Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.X Pg.7

December 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

I know none of us are perfect, and in order to fellowship anyone we must fellowship some sin, But WHICH sins may one safely fellowship? S.L.

Reply:

None at all! The question is alive with misconceptions. Christians may be perfect according to Phil. 3:15. We may be full-grown in Christ with respect to attitude — pressing toward the mark. It is true that all sin, but our association with one who is striving to avoid sin, and constantly praying for forgiveness as he is aware of his sins, is not the same as fellowshipping sin.

Fellowship involves sharing or being a partner in or with sin. If we condone sin, support or lend our influence to advance it, refrain from teaching against it, or encourage another in it, we do wrongly. Notice Pauls statements concerning a thing right within itself (eating meat that had been offered to idols) when such eating encouraged idol worship, or put one in the position of endorsing such worship. (1 Cor. 10:14-31)

Did the Lord fellowship sin when He waited for Jezebel to repent? (See Rev. 2:21) And while He waits for us to repent, 2 Pet. 3:9; bear fruit, Jn. 15: 2-f.; and forgive others, Matt. 6:14-15? How fortunate we are that God is more concerned about us, than we are about our weaker brethren. I fervently thank God that He continues to treat me as His own, despite my many imperfections; and yet, I do not believe that God fellowships sin —not for one minute. (1 Jn. 1:6 Jas. 1:13) Congregational (team-work) activities call for a very obvious type of fellowship: and I can not support financially, nor lend influence to worship or work that is without divine authority. For those who know Gods plan, and who love God more that they love a party of people, or a certain building, this line is not so difficult to draw. In the same category are approving associations with immoralities that flaunt the authority of God and human decency. (2 Jn. 9-11; 1 Cor. 5:1-f)

Perhaps more difficult are those cases of teachers and practitioners of error who seem to act in good conscience before God, and believe they are doing and teaching as God wills. Patience is certainly demanded — and in all such cases, free discourse and study of Gods word on the subject must prevail. There is no surer sign of the wrong attitude than for one to insist upon a certain practice or teaching, and demand immunity from censure or open Bible study.

Then there will always be babes in Christ, and those who should be teachers but have not grown, who sin repeatedly and need much care and attention if they are to survive. It would tax a Solomon to know just how far patience should go — but attitude will be the deciding factor, on their part and on ours. We begin to fellowship sin when we are content with such, and no longer feel it necessary to try and save their souls.

A Christian never knowingly fellowships any sin; especially that of judging others by his own standards

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.X Pg.8

December 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Does courtesy really pay? There are times when my faith in this old- fashioned virtue is sorely tested. As an example: while driving west from Albuquerque, I was about to pass a dual-trailer rig when I noticed a slow moving jalopy ahead of the big truck. I realized that my passing would force the truck driver to brake at a most undesirable time — just when he needed to be gaining speed for the next hill — so I held back, and waved the diesel on. That is courtesy!

Later, when I did pass the truck, the driver blew his air horn and waved his hand wildly; and I noticed that the truck belonged to a company for which a close friend of mine was driver. From his high perch he had obviously recognized me, and was saying, Welcome to Arizona! So, when I saw a convenient pull-off ahead, I signaled a stop and drove in. The big truck rumbled by — but not without another blast of horn and wave. Hmmm!

Well, I pulled back onto the highway, and caught the truck. Perhaps I had selected a poor spot for stopping the huge rig. Several miles further on the signs indicated an interstate rest stop — lots of room and facilities — so I passed, signaled, and again pulled off the highway. The big truck roared by without a toot. Of course! I should have realized!! My friend is very conscientious about company rules, and he will not park until he reaches a designated company stop. So, I pulled back onto the road and followed him for about 40 miles. When we came to a well-lighted truck stop my friend pulled in, and applied those big airbrakes, just as I had expected. Soon I was close beside him and hurried to greet my friend as he climbed from the elevated cab.

But he was not my friend! He was not even friendly!! With a hardness that indicated difficulty of control he asked, What do you mean by following me like this?? My friend was six-foot-three, and must have weighed about 180 pounds.

Well, I was nice to him. That is courtesy, you know. I explained the perfectly natural mistake, my high regard for the noble truck drivers, etc., and then asked, How come you blew your horn and waved to me?

Oh, that? And he laughed short and hard. Just thanking you, he said. Thats courtesy, you know!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.1

January 1972

God Is ~ ~ ~

Robert F. Turner

GOD IS SPIRIT. (Jn. 4:24)

Jesus does not speak of Gods personality, but of His essence. He is not a spirit, among many; but He is Spirit — absolutely free from all limitations of space and time. He dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with mens hands, as though He needed any thing. (Acts 17: 24-25) He must be worshipped from the heart, in spirit — the inner self, which God made in His image — a self wholly given to God; with will bowed submissively to Gods will — hence, in truth.

GOD IS LIGHT. (1 Jn. 1:5)

John does not say He is a light; nor, in this passage, not even the light. John describes the nature of God; what He is not what He does. Westcott says, Physically light embodies the idea of splendor, glory: intellectually, of truth: morally, of holiness. God is truth, absolutely; the very essence of holiness and glory. In Him is no darkness at all.

Hence, all who would have fellowship with God must walk in the light, renouncing and casting off the works of darkness (Rom. 13: 12-14). For imperfect man, this fellowship is possible only through Jesus Christ, who cleanses us of sin.

GOD IS LOVE. (1 Jn. 4:8, 16)

Love, like Spirit and Light, is the very essence of God. It is not merely an attribute. These passages say far more than that God loves, or is loving. They say God is love; so much so that if we love, after a godly fashion, this is proof that God is in us. We can not know God, except we know and manifest love. (Read carefully, 1 Jn. 4: 7121)

The mortal, finite mind can only accept these marvelous truths, and seek to grasp their significance by application at our own level.

We can worship from the heart and God searches the heart and knows our spirit. We can struggle against darkness, and have Christ as advocate and mediator. We can determine to love our brethren, and learn something of God, who is love. And He beckons us, higher and higher!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.2

January 1972

A Private Matter

Robert F. Turner

Recently, while looking for some comments by David Lipscomb on another subject, I read what he had to say about women preachers. (Queries and Answers, Edited by J.W. Shepherd.) He cited the usual passages on the subject, then said, There is not the least difficulty in explaining all the passages in harmony with these, if we will recognize what is true — that God intended the great burden of prayer, teaching, exhortation, and admonition to be done in private, not in public. (emph. mine, rt) Woman has free access to this great field. We have perverted this order; we do all of our preaching, teaching, exhortation, and I fear, praying often, in public; so interpret the Scriptures by our practices, and not by the will of God. (4th. Edition, publ. 1918)

I will excuse my dearth of private teaching on the obvious basis — I am a preacher. And how will you excuse your failure? Let me guess. You are not a preacher, so you dont know how to do it. We agree it needs to be done — we will talk about it awhile — and then go on in our old ways.

