Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

Reaction, rebellion, and revolution are much used words in today’s vocabulary. Those who savor these expressions the most imagine themselves to constitute a sort of “liberation front.” They cast themselves in the role of Twentieth Century “messiahs” whose mission is the deliverance of modern man from the demoralizing and dehumanizing enslavement to “materialism” which he endures under the tyrannical rule of the so-called “authoritarian establishment.”

Many countries of the world in recent times have undergone revolutions instigated by reactionaries. Reacting against the enslavement of dictatorships, they have rebelled and overthrown their oppressive masters in a quest for liberty. Instead, however, of achieving true freedom, they have simply exchanged one dictatorship for another. This is what happens invariably when a revolution is inspired by Communists. Reaction against political enslavement does not necessarily result in enlightened freedom. The revolutionary often becomes enslaved to the demands of reactionism, hence operates under compulsion and coercion rather than as a result of free, enlightened choice.

Sidney I. Harris states the matter tersely and impressively in Last Things First (Houghton Mifflin). He says:

“I know a man who grew up in a stuffy atmosphere of Victorian piety, and who rebelled at an early age. He is now 50 years old and still rebelling.

His old family home was cluttered; so his own home is starkly simple. His parents were fanatically devout; so he is fanatically irreligious. His relatives were dogmatically conservative; so he is dogmatically radical.

This man thinks himself a “free soul.” He thinks he has burst the bonds of his enslavement to the past. But he is wrong-for he is overreacting to the past, and is still chained to it by his hostility.

To do exactly the opposite is a form of bondage. The young man who rebels from

Babbittry to Bohemianism because it is exactly the opposite of what his father tried to cram down his throat is allowing his decisions to be made by somebody else.

To be free, in the fullest sense, does not mean to reject what our fathers believed; it means to discriminate, to -select, to take on the difficult task of separating our principles from our passions.

Each generation, in some measure, rebels against the last. It is normal and natural and healthy. But it is necessary to know that the aim of rebellion is peace within the soul, and not perpetual revolt.”

All of us have known people who were subjected in childhood to mothers who were fanatics about bodily cleanliness and who, as a result, when adults, made a point of being filthy in their personal habits. We have known men who were denied a college education by their parents, hence literally forced upon their children four years of college training when the children neither desired it nor were capable of assimilating and using it profitably. The illustrations of the principle are endless. A reactionary is not of necessity a free man; quite often he is enslaved by that which made him free. His error is that he makes an end of that which should serve only as an instrument.

Reactionism as such is neither good nor bad, praiseworthy nor reprehensible. Its character is determined (1) by the character of that to which it is a response — is that good or is it bad; is it praiseworthy or is it reprehensible? (2) Its character is determined also by its goals or aims — is it aimless and erratic or is it rationally channeled toward worthy ends? To react against error and evil with the view to replacing it with truth and righteousness is everywhere to be praised. To react violently and purposelessly so as to accept, without the sanction either of reason or truth, the exactly opposite point of view or course of action is neither rational nor praiseworthy. Our reaction to “liberality” in religion should not result in obstructionism and gross “legalism.” Our reaction to the institutionalized church of Roman Catholicism and Protestant Denominationalism should not result in a repudiation of all “organized manifestations of religion.” Oar reaction against church support of human institutions would not lead us to reject all institutions utilized for the accomplishment of religious goals simply on the grounds that they are “human” and “institutions.” Reaction against “materialism” should not lead us to repudiate ambition, a reasonable and decent standard of living, honest labor, bodily cleanliness, and an acceptance of a reasonable share of responsibility in the maintenance of an orderly society. Reaction against hate and division produced by religious controversy should not lead us to accept the spurious assumption that the “law of love” transcends all doctrinal considerations — that Bible love (agape) and a dogmatic faith and orthodox practice are mutually exclusive of one another. Those who thus react are not liberated from sin and error thereby; they remain enslaved to it and coerced by it. This is unquestionably what Paul had in mind when he wrote, “Ye are called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13.)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 5-6
March 30, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Don Schollander was voted the beat athlete in the world when he was only 18 years of age. He competed in two Olympics, set 37 American records and 22 world records in swimming. He was voted into the swimming Hall of Fame when but 19 years old. How did a young man accomplish all of this? Not without extreme effort, to be sure.

