Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.V No.II Pg.6
April 1968

Want To Start Something?

Robert F. Turner

Last month we reprinted portions of an article by W. E. Brightwell, first published in Gospel Advocate in 1934. We continue quoting from the Brightwell series, as reprinted in TORCH (Jan. '68) by William Wallace.

----------------------

"One of two things is true: either the missionary societies are right, and we ought to stop fighting them; or else we are wrong in doing the same thing under another name, and ought to stop kidding ourselves. Why do we object to missionary societies? ...Specifically, the crime of the missionary society is that it destroys the initiative, and eventually the independence, of the local congregation! Does not our plan of mission work destroy the spontaneous and automatic enthusiasm which the Lord's plan would generate, substituting a worm-eaten, cut-and-dried project?

I submit this proposition: Any individual Christian, or group of individuals, smaller than a local congregation; or any group of individuals or churches larger than a local church; or any individual church itself that begins thinking in terms of what the whole brotherhood should do, and goes or sends somebody to the churches to see that they do it, and acts as an agent or agency through which the brotherhood does it, thereby constitutes itself a full-grown, blown-in-the-bottle, fourteen-karat missionary society of the deepest dye! There is no way on earth to whitewash it. There is no city of refuge where it may hide from God's displeasure. To call it something else, or to leave it unnamed, is a mere technical dodge. It is not condemned because it is similar to a missionary society, but because it violates the same fundamental principle the society violates -- namely, the initiative and autonomy of the local church.

It is just as easy for a local congregation to be a missionary society as it is for any group of Christians or churches to organize one. It is not a questionmerely of who sponsors the work, but the scope and nature of the work sponsored. (emph. mine, rft)

I have my doubts about the moral right of a church to "sponsor" anything. What right has a church to underwrite any work which it could not do in its own strength, in the event that all of those upon whom it is depending should fail it? And if it can do the work itself, why does it not go ahead and do it and not ask for help?

At best, sponsoring means starting something which you cannot finish. At worst, it is a mere technicality to avoid scriptural criticism.... The Lord requires nothing of a Christian nor a church that cannot be done wholly without outside suggestion or assistance."

------------------------------

We believe Bro. Brightwell was getting to the real issue here, the basic character of a truly "independent autonomous church." The SCOPE of collective work, from a scriptural viewpoint, is the single local church. We suggest you write TORCH,3, Booneville, Miss. 38829 for the whole series of Brightwell articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.II Pg.7
April 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

On what scriptural basis do some teach that churches must function "according to their ability"; and how may this "ability" be determined? GS

Reply:

2 Cor. 8:12 reads, "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." This principle concerning the individual illustrates the same principle which is, in the preceding verse applied to the church in Corinth.

Paul writes of "churches" and liberality that caused them to give more than he expected of them. He then reminded the Corinthians that Titus is coming to finish in you the pledge made one year previous; an obvious reference to an earlier promise or plan of the church in Corinth. 2 Cor. 8:11 reads, "Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have."

The real basis for contending that each church should operate according to its ability (and the reason Paul could show the church and individual operate under a common principle in this matter) is the independence each unit has in common. Each individual saint is treated as an independent unit, hence the individual's performance is measured in the light of his capabilities. First there is ability; then response to ability; and finally we give account of our response to our ability. (Matt. 25:14-30) When the collective action of saints is considered, a plurality of saints acting as one, this "one" must also be expected to operate "according to ability" if it is in truth an independent unit.

If God intended each local church to be an independent functional unit; if "organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the local congregation"; if each church is indeed "independent and autonomous"; then each church must operate in keeping with its own ability.

"Independent" means "having a competency" "self-sufficient", "not dependent on others." When there were more needy saints in Jerusalem than could be cared for with their own resources, this unit became dependent with respect to material things; and "alms" were given -- to restore their independence. (2 Cor. 8:13-14; Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:25-f)

We understand that each saint is independent, judged as an individual; hence, judged according to his own ability. We determine his "want" or "need" on the basis of that which is his own responsibility -- and the extent of his own resources. When one's basic needs (for survival) exceed his resources, we give "alms" to restore him to a position of self-sufficiency. WHY CAN'T WE SEE THIS SAME PRINCIPLE WITH REFERENCE TO AN "INDEPENDENT" CHURCH?? We can, or we could, if we were not so conditioned by "brotherhood" (in reality, "churchhood") projects that congregational independence has become more traditional terminology than actual Bible teaching, firmly believed and practiced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.II Pg.8
April 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

In '51, '52 and '53 I devoted much time to meeting work, traveling from the east to the west coast. Brethren were awakening to the seriousness of institutionalism in Texas, although many churches had already committed themselves so far with the "big" "on the march" churches they did not care to hear what I had to say. I remember preaching a sermon on "The Church" in one community, and a brother took me aside and told me I was just "too strict" in insisting on Bible authority and pattern.

A few weeks later, in the Ohio valley, I preached the same sermon; and one old brother "had a talk" with me, saying he liked my sermon, but I was "just a little loose" on the subject.

The Texas church had long ago lost its sense of restraint -- "Bible Things in Bible Ways" attitude; and was now working for a popular "public image." The Pennsylvania church was just then emerging from fifty years of "keeping house for the Lord" attitude; and did not relish a sermon that reminded them of an ultra-conservative, nonproductive past.

The story is incomplete without a Tennessee preacher who heard a few of my "different" illustrations and some "fresh" terminology; and wondered if Bro. Goodpasture "would approve??" (I never did get around to asking him!)

In this day of mass communications it is easy to suppose that churches elsewhere are "just like us." Come with me and I'll prove differently. Gulf-coast Texas, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, and New Jersey should do it. One church is beginning to experiment with something another has long ago tried and rejected, and another is aghast to learn that any church would even consider.

The need is for patient understanding of local differences, and lots and lots of basic, non-sectional, Bible teaching. We could do with a big helping of humility, and less rushing into print with bizarre ideas. At the same time, a willingness to "hear a man through" and "search the scriptures daily, whether these things were so" would help much. (Acts 17:11)

Above all, it is God's truth, not party union, that must be sought. If we will "cleave unto the Lord" (Acts 11:23) saints in Iowa will have no difficulty in fellowshipping "you all" saints in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.1
May 1968

Four-Star General

Robert F. Turner

General Error is a high-ranking offender. He struts about, his poison-oak-leaf clusters shining, bellowing ill-founded conclusions, wrecking "general" havoc.

The one (and only) day he was in Louisiana it rained. He had heard about the swamps and bayou country, although he didn't see this; but now he declares authoritatively, "Every day is a rainy day in Louisiana: Water all over the state!" It is useless to argue with him. He has been there; he knows!

