Truth Magazine

By William B. Weight

The, church of Christ, of which I am a part was founded a little more than a year ago. A few months after the starting date, I talked with a dedicated member of a neighboring church of Christ which is striving to abide in the teaching of Christ with respect to “the issues” that have destroyed the unity that once existed among us. In the course of our conversation he recounted some details of an experience he had one day at work while he was eating his lunch. He was reading a paper published by Brother Leslie Diestelkamp. A member of a nearby liberal church of Christ approached him and asked what he was reading. He told him what he was reading and also informed him that Brother Diestelkamp was soon to be engaged in a meeting at the church of Christ where I have membership. He further suggested that his liberal friend take the time to go and hear Brother Diestelkamp preach. This brother responded by saying something to this effect: “Oh, they are just a bunch of antis! They are against orphan homes and colleges. I wouldnt go there.”

Well-Meaning, But ill-informed

This response suggests an unfortunate circumstance where well-meaning, but ill-informed, brethren of liberal congregations repeat statements made in their presence by people in whom they have confidence and they simply “assume” the statements to be true. This is especially true where some emotional aspect is involved.

Emotional Issues

There is probably no more emotional issue than the plight of the orphan. Those who promote the orphan home resort to emotional ploys which create the notion that to oppose the use of church funds to support this kind of human institution automatically makes one some kind of heartless beast who has no compassion for orphans. They then proceed to drag out of their stock of emotion arousing clichés such terms as “anti” with which to brand brethren who oppose church support of human institutions. These epithets are used out of context and are, therefore, meaningless as used.

Another emotional issue closely akin to the orphan home issue is the matter of the so-called “Christian” college. The college issue has become emotion packed because of the propaganda used in its behalf. Propagandists have created the notion in mens minds (by inference) that if ones children are not graduated from one of “our schools,” they are automatically second class citizens of the kingdom of God.

The charge that we are against orphan homes and colleges as such is false. I have no doubt that many of the people who repeat this charge do not know that they are repeating a falsehood, but they are nonetheless. Thus, it is necessary, and it is the purpose of this little essay, to set the record straight on these matters.

Setting the Record Straight

For purposes of setting the record straight, it must be understood that, the typical orphan home operated by our brethren and the so-called “Christian” college are self-constituted human organizations which do some things (at times) that churches of Christ and individual Christians are charged with doing in the New Testament. It is just as possible for a plumbing and heating firm or a steel company to engage in benevolence and to teach the gospel, but it does not follow that because they choose to do so the church should reach into its treasury and support these organizations with its funds. Nor, if it were the case that this was done by them, would Christians by the very nature of the problem become “beasts” for opposing such contributions or be , against plumbing and heating establishments and steel companies. It would only indicate that Christians are opposed to the unscriptural practice of supporting business organizations out of church treasuries — nothing more.

What We Really Believe

We believe the Scriptures are complete and that they furnish in completely unto every good work (2 Tim, 3:1.6-17, 2 Pet. 1:34). We believe that we are able to learn the will of Christ for His church by precept or command (example: Mark 16:15-16), approved apostolic example (Acts 20:7), and necessary inference (Heb. 10:25). The command to meet (Heb. 10:25) necessarily implies the right to have a place to meet. That being the case (that we can learn all of Christs will for His church in the New Testament), we believe it is scripturally false to suggest that God told us what to do but did not tell us how to do it. And, then, to follow this travesty on scriptural exegesis with the argument that since He did not tell us how to do it, we are justified in making a contribution to some human institution which incidentally happens to do some things Christ commanded His church to do! Then, in the next place, to compound this fast and loose playing with Gods word by lying about the attitude of conservative, brethren toward human institutions and other matters is worse yet.

Now, Lets Look At the Facts

The facts about these matters (the attitude of my brethren and me toward the work of the church, human institutions, and some other matters) are:

(1) We believe human institutions have the right to exist as self-sustaining human institutions. We believe those institutions have no right to church support. It makes no difference whether those human institutions are so-called “Christian” colleges, orphan homes, or profit making business organizations! To those who would argue otherwise we ask, by what precept, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference do you justify the use of church funds to support human institutions?

(2) We believe that individual Christians have the right to gather together and engage in wholesome recreation but we deny that the church as a church has any scriptural authorization to engage in the promotion of recreation. To those who wish to say we are wrong on this matter, we ask, by what precept, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference do you justify church support of recreation?

