Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The title of this article comes from a very familiar story, the story of Cain and Abel. Briefly recounted, the Bible text states that two sons were born to Adam and Eve, Cain who tilled the ground and Abel who shepherded sheep. In the process of time, both of them brought their sacrifices to God. Abel’s was accepted and Cain’s was rejected. Cain’s reaction was sinful. Instead of changing his sacrifice so that God would accept it, Cain burned in envy and anger at his brother. God approached Cain, trying to warn him of the danger that his sinful anger created for him. He said, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:7). But Cain allowed sin to conquer him. Cain met his brother in the field and slew him.

God again tried to redeem sinful Cain. When God asked Cain where his brother was, he lied saying, “I know not.” Then he said to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9). There may be a play on words in Cain’s reply. “Am I the keeper of Abel (who is the keeper of sheep)?” grasps the idea. Cain’s implication is that he is not his brother’s keeper.

We Are Not Our Brother’s Keeper

There is a sense in which one is not his brother’s keeper. Paul said, “For every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:5). That may be understood in the sense of each person bearing responsibility for his own sin (see Rom. 14:10-12), but it is also a true statement from an earthly point of view. God has given each individual the responsibility to provide for his own. Paul wrote, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). He even added, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). God has not given one man the responsibility to take care of another able bodied man.

Furthermore, there are certain spiritual responsibilities that every man must take care of for himself. One cannot be baptized for another, have faith for another, pray in place of the other, etc. Every man is responsible to God for his own spiritual development. This is implied in those passages that exhort every man to grow spiritually (Heb. 5:11-14; Eph.  4:15-16). However, there is another sense in which one is his brother’s keeper.

We Are Our Brother’s Keeper

1. The watchman is responsible to warn his brother. The Lord spoke to the prophet Ezekiel saying, Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul (Ezek. 3:17-19).

This is the sense in which Paul wrote, “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that 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). To the degree that one has the ability to warn his brethren of spiritual dangers to his soul, he is his brother’s keeper.

2. One is responsible to restore his brother. Paul wrote, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2). James added, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19-20).

In this respect, one is his brother’s keeper. Christians are to watch out for each other.

3. One is responsible for the physical needs of one who needs our help. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates this point. 
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise (Luke 10:25-37).

Were the Levite and priest right? If one is not his brother’s keeper, what was wrong with their conduct? They did not strip the man of his garments, wound him, and leave him half dead. They passed by without doing him harm. However, they were responsible to help him. Why? Because one should love his neighbor as he loves himself!

The same truth is taught in the Parable of the Separation of the Sheep and Goats (Matt. 25:31-46). Those who received the invitation to heaven gave drink to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, etc. One is his brother’s keeper.

Conclusion

No doubt there are other ways in which one is his brother’s keeper. However, these should remind us of our obligations one toward another, lest a spirit like that of Cain arise among us.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Bobby Graham

A few days ago in Canada the following saying appeared on a church sign: “Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape.” It is difficult to know always how far people intend for such sayings to be taken. If the saying was meant to convey the idea of flexibility in personal relationships, the saying is well taken. On the other hand, if it included the current idea of being open to new truth, then the religious humanism demonstrated in the saying must be rejected. According to Bible teaching, there is a time when tolerance is no virtue. Fairness   demands that we admit that we do not know which of these ideas was intended; however, the two possibilities open the door for profitable study of the Scriptures.

Some Flexibility Commendable

It is a poor attitude that inflexibly refuses to look not only upon one’s own things, but also on the things of others. Such is the mind of Christ described in Philippians 2:3-11. Prejudice is that enemy of the soul which decides before hearing the situation or the facts and apart from a weighing of the matter on the scales of God’s Word. The Bereans were commended by the Lord for their willingness to hear what was taught them and to search the Scriptures to ascertain its acceptability (Acts 17:11).

James said that the wisdom coming down from the Lord is marked by a willingness to yield (Jas. 3:17), but the Gentiles were said to be guilty of being implacable (unmerciful, unwilling to be agreeable) in Romans 1:31. The reason for such unconcern for others and the associated refusal to consider them is self-centeredness. Jesus said we are to love neighbor as self (Matt. 22:33). Surely we can see that we must remain flexible in relation to others and in relation to God’s will for us, so that we might practice what he desires.

