Truth Magazine

By Wayne Fancher, Jr.

Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God” (NKJV).

Unfortunately there are times in our lives when the peace that exists between ourselves and others is disrupted with strife, contention, and division. When an estrangement takes place because of strife, there is often a desire on the part of many to try to make peace, which is indeed a noble desire. Even though the desire for being a peace-maker exists in the hearts of many, quite often they do not know how to go about making the peace.

Proverbs 26:17, “He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears” (NKJV).

If you do not know how to make peace between two parties that are estranged, you may find yourself adding to the strife rather than making peace. It can become as the proverb says, “like taking a dog by the ears.” You better look out or you will get pulled into the fight and end up getting bitten.

Romans 14:19, ” Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (NKJV).

Since we should be pursuing the things which make for peace, it is vitally important that we know how to pursue it. I believe there are six steps that the two estranged parties must go through for there truly to be peace between them. (1) A desire for peace from both of the estranged parties, (2) Humility, (3) Meaningful communication, (4) A willingness to face the truth, (5) A willingness to change where one is wrong, and (6) A willingness to forgive. Taking two or three of these steps is not enough. All six of these steps must be taken for there to be true peace.

A Desire for Peace from Both of the

Estranged Parties

Psalm 120:7, ” I am for peace; But when I speak, they are for war” (NKJV).

Even though the peacemaker may want peace, unless both of the estranged parties want peace, one is wasting his time in trying to make peace between them. True peace cannot be forced; it must be desired before it can be pursued. Therefore the peacemaker must talk with both of the estranged parties separately and confirm that they are both truly desiring to have peace made between them.

Psalm 133:1, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” (NKJV).

If peace is not initially desired by both of the estranged parties, that does not mean that one should give up on his efforts to make peace. Instead he should work on trying to create the desire for peace in their hearts. This can be done by trying to help them see how good and how pleasant it is to dwell together in unity and peace.

Proverbs 16:28, “A perverse man sows strife, And a whisperer separates the best of friends.”

Being a peacemaker quite often requires spending many hours laying the proper ground work in preparing the hearts of the estranged parties for the making of peace. Preparing this ground work is done the opposite of the way a gossiper separates best friends. A gossiper will wait for you to say anything bad about your friend and then he will go tell him what you said. When your friend says anything negative in response to what the gossiper has told him, then the gossiper comes and tells you what bad things he said about you, waiting for you to respond with something else bad. Back and forth he goes carrying these bad reports preparing the ground work for the separation of two dear friends. The peacemaker, on the other hand, takes the two friends who are separated and tries to bring them back together. When talking to the estranged parties, you must look for any and everything that they say that is good about the other. Take the good things they say and the good feelings back and forth between the separated friends to help them remember and see how good it was and is to be at peace with their friend. Help to create in their hearts the proper desire for peace.

Humility

Proverbs 13:10, “By pride comes nothing but strife, But with the well-advised is wisdom” (NKJV).

The strange things about separations between people, is that it is never any one’s fault. Or so it would seem that way, from talking to those involved. Each side will say, “I didn’t do anything wrong, it’s their fault.” Because separations are accompanied with so much pain and anger, those involved get their feelings hurt and become very defensive. This defensiveness and pride prevents many people from ever seeing the true nature of how the separation came about or how their actions affected those from whom they are estranged. Pride prevents many people from ever being willing to take the first steps toward peace.

Philippians 2:3, “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself’ (NKJV).

Sometimes a peacemaker must try to help the estranged parties take their eyes off themselves and their feelings and try to help them look at how the other side is hurting as well. If we can encourage and help those estranged to humble their hearts, then the rest of the process of peacemaking will be much easier and go much faster.

Meaningful Communication

James 1:19, “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (NKJV).