(3) We affirm the right of Christians to make gifts to colleges, benevolent, efforts, and recreational programs, as long as this does not interfere with the Christians giving as he is prospered and the institutions, etc., do, not promote unscriptural practices. The writer of this essay makes a small monthly contribution to a college operated by members of churches of Christ.

(4) We affirm the right of individual churches to cooperate with other churches of Christ by sending evangelists and sending support directly to evangelists who need support (Phil. 4:15-16), and by aiding congregations that are in need (Acts 11:27-30). We deny the right of one congregation to act as a broker or sponsoring church in handling funds of other churches of Christ. Those who favor such arrangements are bound to produce precept, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference for it!

(5) We affirm the right of a church of Christ to support its own destitute members, but we deny its obligation to use church funds to support non-members. There is no New Testament command, approved precedent or necessary inference for support of non-members from the church treasury; If we are bound to support non-members, with whom we incidentally come in contact, from the treasury, then why not every needy non-member in the world? Why discriminate? And, if every needy non-member in the world, where would the preaching of the gospel come into the picture?

(6) We affirm the right and duty of individual Christians to help non-members in addition to Christians (Gal. 6:12; Jas. 1:27). To those who would say these verses apply to the church as a church, we ask, tell us how from the stand point of grammar, exegesis, and logic you so conclude?

To our Separated Brethren

It is your right to decide these matters as you please. You will stand in judgment, as we will, to give account for your conduct in this life. You have our permission to repeat anything we say in these matters wherever you wish. But, please, oh, please, do not lie about us. “Tell it like it is.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 47, pp. 6-8
October 5, 1972

By Irvin Himmel

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” — Matt. 7:6

This is a quotation from our Lords memorable sermon on the mount. The lesson may not be as readily perceived as others in the same discourse, and  the verse is sometimes misapplied, but the thought advanced is an important one.

Dogs and hogs were considered unclean by the Jews. Although sometimes domesticated, “the great mass of dogs ran wild” (Dictionary of the Bible, J. D. Davis). These animals were the scavengers that roamed the streets and fields in packs. Wild dogs can be very vicious. To the mind of the Jew, the mention of swine suggested another type of animal that could be exceedingly fierce. Most of the swine in Palestine, though sometimes herded, were probably quite wild in Bible times.

Jesus mentioned dogs and hogs to illustrate the thought that some people are vile and vicious. Like dogs, some men snarl, snap, bite, and devour. They are morally filthy and given to brutality. Like the pig that wallows in the mire, they wallow in sin and feed on filth. Having no desire to escape sin, they will “tear into” anyone who makes an attempt to help them.

Preaching the gospel to some people is to no avail due to their incorrigible condition. It means no more to them than the Lords Supper would mean if given to a literal dog! They scoff at all which is held sacred by Gods people. They have no more appreciation for truth and righteousness than a pig would have for pearls. A pig likes corn, nuts, beans, husks, and slop — anything he can eat. Valuable pearls mean nothing to him.

A hog can be a very mean animal. He may even attack the person who is feeding him. Some people are equally senseless and mean toward all who try to teach them the word of God. They are beyond any hope of repentance and will stoop to the lowest schemes to destroy a godly mans good name. The writer of Proverbs had such people in mind when he said, “He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee” (Prov. 9:7, 8).

In the first rive verse of Matt. 7, Jesus warned against harsh, unjust judgment. However, his words are not to be taken as suggesting that all judging is wrong. In John 7: 24, he said, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” If we are not to give that which is holy to dogs and not I to cast pearls before swine, we must, wisely judge that some people are like these vile and vicious animals.

R. L. Whiteside once observed that “excessive, zeal, sometimes leads a Christian to preach the gospel to people under circumstances that only infuriates them.” Of course, we cannot always know ones real character and disposition, but, when we do know that one is as unholy as a dog and as unappreciative of the truth as a pig is of pearls, and when we see proof of senseless brutality or viciousness, we should be wise enough to apply the teaching of Matt. 7:6.

Paul preached the gospel in Antioch of Pisidia, and “almost the whole city” came together to hear the word of God. But when the unbelieving Jews began contradicting and blaspheming, he and Barnabas said, “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:44-46). Further attempts to reach these scoffing opposers would have been like giving something sacred to a, dog or casting pearls before a pig!