But bro. Lipscomb hit very close to the vitals of many problems. The work of the Lord has somehow become one and the same with some sort of public function — a service of some sort — and the seven- days- per- week concern for souls (ours and others) is missing.

Even Personal Work Programs are often so organized, so wedded to the establishment that the personal touch is smothered. Telling another what YOU know, what YOU did in coming to Christ — even if it is a stumbling account — is far more likely to generate fire than some calculated, methodical plan that lacks people affinity and feeling.

I believe there is a valid and useful place for public teaching. (I preached 314 sermons in 1971— averaging more than one a day, six days a week, straight through.) There is evidence of much good done. 74 articles were written during that time, and given to the public. These too have produced fruit, as indicated in your letters. Church doors should remain open, and saints must continue to assemble to worship God, study and pray. But that which is missing is the going forth — leaving the meeting place with a renewed determination to carry the gospel to our contacts.

And without this sort of going out I am afraid that the coming in soon becomes meaningless. If the great burden of Gods work must be done in private, we had better get with it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.3

January 1972

Rights Of Autonomy

Jim R. Everett

Congregations (independent groups of Christians) are autonomous. Each local group makes its own decisions and rules itself under Christs rule. Its organization is peculiar to the group and reaches out no farther than that particular flock. For instance, each congregation chose its own messengers and sent them with Paul to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:16- 24). And elders are to tend the flock among them, (1 Pet. 5:2).

After reading a bulletin article of a good friend, I wrote to him, asking, Does autonomy mean that a congregation has a scriptural right to decide to do that which is unscriptural? He replied: Autonomy means that a congregation can do whatever it wants to, period. The scripturallity of it is to be settled between it and God. And, Since autonomy means self-directed it of course precludes any other congregation (individual) haranguing or bringing unscriptural pressure for the self-chosen action.

Of course, a congregation has a right to make its own decisions and must pay the consequences for wrong decisions; but scripturally, if it is to please God, its decisions must be circumvented by truth. For instance, a congregation does not have a scriptural right to change Gods word — its rights of decision exist within an area, first of all, of that which is right. However, if such decisions are circumvented by truth and are in the area of human judgment, no one has the right to question such decisions. For instance, if we, at Southern Oaks, decided to support Timothy at Troas, we would have the right to do so, but I deny that we would have the scriptural right to support a Billy Graham Crusade.

However, the antithesis of self- directed would be for one congregation to make decisions and direct affairs of another congregations work and resources. A congregation might rule that another organization or congregation could make its decisions (whether for all or part of its work) but it has no scriptural authority to so rule. A congregation might put itself totally under the oversight of another congregation or it might send a donation to an overseeing congregation assuming a brotherhood work. Most can see where autonomy is being violated in the first instance but have difficulty with the second because it involves only a PART of that churchs over-all activity.

Now, does autonomy preclude concerned brethren trying to reach and teach congregations engaged in unscriptural practices? Concerned brethren should never harangue or bring unscriptural pressure to bear but rather should ask for authority for practice. Such appeals are not always welcome but autonomy is a peculiar defense for supporters of the Herald of Truth, with its key-men pressure arrangement, to take.

Hence the word autonomy adequately depicts a churchs right of self-rule but in no way affirms that its decisions will be right. And to appeal to autonomy while practicing sin is to misunderstand Gods rule in a self-ruling church.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.4

January 1972

Another Gap

Dan S. Shipley

Much is being spoken and written about gaps —the credibility gap, the generation gap, the communications gap, etc. Something needs to be said about the identity gap too; that gap that often exists between what something is and what it is called.

Nowadays, the true nature of a thing cannot always he determined by what it is called. And worse, the name by which a thing is designated may actually mislead and deceive as to its true nature and identity. For instance, under the name disguise pornography is being peddled as art, anarchy is termed freedom of expression and immorality is being called the new morality. What gaping gaps!

Names are not without influence. Since the beginning, Satan and his servants have sought to minimize the offensiveness of wrong with pleasant language. Sinners seldom call their sins what they are, preferring to call bad things by good names — and many never see the gap — or the sin. Through Isaiah, God pronounces a woe upon those who would call evil good, and good evil (Isa. 5:20). Wrong cannot become right under an alias and evil cannot find dignity under a respectable name. We must take care not to allow ourselves or our youth to be led astray by evil in the wrappings of fair speech. As the name-game continues, so does its influence — and so should the Christians awareness of it.

Even the respected field of education has contributed to these identity gap problems. Young Christians have been disillusioned by the many theories of evolution that have been advanced under the respectable banner of science. I once sat in a college classroom where many false claims of Roman Catholicism were set forth as historical facts — and they called it European History. Other students may hear that children are not to be disciplined and that immoral conduct is not always so bad — under the guise of psychology. And to think that we call such faith-robbing experiences education. Thankfully though, such is not true of all schools, but even so, Christians should remain alert.

The identity gap presents problems in other areas with which we should be concerned too. Immodest dress, for instance, was not so much of a problem for some ladies until they called it fashion. Long ago we learned that feelings, philosophies and opinions are often identified as faith; that stubbornness may be called conviction arid that desire is apt to be called hope. Bad men are wrongly called good men and following men is often called following Christ. We must remember too that faithfulness is more than good attendance; that soundness is more than being called anti; that repentance is more than coming forward and that worship is more than just a gathering in a church building.

Accordingly, we would all profit in remembering the prevalence and deceitfulness of such gaps; in recognizing and identifying a thing for what it is; in saying what we mean and in being what we claim. May we call Christ Lord and self Christian — without the gap.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.5

January 1972

Receive Strangers

Robert F. Turner

John wrote, Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers. (KJ) The A. S. translates, and strangers withal; and the context clearly indicates that these strangers were brethren in Christ. Alford, Vincent, Robertson, and many other scholars explain the grammatical construction; but we common folk would just say, Its good when you encourage traveling brethren, and strangers at that; or even though they are strangers. (And Im not even a translator.)

This passage in 3 Jn. 5 is addressed to Gaius (v.1), and whether this is the Gaius of Rom. 16:23 or not it seems significant that Paul calls Gaius host of the whole church. The word host and stranger are from the same Greek word, xenos. Thayer says the word from Homer down meant a guest—friend; and it is combined with philos to make a word meaning, loving a stranger or hospitality. The scriptures abound with exhortations to love strangers i.e. show hospitality. (Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:2; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9)

BRETHREN, AM I WASTING MY TIME AND SPACE? Is there no point here for us?