Once the peacemaker has laid the ground work of desire and humility then arrange a meeting together with the estranged parties. The next big step toward peace is done with what I call “Meaningful Communication.” Meaningful communication involves both of the estranged parties being (1) swift to hear, (2) slow to speak, and (3)slow to wrath. The role of the peacemaker in this step is simply to act as a referee to make sure that both side are truly communicating with each other with respect. If at any point in the discussion the peacemaker sees that meaningful communication has broken down, then he must step in as referee and not allow things to get out of hand, otherwise before you know it you will have a dog by the ear.

Proverbs 18:13, “He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him” (NKJV).

One of the biggest problems people have in talking about things where emotions are involved, is that we don’t listen to what the other people are saying. The first step in meaningful communication is learning to be swift to hear. Even though you may have had your feelings hurt, stop and listen to what the other person is saying. Open your ears and your heart and hear what they say before you answer. Try as best you can to understand what the per-son is saying, how they saw the situation, and how they truly feel.

Proverbs 15:28, “The heart of the righteous studies how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil” (NKJV).

After you have heard what the other person has said and you think you fully understand, then take your time and learn to be slow to speak. Being slow to speak means that you think about what you are going to say before you say it. So think seriously about what they have said to you, then take your time to make sure your response to them is exactly what you want to say.

Proverbs 15:1, “A soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger” (NKJV).

How you say what you say is just as important as what you say. Because the separation involved so much emotional pain and anger, at this stage of peacemaking you must be extra careful not to allow these emotions to take over in the communication process. When people speak in anger, the anger is heard louder than the words and meaningful communication has stopped. Harsh words will only make the fire bigger and more difficult to put out. Both of the estranged parties must be slow to wrath, speaking with a soft controlled answers. When communication is meaningful and with respect, then the estranged parties can truly understand each other and hopefully put out the fires that separate them.

A Willingness to Face The Truth

Proverbs 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise” (NKJV).

The fact that a separation has taken place between people tells you that someone somewhere has done something wrong. Sometimes the fault is only on one side and easy to see. Other times both sides are at fault, and trying to deter-mine what really happened as an outsider is almost impossible. It is not the job of a peacemaker to become a private investigator to try to find out what all really happened. One of the purposes of meaningful communication is to help the estranged parties understand clearly how their actions effected the separation. Very often, if the first three steps to peacemaking are taken properly, after hearing the truth, those in the wrong are willing to acknowledge the truth of their wrongdoing and you have taken a giant step toward peace. Sometimes unfortunately, the one who has done wrong refuses to face the reality and the results of his actions. In this case there is no hope of peace because those who have done wrong are right in their own eyes.

A Willingness to Change Where One Is Wrong

Proverbs 28:13, “He who covers his sins will not pros-per, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (NKJV).

If someone acknowledges where he is wrong, but feels no remorse for his actions, obviously there will be no peace. It is not enough to just acknowledge where you were wrong in your actions, there must also be a humbling of oneself to where they can learn to simply say, “I’m sorry, please forgive me.” It is also understood whatever actions one may be doing that have caused the separation are not to continue. They must be stopped for there to be hope for peace.

A Willingness to Forgive

Colossians 3:13, “Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do” (NKJV) .

Forgiveness is the last but not the least important step of peace. True forgiveness must take place in the hearts of those who have been wronged in any way. Otherwise, what caused the separation will continue to ferment in the heart of the offended person, until one day it is brought up again and again. We are to forgive one another as Christ forgave us. When Christ forgive us, our sin is removed as far as the east is from the west, and it’s not going to be brought up again ever. Only with true forgiveness from the heart can we remove the separation and truly be at peace with those from whom we were estranged, and be at peace with our-selves and at peace with God.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 6-7
November 7, 1996

By Mike Willis

Psalm 23 has comforted the hearts of God’s people since it was first written by David. It is read at many funerals, but should not be confined to that period in one’s life for providing the comfort which its words give. Not only is it a poetical masterpiece, it is a divine revelation about God’s superintending care of his children. Many of us committed this psalm to memory as children, and if you have not already done that let me encourage you to do so; committing our life to its teaching may take a lifetime. May God help us to do so.

