Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Disorderly conduct in the classroom occurs at almost every age level. It presents itself more frequently in some age groups, but the problem exists at all levels. Although it may express itself in different ways, discipline is a problem no matter which way you look at it. One disruptive student can create enough confusion to destroy the effectiveness of an entire lesson. There is a contagiousness associated with disorderly conduct. Poor discipline in the classroom is discouraging and very demoralizing to the rest of the students.

Disorderly conduct cannot be ignored. However, the teacher should be very careful about using discipline.(1) If you apply pressure in some age groups, the problem compounds itself. The result is frustration for the teacher. This is not to say that discipline should not be used. It simply means that discipline will become a full-time job, if that is all that is done to curb the situation. For example, it has been suggested that sometimes it is best to ignore the disorderly conduct by making an effort to interest the ones engaging in the confusion by involving them in the discussion to a greater extent.(2) Sometimes, however, to continue to ignore the problem, especially with younger ages, only makes the problem worse. The best way to deal with classroom problem cases is to try to understand what was responsible for creating the confusion in the first place. To understand this and take constructive measure to avoid the creation of such confusion, is to solve the problem of discipline. This, of course, is stated more idealistically than actual experience reveals. But it should be given careful consideration.

Causes of Disorder

There are many causes for disorderly conduct in the classroom. There are a number of factors which enter in to create conditions of stress which necessitate classroom discipline. Let us consider a few of these factors.(3)

(1) Let problems often arise as a result of the wrong attitude on the part of the teacher. Where there is nervousness and fretfulness, for example, there is often adverse reaction on the part of the class. Most teachers have experienced times when tensions appeared to get the upper hand and disciplinary problems resulted. Those who teach can improve the order of their classes if they try to maintain a pleasant attitude in class. When a teacher has to maintain order by firmness, it is always good to return again to the pleasant and out-going disposition. Enthusiastic interest and sympathetic understanding on the part of the teacher pave the way for good order in any classroom.

(2) Consider the method of study. It is often true that us begin with the teacher. Disciplinary disorderly conduct is the result of the wrong method of study. Sometimes lesson material is too elementary. At other times it is too advanced. The material must correspond with the age and developmental level of the student if good order is to be maintained. Any material and method of instruction used must be in keeping with the age and needs of those being taught. It is a known fact that there are very few disciplinary problems which arise in those areas which deal with the needs of students. Whatever method of teaching is being utilized by the teacher should be carefully adapted to the material being taught. Every effort should be made to present the material interestingly, regardless of the method being employed.

(3) What about the classroom situation? It is a known fact% that some problems of a disciplinary nature arise because of the room situation in which a class is being conducted. We have come a long way in providing proper classroom environment. However, many classroom situations take place in poorly equipped areas. We must do everything possible to have the right environment for the class. .The learning process can be better carried on in an atmosphere which is suggestive of learning. An interesting learning situation is absolutely mandatory. When students are subjected to disorganized, unpainted, cold, barren, storeroom-type classrooms, you can expect problems. Under these conditions it is no wonder that disciplinary problems arise.

(4) Next, consider the student himself. We will look at his home background first. Disorder in the classroom often results from a student’s home life. Some may have psychological problems of which the teacher is unaware. But the major problem is disrespect for authority-any authority: Because they have not learned to respect the authority of the home, students show disrespect for the authority of the teacher. These students simply have not been taught! This means that as teachers we have to do more than impart knowledge. We have to try to bring about a change in conduct in the one being taught. This involves proper direction and the seeking after the ultimate welfare of the one being taught. If the problem is disrespect for authority, try to understand why such an attitude exists, and try to teach basic principles of respect for authority. Be kind, but be firm.

