Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.5

June 1971

Missing Our Mission

Robert F. Turner

The word means, basically, a sending forth, and the mission of the church is to do what it is sent forth to do — its assigned work. A missionary would be one who is sent forth — the word apostle being about as close as any greek derived term. Apostle is used in a special sense (the twelve) and in a more general sense in the N.T. (See apostle in Vines Expository Dictionary.)

No doubt this is the origin of the application of the word to men sent into foreign countries to preach the word. But a strange metamorphosis has taken place. Sent to preach Christ, and cause people to obey the commands of the gospel for the remission of their sins, a missionary was still a Christian in all his relationships of life, and showed his concern for social, civic, economic, and ocher problems of those whom he sought to teach. He sought to help the less fortunate in these fields — incidentally — subordinate to his mission, although having its own importance.

Gradually the incidental and subordinate grew in importance. Backward countries encouraged "missionaries who would teach school, operate hospitals, teach agriculture; and this opened doors that had been closed to gospel preachers. Opened them for schools, etc., NOT for preaching. Now the preaching had to be done On the side — incidentally and subordinate to the secular functions.

And as the social gospel concept grew, and even in the States became the dominate characteristic of local church work, it became commonplace to think of a missionary as one who supervised a compound or station for secular education, medical treatment, etc. He had to be well qualified for this. His ability to preach the gospel was of little importance — he did little or none of it anyhow.

Recently I noticed a report in the Christian Chronicle regarding one of our (liberal) missionaries. Quote: In 1961 he went to Africa as a missionary. He taught school and sponsored a Boy Scout troop that excelled in trailing and tracking... From July 1967 to August 1969, — was in Nazareth, Israel, as a minister. He served as superintendent of Galilee Christian High School, an accredited high school open to all religions and nationalities ... He did a detailed study of Biblical places and took hundreds of slides and became quite proficient as a guide of the Holy Lands. I know little about the man, but I know that whoever wrote that report pictured that man as anything but one sent to save mens souls.

The apostle Paul went (1) to turn souls to Christ, and (2) to strengthen and confirm the disciples. Whatever else he did (and I do not doubt his well - rounded interest) it was of such secondary importance as to call for little or no mention. He was a queer missionary indeed, by todays standards.

Failure to put spiritual matters first in our dealing with others, is a pretty good indication they are not first in our own life. Isnt it time we go where and for what we are sent?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.6

June 1971

More From Pullias, 1919

Robert F. Turner

We continue reprinting a reprint: Combines in the Church by C.M. Pullias; first printed in TIDINGS OF JOY in Nashville, Tenn., July, 1919. And, well back up a full paragraph, connecting thoughts of the two issues.

*************************

The main principle violated by a missionary society is combining of all the congregations to do what God has assigned to one. There is no work that cannot be done by the power of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power— that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. (Eph. 3:20,21) That which the church has not the power to do, then. should not be considered. Beside this we might say this way of a few getting together and saddling on the church of Christ orphan homes and schools or anything else is a very serious thing, and will in the course of time prove to be a curse to the church. An individual Christian or congregation might have a school or orphanage if it is able and so chooses, but to have one for the church at large is to bind what God has not bound, so whatever befalls one befalls every one. All such combines are wrong and in them the man of sin is working, just as in Pauls day; and in the course of time he will be revealed to the sorrow of the church. (2 Thes. 2: 3-10)

A brotherhood paper or school or orphanage or a brotherhood anything else will prove itself to be a dictator and usurper of the church of Christ, and an octopus that grips the interest and life out of the church. If you say they make the church more efficient, I answer that men can, then improve upon what God has made. This I deny. The Lord had a purpose in making the church. He made it to fill a place and do a work, and there.. fore it is adequate to such. He also made the church small, poverty stricken, insignificant institution in the eyes of the world, so designing men would not want it; but so soon as it gets to be respectable with the world the armistice is signed and peace is near, but not the kind of peace that God approves. There is, Therefore, great danger in human methods and wisdom. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. All conventions, associations, societies, and even elders and preachers' meetings may prove to be a curse to the cause they claim to love.

There is no combine with the church and human institutions that does not take the life and power from it. There is no peace till the last enemy is destroyed. Anything that is called peace before evil is annihilated is dishonorable and a disgrace and shame on the church. But the church is the pillar and support of the truth, and I cannot believe it will ever wholly surrender.

**************************

As a matter of historic interest, if any reader has the original of the above, or articles of that period which show any react ion to the article, we would like to have photocopies, and will glad gladly pay for them.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.7

June 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Must a preacher be sent forth by a church to preach? Please explain Rom. 10:15. IQ

Reply:

In Rom. 10: Paul. is saying that all (both Jew AND Gentile) may call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. He then reasons, how call except they believe, and how believe except they hear, and how hear without a preacher or proclaimer, and how preach to both and Gentile except GOD send messengers to all nations. Paul is saying that GOD sent messengers to ALL NATIONS, as it had been prophesied He would do.

The passage first cited by Paul is How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace — and this is from Isa. 52:7, clearly a Messianic prophecy, and one that says further, Jehovah hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations: and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

Paul further reasons: Have they (i.e., all nations) not heard? And he answers, Yes verily, their sound (i.e., the proclaimers sound) went into all the earth —. (Rom. 10: 18) Paul then shows (vs. 19-20) that Jews should have known that God was going to send messengers to the Gentiles, for both Moses and Isaiah had said that this would happen.

The person who uses Rom. 10:15 to prove (?) that a church must send a preacher before he is authorized to preach, shows very little regard for the context of Rom. 10:11-21.

Our High Priest, Jesus Christ, has as a priesthood all saints: any and every child of God. These lively stones are built up a spiritual house a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices — or a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, — (1 Pet. 2:5,9). Christians have no clergy-laity distinctions, but one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matt. 23:8)

The Holy Spirit sent forth Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:4) and the church at Antioch but encouraged and wished them God-speed in that work they would have been obligated to do, even if Antioch had disapproved. Note 3 John where a church refused to aid God—approved workers. Churches should encourage and support those who go forth preaching the Word (Phil. 4:15f) but each saint is obligated to the Lord to serve in keeping with his ability, and needs no other authorization than this.

Sometimes the above question comes to the front when there are differences in judgement concerning the starting of a new congregation, or judgement as to the most opportune time or place for some work; or even judgement concerning someones qualifications to preach here or there. We must not confuse matters of judgement and expediency with Bible truth concerning the right to preach. And it would be hard for me to respect the judgement of those who sought to advise me —on the basis that I had no authority to preach the gospel of Christ until some church or board of elders laid hands on me.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.8

June 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Every preacher, elder, personal worker who has tried to stir dead or dying coals into live hot saints, has met the Ive Been Baptized routine in one form or another. Our family been Church of Christers from way back! All the big - name preachers stayed at our house! I helped build the church (building) back in my home town! And so, on and on.