Superscription

A Psalm of David. This common superscription in the psalms at-tributes this psalm to David as its author. The psalm was written after David had grown old enough to have enemies (v. 5) and to have experienced the threat of death from his enemies (v. 4).

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Jehovah is David’s shepherd (Qal ptc. of ra’ah, “to pasture, tend, graze. . . ptc. used as a substantive,” BDB 945). The concept of Jehovah as a shepherd is common (see Gen. 49:24; Ps. 80:1; Isa. 40:11; 49:9, 10; Jer. 31:10; Ezek. 34:6-19; etc.) and is used in a special sense to describe Jesus as the “good Shepherd” (John 10:1-19, 26-28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4; Rev. 7:17). God is not described as a “rancher,” for cows have to be driven whereas sheep are “led.” God does not drive us against our will to force obedience.

The concept of Jehovah as a shepherd is better understood by those who know the work of a shepherd. We can understand this better by reading what the legitimate work of a shepherd is. In Ezekiel 34, the prophet condemned the shepherds of Israel because they were not doing the work of a shepherd. By his criticism, we can learn what the work of a shepherd is. Ezekiel wrote, “Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them” (34:4).

One of the most beautiful pictures of Jesus was that which depicts him as the “Good Shepherd.” In the parable of Luke 15:4-7, the Lord shows God’s loving care for those who are lost.

What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

  Jesus as the Good Shepherd laid down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). He knows his sheep by name (John 10:3) and they hear (recognize) his voice and follow him (John 10:14). What intimacy exists between God, the Shepherd, and his children. To know that God knows me by name and cares for me as depicted in these verses is very reassuring. It brings peace, serenity, and calmness to my soul to know my God is my Shepherd. Compare Isaiah 40:11  “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.”

His primary work of leading is described in this verse. He leads one to places where there is no want, where there is safety and peace (vv. 1-2). I shall not want is translated from chasar, “to lack, need, be lacking, decrease” BDB 341). Compare Ps. 34:9  “O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.”

As a shepherd, God has provided for every need of his sheep. There is nothing lacking. There should not be interpreted in a materialistic sense to mean that his saints are financially wealthy, never experience sickness or have accidents. Rather, this is saying that the God has provided for every spiritual need of his children. There is no need in God’s children wandering into the barren deserts of the spiritual wastelands of human religions  searching the Koran of the Muslims, the Book of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Baghavad Ghita, or other “holy” books in search for answers to man’s spiritual needs. God’s provisions for man are sufficient  “I shall not want.”

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

The reference is to the custom of shepherds leading their sheep to the shade for repose in the heat of the day. The Lord’s shepherding of David takes him to green (navah: “pasture, meadow. . . grassy pasture,” BDB 627) pastures (dheshe’: “grass,” BDB 206) where he maketh me to lie down (rabats: “stretch oneself out, lie down, lie stretched out. . . Hiph. cause to lie down… [for repose],” BDB 918). His being in green pastures emphasizes the point of v. 1  “I shall not want.” These are places in which his every need is supplied.

Let me pause to state that the first step of human apostasy occurs when man looks at God’s divine provisions with disdain and thinks that “green pastures” are to be found somewhere else. I know little about sheep but considerably more about cows. When I grew up as a lad in East Texas, we raised cows. Cows always think the “grass is greener” on the other side of the fence. Constantly, they poke their heads through the barbed wire fence to look for the green grass on the other side. What usually happens is this: a cow comes to a post that has been eaten by termites or just rotted, pokes her head through the barbed wire fence, the post breaks, and the cow is outside the fence. So long as a per-son thinks the “green pastures” are outside of God’s provisions, so long as he thinks the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, he will constantly be stretching against the boundaries of God’s word until he jumps the fence! The first step of apostasy is the concept that life would be better in disobedience to God than in obedience to him. What a difference in concept is that to the thinking of men such as Daniel who thought death in obedience to God was to be preferred over life in disobedience to him!