The General thrives on history. He thinks the Episcopal Church was invented so Henry VIII could marry Anne Boleyn. Generations of civil and religious struggles are as though they had never happened. Henry loved Anne, and that's it. With such generalization, he makes all pioneer preachers great Bible scholars. When the Missionary Society was formed, in 1849, all congregations immediately divided into "progressive" and "anti" groups; and the next day each "progressive" segment rushed out to buy an organ. Today, all who support the Herald of Truth are "Liberals" -- who naturally do not believe God's word is inspired. All who oppose inter-church projects despise little orphans, and are do nothing, "one-cuppers". The General really gets around, and can prove every word he says --- generally.

There is validity in the observation that people (and churches) may be known by the company they keep. Sometimes "silence gives consent" and churches and preachers give support to unscriptural practices by failing to "reprove and rebuke" -- or to set forth the truth in a positive way. We may, indeed, observe "trends" among churches in general, and a man's "liberal leanings" may be first detected by his attitude toward certain things or his way of argumentation. But love does not hasten to find evil. (1 Cor. 13:4-6) One straw does not make a haystack, nor one fault a falling away.

Generalization is the easy way out; the lazy man's research, the careless man's excuse, the cruel man's tool. "Judge not according to the appearance, (the "face", superficially,) but judge righteous judgement." (Jn. 7:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.2
May 1968

The "How" And The Plough

Robert F. Turner

The elders of a church in Virginia explain why a man and his wife, whom they have been supporting in Korea, will soon return to the U.S.A.

"As we all know, Ron's mission to Korea was to be a unique approach to evangelism. Ron was convinced prior to returning to Korea that he could work with and help the rural people to learn modern farming methods and by gaining their confidence in this way follow through in teaching the word of God. Ron found that this approach was not possible due to cultural traditions. It was insulting to the Korean farmer to have a guest do work for him, even though it was voluntary. Ron tried other approaches, such as an agricultural and Christian vocational school, but sufficient funds were not available. While Ron was occasionally able to establish a Bible class in a rural village, he was not able to gain a foothold and become fully accepted. Because of this Ron has concluded that it is not possible to evangelize the rural Korean people through the approach for which he was prepared.

Ron has found that his efforts have become almost purely evangelistic in the traditional manner. While he recognizes that there is a definite need for preaching and teaching he also recognizes his own shortcomings in this area. He is trained in and desires to evangelize through the agricultural approach, whereas he has not been trained as an evangelist. He has determined, and adequately explained to us, that the plans for the foreseeable future will not improve the situation. We feel that Ron has been sincere and straightforward in his appraisal, and this we appreciate very much. We wanted you to know his feelings and ours."

I will agree that both "Ron" and the elders seem to be open and aboveboard in this matter -- BUT WHAT A COMMENTARY ON THEIR CONCEPT OF EVANGELISM AND THE GREAT COMMISSION!!

"Ron" teaches farming, to make opportunity to teach truth; but admits he is not adequately prepared as a preacher or teacher of God's word. If his farming "approach" had been successful, he would have "arrived" with nothing to offer. Of what value is an "approach" if you can't deliver when you get there?

The elders continue, "Your support has represented a sincere desire to "go into all the world." WITH WHAT?? When will brethren learn that ploughs and cows are neither the "what's" nor "how's" of teaching salvation from sin through the blood of Jesus Christ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.3
May 1968

Poor John Doe!

Robert F. Turner

Is the element baptized, or is the subject baptized in the element??

If John Doe is the subject -- a man desiring baptism —- do we baptize John Doe, or do we baptize" the water?? This may sound like a foolish question, but humor me -— give it a serious answer.

_________________________

According to common usage today, baptism may be by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. Immersion means act of immersing, to plunge into anything that surrounds or covers; submersion. So, if we baptize by immersion we plunge the subject into the element, so as to cover or submerge.

Pouring means to cause to flow, run in a sluice; to issue as if in a stream. (In all definitions I am compounding noun and verb definitions so as to cover subject as fully as possible.) If we baptize by pouring we cause the subject to flow or run in a sluice, (poor John Doe) or, we cause the element(water) to flow or run in a sluice. Of course if it is the element that flows, then, by our dictionary it is the element that is baptized. If not, why not?

Sprinkling means to scatter in drops or particles; act of one that sprinkles. Now, if baptism means sprinkling we again ask, is the subjectsprinkled, or is the elementsprinkled? The subject receives the sprinkling, true; but in this we move to a tangent usage of terms. We could as well say the administrator sprinkles — but he sprinkles what? Does he cause the subject to be scattered in small drops, (poor John Doe) or, does he cause the element to be scattered in small drops??

So — this is a lot of foolishness! Do you realize that it fairly represents a theological argument that has been raging for centuries? And all so absolutely unnecessary!! If man would just be satisfied with what God has said on the subject there would be no need for any further argumentation.

Go — teach all nations, baptizing them — (Matt. 28:l9) No problem here; it is the taught people that are to be baptized — to be immersed, poured, or sprinkled, as the case may be. The subject — John Doe -- is to be baptized. The same truth is evident in other passages on the subject: He that believeth and is baptized — or repent and be baptized, every one of you —- (Mk. 16:16 Acts 2:38).

Baptism takes place in the element, as may be seen in Acts 8: 38: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Much water is required, as we may see from John 3: 23: John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there:.. And Paul wrote, We are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. BURIAL should and does settle the matter for those who seriously consider the word of God.

The scriptures do not command John to be caused to run in a sluice, or to be scattered in small drops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.4
May 1968

The "Few" In Sardis

Robert F. Turner

Many "good" brethren tell me they know the congregation of which they are members is engaged in practices for which there is no divine authority. They deplore the situation -- to hear them tell it -- but are horrified at any suggestion that they may have to worship elsewhere. Were there not a "few -- in Sardis" acceptable to God -- and they were not told to leave??

The severing of congregational ties is not a thing to be taken lightly. Much harm has been done by self-willed people who run hither and yon, too immature to establish a happy working relationship with others. If those who play hide-and-seek with the mythical "perfect" local church could find such a group, their admittance would change its status. "Perfection" for saints, individually and collectively, consists of a striving -- forgetting the past and "pressing" toward the divine goal. (Phil. 3:13-15)

But when it becomes apparent that such an attitude toward God's word has been abandoned -- when brethren make no effort to "prove all things" by the scriptures, and resist honest efforts to study the "issues" in the light of God's word -- does the situation in Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6) justify my condoning, supporting, and being a part of this church in error?

Rev. 3:1-6 describe conditions in a church "ready to die"; a church being warned that God will not long tolerate such conditions. It is ridiculous to think God would ask the "few" to accept, condone and support on a permanent basis, what He would soon deny. Acknowledging the "few" who had not "defiled their garments" shows that we are judged as individuals; and certainly does not relieve these "few" of individual responsibility to fight error. On the contrary, it indicates that they must have been "fighting the good fight" -- opposing the error, and seeking to restore the fallen.