Someone has said, The Baptist preach the impossibility of apostasy; but we practice it. Well, its nothing for which either should be proud. Actually, the better ones background and opportunity to learn and grow, the greater is ones responsibility.

So, do not allow the humor (?) of the following poem to hide its more serious aspects.

Ticket Fer Heaven!

Well, I wuz baptized on a cold winter day, They busted thu ice and they pushed it away; And Old Brother Sloakum, thu pioneer, Thu one whuts famous fer bein queer, Wuz thu one whut put me under then, And I aint about tu do hit agin

Praise thu Lord!! I bin baptized!

Oh, I aint tu strong fer churchin ways, With thu hypocrites theyve got these days: Ill take me a nip, and a snort er two, And I may be awhoopin afore Im through;

But I got me a record, and dont you ferget, Hits good hard proof thet Ive been wet

Praise thu Lord!! I bin baptized!

When I wuz a boy in Tennessee, Some big-meetin preachers laid their hands on me; Ive set on the knee of Old Brother Tant, And heard more preachin n you can shake a stick at; Hardeman, Nichols, and Old Joe Blue, Has stayed at our house, and theyd tell you

Praise thu Lord!! Hes bin baptized!

So come snoopin around our place, Disturbin my coon-hounds, and tellin Grace Bout mendin our ways, and livin by thu rules, And bringin our kids to thu Sunday Schools; I got me a Bible, in thu trunk somewheres, And a genuwine record whuts writ in there

Praise thu Lord!! I bin baptized!

(Yep, I done it!)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.1

July 1971

Relatively Absolute?

Robert F. Turner

We strive or press toward perfection, and die without ever having reached our ideal. (Phil. 3:12-16) In an absolute sense, sinlessness is so above man that John said, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 Jn. 1:8) Context of the same passage shows that we achieve an acceptable relationship with God through forgiveness. (1 Jn. 2:1)

So, many commands to a Christian are obeyed so far as one is able — there being varying degrees to which different saints may measure. Christ may forgive one man more than He does another, that they may both stand before Him justified. This does not say truth is relative, but that we may reach differing levels of knowledge and response.

But someone, reasoning along these lines, asked the question, May one have the mind of Christ as far as he is able? May ones attitude be less perfect than anothers, and both be acceptable before God? It seems that ones attitude, ones heart, is either right or wrong before God — that there can be no relativity in such matters. An illiterate can give his heart to God as com- pletely as can the scholar, and is probably more likely to do so. And the babe in Christ, who stumbles and falls often, may be as intent on overcoming his weaknesses and serving the Lord, as the mature Christian of long standing. One may need more forgiveness — but this very thing may contribute to his love for Christ, and determination. (Lu. 7:47)

Does not Christ teach that we must love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind? (Matt. 22:37) Phillip would only baptize one who believed with all his heart. (Acts 8:37) It may not take much of a man to be a Christian, but it does take all there is of him.

And the man who gives himself completely, wholeheartedly to Christ, will be satisfied with nothing less than a lifetime of striving to do all the Lord asks of him. (Lu. 17:10) That kind of servant will not make distinctions in Gods laws (Jas 2:10) or discount some just so the heart is right. He knows that heart is wrong!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.2

July 1971

American Influence

Robert F. Turner

Americans have a tendency to judge everything by American standards, so that it is right only if done the way we do it. We are less cosmopolitan than Europeans, because we have not been forced, by geography, to rub shoulders with a multitude of different customs. To some extent the vastness and separateness of Australia has thus affected her people, especially in those areas more cut off from world -trade centers.

So, basic British customs of worship, attitudes toward money, etc., have taken on distinctive Australian dress, and resist change. When a colloquially tuned American tries to Americanize an Australian church, the sparks may fly. Exactly the same thing would take place here, if their preachers tried to Australianize an American church.

Now, to this mixture add liberal U.S. preachers, seeking to impose the current churchhood projects, social activities, Campaign ballyhoo and worship program techniques upon a people who have but recently come out of the Associated church (Christian Church) because of these very things, and you get the Australian picture.

Todays Australia is a challenging field for conservative preachers who are capable of distinguishing between inconsequential customs and scriptural principles — and who have patience to teach this difference to others. A few spiritually mature men could help faithful Australian saints shape the course of history there. Money to support conservative Australian men will help, but this is not enough.

Self-sacrificing examples are needed; the Australian saints need to see that not all American churches have bowed the knee to Abilene or Nashville — that conservative churches do indeed seek to spread the gospel afar and do not need Associated tactics to do it. The American Influence must become Christ at work in us.

This months Quote page concerns American Influence of a past age. I was surprised to learn that Americans had checked early efforts to make the Conference decisions binding on the churches of Australia, I was NOT surprised to see that so long as the Association meetings continued, and the principle of collective action was generally accepted, the move toward denominationalism continued.

One reader thought my printing of quotes meant endorsement of all the article taught. Not so! Specifically, I do not believe a church may operate a secular school. (May—June Quote.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.3

July 1971

Saving The Church, Ii

Robert F. Turner

I wrote an article on this subject several years ago, but some must have failed to read it —, otherwise, why would these foolish notions continue to circulate? Hmmmm!!

One fellow said Foy once saved the church from premillennialism, but now his influence has waned, and he cant save the church from institutionalism He thought it was a pity we didnt have someone whose influence was such that he could save the church now. I said (hours later, when I usually think of my best replies) Yeah, what a pity that Jesus Christ didnt have enough influence to save the church in both cases.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jesus DID and DOES have that kind of influence, with HIS church. All who look to Him for guidance are content to be citizens in His spiritual kingdom; and have been saved from institutionalism by a close adherence to His pattern of church government. Their salvation involved come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, etc., (2 Cor. 6:17-18) but then this has ever been so. Jesus saved HIS church in earlier times by influencing them to obey God rather than men — even unto death. (Acts 5:29-f) Christ influenced HIS followers to worship in small groups, in halls and private homes, rather than continue in unauthorized worship practices in large, impressive buildings, with the party. How is that for influence?

