Truth Magazine

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.

By Phil T. Arnold

Shortly after moving to Oklahoma City in the mid 80s, I made an opportunity to pay a visit to the meeting place of the Oakcrest Church of Christ which is a stone’s throw from our building. One of the preachers there took me on a tour of their then recently completed complex. He showed me their offices, the large auditorium, the extensive classrooms, and teaching resource room. When we came to their kitchen and “fellowship hall,” he was almost apologetic and attempted to justify such an elaborate facility for dining as containing only those things donated by members with nothing coming out of the general treasury of the congregation.

You see, he knew that I had come not for a tour of their facility but to attempt to arrange an opportunity to discuss some of the differences that existed between us. One of which being the involvement of the church unauthorized social matters, including church sponsored social meals. He had declined the invitation assuring me that he was aware of and had previously thoroughly studied our differences and felt that a discussion would prove unproductive. He also assured me that Oakcrest would never become “one of those liberal churches like Quail Springs and Mayfair” (his words not mine). As proof of this he said, “There’ll never be one of those family life centers at Oakcrest. The elders here would never stand for it.”

Well, fifteen years have now come and gone. The preacher I visited with has long since moved on and there have been at least some changes in the eldership that I am aware of. In addition, there is now a large building on the north side of their complex — a “family life center” or, perhaps more accurately, a gymnasium — the previously dreaded indication of a “liberal” church according to the previous preacher.

Such a progression is no surprise to those who have watched the departure of the so-called “mainstream” churches of Christ in their march toward apostasy. Brethren have moved from meals in the “meeting house,” to elaborate facilities to better accommodate such, to the “church gym” and full involvement in the social realm as the work of the church. The Bible authority to justify (?) one, justifies all the rest. “And whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Col. 3:17).

From around the country comes disturbing news of the continued apostasy of churches of Christ through unscriptural departures and denominational imitation.

For example the Woodmont Hills church of Christ in Nashville made the news once more with their official invitation to Billy Graham of “Crusades for Christ fame” to encourage him to come to Nashville. At least three other churches of Christ in the Nashville area have also publicly committed themselves to work with the Graham Crusade. And no, Billy Graham has not changed his teaching. He still denies that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), believes in the doctrine of original, inherited Adamic sin (Ezek. 18:20), the impossibility of falling from grace (Gal. 5:4), and that Jesus does not now reign over his kingdom but must return to the earth and reign in Jerusalem for 1,000 years (Col. 1:13). He uses mechanical instruments of music in worship (Eph. 5:19), and continues to invite people to be saved by “faith only” (Jas. 2:24; Mark 16:16) and then join the church of their choice, thus denying the Bible teaching concerning the one church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22, 23). Yet, this false teacher is being set forth as a teacher with “a reputation of honesty, accountability and moral uprightness” (see Matt. 7:15 and 2 John 9-11). How far they have gone! (Quotations concerning Billy Graham are from Reubel Shelly, preacher for the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ.)

As another example of where some “churches of Christ” are headed, note the following letter from the Monterey Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas concerning a “pastor” of the Monterey congregation baptizing an infant in the building of a United Methodist Church:

To Our Brothers and Sisters at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church,
Thank you for allowing us to use your building on November 18. The families involved were from two different backgrounds and saw a need to unite their faith and family through the sacrament of baptism. Because of your generous spirit, a household has been encouraged to continue their faith tradition. We of the Monterey Church of Christ are grateful to have you as our partners in spreading the good news of Jesus in our community and the world. May God bless your ministry richly.

Baptizing infants! Brothers and sisters at a denomination! “Partners” with a denomination! Encouraging people “to continue their faith tradition”! Acting like Christ? When did Christ ever encourage people to continue in human tradition (Matt. 15:8-9)? When did he ever join them in unauthorized religious activity (Matt. 15:13-14)? When did Christ ever . . .? How far they have gone!

Yes, there are those among “mainstream” churches of Christ who are voicing opposition to such blatant departures from the word and compromises with denominationalism. But their cries are falling on a lot of deaf ears attached to heads that have not been filled with the word of God, an understanding of what the church of the Bible is all about, and the need for Bible authority for all that we practice. Is it any wonder they have gone so far and more and more are going that same way.

Let us not be smug or resort to “I told you so.” Let us lament any departure from the truth. Let us take warning (1 Cor. 10:12). Let us be ever diligent to be the church we read about in the New Testament that truly does belong to Christ because we follow his teaching (Col. 3:17). Let this also be a warning to us about worshiping with a congregation that merely wears the name “church of Christ” without any further investigation.    