Some Flexibility Not Good

The attitude that recognizes no certainties, no absolute truth, no finality in what the Lord has revealed is one of unbelief, for the Lord has assured  us of these matters. One who wishes to remain aloof from the idea of absolute truth, maintaining a tentative approach to all things, does so because of the shaky ground that he occupies. On the other hand, the firmness desired by God is the result of the firm foundation erected by God in his sure Word. For one to be flexible in relation to the Bible is to manifest uncertainty about God’s credibility. Three reasons explain why this kind of flexibility is not desirable.

1. God’s Word is not subject to change. Because God has indicated the finality of Scriptures in passages like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Jude 3, Matthew 28:19-20, we have no basis for expecting any additional word from the Lord. No latter-day revelations, dreams, visions, or gentle nudges are in store for anyone. 

2. Truth is narrow and unyielding. Its nature demands this be said. Truth in any field, mathematical, geographical, or religious, does not change because of whim, official decree, or changing conditions. What Peter declared regarding the exalted position of Jesus the Son of God is yet true. Paul’s affirmation of the one body (church) is still true. Nor has it stopped being true that obedience is the path to God’s favor (Matt. 7:21-23). Regardless of man’s changed view of these matters, God-given truth does not change.

3. The pure gospel of Christ suffers no other gospel (Gal. 1:6-8). Efforts to please men are responsible for all changes imposed by men. Not only is God not pleased by such attempts, but he declares his anathema (consignment to destruction) upon those doing so.

4. The Divine pattern is irreplaceable. Under whatever arrangement God has instituted in his dealing with human beings, he has always made it clear that his way is the only way. It is the role of God to show man the way, and it is the role of man to walk in that way. Passages earlier noted suffice for this point.

Flexibility is good in yielding to put others ahead of self and to practice God’s will, but it is evil when it leads us to abandon the certainty of biblical teaching and to look for something else. Are we flexible in those ways that we should be? Do we remain steadfast in belief and practice of the truth of the Lord? May we remember that the highly honored “god” of tolerance must also bow before the great God of the universe.
                                     
24978 Bubba Tr., Athens, Alabama 35613

By Lewis Willis

I saw an article in the March 2000 religious journal The Christian Chronicle which prompted me to write this article. Let me begin by telling you about that Christian Chronicle article, and I shall then make the application I want to make based on it.

Miss USA was recently crowned! The girl who won the beauty contest is Lynnette Cole, of Columbia, Tennessee. The Christian Chronicle was so impressed with this news that they wrote about it on page 1 of their March issue. Readers are informed that Lynne, as she is known at home, is now qualified to enter the Miss Universe Pageant.

What’s so unusual about this? Why would I think to write an article based on this information? Well, Lynne is a member of the West Seventh Street Church of Christ in Columbia, Tennessee! Her preacher, Ted Burleson, says of her, “Lynne is as genuine as she can be. She is the real thing.” 

A Disclaimer

I want you to know that I did not watch the pageant! I do understand, however, that a part of the contest is the “swimsuit competition.” Now, you know why this article is being written, don’t you? What in the world is a young Christian girl doing participating in a contest that is designed to see which contestant is the most beautiful in a skimpy bathing suit? Has she never heard of “modesty”?

Still more mysterious to me is her preacher, brother Burleson. Has he never read the New Testament? If so, how did he miss the passages that prohibit such exhibitions of sexuality as is practiced in ungodly beauty contests?

Consider what the Scriptures teach on modesty. 

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works (1 Tim. 2:9-10).

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Tit. 2:3-4).

Now, what do those expressions mean? Let’s just list and define them:

• Modest apparel: “orderly, well-arranged, decent” (Vine 79). 
• Shamefacedness: “a sense of shame, modesty, is used regarding the demeanor of women in the church ” (Ibid.)
• Sobriety: “. . . sound judgment . . . it is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires . . .” (Ibid. 45).
• Discreet: “. . . of sound mind, self-controlled . . . is translated sober-minded” (Ibid. 317).
• Chaste: “. . . signifies (a) pure from every fault, immaculate . . . (b) pure from carnality, modest . . . holy, pure” (Ibid. 183).