In the previous letter (Rev. 2:18-f) Christ censured the brethren at Thyatira "because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel--". To "suffer" is to "allow", to refuse to oppose. The Lord gave time to repent; but said that if they did not repent "I will kill her children with death." Does this teach that we may "allow" sin to go unopposed in the church today, and reap no ill effect? It certainly does not!

Rev. 2:1-7 records the status of the church in Ephesus -- at the time of the writing. For that time the Lord continued to recognize this congregation, but said, "repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

The fact that there were a "faithful few" in Sardis -- at the time that letter was given -- offers no solace to those who compromise convictions, and refuse to accept their individual responsibilities to serve the Lord. A Jezebel, or Diotrephes, (3 Jn. 9) can control a church only because these so- called "good" brethren allow and support their action. These robes are not white. They are stained with the blood of martyrs whose plea for purity was drowned in the hypocritical cry, Preserve the Party!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.5
May 1968

Happiness Is . . .

Robert F. Turner

Did you ever see a man fishing in the desert? Casting a lure into a cholia patch; stretching a trot-line across a dry wash? No, because fish do not live in the desert; it is not their element. But I have seen men looking for happiness in a bottle -- with as little success, and for the same reason. Happiness does not come in bottles, or cans, or draft.

Happiness is a state or condition of mind; secured by a wide variety of things, properly used. Since the benefit depends upon the use, happiness really comes from within the benefactor, and "things" are but tools which may or may not produce the desired results. However, experience has associated certain "things" with happiness; among them: long life, friends, sense of purpose or direction, health, wealth, and love. And the wise man, Solomon, tells us where to seek all of these wonderful ingredients. Open your Bible to Prov. 3: and proceed.

Vs.1-2: Length of days and years, with peace, depend upon proper respect for law, or teaching. They are not found in anarchy or rebellion. It is authority, not "hippy freedom" that promises long useful life.

Vs.3-4: Favor, and more important, being "understood" (here is true friendship) must be earned with kindness and truth (love and fidelity) on our part. A friendless man is not being cheated by the world; he has failed to give society the "makings" (Ask Bull Durham what that means.)

Vs.5-6: Lacking a goal, we wander aimless and hapless. Foolish pride and self-centeredness only compound our misery. "Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart... and He will direct thy paths."

Vs. 7-8: Dissipation is sin; and all evil is in conflict with the physical tabernacle which houses our immortal soul. Although a sin-cursed world affects even the pure in it, we must "depart from evil" for health.

Vs. 9-10: The man who thinks he would generous be, if wealth should be his lot; should ask himself what he's doing now, with the dollar and a quarter he's got (One of my better poems!). When we shovel out, God shovels in (2 Cor. 9:6) and God has a bigger shovel. "Honor Jehovah with thy substance.so shall thy barns be filled.."

Vs. 11-12: And for real love, a love that sees our faults and reprimands for our sakes, we must submit to the authority of heaven. Worldly "friends" will not understand this change in us -- they'll "think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot -- (1 Pet. 4:1-5) and we may have to "suffer as a Christian" (vs.12-19) but God's love will more than suffice for our suffering.

HAPPY IS THE MAN THAT FINDETH WISDOM, AND THE MAN THAT GETTETH UNDERSTANDING. If you have read Prov. 3:1-12, and given serious thought to the points suggested above -- as taken from the text -- you are now ready to read Prov. 3:13-18: and "the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; (Prov. 1:7; Eccl. 12:13-14)

Happiness Is With God Almighty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.6
May 1968

Fruit Of "Voluntary" Co-Op

Robert F. Turner

Writing PLAIN TALK while "on the road" in full-time meeting work poses many problems, not the least of which is finding "quote material" for this page. "Quotes" from church history are solicited from our readers.

The following comes from "The Disciples of Christ" by Garrison & Degrott, The Bethany Press; and is the more significant because the writers clearly favor missionary societies.

We quote from the Preview, pp.16.

-----------------------------

"The union of these two streams (followers, in a general sense, of Stone and Campbell; rft) produced a body of from twenty to thirty thousand adherents. It was wholly without organizations of wider scope than the local congregations, which exercised complete independence.

For years the Christians had had some loose "conferences" covering small districts. These were gatherings of the ministers, or "elders", for fellowship, the exchange of reports of their churches, and the arrangement of their preaching appointments. The Reformers, as soon as they became separated from the Baptists -- by dissolving Baptist associations in which they had gained sufficient strength, and being put out of others -- began to hold even more informal and unecclesiastical gatherings for mutual encouragement, acquaintance, and edification. From such rudimentary beginnings grew "county cooperations" for the sending out of evangelists, state meetings, and in 1849 the first national convention and the organization of the American Christian Missionary Society. These organizations, voluntary and unauthoritative as they were, always disclaiming any power to control the local congregations, nevertheless contained the seeds of trouble as well as the promise of effective service; and the seeds ripened faster than the promise, for hot controversy about the legitimacy of missionary societies became a divisive issue long before the societies themselves achieved any notable results.

But geographical expansion and numerical increase did not wait upon the efficiency of the societies or the building of missionary budgets. Population was moving westward with a fluidity that is amazing, considering the difficulties of travel and transport. The Disciples were a part of that migrant host. They rode the crest of that wave of the advancing frontier which swept across woodlands and prairies and left behind it a deposit of rural homes, villages, towns, and churches."

-----------------------------

Note: the early church in this country was "without organizations of wider scope than the local congregations." (2) Loose "conferences" and "county cooperations" (where several churches acted collectively, rft) set the stage for "the first national convention and the organization of the American Christian Missionary Society" (3) These were "voluntary and unauthoritative" organizations -- which make "our" present day inter-church projects perfectly safe, according to some very short-sighted men of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.7
May 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Rom. 10:15 teaches that a preacher must be sent by a church. If several churches supported him, would it not follow that they should send this support through the "sending" church? HJ

Reply:

Rom. 10:15 teaches no such thing!! Paul's own explanation of his statement is to cite Isa. 52:7, part of a prophecy basically Messianic. He is contending that the gospel, not the Law of Moses, is God's power unto salvation; and that this is to Gentile as well as Jew.

"Whosoever" (Jew or Gentile) shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved (vs.28). But to hear, believe, and obey the gospel, the gospel must be made available -- to both Jew and Gentile. By citing the Messianic prophecy, Paul argues that God sentHis message to both Jew and Gentile. (Note vs.19-21) Rom. 10:15 has no reference to "a church" "sending" out a present-day preacher; but refers to the Divine "sending" of Spirit-Inspired Apostles, messengers of Christ.