I have no desire to depreciate the great work done by preachers and others; but no man has ever saved the Lords church. At best, a man may urge people to cleave unto the Lord (Acts 11:23) so that HE may save them individually and severally. (That is the way the Lord saves — as each bows self-will to the Lords will.) When mans influence is such that people follow the man instead of the Lord — even when the mans lead coincides with the Lords way — the good done is ephemeral. Here today, and gone tomorrow — when imperfect man goes astray, Except Jehovah build the house, they labor in vain that build it. (Psm. 127:1)

Middle-of-the-roaders are trying to save the mainstream of the movement, and having a hard time of it. They lack the gall and abandon to out-promote the promoters. And, if they succeeded, they would only have preserved a party whose chief characteristic is nothingness. Why work up an ulcer to save a union of people while the true Saviour is dividing people in order to preserve true unity in the faith? (Matt. 10: 32-39; 1 Cor. 5:1-8; 2 Jn. 9-11)

We are not insensitive to the need for fellowship among saints — to an obligation to work together in Gods congregational arrangement — but this too must be saved in response to the influence of Christ upon the individual saint. When Christ is served, and only then, is there unity that is acceptable in His sight.

There are many would-be Don Quixotes, charging up and down the land, ready to save the church which really doesnt want to be saved — but only one Jesus Christ, who will indeed save His church in eternity.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.4

July 1971

Ambitious Tent Dwellers

Dan S. Shipley

In 2 Cor. 5: Paul pictures the body as a tent-house (tabernacle) which the Christian will one day put off in favor of a heavenly habitation with the Lord. After showing that to be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord (vs. 6) he concludes in verse 9, Wherefore also we make it our aim, whether at home or absent, to be well pleasing unto him.

The word aim as used here means to be ambitious in a good sense. It is to act from love or honor; in this case, the honor which comes from the Lord. (See Robertsons Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. IV, P.229) Pauls noble ambition then, whether in the tent home or the heavenly, was to please the Lord. We recall his words of Rom. 8:14, For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lords. No wonder Paul encourages us to be imitators of him! (Phil. 3:17) Like Paul, all Christians should be actively seeking the honor of Heaven. Pleasing the Father must be the life-ruling ambition of every child of God. After all, isnt that what religion is all about?

Yet, many seek the reward that Paul sought who do not share this worthy ambition. Ironic as it seems, this indispensable and fundamental requirement of pleasing God appears to have been lost sight of by most in religion. To be sure, the idea of a God-pleasing oriented ministration is retained and promoted with much lip— homage. Doing His will is the avowed intent of most, but they are betrayed by their fruits.

Much has been done to lower Pauls high aim to the easier and bigger target of PEOPLE—PLEASING religion. Its popular sentiments are well expressed in the public service advertising that urges attending the church of your choice or every man, in his own way involvement. Its disciples seek for a church or religion with which they can be satisfied — or quit if they become dissatisfied. They accept or reject without serious inquiry or concern as to whether it pleases God — boldly assuming that what pleases them must please Him! One might as logically manufacture counterfeit money and expect the Treasury Department to honor it as to expect God to approve this kind of religion.

Pauls ambition to please God was based on the knowledge that salvation itself depends on it. Heaven awaits only those who will do His will. (Matt. 7:21) The New Testament is our pattern for pleasing God. None of it can be altered or ignored because it alone shows men how they are to walk and to please God. (1 Thes. 4:1) He simply CANNOT be served and honored apart from doing His will — no matter -how sincere and well-intentioned the efforts might be. In contrast to the do-and-believe-as-you-please concept, we, as His servants, humbly do as He pleases. His own son could not do otherwise. (Rom. 15:3)

Pauls ambition should flavor our lives! Pleasing God should influence every decision and duty. There will be little need to be ambitious about pleasing God in heavenly mansions if we fail Him in the tent!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.5

July 1971

Whole-Man Facilities

Robert F. Turner

In the early 40s some of the first Teacher Training classes were being conducted in churches of Christ; and I believe much good has come of efforts to develop genuine teaching situations — suiting material to pupil, and stressing the need for more thoroughly prepared teachers. But we turned, naturally to secular educators as instructors in these schools, and they brought the whole man concept with them. The Ideal Educational Situation included social and recreational facilities, provided by the church.

I asked an A.C.C. lecturer for Bible authority for such, (an old-time Anti practice) and he cited Lu. 2:52 and then closed the discussion period (an old-time liberal practice). The scripture cited (and used today) says Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, and in favor with God and man. So, there are mental, physical, spiritual and social aspects to mans development. Neither this passage or any other make this development the function of the church. But promoters are not bothered by a little detail like the fallacy of non sequitur — it does not follow.

The Donelson church, Nashville, Tenn., is now building a gymnasium — although they will not call it that. Their bulletin says, It will be adjacent to the present Bible School wing and contain four classrooms for teenage classes, a lounge reception room, a kitchen, and a large area which may be used for banquets, basketball games, or provide area for teacher training sessions, mission forums, youth rallies, etc.

The Christian Activities Center evidences a depth of insight in the leadership of the Donelson congregation. It evidences an understanding of Christianity that reaches to the whole life of the individual rather than considering the only legitimate activities of the church as being worshipping and preaching.

The church as a spiritual institution, to administer to spiritual needs, is a concept long forsaken by this church. And you may as well call their new building a gymnasium — its spiritual (?) significance will fade.

Negative journalism? Maybe so, but the church-social promoters did not like it any better when we begged them, 20 years ago, to join us in a positive study of the church and her God-ordained work. We pick up such items as the above, now and then, not because it delights us, but as object lessons to those today who are just starting down such a path, and think they can go a short way and no more.

I believe Christianity affects the whole life of the individual. Eating, or refusing to eat certain meat at the feast of the unbeliever should be done to the glory of God. (1 Cor. 10:31) Domestic and business relations have Christian significance (Col. 3:17-25) but this does not involve the church in banqueting or secular business, except as we teach Gods truth on these matters. Rom. 13 does not authorize church politics.

Basketball challenges worshipping and preaching — it is enough to make the whole man cry.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.6

July 1971

Australian Antis, 1868

Robert F. Turner

We are now to see the influence of the American evangelists with regard to the annual conference.... At this third conference, held 13th. April, 1868,... When there was a discussion on the Hymn book, an important question was raised, namely: How far do the resolutions or recommendations passed at the annual meeting affect representatives and churches? (B.M.H. , Vol. 21,p.255). The greater portion of the day was given to the discussion of this question. The majority decided that the decisions of conference should not be binding, but that the delegates should convey any decision to their respective churches for their acceptance or otherwise. This view was supported, it seems, by those influenced by the American trained evangelists

The older (British, rft) brethren were not easily moved. They held to their view and defended it stoutly. These men sought to make conference resolutions binding upon individual churches. Although out-numbered, they so held to their view that the subject was deferred to a special meeting to be held on 9th. November, for further discussion. At this special meeting the problem was again debated for several hours but without any finality being reached; each side, apparently, was determined to hold out, so it was moved that the meeting adjourn sine die (B. M. H., Vol. 22, p. 140). A. Thomson, who was in close fellowship with G.L. Surber, may be considered as setting out the American viewpoint, when he stated, Some brethren are very wary of even the appearance of establishing a body of brethren — call it what you may — vested with power to control the action of the churches, or to legislate for them in matters of expediency, believing such to be wrong in principle and injurious and evil in its results: hence its action has been watched. (B.M.H.)

