Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

There is no finer place to walk than with God! It has been said of few men that they walked with God. There are some men we are not allowed to walk with due to the social, political, monetary or some other area of prestige. But, we can walk with God. To walk with God, we must:

Agree With God

Amos asked, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). It is not that God must agree with us, but that we must agree with what God has said. Too many want to argue with the teachings of God rather than just agreeing with what God has said. Being in submission to God simply involves bringing my will in harmony with God’s. It is as Jesus prayed, “. . .not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Man. 26:39).

Walk By Faith

There are some things that I must just accept by faith, that is because God said it! You do know, “but without faith it is impossible to please him …” (Heb. 11:6). Paul wrote the Corinthians, “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). We must have the kind of faith Paul had in a storm at sea, when told there would “be no loss of any man’s life among you” (Acts 27:22). Paul said, “. . .for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me” (Acts 27:25). Enoch and Noah, who were said to have walked with God (Gen. 5:24; 6:9) operated by “faith” (Heb. 11:5, 7).

Walk In The Light

John penned these words, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). To walk in the light is to walk according to the word of God for the Psalmist said, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. The entrance of thy words giveth light” (Ps. 119:105, 130). Too many try to walk according to their own steps, but Jeremiah re-corded, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).

Please God

One reason God said that Enoch walked with him was that Enoch “pleased God” (Heb. 11:5). One of our prob-lems today is that too many want to do the things which please themselves rather than pleasing God! The Holy Spirit said, “For even Christ pleased not himself ” (Rom. 15:3). “Will worship” (Col. 2:23), is nothing more than men pleasing themselves as they worship. Many try to justify instrumental music in worship because they “like it” and thus are going to have it!

Fear God

Fear motivated Noah to walk with God. The respect Noah had for God and his word caused Noah to do what God requested (Heb. 11:7). There just is not enough respect for God anymore. The wise man summed up man’s whole duty in these words: “Fear God, and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13).

Obey God

One reason Noah was said to have “walked with God” (Gen. 6:9), was due to his complete obedience to God’s will. There is no finer summary statement of Noah’s obedience than these words: “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22).

Are you walking with God?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 9
January 16, 1997

By Dick Blackford

Deciding what to preach has always been difficult. The subjects that need to be preached in a local work may differ greatly from what is being discussed in the papers among us. A preacher’s first priority is the congregation with which he has agreed to labor.

It wasn’t planned this way, but at ten year intervals I have penned a few observations on preaching. Some personal experiences that have never been put into print and related to only a few are contained herein. It was the last Sunday of September 1966 that I began what is commonly called full-time preaching. I did alternate preaching for two congregations for about one and a half years prior to that. During the 30 years I have worked with seven congregations. One for as long as ten and a half years and one for as short as two years, two months. With one exception I have been invited back to conduct gospel meetings at these churches. I have had the good fortune of working with some of the best people on earth.

Outside Support

When I began preaching I was apprehensive about support. For nearly half of my preaching life I have worked with congregations that were not self-supporting. None of us likes being in a position of asking for sup-port. Sometimes you feel like a beggar asking for a few crumbs. Among the problems is that of writing to a congregation for support and not receiving a reply. This has led to preachers sending out several form letters in hope that a few will respond. The problem for the churches is that most congregations don’t have secretaries to answer all the mail and some congregations receive many requests for support. The local preacher often becomes a secretary in trying to respond to all the mail. It would be a good idea for the congregation to pre-pare a form letter if they are unable to support him, since most requests come as a form letter. A person in the congregation (other than the local preacher) could be designated to respond by mailing the form letter explaining that they will not be able to provide support at this time. This would be better than leaving the preacher wondering whether he will receive the needed support or whether they even received his letter. He can be left in a drastic predicament with these uncertainties.

Another problem for preachers receiving outside support is that they rarely receive a raise, unless they do so by asking for more support. Over twenty years ago I reported to my sup-porting congregations that one of them had voluntarily given me a raise.

One of the other churches used it as an opportunity to decrease their sup-port. So the raise was never realized.

Conducting Business Meetings

Decently And In Order

Some congregations do not keep a written record of what is discussed in business meetings. Memories are faulty with the passing of time. Trying to recall what was decided can create problems in the congregation. Twenty-eight years ago I tried out at a congregation and understood that I was hired. The congregation had made arrangements for someone to move our belongings. I had preached my farewell sermon, cut off all my outside support, and had all our possessions packed in boxes, awaiting the truck that was to move us the following day. I made a phone call to one of the brethren of the congregation, which was 600 miles away, inquiring as to what time to expect the truck. I received a vague answer and made two more calls before I realized I was being given the run around.

