Society Has Failed You

By Kenneth D. Sils

A few months ago, a decision was handed down in a famous court case in Texas. This case involved the so- called “vampire” killer who murdered several people in very brutal way. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and the judge sentenced him to die for his heinous crimes.

While listening to the national news, I heard a curious statement reported of what the judge in the case had to say to this corrupt young man during sentencing. The judge reportedly said this to this killer, “Your parents failed you, society has failed you!”

This is not the first time I have heard such “foolishness” come from the lips of judges in America. Someone, some- where, in some way has failed you. We live in a society that has accepted the liberal pap of someone else is to blame for your actions. Our country was founded on the truth of individual responsibility and accountability, but today the montra of our nation is, “find someone else to blame.”

From the dawn of time, man has attempted to justify unlawful actions on the backs of other people. In the garden, God told man in Genesis 2:17-18, “Of every tree of the gar- den you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” We know the story! Satan tempted Eve and she ate, then she gave it to her husband and he ate. When God confronted them with their sin, they looked for someone else to blame: Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, and the serpent must have laughed. God’s way is personal responsibility. God punished the serpent for his sin, Eve for her sin, and Adam for his sin.

This is and always has been the Bible way. Ezekiel told Israel to straighten up and quit blaming their fathers for the consequences of sin they were now reaping. Ezekiel 18:20 states, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of their father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Only upon ourselves, guilt and punishment will come for our own wickedness. Although others may influence us to sin, God will demand payment from our hands. It is our fault regardless of the environment in which we live! Yes, maybe our parents didn’t train us correctly. Maybe society deems our promiscuous behavior acceptable. Possibly all of our peers are doing it! Yet God will punish you for your sin and God will punish me for my sin! You have failed yourself!

Brothers and sisters, we need to place this truth deep into our hearts and the hearts of our families. God expects us individually to serve him and obey the gospel. He has given every able-bodied Christian the duty of “assembling with the saints” (Heb. 10:25) on a consistent basis. God admonishes each of us to bear his own load (Gal. 6:5). God encourages us to work in his vineyard as he has given us a variety of talents to utilize and bear spiritual fruits for the glory of God. Are you bearing your own load? One of the songs we sing exhorts us by saying, “There is much to do, there’s work on every hand.” Don’t attempt to put your load of spiritual service on another brother or sister. Don’t leave it for the preacher, the Bible class teacher, or the “faithful few.” When you drift from God, don’t blame the church for its lack of teaching or concern. If you are overcome in sin, don’t gnash out against your family or friends as though they are responsible for your wickedness. On the day of judgment, all people will stand before Jesus and you’ll never hear from him, “Your parents failed you, society has failed you!”

Settling Disputes and Acts 15

By Paul K. Williams

In an article concerning “Quarreling Brethren” (GOT 12-4-97) brother Keith M. Greer describes the controversy concerning “the proper exegesis of Romans 14.” He says he has studied “both sides” of these issues (I have detected considerably more sides than that), and he is concerned by attitudes of distrust evidenced by men involved in the controversy. That concerns me, too.

However, I am greatly alarmed at the solution he pro- poses. I was hoping that since he had studied everything so carefully he would give us an exegesis of the passage. Instead he wrote: “What did the apostles, elders, and brethren do in Acts 15 when a difference arose in the early church? They met to discuss the matter. Why? For the sake of the church and the love they had for the souls of their brethren.”

It is good for brethren to meet together and study the Bible. But to use the meeting of Acts 15 as a model for settling doctrinal differences is very dangerous. The denominations use that meeting to justify their “Church Councils” where delegates meet together and settle what must be believed and practiced in their denominations. Brother Greer’s suggestion that leading brethren get together in a meeting to settle the question of the correct exegesis of Romans 14 sounds like a “Church Council” to me, and it is not what happened in Jerusalem.

False teachers came from Jerusalem to Antioch teaching that “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas opposed them strenuously. However, the church decided to send men to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

There were two things which had to be determined. (1) Were the teachers of circumcision sent out by the church in Jerusalem to teach these things? (2) What was the teaching of the apostles on the matter?

Since Paul was an apostle, the church at Antioch should have listened to him without question. But evidently the false teachers were so plausible in their claims that brethren were shaken. They wanted the matter determined in a definite way. This was pleasing to God for Paul wrote, “It was because of a revelation that I went up” (Gal. 2:2). God wanted this matter settled in the minds of the disciples.

When Paul and Barnabas got to Jerusalem, it immediately became evident that (1) the false teachers had not been sent out by the church in Jerusalem. They wrote concerning them — “to whom we gave no instruction” (Acts 15:24), and (2) the apostles all taught what Paul taught on the matter.