Under this heading we must also consider the “attention getter.” Sometimes disorderly conduct is nothing more than a student’s way of attracting attention. This is sometimes the case even among adult groups. Have you ever been picked to pieces in an adult class? Have you ever had an adult student make wisecracks to you and about you all through the class period? Those who have had such experiences tell us that it is an exasperating experience. Be patient, my friend. Such was being done only to attract attention. This calls for compassionate understanding on your part. Just remember that some children who are the center of attention in the home find it extremely difficult not to seek such prestige in the classroom. An understanding teacher can wisely direct the class so as to give attention to those who crave it. At the same time, they will conduct an orderly class discussion.

Conclusion

All who are teaching need to do some reflective, constructive thinking in relation to these reasons for, disciplinary problems in the classroom. We should make positive efforts to eliminate these causes for misconduct. This will insure more effectiveness in the teaching effort. The challenges of today are far too vital for teachers to fail in their important work.

Endnotes

1. Sam Binkley, Jr. and Martin Broadwell, Success At Bible Teaching (Athens: 1973), p. 85.

2. Charles Stovall, “What Causes Disciplinary Problems?” Firm Foundation (July 18, 1967), p. 457.

3. For the most part, the following material comes from the article referred to in the last endnote.

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 268-269
March 6, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

A fundamental tenet of those who advocate “unity in diversity” (actually, a unity of belief based on conforming views of several issues which are uniformly considered paramount by these individuals) is the repudiation of the so-called “Restoration Principle.”(1) This is by no means a novel idea or new position in the “Restoration Movement;” those well informed in its history recognize it as a familiar way-station in the pilgrimage from the “old paths” to a belated religious “relevance”.(2)

A favorite ploy of those who attempt such a repudiation is to ask, baitingly and often sarcastically, “Which New Testament church are you trying to restore? Corinth with its immorality and factiousness or lukewarm Laodicea?”(3) This approach has given others sufficient grounds upon which to question their intellectual honesty.(4) Others seem to labor under the delusion that the “New Testament church” is not an ideal, or at least that the ideal is incapable of being restored in any recognizable fashion.(5) In view of the commonplace occurrence of such articles, it is indeed refreshing to read from the pen of a man who, while not consistently applying the principle in all particulars, at least recognized its validity and was willing to defend it unambiguously and without the equivocation which characterizes many today.

The article, which is reproduced below, first appeared under the caption at the head of this introduction in the Christian-Evangelist of July 4, 1929, sub-headed “Hard to Explain.” As I think on these things was the regular weekly column of Frederick D. Kershner, former editor of that journal.

Kershner was an intriguing and perplexing figure in Restoration history. Born in Maryland nearly a century ago (August 28, 1875). he was educated at the feet of J. W. McGarvey in Transylvania (or Kentucky University), from which he graduated in 1899.(6) He then attended Princeton University, from which institution he received his M. A. in 1900. Intending to complete his Ph.D at Harvard University, Kershner instead interrupted his formal academic career with an extensive trip to Europe, and then returned to the United States to accept a succession of teaching positions. In 1908, at the age of 33, he accepted the presidency of Milligan College; three years later he was named to the same position at Texas Christian University. He served there until 1915, when he became Editor of the ChristianEvangelist, a by then “moderate” Disciples paper long associated with James H. Garrison. In 1917, in an attempt to conciliate a feud between it and the Christian Standard, Kershner resigned and took a place as Book Editor of the Standard. In 1920 he accepted a professorship at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa; in 1924 he became Dean of the new College of Religion of Butler University in Indianapolis, where he remained until his death in 1953. He served as the president of the International Convention of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Denver in 1938.

During the late 1920’s and 1930’s, Kershner was a prime mover in arranging Butler’s annual Mid-Summer Institutes, the precursors of the Witty-Murch “Unity Meetings” of the late 1930’s and 1940’s. The forums included a diversity of speakers, ranging from the psychologist Arthur Holmes to linguist A. T. Robertson and including a variety of “Restoration” speakers from Daniel Sommer and Ira C. Moore to P. H. Welshimer and John B. Cowden.