Schollander tells what it takes to make a champion: “In top competition a whole new ingredient enters swimming — pain. You learn the pain in practice and you will know it in every race. It begins as you approach the limit of your endurance, coming on gradually, hitting your stomach first. Your arms grow heavy and your legs tighten — the thighs, the knees. You sink lower in the water as if someone were pushing down on your back. You can’t hold yourself up; your perception changes. The sounds of the pool blend and become a roar in your ears. The water takes on a pinkish tinge. Your stomach feels as though its going to fall out; every kick hurts like . . . — and suddenly you hear a shrill, internal scream. Then you have a choice. You can back off, or you can force yourself to drive to the finish, knowing that the pain will become excruciating. Right there, the great competitors separate from the rest, for its those last few meters that count. Most swimmers back away. If you push through the pain barrier into real agony, you’re a champion” (Reader’s Digest, June, 1971, p. 224)

The champion competitor in sporting events goes through pure agony in order to win a corruptible crown. Nearly every worthwhile thing in life is accomplished at the expense of extreme effort. So it is with running the race set before the Christian. Paul said, “And every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things” (I Cor. 9:25). The Greek word translated “striveth” (agonizomai) is a word which we have anglicized to make our English word “agony.” The Christian must exert himself to the point of pure agony, if be would win the spiritual crown. Agonizomai means “to contend,” “to strive,” or to “labor fervently.”

The same original word occurs in Lk. 13:24 where Jesus said, “Strive to enter in by the narrow door.” The Goodspeed translation renders agonizomai in Lk. 13: 24, “You must strain every nerve. . .” The Phillips translation expresses the thought like this: “You must do your utmost to get in.”

Different translations sometime constitute the beat commentaries on a passage of scripture. The Williams translation on I Cor. 9:25 indicate that the person who enters an athletic contest “practices rigid self-control in training.” Beck’s translation words the thought thusly: “Anyone who enters a contest goes into strict training.”

The same original Greek word occurs in I Tim. 6:12 where Paul told Timothy “Fight the good fight of faith.” The word translated “fight” is our word agonizomai. Weymouth renders 1 Tim. 6:12, “Struggle your hardest in the good contest for faith.” The same Greek word occurs in Col. 1:29, “striving according to his working. . . .” Weymouth renders Col. 1: 29, “To this end … I exert all my strength.” The Amplified ‘translation renders this passage: “For this I labor (unto weariness).” Phillips adds, “With all the strength that God gives me,” Beck says “struggling like an athlete,” while the Amplified translation renders it, “striving with all the superhuman energy which He so mightily enkindles and works within me.”

All of these passages indicate the amount of effort which must be expended by the Christian, if he is to please his Master. A piddling, indifferent, half-hearted Christian is detestable in the Lord’s sight. “For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (Jas. 1: 7, 8).

What kind of an effort are you making in the name of the Lord? Are you “laboring fervently,” “straining ever nerve,” “practicing self-control,” “in strict training,” “struggling your hardest,” “laboring unto weariness,” “struggling like an athlete,” “striving with superhuman energy,” with all the strength which God gives you??? If not, you are merely playing at being a Christian. Like the champion athlete, the Christian must exert himself until he reaches the state of pure agony in service to God. And indeed, when we “have done all the things that are commanded . . .,” we are still “unprofitable servants” (Lk. 17: 10).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 3-4
March 30, 1972

By Robert W. La Coste

In teaching a young adult class not long ago, I asked the simple question “Why are you a member of the church of Christ, why not some other church, give me some reasons.” A young girl with a sheepish grin on her face hesitantly remarked, “Well I was just raised in the church, it is all I know or have ever known.” That was hardly the answer I was looking for, and much to her embarrassment, that was not really the answer I think she intended to give.

But such is the case! Some children are not “brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Instead they are “raised in the church,” with the saying meaning no more than coming to the building and looking at the ceiling until the preacher is, finished, for to them the church is the building, where they “cut their teeth on the pews.”

The children are hardly all to blame. They have in many cases seen the indifference, negligence, and spiritual ignorance of their “raisers” (?). Parents, yes, have brought their children to the various services of the church, but never have once stopped to tell their children what the church is, why they are going, and what they are to do in going there! Because of the spiritual ignorance of these parents, they produce naturally after their own kind; unless the child should create his own incentive and learn without parental guidance and spiritual teaching.

Many of these kinds of children are simply “raised in the church” because they know of no better way to express why they have been coming all these years.

What is going to happen to the church: twenty, thirty or even forty years from now if the only answer to why many are members now is “It is all I have ever known”? I cringe, every time I even think about it???

Parents – wake up; teach your children at home, and on the way to and coming back from services why they need to be faithful members of the Lord’s true church. Teach them what the church is all about, its work and mission and what their part is in the, body of Christ!

I hope it is a snowy day in July before I hear that “reason” from someone again. Have you heard it lately? Have you given it???

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, p. 2
March 30, 1972

By Leo Rogol

From time to time I have heard and read that voting and majority rule in business meetings are wrong; that voting is sectarian and therefore unscriptural. I, for one, would like to present the “other side of the coin” on this matter. I believe that, to a great extent, such feelings about conducting business meetings arise by confusing the issues. They begin by stating that business meetings are solely to decide matters of lawful expedients, and then argue against voting, etc. upon the basis that it might lead to the danger of initiating unscriptural practices. We need to keep the issues straight in order to avoid confusion and misteaching on this subject.

