Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The snippet below was sent in by Bill Reeves, a brother beloved in the Lord. 

According to a televised CBS news report, Aug. 30, 1999, a privately owned Lutheran High School in Michigan demonstrated how it deals with teen violence: a strict dress code! Girls wear modest dresses; boys wear shirts and trousers — no jeans for either sex! One day out of the month both can wear jeans. The principal reported that it is on that day (Jean’s Day) that he sees more students in his office needing disciplinary action or lecturing. “You act according to your dress.” Additional restrictions presented in the dress code were these: no pierced ears on the boys, no bright nail polish on the girls, no shorts on either sex.
    
Of course, I am not proposing that ladies wear jeans one Sunday a month, or that we measure the brightness of nail polish. Otherwise (at the risk of being charged with being the “clothes police”), perhaps brethren need to adapt the Lutheran School’s dress code. Yes, I know that the poor are not to be judged or shunned because of shabby clothing (Jas. 2:1-5). However, poverty is one thing. Slovenly, sloppy, indecent attire is quite another (Gen. 41:14; Prov. 7:10; 1 Tim. 2:9). 

Is the scriptural appeal for “modest apparel” without meaning? Does it elude all judgment and discretion? Is it impossible to define and apply (cf. Phil. 1:9-11; Col. 1:9, 10; Heb. 5:14b)? Evidently, though some brethren think so, a certain Lutheran High School does not so believe. Sad it is when children of the world act and dress with more wisdom than the children of light.   

By Bobby Graham

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven (Matt. 18:10).

Many of us have seen the bumper sticker that says, “Abortion stops a beating heart.” Is it not tragic that our national morals have declined to such a low point that abortion has become a means of ending unwanted pregnancies? In many, many cases it is the result of fornication and the associated desire to live as one pleases without the unwanted consequences. Selfishness is the cause of the problem, and the so-called remedy of terminating the life of another in abortion is the ultimate expression of selfishness. One life is stamped out for the sheer physical pleasure and enjoyment of another.

I recently read the account of a doctor’s delivery of a “breech baby.” In one case out of ten this kind dies during delivery. This doctor, who normally would not have ever thought of aborting a life did give it some thought in this one instance.  Once the birth had begun, he was able to see that one thigh of the baby was missing completely, so that the little foot, attached at the hip, would never have reached past the knee on the other leg. Upon seeing this defect, the doctor actually thought about sparing the parents the pain they would surely experience later. However, he just could not bring himself to commit the act. Under the circumstances death would have been somewhat expected, but he expected much more of himself. He delivered that baby, pitiful leg and all. There was one heart unstopped by the tragic act of abortion.

Some twenty years later the same doctor was present at a ceremony honoring some nurses. There a number of musicians entertained. There he saw her again — the one he chose not to abort. The harpist on the occasion was that very young woman. What talent she displayed as she beautifully performed for the people assembled! There was one harpist  who would have never played if abortionists had had their way. There was one heart that abortion did not stop.

We are reaping the harvest of bitter fruit resulting from the sowing of the wrong kind of seed — humanism, evolution, atheism, and moral relativism. When people believe human beings are merely elevated animals, they soon begin to act like animals. Only a firm faith in God that treats human beings as the special creatures of God that they are will solve this worldwide problem.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens, Alabama 35613

By Steve Wallace

The Bible teaches local church autonomy. However, it seems that some brethren do not understand this subject as well as one would hope. This is seen from their condemning or refusing that which the Bible allows with regards to autonomy. Let us notice some examples.

With Regards to Advising Other Churches About a Given Preacher

Please notice the following two quotes from brethren on this subject:

Now may I say to you, brethren, that when brethren go throughout this land, not only informing and fighting error, and there’s not a thing in the world wrong with opposing error, in fact I don’t know how to teach truth without putting it in bold relief against error. If you want to be plain you have to do that. But when men go across the country with the view to influencing churches who to preach for them or not, they are in violation of the New Testament scripture. Have we not heard long and loud for years of the local autonomy of a congregation? Let us not confuse the responsibility of teaching with our limited responsibility of fellowship  (Harry Pickup, “The Holiness of God as Revealed in Unity and Diversity” sermon, Lexington, Kentucky, July 14, 1998, my emph, sw).
No individual has the right to meddle in the affairs of an autonomous congregation. Period. When men begin phoning local church members attempting to gain information about a third party, or in an effort to sway a congregational decision in which they have no lawful involvement, it’s plain sinful. When calls come from ‘concerned brethren’ across the country about which preacher should/should not be hired, or who should conduct a gospel meeting, such brethren have jumped from propriety to politics” (Steve Dewhirst, “Church Autonomy,” Sentry Magazine, June, 1993, 3, my emph, sw).

Brethren Pickup and Dewhirst speak their thoughts clearly. It is sad to note that, in their zeal to condemn actions some would take today to limit the effects of error in other churches, they condemn the actions of New Testament Christians. Please note what the brethren in Ephesus did:

And when he (Apollos) was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren (at the church in Ephesus) wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace (Acts 18:27).