The text continues to explain that God makes him lie down in green pastures. This emphasizes the rest, safety, and security of the place in which his needs are met. The Lord’s shepherding care is seen in his leading (nahal: “Pi. lead, guide to a water-place or station, and cause to rest there; bring to a station or place of rest; lead, guide, re-fresh,” BDB 624). Still is from menuchah, “resting-place, rest. . . quietness, refreshment” (BDB 629-630). The waters are calm and peaceful (not raging and life-threatening); they provide a place of solitude and safety.

William S. Plumer wrote, “The world around them is a land of deserts and of drought, which yields nothing to satisfy the longing soul. Sooner shall the body be nourished by whirlwinds and the dust, than the spirit with things of mere time and sense” (310).

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

God restores (Polel imperf. of shub: “turn, return.. . Polel bring back. restore, refresh,” BDB 998) his soul (nephesh). Barnes commented, “It refers to the spirit when exhausted, weary, or sad; and the meaning is, that God quick-ens or vivifies the spirit when thus exhausted” (211). There are times when man is drained and exhausted from the circumstances of life. But, Jehovah our Shepherd recognizes the condition of his sheep and provides time and circumstances to vivify the spirit.

God leads (nachah : “lead, guide,” BDB 634) him in the paths (ma `ghal: “entrenchment… track. . . in a fig. sense course of action, or life,” BDB 722) of righteousness (tsedeq: “rightness, righteousness. . . what is right, just, normal; rightness, justness,” BDB 841). God never leads men into paths of wickedness; only the devil will do that. Our modern concept of situation ethics asserts that some-times the path of wickedness is the path in which it is “right” to walk. This denies that is so. God only leads in the paths of righteousness. He directs us in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. He leads me in righteousness because of who he is, not because of what I am.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

God’s guidance and direction in “green pastures,” “be-side still waters,” and so that I “shall not want,” does not preclude one walking through the valley of the shadow of death and facing evil. Any interpretation of vv. 1-3 that so concludes is mistaken.

Yea (gam: “an adv. denoting addition, also moreover, yea,” BDB 168) indicates that there is more to his direction than green pastures and still waters. There are times that one must walk (halak) in the valley (ghay’: “valley,” BDB 160) of the shadow of death (tsalmavet: “death-shadow, deep shadow… deep shadow, darkness. . . fig. of distress … of extreme danger,” BDB 853). We would portray a wrong conclusion if we promised that God’s leading protects a person from ever walking in such places.

In the face of such dangers and possibly even death, the psalmist would experience a sense of security. He would fear (yare’) no evil (ra’). His absence of fear is not from exceptional courage. He fears no evil for the same reason that a child does not fear when his father is with him. He has perfect security because of his reliance on a force greater than the evil that he is facing. Thou art with me! God’s presence gives peace and security in the presence of life-threatening evil.

A young child was walking with his father along a dark path. The toddler said, “Daddy, will you hold my hand?” Sensing his son’s insecurity, the father asked, “Why?” He said, “It’s too dark not to have a Daddy!” How true this is in a deeper sense than the toddler meant. It’s too dark, there are far too many dangers and threats to one’s well being, not to have a Father who is with me when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.

God’s rod (shebet: “rod, staff, club, scepter. . . rod, staff (evidently common article) for smiting. . . fig. of Yahweh’s chastisement. . . shepherd’s implement, club… used in mustering or counting sheep,” BDB 987) and staff (mish `enet: staff, from sha’an: Niph. lean, support one-self,” BDB 1043-1044) give David comfort (nacham: Niph. “be sorry, console oneself; . . . Piel. comfort, console,” BDB 637). The shepherd used his “rod” to defend himself and his flock from enemies; he used his staff to prod along the sheep and to direct them. Both of these instruments in the hand of God, the Shepherd, give comfort to the one walking through the valley of the shadow of death.

We should give praise to God for his rod. It tells of us divine protection of his children when they walked through the valley of the shadow of death. It protects them from enemies who threaten their lives and souls. How reassuring is the knowledge that I have his divine protection during such crises.

