Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Since God created the world, he controls it as it functions according to the laws which he set in motion. It is subject to his authority. God also made man in his image and therefore man is subject to divine authority. He will be called to judgment (Acts 17:30-31). God established the family and defined the roles of men, women, and children in the relationship. When it operates according to the will of him who created it, then great blessings flow. When his authority is rejected, then chaos follows. God also ordained civil government “for the punishment of evil doers that for the praise of them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13-14). Peace and safety emanate from following this divine plan. Rejection of it brings anarchy, crime, and violence of every kind.

The church is a divine creation. Those who make it up are called “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). We are “created in Christ unto good works” (Eph. 2:10). It was built according to the “eternal purpose of God” (Eph. 3:11). The very establishment of it made known to heavenly powers the “manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10).

Everything about it suggests divine order. Christ is its builder. “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Christ is its foundation. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). It rests upon his divine power and deity. Christ is its “chief corner stone” (1 Pet. 2:6-7). He is the point of reference for every-thing about it. He is the purchaser. He purchased it “with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). He is its savior. “He is the savior of the body, the church” (Eph. 5:23). He is its king. “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). He is “head over all things” to it (Eph. 1:22-23). All things in it must be done according to his authority. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). If anything is taught or practiced which he has not authorized, then divine authority has been rejected. This will amply proved in a future article.

Walk By the Same Rule

There is an objective standard by which all who make up the church of the Lord are expected to walk. “Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things). For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:16-20).

The word “rule” in verse 16 is kanoni from which we get the word “canon.” This is from the Hebrew /canna) which meant a cane, reed. It was used of a measuring rod, rule, a carpenter’s line, or measuring tape. In the New Testament it meant (1) a definitely bounded or fixed space within the limits of which one’s power or influence is confined; the province assigned one; one’s sphere of activity: 2 Corinthians 10:13,15, and (2) Metaphorically, any rule or standard, a principle or law of investigating, judging, living, acting: Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 324). Green says “met., rule of conduct or doctrine” and cites Gal. 6:16 and Phil. 3:16 (Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament 92).

There is a rule, a standard of action, to which all in Christ are subject. All are expected to walk by it. Paul was stern in describing those who did not walk by that rule. Since our citizenship is in heaven, then the rule of God and Christ must govern our “walk” as citizens.

That rule, also involves the practice of the apostles of the Lord. “Be followers together of me” and walk so as ye have us for an example.” Apostolic examples are crucial in understanding the rule of Christ. I hear preachers speak disparagingly of the old sermons they have heard on “ac-cording to the pattern.” One said recently, “and do you know what that pattern is? The pattern is Jesus Christ.” Well, now, what does that include? Is that limited to what Jesus said while here on earth? Only what we can read in red? Or does it include what the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to preach and write? Paul wrote “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth, combining spiritual things with spiritual words.” “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:13,16). “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). When we speak or write about “the pattern” for scriptural worship, work or organization, then we must consider what the head of the church about it, including what the Spirit guided his apostles to preach and write. The Lord’s pattern is the sum total of all he said on any subject. This business of arguing that we “must major in the gospels and minor in the epistles” and that the epistles are just “love letters” and therefore the doctrinal matters presented there are not of equal weight with what Jesus said while on earth, or what we might imagine he would have said or done based on our own subjective analysis of his person, springs from an unwillingness to “walk by the same rule.”

Unity in spiritual things is both desirable and required. We are to be “of one mind.” How is that possible? Don’t we all have our own prejudices and opinions? That may be, but when we stretch out the reed of divine truth for measurement, than what it says is right and I must be willing to lay aside my prejudice or opinion. And so must you! If there is no rule by which we all walk then we are left with spiritual anarchy. The universe functions by divine law. So does the family. So does civil government. And so does the church. Disrespect and disregard for divine authority in either or all of these matters brings chaos of gigantic proportions. (More To Come)

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 3-4
April 4, 1996

One day a neighbor came to our door with a Bible in hand which his mother had given him. He had been crying. He told me that he had just learned that his mother had died. He said that his mother had wanted him to start going to church, that he didn’t know much about it, but his mother had given him the Bible shortly before she died. This neighbor was a very worldly man, having a rough background which included drugs, alcohol, and immoral lifestyle. I had tried previously to get him to go to church with us and to have a Bible class. Hee had previously re fused. But on this day he was. ready to try. We began to study the Bible and after a few sessions and his attendance at church, he was baptized. As he came up out of the water, he had tears in his eyes and said, “I don’t know much about this. You will have to treat me like a baby.” I reassured him by telling him that the Lord now considers him a babe in Christ, a child of God – his child. He got a large grin on his face and said “I am his child. That’s great! In the days after his baptism, we studied the Bible and prayed together. He and I did not have the same back-ground but now we had Jesus in common. I began to write “I Am His Child” shortly afterward.

However, some grow weary and pursue sin. About four months later, this new brother slipped back into sin for a moment’s reckless folly. One afternoon he became intoxicated, grabbed his truck keys, drove one mile to a shopping center to purchase some liquor. When he came out of the liquor store, he got into an argument with a man over how he had parked. The man, claiming to be afraid, drove to his home, got his gun, came back and shot my new brother three times as he sat in his truck. He died instantly. I was asked to identify the body at the morgue, an experience I will never forget. The thought occurred to me that here was a man broken by sinful living who, for a short time, was mended and whole. I wrote “Mended and Whole” after performing a memorial service for one who had not learned to follow the Savior in the control of his anger and paid dearly for it.

My father died on the Lord’s day in 1980. My mother died ten years later. They had lived most of their years in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee. Dad had served as a deacon and later as an elder during a difficult time in middle Tennessee, 1940s-1950s. He was a quiet man who became vocal when the situation called fora stand for truth. He was known as a song leader, often leading singing at gospel meetings. Our home was a gathering place for preachers and others who discussed “issues,” My mother taught Bible classes and insisted that we study our Bible lessons on Saturdays before going out to play. She also would sing hymns throughout the day and at bedtime.

