Truth Magazine

By Cecil F. Cox

We hear much today about those who are anti-cooperation. This is a charge that is usually leveled against those who are opposed to the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation. This is, of course, a false and prejudicial charge. To be “anti-cooperation” would be to oppose congregations cooperating. So the charge of anti-cooperation is a charge that is not true of any faithful church. We believe in the kind of cooperation that is taught in the New Testament. Brother H. Leo Boles put it so well when he said,

Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches never the less are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission (Gospel Advocate, January 28, 1932, 114).

Yes, my brethren, we can and do cooperate with other churches without supporting unscriptural projects.

We have some brethren who themselves admit that they are non-cooperative. I have a book in my library entitled New Testament Churches of Today, Vol. 1. In this book there are some 873 congregations listed with information about each one. Among the questions asked is this one, “Do you engage in congregational cooperation in preaching the Gospel?” Among the answers which were given in reply are “yes,” “when possible,” and “no.” Please note, there are congregations, by their own admission, that do not en-gage in congregational cooperation. Therefore, we could rightly refer to them as non-cooperative. But I’m sure that they would object to this. They would possibly explain that what they mean is that they do not contribute to a “sponsoring church” arrangement of some kind to do their work of preaching the gospel. Isn’t it strange that if a congregation wants to be referred to as one who believes in and practices congregational cooperation that it must make a contribution to an arrangement which is not found in the New Testament? If you oppose it, you are an anti-cooperative. If you do not contribute, then you are non-cooperative. Let it be remembered that churches in the first century believed in and practiced congregational cooperation hundreds of years before the “sponsoring church” set-up ever came into existence. As they did, so can we. God forbid, that just because faithful churches do not surrender their funds to another congregation to preach the gospel, that we are anti-cooperative or non-cooperative in the work of preaching the gospel.

This reminds me of some things that happened during the “society controversy” back in the 1800s. Back then, those who did not “line up” with the Missionary Society were called anti-mission. They did not believe in preaching the gospel, according to those who were supporters of the Society. On November 27, 1865 Thomas Munnell wrote a letter to David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, concerning the Gospel Advocate. He said, “I am told that anti-mission (emphasis mine, CFC) is to be one feature of the Advocate” (Earl West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 2, 68). Along this same line W.K. Pendleton said, “Let men who have missionary work . . . take counsel together .. . and let us not be disturbed, or distracted in our work, byoutside railers, who seem to rejoice in nothing so much as their own success in preventing the preaching of the gospel” (emphasis mine, CFC) (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 33, 255). Such charges as “anti-mission” and “pre-venting the preaching the gospel” were false charges and were resented by Lipscomb and others who stood for the truth.

Today brethren are branded as anti-cooperation because they oppose a society composed of the elders of a congregation and generally called a sponsoring church. If one opposes the “sponsoring church” type of cooperation, he is against churches cooperating is the conclusion that some reach. But, such a conclusion is absurd. It is not any more logical than the conclusion that if one opposes a man made missionary society, he is anti-mission.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 21-22
November 6, 1997

By W.G. “Bert” Enostacion

The values on what our Lord Jesus imparted in Matthew 16:24, was a simple “detachment” from self as the way to happiness that lasts. If we want to keep a warm and healthy relationship with others, we should adopt another axiom instilled by the Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:1-5, that of putting others first and placing ourselves last. Paul pleaded, “. . . let this mind be in you as also in Christ Jesus!”

Just very recently, Kenneth Marrs in one of his sorties around, admonished, “. . . when we are faced with a choice, we choose for ourselves the worst, leaving the best for others.” His piece of advice runs counter to modern attitudes of brethren, which drive people to keep on asking, “what is in it for me?” before getting involved in anything or before giving anything away.