For three years no conference was held, but a compromise seems to have been reached in which the American viewpoint, to a great degree, prevailed. The next conference was called in 1872, and this time was held at Prahran. From this date conferences have been held annually, and the decisions of the representatives have been considered advisory and not binding upon churches. The question was raised again in 1888, but once more the authoritative element of a conference was rejected, and so conferences have remained more or less advisory.

(Later, in summation, the writer says:) We may also venture to state that the ultimate nature of church government and the relationship of a conference of churches to an individual church, prevailing in Australia, was largely determined by the lead given by the American outlook. When the need for a conference was eventually realized in 1872, the conference was then so constituted that it was to be merely advisory and not authoritative. In spite of this, the move in recent years throughout Australia has been toward a strengthening of the bond between churches, and conference decisions are becoming, mutually, more binding upon individual churches. (PIONEERING FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY, by A.W. Stephenson, pub. 1940)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.7

July 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is it scriptural for a member of one congregation to split their contribution with another congregation?

Reply:

Contribution from a scriptural viewpoint, is what one gives, freely, not of necessity, to supply some need or want. (2 Cor. 9:7; 8:14; 4-5; 1 Cor. 16:1-3) It is not a tax, not a fee exacted by the church.

It represents each disciples will to meet certain needs, and to join with other saints in a collective effort to meet those needs. (Although Acts 11:29 is not absolutely, clearly a case of a pooled fund, it does show the individual will back of the gift — a characteristic of acceptable giving in all cases.)

Saints contribute to a common fund on the Lords Day because:

1. Each one recognizes legitimate, God-authorized needs which should be met, in order to further the Lords cause, and glorify God.

2. In keeping with Gods will, they have covenanted together, agreed to work as one, in certain activities of work and worship.

3. 1 Cor. 16: 1-3 furnishes approved precept and example of such pooling of funds, on the Lords Day, by saints in a local church relationship, to meet such God-authorized needs.

I find nothing in any of the scriptures concerning giving that suggests that our contribution is a certain percentage of our income, foreordained to be placed in the collection basket of the congregation of which we are members. The same passages which teach that we should be willing, when the needs demand it, to sell our possessions and give all, or 100% (Acts 4:32-37); would also teach that when needs are less, we would reduce the gift accordingly.

All team activities impose responsibilities upon those who are a part of the team. I accept such responsibilities when I become a part of a congregation; and would be derelict of duty should the work of the team of which I am a member be ignored and my resources be given to another congregation. If I can not conscientiously support the work of a congregation, I should sever relations with them and go to work with a team to which I can give support. (Little men may allow petty grievances and personal differences to keep them on the move. They will use the above statement to excuse such childishness — but that sort would find some excuse, regardless, I am seeking to deal with the principles involved.) However, if one meets the needs and responsibilities of his home congregation, and wishes to make additional gifts to other needs, I see no violation of scripture in this.

If each congregation would plan their work properly — in keeping with their ability — their legitimate need would be such as to use the resources of each member so fully, there would be little excuse, or inclination, for a shopping around for places to put our money. A split contribution usually indicates poor team planning, or a donor with split allegiance.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.V Pg.8

July 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

They were gathered about the lawyers desk like cattle at the trough, waiting with poorly concealed greed for the reading of the will. Tension mounted as the seal was broken, and the counselor slowly unfolded a single sheet of paper.

He read: I, John Doe, being of sound mind and good judgement, spent it all. Period.

And why not? Are we not here to use the bounty God gives us; to spend and be spent in His service? I do not know how the above John Doe spent it all — perhaps ill-advised and selfishly — but he made his own mistakes with that which came to his hand.

We have obligations to our wife and small children who may survive us that should be considered. The uncertainties of old age make a literal even-up conclusion practically impossible, but do not remove it as a desirable ideal.

I am not commending the spendthrift, the wastrel, the prodigal who has no sense of responsibility for the proper use of his substance. We are stewards of the things of God, with an obligation to use wisely. Saving is a virtue, when this means a judicious holding of funds so that we may have something to USE at a more propitious time. It teaches self -control — it builds confidence and (albeit a this-world related) feeling of solidness and security. But a miser may convince himself that he is just conservative — not given to the sinful waste of money. His gold and silver cankers while sinners die untaught, and his neighbor dies unassisted. (Jas. 5:1-6) The step between constructive saving and selfish hoarding is not a big one. When God is no longer served, Mammon slides easily into His place.

But things are so unsettled, argues the man who trusts in this world; Anything could happen!

Thats right! Anything, including the end of this world — What then??

I believe God wants me to work hard, make money, save it — but only to the end that I may USE that which comes to my hand as tools to serve and glorify Him. There is no money exchange in heaven. Those of sound mind, good judgement, and an understanding of scripture, will seek to spend it all here — properly.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.1

August 1971

Starting With Me!

Robert F. Turner

A member of a certain church told me that the son of an elder there is guilty of an obvious moral wrong. My informant said that because of money, family ties, church politics, etc., nothing would ever be done about it. It was a sordid picture indeed.

Ideally, the father should seek to correct his son; or failing this, ask a friend (of family) to work with the situation. And father, friend, and the whole church should be more concerned with saving the boys soul than with preserving their individual and collective pride. In 1 Cor. 5: the writer spends one verse on the incestuous man, and the rest of the chapter on the pride-filled church that would do nothing about it.

So — I suggested to my concerned informer, that he go to the boy. Acknowledge the weakness of the church; that nothing would likely be done under the prevailing circumstances (and the boy knows this as well or better than anyone else) but plead with the boy on the basis of his obligation to God. This is unchanged, regardless of what others may or may not do. Show the boy that you are concerned, and that you will pray and work with him to make things right with God.

My listener was amazed shocked at my suggestion. ME get involved in a thing like that?? You must be out of your mind!! The family might turn on me. Beside that, I am in business and cant afford to take such chances of losing customers.

He would have said more, but I interrupted. Tell me again — what is wrong with that church of which you are a member??

Why, they wont do anything about the sins of the members. They are so wrapped up in their money — their little cliques and family ties — that they would let the church go to hell before they would move a hand. Why they — and he stopped short in his embarrassment. They ———

Yeahhh!

