Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

I recently received a question from a friend who asked me to write an editorial on the subject of making announcements in the public worship. My friend asked if the church was digressing into the social gospel when it announced privately arranged social gatherings in its bulletin, posted them on the bulletin board, or announced them in the assembly.

Churches have generally handled such matters in a variety of ways. Some allow such announcements in the assembly, some will announce that members need to wait until the final prayer is over for an announcement unrelated to their assembly, and some will not even allow such announcements in that circumstance. I appreciate the disposition of brethren to guard against encroaching trends that may lead to steps of apostasy, whether or not I agree with their judgment. I would like to make some observations that may give us some insight into this subject.

1. We allow announcements regarding occasions for sharing grief, but not announcements of occasions for sharing joy. I don’t know how some have gotten into this cycle, but they are there. They will allow brethren to make announcements from the pulpit of someone who died, to announce the viewing and the funeral. However, they will not allow announcements of joy to be made in the services, to tell brethren about someone’s 50th wedding anniversary, a bridal shower, or a shower for an expectant mother. They will not allow anyone to announce that a member has invited all of the teenagers to his home. How would one justify announcing a funeral service in their announcements? Perhaps he would go to 1 Corinthians 12:26, “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” Certainly the command for members to share each other’s burdens of sorrow would authorize the church to announce such things that prayer might be offered and their needs be met. The church prayed for Peter while he was in prison, so the church had to be informed in some manner of his being in prison (Acts 12:12). But, the same passage that commands us to share our occasions of sorrow commands us to share one another’s joys and the only way we can to do is to be informed of those occasions of joy.

The same passage that we would use to give authority for announcing occasions to bear each other’s burdens would also provide authority for announcing occasions of joy.

2. We can tell people what not to do, but not tell them what to do. Somehow we have evolved into a group that can tell people what they can’t do, but would protest if someone told others what they should do. We will allow our gospel preachers to stand in a pulpit and tell our members that they should not be reading such pornographic magazines as Playboy, Penthouse, and such like magazines. No one would say a word about such preaching; they may even “Amen!” it. However, if a person were to say, “Brethren, you need to be reading such magazines as Guardian of Truth” someone would probably object. What is wrong with telling brethren about and exhorting them to read good literature that will edify them spiritually? Paul wrote, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). If that Scripture can legitimately be used to tell brethren what they should not read, it can be used just as legitimately to tell them what they should read.

We use 1 Corinthians 15:33 in the same inconsistent manner. Paul wrote, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” We use that to preach to our young folks about places they do not need to go, where evil associations will corrupt their morals. We advise them to stay away from dances, gambling casinos, taverns, and such like things. No one would criticize us for exhorting our young people to stay away from those kinds of establishments. If we can announce from our pulpits places where our young people should not go, why can’t we tell our young people of occasions provided to have associations of a good kind?

3. Look at the announcements in sacred Scripture. Rhoda announced to an assembly gathered for prayer that Peter stood at the door (Acts 12:14). Paul sent personal greetings to a number of people in Romans 16:1-15. He instructed Timothy to come see him and bring his cloak and parchments (2 Tim. 4:9, 13). Can we study such statements in our assembly but cannot make similar announcements? In the last chapter of 2 Timothy, he reported the sickness of Trophimus (4:20), sent greetings to a variety of people, and related various tidbits of information that he wanted them to know. A listing of such things would show that the early church was informed of a variety of things that pertained to daily living, making it possible for “each to feel his brother’s sigh and with him bear a part.” This enabled them to share their sorrows “from eye to eye and joy from heart to heart.”

Is it possible that some of us have stood up so straight in opposing liberalism that we have leaned over backwards? There is nothing wrong with brethren making relevant announcements in their meetings to enable Christians to do those things that Christ has commanded!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 2
October 16, 1997

By Donnie V. Rader

I am a conservative, both religiously and politically. No further explanation is needed as to why I would listen to Rush Limbaugh. He frequently makes points about our government and the political arena that have a parallel application to the church. A few days ago, Rush made the point with which some of us have become all too familiar. He said that the liberal media and the liberal leaders in Washington have an attitude that would not blame the man doing wrong, but the man who identified the wrong. He illustrated by saying that if the current President were to be caught stealing and a conservative accused him of stealing, the media and the other liberals would identify the conservative as a mean-spirited watchdog and ignore the crime of the President. The big sin is not in doing wrong, but in trying to correct the wrongs of others.