It goes without saying that, had Apollos been unworthy, the evident concern of the brethren at Ephesus for the brethren at Achaia would have been shown in warning them about him. Please compare this verse with the italicized parts of the quotes above. These two brethren are clearly teaching contrary to the Bible. It is sad to see preachers with such influence as these two men so clearly misleading brethren.

In Mission Work

There has been concern expressed with regards to churches in the U.S. sending preachers to a given place in the mission field where a church already exists. I, as well as others, have expressed concern for local church autonomy in such actions. The Bible allows this. Please notice the following account from Acts 11:

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (vv. 19-26).

On its own initiative, one church sent a preacher to another church! There was a “church” in Antioch (v. 26). The “church . . . in Jerusalem” decided to send Barnabas there (v. 22). Some brethren make arguments (wrongly) in our day to the effect that we cannot do today what the apostles did. (See Mike Willis’ recent series on this.) However, we do not have to stop to consider such arguments here because it says the “church” sent Barnabas. Hence, we can see that it is scriptural for one church to send forth a preacher to another church to preach the Gospel. It goes without saying that Antioch could have decided, in harmony with their autonomy, that they did not need Barnabas. However, Jerusalem did not violate Antioch’s autonomy by sending Barnabas.

As it Pertains to Churches Sending Out Announcements and Bulletins

In recent months a church mailed out an announcement to other churches of an upcoming effort it was planning which, being kind, deserved some attention. A brother from another church wrote, questioning that church about the announcement he had received from it. A brother from that church answered saying he firmly believed in local church autonomy and did not believe it was necessary to discuss decisions that the elders had made. Contrast this attitude with the actions of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 15. When they learned that brethren which went out from them had gone to Antioch teaching error (v. 24) they were willing to discuss this matter with the brethren from Antioch. If the church at Antioch had wanted to discuss truth which had gone forth from Jerusalem, it naturally follows that the brethren in Jerusalem would have been willing to do so. Local church autonomy allows for such questions and discussion as found in Acts 15. Yet, some brethren are acting as if church autonomy was violated in Acts 15!

Conclusion

Clearly, statements have been made on the subject of local church autonomy that have not been in harmony with Scripture. Brethren can be misled by them. Indeed, the “church autonomy” charge exemplified by brethren Dewhirst and Pickup is oft heard. Let us not heed such clearly erroneous words. Let us hear the Bible. It tells us what is and what is not in harmony with its teaching on local church autonomy.

2103 Rexford Rd., Montgomery, Alabama 36116

By Randy Blackaby

The Bible records that following the Great Flood the descendents of Noah attempted to build a city and a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven” (Gen. 11:1-9). God saw this effort and that it could be achieved. So he confounded the language of the people, forcing them to stop the construction and scatter over the earth.

What is the message and lesson of this historic text? Is it simply to explain how multiple languages developed? Was God genuinely concerned that men would build a tower that would invade the divine habitation?  

Let’s look more closely. These men in Shinar (ancient Babylon — Dan. 1:1-2) wanted to build a city and a tower. There seems nothing inherently wrong in that alone. The Bible says they wanted to construct it so its top might reach unto heaven or, as other translations say, “into the heavens.”

God thought that without intervention “nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.” It hardly seems likely that God feared men could build a brick tower all they way to heaven itself.

We must look more closely to see what the real sin at Babel involved. God had told Noah, after the Flood, to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1).

The people at Babel wanted to build a city and a tower, to make a name for themselves, and to prevent being scattered over the earth. Whereas God had given command to replenish the whole earth, these people were attempting to thwart God’s plan and develop a name for themselves at the same time. God had destroyed sinners in the Flood but not sin. The common elements of sin were present at Babel — human pride and rebellion.

So, God caused a division among the people by confounding their language so they couldn’t communicate. He did so because they had a unity of purpose in rebellion and this was propelling them toward the exact same conditions that existed immediately prior to the Flood.

By this means, Noah’s descendents were scattered over the face of the earth, just as God had initially commanded.

The site of the rebellion became known as Babel, which means “confusion.” Notice that Babel is the root of the name Babylon, which became synonymous with opposition to God from the time of the prophet Daniel to John’s writing of the Revelation.

Parallels Today

God has told the saved today to be fruitful, multiply and spread the gospel into the whole world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). When human pride drives us to build monuments to ourselves instead of to God, we repeat the sin of Babel.

When instead of being spiritually fruitful we try to build  our own material security, we repeat the infidelity of   Babel. When we refuse to hear God’s word, he sends us strong delusion — or a confusion like he sent to Babel.

When men get full of human pride, confusion always results. We live today in a world of religious “babble.” Only the spelling has changed.

What can reunite men and end the religious confusion? Simply listening to God and obeying his commands.

God once caused rebellious men to lose their ability to communicate. But after Jesus died on the cross, God did something equally phenomenal. He gave the apostles the power to speak in the languages of all the people assembled on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:5-12). The language barrier was dropped for a brief time so that God’s message of salvation could be heard with utter clarity. The miracles of “speaking in tongues” evidenced God’s presence and power just as the confusion of tongues had done centuries before.

Babel forever represents the confusion and division of humankind; but Zion, the city of God, the church, draws men and women of every language, color, culture, and nationality into a kingdom where there is neither Greek nor Jew, bond or free, but where all are one in Christ Jesus.