As it turned out, that congregation had wanted to hire an older man (several felt they had a bad experience with the younger preacher who had been there). Being unable to find an older preacher, they hired me, knowing that I was 25 years old. Between then and the moving date an older preacher became available and they hired him. I received a few letters of apology from those who thought I had been hired, but there was dissension among the men. Some thought I had been hired and others did not. No notes were taken in the business meeting so there was no way to check what had actually been decided. To make a long story longer, I had to eat crow by notifying my supporting congregations, take back my farewell sermon and unpack our belongings. Sleep was lost and tears were shed, but I learned a valuable lesson. Not all congregations are as mature as they want their preacher to be and decisions, especially important ones, should be recorded in written form and reread at the next meeting to check for accuracy. This is a decent and orderly thing to do and helps prevent dissension (1 Cor. 14:40). If no one else thinks to do it, the preacher should insist on it.

Sympathizing With The Brethren

A preacher hears more than his share of complaints. He should expect this before he begins preaching. One should never become calloused of heart or insensitive to the hurt and problems of others. He should be more understanding of what the average man on the job is up against. If you’ve never been in secular work, it will be hard to appreciate what the average Christian has to endure. Pray for your brothers and sisters and encourage them. Build them up, bear their burdens, and be long-suffering (1 Thess. 5:11; Gal. 6:2; 1 Tim. 4:2).

Priorities In Preaching

Deciding what to preach has al-ways been difficult. The subjects that need to be preached in a local work may differ greatly from what is being discussed in the papers among us. A preacher’s first priority is the congregation with which he has agreed to labor. He should be conscientious in not allowing someone from elsewhere to determine the subjects. I have not al-ways felt the need to preach on an issue just because someone somewhere else thought I should. One should certainly keep his eyes on the horizon as a watch-man for potential problems and dangers and not be neglectful. But there is no point in introducing a problem to the congregation that it is not likely to have. Be urgent in season and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2).

Keep The Doctrine Pure

A lot of books have been written and sermons preached by popular preachers that are mostly fluff and little substance. Pious platitudes and catchy phrases may be the longings of some, but remember what the Bible says about smooth words and fair speeches (Rom. 16:17). They are beguiling in nature and are associated with those who teach contrary to the doctrine. Not only should a preacher make an assessment each month what needs to be preached, he should also be alert to subjects he may be neglecting. He should preach the whole counsel of God and shrink not from declaring anything that is profitable (Acts 20:20, 27). He needs balance in his subject matter lest he become guilty by default.

As I look at some of the subjects dealt with by the popular institutional preachers who write for audiences “at large,” I see a great void on such subjects as the sin of denominationalism, worshiping in spirit and truth, keeping the doctrine pure, etc. There is nothing distinctive in what they write that anyone in denominationalism would disagree with. Of course, that sells more books. While they may teach truths that nearly all of their audiences agree on, it is the areas that they are neglecting that pose the greatest danger. It only takes one untaught generation for apostasy to occur. In the Old Testament great emphasis was placed on teaching the next generation (Deut. 6:7). Read Deuteronomy 6:20-25 and notice that one of the di-vine motivations of Israel was to tell the tale for the benefit of future generations. If some complain that “we’ve already heard that,” they need to remember that there were those who had already heard that when they were hearing it for the first time. This was also true in Old Testament days. Three times within four verses Peter says we need to be put in remembrance (2 Pet. 1:12-15). Who should know better than Peter? Or the Holy Spirit who in-spired him to say it?

From time to time we also need re-minding that false teachers cannot be identified by their appearance (horns, pitch fork, forked tail, etc.). They can only be identified by their teaching. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves (Matt. 5: 15, 16). They bring “smooth words and fair speeches” (Rom.16:17). It is no great thing that his (Satan’s) ministers fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13-15). These passages are not saying that those who teach truth will be ugly monsters while Satan’s messengers are good looking. They are showing that false teachers will not look differently than teachers of truth and will not be identified by their appearance, but by their teaching. Don’t be deceived by their charisma.

You Are Not An Actor

Eight years ago I was told by an elder at a place where I tried out that a preacher is like an actor before an audience. He needs to do everything he can to get and hold people’s attention. It goes without saying that a preacher should do his very best. But Paul was not a good speaker. They said his letters were weighty and strong but his bodily presence was weak and his speech of no account (2 Cor. 10:10). I didn’t get the job, for two reasons. I had preached too long (my sermon lasted 32 minutes. I was told the local preacher had preached for fourteen minutes the previous Sunday). And I was told I preached “over their heads.” In 30 years of preaching that is the only time I had ever been so accused. The sermon was on the existence of God and was primarily designed for young people. The last thing I wanted to do was preach over anybody’s head. I didn’t run around in the pulpit so people would concentrate on what I was saying rather than what I was doing. A preacher is neither an acrobat nor an actor. Everything he does had better be genuine and sincere  from the heart. I believe this elder would have great difficulty opposing the pageants, cantatas, and dramas of the denominations while holding his view that the preacher is an actor. Timothy was told to give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching.” (1 Tim.4:14). He was not told to give heed to acting. He was to be diligent in these things “that thy progress may be manifest unto all” (1 Tim.4:15). If your progress in these is not evident to others, a self-examination is needed.