Widely read, a man of catholic interests ranging from parapsychology to medieval art, from ancient Christian historiography to Reformation theology, and including, of course, Restoration thought (each of the afore mentioned topics being the subject of at least one of his more than a dozen books), Kershner was neither an ignoramus nor a “country bumpkin.” Yet, despite his learning, he was able to see in the plea to “speak where the Bible speaks” the powerful message of God’s scheme for man’s redemption. One can only wish that some of our present-day pseudo-sophisticates might partake, if not of Kershner’s spiritual cognition of a valid principle, at least of the intellectual humility of the truly educated! Following is Kershner’s article.

“Hard To Explain”

“Ever so often one of our advanced thinkers’ pours out a deluge of sarcastic references to the crassness and absurdity of advocating the restoration of the New Testament Church. He points with high glee to the delinquencies of the Corinthian and other congregations and tells us that `restoration’ means the reproduction of the exact conditions which prevailed in these primitive communities. Of course, all this amounts to nothing more than setting up a man of straw for the express purpose of demolishing it. Nobody in his senses, so far as we know, ever advocated the restoration of the Corinthian church, or the church of Antioch, or any other congregation of the New Testament period. The plea for the restoration of the New Testament Church means, and always has meant, the restoration ‘ in our thinking of the New Testament ideal or form of the Church of Jesus Christ. When Paul and Peter and the other New Testament evangelists founded churches, they did not do so at random. They had some definite conception of the structure and nature of the Church. All that the restoration plea advocates is that we shall strive, as far as we can, to recover their conception of what the Church should be. Doubtless some of our radical thinkers believe that they can improve upon the ideal of the Church which the Apostles possessed. The majority of us will have some hesitancy upon this point until these latter-day prophets make their pretentious good by actual demonstration.

“It is hard to understand why men who claim to be intelligent should deliberately misrepresent the restoration plea. There can be no objection to their arguing against the position in question, if they correctly state what that position is. To do otherwise is both unfair and illogical. Arguments of this kind always create a prejudice in the minds of thoughtful people against a cause which apparently needs misstatements and misrepresentations in order to support its conclusions.”

Endnotes

1. This is a descriptive term for the idea that we can duplicate the “ancient order” of the church in our own times. For examples of recent articles which repudiate this concept, see William H. Davis, “Is the Restoration Movement on the Wrong Track (I & II)?” Mission, VII: 3 & 4 (September & October, 1973); Don Haymes, “The Restoration Illusion,” Integrity, V:5 (October, 1973); and R. Lanny Hunter, “Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster,” Mission, VII:12 (June, 1974).

2. See, for example, Cecil Willis’ excellent series, “‘The Taproot of Digression (I-IV),” Truth Magazine, XVI: 31-34 (June 8-29, 1972); and, more recently, Mike Willis, “Is the Restoration Principle Valid?” Truth Magazine, XVIII: 37 (July 25, 1974).

3. For an example of this type of expression, see W. Carl Ketcherside, “The Body of Christ,” Mission Messenger, XXXIV:10 (October, 1972). I have heard Carl Ketcherside and others of his persuasion make this statement repeatedly at numerous unity forums around the country.

4. Mike Willis, cited above, and F. D. Kershner’s article reproduced below.

5. For examples of this type of thought, see Elmer Prout, “Corinth-A New Testament Church;” Firm Foundation, XCI:50 (December 10, 1974); and Edward Fudge, “What Makes a Church of God?” Gospel Guardian, XXIIIA2 (May 2, 1972-reproduced from his bulletin at Kirkwood, Missouri, March 3, 1972), and “Emphasis: Christ,” Firm Foundation, LXXIV:45 (November 7, 1967). In fairness to Brother Fudge, it should be pointed out that while these articles cited do indeed cast doubt on the possibility of recovering a fixed or normative pattern for the church, he has, in his. usual ambiguous and ambivalent style, recognized (elsewhere) that an ideal does at least exist. See “Give the Church a Chance,” Mission, 11:12 (June, 1969).

