Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

QUESTION:

What is your attitude toward modern dress style affected by professed Christians in the public worship, particularly by those who lead in that worship, and the casual and familiar form of address characteristic of the prayers in the assemblies of the saints? (Texas.)

ANSWER:

The question above has been asked me by so many people throughout the United States in the last several years that I hesitate to identify it either by place or person. So many have inquired about this matter here at Pruett and Lobit where I labor that I recently wrote and published an article concerning it in our local bulletin which is not mailed out. I have been urged to give it wider circulation. Some of these matters have been argued at some length in the past, and I do not imagine what I have said will add anything to the discussion. However, the following constitutes my attitude for whatever it may be worth.

Long ago, the Psalmist contemplated the problems inherent in the attitude of the “saints” toward God and was inspired by the Spirit of God to exclaim, “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psalms 89:7). We live in an age in which a considerable segment of humanity is dedicated to the complete destruction of all traditional values, customs, morals of human conduct, and institutions. Reverence for God and Divine institutions, love of country, love of home, respect for parents, chastity, honesty, honorable toil, ambition, bodily cleanliness, respectable dress, conventional behavior, and the elevation of and respect for womanhood are passé”. They are regarded as outmoded and selfish inventions of the “authoritarian establishment” which have been created and maintained for the exploitation of fellow human beings.

God’s people have been seriously affected by the spirit of the age. Many of our young people particularly have adopted its clichés, fashions in dress, morals (or lack of morals), disrespect for authority (Divine, parental, and state), contempt for religion (especially what they choose to call “formal religion”), and spirit of uninhibited familiarity with God. Respectful formality in religious exercises is held to be spiritually stultifying, coldly hypocritical, and grossly irrelevant to the problems and needs of the “free spirits of our liberated generation.”

Let us note several concrete examples of the encroachment of the “spirit of the age” upon God’s redeemed people. In recent years, a great many have adopted a familiar style of address when approaching Jehovah. The “sacred style” of address so long in vogue among Christians has been abandoned and the common or vulgar “you” has been adopted. It is contended that “sacred style” was unknown to the koine Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written originally, hence without scriptural precedent. While it is true that the koine Greek of the New Testament furnishes no evidence of “sacred style,” the current use of the vulgar “you” is by no means justified on the basis of this fact. We do have a recognized “sacred style” of address in English. This being true, proper reverence for God would suggest its retention when addressing Deity. A happy solution of this matter seems to me to be that which was adopted by the translators of the New American Standard Bible. They retained the “sacred style-the thees and thous” when Deity is addressed and use the more common “you” in all other places.

Our text illustrates an attitude which was common among the Israelites of Old Testament history — God’s special people for fifteen hundred years; namely, an attitude of profound reverence in reference to everything addressed to Deity. The Psalmist said, “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psalms 89:7emphasis mine, JWA). The Israelites took this admonition seriously. It is a fact of history that they would pronounce the name of Jehovah only on the most solemn occasions and with reference to the most sacred matters and then only with the deepest reverence and humility.

It would have been unthinkable to one of the Israel of God to place himself on terms of familiarity with Jehovah. From my earliest childhood, I have been associated with Christians who have held the God of Heaven in the same reverence and addressed him with like fear and humility. Recently, therefore, I have been shocked and repelled to hear preachers of the gospel and others among conservative churches address God in an offhand, informal, and familiarly intimate fashion such as one would employ in casual conversation with his neighbor over the backyard fence.

It is argued by some that this casual, intimate, familiar approach to God deepens one’s sense of a “personal God.” In my judgment, such an argument plumbs the depths of absurdity. The reality of God’s existence and personal interest in and concern for -the individual person of the human family, by such an argument, is made to depend upon an assumption of equality with God manifested in vulgarly familiar address. While it is true that one’s relationship with God is intimate, real, and personal, it is not a relationship of equality. We approach God as imperfect, fallible men-sinners saved by grace. We do this “boldly through Christ” (Heb. 4:14-16), yet not with vulgar familiarity. We rather approach God as one “unworthy of the least of all his mercies” (Gen. 3 2: 10), and not on a plane of equality in our petitions and in our praise. There can be personal, meaningful, and spiritually uplifting and sanctifying intimacy without grossly casual familiarity.