"Sent" in this passage, is from "apostello." Vine says this means "to send forth, akin to "apostlos" -- an apostle; denotes to send on service, or with a commission."

In Acts 13:1-4, often used to prove(?) the church in Antioch "sent" Paul and Barnabas, the word "apostello" ("sent" of Rom. 10:) is not used at all. The H.S. said "separate" Barnabas and Saul -- meaning, "limit off, sever," (as cut out of herd) from the Greek "aphoridzo." Then, "whereunto I called them" -- from "proskeklemai" to "call to oneself, summon, appoint." The Holy Spirit did all of this. Then the church "sent away" -- from "apoluo" "to loose away, cut off." They simply did what the H.S. instructed them to do. If there was any "official" sending at this time, it was by the H.S. Verse 4 reads, "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost.." (From "ekpempo" "to send out, away.")

The idea that "a church" must send (officially sanction, oversee, stamp with approval) a preacher before he can carry the gospel to the world, is gross error, whole cloth. It is rooted in errors -- those of an official clergy, church authority, creedalism, and perhaps many more. By it truth is opposed, and its proclaimers bound. Not only is there no authority for such an idea in God's word, but history so completely validates these charges against it, I am amazed that the idea continues to claim an honorable place among brethren.

The conclusion of the querist follows neither scripture nor logic. Paul received wages from churches, (2 Cor. 11:8) with no evidence of a so-called "sending" church.

John Dart, in LOS ANGELES TIMES quotes Dr.J.D. Thomas (ACC) as saying, But without "one boss to oversee your operations and see you through" it is a tenuous existence for a missionary. Here bro. Thomas inadvertently confirms our appraisal of the "sponsoring" "sending" church. It is a "boss", not a church in need (2 Cor) and as such goes beyond God's plan for scriptural cooperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.III Pg.8
May 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

"God knows, not I, the devious ways wherein my faltering feet may tread; Before, into the light of day, my steps from out this gloom are led. But since my Lord the path doth see, What matter if 'tis hid from me?

God knows, not I, how sweet accord shall grow at length from out this clash of earthly discord, that jar on soul and sense. I hear the crash, But feel I know that on His ear fall harmony, full, deep, and clear.

His perfect plan I may not grasp, but I can trust love infinite, and with my feeble fingers clasp the hand that leads me into light. My soul upon His errand goes -- the end I know not, But God knows."

--------------------------------

The above, author unknown, was sent to me as part of a wonderful letter of encouragement, and expression of faith in God's eternal purposes.

We do not hold to a fatalistic concept of destiny; and certainly not to individual predestination, that would deny and destroy free will and initiative. But we believe our Creator had ultimate ends in mind when He brought us into existence; and the eternal purposes of God, revealed in His Son, and the Word of His power, are given us as guide lines and "light to our path."

For a happy and useful life here, and to be partakers in the glory that shall be; we must recognize our dependence upon God, and seek to live in keeping with His instructions. He alone sees the end of what often seems purposeless to us. "We walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor.5: 7)

How essential then that we learn God's will; that we prayerfully study His word, and obey His commandments. And when we have done this, and continue to do this, should we not walk with confidence?

If we are sincerely striving to know God's way, and follow it, to question or doubt the outcome is to show a lack of faith in our Guide. We must "be not anxious" for the morrow. (Matt. 6:24-34) Oh, ye of little faith!

God rules in the affairs of men. God knows our needs. God cares. God gives. (Matt. 7:7-f) So live that when thy summons comes -- you may quit the walks of men with a genuine and well-founded hope for heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.1
June 1968

"First Love"

Robert F. Turner

A tap at the study door announced a timid and frightened young couple. Their marriage was "coming apart" -- or so they thought -- and since I had "performed their ceremony," they had come to me for help.

The timid approach fooled me. What should have been an easy "patch-up" job, grew more complicated as we discussed the details. Recalling each incident of friction led to charges of blame, efforts to justify, defense of pride. The situation was growing steadily worse when, in desperation, I tried the magic of "first love."

"Please arise, and stand here," I requested, indicating the exact spot where they had made their vows. Picking up my Bible, I stepped into place before them. "And now, will you join right hands." Then, as they grew silent with their memories, I reminded them of the pledges they had made "before God and to one-another" on that eventful day some months earlier.

Before my little speech was finished -- maybe I was over-playing my part in the drama they interrupted to thank me, and hurried out of the room, hand in hand. Perhaps they had heard little of what I said, but they recalled their own hopes and determinations of first love, and that was enough.

The Hebrew writer urged faithfulness by saying, "Call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions...." (Heb.10:32-) When we "leave our first love" (Rev. 2:4-f) this must be restored if our union with Christ is to survive.

When brethren "go a-gadding" after strange doctrines, human institutions, the social gospel, etc., they have neglected their first love -- their espousal to Christ. (2 Cor.11:1-3) They profit little by tongue-lashings, ridicule, or even sound high-powered argumentation -- especially if they are so self-willed as to be no longer interested in the Bible pattern. Unless their love for and determination to serve Jesus Christ can be rekindled, all else is vain.

Please join hands -- with the Lord!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.2
June 1968

It's A Busy World

Robert F. Turner

This is being written in a little cabin, high in the Bradshaw mountains near Prescott, Arizona. To be honest, I would prefer to be out climbing in the forest, but "dead-line" is on me.

Since Apr. 6, I have been in meetings in Beaumont, Tex.; Madrid, Iowa; Indianapolis, Ind. ; Baltimore, Md.; Piscataway, N. J.; Canoga Pk., and Long Beach, Calif. Two days hence I begin preaching in Flagstaff, Ariz., and thence to northern Calif., Oregon, and so -- on to late November.

Meetings and special lectures in places unable to fully support such work, are made possible by arrangement with the Oaks West church of Christ in Burnet, Tex; the church that continues to make PLAIN TALK possible. This little church of about one-hundred members now supports bro. Joe Fitch in Burnet local work, helps to support bros. Payne, in Commanche, and Kercheville, in El Paso, Texas, and bro. Arreola, in Mexico. The courage and faith of these saints - most of them low to medium salaried workers -- and the "vision" of their good elders, is truly heart-warming. Their course is not an easy one, and not without opposition. I will help them all possible by making full use of time, watching expenses carefully so as to operate economically, and make my way as far as possible on support received from these meetings.

Plans are to continue this type of work in 1969, the Lord, health, and taxes permitting, and meetings are already scheduled in Arizona, California, Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, Texas and Florida. My permanent mailing address is 1608 Sherrard Street, Burnet, Texas -- 78611, as all mail will be forwarded.

----------------------

In This Busy Whirl

It is good to hear about the old Arizona sheep herder who spoke longingly of the "good ol' days." He said he only had two decisions to make each year: when to take the sheep up the mountains in the spring, and when to bring them down in the fall. Ate the same thing all the time; wore the same clothes. Again, "Me and my partner never wasted no words. I'd ask him a question at breakfast, and he'd answer at supper, the next day."

