Truth Magazine

There are people who go to church and talk as good a story as anyone; they contend for following the Bible in church work and worship; they may even preach from time to time and preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nothing more, nothing less and nothing else, yet be as crooked as a barrel of snakes in their business dealings and seemingly have no compunction of conscience whatsoever. We have all known of church members, even preachers, who appear to be sound, but cheat on their wives, seemingly with no feeling of guilt, lie, don’t pay their debts, and otherwise violate God’s word. I have to say that preachers have told me more lies than anyone else! We read and hear of preachers and priests who molest little children, engage in homosexualism, steal money, fail to pay their debts, and commit other acts of ungodliness. Some of our own brethren seem to be model Christians, but abuse their wives and children, if not physically, mentally, by selfish- ness and unkindness. We see this and wonder: how can it be! Do these people not know better? Can they not see their inconsistency? What such people are doing is compartmentalizing their lives, whether they call it that, or realize what they are doing. They see their church work as one compartment of their lives, and their business, or private lives as another, and one does not interfere with or govern the other. I had a very able preacher friend who did excellent work. We worked together in gospel meetings and other projects on many occasions. Once he held an excellent meeting where I was preaching, and during that very meeting a woman other than his wife was pregnant with his child! How he could stand in the pulpit, much less preach, is a mystery. How he could associate with me, stay in my house, eat with my family, and talk of spiritual matters is difficult to understand unless he was compartmentalizing his life.

A brother wrote a well-known book as a professional historian in which he referred to the church of our Lord as a sect. When asked about it, he said he was writing as a professional historian. Many brethren were upset about it. I asked him would he have done it had he known the brethren would be so upset? He said, “Yes, he would, because he was writing as a professional historian.” Here is a concrete case of compartmentalizing. He stepped out of his role as a Christian and wrote as a professional historian. He didn’t take his Christianity with him. He thought he could do something as a professional historian that he couldn’t do as a Christian. He very likely would not stand in the pulpit and call the Lord’s church a sect, but he could sit at his typewriter as a professional historian and call it such! Compartmentalizing.

Pat Boone grew up as a Christian in Nashville, Tennessee. His family were all members of the church. He did some preaching as a young man. He recorded a song that made a hit, and he was off and running as an professional entertainer. As usual, Hollywood put him in the movies. Soon they wanted to cast him in a role where he would have to kiss the leading lady. He was reluctant to do so, but eventually justified it on the basis that he was not being disloyal to his wife, but was doing it as a professional actor. Compartmentalizing; he thought he could do something as a professional actor that he couldn’t do as a Christian.

Jesus called such people hypocrites. They are not what they claim to be or appear to be when they are in church or in the presence of Christians. It is well said that a hypocrite is one who is not himself on Sunday! Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). He said such people are like “whited sepulchers . . . which in- deed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27).

Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for saying and doing not; For “. . . tithing mint, anise and cumin, and leaving off the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.” Jesus said, “these ye ought to have done and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23). Like many today, the Pharisees had a polka dot hermeneutic, they believed the Bible in spots. They were very meticulous in bringing their “mint, anise and cumin” to the treasury of the temple, but in their private lives they ignored “justice, mercy and faith.” They were compartmentalizing.

We need to realize that if a person is not a Christian everywhere, he is not a Christian anywhere. Believest thou this? The Bible makes this very clear in such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:31: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (Prov. 3:6).

Our public officials today are involved in one moral scandal after another, reaching all the way to the White House! Using brute power to satisfy personal lust is the rule of the day in Washington as well as in the office, in the school, in the military, and in the factory. Listening to talk radio, reading letters to the editor, and following the various polls gives one a pretty good view of the state of public morals in this country, which today are in the gutter and despicable. Public reaction to the recent moral scandal involving the president, whether true or not, has brought to the surface compartmentalizing with a vengeance! Many people are saying, “What the president does in his private life has nothing to do with his ability to run the country. As long as he does a good job as president, it’s none of our business what he does in his private life.” (One lady said it is good to have an adulterous person in the White House!) People don’t re- ally believe this, but they think they do when it suits them or serves their purpose. What if in the president’s private life he committed murder, embezzled funds, beat his wife, abused his daughter, or got drunk as a skunk, or did drugs on weekends, etc. would these people say the same thing? This is a naive view of matters.