Well son, whoever, wherever you are, your sin is no less because they are weak. Will you be a MAN about it?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.2

August 1971

From Down - Under

Robert F. Turner

Our readers may grow weary of hearing from me, about Australia; but I am so thrilled by my continuing and expanding contacts from there, that I just have to tell someone about it.

An encouraging report from Melbourne indicates 12 baptisms of which I did not know when writing articles for TRUTH Magazine and the GUARDIAN. It also tells of five restorations, and the beginning of a congregation in a new section of the city.

One young Australian preacher writes — about a hitch-hiker — well to cut a long story short, all that really matters is to say I baptized him the following Sunday — have found him a job in Caringbah, and he stayed with us until he found a place to board. Enjoy a little reading between the lines on that one, if you would know the spirit of Australia. (And that young preacher who opened his heart and home, is living on a very sub-standard support.)

One letter enclosed a bulletin from Holland Park, Qld., which featured an article about ANTI-ISM! It sarcastically refers to the Anti-cup fellow the Anti-class bloke anti- collection basket anti supported preachers we dont need a building we dont like church fellowship in the building we dont need advertising were going to get too big. The tirade ends with the charge that these awful Anti-s dont want to work for the Lord, and if this church wont let him preach, hell start one of his own. The writer has the gall to conclude, This is striking at the heart of the issue. Does this former head of a U.S. Christian school really think he has dealt with the issues? To answer that one must insult his intelligence or his integrity. My correspondent called the article a Hymn of Hate. Hmmm! Well, no self - respecting Australian will be swayed by such tactics.

And there are warm personal notes from brethren known so briefly — who refer to our studies together as a mountain- top experience we know the wealth of the world is Jesus. Another writes, we look forward to seeing you again one day before the reward— and another, let us hear more from you and other brethren who have no desire to add to nor take away from the Lords word.

Soul-hungry, experienced preachers are needed in Australia; as well as support for sound Australian men. I will gladly show color pictures of the country, saints, church buildings etc., and help in any way possible to acquaint you with its opportunities.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.3

August 1971

Is It Worth The Cost?

Dan S. Shipley

From its earliest days, support of the Herald of Truth has been urged on the basis of the nominal costs per participant. Through expensive brochures and skilled promoters, impressive statistics have been advertised in support of what many consider to be a real bargain in evangelism. But the bargain is only imagined. It is time to consider the real and unpublicized costs; costs far greater than mere money. It is time for all brethren to realize that the Herald of Truth has been one of the costliest projects ever to be instigated among Gods people.

The Herald of Truth has cost precious unity among Christians. It has played a prominent role in dividing churches throughout the country. Because of it, life-long friends in the Lord have been alienated; even members of the same family have been estranged. It has promoted bitterness, prejudice, and ill-will among those whom Christ prayed may all be one. It has sown discord among those whom God instructs to follow after the things which make for peace and the things wherewith we may edify another (Rom. 14:19). Anyone who can see why the church was not divided over the Herald of Truth thirty years ago can see how it has been responsible for division! — think about it. Honest brethren can recognize this culprit; they can see the futility of blaming division on sincere and conscientious brethren insisting on Bible authority (just as all Christians once did!). When an alleged expedient such as the Herald of Truth is pushed and promoted to the point of division, its not hard to see who has sown the discord.

Brethren, we are divided. The Herald of Truth has helped to divide us. Its every supporter (not just preachers and elders) should realize that he is contributing to that which has divided Gods people! Is it worth it?

But, there are other costs, such as those weak members who have quit the church (the Lord) over these issues and the resultant conflict. Some may never be reclaimed. It is another sign of perilous times when promoters can label as a good work that which has cost such souls as well as unity. Even non-Christians have been influenced by these Herald of Truth oriented problems. In many places our kin and neighbors have witnessed this cleavage; some, with satisfaction; none with understanding. Their question is a good one: Why are there TWO churches of Christ in town? God is concerned about the Christians reputation with non-Christians (Matt. 5:16; 1 Pet. 2:12).

Finally, though, it must be remembered that these and other consequences, injurious as they have been, are not what makes the Herald of Truth wrong. In many places it has been accepted without proving (1 Thss. 5:21); practiced without opposition. But it is no less wrong where unopposed for agreement among men is not the basis for determining right. It is wrong because it is without Divine authority; no such arrangement can be found in the Bible! It is outside the doctrine of Christ and is therefore supported at the supreme cost of fellowship with God Himself! (2 Jn. 2:9) such are the unheralded costs. Honestly, is it worth it?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.4

August 1971

Study In Hebrews

Robert F. Turner

The key word for the Hebrew epistle is SUPERIORITY. The writer writes to Hebrews who had become Christians, but who may now be tempted to return to their national, traditional faith. He argues that Christ is the superior Messenger, Law-giver, and High Priest and the Christian System is superior to that of Judaism. Interspersed with these points are numerous Exhortations to Faithfulness, with warnings and encouragements; and a third main section of the letter is devoted to this theme. The closing chapter may be considered General Exhortations. with references to earlier material. An outline of the epistle follows.

SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST — Heb. 1:1—7:28.

1. To Angels (1:1—2:18)

A. Angels- messengers, therefore Christ the superior messenger.

(1) Yet, humble; put on flesh to be like brethren, deliver us.

2. To Moses (3:1—4:13)

A. Moses - lawgiver, therefore Christ the superior lawgiver.

(1) Rest under Christ superior to that under Moses, Joshua.

(2) Only for faithful workers.

3. To Aaron (4:14 —7:28)

A. Aaron (4:4) High Priest, so Christ superior High Priest.

(1) Called of God, after the order of Melchisedec, proof theme.

(Interlude of chiding, warning, and encouragement. 5:10- 6:20)

(2) Melchisedec —Christ (7:1—28)

a. Both King AND Priest.

b. Superior to Abraham, Levi and whole Aaronic order.

c. By call rather than descent.

d. Like nothing before or after.

e. No successors to office. f. Different Law than by Aaron.

g. Sinless High Priest

h. Eternal High Priest

B. Summation (8:1—13 and conclusion — A New Covenant in Effect

OF CHRISTIAN SYSTEM —Heb. 9:1- 10:18

1. In Tabernacle (Lord pitched)

A. Our Altar is in Heaven.

2. In Priesthood (and Service)

3. In Covenant (sealed by Christ)

4. In Offering (Blood of Christ)

5. In Benefits (Forgiveness of Sin)

HOLDFAST— Heb. 10:19 -11:40)

1. Seeing we have such blessings.

2. No other sacrifice, mercy. (12:17)

3. Knowing the terror of the Lord.

4. Encouragement Via Example:

A. Examples of the Fathers.

B. Jesus, Author and Finisher.

C. Testings prove Gods love to us.

D. Opportunities so much greater.

E. Our God a consuming fire.

GENERAL EXHORTATIONS —Heb. 13:1-25 (With reference to former material)

FIRST—get a text that has easily readable print, and read the epistle all the way through. Then, wait a day or two, and read it through again. Then, wait a few days, and read it through again. These reading should be made as rapidly as possible, not stopping to study particulars.