What the Issue IS NOT

There are areas where we are not at liberty to follow our opinions and in certain matters we have no right of choice in deciding whether or not a thing is to be done. The church is a kingdom, not a democracy. Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18); He is the head of the church and has all preeminence, (Col. 1: 18). He is the Lawgiver (Heb. 5:9) and the New Testament is our authority today. Hence, in this article the issue is not, Can we “vote” on matters of faith? Does majority vote constitute the rightness in such matters? Can we decide upon matters of doctrine, the organization and work of the church and other related matters that are laid down in the New Testament? We have no right to choose how often we will observe the Lord’s Supper because scriptures determine this for us. We have no right to choose what emblems will be used. We have no right to vote whether or not we will use an instrument in worship because that has been settled for us in the Bible. Sometimes in the past an instrument was introduced into worship by the use of majority vote. The sin here was the exercise of majority votes in matters of faith; hence majority vote here simply resulted in the transgression of scriptural authority because they voted upon something they had no right to vote on in the first place. Even if they unanimously agreed to have the instrument in worship, it still would be wrong. Hence, it was not the vote itself that was wrong, but what they voted on in the first place, the use of an instrument in worship.

What IS The Issue?

This involves the very practice of engaging in a business meeting. There are certain areas in the framework of the church where we have the right, and the need, to decide what to do. There are certain matters of expedients, which are methods or means of carrying out the work. In these things decisions must be made for a more efficient, successful, and continuing function of the church. For example: teaching is a function of the church (Eph. 4:11-16). It is what God “gave” the church. Now, who is to teach, how to divide the classes, what materials to use, are not outlined in the Bible. In other words, God gave the church the work to be done but did not spell out the details of the means or expedients by which this is done, or the arrangements of the teaching program. As long as there are qualified teachers, there is a scriptural organization, and the word of God is taught, then these other arrangements are left up to the decision of the church. There are, therefore, many things that must be planned and arranged that are not matters of faith, but rather, matters of expediency to expedite or aid in a more efficient manner the teaching program of the church. Hence we have business meetings to decide on such matters.

We have no specific command to conduct business meetings. Nothing is outlined as to the procedures to follow in conducting them — so long as things are done “decently and in order.” Yet we necessarily infer that some manner of deciding the business of the church must be arranged. Again, neither the business meeting nor the procedures of conducting meetings are outlined in the Bible. Hence, this must be arranged by the brethren and conducted in a way that harmony and the well-being of the church may be preserved. Since all this is in the realm of human judgment, then also the means of arriving at a conclusion satisfactory to the church must be of human arrangement. Not all are going to agree upon everything; hence we always believe that in the spirit of brotherly love the few should go along with what serves the best aims of the majority.

Those who say, voting is wrong, or that majority rule is not right, must produce a Passage of scriptures that outlines the procedures by which any action is reached in a business meeting. They must produce the specified manner by which decisions are reached to prove majority rule is wrong. If the manner of conducting a business meeting is not specifically outlined in the Bible, and therefore is left up to human judgment, then voting or majority rule cannot be against a specified rule that does not exist! Those who insist such is a violation of scriptures must therefore produce a passage of scripture that specifically tell us exactly what procedures are followed in a business meeting to prove voting, majority rule wrong. For one unable to find a specific command as to the procedures of a business meeting, and then argue voting or majority rule is wrong, is legislating in the area of human judgment.

The argurnent is made that majority rule can lead the church into something unscriptural. But this is confusing the issue. We well know we cannot vote on matters of faith! But that can work just the other way too. What if a few want to lead the church into something wrong? The majority cannot stop them! I am certain we are well aware that in some places there is a clique made up of two or three who dominate the church. They somehow have the ability to rule without any serious challenge. They are unopposed for several reasons. There are those who are so indifferent and show such little concern about the affairs of the church that it matters not to them what is happening. Then there are those who are so timid that they fear to disagree with the ruling element in the church because it’s “upsetting” to them. There are also those who think that “peace” is maintained in the church by allowing certain parties to have their way. All of this is unhealthy and adds up to – minority rule!

As far as majority rule leading the church astray is concerned, I firmly believe that in so, many places the opposite is true. A few press their desires and influence the majority and thus do whatever they desire because some feel majority rude is wrong. A few ambitious zealots can so manipulate matters as to gain their desires over the congregation.