For us to be happy, we do need to give ourselves away, a simple but vivid application on what our Lord said as “self denial.” The Chinese proverb about lifetime happiness and the Christian virtues of “taking up one’s cross,” tells us the same basic message: to give of ourselves and to be detached of ourselves are the sure way towards lasting happiness. Detachment first applies to material things for ourselves.

They are basic and necessary, but we cannot be avaricious of them, for putting our heart on them, and counting on them as the measure of the success of our life would leave us holding on to wealth that slips inexorably out of our hands; moreover, it leaves our hearts empty and our spirits in a void.

Neither can we put our fate on the accumulation of honors, praises of lips, and symbols of fame and adulation by the masses; neither on the self-satisfaction of good feelings and of self-pride; neither on the dominion and “lordship” over others of our ideas and preferences. Like wealth, honor, emotions, power and glory pass, many times sooner than we like to imagine. They may all be vital and important, up to a point. But we cannot be so attached to them that we are blinded from the pursuit of the good of others; for it is this noble pursuit, which makes us fly away from the narrow cage of self, which also makes us bigger, far better and happier!

The Need of Generosities and Understanding

It is by going out of ourselves, to the family, to friends and most of all, “unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10; 1 John 3:16-18), that we broaden our horizons and expand our field of vision and interest. We see and treat our brethren not as “stepping stones” to the satisfaction of our appetites, lusts, and pride as well as to the realization of our ambitions as with regards to those who have possessed the “crab mentality”; but rather, as objects of love and affection, in whom we can invest our variable time and generosities Thus, we make ourselves available to them. We look for equal time to them. We give ways by which we can steal a piece of heaven for them even whilst they are here on earth with us. Through small details of service, we try and build up ever bigger positive reserves in the “spirit of Christ” for the spirit of peace. How long we have been separated from each other? I don’t want to think of it.

We manage to keep our relations with them always warm, full of attention and affection. Good feelings can be sustained only by concrete expressions of warm and tender caring; to reinforce their strengths; to give in to their lives; to draw them out particularly when they are feeling down; to help them in their struggles to be better. Often, we have to put ourselves in their place, and then to practice the “Golden Rule” of doing to them what we would want others to do unto us. In this way, we will always be positive and creative, knowing that others go through changes of circumstance and therefore are in need for help, advice and emotional reinforcement.

We cannot love others with our heart alone. We also have to give them a piece of our mind and share of our spirit. By taking a deep interest in their changing circumstances, we show genuine understanding of the predicament they may find themselves in. When they have gotten off the main road, we feel sorry and feel their frustration (1 Cor. 12:26), and with compassionate love, delicacy, and patience we ex-tend a guiding hand if and when they decide to make a turn and get back on to the right track. When they slow down their pace of improvement on the gospel efforts, we can show them how to catch up and take on a more healthy speed, with love and comfort. Always we ex-tend to them a sincere friendship that never fades nor wavers, good examples that inspire, benevolent hands that share, and many possible grace from our prayers that uplift.

Our Need of Openness and Sincerity

Divisions destroy a nation; factions create hatred and stimulates by envy and jealousy! The Apostle Paul laid down some thoughts in 1 Corinthians 6:7 to “suffer yourselves to be defrauded!”

Friendship keeps us ever open to family, friends, and brethren. We are transparent to them. We keep that attractive simplicity in our feelings for unity among all and peace with no reproach. We let them know where we stand, how we feel, and why we draw the line of importance and essential points. Within proper bounds, we keep no secrets from all and the less barriers we allow to stand between them and ourselves, the better the flow of communication, the easier the over-all relationship.

Ordinarily, we speak out of our mind. We tell the truth. We remove as much guile as possible from our interaction with them. Our “no” is a real negative reply, and our “yes” connotes nothing other than real affirmations. We know how to stand our ground and take whatever consequences it may for doing so. We state our opinions always clearly and politely, and we are smart enough to distinguish the many points where we can easily change our mind after listening to others, and the few essential points where we cannot give in, not even by an inch, because principles and convictions of faith are involved.

