Truth Magazine

By Ralph Joiner

The tour bus stopped in front of a huge, impressive office building, dominating everything else around it. Responses were immediate from the tour group. “Isn’t it magnificent,” whispered one man, spellbound. “Ugliest thing I ever saw,” opined another. “It’s simply beautiful,” one lady commented to her husband.

The tour guide raised his hand for silence, and began the spiel he had given hundreds of times. “This building was designed and its erection supervised by the great architect, Harold Lloyd Wright, and is representative of his work in the later years of his life.”

Every accolade was a tribute to Wright; every criticism an insult and offence to the man’s work and his memory. Those few who had no opinion of the building had no opinion of Wright. Other than his work of architectural design there was little about Wright to distinguish him from others millions who were his contemporary.

This is, if it is not already clear, intended to be analogous to Christ and his great work. A comparison that suffers through necessity, but an analogy nonetheless. When I first began preaching the gospel a third of a century ago, one of the most common criticisms I heard about the church was that we preached too much about the church and baptism. “Why don’t you just preach Jesus?” we were asked. “Preach the man, not the plan.” Little has changed. How truly did the wise man speak when he said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). Now, however, some of our preaching “brethren” have joined the sectarians in pleading a moratorium on preaching the “plan.” Like our denominational friends, they believe that “preaching the man, not the plan” is the answer to every problem hindering unity among “believers.” “If we just preach Jesus,” they contend, “there would not be so much division in the religious world.”

Now, an analogy is just an illustrative comparison. It doesn’t necessarily prove anything. But it should be apparent to anyone with a modicum of common sense that we cannot preach “the man”  we cannot preach Jesus  without drawing attention to that which gives us the motivation to preach him: our salvation. Jesus is declared to be “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb.12:2), or the “architect and perfecter of our faith” as it might be accurately translated. How can you “preach” the “architect” without praising his work? It is impossible. The “architectural design” of Jesus did not consist in just his existence; nor even of his earthly teaching, though, even if you allowed that to be your limit, you must, of necessity “preach the plan” for that was what Jesus personal minis-try was all about. “Preaching the man” involves not only preaching about Jesus  his virgin birth, his Deity, the miracles he worked, the prophecies he gave, the sin he rebuked, his death on the cross for our salvation  it includes preaching about the church he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28) to which the saved are added upon their obedience to the gospel (Acts 2:47), of which he is the Savior (Eph. 5:23), and which he will one day deliver up to God (1 Cor. 15:24). It includes telling lost sinners not only what Jesus has done but what they must do to have forgiveness for their sins, happiness in this life, and more in that eternal home that awaits the faithful. Did not Peter imply that the “plan” was available only through the “man” (2 Pet. 1:3)? In the same way, when “the plan” is preached, Jesus must be taught as the “author and finisher” of that plan. If Jesus is not everything the word of God declares him to be not only was he the greatest charlatan the world has ever seen, but “the plan” is useless and its teaching and application are exercises in futility. Paul aptly described such when he wrote, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor 15:19). As a building draws attention to its designer, so the “plan” of salvation, and all it encompasses, draws attention to Christ who accomplished it.

Brethren, it is not an either/or situation. The “man” and the “plan” are not mutually exclusive; they are complements to one another. One does not obviate the other. The “plan” without the “man” would leave us with a gospel that is impotent, not “God’s power unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). The “man” without the “plan” would leave us in a spiritual maze, not knowing which way to turn to get the prize at the end.

Sunday morning, when I preached a lesson on marriage, I preached the “man” and the “plan.” Sunday evening when I extolled the all sufficiency of the Scriptures, I taught the “man” and the “plan.” May God give me the courage, the wisdom, and the strength to always preach both, for one is powerless without the other. May I always be able to say with Paul, “. . . I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). Only then may I, with all the exuberance of that faithful saint proclaim, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day” (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 19-20
September 5, 1996

By Randy Blackaby

More and more young Christians are going to dances. Fewer parents stop them from doing so. And despite sex education that begins in kindergarten, nearly everyone feigns ignorance about what’s wrong with dancing.

Are parents and children really this lacking in under-standing? Do we really fail to see the impact of males and females moving together in close embrace or gyrating be-fore one another to the beat of seductive music? Are we blind to how some dance movements imitate the motions of the sex act itself?