From the Evangelizer, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

By Walton Weaver

The word “fool” appears 56 times in the King James Version of the Bible. Of these, 48 of them are in the Old Testament and eight in the New Testament. Most of the Old Testament references are in the wisdom books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, but primarily in the book of Proverbs (32 occurrences). The most familiar in the book of Psalms is the passage which says that the one who says in his heart there is no God is a fool (Ps. 14:1). My own favorites from the book of Proverbs are the following:

He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool (10:18).

It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom (10:23).

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart (11:29).

The way of the fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise (12:15).

A wise man feareth, and deparateth from evil: but the fool rageth and is confident (14:16).

A fool despiseth his father’s instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent (15:5).

Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool (19:1)
It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling (20:3).

Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words (23:9).

As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool (26:1).

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly (26:11).
A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards (29:11).

Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? There is more hope of a fool than of him (29:20).

In the New Testament, Jesus called the rich farmer of Luke 12:13-21 a “fool” because he worked simply to store up more and more of the fruits of his labors while ignoring God in his life. Paul also used the word to identify people in various situations (1 Cor. 3:18; 15:36). When he found it necessary in 2 Corinthians to glory somewhat in his own sufferings in order to defend his apostleship, he conceded that he was using the language of a fool (2 Cor. 11:23; 12:6, 11).

Who Is A Fool?

So what does it mean for one to be a fool? Basically the word “fool” means “without reason, senseless, foolish” (Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 72). The word “foolish” appears almost 50 times in Scripture, so the two words, “fool” and “foolish,” when added together are used about 100 times in the King James Version of the Bible.

When looking for self-acclaimed fools in the Bible we probably should not count the times Paul admits to acting as a fool in speaking of his sufferings as an apostle. Paul was not really acting foolishly, but he certainly was made to feel like a fool, and others no doubt would consider him to be acting foolishly by using his own sufferings in his defense. It made him appear to be glorying in himself. If we omit Paul, as I am convinced we should, then the only time we have a frank admission from anyone in the Bible that he had been a fool is when Saul, the first king of Israel, said, “I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly” (1 Sam. 26:21, emphasis mine, ww). 

Saul is a clear case of one who truly played the fool. There is no room for doubt here. He is one who had acted without reason both before God and in his treatment of David, and Saul was honest enough to see it and admit it. This is not usually true of those who act this way. But notice, first, before Saul began to play the fool . . .

Saul Had Much Going For Him

Like others who had gone before, and many who have came after him, there were many things that were true of Saul that if used as intended they would have made him do better.

1. He was from a prominent and wealthy family. Saul’s father is described as “a mighty man of valor” (1 Sam. 9:1). His father being of great wealth and substance shows that his family was of high consideration in the tribe of Benjamin, even though Saul himself, “adopting the common forms of affected humility which Oriental people are wont to use” (Jamieson, I, Part 2:154), describes it as “the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin” (v. 21).

2. He was a choice young man and handsome. The word “goodly” in 1 Samuel 9:2 is rendered “handsome” in the NASB. The verse goes on to say that “there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he,” i. e., a more handsome man. In addition to this, he was a head higher than any of the people. When we put it all together we have a man with the strength and looks of youth, and a very good-looking young man at that! As one person put it, “a gigantic stature and an athletic frame must have been a popular recommendation at that time in that country.” But has there ever been a time and a country where such a young man did not receive a “popular recommendation”? Such a person, at least from the physical side of his makeup, was surely very well suited to serve as king over Israel.

3. He had a changed heart. After Saul had been chosen by God as the first king of Israel, according to 1 Samuel 10:9, “God gave him another heart.” This appears to be a way of informing that God was instrumental in leading Saul in another direction and enabling him to now give himself wholly to the administration of his kingdom. With his new heart Saul was no longer burdened with other matters such as being concerned about his livelihood. Instead he now had the heart of a statesman, a general, a prince. Matthew Henry describes this change in the following way: “A new fire was kindled in his breast, such as he had never before been acquainted with: seeking the asses is quite out of his mind, and he thinks of nothing but fighting the Philistines, redressing the grievances of Israel, making laws, administering justice, and providing for the public safety; these are the things that now fill his head” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 2:260).

4. He was a humble man. First, notice Saul’s response when he is first informed by Samuel of God’s plan to appoint him as king over Israel. Even though Samuel does not say he is God’s choice in these words, his question to Saul, “And on whom is all the desire of Israel? Is it not on thee, and on all thy father’s house?” implies as much. Saul clearly understood what he meant, and with this understanding, he asked Samuel, “Am not I a Benjaminite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? And my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Wherefore then speakest thou so to me?” (1 Sam. 9:21). In other words, “I’m not important enough to be king over Israel, am I?”