Reminds me of the fellow who lived so far back in the sticks he had to go toward town to pick up firewood. Grand 0l' Opera didn't get there 'til Tuesday. When he first came to that country " thu Sun wuz jest a little bitty thang, and they warn't no moon a-tall." If I don't run out of space soon this could get worse.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Vol.V No.IV Pg.3
June 1968

At Jesus' Feet

Robert F. Turner

As Joshua fought the Amorites, in taking the land of Canaan for Israel, five kings were trapped in a cave and captured. Joshua had the men brought forth, and said unto his chief men of war, "Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings" (Josh. 10:22-f) It was a graphic symbol of triumph and submission.

Later, Ruth lay at the feet of Boas (Ruth 3:1-f), giving herself to him. Mary sat at Jesus feet, and Paul was brought up "at the feet" of Gamaliel (Lk. 10:39; Acts 22:3) meaning; they submitted themselves for instruction. When the early Christians sold their possessions they "brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet" -- giving them control of the fund -- putting it at their disposal (Acts 4:34-f) (Incidentally, here is a pooled fund, with control, by which the Jerusalem church acted as one -- collectively.)

So, it came as no surprise when we read that God "put all things under His (Christ's) feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." (Eph. 1:22-f) The church at Christ's feet, means He has the control -- we constitute His church only to the extent we submit ourselves to Him.

The submission must be complete. Though our submission is an act of our free will, it is as complete as that of the kings to Joshua. Paul writes, "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (1 Cor. 6:19-f)

We must "sit at His feet" to receive instructions. In this there is submission of our will to His. Like Mary, we develop a "singleness" of heart; knowing "one thing is needful" rather than the multiple cares and distractions of this life. None who "hunger and thirst" for righteousness, "at His feet," will go unfilled. (Matt. 5:6) But the "oncer attender"--"seldom-get-to-class" "never-study-at-home" kind of church member, makes a mockery of sitting "at Jesus' feet." The meaning of the figure is completely lost on such.

When we are truly "at His feet" we consign our soul to His power and keeping. We are His to use, a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1) a "bond-servant" (slave) of Christ. (1 Cor. 7:22) But we are also His to keep. "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you." There is security at the feet of Jesus, and "peace that passeth all understanding." (1 Pet. 5:6-7 Phil. 4:7)

Christ's ultimate victory will see "all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Cor. 15:25-26) And there is a triumph for Christians too, with all things "under his feet." (Heb. 2:6-f) But we can attain unto this high plane intended for us by our Maker, only as we submit to the Lord. Obedience is freely rendered by those who truly "sit at Jesus' feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.4
June 1968

Growing Pains?

Robert F. Turner

When sectarianism begins to put on fruit, and a denominational status is developing, problems multiply. These are apparent in struggling young denominations about us -- they are apparent among our own brethren.

Early signs of denominationalism are: (1) "we" and "us" and "our" begin to denote a party concept that is larger than a local church, smaller than the whole body of Christ; (2) the "brotherhood" is no longer a "hood" of "brethren" but becomes a "churchhood" in reality; (3) this "churchhood" begins to own schools, "homes", and other institutions; and (4) to act collectively in their operation (5) As these developments are taking place, a peculiar "brotherhood" (?) doctrine is being formed -- the consensus of opinion, or "great middle-ground of the majority. At this stage it is not written -- and it may have to survive by the same rules as "baptist usage" -- but it is a denominational "creed" none-the-less.

One of the first "problems" of a young and tender denomination is nomenclature -- the"words" to use. How does one speak or write of "our" work or instittantns, when in the recent past the single local church was regarded as the largest functional unit among "us"? The older members still recall our sermons on "no earthly headquarters" "elders over one flock only" etc. How does one change "Bible authority" to "Church of Christ doctrine" without arousing the ire of a few remaining old-fogies?

Another problem is "consulting the brotherhood." When the "churchhood" needs (?) to be consulted about something, how does one go about this -- until the time comes "we" can have an honest-to- goodness conference. These "area-wide" meetings help, and a well-organized series of such can "feel out" the situation, but it is still a sticky business.

And how can "brethren at large" be represented, as to doctrine or desire? Once we openly acknowledge denominational status the machinery can be set up and this problem will vanish; but how can the "brotherhood" churchhood speak, while we still claim to have "independent autonomous" congregations only? It's a real sweat.

How does the "brotherhood" churchhood own property -- such as schools, camps, orphan homes, etc? This shook the brethren of Kentucky in 1875, who thought they owned the school in Lexington, but found such was easier said than done (See Search for Ancient Order, West; Vol.2). "Progressive" brethren then found the solution in a United Society, after some years and tears. But how does a tender beginning denomination, not yet ready to acknowledge a "headquarters," handle this? Is this why the "board" arrangement is so embarrassing to some? The"alms" to-a-(sponsoring)-"church-in-need" argument is getting rather thin, brethren!!

Restructuring is a long way off -- or is it? Anyhow, "we" have enough problems for -- chief among them being to open our eyes to the existence of this young fledgling denomination, and cease to feed and encourage its growth and development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.5
June 1968

"God Gave Them Up"

Robert F. Turner

When man refuses to see the abundant proof of God's "eternal power and divinity" in the created world he "glorifies Him not as God, neither is thankful." (Rom. 1:19-21)

This asserts that the Creator has so demonstrated Himself in His product that, even without the inspired word, we should be able to see that the "First Cause" must have always existed (arguing it always will exist) and is therefore "eternal." And this leads us forcibly to the conclusion that this "First Cause" is of a nature different from that of His creatures; has a divine nature. All who so recognize God "look up" to Him with the honor so justly due Him, and reckon themselves subject to Him. Such a respect for the Creator has a sobering effect upon mankind. We "live, move, and have our being" in His presence; aware that "all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Heb. 4:13) Perhaps this is basis enough to conclude that except we walk circumspectly before Him, we "sin against Heaven" and must repent. (Acts 17:28f)

When man denies the presence of the eternal and divine God, (does not like to retain God in his knowledge) God (1) gives him up to uncleanness; (2) gives him up unto vile affections; (3) gives him over to a reprobate mind. (Read Rom. 1:21-24-26-28) This seems to be another way of saying God allows man to "stew in his own juice" or reap the consequences of his own folly. Man is incomplete without God. It is "not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jer. 10:23) On this basis alone we should see that "righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people." (Prov. 14:34) A nation that tries to substitute fear of punishment, respect for law, patriotism, or even Emperor- worship to upgrade the state and its citizens, will fail. There is no satisfactory substitute for faith in and respect for the God of us all.