Impudent or offended voices demand, “Show me in the Bible where it says not to dance!” Does the Bible say all dancing is sinful? Well, actually, no it doesn’t. Jephthah’s daughter danced alone (Judg. 11:34). You fmd Jewish women dancing alone in celebration (Exod. 15:20-21). More women are mentioned dancing alone in Judges 21:19. There are women recorded as dancing in celebration of King David’s victory (1 Sam. 18:6). David himself danced before the ark of God (2 Sam. 30:16). The Bible mentions a group of soldiers dancing (1 Sam. 30:16). Solomon recognized a time for dancing, in contrast with a time for mourning (Eccl. 3:4). The prophet foretells a time when joyous dancing will be the result of God’s work (Jer. 31:13). Dancing even appears to have been a form of praise to God in Old Testament times (Pss. 149:3; 150:4). Dancing was part of the celebration upon the return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:25).

So, if women want to dance with one another in celebration, we probably ought to be silent about it. If male soldiers gleefully dance and shout over a victory, no condemnation likely is needed.

But notice in all the Bible’s condoned accounts of dancing that males and females didn’t dance together. The purpose of the dancing was celebration or praise or even worship of God. In these dances, as contrasted with the dance of Herodias’ daughter (Matt. 14:6), there was no sexual element.

It is true that the Bible doesn’t say “thou shalt not dance.” But in Galatians 5:19-21 licentiousness or lasciviousness is condemned. These words describe behavior of any sort that exhibits a lack of restraint, indecency, unchastity, lewdness, or shameless behavior.

The same verses also condemn “revelry,” or partying accompanied by drinking, a common addendum at places of dancing.

Is it really that difficult to see that most of today’s dancing is designed to arouse emotions and physical reactions which God tells us to control and utilize only within the circle of marriage?

Ask yourself, what really is the purpose of men and women, boys and girls dancing together?

Curt Sachs, writing in World History of Dance, describes dancing as an art form to ex-press love-malting. For this reason the steps and positions are designed to bring into physical contact those parts of a man and woman which are most sexually sensitive. Movements are de-signed to be visually stimulating sexually.

The Bible doesn’t condemn a man dancing with his wife in the privacy of their home. But it does condemn “lusting” after a woman. It forbids committing fornication or adultery. So, it would seem ludicrous to participate in an act with someone not your spouse that would arouse the very feelings that lead to all three of these sins.

Can a person go to a dance if he or she doesn’t dance? Answer this question by deciding whether Jesus would show up there for any purpose other than giving a stern condemnation. Whether it is righteous to dance or not is an issue, like smoking, drug use, or playing the lottery, that must be decided on general principles of righteous conduct enumerated in Scripture.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 15
September 5, 1996

By Irvin Himmel

Following the death of Saul there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. Abner, who had commanded Saul’s army, made Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, king as a rival of David. Eventually, David was recognized as the lawful ruler over all the tribes. Some resentment against David lingered.

The story of Shimei is told in 2 Samuel 16:5-13; 19:16-23; and 1 Kings 2:8-9, 36-46. This little-known Bible character is a rather interesting man. His actions and the reactions by David and Solomon reflect the conditions in Israel in the days of the United Kingdom and remind us of problems confronting ancient monarchs. There are lessons for us as well.

Shimei the Slanderer

David and his loyal supporters found it necessary to flee Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion. They made their way eastward to the Mount of Olives and on to the Jordan, eventually reaching Mahanaim. Not far from the Mount of Olives they came to Bahurim in Benjamite territory. It was there that Shimei, son of Gera, came forth and cursed David. He threw stones at David and his servants, yelling, “Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial.” Shimei asserted that the Lord had returned upon David the blood of the house of Saul. He felt that David was responsible for the overthrow of Saul’s rule. He may have supposed that David had something to do with the deaths of Saul and his sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, as well as the deaths of Ishbosheth and Abner. He further considered the rebellion of Absalom as a means of David’s being taken in his own mischief. To the partisan mind of Shimei, David was a bloody man.

Abishai, David’s nephew and one of his captains, asked the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord, the king?” He wanted to go over and lop off Shimei’s head. David felt that this cursing might be a part of David’s own punishment for the sins he had committed, so he said, “Behold, my son . . . seeketh my life: how much more now may this Benjamite do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him.” David felt that he must bear affliction, and he looked to the Lord to repay good for evil. So Shimei continued along the way, cursing as he went, throwing stones, and casting dust.