There is no way for a Christian to be decently dressed, manifesting a sense of shame, using sound judgment regarding the subject of sinful passions and desires, while parading herself or himself in skimpy attire to win a beauty prize. The same can be said of wearing such immodest apparel while working on the lawn, shopping, or on vacation. I have even seen women wearing shorts in the worship! 

There is a desperate need to rediscover the sense of shame associated with decisions having to do with the way we dress ourselves, or allow our children to dress. We are approaching that time of year when most people (including many Christians) seem to think they are at liberty before God to undress themselves in public. One’s senses are shocked to see what many members of the church think “modest apparel” means. It seems to mean to many folks just do whatever worldly minded people do. Paul said, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind . . .” (Rom. 12:2). Do you suppose, Mom and Dad, that “be not conformed to this world” might have anything to do with the way you dress, or with the way you let your children dress? If not, how about telling me what it does refer to.

491 E. Woodsdale, Akron, Ohio 44301

By Tom O’Neal

Many times in print and to him in person I referred to the late Harlan Elwood Phillips as my “second dad.” He was born near Bowling Green, Kentucky on October 31, 1916, and passed away in Tampa, Florida on April 5, 2000. He was baptized into Christ at the 12th Street church building by A.B. Barrrett in November of 1929. In May of 1935 he married Pauline (Polly) Younger. Polly, as most people know her, was baptized into Christ six years later, leaving a denomination for which her father was a preacher. In January of 1941 he began preaching near Nashville, Tennessee. In 1943 he preached his first time away from home at Cottontown, Tennessee.

To Elwood and Polly were born four daughters — Carolyn, Juanita, Elaine, and a little girl who died at four weeks of age.

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was Elwood’s inspiration to become a preacher of the gospel. In turn, Elwood became an inspiration to many other gospel preachers, including this writer.

In 1940 Elwood moved from Nashville, Tennessee to Tampa, Florida with a sheet metal company for which he worked. His labors carried him to work on the Pentagon from which he carried a piece of metal in a thumb until his death.

When he moved to the Tampa area he began preaching for various churches in the area. He preached for Sulphur Springs, Belmont Heights, Dover, and Clearwater. He preached for the church in Lake City and for the East University Avenue church in Gainesville from 1953-1960. In 1960 he moved back to Tampa where he preached for the Forest Hills church from 1960 to 1975. Then he preached at Fletcher Avenue until that property was sold and the building on South Livingston was constructed. At each of the above churches in Tampa I worked with him in gospel meetings. It was in March 1999 that I worked with him in his last gospel meeting. When he and Harry Osborne met me at the airport, he hugged me as before, but this time three times. I told Harry during the meeting that Elwood was pushing for all he was worth to be present at every service for he probably knew this would be the last meeting in which we would work together. He insisted until the last minute that I would stay with him in his home as I had done so many times before. Finally, he had to give up since he was on dialysis, and he was not able for me to stay with Polly and him.

The printed page was an important part of Elwood’s preaching. He had articles in Gospel Broadcast, Apostolic Times, Gospel Advocate, and Florida News Letter which began in 1958 and became Southeastern News Letter in 1959. It was in 1960 that he and James P. Miller began Searching The Scriptures, which he edited until May 1973, when he turned over the paper to Connie W. Adams. Elwood had edited the paper for 13 years and Connie would edit it for another 19 years before putting it to bed forever.

Besides Elwood’s writings in Searching The Scriptures, his book on the eldership, Scriptural Elders and Deacons, is one of the greatest contributions that has been made to the subject. I take great pleasure in the fact that I talked Elwood into letting the Cogdill Foundation reprint this after the first edition was sold out. Generations yet unborn will be reading this book on the eldership. It is the best on the subject.

From 1960 to 1971 he suffered at least three heart attacks. On August 3, 1971, he suffered a severe heart attack and in 1979 a pacemaker was put in. Then on December 28, 1994, he had triple by-pass surgery. On September 30, 1995, he had to have emergency surgery late in the night on his chest.

He developed diabetes and in time had to go on dialysis, first at home and then three times a week in the hospital. Brethren all over the country were praying for him. On January 26 of this year he had his left leg taken off below the knee and on March 13 he had his other leg off above the knee.