Our oneness to family, to friends, and to our dear brethren, makes us readily submit to their opinions, preferences, and wishes. We do not hang on to our own as though these are all carved in stone before which everyone else must bend. Indeed, part of the excitement of life lies in the diversity and differences presented to us by others whom we put our trust and confidence without any mixture of animosity. We certainly can enrich our life by picking and choosing those many elements, better than the ones we started out with, from this rich menu of peace, love and genuine understanding, coming from our Lord into ourselves.

Conclusion

We trust that those brethren in our midst who nourish axes to grind to learn from this thesis. Submitting to others in this regard does not make us smaller, poorer, or worse off; however, taking up our own “Cross” is far better. Such humility only raises us to a much higher level, where we end up bigger, richer in spirit (matured!) and far more wiser.

We noted a jubilant Jim McDonald after witnessing a joyful embrace of brethren, who for long stayed in opposite direction, with teary eyes he said: “Bert, its a good day today.” It really is! It’s a victory for peace and unity! As the Psalmist penned, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1).

Now once again, brethren could renew their relationship and could work hand-in-hand in fellowship with one an-other again. The once lost love and affection with each one has been obtained for good toward the Master for the gospel for a better tomorrow. Then and only then, can we count our faith as matured and our work as progressive  today and in the coming new millennium and beyond.

Brethren, for the sake of unity, why not inhale “the spirit of peace?” It’s the only fat that is non-fattening! Amen!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 17-18
November 6, 1997

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Recently, I have been asked several times what I thought about Romans 14. I have read a lot of what has been written (including various commentaries) and have heard some preaching on the subject lately in view of the marriage-divorce question. I have yet to hear or read any exegesis of this chapter that totally satisfies my mind. While I believe that I have a general idea of the kind of things it is dealing with, I still have a few lingering questions concerning the explanation and application of the chapter.

For example, I am not nearly as sure as some that Romans 14 is not dealing with any matters that pertain to “the faith.” The very first verse speaks of those weak “in the faith.” It is the same expression as in Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5; etc., where it is clear that “the faith” refers to the system of faith. I may write more on this later.

While I may not be sure of all that may or may not belong in this chapter, I am sure of one thing  Romans 14 does not cover adulterers, fornicators, and the like. I wrote the following under the title that heads this article in the August 1989 issue of The Reflector, a church bulletin which I edited at the time, and have seen no reason to change my mind since then:

The Divorce-Remarriage issue has heated up a bit in recent months, especially since it has been widely publicized that a well-known, well-respected and well-liked brother is among those that teach that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to non-Christians. Hence, one may have been divorced (for any reason) and remarried any number of times before becoming a Christian and upon becoming a Christian remain in the marriage he happens to be in at the time  because Matthew 19:9 did not apply to him in his days of alienation. This idea has been around for some time now in rather isolated instances, but has not received such widespread attention among “conservative” brethren until rather recently. It has left some brethren wondering out loud what to do about it.

Of course, those who agree with the position have little problem with what to do about it. Just leave them alone and let them freely teach and/or practice it without interference from those who disagree with their doctrine. It is among those who disagree with the doctrine that the problem comes.

One solution, that has been given rather wide-spread editorial attention, is to make it parallel to the things mentioned in Romans 14  things which we are to “let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (v. 5), with each practicing his personal convictions, without either judging or setting at naught the other (v. 3). We are told, and we agree, that there are areas where brethren have practiced this principle over the years  the covering, military service, etc. In each case the things involve the individual and his conscience before God and not the collective action of the church. We are urged to treat the problems surrounding Matthew 19:9 in the same fashion. Judging from some of the published amen-type responses to the editorializing, the idea may be getting rather wide support even among those who say they do not agree with the position.

Nearly all of us agree that sincere brethren may study passages and reach different conclusions without it having to become an “issue” among brethren. While one may be rather confident that his conclusion is correct, and be conscientiously forced to personally live by that conclusion and even share his conclusion with others under proper circumstances, he recognizes the possibility that he could be wrong in his reasoning, so he must allow others the same right to live by their conclusions.