We should also give praise to God for his staff as we walk through the shadow of death. The staff prods us to walk in a certain way and brings us back into the right as we begin to stray. There may be times when we need the Shepherd’s correction. Most of us as adults have grown to realize that we are thankful for our parents’ chastening. Without it, our spiritual and moral character would have developed in sinful and wrong ways. Have we grown up enough to appreciate God’s chastening? Can we give thanks to the Father for those rebukes, whether gentle or not so gentle, that have been administered to us by loving elders and faithful preachers who cared for our souls? How blessed we are to have God’s rod and staff to comfort us when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

The figure has changed from God being pictured as the Shepherd to God as the Host. God prepared (`arak: “arrange, set in order. . . arrange a table,” BDB 789) a table (shulchan: “table. . . skin or leather mat spread on ground,” BDB 1020; the table seems to be used by metonymy for what is set on it) for David. Significantly, this table was prepared in the presence (neged: “what is conspicuous or in front, always as adv. or prep. in front of, in sight of, opposite to,” BDB 617) of mine enemies (Qal ptc. of tsarar: “to shew hostility toward, vex… ptc. used as a substantive for enemy,” BDB 865). David’s enemies were not able to prevent God’s ample provisions of David’s needs.

More than merely feeding David, God also anointed his head with oil. Anoint is from dhashen, “be fat, grow fat … causat. make fat. . . i.e. anoint symbol of festivity and joy” (BDB 206). While his enemies are watching, God is providing festivity, luxury, and joy for David. Plumer observes, “When men were sad they covered themselves with dust and ashes. When joyous they washed and anointed themselves, Job ii.12; xlii.6; 2 Sam. xii.20” (315). My cup (chos) runneth over (revayah: “saturation. . i.e. is well filled,” BDB 924). There is no skimping.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all thedays of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

David fully expected (surely: ‘ak: adv. “surely.. . asseverative, often introducing with emphasis the expression of a truth [or supposed truth] newly perceived,” BDB 36) to receive from Jehovah goodness (tob) and mercy (chesed). Shall follow is from radap, “pursue, chase, persecute. . . in a good sense, attend closely upon” (BDB 922). All the days of my life is limited to life on earth. This is not to be construed to say that David never expected any more days of walking through the valley of the shadow of death. Rather, God’s goodness and mercy would be with him even as he walked through that valley.

He also had the confident expectation to dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. To dwell in the house of the Lord is to enjoy his fellowship, presence, and companion-ship. He will dwell there le’orek yamim  length of days. Compare Psa. 27:4  “One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple.”

Conclusion

This psalm has inspired many poets to offer praise to God as our Shepherd and Guide. May we fill our hearts with its teaching today  before the time comes when we have to walk through the valley of the shadow of death  so that when the hour comes, we can know that we walk through securely because God our Shepherd is leading us. May it give and grant to us a tranquility of spirit, a serenity, and a blessed peace that will enrich our lives.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 2
November 7, 1996

By Connie W. Adams

The September 30, 1996 issue of Sentry Magazine is devoted to a slanderous attack on Guardian of Truth, the staff writers, and the board of the foundation. For many years Floyd Chappelear, the editor of Sentry Magazine, has taken pot-shots at the editor of GOT and some of its writers. These have generally been ignored because they were judged unworthy of comment and would have led to an extended battle to no benefit for the readers of the two papers. When I edited Searching The Scriptures we also were the objects of scattered fire from the editor of Sentry. We chose to ignore it and go on with our work. But this last assault is too blatant to overlook. I have not been asked to say what I am about to say but justice demands that something be said. I bear no ill-will to our brother. He is a man of obvious ability and talent.

A Summary of Charges

In a front page article which covers over four pages of copy, plus other articles which are intended to lend support to his charges, his article entitled “A Call For Concern” contains the following charges against GOT:

 We are accused of being respecters of persons.

 We have zeal without knowledge.

 Meekness and humility are absent.