The final, general meeting of all the brethren was a time when Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James used approved example, necessary conclusion, and direct statement from Scripture to convince the multitude of the truth (Acts 15:6- 29). They then wrote a letter stating that the teachers went out without their authority and telling what God’s will is.

These men had the right to write such a letter because they were apostles. What they wrote had the force of Scripture. No meeting of uninspired men today can do what the apostles did in Acts 15!

What brother Greer has written sounds like if all the quarrelling brethren would get together and agree on a solution, the problem would be solved and we would all know what to believe! It reminds me of a telephone conversation my wife had with a sister back in 1957. After my wife patiently taught the sister that church-supported orphan homes are not authorized by the New Testament, the lady said, “But they haven’t decided that yet, have they?” I still wonder who “they” are! The apostles decided it a long time ago. We don’t have any deciding to do except to understand what they taught and to obey it.

This is done by individual study, not by a church conference. It is done by appealing to apostolic example, necessary conclusion, and direct statement from Scripture. It is done by testing our conclusions by study with others, by debate, by articles, and the reviews of those articles. And it is done individually. Collective decisions don’t count for a thing!

As for personal sins against one another, face-to-face meetings are what Matthew 18:15-17 tells us we should have. We should study the Bible with one another when there are differences of understanding. But church conferences in order to settle a doctrinal matter are fraught with danger and lead in the direction of denominationalism.

Order In The House of God

By Bobby Witherington

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you (Tit. 1:5).

Titus, the person to whom the epistle bearing his name was written, was in Crete (one of the largest islands in the Mediterranean Sea) at the time when the apostle Paul wrote this letter. We cannot know for certain the exact date when the gospel was first preached in Crete. There were some “Cretans” present in Jerusalem when the gospel was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11), and it is possible that some of them were converted and later returned home and converted others who also resided on the island of Crete. Other than a brief stopover when Paul sailed as a prisoner from Caesarea to Rome (Acts 27:7-12), we have no record of Paul himself being at Crete prior to his first imprisonment in Rome. However, at some point in time Paul had been in Crete, for he “left” Titus “in Crete” (Tit. 1:5). In the judgment of this writer, it is very probable that Paul visited Crete after being released from prison in Rome, and that he then left Titus while he (Paul) traveled elsewhere in his efforts to further the cause of Christ.

In view of the close personal ties that existed between Paul and Titus (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6; 8:23), one might wonder why Paul would leave him behind when he (Paul) left Crete. However, from our text (Tit. 1:5) we learn why Titus was left in Crete — it being to “set in order the things” that were “lacking.” Apparently certain important items were not “in order.”

The expression “set in order” is translated from the Greek epidiorthoo which, according to Robertson’s Word Pictures In The New Testament (4:598) was a compound word, meaning “to set straight (orthoo) thoroughly (dia) in addition (epi), a clean job of it.” Worded a bit differently, it meant to do a thorough and clean job of setting things straight. According to Weust (Word Studies In The Greek New Testament, Vol. 3), this expression was “used by medical writers of setting a broken limb or straightening crooked ones.” From each of these definitions it is apparent that the command to “set in order the things that are lack- ing” implies that some items were crooked, or in a state of disorder, and were in need of being straightened out. God obviously wants order in the church!

The opposite of “order” is disorder. The very charge to “set in order the things that are lacking” implies that a failure to so act will leave the church in a state of disorder. The implied “disorder” may (or may not) be evident to men, but rest assured it will be obvious to God! In the following paragraphs we suggest that in the eyes of God . . .

Disorder Prevails When

1. The local church is not properly organized. Contextually speaking, appointing “elders in every city” was one of the things involved in correcting that which was “lacking” with regards to the divine arrangement in Crete. Elsewhere (Acts 14:23) we learn that elders were “appointed . . . in every church,” and that elders’ oversight (as elders) begins and ends with the local church of which they are members (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). According to Philippians 1:1 the complete organization of a local church consists of “saints in Christ Jesus . . . , with the bishops (elders) and deacons.” Of course, the men serving as “bishops and dea- cons” (Phil. 1:1) must be scripturally qualified (Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Tim. 3:1-13), and functioning in their respective roles in keeping with the revealed will of God. Some churches exist for decades without ever appointing qualified men to serve as “bishops and deacons.” Other churches appoint men who are biblically unqualified. In many instances the bishops (or elders) of a local church neglect to honor their shepherding responsibilities to the local flock. And there are numerous examples of local church elders “assuming the oversight” of brotherhood, centralized works which involve the pooling of funds collected from hundreds of churches. In each of the aforementioned situations, before God, disorder prevails!