It is a failure or a refusal to realize that the character flaw that would cause a person to violate his marriage vow or otherwise act immorally or dishonestly, indicates that he is a dis- honest person who cannot be trusted in other compartments of his life. If one is less than honest or moral in his private life, what evidence do we have that he is otherwise in his public life, if it were to his advantage? If one will be dishonest or immoral to get what he wants in one compartment of his life, why not in another compartment, or in all compartments? This reminds me of a preacher who was answering questions from the audience. One person asked the preacher what he thought about a person who said he and his wife had been married for 30 years and had never had a cross word. The preacher answered, “You’d better watch a fellow like that because he will lie about others things too!” He who would steal an egg would steal an ox. We should realize that one is no better than his morals, and no worse than his principles.

The religion of Christ is called a vocation (a full-time job), not an avocation (a sideline or a hobby) (Eph. 4:1). It is not a Sunday coat but work clothes. He who is not a Christian everywhere, is not a Christian anywhere! 

(The following three selections underscore the importance of religious controversy. I have slightly edited these excerpts of longer articles and have given them new titles. “The Prince of Peace Never Sheathed the Sword of the Spirit” is taken from Alexander Campbell, “Religious Controversy,” Millennial Harbinger [4 Jan. 1830]:40-44. “I have Counted the Cost” is taken from Campbell, “The Rev. Thomas G. Jones and the Luminary,” The Christian Baptist [1 Dec. 1823):99 [reprinted by Gospel Advocate Co., 1955]. “The Only Safety for the Truth” is taken from J.W. McGarvey, “Bro. Hayden on Expedience and Progress,” Millennial Harbinger [Apr. 1868]:219. Submitted by Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray Street, West Columbia, TX 77486)

The Prince of Peace Never Sheathed The Sword of the Spirit

“Who of the Bible’s great and good men was not engaged in religious controversy! Whenever it was necessary, all — yes, all the renowned men of antiquity were religious controversialists. Moses long contended with the Egyptian magi. He overcame Jannes and Jambres too. Elijah encountered the prophets of Baal. Job long debated with the princes of Edom. The Jewish prophets and the idolatrous kings of Israel waged a long and arduous controversy. John the Harbinger, and the Scribes and Pharisees, met in conflict. Jesus, and the Rabbis, and the Priesthood, long debated. The Apostles and the Sanhedrin; the Evangelists and the Doctors of Divinity; Paul and the Sceptics, engaged in many a conflict; and even Michael fought in ‘wordy debate’ with the Devil about the body of Moses; yet who was more meek than Moses — more zealous for God than Elijah — more patient than Job — more devout than Paul — more benevolent than John?

“If there was no error in principle or practice, then controversy, which is only another name for opposition to error, would be unnecessary. If it were lawful, or if it were benevolent, to make a truce with error, then opposition to it would be both unjust and unkind. So long as it is confessed that error is more or less injurious to the welfare of society, individually and collectively considered, then no man can be considered benevolent who does not set his face against it. In proportion as a person is intelligent and benevolent, he will be controversial, if error exists around him. Hence the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away. “Religious controversy has enlightened the world. It has enlightened men upon all subjects — in all the arts and sciences — in all things — philosophic, literary, moral, political. It was the tongue and pen of controversy which developed the true solar system — laid the foundation for the American Revolution — abolished the slave trade — and which has so far disenthralled the human mind from the shackles of superstition. Truth and liberty, both religious and political, are the first fruits of well-directed controversy. Peace and eternal bliss will be the ‘harvest home.’ Let the opponents of controversy, or they who controvert controversy, remember, that had there been no controversy, neither the Jewish nor the Christian religion could have ever been established; nor had it ceased could the Reformation have ever been achieved. It has been the parent of almost all the social blessings which we enjoy.