6. All information on Kershner is the result of the author’s research into Kershner’s relationship with Daniel Sommer for a biography of Sommer. For a good survey of Kershner’s career, see David C. Rogers, “Frederick D. Kershner: Educator, Editor, and Ecumenist” (unpublished B. D. thesis, Butler University, 1952).

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 267-268
March 6, 1975

By Robert C. Welch

We have a few soft headed people who are thinking and saying that God does not require strict obedience to his will. They think that such a strict view is either Pharisaic legalism or stupid bigotry, or both; and that such a view is despicable. They have the impression that it may be necessary to do precisely what the will of God is in becoming a forgiven child of God; but that after he becomes a citizen of the kingdom of God his lapses due to ignorance or weakness will be overlooked. Their theory . is diametrically opposed to the example and attitude of the Son of God:

“Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God . . . then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” (Hebrews 10:7, 9).

If the Son of God must empty himself and come to this earth to do the will of God, even to die the ignominious death of a criminal, it is the height of arrogance to suppose that God will accept less than obedience to his will on the part of a mere man. He left us “an example, that we should follow his steps: . . . when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” (1 Pet. 2:2123).

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21). There is no substitute for obedience. There is no such thing described as “the spirit of obedience.” Such expression has been devised by men to justify themselves in deviation from specific obedience to the will of God. Such deviation was not acceptable from Ananias and Sapphira. It was not acceptable from Cephas at Antioch. It was not acceptable from the Corinthians in their assemblies. Neither will God accept such deviation from men today as they try to avoid specific obedience in the matter of the Lord’s supper, the singing of praise, the organization and work of the church in evangelism and benevolence, or in personal spiritual and righteous character.

When we insist upon following the steps of our Lord in doing God’s will we are not substituting works for the grace of God, we are neither rejecting nor denying the need for his grace: “When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do:” (Luke 17:10). It is by this obedience that we appropriate his grace: “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world.” (Tit. 2:11, 12). The grace of God is conditioned upon living righteously or obediently.

The difference between the first and the second covenant is not that obedience was required then but is not required now. The difference is that God has provided salvation in Christ now, which was only in promise then. But who can live without transgression? No one (1 John 1:8). Then, will that failure to obey not prevent every man from entering the kingdom of heaven? In that case of disobedience we have the will of God: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9). Does this argument for obedience and then providing for forgiveness not involve an inconsistency? It will only seem inconsistent to the man who has espoused the theory that God does not require obedience to his word. When we humbly “come to do thy will, O God” we will claim his amazing grace, and will confess our failures, being “not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer of the work” we will “be blessed” in the doing. (Jas. 2:25).–(The Restorer, January 8, 1975).

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, p. 266
March 6, 1975

By Luther W. Martin

In 1973, Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., published `A Review of The New Versions.” The 2nd printing, which I have, contains 652 pages plus Addenda. There is no question but what Brother Wallace has assembled into one volume much valid and worthwhile material, relative to the modern versions and translations. And, with the major portion of his conclusions, I readily concur.

However, I have been requested to review the portion of his work which relates to the New American Standard Bible, which is found from page 583 through page 593. Twenty specific passages are dealt with by Brother Wallace, and we shall consider each of them.

First, however, Brother Wallace condemns the NASB because it is produced by the Lockman, Foundation, which had previously issued The Amplified Bible. And, he also condemns it because of the Corporation’s claim on the dust jacket of the book, that it (the Corporation) is “of God’s creation.”

Brother Wallace also stipulated that the American Standard Version (1901) does not need revision. Since its completion in 1901 by one hundred and one (101) of the greatest body of scholars ever assembled in America or England “there have been no changes in the English language to warrant revision . . .” (page 584).