Conclusion

In thirty years of preaching, there have been a few bumps and scrapes along the way. I purposely did not write articles about any of them at the time for fear that my thinking might have been colored by the emotions of the moment or that it might appear that I was seeking revenge by writing somebody up. The emotions of those moments have long ago subsided and I hope that I have used those experiences in an edifying manner. I have been treated so much better than I deserve that those few “less than happy” experiences fade away in comparison. Regardless of those few occurrences, I have never regretted the decision made thirty years ago.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 5-8
January 16, 1997

By Larry Ray Hafley

In her column, November 11, 1996, Ann Landers attempted to tell you “when your religion was founded and by whom.” She was right about some religious orders and wrong about others. She doubtless angered some Baptists and Pentecostals, for she, by and large, told the truth about their origins.

She said the “Baptist” church was “launched” in 1607. She is correct, but Missionary and Primitive Baptists say their churches began in the first century A.D. So, Ann irked those Baptists who believe that Jesus founded their churches. But that she is correct in her assertion is sup-ported by the fact that there is no specific reference to a “Baptist Church,” or to “Baptist Churches,” in any literature, either sacred or secular, written before 1600 A.D. Therefore, Baptist churches are not the churches we read about in the New Testament (Rom. 16:16).

Ann hit the Baptists where it hurts when she said that Baptists “owe the tenets of (their) religion to John Smyth.” Well, I am not sure that Smyth is the author of the “tenets” (doctrines) of Baptist churches, but one thing is certain, Baptists do not “owe the tenets of (their) religion to” Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16; Luke 8:13; Gal. 5:4)!

Ann probably peeved the Pentecostals, too. She said their “religion was started in the United States in 1901.” The United Pentecostal Church did not begin until 1948, according to the “official” history of that denomination (Clanton, United We Stand). Hence, anyone over 49 years of age is older than the United Pentecostal Church! Two main doctrines of the Pentecostal religion, did not be-come “tenets of faith” until 1914 (Foreword, United Pentecostal Church Manual). Obviously, the United Pentecostal Church is not the New Testament church.

Ann slandered the Lord’s church when she said, “If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33.” The Catholic Church resembles the church Jesus built like a camel resembles a common kitty-cat.

(1) In the Bible, all the saved were saints (1 Cor. 1:2). This is not true of Catholicism. (2) In the New Testament, all saved ones were priests (1 Pet. 2:5-9). This isnot true of the Roman Catholic Church. (3) Peter was a married man; he was not superior to the other apostles (Matt. 8:14; Luke 22:24-26; 1 Cor. 9:5; 15:11; 2 Cor. 11:5; Gal. 2:6-14). This could not have been true if Peter was pope of the Catholic Church. (4) Jesus said, “Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9). Disciples of Christ certainly were not Roman Catholics! (5) “Bishops” in the church “Jesus Christ began” were to be married men (1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Tit. 1:6, 7). So, Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church.

Finally, Ann said that the “Salvation Army” is “a religious group, not just an organization that collects money in kettles on Christmas.” She is right. Therefore, dear brother in Christ, if you would not contribute to a Baptist Church or to a Catholic coffer, what authorizes you to support the “Salvation Army”? Christians should not make donations to the Salvation Army anymore than they would to any other human denomination (cf. 2 John 9-11).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 5
January 16, 1997

By Lewis Willis

The division of the church which was launched by liberal brethren in 1938, and which came to fruition in the 50s and 60s, has arrived at its destination! No amount of warning or pleading could stop the movement in its departure from the truth. Today the new leaders herald their arrival as a full-fledged denomination!

Ironically, those who led the apostasy for years are now trying to stop this final plunge into the abyss of denominationalism. However, they are being ignored for the most part. Only a fraction of the movement will hear what they have to say. Finn Foundation, a paper edited by Buster Dobbs, has been fighting the new liberals or “change agents” who have risen to the leadership of liberal churches. Another strong voice among apostate brethren is The Spiritual Sword, edited by Alan E. Highers. Almost every issue of these journals for the last several years has been devoted to calling their people to arms against those who were leading the movement into the ranks of modern denominationalism. But the warnings went unheeded.

October 1996

An editorial by Highers in the issue of The Spiritual Sword, establishes that the new leaders now openly advocate the fellowship of liberal churches with denominations. He cites the following as proof of his claims.