Similarly, when Paul had preached for three months in the synagogue at Ephesus, many were hardened in their hearts against the truth and believed not, and began speaking evil of the Lords way, so Paul “departed from them” (Acts 19:8,9). They proved to the apostle that they had no more respect for the gospel than a dog for something holy, and no more desire for the truth than a hog has for pearls, and they were ready to “rend” the preacher, so why should he waste valuable time and effort on them?

I know that we hate to give up on anybody. We are slow to admit that some people are indeed like dogs and hogs. But life is too short and there are too many people hungering and thirsting after righteousness for Christians to waste the precious pearls of divine truth by casting them before men who, act, like swine. After the gospel has been presented to an individual and he, by his attitudes, and actions, judges himself unfit for eternal life, it is time to depart.

Lets face it — there are situations when we must shake the dust from our feet and move to others who will be receptive. Jesus knew that many would reject the truth. He wanted his disciples to act wisely and with discrimination. The lesson of Matt. 7:6 is really quite simple and we need to apply it. The examples from the apostle Paul show us how to apply it. If we do not apply it, we are as foolish as one who casts pearls before pigs!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 47, pp. 5-6
October 5, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Most of what I know about the Lords Work in Nigeria has come through others. I have been led to believe that there are more Christians in Nigeria than in any other country of the world than our own USA. Various men have done pioneering work in different sections of Nigeria.

Leslie Diestelkamp and other faithful men went to a section of Nigeria that had not been evangelized and baptized hundreds; perhaps even thousands. Many of those churches are now being threatened by an invasion of liberals. Yet we are constantly being charged by some of the liberal brethren with doing no pioneering work of our own, but merely invading foreign works after they have pioneered there.

Well, the exact reverse is now occurring in the Lagos area of Nigeria. Already I have received several letters from faithful brethren in Nigeria who tell of the recent invasion of faithful churches by liberals. Reuel Lemmons recently charged that those of us who contend for the independency of congregations and who oppose sponsoring church structures are operating what he called “A Butcher Shop,” and charged that we were virtually destroying the evangelistic work that had been done by others. He said that some of the native Philippine preachers probably think that the Herald of Truth and sponsoring churches are “pagan gods” that they ought no longer to worship.

In Nigeria (Lagos area) we have the liberal brethren moving in mass into areas that were pioneered by faithful brethren. They are the ones having to acquaint the native preachers and churches with the “pagan gods” of Herald of Truth and sponsoring churches. In fact, one liberal preacher already has widely distributed a series of outlines and charts advocating the liberal position, as well as lectured the brethren on the merits of liberalism. I wonder, Brother Lemmons, if the liberal brethren in Nigeria, might now be operating “The Butcher Shop.” Wonder why some of the zealous liberal brethren, like Brother Jimmy Lovell who wrote me a chiding letter, do not now write these liberal brethren some halt and desist letters, like they have written to me and others regarding Philippine work?

Preachers “For Sale”

The same false charges are being made against faithful Nigerian brethren as are being made against faithful Philippine brethren. Some of the faithful Nigerian preachers have been supported by faithful churches directly for at least twelve or fifteen years. Yet Bill Nicks, in the June 27, 1972 issue of Firm Foundation charges that the faithful preachers are being led to oppose sponsoring churches, by the offer of money. Nicks said: “With promise of direct support, a few preachers have been led to believe this is the only method of supporting preachers and have allied themselves with a faction bent on destroying the Bible training schools and benevolence expressed through the hospital. Thank God these are in the minority.”

Some of Brother Lemmons fellow-liberal brethren recently have been on him for approving in foreign lands what he disapproves here. For instance, he affects to be so strongly opposed to church supported colleges in the USA, but promotes several of them by publishing propaganda articles in the Firm Foundation from such church supported colleges overseas. Is Brother, Lemmons in favor of Church of Christ hospitals in the USA? If so, let him say so. But you notice he will carry an article castigating faithful brethren in Nigeria who oppose the Church of Christ Hospital there. I wish Brother Lemmons would tell us explicitly whether he opposes or endorses the Church of Christ Hospital concept. If we could extract any statement at all from him regarding Church of Christ Hospitals, we just might find Brother Lemmons aligned with that -“faction” about which Brother Nicks so lovingly spoke. Brother Nicks thanks God for Nigerian Christian Hospital. If “Christian Hospitals” supported by churches are such a good thing in Nigeria, it would appear that Brother Lemmons and the Firm Foundation would be seeking to promote such in the USA.