NOW, perhaps, you are ready to go through more slowly, and look for the points of the above outline. Use some scrap paper, to jot down such points as come readily to your mind. After the outline is clear, study verses.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.5

August 1971

Above All, To Be True

Robert F. Turner

A friend of mine, whom I believe to be a sincere Christian, has developed the habit of saying, A man would have to he dishonest to miss this point, or say that, etc. I call it a habit for my friend loves his neighbor, and has no tendency to be little or self-justifying. While it is true that ones fruits may eventually prove him dishonest, such a charge should not be lightly made.

Some years back I was asked to review certain arguments made by a man I highly respected. Careful investigation proved he was misusing his sources; and I obtained original evidence to prove this (?) deception. I was reluctant to publish material so damaging to this brother, so I put my review together. then sent it to him with a letter stating that I felt this would be unnecessarily harmful to him, and suggested we call off the proposed publication. My letter was ignored — I received only his rebuttal, for publication.

Was the man dishonest and did he think he could get away with his deception? Many months later I learned that when he received my letter he jubilantly read it to a friend, as evidence that I was whipped, knew I could not answer his arguments, and was seeking a way to get out of it. I believe the man is self-deceived —and what do you suppose he thinks of me?? It might be a revelation indeed if our appraisals of one-another could be printed side by side —with the TRUTH as God sees us written between the lines. It is sobering to remember that in the final judgement it will be Gods record that counts.

The eye is a lens by which images are received, then transmitted to the mind, and there seen. The condition of the mind will affect the result. Sometimes we see what past experience has made us expect to see. The true image is there — truth is not relative — but we may be unable, with casual glance, to translate properly. The problem is laziness, not dishonesty. The solution is in 2 Tim. 2:15.

Or, we may have taken idols into our heart (Ezek. 14: 1-5) and, while committed to a different course, be unwilling to see objectively. If we know better but, preferring our idols, we say we can not see, we are being dishonest. But there are self- deceived people whose basic error is sectarianism, not dishonesty. They trust the church (defined by the elders, the majority, or the way we have been doing it) and have not the fiber or courage to look beyond and put Jesus Christ first. Such people are not fit for the kingdom of God. (Note Lu. 9:62; 14:20-33; Matt. 7: 21-f)

Under pressure from Judean big-shots, Peter, Barnabas and others became hypocrites for a time. That is a form of dishonesty; but apparently it didnt last long. (Gal. 2:11-13) Our Maker knows mans difficulty in seeing things objectively — and made His gospel to fit His creatures. In fact, a man would have to be a FOOL to continue long in a dishonest way with God. All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Heb. 4:13)

If evidence forces you to think a man dishonest — say a prayer for him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.6

August 1971

The Old School Song

Robert F. Turner

In the Fall, 1970, issue of The Lipscomb Review (quarterly bulletin of David Lipscomb College) thirteen principle streams of revenue for Christian education at Lipscomb were named. One of them was CONGREGATIONS — Since 1891 congregations of the church of Christ have supported David Lipscomb College.

On May 29, 1971, a huge display ad appeared in the Nashville Tennessean and Banner: An Appeal to Churches of Christ by Batsell Barrett Baxter, Herald of Truth speaker; for more than $ 363,000. per year contribution from churches to the college. The Charlotte Ave. church, Nashville, was the advertiser; and announced that they would give their entire collection of May 30, to the college.

July 16, 1971, David Lipscomb College sent to churches a letter signed by Baxter, which said (in part): The most important thing that we do at David Lipscomb College is teach the Bible as the inspired word of God. If this is to continue, the congregations of the church must be willing to support this Bible teaching on a regular and substantial basis.... The students pay about half of the total cost of nearly $700,000 each year, and we are asking the churches to pay the other half which is more than $350,000 each year.

With the letter was a large copy of the earlier church display ad, and Baxter urges The Elders (so addressed) to read especially my letter of appeal to the churches of Christ. Coordination of the college and Charlotte Ave. church efforts are obvious, and intended to make a point along this line. Baxters letter says further: For over half a century this great Nashville church has contributed each year to our program of teaching the Bible. They have done this under the scriptural authority of Titus 3: 1, which admonishes Christians to be ready unto every good work.

Watch this closely, you folk who seek to justify your own pet project with its a good work and/or the Bible authorizes a Christian to do this — therefore the church can do it out of its treasury. You have used these two fallacies to open the door for church support of general welfare institutions and social institutions; now the same errors are used to prop open the door for church support of the schools.

In the spring of 1964 bro. Baxter published a tract Questions and Issues of the Day which said: If it is a good work and God wants it done, then the church can support it out of its treasury. .. . If the individual Christian should give to make such schools possible, the church has the same responsibility, for it is a good work and the church is the people. (Pp. 30)

Apparently the leaders of todays digressive movement think the time is now ripe to press for church support of the schools. I do not expect all institutional churches to like it. Neither do I expect many of them to do much to combat it. Maybe they can just send a $5. token offering — to avoid being called Anti!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.7

August 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Can a Christian with only one child scripturally serve as an elder? Please answer in Plain Talk. CBM

Reply:

Having a child, or many children, is not the point of 1 Tim. 3:4--5 and Titus 1:6. It is the ability to rule, with gravity, ones own, that is being considered and made a qualifying run. Of course ruled children necessitate children to rule, but we must not allow the issue to degenerate to the level of genetics or progeny. It is no reproach on a man to be childless, but unruled children are a dishonor.

With this aside, there remain two questions: (1) Do the scriptures demand (positively) that he have ruled children, or do they teach that such children as he may have, must be under subjection? (2) Would the requirements (tekna) allow one child?

Fourteen characteristics of the bishop are given in Timothy, headed by dei einai or it behooves — to be. Each of these are accusative predicates of the first to be; with the last two being participles: ruling and having. Literally (Marshall) it says, It behooves — the bishop — to be: household ruling, children having. Lenski notes that the objects of both participles have an emphasis because they are placed forward.