I believe the first time I became aware that Jesus would be coming back for his people was from her singing, “When He Cometh.” Both Dad and Mom “went about doing good” in humble, quiet service. Dad often prayed, “Wear us out in thy service, and when thou art done with us here, give us a home with thee in heaven.” After Dad died, I began to think about his attitude to work while he waited in the kingdom of Christ. Over the next decade I worked on the lyrics which then became, When The King Comes to Claim Even Me.

A good personal, family friend, Tommy Hagewood, who preached at the Locust Street church of’ Christ in Mr. Pleas-ant, performed Morn’s funeral and graveside service. After the funeral Tommy asked me if I had ever thought about writing a song about Christian families. I said I hadn’t, but on the plane back from Tennessee, I penned the words to “Led. By The Savior’s Hand” While others will sometimes be critical of those of us who were “born and raised in the 0church, “‘I praise and thank my God for such a blessing!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 19
August 15, 1996

By Louis J. Sharp

Much is being written and spoken concerning worship we offer to God. From the January 1996 issue of the Christian Chronicle we offer two quotes as specific examples:

Among churches of Christ today many questions are being asked, and disputes sometimes are being raised, about worship. These questions generally focus on methodology rather than theology. “How shall we worship?” rather than “why and whom shall we worship?” And the answers to these questions seem to cluster around two poles, each of which turns out to be anthropocentric: Either “We should worship as we have always done”  “three songs and a prayer, using hymn books and a pitch pipe, with the Lord’s Supper always preceding the sermon,” or “We should worship in innovative, pleasing ways” “with new, upbeat praise-songs, using overhead projectors and being led by a Praise-team, with a short positive message delivered in the best televangelistic style” (Paul Watson, Essays on Worship Challenge us to Think about its Purpose, 22).

Worship is today’s hot topic. Suggestions for improving worship include making it more interesting, more emotional, and more varied. But each of these can be good or bad. To make worship more interesting by a better sermon, thoughtful song selection, or helpful comments before communion is good. To create interest through entertainment, however, is to change the basic purpose of worship from communication with God to performance for man (Stafford North asks, “Where do we go from here in public worship?” Elder and Educator, 20).

These two examples express concern as well as foment, in the thinking of many brethren. There seems to be general unhappiness and dissatisfaction as to our past practices in our worship.

Demands are being heard:

 There must be a change!

We are failing our children!

They will not worship as we always have!

 We need new and improved ways to worship God!

What is worship? How would you define it? Have we missed the mark in our attempts to worship God? Why must we always be in a state of flux? Why so much discontent? Why so many iconoclasts seeking to overthrow our standard of worship?

A little research reveals that there are at least fifteen words in the Hebrew and Greek that have been translated “worship, worshiping, worshiped, worshipers” in our English Bible. These words are variously translated as: (1) “to bow down, do obeisance,” (2) “to do, serve,” (3) “glory, esteem,” (4) “to be reverential, pious,” (5) “to kiss (the hand) toward,” and others. From these definitions we learn that our worship is offered to God, not for man. It is to be in harmony with the divine will, not ours. It must be with “sincerity” and “in truth” (John 4:24).

We sympathize with those who are concerned about “unspiritual” and “unemotional” worship. The advice of brother North to prepare “better sermon(s)” and have “thoughtful song selection(s)” is something we have worked on for years. But never have we attempted to compete with the televangelists with their worldly, entertainment style presentations, nor do we intend to do so now. The “upbeat, praise songs may be good for the dance floors, (and those who use them do dance and clap their hands) but not as respectful, reverent worship offered to the Almighty.

There will continue to be those who cry out for change, even after some of these “popular” changes have been implemented. There will be dissatisfaction with the “new style.” Their clamor and cries for change will call for still further changes. As for me, I shall continue to search out “the old paths,” and be content to “walk therein” (Jer. 6:16).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 19
August 1, 1996

By Tom Kelton

Criticism is often a gift from someone who knows what you have done wrong and is kind enough to tell you about it. When this is the case the critic is your best friend. At other times critics are wrong and the latest critic is not necessarily the truest prophet. Such was the case with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

When Abraham Lincoln delivered a five-minute speech dedicating a soldier’s cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 1863, his talk drew little attention from the journalists of his day, except those who criticized it as being unworthy of the solemn occasion. The major New York paper noted the President’s speech, but did not discuss it. It had praise, however, for the dedication prayer and the operation of the principal speaker of the occasion, Edward Everett. Another New York paper merely reported that a few remarks were delivered by the President, and gave the short speech without comment. A Philadelphia paper gave more attention to the fact that there were a number of dead horses lying about the battlefield than they did to Lincoln’s speech.

Some papers criticized the speech bitterly. A Chicago paper called it an insult to the memory of the men who had died on the battlefield. A Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, paper said: “We pass over the silly remarks of the President.” The American correspondent for the London times wrote: “Any-thing more dull and commonplace it would not be easy to produce.” Only a few writers had kind words for Lincoln’s speech. Perhaps the most significant thing said about it was by a writer in Harper’s Weekly, who did not sign his name. He wrote: “The few words spoken by the President of the United States were from the heart to the heart.” In spite of all this criticism, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is today hailed as one of the greatest speeches ever given.

Lincoln had a philosophy toward criticism that carried him through the dark, troubled days that he faced during his life. “If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep on doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, then what is said against me won’t matter. If the end brings me out wrong, then ten an-gels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

When we are troubled with criticism that we think is unjust we could profit from thinking about these events in the life of Lincoln.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 25
August 1, 1996