, obviously, if they are going to serve as examples to the flock, it follows they are going to have to be seen by the flock! They are to be held up as a “model” to the flock, to set the example in teaching, doctrine, living, etc. They are to be known by those in the community in that they portray good influence among them as well (1 Tim. 3:7). Can a “usually absent elder” fulfill these qualifications?

Can weak and unfaithful members be encouraged to faithful attendance by an elder who is not there to encourage and set the example? Are they even aware he is attending when he is normally absent (some do not!)? Does not his absence say other things have a greater priority? Can young people be admonished to look up to elders who are never present or in attendance in Bible classes as truly being leaders in the local congregation? Do they not come to feel other things are allowed to have a priority, and all God requires is that we be sure to be present once a month to make the business meeting? What do they have to show them otherwise?

Not only does the responsibility of being an elder require one to know the flock of God by being “among them,” but to be an example to that flock of what God would have them do. Elders cannot serve as examples of the flock when they cannot be seen by the local flock! Many today are indeed poor “examples” in this point.

“Watch For Souls”

Again, in Heb. 13:17, we are admonished to “obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who would give an account.” To watch over the souls of others is a grave responsibility. Those who do so properly do so as if they “would give an account” – as if they were personally held liable for them! This requires elders who care, who realize the importance of each soul, and who want to do something about wayward souls. Thus, it requires that they be present to “watch” for those souls! Many elders today feel all there is to being elders is attending a business meeting once a month and determine what they are going to spend a little money for. They prefer to “let the preacher do the rest.” I am not excusing the preacher from his responsibility, but likewise, true elders cannot shirk theirs either. This is one reason we have so much problem with “preacheritis” in churches today and a lack of true leadership by the elders within the local congregation. When problems arise, everyone turns to the preacher. Elders have abdicated their responsibility!

If an elder is gone all month pursuing his secular work, gone every week preaching, incapacitated in bed for months on end, or traveling about the nation on a begging campaign for some project or organization, how can he “watch” for souls in need of guidance and strengthening? If he had to actually give an account for each lost soul, would it make any difference in his willingness to serve? (We will you know – Gal. 6:1, Acts 20:26-27, Ezek. 3:16-20, etc.). If a shepherd spends all his time chasing the wolf farther and farther away down the valley and over hills from where the flock is feeding, who is going to tend and shepherd the flock left behind as an easy prey while he is gone? Who will be on hand to stop false men who arise among them, speaking false doctrine to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30)? Who will seek the strays?

Brethren, this is not an indictment against elders. We have many dedicated and faithful elders, and I admire and thank God for every one of them. But, let us be honest in our evaluation of the work God has designed for them and in the men we have selected for that work, that we might have elders who can truly serve as God would have them do. Then we would find the local flock growing, unfaithful members being restored, preachers left free to preach, and elders who are recognized as the spiritual leaders of the flock of God. The church would be stronger, in many cases internal strife would cease, and young people would grow to respect and seek to pattern themselves after those dedicated to the important work of saving souls. Indeed, to seek the office of an elder is a “fine work” (1. Tim. 3:1). Now, let us be sure we fulfill it as God requires of us (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 10-11
January 29, 1976