If (ruled) children having is coordinate (on an equal footing) with household (well) ruling then they are equally required of a bishop — he must have children. Lenski, and others, think children having is subordinate to household ruling but nothing is cited in the text to substantiate this. It is said that one may rule a household in which there are no children, and this is true. So why did the Holy Spirit give such gram- matically equal space to children having? If the return to household ruling in 1 Tim. 3:5 means that children having is subordinate, what conclusion are we to draw from Titus 1:6 where well ruled children are a qualification, and household ruling apart from children, is not so much as named?

As unruled children are a reproach so well ruled children are an honor and, I believe, on equal footing with other honoring qualifications here.

Must there be a plurality of such children? The word tekna does not affirm it. Some admit that child is not ruled out by the plural tekna (see Matt. 22:24 Eph. 6:1) but say it is never so used where qualifications or regulations are being given. Is not the single child of a widow bound to care for his own? (1 Tim. 5:4,8) We sometimes make rules to fit our need.

And now that the above is written, I must add that I favor the interpretation or exegesis that calls for a plurality of well ruled children. It may be my traditional upbringing, but of course I assign it to my appreciation of the context. I can not say a one — child bishop is unscriptural; but other things being equal, I would select men proven in a multi -child home. Perhaps I imagine this best fits the general context, but I know it will avoid unnecessary confusion.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VI Pg.8

August 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Five articles concerning Preaching in Australia have appeared in TRUTH Magazine; and a lengthy article on this subject has or will soon be published in the GOSPEL GUARDIAN. In checking my manuscripts against field notes I have become aware that too little attention has been given the work of bro. Harold Comer. He was in Australia with bros. Binkley, Harkrider, and Everett;. and there is ample evidence of his effectiveness in Queensland, New South Wales, and in Victoria. The unintentional omission brought no complaint from him, but it focused my attention on the unsung heroes of every life situation.

The preface of a book often expresses the authors appreciation to an illustrious few, and then to the many others who made this work possible. Knowing my own dependence upon this less honored class, I often wonder how many of these unnamed ones may actually be the sinews of power and knowledge behind the product.

The story is told of a preacher who floundered through a sermon, much to his embarrassment as well as that of the congregation. And what most concerned the preacher was his inability to assign a reason for this failure. He had been well prepared, the subject relevant, the listeners attentive. But something was missing. That night he again stumbled through a portion of his sermon, then stopped short as he recognized the problem.

Where is that little old lady who always wears the old fashioned hat, and sits on the second pew at the left? he asked.

Sister Carnac? someone replied. She has moved from this community.

I did not even know her name the preacher explained; but her absence has affected my preaching. You see, I could tell that she really believed in me.

How many little known, seldom recognized factors enter our everyday life to shape and mold us? How dependent are we upon a horse-shoe nail or a tiny wire in a traffic signal? But far more vital to us, as social creatures, are the seemingly insignificant gestures of friendliness, or antagonism; of doubt, or trust; of appreciation, or indifference; that affect characters about us. Sung or unsung, each of us leave our mark on the world through which we pass.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VII Pg.1

September 1971

Those Other Sinners

Robert F. Turner

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. (Lu. 9:49)

Answered what? The word may mean, began to speak but Vine says always where something has preceded, either statement or act to which the remarks refer. The Harper—Bagster Lexicon says, in N.T. to respond to certain present circum- stances. What brought on Johns remarks about the man he had forbidden?

The preceding verses show that the Disciples had been disputing about who among them should be greatest, and Jesus had rebuked them for their pride. (See Mk. 9:33-37) John is not named specifically, but other passages say James and John accompanied their mother when she asked Jesus to seat them in high positions in His kingdom. (Matt. 20:20-f) Was the woman alone in her desire for greatness? I believe the sons must share the blame and that John (perhaps James, also) was enough involved in the arguments about greatness that Jesus rebuke carried a special sting.. Is it not a well established trait of human nature that when the sermon fits, we try to change the subject? Our personal defense is to launch our own attack upon someone else. If, in this new battle, we can make our former critic an ally, perhaps he will forget all about the fault he saw in us. The shoe fits — so we try to find a different shoe, for someone else.

When John felt the sting of the Lords rebuke to pride, he answered by saying, in effect, Master, we (James also?) saw this outsider doing wrongly, and we really jumped on him. We let him have it!!

Even if Johns judgement was right and his actions respecting the second man justified, this would not remove Johns fault. How embarrassing to discover he was again wrong. Jesus said, Forbid him not. . .

Will we never learn — a second error does not correct the first — we can not grow by causing others to appear smaller — and, final judgement is on an individual basis, by One who sees and knows our very thoughts.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VII Pg.2

September 1971

Reading The Mail

Robert F. Turner

Since I am seldom home, my First Class mail is forwarded to me; but a mass of Second, Third, and no value First Class material accumulates on my desk. My wife reads, and tries to keep me up-to-date on the church bulletins, but much of the stuff goes unseen — perhaps to my advantage. My ulcers jumped when I read some of the junk during a recent visit home.

Jimmie Lovell - (one can always count on him for Action) is still Father Advisor to change the church He says, In a meeting recently with the elders where I worship the suggestion of women serving at the Table came up, which gives you some idea of which way the wind is blowing. He continues to urge the women of the church to push his Miss-A-Meal idea, and writes, It just might be that you were born for this mission. Would you like to discuss it with the Spirit of Hope within you and see? If he can get enough people looking within (subjectively) for the answers, instead of looking objectively to the Word of God, he just might get his — not the Lords — work done.

Then there was this letter from a church in W. Virginia — with 73 members, a preachers home and small frame church building paid for, contributions average $283. with projection of $302. for 1971, $8,000. in the building fund, — and they want brethren to help them build a new church building. They are fixing to kill the upsurge of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice that brought them to where they are; and independence will become a word, not a reality. Let them build their own building!!

And heres a paper on the Jesus People. Pat Boone is identified with the Jesus People according to the book by that name, by Duane Pederson. These people, mostly a youth movement, claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, are highly emotional, almost wholly subjective in their conclusions. (Apparently they read portions of the Bible more for effect than to determine objectively what God has said, or to seek to do Gods will.) They reject organized religion as one would expect; and one banner read It Doesnt Matter What You Believe As Long As Youre Sincere. That figures — So, whats new!!

Im wondering if our colleges, camps, and liberal brethren in general realize how much their Devotional Periods of the past years have contributed to this sort of thinking among young people of the Lords church?

There is no substitute for faith that comes by the Word of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VII Pg.3

September 1971

Monument To Masses

Robert F. Turner

In the annals of history are recorded the infamous deeds of the masses. A monument should he erected to mark their works. An eternal epitaph should be chiseled to describe their deeds that when men are inclined to garnish the tombstone the words should warn as do the sun-bleached bones beside the poisoned waterhole.