Another illustration of how “the spirit of the age” has infected the people of God in our time and desecrated “the assembly of the saints” is the casual and often carnally suggestive dress of the worshippers in their public devotions. Informality is the keynote. In public life in general, people appear at formal functions involving highly dignified persons and purposes coatless, tieless, unpressed, in jeans, and, believe it or not, at times barefooted. God’s people have in many cases adopted this same attitude relative to the public worship. They rebel against any sort of formality in dress. They prefer to dress as though they were going on a picnic, a hay ride, or a fishing trip. Women come to worship in dresses which are suggestively low in back and front at the top, and short at the bottom to the point of being not simply suggestive but sexually seductive. It has been said, “Never the twain shall meet,” but the “mod” style of woman’s dress in our time has all but made this affirmation academic.

I do not subscribe to the idea that men must wear long, black coats and standing collars (if you know what that means), nor to the idea that women must be clothed in ankle-length garments with multiple petticoats and bonneted heads in the public worship. I do insist that propriety, dignity, and chastity do not have to be sacrificed to achieve a worship atmosphere that is personal, intimate, and meaningful as well as relevant. The old proverb to the effect that “familiarity breeds contempt” has not lost its meaning with the passing years and the dawning of the so-called “age of liberation.”

We ought to be able to recognize the fact that nothing is lost and much gained in the realm of civil government by a citizen addressing the head of state as, “Mr. President,” in the realm of the home by addressing those who have given us life and nurtured it as “father and mother,” and in the realm of religion by addressing the Creator of the universe in the most dignified and sacred terminology available from a posture of worship involving demeanor and dress indicative of the highest purity and reverence. Let us not permit an erosion of the “fear of God” through capitulation to the current winds of casual familiarity. There are some things which are yet sacred and worthy of the deepest respect and the most profound reverence.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, pp. 8-10
March 23, 1972

By James Sanders

The Lord once asked, “Know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?” (Mk 4:13). He had reference to the Parable of the Sower. In t at parable some of e most basic lessons of Christianity are to be found. And yet the Lord repeatedly warned, “Take heed therefore how ye hear!” There must have been a reason for the recurrent emphasis of the Lord. It would seem that though the lessons are simple and fundamental, they are often overlooked. How was the Parable of the Sower heard that day?

1. Wayside Hearer:

The wayside hearer was typified by that seed which fell upon the hard pathway. The fowl of the air came and snatched it away. This is the man who hears but fails to understand the word of God. He does not come with any design to get good, as the highway was never intended to be sown. He comes before God as do His people, but never regards what is said. Some wayside hearers have even been baptized and others never miss a service. But the Word of truth never really makes a lasting impression upon them. It comes in at one ear and goes out the other.

2. Stony Ground:

This is the soil which immediately sprouts forth but because of shallowness soon withers away. The stony-hearer is the man who fails to think things out and to think them through. He begins but never ends. Some people’s whole life is littered with things they start, but never finish. It may be a hobby, a new fashion or learning to play a piano. When Christianity became difficult, this man quits! He withered away because he had no roots. And yet surprisingly, he once received the Word with joy. But there are many who enjoy hearing a good sermon which do not profit by it. They may be pleased with the Word and yet not be changed and ruled by it. Demas was such a person.

3. Thorny Ground:

This is the seed which lacks fruit. It became choked by the thorns and thistles. The thorny-ground hearer is the man who is crushed by the cares and pleasures of this world. He is the hearer who has so many interests and demands in life that often the most important things get crowded out. He does not deliberately banish prayer, the Scriptures, and the church from his life. He often thinks of them and wishes that somehow he had time for them. He intends and resolves to make time for them but his crowded life never really gets around to it. The stony-ground hearer is easily recognized. He never grows spiritually; he bears no fruit.

4. Good Ground:

This is the soil that produces. The good-ground hearer is the man who hears and applies what he has learned. He produces the good fruit of the good seed.

It is distressing to think that some will not even read this brief article and others who do read it will never realize that the author was talking about them. He was trying to save their soul. Little wonder that the Lord said, “Take heed how ye hear.”