 We are possessed of an arrogant and condescending spirit.

 One writer is charged with trying to destroy the man and not the argument.

 We keep an enemies list and have a “Craig Livingstone mentality.”

 We defame men.

 We have slandered an “aged luminary.”

 Some of us are so careless with the truth that nothing can be believed which is said by such bullies and cowards.

 We comprise a”Christian Cosa Nostra.”

 “They have established all of the accouterments of a denominational structure.”

 We are liars and have a “frightening mind set.”

 The board of GOT Foundation wants to “take over” the churches and “make decisions for them.”

 The editor wants to “drive people out of the church.”

 We have a “museum mentality” about the church.

 “They have succumbed to the ordinary human desire to build some-thing larger than a simple, independent, church of Christ.”

 We believe the universal church is made up of local churches.

All of the above is in the editorial. We are also treated to a poem “Diotrephes Is Living,” articles on “The New Denominationalism,” “The Peaceable Kingdom,” “The New Catholicism,” “Making Sense of Romans 14,” “How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree?”, “Edomites Among Us” and inserts on “Watchdogs of the Lord” and an excerpt from a personal letter from Mike Willis to Frank Walton.

Who Are These Men?

Since I serve on the foundation board and am also the Associate-Editor of the paper, I think I know something about the men with whom I work. The Guardian of Truth Foundation is heavily involved in the publishing business. The bulk of our time in meetings is taken up in plans to that end. The nine-man board is made up of Connie W. Adams, Alan Birdwell, O.C. Birdwell, Jr., Dickey Cooper, Fred Pollock, Weldon E. Warnock, Mike Willis, Steve Wolfgang, and Ron Halbrook. Four of these men are business men while the others are gospel preachers. They are honorable men who would not even entertain the idea of trying to structure the church of our Lord into a denomination. All are faithful Christians who are members of local churches where they live.

There are twenty-seven staff writers in addition to Mike Willis and myself. They are: J. Wiley Adams, Donald P. Ames, O.C. Birdwell, Jr., Dick Blackford, Edward Bragwell, Paul J. Casebolt, Bill Cavender, Bob Dickey, Johnie Edwards, Harold Fite, Larry Hafley, Ron Halbrook, Clinton D. Hamilton, Irvin Himmel, Olen Holderby, Frank Jamerson, Daniel H. King, Aude McKee, Harry Osborne, H.E. Phillips, Donnie V. Rader, Tom Roberts, Weldon E. Warnock, Lewis Willis, Bobby Witherington, and Steve Wolfgang. With the exception of two men in their mid-tolate thirties, the rest are men between the ages of 50 and 80. Many have preached over fifty years and several of them for more than forty years.

Now, why name these men? Brother Chappelear charged staff writers with immorality without naming the accused. He said, “Because I do not believe in gossip under the shallow guise of journalism, I will not name names.” No instead, he engaged in innuendo and left twenty-nine men under a cloud of suspicion with his readers. The men he accused repented many years ago for their sins and made corrections with the churches involved. What is now the point of bringing that up except to slander the paper? Anyone who thinks the paper has coddled immorality has not read it with much understanding and knows very little about those of us who carry on this work.

Why name these board members? Because the board has been accused of laying the groundwork for a new denomination. There is not one word of truth in that. It is slander, pure and simple. Not one of these men believes the universal church is made up of local churches. I call on brother Chappelear to apologize for this unwarranted attack and to repent of his sin.

Should GOT Be Criticized?

Absolutely! We are all finite men. Do I think errors have been made in dealing with issues in the past? Certainly. I did not always agree with editorial judgment in handling some things when Cecil Willis was editor and since Mike Willis has taken on that work. I edited a paper for twenty years and I know for a fact that there are difficult problems to handle and in spite of the best advice you can get, blunders will be made. When Searching The Scriptures went out of business at the end of 1992, I was invited to write for GOT as the Associate-Editor and also to serve on the board of the Foundation. I gladly accepted both responsibilities. I had worked as a staff writer for Truth Magazine for eight years prior to editing Searching The Scriptures. Before I agreed to these roles, I met with these men and very frankly discussed a number of things. I came on board with the understanding that I would be at liberty to write what I wanted to say without any muzzle, even to taking issue with the editor or any staff writer.