“When we love truth for its own sake, and when our efforts to maintain it proceed from brotherly kindness and love to all men, then we will plead its cause with force and with success; and then, and then only, will we be sanctified and blessed in the work. But a controversy for opinion, or for truth, instituted by vanity, by the pride of understanding, or the lust of power, will pollute the heart, aggravate the passions, sour the temper, and terminate in vain jangling. But because it has been abused shall we desist from the use of it? This would be to make a covenant with death, and an agreement with destruction. This would be to live in vain, and to die without honor. This would be to depart from the example of the Apostles of Jesus, and to renounce our allegiance to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible. For so long as error in principle and in practice exists, so long will it be the duty of the intelligent and the good to oppose it; and as long as there are conflicting creeds, sects, and divisions among religionists, so long will it be our duty to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

“To your posts, then, O Israel! Remember you have en- listed not for six months, like some of our sectarian militia; but you have vowed allegiance during the war. ‘Fight the good fight of faith.’ Keep your eyes upon the Captain; and when the conflict is over he will cover you with laurels which will never wither, and bestow upon you a crown of righteousness which fadeth not away.”

I Have Counted The Cost

(A “Rev.” Thomas G. Jones accused Alexander Campbell of being a troublemaker, “a sort of religious Ishmaelite,” one who caused division and opposed almost everything and everyone. Campbell responded in the following words.)

“I would say, as the Jews once said, ‘Let my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,’ rather than I should oppose one word, one doc- trine, or one commandment of the Savior or his apostles.

But this I confess unto thee, Mr. Jones, that I do oppose, and will, by the grace of God, oppose, not only almost, but altogether, everything received as the Christian religion, not found in the New Testament, to the utmost of my ability and opportunity, at the risk of everything — of even offending Mr. Jones or any other reverend gentlemen. I have counted the cost, and put my hand to the plow, and while the Lord protects and enables me, I will not look back.”

The Only Safety for the Truth

(In 1868 A.S. Hayden suggested that brethren should be more flexible and tolerant toward such things as instrumental music in the name of expediency and progress. J.W. McGarvey responded as follows.)

“The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament. Such is my unwavering conviction; and my only regret is, that I cannot fight this fight as it should be fought.

“In conclusion, let me add, that if any brother who reads this sees fit to style me intolerant, dictatorial, or self con- sequent, I say to him that I claim to be nothing more than one plain disciple of Christ, and to exercise a prerogative which belongs to us all. It is my duty to find fault with everybody and everything that is wrong; and it is equally the duty of every other brother. In the full and free performance of this task, lies the only safety for the truth. Error alone can suffer in such a warfare, and she alone is afraid of it. If I have struck one blow amiss, let it be returned on me double, and it will be well.”

In order to provide for a child, parents must take time with their children. It is not a mother’s job alone. Though a godly mother likely will spend more time with a child, both parents must be involved. Both must give of their time. Mom, Dad, are you doing it? Are you setting aside time for your children? Do you listen to them? Do you re- ally hear them? Do you let them know that their feelings, their wants and wishes, are important and will be given fair consideration? Or, do you ignore them? Do you usually tell them to “go away,” or “go outside and play,” or, worse yet, do you say, “Leave me alone”?

A child senses whether he is loved or whether he is sim ply being tolerated. Sometimes we blame “bad” children and say, “I don’t understand him! I gave him everything!” Yes, you may have given him everything he needed except for the one thing he needed most — that is, you and your time. My friend, if you are “too busy” to take even a few precious minutes with your child, you are too busy! See Proverbs 31:10-31 and Ephesians 6:1-4.

Would you abandon your child in a wilderness and force him to make it on his own? Of course not! Yet, when we neglect to give our children time, when we fail to give our attention to them and refuse to hear the expressions of their tender hearts, we are forsaking and deserting them, leaving them to wander along the highway of life.