Bibliography

Barclay, William; DSB, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: Westminister Press. 1958. Much of the expressions and thoughts in the brief article are those of the lucid Barclay. He is a masterful writer.

Henry, Matthew; Commentary On The Whole Bible, Marshallton, Del.: Sovereign Grace Pub.

Lockyer, Herbert; All The Parables Of The Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1964.

Trench, R. C.; Notes on The Parables Of Our Lord, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, p. 7
March 23, 1972

By Leslie Diestelkamp

A few years ago when some denominational missionaries were murdered in the Belgian Congo some brethren seemed to rejoice that no members of the Lord’s church died in that African land. But I didn’t rejoice! I was ashamed! I realized that there were no brethren in Christ there to live or to die! And, though the Congo is completely at peace now, and though a Christian is probably safer there than he would be in New York or Chicago or Miami, I think it is still true that there are none in the Congo who truly follow Christ. What about that?

Most Christians are aware of the abundant harvest that has been produced by the gospel in Nigeria in the last 25 years. Perhaps well over 100,000 souls have been immersed into Christ and even much over half that many remain there, alive and working, after surviving the civil war in that country. But, though we have gone into almost all of the English and Spanish speaking countries with the gospel, we have neglected the French speaking nations. Dahomy is one of those countries. It lies next-door to Nigeria. Ivory Coast is not far away and is a large, progressive country. There are a dozen others nearby plus many in other parts of the world that are virtually untouched by the pure gospel. Surely there are some preachers who speak French or who will learn it, and who will respond to this challenge. There is no reason to suppose the harvest would be significantly less in the French-speaking countries than it has been in fruitful Nigeria. Who will go?

But world evangelism also, includes many bard and barren fields of labor right here in our own land. This we must do and not leave the other undone. In other words, we have the men and the money; the gospel is God’s power to save all who believe; we ought to go everywhere preaching Christ in this generation. This is not I just a visionary dream. It is a New Testament directive. And this battle for souls is not ours, it is the Lord’s. But we are his soldiers! In fact, the Lord has no hands except the hands of Christians with which to reach out in helpfulness to all. He has no lips except the lips of his own people with which to bring the saving message to lost humanity everywhere. He has no feet except the feet of living saints with which to go here and to go there and to go everywhere with the pure gospel. And he has no money except that which the Christians give to support the willing and faithful men who go into the four corners of the earth.

What will you, dear reader, do about this? Will you go? Will you help others to go? And what will the church do where you regularly worship? Actually, you know the church only has one use for money and that is to spend it! If you have a church savings account, unless it is for a specified purpose and a very limited time, you should realize that such money is being wasted. Indeed, the church is neither a money-collecting nor a money-saving body, but when Christians give, the church then becomes a money-spending body. And souls are dependent upon us. Some will die today who could not be saved. What of tomorrow? Will we help others to have a chance?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, p. 6
March 23, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Some of our brethren act rather strangely regarding the subject of fellowship. Brethren’s concepts of fellowship have undergone some unusual evolution. In Luke 5:26 the miracles that Jesus performed are referred to as “strange things” (from the Greek word paradoxa). His miracles appeared to be contrary to fact. A paradox is something that seems contradictory. Some of our brethren have a very contradictory position regarding fellowship.

There is a little country congregation just a few miles from my home that is well over one hundred years old. In fact, the congregation was established in 1836. I have read their business meeting notes all the way back to their beginning. In years gone by, this congregation has been associated with the Daniel Sommer sentiment. They have objected to full-time local preachers, and have never had one, though they have continued to have regular appointment preachers throughout the years.

In recent years, they have taken a more favorable attitude toward those of us who oppose the church support of human institutions. Probably this has been partially out, of necessity. There are very few of the old-time Sommer — type preachers left. A little over ten years ago, this congregation first asked me to conduct a gospel meeting for it. I have since held about three other meetings there. When I was first invited, the elders told me, “We do not care where you learned to preach; we are only concerned with whether you can preach.” Apparently they thought that when I came for a gospel meeting, I would feed them a dose of the college issue each night.