I have written in opposition to the “Questionnaire.” Brother Chappelear said that the editor had called this an “expedient” and then said, “Was the expediency opposed? Of course not.” My brother, I opposed it, face to face and by letter to those who issued it and then I wrote an article in GOT on the subject which the editor carried without change. I have written other articles taking issue with things which have appeared in the paper. I have not been censored and when the time comes that I am, that will be the end of my work here.

Brother Chappelear’s Files

An attack was made on writers for an “enemies list” and a file to use against others. Yet, lo and behold, right in the middle of page 12 of this issue of Sentry there is a box with a quote from a letter from Mike Willis to Frank Walton, a letter dated December 8, 1993. How did a personal letter from Mike Willis to Frank Walton get into the hands of Floyd Chappelear? Floyd lives in Virginia and Frank lives in Arizona. Has brother Floyd kept this on file? Was this an “enemies list”? Brethren have a habit of keeping files of personal correspondence. That is one thing. To compile a dossier on a brother in order to attack him later down the road is something else. I have written in GOT in opposition to brethren swapping personal correspondence all over the country. I do not practice it and do not wish to be on the receiving end of such traded goods. Was there some collusion between these two men? Some power structure in embryo involving two papers?

“That Bunch”

In traveling over the country in meetings, I meet many people who read GOT and express great appreciation for it. But I also meet a few, usually preachers, who want to know, “How did you ever get involved with that bunch?” Subsequent conversation usually brings out the word “pharisees,” “legalists,” the notion of power mongers, and this very notion expressed by brother Chappelear “the Cosa Nostra.” There is a perception among some preachers that there is something sinister, underhanded, and grossly evil about what we are doing. What feeds this idea? I do not know. But I can tell you as one involved in both the work of the paper and the Foundation, that any such concept is far from reality. The paper has always been militant. Its writers have always dealt forcefully with what has been perceived to be error both without and within. But with very few exceptions (and there have been a few), the issue has been addressed without trying to discredit the men advancing the error. The charge that we have slandered an “aged luminary” is false. I have read every word that has been written in this paper and several others dealing with the position advocated by our beloved brother, Homer Hailey, now well advanced in years. If anyone has slandered him personally, I am not aware of it. The charge is false and is itself slanderous. His position, advocated both orally and in his book, has been opposed and correctly represented. His character has never been assailed and I would be among the first to react in outrage if it were.

“I Do Not Question Their Sincerity”

Our brother tries so hard to appear gracious while he challenges the very character of those connected with GOT. He said, “I do not question their sincerity.” Yet, on the same page he called us a “Christian Cosa Nostra” and said of one staff writer that “he needs desperately to learn to tell the truth” and then described him as a “bully” and a “coward.” So, here we have a “sincere” brother who can’t tell the truth and who is both a bully and a coward. But in spite of those liabilities, he is “sincere.” I dread the day when brother Chappelear takes off his gloves and decides that we are not sincere.

How Comfortable?

Are the brethren whose articles were published in this edition comfortable with the use made of their material? Do they wish to join in with brother Chappelear in the serious charges he has laid down?

Gossip and Foundation Business

Since brother Chappelear does not believe in gossip, how did he become privy to information which concerns our publishing work? Since he reports about commentary writers and others connected with the commentary series, how did he gain such information and is he certain that he has the story straight? I am very pleased to be a part of the process in the commentary project. It is a massive under-taking involving many writers over a period of several years (probably 15 years at best). The six commentaries which are now in print are excellent works which constitute worthy additions to anyone’s library. We do not think it necessary to screen every decision about writers, format, doctrinal problems in the text, or other business judgments through brother Chappelear or anyone else unrelated to the project. It strikes me that there is a considerable amount of gossip being traded and some who are all too eager to hear it and report it. Would those who have lectured us on love, kindness, respect and honor in dealing with each other, please take this into consideration?