2. The worship is not “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). “In spirit” reflects the disposition, attitude, and thought processes of the worshipers. For example, if one eats the bread and drinks the fruit of the vine while physically par- taking of the Lord’s supper, but neglects at the same time to discern “the Lord’s body” or to reflect upon his “death” (1 Cor. 11:23-26), then he is not worshiping God “in spirit.” However, worshiping “in truth” is of equal importance, and God’s “word is truth” (John 17:17). Hence, if one, as an act of worship, introduces into the worship things which are foreign to the New Covenant (such as instrumental music, burning incense, holy water, the mass, etc.), then a state of disorder exists.

3. Carnality and division exists. When the apostle Paul wrote his first epistle to the church at Corinth he wrote to brethren who were “carnal” and characterized by “envy, strife, and division” (1 Cor. 3:3). Would any deny that a state of disorder prevailed at Corinth? And could any deny that disorder yet prevails in any local church which is currently plagued by such ungodly conditions?

4. The focus changes from “what pleases God” to “what pleases me.” God is the proper object of our worship (John 4:24). Whatever we do must be done with the intent of glorifying God (1 Cor. 10:31). However, in many places the simple, scriptural worship which God ordained is considered “too routine,” “too dull,” and “too boring.” So numerous changes are made — changes which ostensibly reflect a desire to “spice up” the worship, and make it more “meaningful” and “relevant” but which, in reality, reflect a determination to please self instead of God. Often the same desire to please self-results in intense pressure placed upon preachers to shorten their sermons, and then spice up what is left with jokes, relating personal experiences, and warm hearted pep talks designed more for the purpose of making people feel good about themselves than for convicting sinners with a realization of their own lostness before God. When this occurs, disorder prevails!

5. The social gospel replaces the saving gospel. The work of the church is three-fold: (1) Sounding out the word to lost souls (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:7, 8), (2) edifying the saints (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 14:26), and (3) providing benevolence for indigent saints (Acts 6:1-6; 2 Cor. 8, 9; 1 Tim. 5:16). But many “churches of Christ” have assumed the role of a glorified Salvation Army. Others have gotten caught up in recreation, family life centers, secular education, and seminars on virtually every topic from how to grow healthy children to how to grow healthy vegetables. In such instances, before God, a state of disorder prevails.

6. Artificial lures are used to reach people. The gospel is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). The word of God “is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). Sin- stained souls are “purified” when they obey “the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22). However, many have lost confidence in the “power” of the gospel, and now depend on the power of youth outings, retreats, camps, recreation in general, rap sessions, candle light services and hand-holding events in which people are able to “open up,” “interact,” and relate to each other’s — events which may tingle the spine, but do not save the soul! Another example of disorder!

7. Brethren withhold the truth from lost souls for fear of giving offense. No one should delight in making others angry. Tact and wisdom in our choice of words are both wise and scriptural (Col. 4:6). However, God’s word “is truth” (John 17:17), and only the truth can make one “free” (John 8:32). And sometimes people look upon us as their “enemy” because we tell them “the truth” (Gal. 4:16). Being mindful of this, many brethren who are more concerned about their own standing before their friends than their friends’ standing before God, either withhold from them the truth, or else soft pedal it to such a degree that the lost are not made to recognize the sad fact that they are lost. And keep in mind this fact; no one is really interested in learning what to do in order to be saved until he first learns that he is lost!

Conclusion

Yes, in many places much is “lacking” which should be “set in order.” However, as we conclude this article we urge each reader to make a personal application of the principles herein set forth. Dear reader, are there some things in your life which are “lacking” and which should be “set in order”? Perhaps the things “lacking” have to do with your attitude, your dress, your speech, your manner of life in general, your domestic situation, or your standing before God. Each one of us will give account of himself before God (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). That being the case, then whatever is amiss in our lives must be corrected. Life is too short to be little, and eternity is too long for us to live disordered lives while we abide in the realm of time. Consider ye well!

Unity With Error: A Comparison

By Steve Wallace

Modern denominations are built on the sands of error and have now long sailed on the seas of human wisdom. One result we are seeing in our day is that many churches are seeking unity beyond the restrictions of their particular rules of faith. The kind of unity that has resulted is one that clearly tolerates sin, i.e., it is even clear to many in human denominations! This is very similar to the kind of unity some brethren have called for today. Hence, it is helpful to compare some of the things going on in the religious world with what is happening among us. Please notice the following elements that are part of such unity efforts among human denominations and among brethren.