The hospitality urged upon all Christians is not coffee or punch for after-service visiting of close friends. It is love for strangers. We have motels, etc., to care for general public needs, and in this day of affluence most travelers prefer such facilities to staying in a private home. (Sometimes it may be more hospitable to provide a motel room, especially for one long on the road. But our obligation to entertain strangers (Heb. 13:2) is not changed. In one realm, particularly, we may find application for this admonition.

The strangers of 3 John were traveling for His names sake or to promote the cause of Christ. It was that we might be fellow- helpers to the truth that John urged reception of such — the Christ-like virtue of hospitality being enhanced by the fact that these travelers were known and judged only by the truth which they preached. They may have been aliens, foreigners, within the bounds of the language. The possibility of an inclination to reject, from a personal viewpoint, is the very thing which makes the reception so beautiful. We are discussing hospitality — not a pride-pleasing opportunity to show off our home to influential friends and neighbors.

Today, strangers may come our way in the interest of the Lords work in foreign lands. They may speak a different language, or have accents strange to our ears. Our colors may differ. As the preaching of the gospel in foreign (to our) lands increase (may God speed the day) these contacts must increase. This means we will have increasing opportunities to do faithfully to and for brethren, even strangers. Let us carefully guard against selfish, home-bound attitudes. These are not second -class citizens in Gods kingdom. Granting soundness in life and practice (and your closest friend must be measured by the same standard) these brethren deserve our help. Remember, Christ may come as a stranger! (Matt. 25:43)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.6

January 1972

Widowed Thaorizers

Robert F. Turner

From a booklet, Origin of the Solar System by John C. Whitcomb, we present the following quotation:

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

In the light of the failure of naturalistic evolution to explain the origin of the elements, the stars, and the planets, it is very disappointing to find leading evangelical exponents of the double—revelation theory appealing to Gamows big- bang hypothesis of an expanding universe as support for the Biblical doctrine of creation! In the first of a series of articles on The Story of Creation, Christian Life magazine invited J. Laurence Kulp, Karl Turekian, and Donald R. Carr of Columbia Universitys Lamont Geological Observatory, and Russell Mixter and Howard Claasen of Wheaton College to discuss The Origin of the Universe. These writers concluded:

A simple calculation shows that about five billion years ago all matter was in one spot. An explosion occurred at that time and fragments have been flying apart since, to give us an expanding universe....

How did the creative act take place? An increasing number of evangelical Christian scientists and theologians can now be said to take the following position. . . . All the elements of the universe must have been created within a half hour. Within less than 400 million years, the gas composed of 90 percent hydrogen had drifted apart to a great extent and the temperature had dropped down to that of a comfortably warm room. None of the sparkling stars of today were there at that time — only a gigantic dark ball of gas at low pressure.... Some 500 million years after the universe was started (about 1/10 of universe history) the earth came into being.

It is significant that just eighteen months after this article appeared in Christian Life, Gamow himself frankly admitted that the big- bang theory could not explain the origin of most of the elements!

We know that hydrogen and helium do in fact make up about 99 per cent of the matter of the universe. This leaves us with the problem of building the heavier elements. I hold to the opinion that some of them were built by capture of neutrons. However since the absence of any stable nucleus of atomic weight 5 makes it improbable that the heavier elements could have been produced in the first half hour in the abundance now observed, I would agree that the lions share of the heavy elements may well have been formed later in the hot interior of stars.

This is not an isolated instance. Time and time again, Christians have been pressured into adopting some popular scientific theory only to discover, to their sorrow and embarrassment, that they had succeeded in Harmonizing Scripture to a scientific concept that was proven to be erroneous after all. As someone has well said, the person who becomes wedded to the scientific cosmology of one generation will find himself widowed in the next.

Brethren, Are We Also Widowed?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.7

January 1972

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is the meaning of I Tim. 2:15, notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing———? W. W.

Reply:

There is plenty of variety in the guesses on this one. I have heard (a) Eve will be saved because women bear children; (b) women will he saved through Christ, borne of woman; (c) women will .have safety in the process of bearing children; (d) they will go to heaven because they bear children; even, (e) childbearing is the punishment through which women pay the price of Eves sin; etc.

It seems to me that women have been indicted in the preceding verses: in that Eve was first deceived; and now Paul holds forth hope and encouragement to them. They are to dress modestly, learn in quietness, and are to evidence subjection unto man. Does this make them second—rate saints? By no means. Paul has said, There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28) Men and women have their place (see 1 Cor. 11:3) and Paul wants women to know that their place is a noble and honored place. I believe the word childbearing in 1 Tim. 2:15 is used as indicative of the whole realm or place of women and Paul is saying that her salvation (in heaven) is not through immodest fashions, mounting the speakers stand, or in any way taking authority over man, but in faithfully performing her God-given work.

The physical function of childbearing is not alone intended. This is metonymy, by which a portion of her function is put for the whole. It suggests her role as Queen of the household (1 Tim. 9:14), a worthy woman who, fearing Jehovah, shall be praised. (Prov. 31: 10-31) The if clause (if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.) denotes tile Christian life in its various aspects says Meyer, and shows us that Paul is not hinging her salvation on some physical act.

Saved In Childbearing

The womens lib movement is not going to like this; but saints should be interested in eternal salvation as revealed in His word, rather than in some supposed improvement in this life, through doubtful social moves.

Women, like men, must fulfill the role God has assigned them if they are to be acceptable in His sight.

Bro. Turner

What passages authorize dividing the congregation for teaching? L.S.

Reply:

The question assumes that teaching a congregation necessitates all members being assembled in one place. But the church exists before it is assembled (Acts 14:27) and even when some have not yet arrived (1 Cor. 11:18, cf. v.33). The very emphasis upon whole church (Acts 15:22 1 Cor. 14:23) is with reference to the situation or point being made, and shows it was not a universal thing. Saints may be taught apart from the whole church. (Acts 18:26; 19:9; 20:17-f.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XI Pg.8

January 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I see by the papers that Americans are growing up. Thats a little hard to believe, since there are so many who still act like children. But our statistics will not be denied, and immaturity or no immaturity, we are growing up.

According to the records the average adult male has grown two inches in height, and added 23 pounds in weight since 1920. During W.W.I, the American male averaged 67.7 inches and weighed 142 lbs. By W.W.II, his height was up to 68.4 inches, and his weight to 155 lbs. In 1970 he averaged 69.7 inches, 165 lbs.