What Shall We Do With Criticism?

All who write in a public forum are subject to review. That goes with the territory. All of us ought to act responsibly “in the spirit of meekness, lest thou (we) also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1-3). But criticism ought to be taken to heart. Is there some validity to it? What changes should be made to correct our course? Is it possible to attack the man and not his doctrine? Do we appear to be cold, harsh and uncaring? Do we tolerate some errors while exposing others? These are legitimate questions and I personally will take them to heart.

But Enough Is Enough

While brother Chappelear has every right to oppose what he believes to be error, he has no right to leave a cloud of suspicion over forty men who deserve better treatment than the September 30, 1996 edition of Sentry Magazine has administered. I for one, am not going to stand for it. It is time to call the hand of this editor. He needs to repent and apologize. We are waiting.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 3-4
November 7, 1996

By Donald P. Ames

In John 20:30-31, John says, “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” In these two verses, he affirms some things that deserve our attention.

First, he notes “these are written.” He did not want people to rely on memory or rumors, which might fade (or grow) with the passing of time. He was an eyewitness (see also 1 John 1:1), and wanted to be sure the report was accurately preserved for others. This he could do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16). So this valuable record has been preserved, accurately, and in detail for all to be able to read!

It was written to convince. That means it was adequate to do the job!

That was John’s purpose  to produce a record adequate to convince us of the great truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God! He didn’t have to record everything that Jesus did, but he did record an ad-equate record of the important facts we need. Nicodemus recognized the evidence was there and adequate (John 3:2), as did the man who was born blind (John 9:32). Jesus appealed to his works as proof of his deity (John 5:36; 10:25, 36-37), and also to his character as well (John 8:46). John’s record will stand! So will the test! He mentions such details as the folded face cloth (John 20:7  who would bother to do this if they were stealing the body before the soldiers caught them?), the de-lay Jesus intended before raising Lazarus (John 11:39), and the convincing appearance to Thomas (John 20:2428). These were the same proofs (along with fulfilled prophecy) that Paul used to convince the Jews (Acts 9:22; 17:3). Yes, we have all we need to do the task God has given us!

Not only can it demonstrate these truths, but John in-tended for us to believe! That means he wrote these truthsso we could understand them, become convinced of the validity of his arguments, and form some convictions as a result. Indeed, if the “common people” could understand Jesus’ message (Mark 12:37), we are without excuse if we “neglect so great a salvation” (Heb. 2:3).

Sometimes people reason, “But you have to have the Holy Spirit before you can understand God’s truths.” Did the “common people”? (Mark 12:37). Those of Samaria heard, believed, and obeyed (Acts 8:12-13) before they ever got the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16)! Those of Berea “searched the Scriptures daily” and as a result, “many of them believed.” It doesn’t say the Holy Spirit had already saved them, then guided their understanding to a fuller comprehension. John wrote so we might examine, reason over the evidence, and become convinced from the written record! Paul affirmed, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16) and that “faith comes by hearing . . . the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). John had this very motive in mind when he wrote his gospel record.

Lastly, as a result of believing, “you may have life in his name.” Not all believers, however, went on to enjoy eternal life. Some preferred the praises of men (John 12:42-43; cf. Matt. 10:32-33). Judas fell away and became the “son of perdition” (John 17:12). But those who believed were granted the right “to become” children of God (John 1:12; cf. Gal. 3:26-27 to get “the rest of the story”). John didn’t write just to shut the mouths of the opposition, but to convince and to save. This is the same purpose we are to have (see 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 3:16). Sometimes it becomes necessary to shut the mouths of the opposition, knowing they have no intentions of ever obeying the truth (cf. Acts 13:6-12), but let us always strive to have the same goal John had in our preaching  and not just to “skin the sects.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 13
November 7, 1996