Shimei took advantage of David’s humiliating situation. He vented his hatred for the king. He was of the family of the house of Saul, clearly in sympathy with Saul’s house, angry that someone from the tribe of Judah was ruling, and happy that David’s son Absalom was attempting to over-throw the king. David showed remarkable composure under these trying circumstances. Abishai would gladly have cut off Shimei’s head if David had just given the word.

Shimei the Spared Sinner

After Absalom was killed and his revolt ended, David began the journey from Mahanaim, east of Jordan, back to Jerusalem. At the Jordan he was met by Shimei the Benjamite, and with him there were a thousand men of Benjamin. Shimei is not cursing and calling David ugly names, nor throwing stones and kicking up dust. He falls down before the king and pleads for mercy. He confesses, “I have sinned.” Doubtless he wanted to impress David that he was a man of considerable influence by bringing a thousand men with him. He knows his life is in the hands of the king.

Abishai, brother of Joab, asks, “Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed?” Abishai and Joab were quick to settle all matters with the sword! David grew a bit weary with them at times.

At the moment David was more interested in healing and bringing the people together than he was in putting someone to death. He said to Shimei, “Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him.” David had been through some very difficult days and longed for peace. He wanted his return to Jerusalem to be a time of rejoicing, not a day of vengeance.

Shimei the Self-Convinced

When David was old and about to go the way of all earth, he spoke to his son Solomon, the new king, about Shimei. When Shimei had blasphemed the Lords anointed, that was a serious affair. David had spared his life under oath, but now the matter was in Solomons hands. David advised Solomon not to regard him as guiltless, but to do with him according to what might be considered wise.

Solomon called for Shimei, instructed him to build himself a house in Jerusalem, and not to leave the city. This would kep him under surveillance and away from the other Benjamites. He was warned that if he left the city, “Thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” Shimei acknowledge, “The saying is good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do.” Solomon was giving Shimei a place of refuge in the city that was Israel’s pride. If Shimei would abide by the king’s instructions, he could live out his days in peace.

Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem for three years. Then two of his servants ran away to Gath. Shimei did a very foolish thing. Instead of petitioning the king for permission to seek those servants, or arranging for someone else to being them back, he saddled his ass and went to Gath in person and brought back the servants. He risked his life for the sake of regaining two runaway slaves. Perhaps he thought that Solomon’s oath would be forgot-ten after all this time. Maybe he supposed he could slip away, bring back his servants, and the king would never know about it. Before we judge him too harshly, let us be reminded that people act in an equally sense-less manner today. Many throw off divine restraints and violate the will of God. They suppose that their deeds will go undetected by the King of heaven. They risk their souls for earthly possessions.

Solomon learned of Shimei’s violation of his agreement. He reminded him that he had sworn by the Lord to remain in Jerusalem. “Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the Lord, and the commandment that I have charged thee with?” Solomon declared that “the Lord shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head.” Shimei stood self-condemned. He had admitted that Solomon’s agreement with him was good. He had nothing to plead in self-defense.

Acting upon orders from King Solomon, Benaiah fell upon Shimei that he died. Despite David’s leniency toward him, and Solomon’s allowing him to live in peace provided he would remain in Jerusalem, Shimei sealed his own fate. Many today are given marvelous opportunities by the mercy and grace of God, but they, like Shimei, play the fool.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 6-7
September 19, 1996

By Ron Halbrook

Not Doomed to Division on Every Point

Many questions have come up through the years on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, which have not resulted in division and will not do so in the future. Such questions persist among brethren equally committed to the principle and the proposition laid down by Jesus (one man for one woman, one exception). A few brethren among us doubt the one exception, but generally do not press the point beyond expressing their personal reservation. Some of these questions are more serious than others, some are more theoretical than practical. There are brethren who have a very strong conscience in regard to one or more such questions.

Occasionally, heated discussions or even debates have occurred over them, but not division. Two preachers may lose confidence in each other over such an issue, or two churches may have strained relations over it, but no formal division exists. Sometimes a change of preachers, or some other person involved in a given case moving out of the area, resolves the friction. If some division does occur in a rare case, it remains localized or focuses on a few individuals, but it is not general. It does not spread because both biblical and practical considerations contain its effect.

What is different in the nature of marriage issues that generate inevitable and widespread division, and issues which do not? Before answering this question, I will mention a few of thepoints over which brethren advocating the same fundamental truths on marriage, divorce, and remarriage have differed without dividing in my 30 years of preaching experience. Most of us would have an opinion on some of these or a conscientious conviction on others, and would feel the need for continuing study on still others. It is well that we not jump to rash conclusions (Phil. 1:10; 4:5).