A recent article from a Nigerian preacher published in Truth Magazine reveals the denominational structure that the liberals, have formulated in order to try to prevent men like Leslie Diestelkamp, Sewell Hall, James Finney, Aude McKee, James Gay, Paul Earnhart, George Pennock, Wayne Payne and others from re-entering Nigeria. Meanwhile, they hope to be able to swallow up for liberalism all the pioneering work done by those faithful brethren.

A letter just recently received from a faithful Nigerian preacher tells that “these dividing elements are still strong in Nigerian churches. It is very sad indeed. And shortly a Bible School of Preaching sponsored by American churches and controlled by one local American Elders is going to begin in Lagos. Soon a company of their, preachers are going to visit Nigeria … Error is gaining momentum here. . . .”

Now let those who have written so much about us injecting the issues into foreign works write as vehemently to these liberal brethren as they have to us to object to what they are doing now in the Lagos area. Do you think they will do so? I think not! It all depends on whose ox is being gored as to whether they protest or not.

I have said it before, but I say it again: If I were one of the foreign liberal preachers and the liberal American brethren continually state that those liberal preachers could be bought by American dollars, I would resent the charge and the implication in the strongest way possible. It certainly does not speak well of the work that the liberal American brethren have done when they insinuate that their preachers are available to anyone who will wave an American dollar before them.

The stories of the liberals do not quite mesh. They tell the faithful brethren overseas that the “Antis” have about died out in the USA in one breath, and in the next they cry about the fact that we are buying all their preachers. Wonder where a dying out group would get the money to buy their “For Sale” preachers?

I freely admit that money is on the side of the liberals. They have more of it and use it m’ many unscriptural ways. If a preacher is “For Sale,” I can tell him now that it would be in his financial interest to go with the liberals. And if they are “For Sale,” the liberals are perfectly welcome to them, one and all! A “For Sale” preacher could never benefit the Cause of Christ, whether here, in the Philippines, in Nigeria, or anywhere else.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 47, p. 3
October 5, 1972

By William B. Wright

An ounce of prevention, goes an old adage, is worth a pound of cures. The meaning of this truism, any sensible person knows, is to correct a situation at the first evidence something is wrong rather than to allow it to continue until too late. We are urged to fight cancer with a checkup (and a check) meaning that early diagnosis of cancer will make it possible for physicians to treat the malady before it is out of hand and not controllable. Experience has taught us that a regular trip to the dentist will normally prevent the loss of teeth by early detection and correction of cavities. Men applaud the wisdom of people who practice good habits designed to lengthen physical life. The diseases cited represent “the beginning of sorrows” for us unless we do something to correct these beginnings in time.

Unfortunately, many of the people who apply this wisdom to their bodies do not apply this same wisdom, in principle, to other matters. A classic example of this kind of short-sightedness is to be found in the attitude of many people toward marriage. To avoid some of these mistakes, the Christian looks to the New Testament to learn what wisdom from above is available for his learning. A careful reading of the New Testament suggests these things concerning marriage: (1) it is a gift of God and was created by Him for mans good. It was intended by God to be monogamous. (Matt. 19:4-6) (2) It is an honorable estate. (Heb. 13: 4) (3) Christians are to marry Christians (I Co. 7:39; 9:5). (4) Divorce is to be avoided like the plague. (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:7-9)

It would seem, then, that any thoughtful person who realizes marriage is a very binding arrangement under any circumstances would be very careful about what person he (or she) chooses for a marriage partner.- Even more, it would seem, Christians would be concerned about this matter. Yet, as I look about at the church of Christ, I see many members of the church (especially the young) being married to and regularly dating those who are not members of the church. When I question this arrangement, I receive such answers as: (1) “Shes a good girl even if she isnt a member of the church.” (2) “You dont trust my judgment.”; (3) “Some of the members of the church are no good.”, (4) “It is just puppy love and wont last.”; and, so on, ad infinitum. In answer to these I say: (1) Not every person who is not a member of the church is immoral or a basically bad person as the world judges them, but the fact remains they are not members of Christs church and do not share with the 11 common faith.” (2) Of course I do not trust a person I s judgment when that person shows little judgment to trust. Furthermore, a seventeen year old boys judgment is a seventeen year old boys judgment, not a forty or fifty year old mans judgment. (3) There is no question that some members of the church are hypocrites and thoroughly bad people (4) “Puppy love” (so-called) may not last and then, again, it just might last at least long enough to incorporate a marriage ceremony later regretted by the parties to it.