Eight righteous souls loved and served the Lord amongst the multitudes whose every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually. A preacher proclaimed Gods righteousness, but to no avail. There! There beneath the mire we see the mass of human flesh. With muddy finger inscribe for all to see Fallen man is lower than the beasts of the field.

And a righteous mans soul was vexed daily as men burned in their lust for men. We see a bargain made with God to spare the cities, but sin is heaped upon sin. With the stench of burning human flesh in our nostrils we gingerly lift a smoldering, charred stick from amongst the ashes and ashamedly write, There were not even ten righteous souls here.

A leader temporarily departs and the mob which has murmured and complained against God clamors for gods which shall go before them. Submission to the masses means that a golden calf is born. Swords flash and blood is shed. Later, 23,000 died, and eventually only two of the original ones over the age of twenty enter into the promised land of rest . Their epitaph must be written with blood-stained sword in hand — Rebellion, murmuring, idolatry, fornication, and unbelief.

Religious multitudes who shouted Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest, later cried, Crucify him, crucify him! Blood seeps from his wounds and an agonizing cry is wrenched from his lips — Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me? Will they not spire him? But with nail in hand we sadly write — Murderers !

But this righteous one is raised from the dead that repentance and remission of sins might he preached in his name. Surely the multitudes will believe and obey now, But apostles are beaten and told not to preach in his name. And when a preacher speaks plainly of their uncircumcised in heart and ears condition, they gnash on him with their teeth and beat his defenseless body to death. Mark it well with stone chisel —As your fathers did. so do ye.

Man thinks of following the crowd and doing because others do it , but Jesus said. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Here lie the masses beneath the epitaph of murmuring, immorality , idolatry, hate and murder which have always characterized public opinion We must not live as they lived; we dare not die as they died . —J. R. Everett

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VII Pg.4

September 1971

One In A Row

Robert F. Turner

Remember the song, One In A Row? Now thats a big one, a very plural one; but no more so than the individual who constitutes a church. (Since the church is made up of individual saints, then one saint is the church; just like one cow is a herd, and one sheep is a flock. It is really quite simple. once you get the hang of it.)

And if God authorizes a saint to do a thing — as a parent, as a citizen, as a secular laborer (Col. 3:17f) then surely the same is authorized as a church activity, to be supported by the church treasury. If Christian parents are to give their children a good secular education, under environment conducive to their well-being as Christians, then surely the church treasury can be used to support the college. If the saint, as a citizen, has obligations to civil government, surely the church treasury can be used to promote political aims. Since a saint labors with his hands so he may have to give to him that needeth (Eph. 4:2k) surely the church can go into secular business in order to render benevolent assistance.

I am fully aware that today many preachers, elders, saints will accept all of the above facetiously offered arguments (?) without an objection. (Well, a few might hang up on the cow and sheep bit.) But I have put these fallacies into print in the hope that some who accept the conclusions may pause to study their false base. Is it not possible that God might give certain instructions to saints for their activities as a team (local church) which He does not enjoin upon them in their many other capacities? When brethren argue the church is not the home does this not recognize distinctive activities and rules for saints in these different realms? By what authority then do some band many churches together to operate and/or support general welfare institutions? It must he something more than scripture that instructs a saint in his capacity as parent or citizen.

One saint is NOT a church — even a plurality of saints are not always a church. Matt. 18:16-17 proves that a plural its of saints may do a thing in some capacity other than the church. And God gives certain responsibilities to individual saints, and of these responsibilities says, Let not the church be charged. (1 Tim. 5:16). Ignore these clear scriptural distinctions, and the peculiar and distinctive function of the church as a functional entity is destroyed. AND, ignore or deny the functional entity of the local church (as do writers in the Sentinel of Truth magazine) and such passages are left meaningless.

The church IS Gods people, the called-out ones. As a whole they are given no catholic (universal) organization or function. But such as can work and worship together — as a team — are encouraged to do so. (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 14:23-25) They are given necessary instructions concerning oversight, servants, etc., (Titus 1:5-f; 1 Tim. 3:1-13); and by precept and example are shown their function. (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 1l:22-f; Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:22-f; 1 Tim. 5:16)

Anything a saint may do, a local church may do! is clearly an error.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.VII Pg.5

September 1971

Filthy Rags?

Robert F. Turner

As a small boy I often heard sectarian preachers proclaim: All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.. (Isa. 64:6) and I wondered why God was so critical of mans efforts to serve Him. Later, hearing this passage used by Baptist debaters, I realized that they were saying, man, no matter how much good he does, must be saved by Jesus Christ. We were in agreement on that point.

But they used this filthy rag bit to argue that baptism was not essential to mans salvation — baptism was a filthy rag. I could point out the difference in mans own righteousness (trying to lift himself) and a self-denying submission to Gods righteousness (Rom. 10:3); but the Baptist debater knew that God commanded baptism, and he still called it filthy rags. This didnt make sense, then or now. Isa. 64:6 has been grossly misused.

Its context, verse 5, says, Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness... and the A.S. footnote on meetest is sparest. The same word (paga) is found in Isa. 47:3 where the A.S. has spare, and Keil and Delitzsch translate receive or pardon. Apparently the word means a meeting that has purpose or consequence in view, either friendly or hostile. On Isa. 64:5 K.&D. say come to meet in the sense of coming to the help of; and they cite and approve another rendering, if we had continued in Thy ways, then we should have been preserved. A. Clarke cites the Syriac version, Thou meetest with joy those who work righteousness. God is happy to see men obey. Isa. 64:6 says, we are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteous- ness are as a polluted garment... (A.S., emph. mine.) God would like righteousness on our part, meaning obedience to Him; but we are no longer serving Him — our garments are polluted. (And if preachers would discover what the filthy rags were, they might not speak so freely of this before a mixed audience.) This passage is encouraging righteousness on mans part, not making light of it. (See Ezek. 3:20-21) The system of works versus the system of faith, as argued in the N.T., is not under consideration in these passages.

And even when we get to the New Testament, there are no disparaging statements about mans obedience to God. On the contrary, the Apostle of Love writes, If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of Him. And, ...he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous. (1 Jn. 2:29; 3:7) That certainly doesnt sound like filthy rags does it?

Paul, in the Roman letter, quickly corrects the man who thinks he can be saved by works (doing so perfectly that he is blameless or justified) by pointing out that all have sinned. All must have forgiveness, and this is possible only in Christ. (Rom. 3:23-f) Salvation is, therefore, by faith (the system of trust in Jesus Christ) not by a system of Law in which there was no ultimate forgiveness. But Paul commends obedience and good deeds. (Rom. 2:6 -11) Stubborn unrighteousness is the filthy rag.