For some reason that rings a bell about how things operate among brethren at times.

In Local Church Problems

Too often when some brother or sister is guilty of sin and some faithful brother or sister identifies the problem (Gal. 6:1), the one who makes the accusation becomes the target of rebuke.

This is done even when it is agreed that the one accused has committed sin. However, that sin is ignored and the “evil” that must be dealt with is this “mean-spirited” person who has the audacity to accuse another of sin. I am familiar with a church that withdrew from an admitted fornicator. When action was taken, the crime was not the fornication (in the eyes of some brethren), but it was being so ugly, cruel, and unloving in exercising church discipline according to the perception of the complainers (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-13).

Those who identify our “sin” as “identifying sin” do so in the name of love. The thought is if we really love the person who sins, we would not deal with his sins. I guess that means that those who point a finger at us for dealing with sins within the local church don’t really love us! Jesus, on the other hand, said, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Rev. 3:19).

The motives for this are parallel to those in the political arena. Sometimes it simply has to do with which “party” you’re in. All too often a local church is severed into two or more parties. If an accusation is made about someone in “our party,” we will defend him and blame the accuser. But, if the same wrong is committed by someone in one of the other parties, we will vigorously demand that his sin be corrected. Thus, a man can be guilty of lying, but if the one who brings the charge (and evidence) is not in his little group, he is the real sinner. As in the political arena, sometime the motive is to “get rid” of someone. It may be the preacher, the elders or some brother we just don’t like. If we can create a feeling that he is “mean-spirited,” maybe he will leave.

Dealing With Error

This same spirit is evident when sound brethren deal with error that has been taught by some brother who gives “uncertain sounds.”

There are times it is necessary to identify both the error and the teachers of that error. Jesus did this (Matt. 16:12) and so did Paul (2 Tim. 2:17-18). However, when that is done, some brethren will be upset  not at the error that is taught, but in the fact that someone identified brother as teaching error.

When some brother publicly teaches error on continuous cleansing, unity-in-diversity, divorce and remarriage or the role of women, that error should be exposed, regard-less of who the teacher is (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6). Those who identify the error (in sermons or in print) are sometimes painted as the real danger, even by those who agree that error had been taught! The attention is shifted from the erroneous doctrine to how terrible a fellow the defender of the truth is.

This has and is happening on the current questions of divorce and remarriage and the question of unity-in-diversity. There are those who agree that brother’s teaching is in error, but woe be to the man who responds and identifies brother as a false teacher.

One puzzle I have yet to fully understand is why those who think what others are teaching is false on divorce and remarriage and the question of fellowship (thus agreeing with those of us who have identified those men as teaching error), have no respect for those of us who defend the truth. Rather, they have more respect for those whose teaching we have exposed. Doesn’t that smell a little like what Rush was talking about?

I think Rush had a good point. It’s sad when Limbaugh’s comments about the liberal media has some parallel in the church (cf. Luke 16:8).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 19 p. 21-22
October 2, 1997

By Donald Townsley

The word of God pleads for unity among the people of God. The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:10: “Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Jesus prayed for unity among his disciples upon the basis of the word of God: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word” (John 17:20).

The Unity of the Spirit Demands

That Brethren Agree

The basis for unity is the word of God (John 17:20-21). All of God’s people are to walk in truth (2 John 4). Jesus said truth can be known: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). He also said that truth can be identified: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). The Apostle Paul said that truth can be understood: “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Truth is always consistent because God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). When we know the truth, understand the truth, and walk in truth, we will be of the same mind and the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10)  we will agree. All who appeal to truth for their standard in religion will came to the same conclusion when we understand what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17).