Remembering Mark Twains jab at the scientist re. the Mississippi river basin, I did a little mathematicing myself. Running our growth rate backward, I found that in 1870, just after the Civil War, the average male in America was 69.7 inches tall, and weighed 119 lbs. In 1770, he was only 61.7 inches, weighing 73 lbs. It is really surprising we whipped the British. But the most amazing facts are yet to come. Our ancestors who landed on Plymouth Rock (1620) were about 55.7 inches tall, and weighed only 4 pounds. (Skinny little sailors werent they?)

If it were not for my absolute trust in statistics, I would stop here. This thing begins to get just a little bit ridiculous. The Americans male ancestors were no height at all in 230 A.D., and would not weigh anything until 1612. Of course there could be some truth in that. It does seem that history says we began to shove our weight around in the early seventeenth century.

One possible solution for this dilemma is to remember that the records said nothing about women. We could use a bit of scientific supposing here, arid assume that our early history (while the men were so small) was made possible by the inverse ratio of growth on their part: they have been getting smaller while men were getting larger. But — that is such an embarrassing thought lets not go into that.

it is also barely possible that we are prone to put too much reliance in what may have happened, so many million years ago, if the present observable rate of growth or deterioration was maintained, etc., etc.

Anyhow, we try to live up to the heading on this page.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.1

February 1972

The Ox Law

Robert F. Turner

And if an ox gore a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and it hath been testified to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. (Ex. 21: 28-29)

The Old Testament OX Law emph- asizes the responsibility of those who own, promote or control that which has great potential. The danger in that which is powerful is not a valid argument against growth, but we have a responsibility to others to control that power. Should our ox inadvertently gore, the ox shall be stoned. but we are free. We must take no profit (flesh) from that proven evil.

But some things show a tendency to go astray — their history is a record of bloody warnings; and when it hath been testified that our pet ox was wont to gore. what then? Shall we ridicule him who warns as a self-appointed watchman lacking in love?

There are poorly informed, over-zealous watchmen, but there are far more willfully ignorant people. History may be abused and the fallacy of generalization may lead us to false conclusions; but he is foolish indeed who ignores the records. In the absence of fore-sight, we must use all available hind-sight to profit.

Why would anyone, made aware of a proven danger, fail to curb this ox? Two most obvious reasons are selfish pride and indifference to others. One may contend the end justifies the means, but his plea is smothered in the decree of divine justice. While he boasts of the good done, the Lord is looking at the remains of his neighbor, impaled upon the cruel horn of his instrument for doing. (Rom. 3:8)

The ox shall be stoned AND ITS OWNER ALSO SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH.

God shall destroy the instrument for wrong-doing, but He will not stop there. God shall not hold guiltless those who ignore valid warnings, and promote, encourage and profit by that which was wont to gore. Brother, have you an ox that needs corralling?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.2

February 1972

Neo Orthodoxy

Robert F. Turner

Now hold your hat! I am not going to recommend a study of Karl Barth, or Emil Brunner — or any other teachers of Neo orthodoxy; but would like to review some points of their philosophy, to alert us to modernistic influences in current thinking. These popular theologians, despite their reaction to classical liberalism, have imbibed much of its subjective approach to the Scriptures, and have had a profound effect upon our day.

Schleiermacher, father of modern liberalism, found his authority in the souls experience rather than in the Scriptures. Inspiration was redefined in terms of the author instead of the writing. (It became the task of the liberal critic to determine at what points the Bible was true.) Neo orthodoxy retains this concept, believing that the Bible only becomes the Word of God as it relates to our experiences. Gods Word, to me, may be in the Bible, in a sermon, or even in things. Whatever overpowers me, leads me to Jesus Christ, This is Gods Word for me. (Of course without some fixed way for knowing that I am in Christ, this makes each man his own ultimate authority; and he must practice a high tolerance (what is the limit?) for all who claim to an experience.)

Emphasis upon being in Christ but accepting no objective standard for deter- -mining when one is faithful to Christ, is but one of many examples of double-talk in this new orthodoxy. Bible terminology is given new meanings, and a conservative fundamentalist may find himself greatly confused by it all — which is, to the neo orthodox, proof-positive of his intellectual superiority. His attitude will likely be most condescending — they bathe in love, but they also bite while they caress.

Faith becomes, not mans response to external evidence (Rom. 10:17) but a work of Grace which God performs in us. A Calvinistic background re. the Holy Spirit is here displayed. Understanding is, as one would expect, possible only through further working of the H.S. in us. Thus one looks inward for confirmation, rather than looking objectively to the Word. Many of us older preachers met this long ago in the spiritual discernment of early Baptist debaters.

Keep the above in mind as you read excerpts from an article by bro. Carl Ketcherside, p. 6. I do not believe Carl is knowingly following the neo- orthodox line. He would deny many of its tenets. But the spirit and style of subjective theology, with words to match, is knocking at the door.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.3

February 1972

Slaves To Emotions

Dan S. Shipley

People dont ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts. (Robert Leavitt)

Without a doubt, emotions do motivate the masses. Whatever their cause and whether they be good or bad these strong personal feelings are intensely powerful movers of men. Emotions have influenced all; dominated many. As strength is measured by its conquests, we see impressive evidence of just how strong emotions can be when such things as truth, right, justice, and good judgment are often made subordinate to their prompting. But perhaps nowhere is the narcotic- like effect of emotionalism more prominent or persuasive than in the spiritual realm. Even those who escape its inordinate influence elsewhere succumb to it here — and with the worst possible consequences. Truly, emotionalism is a popular and compelling power in religion; one that needs to be recognized and reckoned with.

But this is not to say that all emotion is wrong, or even that it is wrong in religion. What sincere person can read of the crucifixion of Christ and not be moved? Is not the Godly sorrow associated with repentance a strong feeling of remorse for having sinned against God? (2 Cor. 7: 10) Are we not to rejoice and weep with one another? (Rom. 12:15) This sort of emotion is altogether right and appropriate, being expressible within the bounds of Divine truth.

But there is a subtle and dangerous kind of emotionalism which leads many in the broad way that seemeth right (Prov. 14:12). These are the feelings that men come to trust and rely on, even above the word of God. This attitude is well-exemplified in the oft heart expression, I wouldnt trade the feeling in my heart for all the Bibles in the world! — which is just another way of saying that one has more confidence in his feelings than in the word of God. The man who trusts anything more than what God says insults the veracity of God!

However, others honor their feelings in less obvious ways. While God promises to save only those who do His will (Matt. 7:21), many persist in feeling that sincerity and good intentions are sufficient. With many, the matter of eternal torment becomes another emotional issue in which the word of God is made subordinate to feelings. Questions dealing with the religion of parents, whether one is judging another, whether everyone is going to hell except your bunch, whether one church is as good as an— other, or whether the Lords church can scripturally support an orphans home can easily become more emotional than scriptural issues — and the big problem with this is that not everyone appreciates scriptural answers to emotional arguments.