Receiving People Who are Clearly in Sin

This is exemplified in the following quote which comes from an article entitled, “Pastor who backs Bible on sex elected to head Presbyterians:”

An Alaskan pastor who said he upheld biblical standards on sexuality was elected Thursday to lead the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

The Rev. David Lee Dobler, 43, was elected moderator of the 2.8 million member church . . . In questioning before the balloting, Dobler said he sup- ported the church’s position in opposition to sex outside marriage for ordained persons, but said homosexuals or heterosexuals who violate the church standard should not be excluded from the church.

With one arm, we should embrace our biblical standard,” Dobler said. “With our other arm we should embrace those persons by being caring, concerned and loving” (The Stars and Stripes, May 5, 1993, my emph, sw).

The people whom Mr. Dobler above advocates “embracing” are fornicators! It matters little that he “said he upheld biblical standards on sexuality” when he fellowships such people (Tit. 1:16). Let us not miss how this compares with what is going on among churches of Christ today. Brethren among us can be found who condemn the false teaching of a given brother on marriage, divorce and remarriage, but still will have that same brother in for a gospel meeting, or they will advocate fellowshipping him in spite of his error (cp. Rom. 16:17-18; 2 John 9-11). These same brethren will condemn homosexuality and we are all thankful that they will not fellowship homosexuals. However, as we consider the above example from the denominational world, how long will it be before one of our brethren does in the realm of homosexuality what others among us are doing in the realm of marriage, divorce, and remarriage?

Failure to Preach on Differences

Several years ago, a newspaper article described an effort by the 1993 Parliament of World’s Religions:

Leaders of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hindu- ism and other faiths have drawn up these guidelines as part of a historic Global Ethic. . . .

The goal of the parliament, the first since an 1893 gathering that marked the beginning of the interfaith movement, is to promote peace among religions and nations.

In that spirit, the global ethic does not delve into such issues as abortion, euthanasia, women clergy or homosexuality that are divisive within each of the major faiths (The Stars and Stripes, Sept. 4, 1993, my emph, sw).

The only way such a movement as that described above could ever begin or continue to exist is by failing to preach on serious differences. These people did address such matters as murder, marriage, and remembering the poor and the aged. However, it is what they did not address that brought about and maintains such unity as described above. In this light, one cannot help but note the reticence on the part of some among us to openly and specifically condemn error (Eph. 5:11). However, a much more powerful lesson for Christians is to be learned from the above quote: Once you embark on the road of tolerating those in error you will either stop it or you will get to a point where you say goodbye to any teaching which would condemn the error you are tolerating (cp. Acts 20:27; 2 Tim. 4:2-3). Sadly, some churches of Christ have already come to the point where they no longer preach on differences which clearly involve adultery, a sin which will send souls to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Finding a Broader Basis for Unity

When one seeks the kind of unity under review in this article he will have to use something other than the Bible as his basis. An AP article from the late 1980s tells of a unity effort which did just this:

Now at its 25-year mark, a grand-scale plan to unite American Protestants still is moving ahead, but on an altered tack that seeks a loose-knit form of unity. . . . The nine denominations involved, with a total membership of 23 million, include: (lists participating churches, sw).

Moede (Rev. Gerald Moede, General secretary of the Consultation on Church Unity, sw) said the covenanting approach would involve “inity in essential things, but with the present structures still in place, and with a lot of diversity in traditions” (Eugene, OR, Register-Guard, April 25, 1987).

It is axiomatic that one cannot bring nine different de- nominations together without finding a broader basis upon which to do it. The rules of faith of the participating de- nominations are simply not broad enough to facilitate such unity. Likewise, the rule of faith of the Lord’s church (the New Testament) is not broad enough to allow the kind of unity some have argued for today (Matt. 28:20). Hence, we should not be surprised when we hear of brothers Owen or Harrell using honesty and sincerity as a basis for receiving an erring brother or of brother Rubel Shelley saying that there are different levels of truth, some essential and some not so much so. More such bases may be in store for us in the future. When someone seeks a broader unity than the Bible allows, he must find a broader basis than the Bible.

Conclusion

The Bible instructs us clearly on the three points dis- cussed herein. It tells us how to treat those in sin (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 2 John 9-11). We are taught to preach the word “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2-3). We are to let the word of God be the sole basis for unity with others (John 17:20-21; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Some of our denominational neighbors have reached bottom and began to dig. The accounts given herein of what is happening among them may teach another lesson beyond those we have drawn above. They may help some among us to see more clearly where this is all headed in spite of the protestations of the leaders in the present call for unity-in-diversity.