Unity Demands That We Speak the Same Thing

Paul said, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). When we understand the will of God, we understand it alike (Eph. 5:17), and we are all to preach the same plan (Eph. 4:4-6).

Unity Demands Effort

The Apostle Paul said that Christians must endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit: “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The word “endeavor” means to give diligence; to put forth effort; to try. This means that brethren are to work at being united on truth rather than doing and teaching things that divide them. We must all endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Unity Demands That Brethren Stand for the Truth

God’s people are to stand together against all evil. Paul said, “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). In Philippians 1:27, he said: “Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (NRV).

Unity Demands Oneness

The unity of the New Testament has as its foundation the word of God (John 17:20-21). This unity eliminates all error (2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17) and prohibits division (1 Cor. 1:10). Paul said in Ephesians 4:4-6: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all ..”It is the dwelling together without differences (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 3:16).

Conclusion

Let us consider Paul’s question to the Corinthians: “Is Christ divided?” The answer is “No”! Christ is not divided in authority (Eph. 4:5; Matt. 28:18), in message (Eph. 4:5; Heb. 1:2), in body (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23) nor in plan (Eph. 4:3-6). Let us all be alert to the difference in Bible unity and “unity-in-diversity” that is so popular among so many to-day. This false unity is the devil’s compromise and is destroying the church of the Lord in many places. We must all work for unity that is based upon the will of God (John 17:20-21).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 19 p. 9
October 2, 1997

By Mike Willis

Each of us has been impressed with the rapid growth of the early church. Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost (Acts 2:41). In a short time the number of the men was 5000 (Acts 4:4). Later Luke records that “multitudes both of men and women” were “added to the Lord” (Acts 5:14). Within his lifetime, Paul could testify that the gospel had been taken to all nations of the earth (Col. 1:23).

What were the causes of the gospel spreading so rapidly? I am sure that most of us have our own ideas about why that happened. The eminent historian, Edward Gibbon, gave his assessment of five reasons for the growth of the early church saying:

I. The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians derived it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. II. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth. III. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church. IV. The pure and austere morals of the Christians. V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire (Decline and Fall of the Romans Empire I:348 [Modem Library Edition, 1995]).

Let’s consider his list one by one.

1. The Intolerance of the Church. The early church saw itself as teaching the only means of salvation. There was no other name under heaven among men by which men could be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life; no one came to the Father but by him (John 14:6). Those who disbelieved the gospel would be damned (Mark 16:16).

Not only were the Christians teaching that there is only one way to be saved, they were unwilling to bend even in the least to compromise with idolatry. “It was the universal sentiment both of the church and of heretics that the daemons were the authors, the patrons, and the objects of idolatry” (357). When he was asked to sprinkle a few grains of incense to Caesar as God, the Christian refused. “The most trifling mark of respect to the national worship he considered as a direct homage yielded to the daemon, and as an act of rebellion against the majesty of God” (358). Hence, the Christian considered it his arduous duty to preserve himself pure from idolatry in every form of its expression. His everyday life was threatened by idolatry.

The Christian, who with pious honor avoided the abomination of the circus or the theater, found himself encompassed with infernal snares in every convivial entertainment, as often as his friends, invoking the hospitable deities, poured out libations to each other’s happiness. When the bride, struggling with well-affected reluctance, was forced in hymnal pomp over the thresh-old of her new habitation, or when the sad procession of the dead slowly moved towards the funeral pile; the Christian, on these interesting occasions, was compelled to desert the persons who were dearest to him, rather than contract the guilt inherent to those impious ceremonies (358-359).

Faithful Christians did not yield to these expressions of idolatry and they condemned those weak Christians who did. One might expect an historian to list this intolerance as something that restrained the growth of Christianity, but Gibbon identified this as one of the reasons that Christianity spread so rapidly. Every time the Christian refused participation in some idolatrous practice, he had an opportunity to proclaim his faith in Christ. First century Christians were in a life and death struggle with idolatry; their very intolerance is what helped achieve the victory.