All important decisions, especially those affecting ones standing with God, ought to be based on something more substantial than emotions. Feelings of the moment, no matter how strong, can never be more trustworthy than Gods word which will judge all. The slave to emotion cannot be the servant of Christ.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.4

February 1972

Sackcloth And Ashes

Robert F. Turner

Did you ever wear a starchy feed- sack shirt? (I mean a real one, not the store- bought kind you see now-a- days.) Scratchy, aint they? Cant you just imagine one made out of tow - sack? (Grass-sack, for some of us.) Well, wearing sackcloth had a special meaning at one time.

King Ahab, stirred by Jezebel, was an evil man. But when Elijah told him the dogs would eat Jezebel, he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. And God said, because he humbleth himself before me judgement upon his house will be postponed. (1 Kng. 21:27-29)

When Mordicai wished to mourn the plight of the Jews, he put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a bitter cry. (Esth. 4: 1-f)

Then, in Nineveh, when the people heard the prophet foretell their doom they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth; and Jesus said they repented at the preaching of Jonas. (Matt. 12:41)

Humility (of self-censure), mourning, submissiveness, and the like are graphically represented in this early wearing of sackcloth and ashes. It said clearly, I am nothing — my former robes of purple (Isa. 37:1) were but tents of pride — I need help. Little wonder such conduct was associated with repentance — and Christ could say of Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Matt. 11:21) Abject humility, while not repentance, is certainly an essential ingredient. We wonder if the whole of sackcloth and ashes should not also be included?

It is not the symbol itself to which we refer. We suspect many would wear the sack, who had not yet put on the things for which it stood. But when we see the casual way in which repentance is treated — a sort of academic pause between faith and baptism — there is little resemblance to the spirit of sackcloth and ashes. The substance should far surpass the shadow — must do so if it is real. Do you see such fruits meet for repentance today? (Note Matt. 4:8)

Years ago a young lady came forward, wanting to be baptized. I said something about the joy she must feel in knowing that her sins could be washed away; and she looked at me in astonishment. Sins?? She seemed shocked that I would suggest such a thing. That is sackcloth and ashes? A backsliding saint is encouraged to make correction. His situation is an embarrassing one, and makes for a sticky situation among friends, so he comes back to the church, or he makes acknowledgement to the church This is sackcloth and ashes before the Lord?? Are we kidding ourselves?

Our inability to see and judge the heart of man should provoke charity; and I am aware that external signs and symbols may be most hypocritical. This article is completely misunderstood if you think I am calling for demonstrations of repentance. But I challenge you to consider the lesson contained in the ancient sackcloth and ashes and apply it to your life.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.5

February 1972

The Persons Of Deity

Robert F. Turner

When you think of God the Father do you think of an elderly gentleman, perhaps with a well-dressed beard and a stately, yet kindly bearing? Many do use a sort of composite father image, for reference, even though they know God is Spirit. I suppose no great harm is done in this — if we leave it right there — a crutch for earth-bound creatures. But this is not what is meant by the person of God, and is not what one counts in considering the trinity.

God the Son did not come into existence by a birth process. His glory is as of an only begotten (Jn. 1:14— the expression is qualitative, without the article) and He existed and functioned co-eternal with the Father (Jn. 1:1 Heb. 1:2). He has person — apart from His earthly sojourn — but there is far more involved than a number to add to the first paragraph.

And God the Spirit (Acts 5:3-4) is no less person because He is Spirit. I would not presume to explain DEITY to you, but we should learn something about the person of God, if only to recognize the ridiculous treatment given the trinity by JWs, and Jesus Only advocates.

The Divine personality could only be conceived after the analogy of the human, as far as it could be conceived at all; but God transcends the whole of nature and all that is human Person simply means that deity is revealed as something more than an impersonal force. God evidences the characteristics of person, such as conscious apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense. (Webster) Nor can we expect it to be otherwise. God must be superior to His creatures. Man is both conscious and self-conscious. He thinks, acts, and is antecedent to his actions as an intelligent being. Surely God — also. These characteristics of God are expressed in the Bible by God purposed — knew — was grieved — loved — forgave — etc. Multiples of such qualities attributed to God the Father show person.

And such characteristics are also attributed to the Son, even while the personality of the Father continues to be acknowledged. He is exalted at the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost. He hath shed forth this — (Acts 2:33) Gods Son was with the Father before His incarnation, (Jn. 1; 1-3) creating all things; and He said that following His death He would return to the Father. (Jn. 14:28) There are two persons here.

But the Holy Spirit is also given personality by the scriptures. He is grieved (Eph. 4:30) insulted (Heb. 10: 29). He knows (1 Cor. 2:11) and can be lied to (Acts 5: 3-4). He is a person on exactly the same basis as the Father and Son are persons. He joins with the Son to say Come.

In Jn. 14:16 the Son says, I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,... even the Spirit of truth. (Three persons — one praying, one heeding and sending, and the third being sent — to teach and comfort the Apostles. V.26)

Youll find this kind of trinity in the book of Gods revelation.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.6

February 1972

That Inner Light

Robert F. Turner

In the Oct. 71, edition of Mission Messenger, bro. Carl Ketcherside has an article on seeking Guidance. He proposes to tell how he seeks the guidance of the Spirit, and ascertains the will of God for his own life. He says this May not be at all valid for another individual. No two of us are of the same intellectual, temperamental or spiritual caliber, and the Holy Spirit must not be boxed in by my own experience. ...(A)

1. I seek to immerse myself in the total revelation of God. I regard the Bible as containing that revelation in promise, prophecy, precept and perfection. .... (B)

2. I eagerly and fervently pray for guidance in specific and immediate problems.... And I keep on praying, persisting and continuing until I feel I have the answer and the light within turns green and I have the right of way. .... (C)

3. I also seek the advice of other saints.... As a member of the community of the reconciled I do not want to go it alone. .... (D)

4. I seek to live in the shadow of Gods umbrella of grace all of the time and abide in the tent of the Spirit. .... (E)

5. I relate my entire being to the dynamic of love, injecting it into every life situation. Even if a thing is right and proper, I discard it as a possibility if it requires a loveless attitude or will cause another to stumble or fall out of the way. .... (F)

When I have related my problem to the word of God and sought the counsel of heaven, when I have consulted brethren of reputation and made sure that I am willing to pursue the more excellent way, and when I have prayed until my inner consciousness is directed to a certain activity, or in a certain direction, I take it that this is the will of God for me and I pursue that course. (C)(A)

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

Bro. Ketcherside shares the error common to the many who have sought to explain H.S. guidance apart from the written word. He looks within himself and this subjective approach, in the final analysis, puts man above God.