In response to the above, I suggest that merely because one does not admire Lockman’s Amplified Bible, does not necessarily nullify the possible worth of another of their publications, such as the NASB. Nor does the assertion that God had something to do with the work of the Corporation (Which I also deny), necessarily render the entire NASB valueless.

Therefore, hoping to manifest a more objective and open-minded approach, let us consider Brother Wallace’s sample of twenty objectionable passages.

Matthew 5:17

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law . . :” (King James Version).

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law . . .” (New American Standard).

Brother Wallace takes issue with the change from “destroy” to “abolish.” He stresses that Christ did abolish the Mosaic Law. (Eph. 2:15; 2 Cor. 3:7, 13, 14).

The Greek word used in Matt. 5:17 is katalusai. Berry’s Interlinear translates it “to abolish” while Marshall’s Interlinear gives “to destroy.” Berry then uses the term “annulled” in Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3rd Chapter. The Greek word in Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3:7,13,14 is a form of katargeo. In the King James Version, it is sometimes rendered either abolish, destroy, do away, make void, vanish away, and others.

Mark 1:4

“. . . preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (KJV)

” . . preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (NASB)

Brother Wallace stresses the significance – of the specific article “the” as used in the KJV and the American Standard Version (1901). Although the Greek has no article whatsoever preceding “baptism” and “remission of sins,” I agree that it is more acceptable to have the definite article inserted.

A. T. Robertson, on page 790 of his Greek Grammar, stated in part: “Much of the modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek article is due to the effort to interpret it by the standard of the English or German article.” John’s was a baptism of repentance and so was another, but different baptism which was taught by the Apostles. Therefore, in reality there were two baptisms of repentance for the remission of sins; with only one of them valid at a time. (See Acts 19:3). Brother Wallace, has a good point on this, but not of sufficient weight to impugn the entire translation.

Mark 16: 9 – 20

Many, of the modern versions of the New Testament leave out the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel. The American Standard Version of 1901 left several blank spaces (several lines worth) before continuing with verse nine. The ASV had a marginal statement to the effect that the two oldest Greek manuscripts, as well as some other authorities, lacked these twelve verses. Similarly, the NASB has a marginal statement, but no blank space was left. However, the NASB did reproduce a “short ending” for Mark that is extant in some manuscripts.

Brother Wallace was quite critical of the NASB for its treatment of these verses, but I really think ii was at least as charitable as was the ASV (1901) on this passage. I, personally, would prefer that all of these twelve verses be included without marginal comment. However, since it is an accurate notation, I am willing to live with it. Incidentally, just so there is no question, this scribe is convinced that the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine.

Acts 3:19

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come . . .” (King James Version).

“Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come . . .” (New American Standard Bible).

Brother Wallace takes issue with the use of the word “return” in lieu of “be converted.” The Greek word is epistrepho, and in the King James Version is sometimes rendered: be converted, return, turn, turn again, turn about, and others. As far as personal preference is concerned, I agree with Brother Wallace.

Acts 3:21

“. . . the heaven must receive until the times of restitution . . .” (KJV).

“. . . heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things . . .” (NASB).

Brother Wallace views this NASB rendering as having a premillennial slant; and well this may be. I note that the Tyndale Version of 1535, the Great Bible of 1540, the Geneva Bible of 1562, and the Bishops’ Bible of 1602, all used “time” in the singular. The first English veision, to my knowledge, to use “times” was the Catholic Rheims version of 1582. Since then, the plural has generally been used.

Acts 10:6

“He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.” (King James Version).

“He is staying with a certain tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea.” (New American Standard Bible).

“He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side.” (American Standard Version (1901).

“He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose housse is by the see syde.” (Tyndale’s Translation-1535).

Brother Wallace has a very valid argument on this passage when he points out that in Acts 11:13-14 Cornelius related it, Peter reported it, and Luke recorded that. “. . . who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and, all thy house shall be saved.” Those versions which include-the latter portion of the verse (6), follow the Textus Receptus; while those which do not include the last part of verse (6), follow other Greek texts.