Second, when they were looking for Saul to present him to the people he was hard to find. He was not seeking the attention of the people, even after he had been told what God had planned for him. Where was he found? The Bible says “he was hid among the stuff” (1 Sam. 10:22). His humility is apparent in this statement. He was not seeking a place of prominence in God’s kingdom. This is one of the most important qualities for success in God’s work.
5. He was numbered among the prophets. Saul was told that he would meet a company of prophets who  would prophesy, and that he also would receive the Spirit of God, “and . . . prophesy with them, and . . . be turned into another man” (1 Sam. 10:5-6). It was after this promise that God gave him another heart and the signs promised to him were fulfilled. After Saul prophesied as promised, the people began to say one to another, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 10:10-11).

We might think that in light of all these advantages, surely such a man would not fail, would he? But in spite of all of these things in his favor:

He Still Played The Fool

It is sad to hear from Saul himself, “God is departed from me, and answereth me no more” (1 Sam. 28:15). What had Saul done to lead him to this sad conclusion, “I have played the fool”? Several things may be noted.

1. He disobeyed God. The fact that he disobeyed God belongs at the top of the list. And he did so more than once. The first example of Saul’s disregard for God’s word is when he went up to Gilgal ahead of Samuel and offered a burnt offering unto God. Samuel had told him to go ahead of him, “and, behold, I will come down to thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and show thee what thou shalt do” (1 Sam. 10:8). But Saul got impatient while waiting for Samuel. The Bible says that he waited for the seven days as instructed, but when Samuel did not arrive in the specified time Saul took it on himself to offer up the burnt offering (1 Sam. 13:8-10). When Samuel arrived he rebuked Saul for his misdeed and said he had acted foolishly: “Thou has acted foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee” (1 Sam. 13:13). Because of his disobedience Samuel told him that God would take his kingdom away from him and give it to another, even to the David, “a man after his own heart” (vv. 13-14).

Saul also disobeyed God when he failed to slay Agag and he “spared . . . the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them” (1 Sam. 15:9). God had told him that he was to “smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (v. 3). Samuel described Saul’s sin as “rebellion” against God (v. 23). As in the former case, so in this instance as well, Saul’s attempts to justify his actions were rejected. He finally admitted, “I have sinned” (v. 30), but it seems to have been an empty confession, and it was too late.

2. He became envious of David’s successes. We are impressed with the unselfishness that seemed to characterize him before when he refused to destroy the sons of Belial for not bringing gifts to the new king (1 Sam. 10:27). Evidently it was expected that they bring such gifts. But Saul “held his peace.” Yet after Saul had disobeyed God and he had been told that the kingdom would be taken from him, we see a different man. When Saul returned from the slaughter of the Philistines, “the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick. And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Sam. 18:6-7). Upon hearing this, we are told, “And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him. . . . And Saul eyed David from that day and forward” (vv. 8-9). A wise man tells us that envy “is the rottenness of the bones” (Prov.14:30). Saul had developed this terrible disease.

3. He imagined troubles that were not there. It is easy to become delusionary when we are jealous of others. We begin to imagine things that are not true. Saul simply would not believe that David would do him no harm and that he actually sought what was good for him. Jonathan told Saul to stop sinning against David, “because his works have been to theeward very good” (1 Sam. 19:4). But Saul would not believe him. When one reaches this state of mind he gives meaning to words that are not there, and he begins to interpret things that people do in the opposite way in which they were meant. He begins to fear the worst and becomes afraid of troubles that will never happen. Saul had become like that.

4. He was unfair to David. Saul was telling David he loved him while trying to kill him. He told his servants to go and tell David “secretly,” “Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king’s son in law” (1 Sam. 18:22). It’s hard for us to imagine that Saul would give David a wife (his younger daughter, Michal, who loved David, v. 20) only to take her back. But that’s what he planned. It was only a pretense of love on Saul’s part to provide him with an opportunity to kill him. David was the greatest asset to Saul’s kingdom, but Saul did not have the good sense to see it. David had respect for Saul and loved Jonathan, Saul’s son, as if he were his own son. He had opportunities to kill Saul but always spared his life.

Big men like David do great things in the kingdom of God. Little men like Saul are envious of those who are able to do more than they can — or else do it better, and they get on the wrong track by majoring in trifles and do everything they can to destroy them. When they do, like Saul, they do no more than “play the fool.”

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032