Note (A) may not be valid for another the will of God for me. This destroys the unity in the faith, presents unconfirmed testimony, reinstates divers portions and manners (Heb. 1:1) and denies the perfection of Bible revelation claimed in (B). If Gods revelation in the Bible must await the green light of each mans inner consciousness (C) it is neither total, perfect, nor understandable, so as to thoroughly furnish.

(E) is beautiful — but what does it say? And a thing cannot be right and proper (F) which requires that loveless attitude etc. The love which God requires of us is an integral part of our total relation to Him. It was being manifested when Jesus denounced hypocrisy and Paul withstood Peter. (Matt. 23: Gal. 2:11)

And who wins if the inner light says go but Gods word says STOP!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.7

February 1972

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Should a Christian abstain from marriage to a non-Christian if it is offensive to their brethren? L.L.

Reply:

The above question, word for word, came through the mail. If it means what it says, the querist is a most unusual person — on two counts. One who would determine a marriage by the effect it may have on the brethren — I have never before heard of that; and then, one who seems to attach greater significance to the feelings of the brethren than to the effect such a marriage could have upon their own immortal soul. This surely deserves attention.

Causing a brother to offend (in 1 Cor. 8:13, K. J.) refers to doing something that would lead a brother to sin. (stumble A.S.) It does not refer to the brothers feelings, nor does it justify babying a brother who wears his feelings on his sleeve. We should consider peoples feelings, but this passage has a different aim. It was not wrong, per se, to eat the meat under consideration in 1 Cor. 8.:, but if eaten as having joint- participation with idol worshippers, it was very wrong. (1 Cor. 10:14-31) So, brethren were urged not to do anything, even though right within itself, that might encourage one weak in understanding to sin. (1 Cor. 8:1-f)

The far more likely problem of the querist — seemingly unrecognized — is the unasked question: Should a Christian marry a non-Christian? The answer must recognize the authoritative nature of Gods word, whether or not it is offensive to brethren. Please read it slowly and carefully.

I believe 2 Cor. 6:14-f. forbids the establishment of a sharing relationship in which the Christian would have to participate, be a party to, encourage, or work as a team-mate in that which is wrong. This could be a business, social, civil, or domestic relation — or any other. Now get what I said! One may do business with a sinner (1 Cor. 5:9-f) and not be a partner in the sin.

If the marriage contemplated involves a compromise in worship or service to God, it is wrong. If it means accepting obligations that are contrary to Gods will; or denying obligations God has given (such as the proper rearing of children) it is wrong. If it means putting anything before God, it is wrong. (Lu. 14:26-f) And the Christian already in such a position must come out from among them (2 Cor. 6:17; See 1 Cor. 7:12-17) in order to be acceptable unto God.

The solution to particular details after one is involved in intolerable marriage situations can become very sticky indeed. What God says, and the basic principles involved, seem clear enough for any honest student. But it is not so easy to know the hearts of people; and the judging of practices in marriage relations can tax a Solomon, and tear hearts to shreds.

BEFORE the marriage vows are made, and the contract consummated — that, is the time to consider these matters. And this choice is too serious to be left to the feelings of brethren.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.XII Pg.8

February 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Are there people in this generation who are vitally interested in hearing the gospel preached? There are indeed! My friend, Leslie D., has a note in his paper THINK about a woman who was listening so closely she forgot to breathe — for a time.

I just love to be reminded of a story that is just as good, or maybe a little bit better. My story centers upon a railroad engineer who once ran a mighty Santa Fe freight through our beloved Arizona. He has finished his run now, but I am sure his widow will not mind my recalling these things.

For years this man showed little interest in the gospel, and I do not know what first touched his heart. But when the awakening came he was wide open, every pore. He was a big man, and often sat forward on a pew, leaning intently toward the speaker. On one occasion he became so absorbed in the lesson that he completely forgot where he was. He reached for that pack in his shirt pocket (with the automatic motion so familiar to those addicted to the weed) and put a cigarette in his mouth without lifting his eyes from the preacher. Still looking straight ahead, hungry for every word, he was fishing for a match when a friend noticed what was taking place, and gave him an elbow.

At another meeting I was presenting Bible material which I placed, step by step, upon the chalk-board. Sometimes I get a bit carried away with my own preaching, and I was much enthused with this lesson. As each point drove steadily toward a scriptural conclusion, and my engineering friend leaned even closer, I finally reached the climax with a flourish, and a piercing question, MAN, dont you see it?? And from deep within that big man, poised on the edge of his seat, came a rumbling, satisfying YEAHHHHH! !

He was so embarrassed at his involuntary outburst that he slipped from his seat, and walked to the back of the little building, where he stood in the corner for awhile. But he did see it! At the next service he brought a pair of his huge bib overalls, and I baptized him into Christ. Yeahhhhh! I recall it all — with a warm feeling in my heart for a man who really listened.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added... (Acts 2:41)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.1

March 1972

How Much, How Often--

Robert F. Turner

There is nothing more completely opposed to the true spirit of Chris­tianity than the attitude back of the questions, How much, how many, how often, must I serve the Lord? It is appalling that some would argue such.

Years back a man handed me a paper which listed his income, rent, food bill, utilities, etc.; and said, Now you have the facts. Tell me, how much must I give to the Lord? I asked if he thought he should visit the sick, help the needy; and when he said he did, I asked, How often?

He seemed a bit puzzled, so I sug­gested 50 times per week — and he thought he would do well to get in that many calls. But I persisted: On Saturday afternoon when you have just made your fiftieth call and are on your way home, you meet a brother who is destitute, obviously worthy, and you have the means to assist him. Do you say, Im sorry I can not help you now. I have made my 50 for this week-- but hang on, drink water, and Ill see you first thing Monday. (?) How does one measure service that is patterned after Gods love for us? If a fellow just must have figures or percents, he should be given them from the scriptures; like 100% — all that she had, even all her living. (Mk. 12:44) Or, Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Lu. 14:33) Are you amazed? (Matt. 19:25—f)

A genuine Christian does not dole out an hour or two, a few dollars, or a pound of mercy for God. He first gives himself (2 Cor. 8:5 Matt. 16:24) and from then on his service is limited only by ability and opportunity. Thats the meaning of as prospered (1 Cor. 16:2) i.e., in keeping with what God has given you. God gave life to Stephen, and when the service of God called for it, Stephen gave it back to God. (Acts 7:59)

When Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Matt. 22:37); He left no place for and 10% of thy money, and one hour per week of thy time. I be­lieve Jesus will go fishing with you (Lu. 5:4—f); but dont forget, you are doing it on His time.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.3

March 1972

Pleasing The Pharisees

Dan S. Shipley

Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the glory of men more than the glory that is of God. (Jn. 12:42,43)

Even of the rulers— even among the elite Sanhedrin were many who be­lieved on Christ. Speculation about whether they actually believed only reflects on the skeptics faith, not the rulers. God says they believed and for believers, thats enough. But they did not confess it, and herein lies their great sin. It was not so much what they did as what they failed to do. Their faith indicates knowledge. They knew, yet still would not confess and follow Christ. Why: What power, what influence could be so compelling as to cause believers to turn their backs on the Saviour and salvation? We are not left to wonder.