Too often a matter is brought forth and brethren are asked to decide on it. One brother will say, “Whatever the rest want is alright with me.” This sets up a chain reaction because the next man hesitates to speak out on the matter. As a result, the whole thing is in doubt, and although everyone will go along with “what the rest want,” nobody knows what anybody wants! So they are unanimous in deciding nothing for fear that someone might dissent from the rest. Thus many business meetings serve no purpose at all except to go through a motion of one and wasting a great deal of time. I firmly believe that if brethren would decide to act on what serves the desires of the majority, much confusion, grumbling and dissatisfaction could be avoided and the church could make the progress it should.

It seems strange that in all other organizational affairs people agree to majority vote, be it Congress, PTA, or what have you. Yet a reasonable method of action such as this is rejected by our brethren in business meetings because of some strange notion that majority vote is wrong! I believe it is because of a basic problem among brethren. In the business world they can act as gentlemen and work in accord with majority rule but in the church brethren so many times act as spoiled children who raise a tantrum if their whims or desires are not carried out. If they would act as gentlemen in the church as they do in their businesses, this problem of majority rule would not exist. Did not Paul say, “Quit you like men” (I Cor. 16:13)? Become as grown men, or act maturely!

I have been in places where a chronic objector would be against any good sound plan, all because it is his nature to be suspicious and be against everything. Sad to say, many buckle under such and their excuse is, “We don’t believe in majority rule.”

Consider it this way, please. Some brethren argue that, unless all agree upon something, it should not be done. For example: the brethren agree to have a “song practice” once a month, say on Wednesday night. One brother objects, another agrees with him. The decision of the two ruled over the desires of the rest. And by their argument that majority rule is wrong, they defend their practice of minority rule! They got their way. Now, brethren, if majority rule is wrong, is this minority rule right? If a project can be killed because one or two object to it, then this establishes the law of minority rule. If majority rule is “unscriptural,” then is minority rule scriptural?

Some argue that unless the rule is unanimous, this would give the young, inexperienced the free road to push through anything that might be wrong. But this works the other way too. I have seen as many old men bring in unscriptural things and kill the initiative of the church. So the argument against the one is an argument against the other.

Some brethren are opposed to voting in business meetings. “Vote” simply means an expression of approval or disapproval of a certain proposition or person under consideration Many times names are submitted in churches in consideration of the eldership. Usually time is given to raise valid objections to the names submitted. Now, if this is not some form, one way or another, of voting, then just what is it? If voting is wrong, then this practice must cease for this is exactly what it is-voting. (Read your dictionary definition of the word.) Any time a decision is made about anything, any time any one is appointed for a certain task-this is voting. I do not know why brethren object to calling by name the very thing they practice. Even a nod of the head, yes or no, on any given motion is a vote.

Any time a matter is proposed in a business meeting, one of two things must happen. The men must accept or reject it. Hence the very thing of bringing up a matter to decide upon puts in motion the action of voting. A motion is made, seconded. Now it must be decided if it will be accepted or rejected (The definition of “vote.”) How? By determining how many are for or against it? This is a vote! There are various ways by which a vote is made to determine the matter. One way is to ask, “All in favor say yes, all opposed say no.” Or there can be a show of hands, or the process can be dragged out by asking each one individually his choice, which is only a long way of doing the very same thing that can be accomplished by a show of hands, a “yes” or a “no.” Now right here brethren practice the very thing they do not want to call it-voting. Even the ones who are against “voting” do it whether they realize it of not. Now, since it must be determined how many are in favor of a proposed motion, and the only, way of deciding on the motion is to ask how many are for or against it, then I ask someone to show a better way of deciding on a motion other than all ex pressing their approval or disapproval-if voting is wrong-because expressing approval or disapproval of a motion is voting.

Some say majority rule is wrong because we are to be “of the same mind” and that there should be “no divisions among you.” Well, the anti-cla8s folks use the very same argument when they say we should not divide into classes because that’s “division.” But the very thing wrong with the anti-class folks is what is wrong with the anti-majority brethren. They do not apply scriptures correctly, they do not “rightly divide the word of truth.” A parallel passage to 1 Cor. 10 is Phil. 1:27: “that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” If we were voting on matters of faith in our business meetings, that would be wrong. But if it comes to the matter of expedients, or things left to human judgment in carrying out certain functions, that is not a matter of faith and we have the right to differ on methods, etc. I never read in my Bible that I have to agree with every opinion, but I do read in my Bible that I must yield my personal opinion for the good of the whole body, if the rest want a thing done a certain way.

I do not read in the Bible where one or two can ride the church with their opinions, where the entire church must yield to the whims and ‘desires of brethren who set themselves against the rest. I do read in my Bible where I must yield my desires to the desires of the church in order to preserve harmony and peace in the congregation. ,

Since the procedures of arriving at some conclusion on a given motion is not outlined in the Bible, then they rest in the area of human liberty and no one can legislate in this area where God has not defined these matters.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, pp. 11-13
March 23, 1972