Godless Evolution, and other materialistic concepts which enthrone human reason and seek to leave God out of the universe -- these must bear much of the blame for our a-moral and immoral society.

Religions which place their stress upon social welfare seem, on the surface, to be so "relevant;" so intent upon solving current problems. But to the extent they divert the attention and resources of the church from its chief function -- the promotion of spiritual values -- faith in the real, personal God to whom belongs our full and complete allegiance -- to this extent these religions join hands with all other soul and nation wreckers.

"God gave them up" "God gave them over" -- re-read those verses from the Roman letter. "Like a terrible refrain" says Lenski. "This is more than permission to fall into uncleanness, and it is less than causing the fall. God's action is judicial...Thus God uses sin to punish itself and the sinner."

When man does recognize and respect His Creator, even as he sees Him in the universe, he is ready to hear God's word, and obey Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.6
June 1968

The Risk Of Bible Study

Robert F. Turner

Proponents of "official" church doctrines (creeds) and "authority of the church" to determine doctrines, have long contended that in the absence of such, churches will be fractured into numerous ineffective cells. This is not an observation to be ignored; for history has repeatedly demonstrated this possibility.

Note the following from A. W. Fortune's history of The Disciples in Kentucky, pp. 53.

"Their search for new truth and the fact that they had no creed to guide them made the Christians an easy prey to strange doctrines. Three Shaker missionaries from New York wrought havoc in their ranks. Three of the preachers who were associated with Mr. Stone -- Matthew Houston, Richard McNemar, and John Dunlavy -- put away their wives, acknowledged marriage as a sin, and joined the Shakers. This caused much confusion in the ranks of Stone's followers, and many went to the other communions.

Because of the havoc wrought by the Shakers, and because of the controversy over baptism, Robert Marshall and John Thompson were convinced that the "Bible was too latitudinarian" ("tolerant of variations" or admitting of various interpretations.rt) and urged the formulation of a simple, doctrinal statement of a few fundamental truths. A meeting was called at Mount Tabor, near Lexington, to consider their proposition. It was decided to abide by the principle that the Bible should be their guide in religion and trust in God for the consequences."

Today, as then, there are those who havemore faith in man than in God. They seem to think men can improve upon God's effort to set forth clearly a rule of faith and practice; that men may devise a charter for unity where God has failed. This writer has no such delusion.

Neither a newly formulated "creed" nor the "status quo" long-standing faith and practice of an "established party" can take the place of "the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you." We are unwilling to trust either those men who met in Arlington (and I was one of them) or those who ignorantly surmise, assume, and suppose concerning that meeting. Our faith remains in Jesus Christ and His word.

Fear of confrontation, with open Bible -- if such fear exists -- smacks of unwillingness to measure ourselves by God's Rule (2 Cor.10: 12-f) or a very sectarian conception of "church." How could anyone "represent" or "misrepresent" or "compromise" a party that does not exist??Answer that!!

"When the Christians refused to adopt a simple doctrinal statement to hold them together and keep them steady" (ibid.,pp.54) Marshall and Thompson retired to the shelter of the Presbyterian confession of Faith. Here councils and synods could decide what they were to believe, and they were protected from the strange doctrines that prey upon those who study and think for themselves.

God's blessings await those who "trust in God for the consequence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.7
June 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Does Jas. 5:12 prohibit taking oath for an elective office or in court? If all oath-taking is wrong, why did God swear? (Heb. 6:13-f)

Reply:

Space will not permit a full study of oath-taking, but (tighten seat belts) in its early form it indicated faith in the presence of Almighty God. It said, "I know God hears me, and holds me accountable for my words. I promise thus and so, aware that I am in His presence. I acknowledge Him as witness, etc., etc."

Note Paul's "oath": "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." (Gal. 1:20) Or in 1 Thes. 5:27 "I charge (adjure,rt) you by the Lord that this epistle he read unto all the holy brethren." The difference in an oath and "cursing" should be apparent, despite the fact that the terms are sometimes confused (cf. Herod's oath, albeit a foolish one; and Peter denying Christ with an "oath" (curse). (Matt. 14:7-9; 26:72) The degeneration of the oath kept pace with loss of genuine respect for God and absolute faith in His presence. None who are deeply aware of God's presence could, acting impassionately, call upon God to witness their foolish words and deeds. But as God is taken less seriously, an oath calling upon God as witness is considered less important.

God "swore by Himself" i.e., called upon Himself as witness, "because He could swear by no greater." (Heb. 6:13) The indications are that if there had been one greater. He would have sworn by Him. Taking an oath is a serious business, and imposes grave responsibility.

But Jesus said, "Swear not at all" (Matt. 5:33-37) "let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay..." Here, in our day by day communications, our integrity should be such as to call for no "witness." Jesus does not question the use of God as witness, per se; but strikes at the moral decay -- lying, cheating, and dishonor -- that had developed specious "rules" concerning oaths (see Matt. 23:16-22) and made a mockery of calling God to witness our casual transactions.

When Jesus said, "Whatsoever is more than these (yea, nay, rt) cometh of evil." (Matt. 5:37) He asserts that Satan and his influence establish the clime that produces, in reaction, all guarantees, certifications, and calling to witness. If nothing but truth were known in the world, neither God nor Paul would have used an oath. It was for a world made skeptical by the lies which abound -- not because of weakness on God or Paul's part -- that a witness was called. Christ teaches a series of lessons (Matt. 5:20-ff) that delve beneath the overt act, and get to the heart of matters.

Lenski says, "The man whose heart is true to God utters every statement he makes as though it were made in the very presence of God before whom even his heart with its inmost thought lies bare." Taking a required oath to satisfy legal procedure adds nothing to the word of one already wholly honest, "before God and man."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IV Pg.8
June 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A preacher beginning work with a new congregation, recently formed by separation from a more liberal group, received a phone call.

"The trouble here was nothing but personal differences," he was told. "There are no scriptural issues to justify the new Church. Both groups believe and practice exactly the same things."

"If that is so," the preacher replied, "I have been grossly misinformed." Being assured that it was so, the preacher continued, "I want no part in such a farce. I will worship with the old church at the next service.

This somewhat startled the caller, but his rejoicing was short lived. The preacher continued: "of course, since there is no doctrinal differences between us, I will feel free to continue teaching the scriptures re. the independence and autonomy of each local church; and to warn brethren about all entanglements in interchurch associations and institutions." That did it!! The caller made it clear that such teaching would not be welcomed, and the older church would continue to support with money and influence the various churchhood projects. They would continue to work collectively with "area-wide" movements, and use the church treasury for social functions "to hold the young people." In essence, you may come meet with us, contribute your money to support these unscriptural practices; but you must not raise your voice against any of this, nor will we agree to open Bible studies of the issues.