It was because of the Pharisees. The One who knows all hearts shows their weakness as loving the glory of men more than the glory of God. To them, getting along with men (gaining their favor and avoiding their dis­favor) had priority over pleasing God. These were not men to allow such things as truth and right to interfere with their religion! While these Pharisees no longer exist as a religious sect, they are still very much in evidence as they represent those whom men strive to please more than God. Because of the Pharisees many of all ages have proved themselves to be as these rulers — found wanting at a crucial time; succumbing to pressures and circumstances.

"Because of the Pharisees Pilate delivered up Christ to be crucified, wishing to content the multitude (Mk. 15:15). It was for the same rea­son that Peter followed Christ from afar, denied Him with cursing and swearing and said, I know not the man. He later showed the same weakness in Antioch by withdrawing from the Gentiles, fearing them that were of the circumcision (Gal. 2:12).

Fear and favor of the Pharisees continues to flavor the religion of many. It has influenced the revision and updating of Catholic and denominational creeds. It promotes watered— down preaching and encourages the fear of offending phobia. As the rulers, many have learned the way of truth, but because of the Pharisees will not embrace it. Even among the brethren are some who prefer to stay with the synagogue rather than to stand for what they know to he right. No Pharisee should he allowed to determine where I shall spend eternity! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men?.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.4

March 1972

Be Not Many Masters

Robert F. Turner

Ever now and then a preacher (usually young and/or inexperienced) gets the idea that he has discovered something new and wonderful in his non­sectarian, undenominational, and non-institutional concept of church; or that salvation is a gift of God through Jesus Christ, rather than the product of legalized obedience. He startles the brethren (and makes them antagonistic) by announcing that he is going to tell them something they have never heard before — or that is very different from what they believe and practice — and all who question his exaggerated statements are sectarian or do not understand him.

There are party members and le­galist among brethren of this generation, just as there have been in the past — and just as there will be in the new movement todays iconoclast will form. But many have been pushed into such concepts by careless arguments of preachers, and could be rescued by loving — tender — care and sound teaching. Of course that is work, and does not satisfy the pride of the iconoclast, nor produce revolution.

More than thirty years ago I conducted my first protracted meeting, and preached Gods People, The Church, No claim is made for originality. Bros. Srygley, Hardeman, Brigance and others taught me that ones allegiance must be to the Lord, not to a party; and my private Bible study confirmed this.

I have called out empty chairs, during tent meetings; painted blocks, on TV programs; andchalk marks on a thousand boards (more or less); and in every case Christ was the Saviour, His gospel the call, and His church consisted of those who obeyed His call, being submissive to His will. There is nothing new in such teaching and it is different only to those brethren of today who have been fed steady diet of devotionals and institutional promotion. My experience has been that such people appreciate a change of diet — if you do not turn them off with a lengthy harangue about how different you are. Let them make that decision.

Our brethren believe in salvation by the Grace of God. If they have an imperfect grasp of its significance—if their concepts are shallow and mature — all the more reason why the subject should be carefully studied and presented. But start with common ground. Take a statement often made and accepted, and dig into it. Help brethren to expand, grow in knowledge and mature in understanding.

It is bad enough when a preacher discovers a truth (which his more experienced brethren have known and preached for years) and allows his pride to cause frictions. It is much worse when his new—found truths are actually Calvinistic error concerning the Holy Spirit, imputation of righteousness, faith only, etc., which were debating issues when he was in diapers, but which he now absorbs from sectarian commentaries.

We can not learn much from one does not know enough to teach us what he does know; and thinks to increase his own stature by repeated reference to our lack of knowledge. Jas. 3:1-f

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.5

March 1972

Personal Work

Robert F. Turner

My brethren love sermons that tell others what they must do to be saved. WHAT — there is something; MUST — it is imperative; I — meaning they; DO — not faith only; TO BE SAVED — from past sins, and eternally. Well, I can not deny it — they must do some­thing. But for the doing to have validity (we do not believe in a system of works, or salvation by merit) this must be the obedience of faith (Rom. 16:26). It must spring from a heart wholly given to Christ (Matt. 16:24), and it takes more than telling them off to produce such obedience.

People must he made to feel something: the burden of sin, the need for forgiveness. They must he led to trust in the real Son of God who died for them; to desire the truth that can make them free. These feelings — such faith and desires — are rarely produced by cold mechanical pedantic exercises. We seek to change lives; and we must challenge and attract this materialistic generation with our own spiritual lives.

We might better our chances if we first ask ourselves: What WE (who claim to be Christians) MUST DO, in order to convert others to Christ.

Do some­thing — and plunge into activities that get publicity (dunk the preacher), attract youth (hippie style devotionals), appeal to the sports-minded (inter-church leagues) or meet social needs (with pie-suppers and general welfare). They are doing something all right, and it gets results. It attracts attention, appeals to the sports-minded, encourages a subjective approach to the Holy Spirit, and fills some social needs — people to Christ.

Often the good works of which some brethren are so proud, are done by ignoring the divine pattern for organized efforts. How can such lack of respect glorify God? (Matt. 5:16)

By some sort of Sadie Thompson law we seem to attract that which we ex­emplify. Birds of feathers flock together. Paul said the word must be committed unto faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. We ignore the scriptures (2 Tim. 2:2), the lessons of history, and the very nature of man when we expect to truly convert others with half-converted, fleshly-minded workers. (Gal. 5:17)

We ask our neighbor to put Gods word before his present religion, his preacher, business and family. Does he see that kind of dedication in us? Some brethren are so fearful the world will hear about church problems. (They will!!) But men of convictions are attracted, not re­pelled, by finding others who stand firmly for that which they believe the Bible teaches. We are fishing for men, not mice. Truth is not shameful.