Perhaps this poem by Stan Gebhart will touch you and help you to see the importance of giving yourself to your dear ones.

I looked at you and smiled the other day. I thought you’d see me, but you didn’t.

I said, “I love you,” and waited for what you would say. I thought you’d hear me, but you didn’t.

I asked you to come outside and play ball with me. I thought you’d follow me, but you didn’t.

I drew a picture just for you to see.

I thought you’d save it, but you didn’t. I made a fort for us back in the woods.

I thought you’d camp with me, but you didn’t.

I found some worms ’n such for fishing if we could. I thought you’d want to go, but you didn’t.

I needed you to talk to, my thoughts to share. I thought you’d want to, but you didn’t.

I told you about the game, hoping you’d be there. I thought you’d surely come, but you didn’t.

I asked you to share my youth with me.

I thought you’d want to, but you couldn’t.

My country called me to war. You asked me to come home safely, But I didn’t.

Now, dear mom and dad, will you find some time today to share with your children and give them the greatest gift you could ever give them — yourself?

The frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper has been a troubling question for many. There are those who observe the Lord’s supper once a year, every six months, quarterly, monthly, every other month and some weekly.

There is an interesting statement in the 1890 edition of The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox concerning the frequency of eating the Lord’s supper:

As to the time, place and frequency of the ordinances, no Scriptural directions are given. They are left optional with the churches. They are usually observed on Sun- days, but not necessarily. As to come to observe it the Supper, our churches have very generally on the first Sunday of each month (20).

There Are Scriptural Directions

The Lord has not left us without scriptural authority for partaking of the Lord’s supper.

1. The Lord himself instituted the Lord’s supper. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28).

The Lord’s supper is of the Lord, not of men. Therefore men have no right to decide anything about the elements or the frequency of the Lord’s supper.

2. Two items are to be used in the Lord’s supper. Paul told the Corinthians, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). How many elements did you count in this passage? Only two are mentioned! The bread is a memorial of the body of Christ and the cup, the fruit of the vine, is a memorial of the shed blood of our Lord.

3. Individuals eat the Lord’s supper in the assembly. The Standard Manual of the Baptist Church says, “Since the Supper is distinctively a church ordinance, it is to be observed by churches only, and not by individuals . . .” (20). I don’t remember reading any thing about the Lord’s supper being a church ordinance, do you? Surely the individual eats the Lord’s supper; a fact many overlook. Paul penned, “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:28-29). It seems that the brethren who believe that when one person partakes of the communion at an evening service, every member must also partake with them, miss that eating the Lord’s supper has some individuality to it. When an individual communes on Sunday morning, he has done what the Lord commanded be done. If not, why not?

4. The Bible teaches that the Lord’s supper is to be ob- served every first day of the week. By apostolic example we learn, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). But someone is ready to say, “Well, it doesn’t say the first day of every week. And didn’t Paul say, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come?” (1 Cor. 11:26). Paul is not discussing frequency; he just says when you do eat the Lord’s supper, it shows the Lord’s death. As to frequency of the Lord’s supper, every week has a first day, and any event that is celebrated is celebrated as often as the day rolls around. For an example, how often do you celebrate your birthday? Well, until you get to be about 40, once a year! Why just once a year? Once a year only comes once a year. Now how often does the first day of the week come. Every week. When Moses told Israel, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exod. 20:8); why didn’t he say remember every sabbath day? He did not have to say it that way. Jews knew that every week had a Saturday. In regards to the Lord’s supper, the Holy Spirit knew that early Christians understood that every week had a first day! While eating in a MCL Cafeteria, I noticed a sign about the Lions Club. The sign said, “Lions Meet Here Tuesday 6:00 P.M.” The sign does not say that the Lions meet here every Tuesday. It doesn’t have to; Lions know that every week has a Tuesday! 

Need I say more?