Throughout the past forty years or so, this congregation has meticulously kept to itself. They had a “failing out” of some sort with the old-time Sommer-type preachers. I think

I was invited to hold them a meeting because they considered me to be the lesser of two evils, when compared to institutional preachers, though they also have had meetings held by a few liberals. Sometime they have not been very discriminating in the kind of preachers they had for meetings. Some would consider they were not very discriminating when they invited me!

A few months ago, this congregation had Ed Matthews, a graduate student in “Missions” from Abilene Christian College, to hold them a gospel meeting. I was not at home, and hence did not get to hear the lessons first hand. They asked Brother Matthews to speak each night on “Legalism and the Law,” whatever that was intended to mean. In f act, they asked me to hold the meeting and to speak on the same theme. I turned them down, stating that I had spent too much time trying to teach brethren carefully to follow the “law of Christ” now to speak several nights minimizing gospel law keeping. This subject was right down Brother Matthews’ line.

Brother Matthews began the meeting by using some historical material to show that some brethren had always thought of the church as being comprised of the good people out of all denominations. He made a featured point out of Alexander Campbell’s famous Lunnenburg letter. These nearby brethren have arrogantly thought of themselves as super Bible students because they did not need a full-time preacher. The truth of the matter is they were so ignorant that they were gullible to error. When one came teaching palpable error, apparently not one person in the congregation recognized it as error.

In the course of the gospel meeting, Brother Matthews several different times stated that instrumental music should not have been made a test of fellowship, and that he could fellowship those in the Christian Church who used instrumental music in their worship. Rather than reprimanding this false teacher, the elders of this nearby church publicly commended him. Apparently they had not so exercised their spiritual senses so as to discern good from evil.

Brother Norman Midgette preaches for one of the churches here in Marion. Brother Steve Wolfgang then preached for the other faithful church here in Marion. The nearby church had announced there would be a question period following the lessons presented by Brother Matthews. After about one session of questioning by Brother Midgette, and later by Brother Wolfgang, these brethren decided to discontinue their question period. In fact, they rather rudely told Brother Midgette that if he came back, he was to keep his mouth shut.They gave the same order to several other brethren who were chagrined at the blatant error taught there.

Brother Matthews taught the “fellowship-everybody” (meaning every baptized believer) position now being popularized by Brother Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett. When I returned home and requested permission to listen to the tape recordings of Brother Matthews’ lessons, I was adamantly forbidden to do so. One of the elders told me that Brother Matthews preached precisely what they wanted him to preach.

Since these brethren publicly endorsed the “fellowship-everybody” position, you would have thought they would at least have been charitable toward their brethren who disagreed with them. But not so. These brethren now will not attend our services at all. During our most recent gospel meeting, only two or three ladies from that congregation attended our services, and they came only a night or two. Yet for several years these brethren have professed to agree with us, and heretofore have been most cordial.

It is very strange, yea very paradoxical, that these brethren will publicly endorse the statement that we should fellowship those in the Christian Church, but yet they will not fellowship those of us in the church of Christ. Another of the Ketcherside-type churches nearby publicly taught that those in the Christian Church should be fellowshiped, until about fifty members from the church joined the Christian Church. Then the brethren there became upset. I fail to see why they were upset, since the departing brethren merely put into practice what they had been taught for several years. In fact, these brethren became so upset they even asked me to come and talk to them. When I walked into their church building, I picked up one of every tract they hid on display. Not one of the fourteen or go tracts on display had been written by anyone even remotely connected with the Lord’s church. Every single tract had been written by some denominationalist and distributed by a denominational tract society. Yet these brethren pretended to be unable to see why brethren would leave the Lord’s church to join a denomination.

It is very strange how these misguided brethren can so strongly contend that every baptized believer should be fellowshipped (even those in denominations), but then they treat us who really are their brethren as though we had the plague. It reminds me of some of the capers of the Ohio Valley College brethren. They pretend to be strongly opposed to church support of colleges, but then load their lecture programs with brethren who advocate this which they affect to believe to be serious error. Meanwhile, they refuse to use any of us with whom they pretend to be in agreement on the church-supported college issue. Indeed, some of our brethren do have a paradoxical fellowship!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, pp. 3-5
March 23, 1972