Just personal differences?? Who do we think we are kidding? Not God, for He can not be deceived. Not those who object to practices for which there is no Bible authority. As stubborn as some of us may be, we know the difference in "Come let us reason together" and "Come back, apologize, shut up, and let us continue in our own way." I am persuaded that not many "promoters" are successfully kidding themselves. They only fool the self-blinded, easy-going majority — who had rather sail smoothly into error, than rock the boat with investigation.

My hearts desire and prayer to God for my erring brethren is, that they might open their eyes to truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.V Pg.1
July 1968

Crazy Paul

Robert F. Turner

When Paul was in Athens certain philosophers asked, 'What will this babblersay?" (KJ) Marshall translates this, "ignorant plagiarist," and Vine explains its literal meaning of "seed collector," used in Greek

slang for a half-witted sort of person who picks up bits of information he does not understand. They called Paul a "fool," a "seed picker." (Acts 17:18)

Then Festus said, "Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad." (crazy) (Acts 26:24) Paul replied, "I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness."

Evidently there were others who accused Paul of being crazy, for in his letters to the Corinthians Paul wrote, 'Whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause." And, "Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little." Then, in irony, "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." (2 Cor. 5:13 11:16, 19) If name-calling could have stopped Paul we would never have heard of him. But Paul survived, and his attitude toward the whole matter is enlightening.

In Athens he ignored their taunts and used their idle curiosity as an open gate for his message. His reply to Festus is calm and straightforward — a self-contained refutation of the Governor's charge. Sometimes when we are called "fanatic" or some like name, we prove the label by our reply. A "hot" letter to some accuser may furnish him written proof of what had formerly been but a nasty bluff.

Paul turned the tables on his Corinthian attackers. If they gloried so in the flesh he would show them -- (he said, "I speak as a fool") that he had the more reason to so glory.

But whatever the type or content of his response, the outstanding characteristic is his determination that it should be to the glory of God. 'Whether we be beside ourselves — or sober -- " "we are fools for

Christ's sake." (1 Cor. 4:10) Fool of God! So completely dedicated to his heavenward climb he used "crazy" as a step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.V Pg.2
July 1968

"Ye Which Are Spiritual"

Robert F. Turner

Once a member of a congregation was reported to have been drinking, and seen in public under the influence of alcohol. I was privileged to be present when the elders discussed the problem, and how they might act in keeping with their obligations as shepherds, and to save the wavering brother's soul.

One elder, with great humility, said, "I believe I am the one who should go and talk with him. You see, there was a time, some years ago, when we drank together."

This bishop saw with clarity what many of us never see; or seeing, ignore. To reach a sinner, to correct an error, understanding is necessary. Understanding of the truth — of course — but also understanding of the one in error. This doesn't warrant the conclusion that only former drunkards should be elders; but it does suggest the need for all who would correct others to "feel" with and for them. Sympathy and empathy are not synonymous with condoning.

Christ was "made like unto his brethren" -- "suffered being tempted" -- and therefore encourages us to "come boldly unto the throne of grace." He did not need to sin, but to understand man's frailties. (Heb. 2: 11-18; 4:15-16) Concern and compassion are written between every line of the account of the woman taken in adultery, although the sin itself must have been repulsive to the pure Son of God. (Jn. 8:3-11) ("Go, and sin no more.")

"Hate sin, but love the sinner." It's trite, abuses; but Oh, so needed!

To All Their Dues

On the opposite page we develop an idea suggested by some notes in our little black book — maybe notes on a sermon by W. L. Wharton, but we are not really certain of the source. Anyhow we spent nearly five hours study and writing on that page, so do not hesitate to call this article our own.

STUFF ABOUT THINGS grew out of a personal experience, but uses a suggestion from Dan Shipley. ("resolutions come easiest followingindulgence") Another of Dan's ideas which we haven't used -- yet: "New Convert Deserves MoreThan a Dry Towel and a Handshake." Eight articles per month absorb a lot of "ideas" gathered from over the country, and we would gladly acknowledge each one if we knew the source, and space would allow.

If you quote Plain Talk you should give source. Use our "ideas" freely — if you research them adequately to confirm truth, and if you have nerve!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.V Pg.3
July 1968

Where Are Your Scars?

Robert F. Turner

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." (Matt. 16:24)

Becoming a Christian, and living the life of a Christian, are often summed up in such "package" statements; but this has long been a favorite of mine. Jesus made the statement after telling his disciples that He must die. Peter objected, saying, "Be it far from thee, lord;" but Jesus said such talk was Satanic — "for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

"Then said Jesus — " leaving His own course, and yet predicating the hope of others upon his example — "If anyone wills to come after me —." The three essentials of this journey are: (1) farewell (to self); (2) carry our baggage (the cross); and (3) the continuous process of travel (follow me). (Godet) Each portion of the whole fills its own special purpose: complete denial of "self" so that we may live for Christ; and the "patient continuance in well doing," (Rom. 2:7) the "long haul" where so many are tempted to change the course rather than follow Christ faithfully. These things we understand, if only superficially, and accept as essentials in the Christian life. But what of our "cross"?

Despite the close association with Christ's literal death, such a cross is not enjoined upon us. Ours must be a "living sacrifice" (Rom.12:1). And yet it is "sacrifice" -- the willing acceptance of burden "for Christ's sake" that might be, and sometimes is, as big as life itself. Paul wrote, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: —" (Gal. 2:20).

Sickness, toothaches, and business reversals do not constitute the "cross." Christ bore His cross willingly, deliberately; not as one bearing pain with gritted teeth. We are sometimes near-sacrilegious in claiming as our "cross" something we bring upon ourselves by bombastic arrogance.

Christ bore His cross for the good of others, not to satisfy some martyr complex. The Middle-Age ascetics who lived in caves, starved themselves, or crawled on bleeding knees up some "holy" mountain "had their reward" — self-pity and praise of similarly deluded people. But our "cross" must be carried so that others may hear, obey, and live. How desperately we need the spirit of the small boy who carried a cripple on his back. "He ain't heavy, he's my brother!"

Christ died, and we must live for people who do not deserve it. This is a good thing to remember when our efforts are repulsed, scorned, rejected. Here is the "cross." Long hours of prayer and preparation are presented to shallow-minded ingrates. Earnest pleadings are cast aside as "fanatic" or "Anti-ravings." Those we love most deny us. Do we "revile again" or do we "bear our cross"? It may deepen your appreciation for the first cross if you will remember, the next time you are truly penitent and ask God to forgive your sinful ways, that Christ died for such worms as you and me.

Can I Truly Deny Self, Follow my Lord, Without A Cross Upon My Shoulder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.V Pg.4
July 1968

Headquarters In Heaven

Robert F. Turner

Streaking toward the west coast in a sleek jet is also a good place to discuss the cause of Christ. Small talk with a fellow-traveler moved from occupation to church to "Where is this church's headquarters?"