1. Does a woman have the same right as a man to divorce her husband for fornication? 2. Can the marriage of an underage couple be annulled, and if so, are they free to marry again? 3. If a person who is free to many marries someone who is not, is the first person free to remarry after getting out of that marriage? 4. Would the answer depend on whether he entered the first marriage knowing the other party was not free to marry? 5. Would it matter if he had been intentionally deceived? 6. Would the answer depend on how the person got out of this unauthorized marriage: who initiated the divorce, the legal grounds for it, etc.?

7. Can there ever be a separation, and if so, on what grounds and for how long? 8. Does 1 Corinthians 7:5 cover every angle and aspect of that question, or do other Bible principles apply in some situations? 9. For instance, is a wife defrauding her husband if she does not submit to his drunken demands, violent advances, and perverted desires? 10. Must a wife re-main with a husband who beats her and endangers her life and the lives of the children? 11. If she tries to put herself out of harm’s way by filing for a legal separation or civil divorce, with-out considering herself free from the marriage bond, does she cause his sin if he goes to a prostitute or remarries? (In most states, she cannot get a re-straining order for police protection unless she takes such legal steps.)

12. May the innocent and guilty parties be reconciled by remarriage after a divorce if neither has married another person? 13. If the put-away fornicator marries another person, and then gets out of that marriage, may he remarry his original mate? 14. Can the put-away fornicator remarry after his first mate dies? 15. When a man leaves his wife for an unscriptural reason over her protest so that he can marry an-other person, does his adultery give her the ground to appeal to God to dissolve her marriage bond? 16. In either case, does this meet the criterion for her to marry again or does she remain bound to him for life?

17. When fornication is present, does it matter who initiates the legal proceedings if the innocent party is to have the right to remarry? 18. If the fornicator initiates the civil case, must the innocent party counter sue in or-der to have the right to remarry? 19. If the innocent and guilty parties have separate cases against each other pending in the courts of separate jurisdictions, will her right to remarry hinge upon such factors as which case was initiated first or which is ruled upon first?

20. If a man drives his wife out of the house by abusive conduct such as violence and later commits adultery, may the wife divorce him for fornication and marry again? 21. If he had not permitted her to live with him for some period of time when he finally committed adultery, would her right to remarry depend on who got to the courthouse first?

Any number of other questions involving complicated circumstances may arise which would be answered differently, in whole or in part, by various brethren who are equally committed to the words of Jesus on marriage. For instance, “common law” marriage raises its own set of knotty problems. If anyone thinks he can answer all such questions with finality, I will gladly refer all future inquiries and issues to him. Actually, all of us realize that at times we must point out plainly and clearly what the Bible says, and then let the person involved make a personal application of the principle involved. Teaching a divine principle and allowing people to apply it, and to answer to God for the application, is not the same thing as leaving people to create their own principles and perimeters. Neither does it countenance for a moment any flagrant desertion of Bible passages and principles, which must be openly and forcefully exposed and reproved (Eph. 5:11).

Why Division Does Not Occur

Why will such questions and issues as the 21 points listed above generally not generate inevitable and widespread division? The four earmarks of approaching, unavoidable division are simply not present in the nature of these points.

1. Instead of repudiating and re-placing the fundamental rule, base lines, or perimeters given by Jesus, all parties to the discussion make their appeal directly to the rule of one man for one woman for life, the only exception being that the innocent party can divorce the fornicator and marry another person. One or both of the parties to the discussion may be in some measure inconsistent with the principle to which each appeals, but they share equally a common commitment to a common principle. General division is not likely to occur when brethren share a common playing field of truth and differ only as to whether a given situation constitutes an infraction of the rules shared by all. If some inadvertent infraction does occur, it is not likely to spread and eventual correction is likely because all parties continue to uphold the same standard.

2. None of the parties to such discussions argues that divine silence permits people to do anything. Everyone appeals to positive divine authority in the arguments presented. One or both parties might misunderstand the proper application of a text to a given situation, and sin might or might not occur as a result, depending on the nature of the point involved. In any case, even where sin occurs, there is a strong likelihood that the mistake eventually will be discovered because of the constant emphasis upon testing all things by the standard of positive authority. In the meantime, no destructive repudiation of the basic premise of Bible authority has been introduced. All parties agree that we must have positive authority for what we preach and practice, and that silence prohibits, and their method of argumentation reflects their common commitment to that basic premise.