Is your life attracting people who would not heed the word alone? Does your godly manner of life shame those who falsely accuse you? Are we really different from the world? (1 Pet. 3:l, 10; 4:1-5) Or must we acquiesce to the sordid philosophy of the cruelly frank personal worker (?) who complained, Why convert them? They will probably turn out just like me!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.6

March 1972

Even Winners Lose

Gene Frost

There are three legitimate means of transferring money: (1) the law of labor, where money is earned and paid for either physical or mental efforts expended: (2) the law of exchange, where a commodity is traded for its value in money: and (3) the Law of love, where money is given without any expectation or desire of return. Gambling does not qualify in any of these.

Gambling defined is "to stake money or any other thing of value upon an uncertain event; to hazard, to wager". It differs from risk, as is involved in farming, investing (stock market buying and selling), etc., in that one person stands to gain at the loss of others; the deciding factor (as to who wins and who loses) being an event arbitrarily selected.

The element of chance involved is contrived and is essential to gambling, whereas in farming, etc. those engaged would be pleased if no chance were involved. It produces nothing, and adds nothing to our economy.

Though not mentioned specifically in the bible, gambling is a violation of God's will as determine by divine principles. God appointed man to work for his sustenance (GEN.3:19; EPH.4:28; 2TH.3:10-13). Gambling makes man unfit to fulfill this role in life. The gambler is a parasite, Who seeks gain at the expense of the labors of others.

It is essentially covetousness, the excessive desire to have especial1y what belongs to another. The attraction of gambling is this desire to gain without labor or fair exchange, that which belongs to someone else. This disposition of mind is condemned (COL.3:5; ITI.6:10 and 1TH.4:11-12). Jesus said, a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Wherefore by their fruit ye shall know them" (MAT.7:18,20). The fruits of gambling expose it as an evil practice and industry. It attracts the criminal element, and produces broken homes, theft, drinking, suicide and murder. Fine citizens and family men have become paupers, embezzlers, and suicides because of the enticement of the gambling table. Figures from the Kefauver Committee reveal that the state of Nevada, where gambling is legalized, has the highest suicide late in the nation; twice the national average.

Gambling is wrong for all. God has not made a double standard, one for teachers of the Word and another for others. Neither is there a distinction in the amount of the stake. It is not wrong only for those who can not "afford" to lose; the practice is inherently wrong. Whether for large amounts or for the price of a cup of coffee, gambling is wrong.

The Christian is to abstain from every appearance of evil and show in his conduct a pattern of good works (ITH.5:22; TIT.2:7). He is careful of his influence. (MAT.5:16) His will is lost in Christ; he is no longer of the world (1CO.6:19-20; JAM.4:4; 2CO.6:17-18).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.7

March 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

 

In many churches the worship seems so cold, so "matter-of-fact" or just a "form". Please give suggestions for making the worship more spiritual.

Reply:

"Worship" is a feeling of respect or reverence, a frame of heart or mind, an attitude. This should be fixed in ones mind before any further discussion takes place. An act of worship is an act proceeding from or the result of that feeling.

Singing is not worship, in the strict sense, but it may be an expression of worship. Eating bread and drinking grape juice is not worship. We do this -- if indeed we do -- "in remembrance of Christ" -- and that is the worship.

All overt or observable worship has some form. The feeling of awe, reverence, thanksgiving, or praise is expressed some way; and that form will take some pattern, orderly or haphazardly. Varying the order may prevent habitual actions, but it may also create an air of uncertainty and confusion. No order, fixed or varied, will make spiritual worship. Anytime the form is substituted for the worship -- when the act is there, but the proper feeling, frame of heart or attitude is missing -- that act becomes a hollow, vain shell.

There are two ways in which today's worship may be in vain. We may ignore God's instructions (precepts and examples) regarding the means of expression -- assuming that any means we choose will suit God (MAR.7:1-7; COL.2:20-f), or we may use the means or form of expression authorized, but utterly fail to make them expressions of genuine worship in our hearts. (It is imperative that our worship to God be "truly spiritual" JOH.4:24) Often our efforts to "improve" the worship are only efforts to regulate the form, and have little or nothing to do with improving the hearts out of which true worship must come. Some react to the "cold formality" of worship by proposing bizarre emotion-stirring props. What is more "artificial" than lighting effects, "mood" music, or tricky little antiphonal songs that force participation upon some person who could not be moved by the love of God. How is the "hypocrisy of traditional services" helped by providing a better mask -- an emotional screen that can not take the place of genuine worship.

I am deeply aware of the "rut" or "habit" type of service -- and I deplore it. But the fault is not necessarily in the form, and is never altogether in the form. There are plenty of brethren who worship acceptably with "three songs, a prayer, and another song". And there are brethren who could shift the order every time they met together, and would never worship God acceptably.

Improving the worship is part and parcel of the whole job of turning people to God, getting them to partake of the divine nature. It is not the service that needs change, it is the people that must be changed to new creatures, truly converted. These will worship God acceptably.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.I Pg.8

March 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

If all the people who sleep in church were laid end to end — they would be much more comfortable.

A speaker can dismiss those who stretch out as he mounts the stand. They slide down on their sacroiliac, brace themselves with a song book, and bid the world farewell. For the life of me, I cant figure out why they bother to dress and come. When they snore I wish they wouldnt.

But there is another class of sleepers for whom I have great com­passion. The hard-working, out-door folk, weary of body, giving in to the comfortable seat and warm room. For them I suggest a compassionate solution: cut down on the hard work and get plenty of rest on Saturday. Athletes rest up for the big game, and old folk rest up before the grand­children come. If Bible study and the worship meant as much to us as they should, we would make a conscious effort to prepare for them.

At this point it is only fair to state that the speaker has an obligation too. He must prepare something worth hearing, and present it with enthusiasm. If the preacher puts them to sleep, let him awaken them.

And we have a special sympathy for those honest folk who have never learned how to listen. They want to stay awake — their cold fishy stare is as embarrassing to them as it is irritating to the speaker — but what can they do? Well first, quit trying to stay awake, and start doing some thing with what you are hearing One must make a positive approach.

What is the subject? What is the apparent aim of the lesson — to what does it lead? Evaluate the logic of the speaker, making mental notes of points you feel need more or less emphasis. (Written notes are not out of order — listing scriptures, and some comments that you feel are special.)

Allow mental pictures to form. You are there, with Paul in Athens, with Mary at the cross, with the early church and their problems. This will! assist one in making self-application of each truth — how does it affect me now? Do I react today to similar situations, as Christians reacted then?

Check the scriptures in your text and rephrase the argument in your own words. Listen! And soon you will discover that the preacher doesnt seem to preach as long as he once did.