The family searched Tampa in vain for a funeral home with a chapel large enough to accommodate the crowd. This is the reason his funeral was conducted in the Hutcheson Auditorium on the campus of Florida College on April 8 at 11 A.M. by Mike Willis, Connie W. Adams, J.T. Smith, Tom O’Neal and Donnie Rader. Graveside services were conducted by Harry Osborne, preacher for the South Livingston church where the Phillips’ family are members, and Rhymer Knight, long time family friend, led the closing prayer. Ray Hines lead congregational singing.

Tom O’Neal’s Remarks at the Funeral of H.E. Phillips
It was in 1959 that James P. Miller wrote to me and asked that I help promote Searching The Scriptures and write for it, saying that he and brother H.E. Phillips were starting this paper in 1960. At the time I had never heard of H.E. Phillips. Later at the 1960 lectures I met Elwood and obtained an autographed copy of his book on the eldership, Scriptural Elders and Deacons. Over the last 40 years we have become very close friends and I have often referred to Polly and Elwood as my “second parents.” Polly is responsible for my Carolyn and me meeting each other. Elwood’s health prohibited their attending our wedding last year in Texas.

With the publishing of Searching The Scriptures there was a very special relationship between Elwood, Connie Adams, and myself. We have shared some very special times together that I will never forget.

Time does not permit me the opportunity to say a lot of things by way of pleasant memories with Elwood. However, there is one that I must share with this audience today. Several years ago when I was with the church on Fletcher Avenue in a gospel meeting, Elwood and I were sitting at his dining room table talking. With a clinched fist, he hit the table with a confident gesture, and at the same time said, “I am going to heaven; my Lord said I could, and I am going.” I have never known a man who talked about going to heaven more than Elwood and had a more intense desire to do so. I believe with all of my heart that Elwood is among the redeemed of the ages today.

When I think of Elwood there is one passage of Scripture that comes to mind. “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.”

When I finished my meeting with the South Livingston church in March of 1999, Elwood arose and made his way to the front of the building to commend to the congregation the sermons he and the church had requested that I come to Tampa and present on “The Deity of Christ.” He said, 

I think I have been very nice during this meeting. I have kept my mouth shut until now, but I think circumstances demand that I say something lest somebody perceive that I am trying to distance myself from the lessons you’ve heard tonight and the manner in which they have been presented and from Tom O’Neal. I first met Tom O’Neal 40 years ago, maybe a little more, I am not sure. But during that period of time, from that time (I have had various occasions to be with him), we have talked frequently on the telephone and by mail and in other means. We’ve shared time together in the pulpit. I’ve heard him debate. I have recorded debates that he has had with different denominational people and with some brethren — false brethren. I appreciate his sincerity and his determination to preach the truth. 

During the period of time that I have known Tom, I don’t remember us having any cross words. It is not because we have both been little angels; we are not. We’ve made mistakes, but we have talked about them. We have talked about truth. We have talked about the Bible. We’ve talked about problems that each of us have has or been through. I want to commend to you tonight the lessons that you’ve heard and the manner in which they have been preached. I don’t perceive anything arrogant about anything he said or anything evasive about anything he said. But as Harry just now pointed out, the Scriptures teach by Paul and Peter and James and John and the apostles — all of them that we have recorded. They identify sin for what it is. They identified the false preachers by name. That keeps you from being deceived by them. We need to do that. There is a difference between that and assaulting somebody’s character. We are not talking about what kind of person they are, as to their moral standing. That is another issue. But when a man teaches something that is contrary to the word of God, we need to know not only the doctrine, but we need to know the man who teaches it, because that is the way the Bible teaches it. That is what the New Testament teaches. Plain and sound doctrine will convince the world of sin, and it will stop error where it is. And we appreciate that, Tom. And I thank you for the lessons on behalf of,  I guess my family (I don’t know anybody else I could thank on behalf of). We appreciate your presence here tonight, all of you who are here. But I want to commend to you the lessons you’ve heard and the manner in which they have been presented. I love Thomas G. O’Neal very much for his work’s sake through the years. I have appreciated him very much. I thank you very much.

I am thankful to God for permitting our lives to blend so harmoniously for over forty years. I am thankful that I was blessed by knowing H.E. Phillips.

P.0. Box 723, Bessemer, Alabama 35021