3. The observation of many years confirms that nothing in the arguments of brethren who differ on these matters is breeding looseness on other moral issues. Brethren on either side of such questions are equally strong in warning about the dangers of such worldly practices as immodest dress, gambling, dancing, and drinking intoxicants. This is because there has been no weakening in commitment to fundamental principles of truth, including unpopular truth contained in the hard sayings of our Lord (John 6:60).

4. Fellowship is rarely a problem in an atmosphere which encourages open study and discussion on any issue in the light of God’s Word. God gives us time to grow in understanding and application of truth and brethren generally forebear with each other in recognition that we are all striving to grow. God will not tolerate the persistent practice of any sin and neither can we (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6). Not all issues involve sin, and even where the potential for sin exists, God’s word has a tremendous power to correct our misconceptions and to lead us away from sin. Any number of questions and issues like the 21 points listed above have not created formal divisions because all parties involved have maintained their willingness to patiently study and discuss such matters from time to time in the light of divine truth (Heb. 5:14; 2 Pet. 3:18).

Sharing a common commitment to truth, common Bible principles on specific subjects, and a common willingness to study differences of understanding in some areas of application, we can maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). In this atmosphere, brethren have been united on the subjects, action, and purpose of baptism. Because we share those Bible principles, differences over where people are baptized (running water or pools) and over what to say when baptizing have not divided us. The Bible has united us on the organization of the church with elders to oversee and deacons to serve. Sharing those principles, we discuss without dividing over some of the finer points of elders’ qualifications (must he have more than one child? what if wife dies after appointment?). We are united by Scripture on the day, the elements, and the meaning of the Lord’s supper, but continue to discuss such things as the time of day and whether it can be provided more than once on the Lord’s Day. By the same token, we can be united on the Bible principles laid down in passages such as Matthew 19:9 while continuing to discuss some difficult points of application without dividing. To bear with such differences does not mean we must tolerate sprinkling, women elders, a Tuesday Lord’s supper, or theories that flagrantly violate the doctrine of Christ on marriage!

This spirit of open study also helps us to recognize areas of application in which we may be off the mark. For in-stance, during the years when brethren were studying the whole complex of issues related to institutionalism and centralization, some brethren who basically were standing for the truth gradually came to recognize inconsistencies between the truth they preached and defended and a few points of application. Some who preached the principles of truth had gone along with the church support of orphanages with-out closely examining the matter, and others had participatedin small-scale sponsoring church arrangements such as the Music Hall Meetings in Houston, Texas. Still others had never carefully considered whether the local church was authorized to help alien sinners, but in time they saw that such was excluded by principles of truth they had always preached. Brethren who were preaching the fundamental principles of truth in some cases realized that they were inconsistent with that truth in some points of application, and they had to change either their preaching or their practice. Those who continued to preach the truth corrected their practice, and those who were determined to justify their practice at all costs changed their preaching and went into apostasy. Those who are truly committed to the fundamentals of truth have nothing to fear from open study. While bearing with each other and examining various points of application, they are able to help one another make corrections in their course from time to time.

Where there are open Bibles and open hearts, wherever people sincerely search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so, when brethren truly believe that truth has nothing to fear from investigation, where both sides of controversial issues can be openly examined, we can and will maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 4:1-3). Brethren must maintain open pulpits where both sides of controversial questions can be heard and examined. Sin and false doctrine do not thrive in such an atmosphere, and are sooner or later choked out or driven out by it.

False teachers want toleration of their teaching without examination of their theories, which makes division inevitable (1 Cor. 11:19; 1 John 2:19). They want “open pulpits” where virtually anything can be advocated without review and reproof. Brethren who have honest differences within the context of a common commitment to test all things by truth do not thwart the process of study and growth by demanding the right to teach certain things with an exemption from examination. Rather than to divide, they draw closer and closer together in the process of study and growth. Such is the power of God’s word working in our lives, as can be seen when Peter faltered and was corrected (Gal. 2:1-14).

We can maintain the unity mandated by God. We must recognize and expose apostate movements which depart from the faith and divide the people of God. Do not be deceived by the ploy that our opposition to the false doctrines and false teachers of apostate movements will doom us to divide over every difference we may have with brethren who are as genuinely committed to upholding the truth as we are.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 16-18
September 5, 1996