2. Their belief in the after life. Christianity was preached in a culture that had limited knowledge of and belief in the world to come. Judaism was divided between the Pharisees and Sadducees about whether or not there was a bodily resurrection. The enlightened Gentiles viewed the body as inherently evil and death freed the spirit from the bodily prison house. The soul was released and became one with the Eternal Spirit.

Christianity announced with clarity its fundamental belief about the resurrection of the body, judgment, and heaven and hell. It brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10). Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection of the body was in conflict with both the Sadducees and contemporary pagan thought. The Christian’s hope of the resurrection of the body from the dead and entrance into heaven brought hope in the midst of despair. It was a message readily received by people with-out hope.

3. The supernatural gifts. The miracles of the gospel separated Christianity from all other religions of the world. When the miracles of the apostles were placed beside the deceitful arts of the magicians, men could easily detect the difference (see Philip’s miracles versus Simon the sorcerer, Acts 8:1-12). Jesus began his ministry with the miracle at Cana of Galilee and gave abundant demonstrable proof that he was the Messiah. He healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, enabled the lame to walk, and even raised the dead. He walked on water, multiplied the loaves and fish, and calmed the sea. He knew what was in the heart of man, events that occurred with reference to which he had no earthly means of gaining information, and otherwise demonstrated his divine omniscience. This is one of the things that created belief. John wrote, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not writ-ten in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

When the apostles went forth preaching, their words were confirmed by miracles as well (Mark 16:15-20; Heb. 2:3-4). These miracles distinguished the gospel message from that of Jews and pagans alike, giving men reason to believe the gospel message.

4. Their godly virtues. The early Christians lived a life of moral purity, which showed in their own lives how the gospel can transform sinners. When Pliny the governor wrote to the Emperor Trajan concerning the persecution of Christians, he said,

They affirmed that the whole of their fault, or error, lay in this, that they were wont to meet together on a stated day before it was light and sing among themselves, alternately, a hymn to Christ, as God, and bind them-selves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but not to be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them when called upon to return it. When these things were performed it was their custom to separate, and then to come together again to a meal, which they ate in common without any disorder (quoted by H.W. Everest in The Divine Demonstration 83).

When one reads the moral teachings of the New Testament, he is impressed with how its teaching set Christians apart from the world. Paul wrote,

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

In an age when the darkness of sin was so bad that pagan philosophers wanted to protect the youth from the influence of the gods, Christianity was a light that called for moral purity and commitment from its adherents. Some brethren think that preaching on moral issues will drive away potential converts, but Gibbon thought that the appeal of moral purity to consciences floundering in darkness was one of the things that caused the church to grow.

5. The union and discipline of the church. The church was organized during the first century. It had elders or bishops overseeing each local church. These shepherds oversaw the flock of God which was among them. Each local church was an independent republic existing within the Roman empire. Its members obeyed a higher authority than the lo-cal governor or Caesar himself. They were subject to the God of heaven. His laws were executed under the administrative oversight of bishops or elders. The church was served by its deacons so that its work was accomplished in a timely fashion.

The local church was not something that needed to be abolished or repaired so that church growth could occur. As the church came from the hand of God, it was fully capable of doing the great work God gave it to accomplish. Gibbon saw the local church as one of the things that contributed to the spread of Christianity.

Conclusion

What is amazing is that some of the very things that caused the church to grow in the first century are the things under attack in the twentieth century. Some condemn the church for being intolerant; others equate the miracles of Christ and his apostles with the pseudo-miracles of pagan-ism; some have decided that belief in heaven is a childish belief in a pie-in-the-sky in the sweet bye and bye that must be replaced with a social activism that creates its heaven on earth now; others wish to eliminate from preaching any call for such strict ethics as condemnation of the lottery, social drinking, lasciviousness (dancing, pornography, and such like things), immodest dress, fornication, homosexuality, and such like things; and some wish to diminish the local church by emphasizing that we need to be preaching Christ instead of the church. The very things they wish to change are the things that Gibbon saw as contributing to the rapid growth of the church!

Without regard to what Gibbon or anyone else has said, we need faithfully to proclaim God’s word and trust him to give the increase. He will bless those who walk in obedience to him.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 19 p. 2
October 2, 1997