Acts 26:28

“. . . Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” (King James Version).

“. . . In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” (NASB).

Brother Wallace views this change as being “scornful” on the part of the NASB. Let us notice some other early renditions of this verse.

“. . . Sumwhat thou bringest me in mynde for to be come a Christen.” (Tyndale’s Translation-1535). (The above spelling is accurate! LWM.)

“. . . Sumwhat thou bryngest me in mynde for to be come Chrysten.” (The Great Bible-1540).

“. . Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian.” (Geneva Bible-1562). This is the first translation to use the wording that the King James Version made famous.

“. . . Somewhat thou perswadest me to be a christian.” (Bishop’s Bible-1602). (Spelling accurately copied. LWM.)

” . . A litle thou persuadest me to become a CHRISTIAN.” (Rheims-1582). (Spelling and upper case, correct. LWM.)

“. . . In a little thou persuadest me a Christian to become.” (Berry’s Interlinear).

“. . In a little thou persuadest me to make (act) a Christian.” (Marshall’s Interlinear).

Romans 4:12

“. . . walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham . . .” (KJV).

“. . . follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham…” (NASB).

Brother Wallace points out that “that” is an adjective which differs in meaning and application from the article “the.” He stresses, “The adjective that refers to the thing specified, and here it means more than a general reference to faith.” It is . . . “a definition of Abrahamic faith.” Brother Wallace contends that this important definition is missed and lost by the change from “that” to “the.”

The NASB was not the first, by far, to use “the.”

“. . . walke in the steppes of the fayth that was in oure father Abraham . . .” (The Great Bible-1540).

“. . . walke in the steppes of the faith of our Father Abraham . . .” (Geneva Bible-1562).

“walke in the steppes of the faith that was in our father Abraham . . .” (Bishop’s Bible-1602).

“. . . folow the steppes of the faith that is in the prepuce of our father Abraham . . .” (Rheims-1582). (Spelling copied correctly. LWM.)

Romans 11:26

“. . . so all Israel shall be saved . . .” (King James Version).

“. . . thus all Israel will be saved . . .” (New American Standard Bible).

Brother Wallace objects to this change, stating: “. . . the verb shall expresses a conditional futurity, while the verb will is unconditional determination-a thing that will be done. The word `so’ is an adverb of manner and only indicates that all the Israelites should be saved in the same manner that the remnant had been saved-by acceptance of the gospel.” Brother Wallace concludes that it becomes more and more evident that the makers of the NASB are premillennialists. He may well be right.

I Cor. 7:25 and 40.

“. . . I give my judgment . . .” (Verse 25-King James Version.)

“. . . I give an opinion . . .” (Verse 25 New American Standard Bible.)

“. . . after my judgment . . . I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (KJV).

“. . . in my opinion . . . I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” (NASB).

Brother Wallace considers the change from “judgment” to “opinion” as a calling in question of Paul’s being inspired. If that is what the translators intended, then they are wrong. But both English words, judgment and opinion, can be properly translated from gnome, the Greek word used in the passages. In his book, Brother Wallace cited also Eph. 3:4 and Acts 15:19, where “judgment” and “knowledge” are used . . . but the Greek words in those passages are different from gnome. In the King James Version, the following Greek words are rendered “judgment”: gnome, aisthesis, dikaioma, dike, krima, krisis, and dikaiokrisia. Each has a slightly different meaning from the others.

In 2 Cor. 8:10, the King James Version has Paul saying: “And herein I give my advice . . . .” The Greek word for “advice” is gnome, the same as used in I Cor. 7:25 and 40. Whether Paul gave judgment, opinion, advice, or counsel, it was still inspired of God!

(To Be Concluded Next Week)

Truth Magazine XIX: 17, pp. 264-265
March 6, 1975