1. A speech by William S. Banowsky at the Abilene Christian University lectures, 2-21-96. Highers said Banowsky,”advocated an inclusive fellowship with denominationalism.” Banowsky indicated that he started out “with the idea of an identifiably exclusive church, but he grew to understand the concept of a universally inclusive church.” In his view, the church consists of all the denominations. He even stated that we need to confess “our self-righteousness to our neighbors.” Highers further noted that Banowsky “accused churches of Christ of deifying the letter of the Bible and placing paper and ink between us and God … that faith is more a matter of intuition and feeling than of logic and reason . . .we will not win this fight for faith if we wage it on the basis of reason.” Highers properly observed that Banowsky “pleads for heartfelt religion such as (is) manifested by Pentecostalism.” Why is he so concerned about “deifying the letter of the Bible” and about “paper and ink”? Banowsky’s point is, we must not restrict ourselves to what is authorized in the New Testament, based on logic and reason from the text. Instead, we must depend upon our feelings. Our feelings should be followed, instead of following the Scriptures. That will definitely produce a denomination!

2. A speech by Rubel Shelly at Florence, Alabama, April 1996. Shelly is probably the most influential of the new liberals. He appeared in Florence in a conference “with an assortment of denominational preachers and charismatic leaders.” Shelly said, “One of the things that I think is so wonderful and precious and dear to the heart of God about a conference like this is that it is a conference that cuts across the lines that we have erected to keep us separate … We need every one of us on the same team . . . We will not lose our separate denominational.. identifies . we will not have to give up our distinctive practices with regard to our different organizational structures, worship, and so on. I see no need for that . . . Being a Christian is more important than whether … you’re premillennial, . . . or you’re Baptist, or you’re charismatic, or you’re church of Christ, or you’re Presbyterian.” Shelly now ignores such questions as the organization and worship of the church. You can be baptized by sprinkling or use instrumental music, but he still desires fellowship with you.

3. A speech by Max Lucado at a Baptist church in San Antonio, Texas, 4-2-96. In that speech Lucado likened religion to God’s navy. There is only one ship; with only one captain, having only one destination. Speaking of the various denominations, he said,”though there may be many cabins below the deck in which we live, and where we choose to bunk, when God calls us to all stand on the deck and face the enemy, shoulder to shoulder, we need to take the command seriously. Unity matters to God.”

On another occasion Lucado has said, “When I see someone calling God Father and Jesus Savior, I meet a brother or a sister  regardless of the name of their church or denomination.” W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett used almost this identical language several years ago when they departed to denominationalism. One need not won-der long where Lucado, Shelly, and Banowsky got their rhetoric.

Another evidence of this further move toward denominational status is a recent book by Richard T. Hughes, Distinguished Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University. His book, Reviving The Ancient Faith, attempts to prove that the Restoration Movement from the beginning was never intended to do away with denominationalism. According to Hughes, the movement simply sought to re-fine what was already there, while maintaining fellowship with denominations. Hughes believes that opposition to fellowship with the denominations is found only among those in churches of Christ who are poor, uncultured, and uneducated. These brethren, according to Hughes, “helped father . . . a radical primitivist and sectarian subtradition rooted in economic deprivation and estranged from the world of culture and education.” He argues that mainstream or liberal churches of Christ of the twentieth century have “abandoned many of the trappings of sectarian religion and moved toward denominational status” (91). I believe he is absolutely correct in saying those liberal churches are now a denomination.

What has been the effect? In our area, the very liberal Church in the Falls, had Rubel Shelly in to teach on the “Core Truth” which has to do with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If one is right about Jesus, Shelly contends, fellowship should be established with that per-son. One of their elders, Mark Nitz, wrote about this, saying, “The lesson is clear. We do a grave injustice when we make all discipleship issues and personal beliefs of equal importance to the gospel. One’s understanding of instrumental music, the Lord’s Supper, or the Second Coming are not nearly as important as faith in Christ . . . Let’s not reject a brother who has a differing conviction but who clearly understands the core truths of the gospel” (Bulletin, 3-27-96). According to Nitz, as long as one is right about Jesus, he can be fellowshiped no matter what he believes or practices about instrumental music or the Lord’s Supper. Those questions must not affect fellowship. One is not surprised when they announce a “Gospel concert at Arlington Street Church of God” in which “several of our members will sing.” Tickets are being sold at $10 each (Bulletin, 10-16-96).

I find it interesting to note that liberal churches can fellowship and participate in activities with the denominations, but they will have nothing to do with those of us who practice only what is authorized in the Lord’s word. This was all predicted many years ago. If there is any surprise in it, however, it is only in how quickly it has come.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 3-4
January 16, 1997