However, in the case of Matthew 19:9 the conclusion is explicitly spelled out by revelation. What about any person (“whoever”) who divorces for any cause, other than fornication, and remarries? What is the conclusion of this matter? He “commits adultery,” if words mean anything at all. If he “commits (or is committing, a continuing or repetitive action, as the tense of the verse suggests) adultery,” then what should brethren do about it? Again the conclusion is explicitly stated by revelation. In 1 Corinthians 5, we read instructions as to what is be done about “sexual immorality” (all agree that adultery falls into that category). Such ones are to be `judged” (v. 3, 12-13) and then “delivered … to Satan” (v. 5) “purged out” (v. 7), “not kept company with” (v. 11), and “put away” (v. 13), by faithful brethren.

Further, the conclusion is clearly stated that the church cannot “allow (“suffer”  KJV) (one) to commit sexual immorality” nor can it allow one to teach others to do so. (See Rev. 2:20).

In view of all of this, we should not force Matthew 19:9 into Romans 14.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 20-21
November 6, 1997

By Jim McDonald

I met Domingo Dangiwang in May 1994. He attended a lectureship Ken Marrs and I held in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. He was a Catholic when I met him and although there were several who were baptized during the days of that lecture-ship, Domingo declined. The day following the end of our lectureship Rody Gumpad and a company of others with him carried me to do some village preaching. We traveled over dust, rough roads for several hours until we arrived in Tabuk when we saw Domingo again. After having had time to think about what he had heard, he was ready to give up the religion of his fathers and I baptized both him and his wife in a drainage ditch.

The next morning Ken and I were to fly from Tuguegarao to Manila and several preachers and brethren came to see us off. Among those was Domingo. He identified himself again, although I knew him, and he had a piteous, urgent re-quest  still one any gospel preacher loves to hear. “Brother Jim (said he) all my people are Catholic and I would love to see them converted. Will you come back and preach to my people?” I assured him that, if the Lord should will, I would.

Scarcely had I gotten back to the States until a letter arrived from Domingo. He began by saying, “You baptized me in a drainage ditch and you made a promise to me. Are you going to keep it?” I wrote him, again assuring him I would, if the Lord should will.

The Lord willed. Later that year I set aside a couple of days to fulfill my promise to Domingo and arrived at his humble hut set on the side of a steep hill. His house was filled and many were both on the porch and in the yard. I had reflections of Cornelius. Several were baptized that day, the core of a new congregation.

Domingo longed to hear and even more, longed to preach. We helped supply him with a few helps from time to time and he continues to grow. And, as Domingo increased in knowledge, he increased in an unquenchable desire to go to the remote village of his relatives, the minorities or “primitives” as Domingo called them. In November 1996, once more Domingo expressed this hunger and I gave him money for transportation and food and encouraged him to fulfill his longing.

Soon a letter arrived from Domingo. He had gone home and found a receptive audience. Several were willing to be baptized, but he deferred, delaying their baptism until my next trip there. Immediately I wrote again and said: “Go home, Domingo to your people and baptize them now. Neither they nor I may be alive next year.” Once more I sent him a little cash to preach to his people.

In May I was once again in Tuguegarao and baptized about eighteen, the fruit of Domingo’s labors.

Domingo’s most recent letter tells much news of this infant church. He does not have funds for transportation to make a weekly visit: he can only go once a month to meet with and teach them. I have written Domingo to teach some of the men how to conduct a simple service so that they can worship weekly, even in the absence of Domingo. A field is white there and Domingo is the logical one to teach them but he has a family to care for. He has $50 in monthly support, but needs at least $150-$200 more. Is there some-one who can help this fervent brother carry the gospel into places where neither you nor I can go?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 15
November 6, 1997