But really this is all mere prattle when we get down to it. We may argue these questions all we wish, but the Bible still teaches: (1) Marriage is a gift of God, (2) it is an honorable estate, (3) Christians are to marry Christians and (4) divorce is to be avoided like the plague.

In order to insure these things in ones own life, it is vitally important that Christians form no romantic attachments except with those who are eligible marriage partners for Christians. But you may say, “I dont intend to marry her!” This well may be true, the first time! But what about the fifth time or twenty-fifth time? Is it still true then? Furthermore, is it still true when presents are exchanged on holidays, parents are being introduced” telephone calls of thirty minutes or more occur every day, and… ?????? Exactly what is the intent at these points in time? Just a friendship? At this point it soon becomes a question of the Christian entering into a marriage that violates some of the truths stated in the Bible he solemnly af firms to believe or “breaking up” with a young woman he loves. The occasion for his choice ought never to arise. It has happened to many a young man before now to find himself beginning to fall in love with someone he ought not to fall in love with. “This is the moment of critical decision,” and the right decision is that he should cease his romantic association before he faces an agonizing choice between love and duty.

You may say, “Isnt that stretching it a little to assert that Christians should marry Christian (only)?” Thats a good question and worthy of careful consideration. So lets have a look at it.

An Important Principle

Insofar as I have knowledge, God has always willed that His people marry their own. I know believing student who of no fundamental Bible-believing student who challenges this point. Even the old patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac, were very determined that their heirs marry “their own” and that they not marry the Canaanite women about them. (Gen. 24:1-4; 28:1-2)

The people of Israel were strictly forbidden to contract marriages with inhabitants of the land of Caanan. (Dent. 7:1-3) The Israelites were told: “For they will turn away thy son from following me that they may serve other gods” (v. 4) Joshua further reinforced this precept and added that if they did make marriages with the inhabitants of the land “they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land” (Josh. 23: 12-13)

Nehemiah was very vehement about mixed marriages and insisted that foreign wives be put away. A telling argument used by Nehemiah was that Solomon, that great king, was caused to sin by “outlandish” women. (Heb. 13:23-27)

But you may say, “You are citing the Old Testament and we are not under it.” This is true, but remember, I am merely pointing to a principle, at this point. Dont forget that Paul suggested that things written before were written for our learning. (Rom. 15:4)

New Testament Teaching

Now, let us look at what the New Testament says on these matters. Paul said: “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (I Cor. 9:5) Please note that Paul specifically stated that his right was to have a Christian wife (“believer”) and he said that this is what other of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Peter had. Now if we are to be instructed by precept, example, and necessary inference, what do you make of this verse? I see Christians marrying Christians, dont you? To the widows Paul said they are to marry “only in the Lord.” (I Cor. 7:39) He also admonished the Corinthian Christians to avoid being “unequally yoked with unbelievers.” (2 Cor. 6:14) Now in what condition is a person more “unequally yoked” to an unbeliever than in the marriage relationship?

Are Mixed Marriages Invalid?

Some may think I am saying mixed marriages are not valid before God. This is not true. Insofar as I have knowledge, God recognizes marriage as valid as long as those contracting it are eligible to be married according to His law. (Read Matt. 19:1-9). What I am pointing out is the danger to the Christian partner and the Bible principles that should guide him in contracting marriage.

How Shall We Treat The Mixed Marriage?

We must treat both the Christian and the non-Christian the same way we should treat any other Christian and non-Christian and that definitely excludes treating them as though they had leprosy. Our duty to both is to so act toward them and to teach them that they will be united in Christ by the conversion of the non-Christian.

But, remember, unmarried Christian, if you can not convert your fiancé before you are married, the likelihood of accomplishing it later is not very great.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 46, pp. 12-13
September 28, 1972