"Lady," I said, "You aren't going to believe this, but I want to tell you the honest truth. Headquarters for the church of which I am a member is in heaven.

There was a moment of silence, and then she replied politely, "You are correct, I don't believe it; but I will listen to your explanation." What more could anyone ask?

GOD,   GOD, GOD, GOD

Apostles

JUDGES, KINGS, CHRIST, NOT Bishops

or Church

People. People. People. People

Take your time, to study this. God (Deity) first ruled His chosen people through Judges, then through Kings, and finally-- Christ sits on David's Throne. (Acts 2:30-f) Christ is today both King and Priest -- He can not be one without the other. (Heb. 7:) The sovereignty of Divinity is exercised through the Son of God, and through none other. (See 1 Cor. 15:24-28)

The Apostles were (and are) ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) delivering His message. "There is one lawgiver--." (Jas. 4:12) Legislative, executive, and judicial authority resides wholly and only in Christ. Our "headquarters" is in Heaven!! Since the Apostles and N.T. prophets were inspired, spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit -- we do not go to them for guidance; except as to earthen vessels, whose contents we seek. (2 Cor. 4:7) And now, in the absence of inspiration, how absurd to consider any board, council, or ecclesiastical body as our headquarters.

We do not go to "the church" for forgiveness, mercy, or any of the spiritual blessings. All are in Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3) Our headquarters is in Heaven! We may "come boldly to the throne of grace" in Heaven; (Heb. 4:16) for here is our altar. (Heb. 9:18-24-f)

The "church" is not the mediator between God and man; Christ is our "middle-man"-- we come to God through Christ, not through the church. Each one of us much approach God as an individual, through Christ. It is only when I have found God in Christ, when I have become obedient to His commandments, subject to His authority, that I am one of His saints a member of His "called out" ones the church.

Stressing individual obligations to Christ does not minimize the importance of Christ's church -- it doesn't erase the local church as God's people operating collectively. It just puts the church in its proper place. God's people (the church) must depend upon Christ, His word; not on people!

God,

Christ,

God's People, The Church!

Yes maam, my headquarters is in Heaven!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.V Pg.5
July 1968

Creator Of Vitamin K

Robert F. Turner

Many "modern" discoveries are found to be but proofs of the prior knowledge of God; knowledge prior to and independent of the experiences of man. But the example below has double merit because of the wide gap of time between the statement of God, and the current medical "proofs." We have plucked the following from pages 22-23, "None of These Diseases," a book by S. I. McMillen, M.D.; published by Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood N. J., 1963.

----------------------------------

"It is felt that the tendency to hemorrhage is due to the fact that the important blood-clotting element, vitamin K, is not formed in the normal amount until the fifth to the seventh day of life. If vitamin K is not manufactured in the baby's intestinal tract until the fifth to the seventh day, it is clear that the first safe day to perform circumcision would be the eighth day, the very day that Jehovah commanded Abraham to circumcise Isaac.

A second element which is also necessary for the normal clotting of blood is prothrombin. A chart based on data discussed in Holt Pediatrics reveals that on the third day of a baby's life the available prothrombin is only thirty per cent of normal. Any surgical operation performed on a baby during that time would predispose to serious hemorrhage. From the chart we also see that the prothrombin skyrockets on the eighth day to a level even better than normal — 110 per cent. It then levels off to 100 per cent. It appears that an eight-day-old baby has more available prothrombin than on any other day in its entire life. Thus one observes that from a consideration of vitamin K and prothrombin determinations the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighthday.

We would commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiatedcircumcision with Abraham, He said, "And he that is eight days old shall be circum- cised..." (Gen.17:12)

Abraham did not pick the eighth day after centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees had ever been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K."

----------------------------

Dr. McMillen also comments on the instructions of God through Moses re. Quarantine of the sick (See Lev.13:), and careful washing of the person and all objects contaminated by that which is "unclean." (Num.19:) He concludes that man "learned, after centuries and at a frightful cost, what God gave to Moses by inspiration."

Someday our own "modern" brethren may discover that God's ways are indeed

"pragmatic" and "relevant" in our age. GOD'S WAYS ARE SUITED TO THE MAN THAT GOD MADE, FOR ALL TIME!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.V Pg.6
July 1968

"Area-Wide" Movements?

Robert F. Turner

Cooperation, then Conferences, and then Missionary Societies; this was the route of early digressions in the organizational structure of the church. Alonzo Willard Fortune, Christian Church author of The Disciples in Kentucky, publ. 1932; is quoted in the following excerpts.

---------------------------

CHARACTER OF DIST. CONFERENCES: "This letter by Thomas M. Allen throws much light on the inner development of the churches, and especially, on the nature of the conferences. The meeting which began on the 19th. (Sept. 1829, rft) continued until Monday, the 22nd.

On the Lord's Day the Lord's Supper was attended to, and between six and eight hundred united in commemorating the dying suffering of their exalted Savior." Mr. Allen, in summarizing the letters from the churches, said, "They contend for the independency of the church, maintain that it is the highest religious tribunal on earth -- but while they this believe, they are, however, willing to co-operate with their brethren in periodical meetings, the object of which is to obtain religious information, learn of each other their prosperity and situation, and worship together." (Pp. 59, Disciples in Kentucky.)

"The Long Run Association, which met in Bullit County in September, 1825, was called to act on a circular letter, written by "P.S. Fall, bishop of the church in Louisville, advocating the Scriptures as the only

sufficient, perfect, and infallible rule of Christian faith and manners." The church in Louisville of which P. S. Fall was pastor had sent the following queries to the churches of that association with the request that they express their sentiment upon them in their next letters. (1) Is there any authority in the New Testament for religious bodies to make human creeds and confessions of faith the constitutions or directories of such bodies in matters of faith or practice? (2) Is there any authority in the New Testament for Associations? If so, what is it? If not, why are they held? The proposition to accept the Bible as the rule of faith was rejected by the "casting vote of Elder George Waller, moderator of said meeting." (Pp. 72, ibid.

CO-OP MEETINGS CHANGE CHARACTER: "These co-operative meetings became very common after 1830. At first they were for inspiration and for the general discussion of the common problems they were facing. It was not long, however, until there was the additional purpose of planning co-operative work." (Pp. 111, ibid.)

"There is no phase of the history of the Disciples in Kentucky that is more interesting than the development of the spirit of co-operation among the churches. This co-operation, which began among those advocating reform before the Disciples became a distinct communion, developed as there was a necessity. This inevitably led to a general organization, the Kentucky Christian Missionary Society, which was the agency of the churches for the work of evangelism in the State." (Pp. 197, ibid.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...